HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/12/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF S0�ry Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �OV� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
COUN1`1,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
A.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD led
JUL 19 ZOZ40 16qK-�-
Minutes
Wednesday, June 12, 2024
s:30 PM dS0TtUh&1kQVn Clerk
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
June 12th, 2024 meeting. At this time, I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the
dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have the
attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse and Administrative Assistant
Elizabeth Cantrell. With us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne
Galante, and from the Conservation Advisory Council we have
Carol Brown and Nancy May.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's
website and are located out in the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements in the agenda, on page four, under Amendments:
Number 1, CAROLINE TOSCANO requests an Amendment to Wetland
. Permit #10281 to establish a 4 ' wide by 10' long path through
the Non-Turf Buffer area leading to (and over the established
Buffer areas) , a proposed raised 4' wide by 80' long catwalk
with 4' wide staircase to ground at landward end leading to a
4'x46' catwalk to a 31x12 ' aluminum ramp to an 18.7 'x6' floating
dock with a 2 'x4'bump-out for ramp situated in an "L"
configuration and secured by two sets of two (2) dauphin pilings
Board of Trustees 2 June 12, 2024
at each end; catwalk to have Thru-Flow decking throughout with
pressure treated pilings set at 8' on-center; total length of
catwalk is 126 linear feet.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
On page four under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NEOFITOS STEFANIDES
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' top
platform flush with surrounding grade to a 41x4' upper walk to
4'x16' steps to a 4 'x4' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 41x4 '
platform to 41x16' steps to a 4'x4 ' platform to 41x4' steps to a
41x4 ' platform to 41x16' steps to a 4'x6' platform and 4 'x8 '
retractable aluminum stairs to beach.
Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
On page five, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits:
Number 3, Taplow Consulting, LTD on behalf of WATERVIEW
REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to install 120 linear feet of rock revetment consisting
of boulders at a maximum of 2 .5 tons per lineal foot along
existing bottom of bluff; importing 40 cubic yards of clean sand
fill from upland sources and re-vegetating disturbed bluff areas
with Cape American beach grass plugs at 12" on center for entire
disturbed area; install non-treated 2"xl2" terrace boards every
10' along bluff face in un-stabilized areas only; and install
and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the top of the bluff.
Located: 905 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-11
And Number 4, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT
REAL ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ 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 4 'x4' top platform to 41x8 ' steps down to a
4'x4 ' middle platform to 41x7 ' steps to a 41x4 ' lower platform
with 3'x6' retractable aluminum steps to beach; all decking to
be un-treated timber.
Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6.
On page seven, 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 eight, numbers 12 through 15:
Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of KP REALTY OF
Board of Trustees 3 June 12, 2024
GREENPORT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit for removing
1, 108sq. ft. Of existing grade-level masonry patio and 179sq.ft.
Area of landscape retaining walls; construct 872sq.ft. Of
"upper" grade-level masonry patio, 181x46' swimming pool with
60sq.ft. Hot tub, 428sq.ft. Of "lower" grade-level masonry
patio, 18 'x3l' roofed-over open-air accessory structure with a
±6' x ±31' enclosed storage shed that has closets, an outdoor
fireplace, and a basement for storage and pool equipment, an
outdoor kitchen, and associated steps and planters; install a
pool drywell and 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates;
remove 34 linear feet of existing stone retaining wall and
construct 24 linear feet of new 2.7' high stone retaining wall;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50-foot wide
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
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 16' vinyl returns
on north side of existing 14'xl6' wood ramp which shall be
removed and void filled with clean sand/gravel from upland
sources; construct a new 4' wide by 40' long boardwalk on-grade
with untreated timber decking; install and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the
bulkhead; demolish existing 58 .4'x24.4' dwelling and garage,
leaving existing foundation and garage slab; construct a new
58 . 4'x24.4' two-story dwelling in existing foundation footprint
with attached garage on existing slab; construct a 201x23.9'
single story addition on south side of dwelling; construct a
16'x20' covered porch with second story balcony above on south
side of dwelling; construct a 5. 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 .51 .
Located: 820 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
Board of Trustees 4 June 12, 2024
And 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 4 'W trench) ; and for the existing
84sq.ft. Shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-137-4-3.2
All of those applications are postponed, so they won't be
heard tonight.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the
applications.
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time, I'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection on Tuesday, July 9th, 2024, at 8: 00 AM.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, July 17th, 2024 at 5:30PM at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 5 June 12, 2024
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, July 15th, 2024, at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, July
17th, 2024, at 5:OO2M in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
May 15th, 2024.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for May, 2024. A
check for $43,294 .19 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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, June 12th, 2024 are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and
are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are listed
as follows:
FTKS Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Eugene & Georgene Bozzo SCTM# 1000-123-5-24
Charles V. Salice SCTM# 1000-104-3-1
ECAE 149, LLC SCTM# 1000-35-5-34
James Lubin SCTM# 1000-86-2-2
Diana Falkenbach SCTM# 1000-97-8-6
Sheila Stoltz SCTM# 1000-98-4-19.2
High House Woods, Inc. SCTM# 1000-86-7-7. 1
Warren W. Jackson 2017 Irrevocable Trust SCTM# 1000-115-12-4
Brian & Laura Flanagan SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Tracy Heller & Matthew Glassman SCTM# 1000-111-9-11
Board of Trustees 6 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In order to simplify our meetings, the Board
of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or
similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve
as a group items 1 through 3. They are listed as follows:
, Number 1, DKJK FAMILY TRUST, c/o DAVID KRUPNICK requests an
Administrative Permit for the as-built installation of a 52"x32"
generator pad and generator.
Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
Number 2, Jacqueline Morley, Esq. On behalf of R&C
ROCKEFELLER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, c/o MICHAEL ROCKEFELLER
requests an Administrative Permit for the demolition and
complete removal of the existing 22.1'xl6. 6' wood frame building
located seaward of the delineated bluff area.
Located: 55185 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-8
Number 3, ORA HEATH & ELLIOTT B. HEATH III requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 101X12' shed in the backyard
area of the property.
Located: 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-13
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Extension, Transfers
and Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify our
meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items 1, 2 and
4 through 7. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, JOHN LONDONO & COURTNEY KELSO request a One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10192, as issued on July 13,
2022.
Located: 4328 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-9-11
Number 2, David Bergen on behalf of EDWARD & MEREDITH
RERISI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6065 from Karen &
Richard Seelig to Edward & Meredith Rerisi, as issued on January
19, 2005, and Amended on May 17, 2006.
Located: 1515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-37
Number 4, Vincent Quartararo on behalf of SHAMGAR CAPITAL,
LLC, c/o DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10241 to construct a 22.2 'x26. 10' roofed
pavilion over a bluestone patio in lieu of the proposed
Board of Trustees 7 June 12, 2024
25.71xl6' pergola.
Located: 1165 Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-13-20.7
Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of PHYLLIS SOUSA LIVING
TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10286 to construct a 121x36' (instead of 14 'x381 ) swimming pool
surrounded by a 58'x23' (instead of 581x281 ) stone patio with a
6'xl2' (instead of 8'x8 ' ) spa located west (instead of north) of
the swimming pool; install two 41x5' (instead of 41x4' ) steps;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 35' wide (instead of
30' wide) vegetated non-turf buffer running landward of the
tidal wetland boundary.
Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12. 6
Number 6, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of W.
HARBOR BUNGALOW, LLC, c/o CRAIG SCHULTZ requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10530 and Coastal
Erosion Hazard Permit #10530C for the removal and reconstruction
of the existing dock -consisting of reconstructing the existing
6.5'x53' fixed dock, raise it 0.5' in elevation (final elevation
6.0' ) , and extend it 19' seaward; remove existing ramp, float
and remove two (2) piles; remove existing 11'xll' portion of the
fixed dock and two (2) piles; install a new 41x20' adjustable
ramp with rails; install an 8'xl8' floating dock secured by four
(4) piles; and install three (3) tie off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
Number 7, Absolute Property Care, LLC on behalf of
HUFFLEPUFF, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #9808 to
modify the pool layout to have a 251x20' raised deck with a
7'xl3' above ground precast pool attached to the existing deck;
and a proposed free-standing 6.5'x7' hot tub on concrete slab
27 ' from bulkhead.
Located: 1580 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-34
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Heidi Battaglia on behalf of TOWN
CREEK LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4379 from
William Penney to Town Creek LLC, as issued on October 28, 1994,
and Amended on April 30, 1997, and an Amendment on October 15,
2008.
Located: 2200 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-4
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection June 10th,
2024, noting that two floats measure 61x20' plus 19-and-a-half
feet by 14 feet.
Town Code Chapter 275-11 (c) (2) (a) (11) , states: Floats may
not cumulatively exceed 120 square-feet.
Seeing that, I 'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the floating dock is not to exceed
61x201 , or 120 square-feet in total.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 8 June 12, 2024
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 application for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of the 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 & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PLANS RECEIVED
6/4/2024 Costello Marine Construction Corp. , on behalf of FTKS
HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to remove 483 linear feet of existing failed navy
construction timber bulkhead by cutting sheathing at mud line;
remove all piles, tie rods, and deadman located on Gardiners Bay
below APHW in intertidal zone; remove all concrete debris and
miscellaneous debris above SPHW; remove all concrete debris
below SPHW manually; all debris to be removed to an approved
NYSDEC SWMF; install new 473 linear feet of rock revetment
landward (upland) of APHW (March 7, 2022) with up to 500 cubic
yards of clean upland backfill in upland area with top of new
rock revetment elevation 8.0 NAVD; install splash zone and place
up to 265 cubic yards of 8" to 10" stone; remove 530 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead in boat basin area and install
in-place, in same location 530 linear feet of navy construction
vinyl sheathing bulkhead with up to 700 cubic yards of clean
upland backfill in upland area with top of new bulkhead
elevation at 8.0 NAVD.
Located: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-7-7. 1
The Trustees conducted an in-house review of the new plans
at our Monday night work session. We requested that the rock
revetment be staked. It was subsequently staked after that, so
we were able to go out and review it.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent and
inconsistent. The consistency is the bulkhead will support
water-dependent use, such as docking vessels for commercial
fishing or aquacultural, the use of chemically or CCA treated
material is avoided, the dredge basin does not flush.
Board of Trustees 9 June 12, 2024
He also found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: The proposed action does not restore or preserve the
function of the beach and littoral zone. The existing structure
is non-functional, and the erosion rate is low due to the beach
slope and composition. Aerial photos reveal that since 2001,
the area of the beach has been stable. No moderate to large
erosion has occurred. The filling behind the bulkhead would
result in a land grab and physical loss of the beach zone and
habitat. The plans are not clear. The installation of a
bulkhead would interrupt sand, long-shore drift and most likely
result in no beach area in front of the bulkhead. And a natural
vegetation and restoration of the littoral zone is not proposed.
The CAC resolved to not support the application, and
recommends a rock revetment. As a point, the original bulkhead
was updated to be a rock revetment.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: Hi, I'm Jane Costello, Costello Marine
Contracting, agent for the applicant.
As you said, that originally we were proposing a bayside
bulkhead that after the field inspections and taking into
consideration the CAC and LWRP comments, I went back to the
applicant and other powers that be in regards to this
application, and we changed the bayside to a rock revetment.
The basin, inside basin remains the same. It's
in-kind/in-place replacement of the most-seaward bulkhead.
If there are any comments or questions from the public or
the Board, I would be more than happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of the questions we had is we notice this
area now where the bulkhead is, is a pond. Are there any plans to
dredge?
MS. COSTELLO: There is. There's just, at this point, there has
just been discussion of what to do, (a) , with dredge spoil and
how to reconstruct that inlet area, but nothing has been
submitted to any agencies at this point. So I think it' s
something that they want to do, but they are just trying to
figure out the logistics and the best way to approach it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And also noticed, had a question on the
east side of the proposed rock revetment, it shows that it goes
seaward of the old bulkhead.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes. So it's following the high water line, and
that is the exact line of the bulkhead that was approved by the
DEC to reconstruct. So we followed that same exact line,
basically. So there is a small area that goes seaward of the
previously-existing bulkhead line but the majority of the rock
revetment will be about 14-feet landward of what previously
existed.
You can see in that one corner, the elevation is pretty,
it's shoaled up, and the elevation is a little bit higher right
there.
Board of Trustees 10 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Another question concerned the amount of fill
behind the rock revetment. It says approximately five-hundred
cubic yards.
MS. COSTELLO: That' s at, we're bringing in about five-hundred
cubic yards. That does not include the rock revetment. That's
the clean sand that we are going to bring in.
So we are going to have the back side of the rock revetment
will actually have a slope down.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, you know, when we see a lot of this
erosion, the property owners don't get that back. So in trying
to figure out an appropriate line for a revetment, I just feel
that a few feet further landward would be more appropriate.
The other thing that I think will happen there, if we land
this right, is you'll actually see a beach slowly start to grow
in front of this, especially starting on the east side where
it's already starting to grow.
So I don't necessarily want to, like the amount that began
to build up along that jetty, I don't necessarily want to take
that for the landward side. I think you should probably, it
would be most appropriate to leave that on the seaward side, and
let the beach grow out from there.
When that revetment starts knocking down all that wave
energy, they might end up with a beach there if it' s all done
correctly. That' s my two cents.
MS. COSTELLO: So are you saying you would rather the rock
revetment stay in line with what was previously existing there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, yes and no. So the way I read it, being
there and seeing some of the, you know, there's some storm tides
that you can see, and some high tides, and high high tides. I
think if the whole wall is pulled back a few more feet, you
know, I'm saying "wall, " but it' s really seawall or revetment,
is pulled back a few more feet, and if we bring the edge of the
eastern side probably close to the line of that bulkhead --
MS. COSTELLO: The old bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think this might turn into a nice project
that builds up some natural beach there.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And further to Trustee Krupski, by shifting
that revetment landward, you will thereby reduce some of the
fill that is necessary for the project. Because that's, the
slope will kind of, you know, it will be in line with that and
reduce the fill, which would produce a benefit.
MS. COSTELLO: In all honesty, we are building a rock revetment
because the elevation is built up over there. If you are
standing there you can see how it's built up. You would
probably never see the rock revetment. It would probably be
Board of Trustees 11 June 12, 2024
buried at that area where we are talking about.
We move it landward, you are going to see it, right? So we
are not going to need much fill in that area regardless.
Because you can see it's a little too much there anyway.
So I don't think it's going to reduce it or make any
difference as far as fill is concerned.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me, over the length of the revetment?
Because the proposed plan has that splash pad over the entire
length of the revetment, correct?
MS. COSTELLO: Right. Right. That' s the whole length. So 15
feet behind the revetment. But the actual revetment line for
the majority of it is almost where the old backing piling are,
there is a line there. So it' s about 14 feet from what the old
bulkhead line was. It's just in that eastern corner, we are
following the high tide mark, right? Because a high tide mark
usually delineates property ownership as well.
But if what you are saying is that you want to bring it further
landward, I mean I'll take it to where the previous bulkhead
was. But I can't take it 14 feet back of the previous.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think what Trustee Krupski was stating is
that eastern portion. There was an old bulkhead. With that
sand there now, I don't think we want to go seaward of what the
old bulkhead was. So in that corner if the revetment ended
where the old bulkhead was, it would be a win/win.
A couple other things, one, I don't want to design the project
for you, but if you are backfilling that rock revetment with
sand, it looks like you have plenty of sand right in that inlet,
that you can potentially use for it. Which kind of leads me to
my next point with the bulkhead. Obviously it needs to be
replaced. It' s a creosote bulkhead. However right now it' s a
pond. So the threat of, you know, losing property and all that,
is not necessarily there. You are not having wave action, the
bulkhead looked fairly stable when we were there.
So, you know, I think, to me, it would be better to
incorporate that bulkhead replacement in line with a possible
dredging, possible taking that sand and backfilling it, using
that sand for the backfill for your revetment, and/or a
potential non-turf buffer, something behind the bulkhead replacement.
Because basically what we are looking to do now is a bulkhead on
a pond.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. So the in-kind/in-place bulkhead within the
basin, that is what we are talking about.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. .
MS. COSTELLO: All right, let me go back a second. So the rock
revetment now on the eastern shoreline, we'll start it at where
the old bulkhead was, and then we'll cut across, and then the
rest of it will be approximately 14-feet back.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Approximately, yes. Right? Is that the
number? So it looks like it' s landward of the old deadmen, and
that's usually what, 15 feet or so?
Board of Trustees 12 June 12, 2024
MS. COSTELLO: Yes, we went out there and measured. Yes. We put
the stakes, I don't know who went out and did the field
inspection.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the only thing that may help is obviously,
you have that softer return when you are curving it out at the
eastern end, so we would not want to see it in like a straight
line. So that means on the western section, that you have to
move the rock revetment back a couple of feet, to get that
natural curve, would be preferred.
MS. COSTELLO: All right. So that is not going to be a problem,
I don't think. It will be a little easier to construct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Where if you were to draw a
semi-straight line, it would be further in on the western side
and then you are just going to the edge on the eastern side,
with natural curves. It's only going to benefit the project
long-term, I think.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, so now let' s talk about in the basin side.
You're saying you would rather wait for that section until, to
see if they dredge and things like that, before reconstructing
that part?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To me, yes. You know, regardless of what
this property is or is going to be, if you don't have access to
the bay, you know, the replacement of a bulkhead on a pond
doesn't necessarily make much environmental sense. You know, if
it is going to be a pond and revert back to a pond, then removal
of the bulkhead in the natural shoreline will be better. If you
are going to get a permit to dredge it, absolutely, replace the
bulkhead. It' s creosote, it's only a positive to do that. But it
seems like in a sense we are putting the cart before the horse
here .a little bit, because we are doing a bulkhead to nothing,
really.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. You threw me for a loop for that one.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sorry. Again, it was one of those things,
the more we thought about it, it's like, it is a pond. So, you
know, we don't allow a bulkhead on Hummel' s Pond, or another
pond like that.
MS. COSTELLO: I understand. You would not allow replacement of a
legal structure?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, I mean, again, replacement of the
functional bulkhead, regardless, it's not going to be a problem
in my mind, it' s just we are not there yet because, you know,
what if the DEC says, or someone says you can't dredge, so now
we have a nice new bulkhead on the pond, that could have been
better served by having a natural shoreline or something like
that.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. I will say that the DEC did permit the
reconstruction of the bulkhead. And they also permitted a
bulkhead going on the bay side as well as the Army Corps and the
Department of State.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A sign, yes.
Board of Trustees 13 June 12, 2024
MS. COSTELLO: Yeah. And I anticipate, you know, some sort of
dredging, and I don't think it's the dredging that is, you know,
where the thought process is going on at these meetings and
stuff. I think it' s actually the inlets and like the jetties
and just how to perfectly do that. Because obviously at one time
there was like a whole bunch of jetties coming off the shoreline
and trying to figure that out so it doesn't just swoop right
back in there. And so I think it' s really that inlet part that
is kind of stumping people a little bit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But, you know, it's all part and parcel to a
whole project, so that' s --
MS. COSTELLO: A little bit, yes. Okay, if you guys are
approvable to the rock revetment, which to me is the more
important part at this point, to secure that offshore, the bay
side, then I will easily, I will remove the pond part of it or
the basin 'part of it and give you a new line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. COSTELLO: And then take it from there.
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, Conservation Advisory Counsel. I am
very much in support of what Trustees Krupski and Goldsmith have
mentioned about not moving a bulkhead seaward at all from the
DEC and from NOAA. They are all saying that in the next 20
years we are expecting an eight-inch to 14-inch sea level rise.
So that line of high tide is going to change. So the more that
we can protect the land and keep it further back from the water
is very much part of what we believe strongly in. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the following project description:
Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit to remove 483 linear feet of
existing failed Navy construction timber bulkhead, by cutting,
sheathing and mud line. Remove all piles, tie rods and deadmen
located on Gardiner's Bay below APHW in the intertidal zone.
Remove all concrete debris and miscellaneous debris above SPHW.
Remove all concrete debris below SPHW, manually. All debris to
be removed to an approved New York state DEC SWMF. Install new
473 linear feet of rock revetment landward, with approximately
500 cubic yards of clean upland backfill in upland area, with
top of new rock revetment elevation 8.0 NAVD. Install splash
zone and place up to 265 cubic yards of eight-inch to ten-inch
stone, with the condition that the rock revetment on the eastern
side, and no further seaward than the existing bulkhead, and the
Board of Trustees 14 June 12, 2024
western side to be pulled back a few feet to be in line with the
curvature, with new plans submitted, and by granting the permit
it will bring it into consistency -- it will address all the
LWRP issues, and bring it into consistency. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. COSTELLO: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 1, under Wetland Permits, EUGENE &
GEORGENE BOZZO requests a Wetland Permit to remove ±72.5' of
existing wood bulkhead return and ±17.5' long block retaining
wall located along east property line; install 90' of new vinyl
bulkhead return in same location and same height as majority of
existing bulkhead; replace remaining block retaining wall as
necessary; and to temporarily remove and replace existing stone
armoring along the bulkhead return.
Located: 4135 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-5-24
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 14th of
June and noted appears to be a simple bulkhead replacement.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent, and noted
consider the vegetated buffer landward of the bulkhead.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application? If you would just state your name, sir.
MR. BOZZO: Gene Bozzo. I'm the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, very much. Do you have anything to
say on the record or are you just here to answer questions?
MR. BOZZO: Here to answer any questions. I think it' s very
simple, replacing an existing wooden bulkhead in-kind, and a
concrete wall, with a new vinyl bulkhead, and replacing the
rocks on the beach side and then putting them back in there
after the bulkhead is in. It' s a very simple thing. The
existing bulkhead was put in in 1986.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do have a question about the access for the
work. Are you going to be utilizing the HOA beach?
MR. BOZZO: Yes. We have permission from them to do that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You do have permission, okay, great. That's
what I was just making sure. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is that permission in writing? And do we have
it?
MR. BOZZO: Yes. I have it in writing. I didn't bring it with me.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, if you can just submit it to the office,
that would be a good thing to add to the file.
MR. BOZZO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, so much.
Board of Trustees 15 June 12, 2024
MR. BOZZO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close- the - -_
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation that any native vegetation disturbed on the HOA
property is reinstalled and revegetated following the end of
construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of CHARLES V. SALICE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second-story addition onto existing dwelling with
gutters to leaders to drywells; convert existing attached garage
to living space; construct a detached garage with walk and step;
construct a terrace on landward side of dwelling; remove
existing gravel driveway and install a crushed stone driveway;
abandon existing sanitary system and install a new I/A OWTS; and
install two drywells for roof runoff.
Located: 2315 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-1
The Trustees visited the site on 6/4/24 . Notes from that
visit read: Ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent
with its policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to form a
quorum. Conservation Advisory Council members present questioned
the garage and the property line and the ZBA's decisions.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glen Just, for the applicant, and the
applicant is here as well, if there are any questions for him.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just looking at the plans, I just want to
confirm that the Building Department did not deem this a
demolition.
MR. JUST: Beg your pardon?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The Building Department did not deem this a
demolition.
MR. JUST: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wishing to speak regarding
application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the
Board of Trustees 16 June 12, 2024
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the addition of a ten-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer
along the top of bluff, and plans submitted showing that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Be well. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Mr. Just.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, David Bergen on behalf of ECAE 149,
LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish (Per Town Code
Definition) the existing two-story dwelling and construct a new
two-story dwelling with first floor front covered porch and
second story balcony; convert existing pool to salt water;
repair existing deck/patio on grade; remove/construct new stairs
from patios to pool; remove existing and install a new I/A OWTS
sanitary system; replace asphalt driveway with permeable gravel
driveway including drainage; install pool equipment, A/C units,
buried propane tank, and gutters to leaders to drywells.
Located: 520 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-34
The Trustees most recently visited the site on June 4th,
2024, noting that the project was not staked, the pier line was
not depicted on the plans. Questions abound regarding scope and
scale of the additions on small parcel with pool, and retaining
walls are already constructed.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make a
recommendation.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of ECAE 149 LLC. Thank you,
for hearing this application tonight.
Just a couple items. First off, there is a determination
of non-jurisdiction from the DEC, and that letter was on file
with the previous application for the retaining wall for that
property. This is a demo by definition. It' s a very
constrained parcel. There is no footprint. I know you, I heard
in your comments that it wasn't staked. And I think there might
be some confusion that we can address because there is no
increase in the footprint at all in this. As a matter of fact,
there is a decrease in the footprint.
The existing gross square footage of the existing house is
house 4, 379 square-feet, which represents 26% lot coverage. The
proposed gross square footage of 4,237 square-feet, so you can
see it's a reduction from what it currently is. It will be 23%
Board of Trustees 17 June 12, 2024
lot coverage.
There is an IA system. There are, on the plans, there are
gutters to leaders to drywells for all the roof runoff. There
is a pervious driveway being put in. There is a hay bale line
and silt fence.
This already went through the ZBA and the ZBA granted the
variances requested. It has been reviewed by the Suffolk Health
Department and pending receiving a Trustee permit, they are
ready to move forward with a permit.
So, again, there is no increase in the footprint. Now, I
can also give you something tonight --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is this a copy of the plans that were
submitted yesterday to the office?
MR. BERGEN: No, that was the elevation plans. These are copies
of plans you already have. What we have done is highlighted in
here, and I think there are three or four copies in here. So I
should go first to Liz to get stamped. I have extra copies in
here for you guys. They're all the same. Feel free to take one
and pass it around.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Convenient.
MR. BERGEN: What we did, just to make it a little easier, on the
site plan for a demo removal, it shows all the removals of
portions are highlighted in yellow. So when I say there is a
decrease in the footprint, this makes it easier for you to see
there is an actual decrease in the footprint.
I think also there was a question about the garage and what
is right now an existing dwelling, to remain, that becomes a
garage. And you'll notice it's 1018" presently off the property
line, and the garage is 10' 8" off the property line, to
demonstrate that the garage is where the present structure is.
So that' s why there was no staking there. It's all within
the present structure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Now, thank you, for bringing up the
ZBA relief that was granted. It was 57% relief on the overall
size. The maximum gross floor area allowed per code on this
property is 2,702 square-feet, and as you mentioned, this house
is proposed for over 4,200 square-feet.
In instances like this where it's a full demolition and a
new construction, this Board is bound by the pier line. Now, in
straight areas of the shoreline, it' s very easy to take the pier
line from one house to the next house and draw a straight line
across.
Now, this is a curved area, as we can see. So in this
case, what we commonly do is ask for a study on the average
setback of the neighborhood. And we were able to do a rough
average, and at this point it seems that you are at least ten to
potentially 20 feet ahead of the pier line of the neighboring
structures.
So I think what this Board would like to see is the
applicant do a study of the pier line in this neighborhood,
Board of Trustees 18 June 12, 2024
providing us with at least two houses to the north and two
houses to the south. And to take the average of the pier line
and provide that to this office before a determination is made.
MR. BERGEN: Okay, one comment. This is a demo by definition,
but it's not a full demo at all of the structure. And so to
suggest moving the house, you might be suggesting demoing the
entire structure. The pool is grandfathered in right where it
is, so that's why the Building Department said you don't need
anything from us at all for the pool.
So we certainly could do what you're asking, but I don't
want you to have the impression that this is a project where the
entire structure could be torn down and moved back, when we've
already been through the ZBA and gotten the necessary variances
as far as construction goes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Per our Town Code, when we are looking at a
structure as a new structure after a demolition, and you are
proposing it at 30.4 feet away from the wetlands, this Board has
to take that very seriously and really look at -- sorry, it's
24.5 feet away from the wetlands.
So, that is something that we really have to take
seriously, so I think providing us with the average setbacks
would be a first step for us to consider them.
MR. BERGEN: And that's also why under the previous permits for
the bulkhead, as well as the retaining wall, there were non-turf
buffers in there, and those were, C&R's have been established
for those, for the property.
So we do care, environmentally, about this project. I can
certainly take this back to the applicant and see what he thinks
of it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, Mr. Bergen, you also mentioned one other
aspect, which is that the pool has been grandfathered in. And
this Board recently received an application for retaining walls
in relationship to that pool, I think within the past year. So
fairly recently. And it was sort of, you know, recognized that
that pool was in that location, and so we were sort of forced to
work around that.
I think from one. Trustee, at that point, if we had known
that the entire project was going to be reconstructed, the
entire property, I personally would have looked at that
differently, and that application differently, through a
different set of lenses.
Hearing now that the pool is grandfathered in, in that
location, and thereby constraining the rest of the property, I
think that, you know, obviously not in an effort to design the
project for you, but there are some alternatives to work with
the structure that is on the property.
You did mention that, obviously it' s staying in the same
footprint. We now understand that. I don't know, the square
footage calculation, does that include a garage or is that
just the ,habitable living space? When you said there was, I
Board of Trustees 19 June 12, 2024
guess a reduction of a couple hundred feet.
MR. BERGEN: I'm just reading it off here, the existing gross
footage and the proposed gross footage, and I do not see in
here. It's just gross footage of the first floor, second floor,
third floor, attic. That' s what's on there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, the reason I was asking that question is
because what has been presented to this Board is essentially now
a three-story house and, you know, while it is on the same
footprint, it's, you know, it is an increase in structure. So I
think that had we, you know, seen that, understood that this
would be presented to us, you know, a short time later after we
looked at the retaining wall, I think it would have been a
little bit of a different perspective.
MR. BERGEN: Okay. By the way, I'm not going to agree it' s a
three-story structure. Just so you know.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I said essentially, it's a very large --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it says on the plans. It says
"third-story" on the plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Existing third-story.
MR. BERGEN: That is being removed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Trustee Krupski.
MR. BERGEN: Then that's being removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' s a step in the right direction, I would
agree. I think this is an opportunity here to, I don't know that
we are suggesting that you pick up the whole structure and move
it back. I think there is an opportunity to reduce, you know, sort
of the infringement that has happened on this lot towards the wetland.
You know, granted, we just offered, we just granted a permit for
the pool and the retaining walls, but I think there is an
opportunity to move other things back and/or around, to work
within, I mean, at least within the constraints of the current
estimated pier line of the neighborhood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And obviously we don't. speak for the ZBA, so
I can't say what they granted or what they didn't grant. But to
us this is a tremendous amount of structure on a very small lot,
and very close to the wetland. So obviously we have some
environmental concerns. Not looking for a three-story,
two-story, whatever. 4, 000-something square-foot house, 24 feet
away from the water.
You know, regardless of whether the ZBA said that was okay
or not, from us, from an environmental standpoint and Chapter
275, we definitely have some environmental concerns with a
structure of this size in that proximity to the wetlands.
Especially when it' s further seaward than any of the other
houses in the neighborhood and we have a pier line concern.
That is part of the code.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Bergen?
Board of Trustees 20 June 12, 2024
MR. BERGEN: So then I would ask if we could table this
application at this time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to table this application at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 4, AMP Architecture on behalf of JAMES
LUBIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story
dwelling with the existing full basement, first floor structural
members, select interior walls and garage to remain; construct
additions and alterations to two-story dwelling including new
sun room with crawl space below, rear covered porch/deck, front
covered porch, outdoor shower, and second floor balcony; new I/A
OWTS system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
proposed 15 ' wide (±1, 541sq.ft. ) Vegetated non-turf buffer area
along the landward edge of wetlands.
Located: 2765 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-2
The Trustees most recently visited this site on June 4th,
2024, and noted the following: Vegetated buffer should be drawn
from the wetland lines, increase the vegetated buffer to 20
feet, and maintain the trees.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council noted a quorum of the
CAC was not present, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
Just to set the table on this, there was a Trustees
approval on the original application, which is not different
from this application besides the fact that when we filed with
the Department of Buildings, they're now calling it a
reconstruction. So unfortunately, I was not involved in the
original application with the Trustees or I would have gone to
the Building Department look at this and make the determination.
Or at least what would your determination be.
So unfortunately, it came to the Board as a renovation
addition, and then it was kicked back recently because it's a
reconstruction.
But that's how we ended up back here. I just wanted to
make sure we are on the same page.
I don't have any objections; I might want to just make sure
there are no objections from the owners, they are here, to
increase the buffer, the non-turf buffer, to 20 feet. Okay with
that. What was the other suggestion? I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We noted here that the buffer, so the buffer
line, the 20 feet is taken from the mean high water instead of
the wetland line. So if you can just shift that back to the
Board of Trustees 21 June 12, 2024
flagged wetland line, and then 20 feet landward of that flagged
wetland line.
MR. PORTILLO: No problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then obviously new plans that show that as
well.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then I believe that was it.
Thank you, for the recap of the project. We do see the pier
line here on the plans and appreciate the location of the
project.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the increased 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, relocated
back to align with the wetland line and 20 feet landward of
that, with the condition that all trees are to remain. And
subject to new plans depicting the following, that is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, AMP Architecture on behalf of DIANA
FALKENBACH requests a Wetland Permit for the existing two-story
dwelling with basement and covered porch, one-story pool house
and garage, in-ground pool, pool patio surround, paver patio by
pool house, and frame shed; on the dwelling remove an existing
one-story addition, rear steps, rear concrete walk, portion of
gravel driveway, BILCO doors, and excavate ±305. 92 cubic yards
of soil; on the dwelling construct a one-story addition with
basement, exterior basement access stairs, side covered porch
extension, and one drywell; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer around the
landward edge off the pond's freshwater wetland vegetation.
Located: 3650 Eugenes Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-8-6
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 4th, noting
basically straightforward addition, and the need for an IA
system due to the major addition.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
A quorum was not present for the CAC but the members
questioned if an IA system is required.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Hi, again. Anthony Portillo.
In regards to the IA system, so on the Building Department
Level, because there is, because we aren't increasing the occupancy,
Board of Trustees 22 June 12, 2024
we are basically, you know, it's an older structure, so we are
really renovating an older structure, and then the rear portion,
which was built in like 19701s, not built well and not really
connected well to the home, so we basically want to take that
down and build it properly.
So the current septic system is actually behind the house.
This being a corner lot I guess calling it the rear yard. And
it's in working order. So we are not required to put in a new
septic system. They are not calling the project a
reconstruction. It has been viewed by the Building Department.
So that is why we didn't present one or propose one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to add in quickly, when we were in the
field with your client, she was open to the idea, she was trying
to do some work to preserve that pond and we, I mean, it' s
flowing straight in that direction, without doing a groundwater
study. And, yes, she echoed that she would be open to the idea.
MR. PORTILLO: I guess if that's something that is required to
receive the approval from the Board, I think she would be
obliged. Obviously she does not want to spend the money to do.
She called me after and she asked why it wasn't on the plans,
and I said, well, it' s not really required in regards to Health
Department and Building Department regulations.
So I don't think she wants to do it. I think she would do
it if she has to, because she would like to fix the structure.
There is some structural issues with what is going on with that
building. So it' s not just really bringing it up to, you know,
not just fixing it for esthetic purposes or for functional
purposes. The original building has some structural issues that
we are going to be repairing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it needs some major work.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, It could end up leading to what we would deem
full reconstruction, so I think it's best practice in this case,
and also --
MR. PORTILLO: I'll just say again, this has been reviewed by the
Building Department, and it's not being looked at as
reconstruction by the Town Code. The amount of work in the
basement is basically adding in some girders to just some smaller
members, just based on the age of the building, it wasn't built
to the standards of today.
So it's, the main building is not really being changed much
in regards to layout or structure. We are not even touching the
mass of that building, it's really just the rear portion that we
are removing and rebuilding.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I do appreciate that clarification. Thanks.
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just say that this is a beautiful,
historical structure, and I appreciate you taking the steps to
maintain it. A building like this enhances the community, you
Board of Trustees 23 June 12, 2024
know, so I look forward to it.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. The location, too, right? It' s right around
that bend. I 've known it since I was a kid, so. I'm excited
about the project, I think they made the wrong moves on the
original addition in the '70s and I'm hoping what we are doing
kind of fits the style of the home better.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 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 this
application with the condition of an IA/OWTS, and new plans
submitted showing such.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Enjoy the evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of SHEILA
STOLTZ requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story
dwelling and appurtenances, and construct a new 2.5-story,
single-family dwelling with a front porch; rear porch; covered
walk; outdoor shower over grade-level deck and piped to a
drywell; install new gravel driveway in place of existing; new
public water service; new I/A sanitary system; install
stormwater drainage system; and to perpetually maintain as a
vegetated non-turf buffer the existing vegetation located within
100 feet of the limit of beach adjacent to Hog Neck Bay
(allowing for the maintenance of the existing sand footpath) .
Located: 2025 Smith Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-98-4-19.2
The Trustees visited the site on the 4th of June and noted
that a minimum of a 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer seaward of
the lawn and then non-disturbance seaward of the vegetated
non-turf should be maintained throughout the dune. Maintain
existing red cedars and/or replace with similar caliper.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum.
It had concern with the existing vegetation in the area of
freshwater wetland.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. Recommended to
retain all vegetation seaward of limit of natural vegetation on
the survey, and covenant restrictions.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
Nick, pursuant to what you just described as far as a
discussion in the field, which sounds like it actually complies
Board of Trustees 24 June 12, 2024
with the LWRP recommendation, I just handed up to Liz a revised
site plan which now notes a proposed 20-foot wide vegetated
non-turf buffer seaward of the seaward limit of the existing
lawn. And then a proposed non-disturbance buffer seaward
thereof.
So that basically maintains as a naturally vegetated area
the entire area seaward of the existing lawn, except that in the
first 20 feet, and I think we, I was discussing this with
Elizabeth and Glenn at the end of the field inspections, that
would allow some of that invasive vegetation be removed and
replaced with different plantings, native plantings, and then
beyond that with primarily that beach grass area remains
non-disturbance.
So we've indicated both of those buffer areas on that
revised plan, and in the cover letter, I have provided what
would be the updated project description, which is really just
the end of the description, instead of referencing the
originally-depicted buffer it now -- sorry, describing the
originally depicted buffer, it describes the 20-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer and then the non-disturbance buffer
seaward of that.
So I believe the plans complies with the Board's
recommendations, and, as I said, it sounds like it is also
consistent with the LWRP recommendation. Otherwise the plan is
the same.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it' s certainly a good start. At work session
we got into a discussion, and after reviewing some of the
historical satellite views, and I actually did return to the
area, too, you know, there is a wetland 50-feet away, across the
walking path to the beach.
Given the fact that this is such a large addition, or I
shouldn't even say addition, but it's really multiplying this
house by several factions, it would probably be most appropriate
given the proximity to the dunal area and wetland at the beach
and the wetland across that footpath, to -- this property really
shouldn't have maintained turf and fertilizer and treatments.
There is very little now, and that's how it should remain.
So I would propose, you know, a vegetated buffer and a
planting plan, and a few more native hardwood trees added at the
close of this project.
MR. HERRMANN: I 'm not sure I'm hearing specifically what you are
asking for, though.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No grass.
MR. HERRMANN: So there would be no usable lawn on the whole
property?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You double the house, lose the lawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, it's not double the house, it's more
than double the house.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: More than double the house, protect the
wetland and adjacent area with a vegetated natural buffer.
Board of Trustees 25 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It' s worth noting that the ZBA granted 80.4%
relief on lot coverage on this property, and now it's going to
be a seven-bedroom home.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Seven-bedroom home.
MR. HERRMANN: The ZBA granted 80% relief?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it was 80% total.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of the setbacks, I believe it was.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Did you run the application through the ZBA?
MR. HERRMANN: I did not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, regardless of the number, and we can pull
that up for you. And we go through this often. A lot of times
people are trading lawn for house. If they want to expand the
house. We are not going to take that out of the natural
habitat, we .are going to take that out of the usable lawn.
There is not much on here now. It' s not much of a
difference than what is currently being retained.
MR. HERRMANN: So the only thing I would say in response to that,
and then I would probably have to adjourn the hearing, because
that comes as a surprise and it' s not something that I could
commit to for the client without having, you know, I had no idea
this would be requested.
But there is, as you say, there is a very small lawn area
right now, which you can see on the aerial photo between the
existing house and the existing edge of lawn, the seaward edge of
lawn, and so that is the area that there would be no expansion
of that existing lawn area. The house is not get getting any
closer to the wetland on the bay side. It is set substantially
farther back than 100 feet from the wetland' s boundary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is not true. That' s not correct at all.
It's 50 feet from the wetlands.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm talking about the bay side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. HERRMANN: And the lawn fronts the bay side. So relative to
the freshwater wetland, there is the existing path, there is
existing vegetation that is there. So it would just be unusual,
to me, for the Board to require, to prohibit any usable lawn on
the entire property. So I'm not sure exactly what you are
proposing. If you are proposing like a non-fertilization area
that could continue to be mowed and would be usable, I'm sure
that they would not have any objection to that. But to propose
like a vegetated buffer right up to the back of the house, they
would have no usable lawn area on the property at all. So that
just certainly, I can't think of an application I have ever had
where the Board prohibited any usable lawn on a
previously-developed parcel. So I would have to check back with
them to see if that would be something that they would be
agreeable to, and then I would have to get, I would ask for a
little bit more specific guidance from the Board of what you have
in mind. Because, as I said, if you completely replace that small
Board of Trustees 26 June 12, 2024
lawn area in the back, which is where the drainage system is
proposed, with additional plantings, there would be really
nowhere that they could recreate outside of the house.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: They could recreate on the beach.
MR. -HERRMANN: And I hear what you're saying about the house
versus lawn, but the house is not getting any closer. In other
words, we are not taking up existing lawn area with the house
and then asking to expand the lawn area.
In fact, we came in proactively proposing to just maintain
the existing lawn area and- then to comply with the, I believe
there was a ZBA requirement for 100-foot buffer from the wetland
boundary along the bay, we expanded that to 100-foot buffer
landward of the limit of beach, and then that was expanded
further on these plans based on our conversation at field
inspections. So now basically the entire area seaward of the
existing seaward edge of lawn would be buffer, vegetated buffer.
So it seems to me that they really did, you know, in terms of
the buffer areas, the minimal lawn areas, have a very reasonable
project, and it sounds like the Board is asking for something
more than that on a previously-developed property and I think
it's a bit of a stretch of an ask.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are you are saying that lawn, is an
appropriate ecological feature on a parcel this close to the
wetland area? Or would a natural vegetated buffer be more
ecologically sound and beneficial to the nearby cultural and
natural features of the township?
MR. HERRMANN: It' s a bit of a leading question, Eric. It would
be more ecologically appropriate to just --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: As an environmental consultant.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continuing) you know, abandon the
house all together and revert the entire property back to its
natural vegetation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That would be true, but the house is more
than doubled and so moving in that direction, the logic in
reverse would be to provide additional benefits to the ecosystem
in the area adjacent to the house.
MR. HERRMANN: So the house is not getting any closer to the bay,
and the house is getting farther from the freshwater wetland
that is on the other side of that roadway.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But there is an increase in overall structure
on the property. And I just do want to correct the record and
apologize. Because I did have that wrong. So they granted 69.75%
relief from the code relative to the reduced front yard setback,
and 80.4% relief from the code relative to the reduced rear yard
setback. So that's just needing to reduce all of those setbacks
to be able to fit a seven-bedroom home on this property.
MR. HERRMANN: To give some full context to that, the ZBA also
approved the house that had originally been proposed, I believe,
moved closer to the water. And when I became involved with the
project, understanding all the sensitivities that Eric and Nick
Board of Trustees 27 June 12, 2024
are articulating, we guided the plan to be revised so that it
was not any closer to the water, so that it wasn't out of
compliance with any pier lines and that there was no change in
the existing lawn areas.
So again, to me, it' s a reasonable application relative to
the aspects of the property that you are describing. You are
welcome to, you know, recommend any additional restrictions you
wish, I'm just saying I can't commit to that standing here at
the moment and I would have to ask to adjourn the hearing and
review that with the property owner. But, again, I would ask
the Board for a little bit more specific guidance of what it is
you are requesting, because if there were plantings right up to
the porch, obviously there would be no -- it would be nowhere
you could walk on the waterside of the property, except a
four-foot wide path to the beach, which would be an unusual
thing for the Board to request, in my experience.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I think our concerns in the field
obviously were with the bay side. And upon further review, you know,
we are concerned about the other side of that footpath, with
the proximity to the wetlands that's on the west side.
MR. HERRMANN: West side, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, you know, we are looking for, potentially
more of a buffer on that side. We are sufficient, in my mind,
between the bay and the house, but insufficient in a sense from
the house to that other wetland.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood. So would providing additional
vegetated non-turf buffers, excepting for an access path between
the west side of the house and the west property line be
appropriate? Because that I understand what you are saying.
That connection I clearly see because, you know, in another
case, the west side of the house would be the front or the back
of the house facing a pond, and we would not be saying that
there shouldn't be a buffer. It's just here it's a little bit
of a strange situation because the wetland is not on the
property itself, there is obviously activities to the west of .
the subject property that the owners can't control.
But for, you know, for the area between the west side of the
house and the west property line that the owners could control,
I understand one concern the Board might have is what if that
entire area gets cleared, mowed, turned into a lawn, and without
any buffers speaking to the west side of the property, there
would be nothing you could do to enforce against that.
So that would seem like something that would be reasonable
to require, you know, certain vegetation that' s there to remain
and/or to be replaced if there were any trees that had to be
removed. So that makes sense to me. That seems like it, there
seems like a nexus between that buffer and the freshwater
wetland as opposed to where the seaward limit of the lawn is on
the bay side.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I've never heard an argument made so
Board of Trustees 28 June 12, 2024
forcefully for grass, in my life. Philosophically, just on
principle, how we argue and expend untold amounts of money
maintaining one species of grass in an area that would otherwise
be abundant with natural native species, pollinators, critters
that kids can see.
MR. HERRMANN: Eric, as I said, I think --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, I think it's reasonable.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continuing) I don't think that I'm arguing for
grass as you portray it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You sure are. You are. You're arguing to go
talk to your clients about the argument about grass.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, because if I have to go back to my client,
like let' s say you were my client, and I had to go back to you
and say you no longer have any usable lawn area on the property,
I would, I think you would want me to get your permission before
I would agree.
MS. HULSE: Well, that's not how it works. I mean, with all due
respect, that's not how it works.. You make an application and
the Board gets to decide. They can grant you, they can be
courteous and grant you a table, but they certainly are not
required to and they certainly --
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. I just asked you for that courtesy.
MS. HULSE: I'm actually in the middle of a sentence.
They are not required to get the consent of your owner. It' s not
Let's Make A Deal. So the point that Trustee Sepenoski is making
is a valid one. They are making a point and you are arguing
strenuously against it, which obviously you wish to do. But
there is no condition that they have to table it so that you get
the assent of your client. That' s not the way it works. So, but
that's what you just said. I'm just trying to make it clear.
MR. HERRMANN: So I'll rephrase. If you were going to impose a
condition that has no lawn whatsoever on the property, I would
ask for the courtesy of a table so .that I could consent, that I
can speak to my client about it. If the Board wishes to impose
that condition anyway, without affording us the opportunity to
respond, that's a decision you can guide the Board whether you
think that's a good idea to make. I'm asking for that courtesy.
Unless, as Trustee Goldsmith just mentioned, if what you are
talking about is some sort of buffer on the west side of the
house, that might be something that I could agree to here.
Again, it's up to --
MS. HULSE: (Inaudible) .
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I'm not -- Lori, I've been doing this for 30
years --
MS. HULSE: I know, Rob. I understand that.
MR. HERRMANN: Respectfully, let me finish, please.
MS. HULSE: I understand that.
MR. HERRMANN: Because you know me --
MS. HULSE: I do.
MR. HERRMANN: And I don't need a civics lesson to understand that
Board of Trustees 29 June 12, 2024
the Board doesn't have to grant me a table. I understand that.
But I would still ask for a table --
MS. HULSE: You already asked for it, and then you went on to say
"so she can consent" or "if she assents".
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I was responding to what Eric said.
MS. HULSE: No, you weren't. You weren't. I understand what you
are saying.
MR. HERRMANN: We are arguing over silliness here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think you know where I stand on the lawn.
MR. HERRMANN: I do. I just was trying to respond to you so that
you understand that I'm not arguing for the appropriateness of
having any lawn on this particular property. I mean most
properties in the Town of Southold, whether they are waterfront
or not, have some usable lawn, and the idea, as you know, with
every one of your applications, is try to restrict or reduce
lawn areas, increase wetland setbacks for lawn areas. I
understand that. And all I was saying, relative to the bay, when
you look at that photograph, you know, you can see that there is
a significant separation between the beach and the bay from that
lawn.
You may feel that there needs to be more separation, and I
understand, I don't begrudge your right to feel that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are at a good place now. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application, or any additional comments from the members of the
Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation of new plans to depict entirety of property
to be vegetated non-turf buffer with the exception of the
existing lawn area on the bay side of the home, access path
surrounding the house, retain all native trees practicable,
install three native hardwoods, no cedars to be removed along
walking path. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of HIGH
HOUSE WOODS, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead; replace
in-place two existing returns with new vinyl returns; backfill
area; remove and replace in-place existing steps off bulkhead to
beach; and to restore and perpetually maintain an approximately
12 ' wide area along the landward edge of the bulkhead as a
naturally vegetated buffer.
Board of Trustees 30 June 12, 2024
Located: 7134 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-7.1
The Trustees, on June 4th, said add existing vegetated non-turf
buffer to plan.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent, and also
considered a vegetated buffer landward of the bulkhead to
further Police 6, within its purview.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not comment on the
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding High
House Woods?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
This is a straightforward application for an in-place
bulkhead replacement. There is, as shown on the plans submitted
with the application, a proposal to restore and maintain as a
naturally vegetated buffer area, the area of disturbance behind
the bulkhead. And during field inspections the Board also
asked, and in discussion with the applicant, for the existing
wooded and natural areas between the waterside of the house and
the top of bank to remain essentially as they are, and to be
called out as a naturally vegetated buffer area.
And so we did have the site survey updated to identify
those wooded natural areas between the seaward side of the
dwelling and the top of bank.
And I have just submitted those up to Liz with a cover
letter dated June 12th, 2024, along with a revised project
description, which would be modified only with respect to the
end of the description, to read additionally: And maintain as a
naturally vegetated buffer the existing wooded/natural areas
between the top of bank and waterside of dwelling, allowing for
maintenance of existing pathways and grade-level patio surfaces
as depicted on the survey prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuck Land
Surveying PLLC, last dated June 5th, 2024.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any questions from the public or comments
wish to be made on record?
(No response) .
Comments or questions from Members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This is a beautiful home, and a very well
maintained natural buffer at the top of an embankment here. The
only note that I have on the plans that we just received is that
they are marked "wooded natural" and I'm wondering if we could
bring that into the jargon that we typically use, which is
"vegetated non-turf buffer" .
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. I mean, that' s just the surveyor's
language. I think it might make sense in the project
description, I think the way I just read it was to say, and
maintain as a naturally vegetated buffer. If you would want to
say a naturally vegetated non-turf buffer. It sounds like I
probably just inadvertently omitted the term "non-turf" in front
of the word "buffer" .
Board of Trustees 31 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that would be nice to include just so
that it's memorialized here on the plan as that was the intent
when the Board mentioned that onsite.
There are two locations on here where the dotted line just
kind of disappears. There's one on -- let's see, where is the
directions here.
MR. HERRMANN: Yeah, basically, everything to the -- I don't mean
to cut you off, Elizabeth, but I know what you are talking
about, because I asked the surveyor --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There' s one on the --
MR. HERRMANN: The west and the east.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, the west and the east.
MR. HERRMANN: So basically, the areas to the west and the east
are, they continue to be wooded natural areas, but you are
starting to get out beyond the area that we had talked about
between the house and the bank, so he didn't continue the survey
that all the way back, you know, toward the driveway.
So basically, all of those, that' s why in the project
description I put the language "basically all of those wooded
natural areas between the seaward side of the house and the top
of bank would remain" .
So those lines could be, you know, extended farther back,
but I'm not sure that it adds to the, I'm not sure it adds to
the purpose. And I think that was why he stopped at a certain
point, because all those areas, you know, when we were out
there, to the west and east of those lines, continue to be wooded
and natural, and that's why he put those labels on there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for clarifying.
I think since we are already updating to add the vegetated
non-turf buffer, perhaps that area can be hatched in, or some
sort of indication so that it' s a little more visible as well,
just since there is an edit that is happening.
MR. HERRMANN: Does it maybe make sense just for me to transfer
this onto the plan that I prepared with the bulkhead replacement
actually, and. then I can put the non-turf buffer language right
on that plan, so everything is on the same thing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be sufficient, I believe.
MR. HERRMANN: And I'll add a reference to this additionally
updated survey.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, if you are looking at that
screen, it' s obvious that one of these things does not match the
others. And what we want is what your client currently has. We
want to protect and preserve what' s there so it doesn't turn
into either side.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood. And I think the property owner shares
your sentiment, as she conveyed during field inspections.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what Trustee Goldsmith was saying is we
would like to see more of this.
MR. HERRMANN: Throughout the town. It wasn't that subtle.
Board of Trustees 32 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just making sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's an object lesson on preservation and
conservation, not only of a wooded lot but also of an historic
structure, something that the early 20th Century could teach us
-about -living more frugally on the land in the 21st.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s a struggle, Eric. That's why your Board is
here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And you're doing the good work.
Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with new plans depicting a wooded and vegetated non-turf buffer
on the landward seaward edge of the house.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of WARREN
W. JACKSON 2017 IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
install stone rip-rap on filter cloth above Mean High Water
along eroding shoreline; construct a low-sill vinyl bulkhead and
-low-sill bulkhead return approximately along location of Mean
Low Water; backfill low-sill bulkhead and plant with Spartina
alterniflora to create approximately 1, 488sq.ft. Of vegetated
intertidal marsh between low-sill bulkhead and Mean High
Water/proposed rip-rap; backfill and plant voids between rip-rap
and top of shoreline slope as needed; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer area
adjacent to top of shoreline slope.
Located: 300 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-4
The Trustees most recently visited this site, noting
straightforward.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
therefore, no recommendation was made.
And the LWRP found this to be inconsistent, noting the
vegetation appears to be stabilizing the shoreline, the rate of
erosion is low and does not look like it warrants hardening the
shoreline in this area, and the seaward projection of the
bulkhead appears to be a land grab.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
So there's two -- so given the existing and ongoing
shoreline erosion, there are two elements of this project. Sort
Board of Trustees 33 June 12, 2024
of a combined hard and soft approach, which the Board has seen
and approved, and we believe supported previously. And I think
you support here. But for the record, in response to the LWRP,
I'll just give a brief response to that.
Along the actual upland eroding edge of the embankment,.
there is a proposed stone rip rap to try to stabilize that
ongoing eroded embankment edge.
And then what the LWRP coordinator would appear to describe
as a land grab is actually the creation of 1,488 square feet of
tidal marsh vegetation, which we would think that the Board
would be in favor of. I would also think the LWRP coordinator
would be in favor of, unless he didn't understand the proposal.
And, again, the idea of this is the concept that the Board
has promoted in the past, where an area like this, and I think
we showed some historic photographs that the owner provided
during field inspections, is an area that used to be well
vegetated with both intertidal and high marsh, all of which has
gradually eroded away. And so the low sill bulkhead will enable
the effective restoration and recreation of those marsh areas.
It will also help to flatten that slope along the shoreline a
little bit, and with a less-steep slope and with the addition
of that tidal marsh vegetation will also help to mitigate the
overall impacts of the erosion coming from the creek.
That' s about the extent of it, although we did also, as I
guess what you might call a third element, also propose a ten-foot
wide vegetated non-turf buffer on the landward side of the bank,
just to remove some of those mowed lawn areas right behind the
top of the bank, which don't help with the erosion.
So it' s basically a three-part approach that really
enhances the vegetation in the area and provides what we hope is
a reasonable balance between the hard element of the stone rip
rap and a low sill bulkhead, and the creation of tidal marsh and
natural upland vegetation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for the explanation. And I agree
with you. I think this is a good project. I think it will
benefit the wetlands, and I'm in favor of this.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, and by functioning as a wetland restoration
project, we are thereby bringing this into consistency with the
LWRP. '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 34 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of BRIAN &
LAURA FLANAGAN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish (per Town
Code Definition) , reconstruct in-place and raised to FEMA
compliant elevation the existing one-story dwelling with new
front porch and new attached seaward side deck; install
stormwater drainage system; and install a new I/A sanitary
system.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
The Trustees most recently visited the site June 4th, 2024,
and noted that this project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP recommends the action is consistent with its
Policies 4 and 6. This recommendation considered the following:
Number one, the residential structure is proposed to meet FEMA
standards. No expansion of the structure is proposed.
Number two, note that the depth of groundwater is expected
to be seasonally high.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends the removal of the drains leading from the street
to the bay.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
At least a couple of Board members may recall, in 2020
there was a wetlands permit issued for this property for a much
more substantial dwelling replacement with fill, et cetera.
There is a new owner who is proposing, as you described,
basically, maintaining ,the existing house footprint with a deck
and steps on the seaward side, and an IA sanitary system on the
landward side.
There was one question during field inspections about
whether two trees that were located just on the seaward side of
the deck were to be removed and retained. I spoke with the
applicants about this after field inspections, and they've
expressed that their intention is to actually keep the trees,
and understand that if the trees, if they found the trees needed
to be removed, they would have to come back to the Board in some
capacity, whether it was through a tree-removal request or
through modification of the permit.
So I think that was the only outstanding item from
inspections.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Just to expand further on the tree
conversation. On the survey, I'm counting five trees, 14-inch,
24-inch, 22-inch caliper, and I don't see any of them on the
proposed plan. So it seems that some of them will in fact need
to be/ removed.
MR. HERRMANN: Did you say on the survey?
Board of Trustees 35 June 12, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The survey, yes, that I have stamped and
received March 28th, 2024 . And it seems --
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, yeah, you're right. On the engineering site
plan, I don't think any of those trees -- so, if you look on the
survey, on the seaward side of the house, I believe that what's
labeled 14-inch tree and 24-inch tree, is that consistent with
what you're looking at?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. And then a 22-inch tree.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, so I think the 14-inch and the 24-inch were
the two trees that came up in conversation during field
inspections due to proximity of the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: The 22-inch tree is off to the west. I don't
think there was any question about that tree to remain. The only
tree that I can see on here that could require removal, and it' s
kind of hard to read what it says, it looks like it says 14-inch
tree, but it' s right on the landward corner of the house.
I don't know if you'd call that the southeast corner,
maybe, right seaward of the flood zone boundary. Do you see
that?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Closest to the lot line?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: But I believe that may be more than 100 feet from
the bulkhead. I'm trying to look at two different plans at once
to see if I -- one has the trees and the other doesn't, and I
think the one has the setback and the other doesn't.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think -- you know what, I see 108 feet to the
drywell, so it' s probably just, the root structure is not within
Trustee jurisdiction, likely. So let's just assume all of those
are within jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm guessing that one may need to be removed, just
looking at the proximity to the corner of the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure, I would agree with you on that. And I
appreciate yours and the client's willingness to try to save the
trees. So I would just say if there is anything that does have
to be removed, that there is a one-to-one replacement on that.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. It would -- do you think it makes sense to
just condition the permit that way so that that avoids having to
come back to you --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continuing) it' s just stipulated that if this
happens, then this has to happen.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do.
MR. HERRMANN: Brian, are you here? Do you see any issue with
that?
MR. FLANAGAN: Not at all.
MR. HERRMANN: So let' s do that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Perfect. sounds good. Thank you. Is there
anyone else who wishes to speak, or any other questions or
Board of Trustees 36 June 12, 2024
comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just a comment about the trees and how it's so
nice to have these woods around. So, if there is a need to remove
the trees, we hope that you choose a large caliber, and that you
try to get a mature tree that will keep growing and get tall
quickly.
MS. FLANAGAN: Definitely.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that to re-establish the existing covenanted
20-foot non-turf buffer, and for any native hardwood tree
replacement one-to-one, with a minimum of two to three-inch
caliper. And new plans depicting the following. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of TRACY
HELLER & MATTHEW GLASSMAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace in-place existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead
(temporarily lift/shift existing accessory structure to allow
for bulkhead replacement, then return to existing location on
replacement pile foundation) ; backfill area and revegetate any
disturbed portion of bluff slope with Cape American beach grass.
Located: 4995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-11
The Trustees conducted an inhouse field inspection on June
4th, 2024. Notes that we met previously onsite during a
pre-submission conference to review the parcel.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicants.
This application was submitted consistent with our
discussion during the pre-submission site meeting, and seeks to
replace the existing bulkhead, which as the Board could see is
at some risk of not having a much longer life than it's had.
"And so we do hope that the Board will be able to issue the
permit this evening so that they can get organized to do that.
I did get word today from the DEC that we should be
expecting issuance of a general permit from them shortly.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 37 June 12, 2024
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, CAC. There is an accessory structure
that is rather large at the very bottom of that bluff, and we
feel really strongly that once it's removed it should not be
replaced. It is totally out of code, current code, and from the
looks of it, it is sitting on some piers, but, um, it is, the
house itself looks like it' s falling apart, to start out with,
and to encourage reconstruction of that building which, again,
is totally out of code, we think would be the wrong way to go.
It would be totally environmentally unsound and place
difficulties as it falls apart.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Mr. Herrmann, the only construction is for the bulkhead,
correct?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. There is no proposed reconstruction of
that building.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
pectf y . ubm�d by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees