HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/17/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President `�rjF SU�j Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� Old 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J l Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEESE C E IE5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
AUG 1 5 2024
Minutes
Wednesday, July 17, 2024 5:30 PM Southold Town 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: All right, good evening, and welcome to our
Wednesday, July 17th, 2024 meeting. At this time I'll call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The 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 we have Administrative
Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell. We have Court Stenographer Wayne
Galante, and from the Conservation Advisory Council we have
Shannon Wright and Anne Murray.
Agendas for tonight' s meeting are out in the hallway and
also posted on the Town's website.
We do have a number of postponements for tonight. In the
agenda on page five, under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits,
numbers two through four:
Number 2, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of JOSEPH
MINETTI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to install a steel bulkhead and two returns with anchorage
system; re-use existing stone on-site as toe stone and install
new stone; excavate an area for toe stone installation; and to
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
consisting of a stone splash apron and plantings.
Board of Trustees 2 July 17, 2024
Located: 2500 Point Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-16-1-1
Number 3, 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 4 'x4' upper walk to
4'xl6' steps to a 41x4' platform to 4'x4 ' steps to a 4'x4 '
platform to 4 'xl6' steps to a 4'x4 ' platform to 4 'x4 ' steps to a
4'x4 ' 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
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 101x10' 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 31x6' 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 nine, numbers 16 and 17:
Number 16, Joe Flotteron, President of the Lagoon
Association on behalf of 1663 BRIDGE, LLC, c/o DONALD & PATRICIA
BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Maintenance Permit to dredge over an area of approximately
4, 125sq. ft. within the Lagoon entrance to a depth of 5' below
apparent low water elevation; approximately 550 cubic yards of
material will be excavated and dried on adjacent land/beach
along a 11, 600sq.ft. area where it shall remain and be the final
disposal area; a clam shell bucket on either a barge mounted
crane and/or land mounted crane will be used to perform the
dredging/excavation operation; and a turbidity curtain will be
installed to enclose the dredging area.
Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118.-2-4.2
Number 17, AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHANIE PERL
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story dwelling
with seaward covered patio and paver patio; existing shed;
remove existing stone patio, driveway, front masonry walk and
porch; construct two (2) landward one-story additions;
reconstruct rear stone patio with outdoor BBQ area; construct an
in-ground pool with wood deck pool surround, pool enclosure
fencing, and pool equipment area; install two (2) drywells;
reconstruct gravel driveway; as-built outdoor shower, generator
and a/c condensers; and any fill excavated to be removed from
property.
Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43
On page ten, numbers 18 through 22:
Number 18, Dan Heston & Jacqueline Wilson on behalf of
PECONIC LAND TRUST, INC request a Wetland Permit for the
as-built renovations of the existing Education/Hatchery
Building.
Board of Trustees 3 July 17, 2024
Located: 10273 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20. 12
Number 19, THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH request a Wetland Permit
for the existing one-story dwelling and to reconstruct and raise
a portion of existing roof 1.5' ; install new windows with
transoms, exterior doors, and cedar siding; relocate one
existing exterior door with existing stoop removed; reconstruct
three remaining stoops; existing brick patios and brick walkways.
that surround the dwelling to remain.
Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
Number 20, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANS
RECEIVED 7/11/24 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 both side of existing 14'x16' wood ramp which shall be
replaced in-kind to match existing dimensions utilizing all
untreated timbers; 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 dwelling and garage; construct a
new two-story dwelling with attached garage over existing
foundation; a 161x20' covered porch with second-story balcony
above on south side of dwelling; a 61x20' front porch; install
two A/C units and Bilco door on north side of dwelling; 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 21, 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
Number 22, 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; 526 sq.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.
Board of Trustees 4 July 17, 2024
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21. 1
And on page eleven, Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of
KP REALTY OF GREENPORT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit for
removing 1, 108sq. ft. of existing grade-level masonry patio and
179sq.ft. Area of landscape retaining walls; construct 872sq. ft.
Of "upper" grade-level masonry patio, 181x46' swimming pool with
60sq.ft. Hot tub, 428sq.ft. Of "lower" grade-level masonry
patio, 18'x3l' roofed-over open-air accessory structure with a
±6' x ±31' enclosed storage shed that has closets, an outdoor
fireplace, and a basement for storage and pool equipment, an
outdoor kitchen, and associated steps and planters; install a
pool drywell and 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates;
remove 34 linear feet of existing stone retaining wall and
construct 24 linear feet of new 2.7' high stone retaining wall;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50 foot wide
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
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
All of those are postponed for this evening.
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 in the processing of the
applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection on Wednesday, August 7th, 2024, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday August 14th, 2024, at 5:30 PM, at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(All ayes) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE' GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, August 12th, 2024 at S:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, August
14th, 2024 at S:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 5 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Trustee
Minutes of the June 12th, 2024 meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Monthly Report, The
Trustees monthly report for June 2024. A check for $28, 613.29
was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices are posted
on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under State Environmental Quality Reviews,
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, July 17, 2024 are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
500 Glenn Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-2-23
Joseph Minetti SCTM# 1000-16-1-1
Waterview Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-21-2-11
U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Plum Island Animal Disease
Center SCTM# 1000-132-1-30
Roberta F. Jaklevic SCTM# 1000-117-5-21.2
Joseph & Carolyn Ferrara SCTM# 1000-35-7-1
Peconic Land Trust SCTM# 1000-79-5-20. 12
Bridget Leigh Petersen & Nicholas Andrew Coutts SCTM# 1000-114-10-3
Anassas, LLC SCTM# 1000-122-3-30
James & Vicky Vavas SCTM# 1000-53-6-7
Dawn Drive, LLC SCTM# 1000-35-5-16
Christopher Ross Trust-2015 & Michelle Ross Trust-2015
SCTM# 1000-123-8-21
Stephanie Perl SCTM# 1000-87-3-43
Erika & Christopher Wershoven SCTM# 1000-122-4-19
The Catherine A. Quinn Irrevocable Trust, c/o 'Michelle A. Quinn,
Trustee SCTM# 1000-115-11-13
Board of Trustees 6 July 17, 2024
Jennifer Maye & John Bernhard, Jr. SCTM# 1000-103-10-1
Robert F. Spitzenberg, Jr. SCTM# 1000-78-5-4
Thomas & Jennifer Smith SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
1663 Bridge, LLC, c/o Donald & Patricia Brennan SCTM# 1000-118-2-4 .2
Budd' s Pond Marina, Inc. SCTM# 1000-56-6-2.2
Stephen & Jacqueline DuBon SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
Gregory Sfoglia SCTM# 1000-122-4-21
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits, in order to simplify our meeting the
Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or
similar in nature. Accordingly, I 'll make a motion to approve
Items 4 and 5, as follows:
Number 4, COUNTRY ESTATES WEST CREEK HOME OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 4 '
wide gravel path from association park land to the shoreline to
launch paddle boards; leave shoreline grass intact. Located:
Between Bayberry Lane and Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM#
1000-76-1-15. 1
Number 5, NORTH FORK REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC requests and
Administrative Permit to construct a 4 ' post and rail fence on
East, West, and North sides of property. Located: 1095
Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-65
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Isaac-Rae on behalf of TOPAZ
PAGE-GREEN & EMMANUEL ROMAN requests an Administrative Permit to
remove invasive trees and a portion of privet hedge row within
the 100 ft wetland area of the property; replace with native
trees and hedges that support the native ecosystem of the
property.
Located: 2080 Town Harbor Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-65-1-16
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection July llth,
2024, noting that at least 50% of the trees should be Eastern
red cedar.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that at least 50% of the trees are to be Eastern red
cedar.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 7 July 17, 2024
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Cole Environmental on behalf of
KIM & BRETT DOHNAL requests an Administrative Permit to remove
existing rear slate patio; construct a ±12.8 'x55 ' irregular rear
deck using wood or composite, 50 cubic feet to be excavated for
deck footings; steps on north side of deck to lead to ±16'x6'
pebble walk at grade with surrounding 4' fence and ±6'x5.3'
outdoor shower; pebble walk to continue under outdoor shower;
establish non-turf buffer planted with native, non-fertilizer
dependent vegetation as needed.
Located: 1225 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-9
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection July 8th,
2024, noting the non-turf on the bank needs to be relabeled
non-disturbance. Will have further discussion at work session.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the deck is located 20 feet to tidal wetlands where 100-foot
setback is required.
In the event the action is approved, require vegetated
buffer, incorporating existing to preserve water quality in this
low-flow tidal area. Retain trees in the buffer and allow
limbing up. Due to the slope toward the waterbody, design a
sand-sink to capture surface runoff, and verify where the
outdoor shower would drain.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that from the top of the bank seaward be a
non-disturbance buffer, and from the top of the bank to the deck
be a non-turf buffer, and we need plans depicted. And by
granting it a permit and with those conditions, will bring it
into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of
TRACY HELLER & MATTHEW GLASSMAN requests an Administrative
Permit to construct pool-enclosure fencing located less than
100 feet from the top of bluff, as depicted and described on
the site plan prepared by Artemis Landscape Architects, dated
May 17, 2024.
Located: 4995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-11
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection June 30th,
2024, noting okay to install pool fence with new plans,
depicting the fence distance off the top of bank, and a
one-to-one replacement of the native trees to removed during the
project.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that any trees that are to be removed during
construction are to be replaced on a one-to-one basis with
Board of Trustees 8 July 17, 2024
native trees.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IX, Application for Extensions,
Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to
simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 through 6.
Number 1, Martin Finnegan on behalf of JAMES J. & DAWN M.
DEERKOSKI requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#9919, as issued on June 16, 2021.
Located: 260 Deer Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-10-2
Number 2, CHAMPLIN HOLDINGS LLC requests a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit #10217, as issued on September 14,
2022, and Transferred on March 20, 2024.
Located: 1175 Champlin Place, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-4-15
Number 3, STIRLING BASIN LLC requests a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit #10189, as issued July 13, 2022.
Located: 1100 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-5-21
Number 4, Finnegan Law on behalf of AIMEE CODY requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #8254 from Frederick J. Wallerius to
Aimee Cody, as issued on July 17, 2013.
Located: 4230 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-4-24
Number 5, Steven Nieroda of Araiys Design Landscape
Architecture on behalf of 1470 JACKSON STREET, LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9768 for the
as-built 18" high wood terraces (instead of steel) ; as-built
raised planters made of wood (instead of steel) ; as-built stone
steps (instead of steel) on east side of deck; additional
as-built 24" high raised planter on west side of swimming pool;
removal of all non-Dark Sky compliant lighting, all lighting
seaward of fence and within the buffer area; all Dark Sky
compliant landscaping light landward of fence to remain.
Located: 1470 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-10-11
Number 6, ROBERT KELLER requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #4994, as issued May 26, 1999, to
revise the size of the as-built deck to ±253 sq. ft.
Located: 380 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-11
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Moorings/Stake &
Pulley Systems, Number 1, LYNNE NORMANDIA requests a Mooring
Board of Trustees 9 July 17, 2024
Permit for a mooring in Town Creek for a 27-foot Coastal power
boat, replacing mooring #64 . Access: Public
I make a motion to deny this application because one of the
registered owners of the vessel already has a mooring in one of
the 'creeks. So I'll make a motion to deny this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I'll make a motion to approve number 2,
NATHAN GREENE requests a Stake and Pulley System Permit in
Arshamomaque Pond for a 13' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake
#S200. Access: Public
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At
this time I 'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into the Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of 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.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, Number 1, En-Consultants on(
behalf of 500 GLENN ROAD, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #9996 to construct a swimming pool and grade level
masonry patio with pool enclosure fencing, pool drywell and
equipment area; and to modify the location and area of the
15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer (from 1, 687 to 1, 695sq. ft. ) ,
in accordance with the updated wetlands boundary. _
Located: 500 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-23
The Trustees conducted a field inspection July 9th, noting
the application was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application due to the proximity to a New York State DEC
Board of Trustees 10 July 17, 2024
impaired waterbody.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
This is an amendment to an existing permit. There is a
proposed swimming pool and grade-level brick patio, both of
which will be located a minimum of 75 feet from the wetlands
boundary, exceeding the code required setback by 25 feet.
As with the previously-issued permit, there is a 15-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer to be established, which as noted in
the application will actually extend a little closer to the
house, because since the original permit I had updated the
wetlands boundary, so the configuration of that buffer has been
adjusted accordingly.
Otherwise, it is a straightforward application. There is a
pool drywell proposed.
If the Board has any other questions, I can answer them
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. 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 the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, 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 with 4"-12" bedding stone atop
stabilization fabric continuous under revetment; 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; shave back areas of top of bluff to
create a new bluff crest; along new top of bluff, install a 1'
high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff, cover
Board of Trustees 11 July 17, 2024
with one layer of jute matting 0/E; and install and perpetually
maintain a 12 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward
edge of the top of the bluff using native vegetation.
Located: 905 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-11
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
July, noted that the staking should be closer to the toe of the
bluff, and that there were Swallows, a good Swallow population,
nesting in the face of the bluff.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, however
asked that we prohibit the use of boulders occurring on the
beach, prohibit impeding shoreline access from high water mark,
establish survivability rates for planted materials and consider
the tie-in with the shoreline erosion controls on the left and
right of the parcel.
The Conservation Advisory Council inspected the property,
however, did not provide a recommendation due to the extent of
the project and their limited knowledge with the use of terrace
boards on a bluff.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Presentation?
MR. CARR: Yes. Ed Carr, for Taplow Consulting. I'm joined by Tom
Brouillette, the agent for the owner.
Okay, at the last meeting that we had on this a month ago,
the Board had two concerns. One concern was what we were doing
with the vegetation at the top of the bluff. And the second
concern was how much the distance was, and that it was not
reflected on the plans, the current plans back then -- we had
taken this application over -- between the seaward face of the
proposed boulders and the mean high water line.
So we've produced new plans that all of you should have.
These plans would indicate that the distance right now from the
bottom of the bluff to the mean high water line is more or less
around 35 feet, and we are looking to come off about, anywhere
from five feet,, six feet, off of the actual toe of the bluff.
In some cases we'll be at the toe of the bluff.
A lot of it has to do with the contour line up above,
of the ridge. And the reason for that is that we need to
maintain for an engineered solution a 60-degree angle of repose
in order to properly vegetate the cliff. If it's any steeper
than 60 degrees that vegetation will just slide down. Which
means you won't have an engineered solution.
To this point we met with the New York State DEC out at
Stony Brook, Region One. We sat down with the analyst and
people from the Bureau of Marine Habitat. We went over the
plans, and after they looked at it, they indicated to us that
they are willing to approve the proposed rock revetment, and
they are willing to approve the vegetation plan. And in some
places along the ridge they are even allowing us to shave a
small section of the cliff top. ' And you'll see that on your
plans. This is what the DEC is recommending. The reason for that
Board of Trustees 12 July 17, 2024
is the DEC recognizes that this concave area, in some
areas, is unstable, and it' s just going to come down anyway.
And if it does come down, it's going to wipe out all the
vegetation below it. So it's going to be ineffective.
So the DEC has recommended that we remove this and shave
this area, provided that we re-vegetate it, and get back with
the proposed berm, five feet wide, one-foot high, all natural
vegetation. And that we maintain the 60-degree angle of repose
for this engineered solution.
We had a licensed New York State surveyor come out and mark
the seaward face of where the revetment would be to the mean
high water line. Some of this is going on the back side of the
existing structures that are down there. We were able to do
that and still maintain the 60-degree angle.
And the last point I should make, which I think is
important, is that in order to maintain that 60-degree angle we
did the least expansion that we could get away with. In other
words we were not very liberal in where we put these stakes
down. We were the most conservative we could be to retain a
flat beach to the mean high water line. And that's for future
public egress.
I know that in most of the deeds, the properties go to the
mean high water line. The mean high water line is actually the
delineation between private upland property and then property
below mean high water, which is where the property can
transverse the beach. It's owned by New York state.
That' s the true property line, but we recognize in an area
with erosion that you want to have sufficient level beach for
future erosion, to work its way back and to not have a situation
where people are confronted with rock some day in the future.
So, again, we were very conservative where these stakes
were put. They were put at that minimum'area to achieve that 60
degrees. And we'd respectfully ask for you to approve this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. The one concern of the Board was
the Bluff Swallows. Are they on this property or are they on
the adjacent?
MR. CARR: They are on this property, and the DEC is well aware
of that. What the Bureau of Marine Habitat said is that they
would give us permission to install just the revetment, going up
to a height of six or seven feet. Not anything above that. And
then once the Swallows matured and they've left their nests,
then sometime in the Fall they would allow us to come back and
put down the proposed 40 cubic yards of fill, and do the
re-vegetation then, long after the Swallows were gone.
So this would actually be split into a two-phase project.
The DEC' s permit would have a condition, we would be able to do
Phase One first, which is the rock on the bottom, and then come
back for, from elevation six foot up to 40 feet, or whatever the
top of the bluff is, in the Swallow area.
Board of Trustees 13 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have that DEC permit yet?
MR. CARR: It's imminent, to be issued. And those conditions
will be on there. And if you are kind enough to approve this
tonight subject to the DEC permit being issued and those
conditions as I described on the record, contained in the DEC
permit, that would be appropriate, because they will be there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just have one other question. This was
going to be part of a bigger project that tied into at least one
of the other neighbors.
MR. CARR: There is one neighbor, adjacent neighbor, at 905
Aquaview. This property being discussed tonight is at 955 and at
905 -- I'm sorry, I have them backwards. 955. And 905 is the
one that -- thank you, Tom. It's confusing sometimes.
That will also be submitted, or has been submitted, and we
are asking the Board to consider that as an emergency, only
because if get on the regular schedule and it' s discussed in
September, October, the cliff seems to be changing every two
weeks. Every time there is a rainstorm there is another small
piece of it that comes down, because at this point it's just
naked sand. There is no vegetation holding anything up, and
there is a lot of water weight and hydrostatic pressure.
So in other words, the damage that is occurring every ten
days, a week, when another piece comes off, is not due to storm
or sea conditions, it's strictly due to a two-inch rainfall,
soaks up into the cliff, and then just the sheer weight, with
the fact you have absolutely no vegetative protection on the
slope, it' s just allowing loose sand 40-feet high, on steep
angle, to slowly shed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some would argue that' s just a natural process
of erosion and, you know, lateral beach movement.
MR. CARR: The DEC discussed that with us, and what they had said
is that' s why they did not support or approve hardened
shorelines. And "hardened" is, the definition of that is, ten
years ago they would allow somebody to put up 15-feet of solid
rock, far exceeding the 2.5 tons per square foot. And what
Robert Marsh, who is one of the people we met at the DEC, he's a
manager, very senior person there, that said that what the DEC
supports, I 'm paraphrasing his comments, is to have maybe a
six-foot high rock revetment that would protect the toe during a
catastrophic storm event, like a two or three-time a year storm,
when you get these ten-foot white caps rolling in, to protect
the bluff. Knowing that some pieces of the bluff are still
going to come down. And the DEC is okay with that. But that's
small scarring which will feed some sand into the beach for
littoral flow and littoral nourishment.
So DEC doesn't want a total block of clastic material
coming off the cliffs and getting entrained in long shore
currents. They want to make sure you have cliff material that
feed a healthy beach. At the same time they don't want to see
something completely exposed and left open like this, especially
Board of Trustees 14 July 17, 2024
since a lot of this sand really isn't sand, it's probably 50%
clay, which create turbidity in the water and really is
unsuitable for beach nourishment, if you want to look at it that
way.
So it's sort of finding a hybrid solution that lets some
material come off the cliff, but not enough to be catastrophic,
and it really slows this erosive process down, to still feed the
beach while still to some degree giving homeowners adequate time
to eventually retreat their homes, or whatever happens decades
from now in the future.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I know that you've mentioned concerns about the
increased deterioration of the bluff, and I do want to just make
a note that this Board did grant an emergency permit in order to
utilize sandbags.
MR. CARR: Yes, we had looked at the sandbag option, and the
issue with that is that's really protective for storm activity.
And since we are into, a month ago, into late Spring, and we
thought to ourselves, we have four or five months ahead of us,
it didn't seem to make sense to take advantage of that courtesy
that you were extending to us, just because if we can get the
stone in place, again, the bluff right now not suffering from
any storm damage. It's just from a two-inch rainfall that
happens every ten days, and water saturation in an un-vegetated
cliff, the sandbags would really be ineffective at this point.
Unless this goes into October, November, December and nothing is
done, then we'd need sandbags.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I just wanted to address it. We did sort
of address the concern and the need for something as quickly as
possible to assist in this location.
MR. CARR: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It also sounds like regardless of our action
this evening you will have to wait to vegetate the bluff, so
the testimony that it's an emergency that you have this as soon
as possible is not exactly accurate since you are not suffering
from storm damage at the moment.
MR CARR: Well, we're hoping the Bank Swallows will be gone by
August, late August, and if the stone is done in the next few
weeks and we can take a few weeks off and then immediately start
on the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the process when the Swallows return to
the habitat?
MR. CARR: My understanding is the Swallows will nest in open
scarring, and there is plenty of open scarring in East Marion
and other areas along the north shore of Southold. And at some
point this is re-vegetated and you get small pockets opening up,
two to three-feet wide by ten-foot high, or something like that.
These, again, are expected. That's what the DEC said. It' s the
entire cliff at this point, all 120 linear feet by 40 feet, is
almost exposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I certainly understand the need for
Board of Trustees 15 July 17, 2024
protecting the property here. But the way I see it, you know,
the project could potentially move forward with no disturbance
to the swallow area and just do toe stone, or I would need to
see additional data to support the concept of, you know,
re-engineering the Swallow habitat area.
So I kind of leave that up to you.
MR. CARR: I'm not sure, are you asking us to -- any time cliffs
are re-vegetated, the Swallows will always find small pockets.
If you just have exposed sand the size of a beach ball, a
Swallow will burrow in and make a hole in that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, if you have some data to support that
tonight, we can have that conversation, but I don't see anything
along those lines.
MR. CARR: Before the cliff started sliding, when it was mostly
vegetated, maybe 95% vegetated, there are always pockets you're
going to find of exposed sand. The Swallows, certainly in this
area, they are all along the north shore. This is a very unusual
area right now, and the fact the entire cliff is exposed, the
rate of, the percentage of vegetation to exposed sand is
probably 15% vegetated and 85% exposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would actually disagree with you there,
having hiked this whole area. This is pretty common at this
point, with the current erosion rates.
So, again, I would say, if it would work for your project,
to condition not to disturb the area where the Swallows are
nesting, and still proceed with the toe stone, or do you want to
come back with some data to support the fact that --
MR. CARR: Well, I think ideally what we would prefer is
permission to install the toe stone and then conformance with
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
conservation conditions on our permit, which are that no --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You did ask for that and then I said what I
said, so.
MR. CARR: Okay, well, I think we would like to have the
vegetation. If we just do the toe stone with no vegetation,
eventually this is going to come down and you are just going to
have a bunch of rock that are buried by landslides of sand. So
the engineered solution is to stabilize this unstable condition
with vegetation. And we feel if we do that in accordance with
New York State DEC requirements, meaning the DEC is fully
onboard with this engineered solution, we believe that's a
reasonable request for the Board of Trustees to entertain.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, you don't have that DEC permit in hand
yet, with those conditions.
MR. CARR: No. It' s imminent. But again, we would ask if you
could give us permission, conditional on the DEC permit with
those specific conditions, because otherwise we would have to
wait for this permit to be issued, and I have to come back here
next month where we should have the permit in hand and basically
repeat exactly what I've done tonight.
Board of Trustees 16 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would also add, as an aside to the Bluff
Swallows, I think in nearly a decade of doing this, we've never
approved a revetment outside of the toe of the bluff. Certainly
not at this distance.
I mean, to the right of the structure where that deck is
built, the staking is at a reasonable distance where the toe is
probably lost within the last few weeks or even month. East of
that structure we are over 20 feet out away from the toe of the
bluff, and I can't recall, can you, in a decade, ever approving
a project like that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No. And as Trustee Krupski pointed out, those
structures that have been there for a long, long time, are
obviously seaward of the toe of the bluff.
Now, with the staking, you are putting them in line with
the toe of the bluff. So you are, you know, taking over the
beach and the wetland to try to get the angle that you are
requesting. But historically, that toe of the bluff was
landward of those structures.
MR. CARR: So I guess the Board's objection is you feel the toe --
the proposed stakes we put in are too seaward, is that you are
saying?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Correct. It should match the existing toe of
the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we understand your desired outcome of
trying to hit that 60-degree angle. I just, once -- the
practice of this Board has been, and typically DEC, which is why
I'm very surprised and I would be happy to call Mr. Marsh
tomorrow and have a conversation to try to figure out where they
were headed with it, has not been to reclaim what was lost,
aside from, you know, a catastrophic event.
MR. CARR: No, we are not looking to reclaim any land. This is
strictly an engineered solution to achieve the 60 degrees.
That's all that is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: By you going out further seaward will have an
effect on the neighboring properties on either side. That' s one
of the things we have to take into consideration as well.
MR. CARR: Okay, so where does this leave us then? Is there --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I would say, realistically, that a DEC
permit might help, but again, I have not approved anything that
far away from the toe of a bluff in nearly a decade.
So, personally, I think you should go back to talk to the
client and go back to the drawing board on this. But we can
proceed with a vote. You can try a re-design. I don't know if
the rest of the Board has thoughts.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In studying the project and the surveys, the
ten-foot contour line that's on the proposed plan seems to
conform with the approximate toe of the bluff.
Is that your reading of it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Affirmative nod) .
Board of Trustees 17 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Which would take your straight rock revetment
and require it to curve inwards at certain points, inflect
inwards, landward of where it' s currently proposed, to conform
more with the natural curve of the shoreline.
MR. BROUILLETTE: Thomas Brouillette here, owner' s
representative.
We do have the surveys and we do have stakes laid out on
the surveys, if you would like us to submit those. It does,
they do actually follow the curve that you are referring to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that might be, I mean we do our best to
judge the plans and compare it, line up with the field. So if
that's the case, really it comes down to the staking on the
eastern side of the project, is aggressively seaward. Or what I
would deem aggressively seaward.
MR. BROUILLETTE: Because when we had the surveyor go out there,
what we told him was we wanted to be tight as we could to maintain
that 60 degrees and, you know, we were allowed to cut, according
to the DEC, the higher bluff that has collapsed. But the other one
it would not make sense to cut because it' s already at an angle
of repose. So where that angle of repose puts us is where those
stakes are, according to the surveyors.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand the logic of how we got there,
certainly. I appreciate what you guys are trying to do, certainly.
MR. BROUILLETTE: Yeah, we're not trying to take back anything.
I don't know of another way, honestly, to work and do that thing
where we are making an un-engineered solution. I honestly don't
know how to do it, from a contracting standpoint.
MR. CARR: I can submit a letter from the surveyor with the
survey's marks, with the stakes on it, if you would like. If I
can approach and give it to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can you certainly give it to us, but again,
I think we are still discussing we don't move revetments away
from the toe of the bluff. And I think we are talking in
circles now.
So would you like to proceed with the hearing, would you
like to table and, you know, have another field visit, or go
back to the drawing board? I think that' s the point where we are
at with the hearing.
MR. CARR: I think we table to next month and request another
field visit and we'll have the surveyor out there, if you are
able to accommodate us on your, I think your field date is
August 7th, if I remember.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Correct.
MR. CARR: We'll have the licensed surveyor there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, we do understand the concept of what you
are trying to achieve and, you know, need you to understand the
concept of we are trying to achieve here, so.
MR. CARR: Right. It just doesn't make sense for us to move
something arbitrarily inward if it's not going to create an
engineered solution, and we are going to have steeper that 60
Board of Trustees 18 July 17, 2024
degrees, because ultimately that vegetation is just going to
come down. It' s going to be ineffective, and we have a home at
the top that will be destabilized.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we are at a point in the history here where
we are seeing advanced storms and erosion, and we have to
practice coastal retreat, and that comes down to revetments,
docks, houses, pools, everything.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, you know, we can't reengineer the entire
bluff, especially to a spot where it never was historically.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. I think from this image you can see
where the steps were, and the bluff was very vegetated prior to
this. So to move, you know, the toe of the bluff all the way
out there beyond where the stairs are is a big ask, and
historically has never been there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I also think this Board has looked at projects
in East Marion, as a matter of fact, where the neighbors did
join together as a group and created a more cohesive project.
So I think right now you are asking us to look at one project.
You indicated that there may be something in the future.
So I think also pulling some of that information together
would be helpful for this Board to then look at this whole area,
or at least a conglomeration of this area versus just one single
entity. Because the impact of what you currently have proposed
and designed would have an impact on the neighboring and
adjacent properties. So that would be something to consider as
well.
MR. CARR: Okay. All right, we'll ask it be tabled to next month
because it' s voted on and the hearing is closed and it sounds
like we don't have the votes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this hearing?
(No response) .
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to table the
hearing at the applicant' s request.
MR. CARR: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Docko, Inc.
on behalf of U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL
DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit to restore the east
face of the central wharf by installing 250+/-LF of new steel
bulkhead undersheeting landward of the Apparent High Water line,
install 28+/-LF of bulkhead oversheeting including associated
wales, brace piles and tie-backs, waterward of the Apparent High
Water line; existing bulkhead to be removed as undersheeting
proceeds; install 12 four pile, wood and composite pile fenders,
Board of Trustees 19 July 17, 2024
refurbish and reinstall a passenger ramp at tis same location,
waterward of the Apparent High Water line; adapt existing fuel
transfer equipment and piping to the new bulkhead facilities;
remove and replace existing wood decked steel framed hinged
loading ramp, concrete landing pad, new sloped access walkway
for concrete header 18 inches high than the existing ramp;
restore existing pave approaches, vehicle travel ways and
crushed stone non-turf buffer between new bulkhead and the
replacement pavement to transition to existing grades.
Located: Plum Island, N.Y. SCTM# 1000-132-1-30
The LWRP found this project to be consistent with its
policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council, for obvious reasons,
was not able to make an inspection, and therefore no
recommendation was made."
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes. Keith Nielson, from Docko. We are representing
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center tonight, and I would like
to go very briefly through the project.
As you may recall, almost a decade ago, we had a partial
collapse of the bulkhead at the center, right over here on the
east shore of the center wharf, and at that point immediate
repairs were made, and it was acknowledged there was some damage
to the remaining bulkhead which runs to the point and then down
the westerly edge of that center wharf. And so this project is
now to complete the restoration of the bulkhead that was started
ten years ago.
The photograph that you have there shows both the Plum
Island vehicle ferry toward the southwesterly edge of the west
inlet, and it shows one of the high-speed motor ferries at this
bulkhead. That high-speed ferry berths in this area, and there
is a built-in adjustable hinged ramp that provides access to the
boat.
In pre-design subsurface exploration it was found that some
of the tieback rods are deteriorated, suffering from the sand
electrolysis that caused the initial failure ten years ago.
So the project that we have put together this time builds
on the previous project. We are going to be back-sheathing the
existing steel sheet-pile bulkhead, so the new bulkhead will be
behind the existing facility.
In order to do that, we will be excavating behind the
existing bulkhead. Between the two there are several bulkheads
that have been built there since, in the last 70 years. And the
new bulkhead will go immediately behind the existing bulkhead.
We've got various details in the documents that show the
construction method and what we believe the final configuration
will be.
With the new bulkhead running this .area right in here, it
becomes an external bulkhead when you make the bend around into
Board of Trustees 20 July 17, 2024
the maneuvering area for the large heavy vehicles slip, which is
this area up here. And in your diagram, it's the lightest color
ramp on the western harbor.
Like I said, we have details outlining the extent of the
repair, which I think are adequate for you to really visualize
this project.
The bulkhead will cut across the pedestrian exit ramp. That
ramp will be rebuilt and replaced. The area is going to be
filled slightly in order to accommodate sea level rise and
continued operations at the site.
Right now the existing ramp is about a foot-and-a-half too
low for proper operations. We show the tie-back system for the
bulkhead. All of this will be in the heavily-utilized wharf
frontage.
There are no resources, natural environmental resources in
this area. This is completely developed. And when the work is
completed there will be a non-vegetated strip of crushed stone
immediately behind the bulkhead. All of the utilities are going
to be relocated into the underside of the cap, which is also
shown in the details, and that should eliminate some of the
electrolysis, which has been so damaging to these facilities in
the past.
This is, like I said, a fully-developed shoreline. The
backfill that is, the existing bulkhead backfill is going to be
salvaged and reutilized in the project, and we will have a
turbidity curtain around the entire site, which runs from here
all the way around to the bulkhead that was restored ten years
ago. Five to ten years ago.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
This is a much-needed project. It' s a little bit defensive
because of the state of the tie-back system, but we want to do
something before anything gets worse.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Mr. Nielson. Are you able to
speak to the level of concern you have for sea level rise in
this area, or the range that you are projecting?
MR. NIELSON: Well, that's under debate. Let me think. But in
Connecticut there has been quite a bit of research and
prediction of sea level rise. It appears that in the next 20
years, we are going to see a sea level rise of somewhere of a
half a foot to a foot.
I have been working as a coastal engineer now for 35 years,
and I have seen a rise of sea level of at least six inches.
About four or five years ago there was a jump in the sea level
rise that was, I asked a local oceanographer what could have
caused that. Because it was not only -- at first I thought that
I had been too casual in some of my observations, but when the
oceanographer said that there had been a partial ice sheet
collapse in Antarctica, an ice sheet about the size of
Connecticut, that it caused a noticeable, not instantaneous, but
Board of Trustees 21 July 17, 2024
very quick and uniform rise in sea level rise in the area, and
most of us who make a living at this saw it. We observed it.
And while I 'm not a professional oceanographer doing studies on
this, in 35 years I have seen six to nine inches of change. And
so we are not treating it as -- we are treating it as a real
threat.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for your observations and data on
that.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding the
project on Plum Island?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no one further who wishes to speak, I make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, and thank the federal government for coming before
the Board with this project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT
F. SPITZENBERG, Jr. requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
two-story dwelling with existing seaward side deck and steps;
proposed unenclosed front porch with steps over existing
concrete porch; and to perpetually maintain the existing 10'
wide non-turf buffer .located along the landward edge of the
bulkhead.
Located: 375 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on July 9th
noting drywells should be added for the house. And I do have
new plans stamped received July 15th depicting those drywells.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be both
inconsistent and exempt. The inconsistency is that the deck
structure was constructed without a Wetlands permit, and the
structure is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, and the screen
porch addition is exempt, according to LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support the application as submitted.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
It is a reasonably minor and straightforward project. I
don't have anything to add to what is in the written application
Board of Trustees 22 July 17, 2024
unless the Board has any questions.
We did revise the site plan to show the drywells, and
submitted those.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for the plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and by issuing a Trustee permit will thereby be
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
on behalf of ROBERTA F. JAKLEVIC requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace in-place the existing bulkhead using vinyl
sheathing and raise the height an additional 26" to match
existing bulkhead; and backfill with clean sand from an upland
source.
Located: 900 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-21.2
The Trustees most recently visited the site on July 8th,
2024, and made the following notes:
A 15-foot non-turf buffer with all existing vegetation to
remain. Stop dumping grass.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent, and noted
that turbidity controls are required.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer landward of the
bulkhead.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting, as agent for the applicant.
The only comment that I have about your recommendation is
there are two Chokecherry trees right along the bank that is
very eroded. They are in really bad shape, and I think when they
go to put the tie rods in, or whatever they use to fill up the
bulkhead, they are going to die. And I just ask, we can deal
with the buffer that you've recommended, and I've already spoken
to the homeowner and they are going to talk to the landscaper
about dumping the grass clipping. But those two Chokecherry trees
are just not going to make it.
Board of Trustees 23 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Would you be willing to replace those two
trees that you are removing?
MR. JUST: There' s a really nice stand of woods right there,
behind the bulkhead. Most of the trees are nine to 12 inches
big. I mean, if need be, we can put something else in there, a
couple cedar trees, something like that. But it's pretty
heavily vegetated, as you can see in the photo there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for bringing that to our
attention.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just concur with, I don't see the
need to replace those on a one-to-one basis due to all the other
trees in the area. It's pretty well-vegetated as is.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(No 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 condition of a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer; that
all existing vegetation is to remain; and no grass clippings or
yard waste to be disposed of within the creek; and turbidity
controls to be used during construction. Subject to new plans
depicting the following. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Be well.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. You as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of JOSEPH & CAROLYN FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit
to remove and dispose of 14 ' of existing bulkhead and construct
14 ' of new vinyl bulkhead in-place.
Located: Property off of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport SCTM# 1000-35-7-1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection July 9th, 2024,
noting it was straightforward and the need for a ten-foot buffer.
The LWRP found this project to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant, just
here to answer any questions. It's as straightforward as it gets.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I see on the plans you have a walking path
through the phragmites. So we would just look for a ten-foot
vegetated buffer, which could be those phragmites, with a
Board of Trustees 24 July 17, 2024
four-foot path.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, the whole piece of property can be a buffer.
We just need the walking path. There is not much there. It' s
only 14-feet wide, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any other questions or comments on the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of a ten-foot buffer with
four-foot path to access the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, BRIDGET LEIGH PETERSEN & NICHOLAS
ANDREW COUTTS request a Wetland Permit to construct an in-ground
swimming pool with pool patio surround, pool enclosure fencing
with gates, pool drywell, and pool equipment area; relocate
existing shed 10' off of side yard property line; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-fertilization/non-disturbance buffer area along the landward
edge of the wetlands.
Located: 380 Deer Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-10-3
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th
of July and noted there should be a ten-foot vegetated buffer
landward of the fence.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
stems from the pool setback, the drywell dewatering well are too
close to the poorly-flushed marine waterbody.
It is recommended that the distance from the wetland to the
drywell will be maximized.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the project. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application due to the proximity of the wetlands. The patio
is not in compliance, and there is a concern with depth of
groundwater.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be noted that in the field the
Trustees recommended a non-turf buffer vegetated landward of the
fence for further protecting that waterbody seaward of the
existing fence recommended non-disturbance area not to be
touched.
Board of Trustees 25 July 17, 2024
(Perusing diagrams at the dais) .
Okay, hearing no public comments, I make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of new plans to show pool on-grade, ten-foot
non-turf vegetated buffer landward of the fence, non-disturbance
area seaward of the fence, thereby bringing it into consistency
with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, AMP Architecture on behalf of ERIKA
& CHRISTOPHER WERSHOVEN requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing dwelling and to construct renovations to both the
one-story portion and second-story portion; existing,
second-story deck to be fixed in-kind as necessary; proposed
brick patching to existing brick patio; remove existing sanitary
system and install a new I/A OWTS system; and install four (4)
drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 3150 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-19
The Trustees visited the site on the 9th of July. Notes
from that visit read: Non-disturbance buffer, move seaward most
drywell.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent.
The structure was constructed without a Wetlands permit;
portions of the structure are located within FEMA flood zone
AE-EI six foot.
The Conservation Advisory Council of the Town of Southold
resolved to support the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
In regards to, the FEMA line does run through the existing
home, but the current finished floor is at 8 .1, which is over
the design flood elevation, so there would be no need to raise
the home.
We are basically proposing mostly interior work. There are
windows that are being removed, and larger openings that are
being constructed.
The roof and the siding will be patched. We are not going
to be removing and replacing. So just the areas that there's
closing up of walls due to closing up of windows, we'll be
patching those areas to match siding in-kind.
There is an existing ten-foot sand buffer at the existing
bulkhead that can be seen on the survey provided. Exterior work
really is mostly, I guess the biggest disturbance is the new
drywells that we are proposing, and the new sanitary system.
Board of Trustees 26 July 17, 2024
There is a little bit of I guess a hardship at the location
of the new sanitary system due to how much front yard space we
have, so we are proposing it under the gravel, the proposed
gravel driveway, that won't be a part of this application.
Currently the application has been submitted to the Health
Department. We have to submit $990 to them to basically provide
us with an approval to put the system under the driveway, and
the Board' s approval is also required. That's the last two
comments.
DEC has approved this application as well.
So I think in regards to the sanitary work, where there is
a cesspool now, we putting in a new IA system, which I think is
beneficial. And also the drywells, all the leaders will be put
into the drywell.
If there are any further questions, I can answer them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Our notes from the field are simply to
reestablish the non-disturbance buffer. Some of the grass is
grown in there. I know this image depicts some sand shown along
that edge, but just to reestablish a proper non-turf buffer
along that seaward edge, I think it' s ten feet. And to move the
seaward-most drywell on the plans that you submitted to us on
May 10, 2024.
We just noticed the proposed drywell, maybe it's possible
to move that further landward. Those are my concerns.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I'm just looking at maybe where that
drywell can be located. I could actually move it probably to
the front yard. I think we'd get ten feet from the waterline.
Yes. So I don't think that's a problem. We can move that one
to the front.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of my other concerns, because we've had
this recently where we have a pretty straightforward addition to
a modest home, and then they wipe out all the native vegetation
and trees on the property.
Can you speak to what is going to happen with this
property?
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. There is no proposed addition to the home,
so the footprint is staying. The patio is staying. But like I
said, the only thing is really the excavating for the new septic
and the drywells.
So I don't think there is, I mean, I think if I look at our
plan, we do lay out the existing tree locations, we don't plan
on removing any of those. We'd like to try to excavate and not
interfere with it. So that was part of our thinking on the
location of the drywells. So no plans to do anything like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And please remind the applicant that if any
trees are looking to be removed, it would require a letter from
our office.
MR. PORTILLO: 1000.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thanks
Board of Trustees 27 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the public
or the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no one further wishing to speak, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application,
with the reestablishment of the non-disturbance buffer depicted
on the plans, and to remove the seaward-most drywell landward of
its current location, with new plans depicting those changes.
And by granting this permit we'll be bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board, have a good night.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
PLANS RECEIVED 7/15/2024 Cole Environmental Services on behalf
of CHRISTOPHER ROSS TRUST-2015 & MICHELLE ROSS TRUST-2015
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dwelling and to
construct a 2nd story addition; raise the first floor elevation
to 13' ; proposed addition to existing basement with new concrete
landing for egress door with excavated fill to be used for new
I/A system; remove Bilco door; existing front stairs to be
removed and reconstructed with an irregular shaped deck; new
stepping stone path; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain roof runoff; raise existing rear deck to match new
elevation; rear deck at grade to be removed and area to be
planted with native vegetation; replace outdoor shower; rear
walk to be removed; abandon existing septic and install a new
I/A sanitary system in front yard with new 4 ' high concrete
retaining walls along the side yard property lines with native
vegetation planted to screen the retaining walls within property
lines where possible; remove existing vinyl sheds; replace
existing waterline; replace existing A/C condenser to be on
pedestals; new above ground propane tank; and a 4 ' wide
permeable access path to beach to remain; and add native
vegetation.
Located: 3340 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-21
The Trustees most recently visited the site on July 9th,
2024, noting question the need for retaining walls, and
demolition, question mark.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. Portions of the structure are located within FEMA
Flood Zone X. Flood hazard structure in these at-risk areas
should be minimized. What is the setback distance to the tidal
Board of Trustees 28 July 17, 2024
wetland.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support it.
And I am in receipt of several letters from the immediate
neighbors in support of the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Good evening. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, agent
for the applicant.
This is a straightforward raising of a house, and an
addition, staying all within the same footprint. We are
abandoning the existing sanitary system on the seaward side of
the house, and we are installing a new IA system on the landward
side of the house, as far away from the water and the wetlands
as possible.
We are removing an at-grade deck on the seaward side and
adding additional vegetation on that side. And we are removing
some sheds on the street side.
I did want to mention that based on our discussions onsite,
we did remove the retaining wall for the drywell that was
proposed. And in the project description it notes a four-foot
high retaining wall that is four foot at the gravel driveway.
It's not four feet along the side of the property. That's just
a clerical error on that end.
And I also have the architect and the attorney who has
gotten the variance, and we're here to answer any additional
questions.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Can you confirm the actual height of the
retaining wall, then?
MR. COLE: Two feet on the side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Now, while this Board completely
understands the desire to raise the home, typically what we like
to see in areas like this that get destroyed during big storms,
is the house should be raised up onto piles. Is that something
that the applicant considered?
MR. COLE: Here is the architect, Kate Samuels.
MS. SAMUELS: So I have been working with Chris and Michele Ross
for about two years on this project. We went through a number
of revisions and alterations to the plans, trying to conform
with some of the ideas of the Board.
And we did look at piles, however the existing foundation
is CME block, so looking at this we thought that actually kind
of creating a larger foundation in this area with poured
concrete would be more beneficial than removing the existing CME
block and adding piles at this point. So not only raising the
finished floor two feet but we are also adding this poured
concrete foundation for structural integrity of the house.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: What is the intended use of the new first
floor?
MS. SAMUELS: So, with the use of the first floor?
Board of Trustees 29 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, the ground level floor.
MS. SAMUELS: Okay, the basement. So our original plans had
living space there, but through discussions with the Trustees
and your Board, we decided to make it completely non-habitable
space. So at this point it would be non-habitable space as long
as a mechanical space as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, can you say the last part again.
MS. SAMUELS: There is a mechanical space as well in that
non-habitable basement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think some of the concern is, because we've
spent a lot of time on this road in the last few years, and just
two houses away the septic systems are exposed every time there
is a, not even a major hurricane, just a decent-sized storm. So
we just had a coastal professional testify how he's seen sea
level raise go up six inches throughout his career, and we
talked about some projections, and some are lower, some are
higher.
In all fairness, is this sort of, this house is at the
transitional area of this road where we really go from sort of
uplands to beach front. And I think it' s a little concerning to
try to go with a basement in this location. Just because, for
the future, but not just of the Trustees and the Town, but also
of your client, that I think the bay might be knocking at the
door sooner than we'd like.
MS. SAMUELS: So because we are, you know, raising the finished
floor two feet, that basement level is pretty much consistent to
the existing basement level. So that was kind of one reason to
either get, you know, more mechanical space so we are not using
the interior of the first floor for that mechanical space.
Those are also going to be, mechanical areas will be raised
on piers in the basement, as well as, you know, just
structurally, making those concrete foundations be more sturdy
than, you know, a pier would be. Those are really the reasons
that we decided to add a foundation here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the mechanical space now?
MS. SAMUELS: Well, the mechanical space, there's one on the
first floor, then there is, I believe there is a propane tank on
the side yard.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Can you go into a little more detail on how
you are able to remove the retaining wall on the side of the
house?
MS. SAMUELS: So there is a current retaining wall of one foot, a
wood retaining wall at this point. We are not removing that
retaining wall. We are adding a concrete retaining wall that is
two feet on the side yard. And then I think we discussed onsite
removing it past the house portion. So on your updated plans
you'll see not next to the drywell, um, we removed that
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the house to the east -- actually two
questions about the neighboring property there. Is that house on
Board of Trustees 30 July 17, 2024
piles or does it have a basement?
MS. SAMUELS: That, I believe, has a basement. That is the
owner' s family' s property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And that house has a full basement?
MS. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. And does that house, immediately
adjacent, does that have access to the waterfront?
MS. SAMUELS: To the right-hand side?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. SAMUELS: That has access to the waterfront, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That deeded property goes down to the water?
MS. SAMUELS: Yes.
MR. ROSS: May I approach?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just state your name for the record.
MR. ROSS: Christopher Ross, homeowner.
The property to the east has waterfront access on the
creek, Deep Hole Creek, which is behind the homes. It does not
have access to the bay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. COLE: So the house directly to the east of that is not
technically a waterfront home. And I did want to mention that
this house, our client's house, is basically behind a hill, a
nicely-vegetated hill that has bayberry. and beach grass, so it
is protected more so than some of the other ones further down
closer to the beach area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you mean the dune; it' s behind the dune?
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, just for the record, it was not that
long ago where there was a healthy dune in front of the
remaining houses to the east there, and the bay came up quickly
and they bring equipment down after every storm to recover the
sanitary systems, so.
MR. COLE: So we're addressing the sanitary systems on the
seaward side by replacing them with the new I/A sanitary system
and putting it as far away from the water as possible.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to verify, the Building Department did
not consider this a demolition?
MR. COLE: That' s correct. Our architect spoke with the Building
Department and it' s not considered a demo.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 31 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions:
This has been deemed not to be a demolition by the Building
Department, as just stated. If during construction it becomes a
demolition at any point, this permit that we are issuing will no
longer be valid and a new permit and review would be required.
In addition, we will require the retaining walls not to
exceed two feet, and new plans depicting that.
And a Trustee inspection halfway through construction.
And by issuing a permit we will thereby bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Sepenoski, aye. Trustee
Gillooly, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Truste,e Krupski, nay) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THE
CATHERINE A. QUINN IRREVOCABLE TRUST, c/o MICHELLE A. QUINN,
TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing ramp,
fixed dock, and steps in same location and dimensions as
existing using thru-flow decking; construct fixed dock extension
with "T" section, both using thru-flow decking; install ladder
on "T" section of fixed dock.
Located: 1150 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-13
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The Trustees most recently visited the site
July 9th of 2024, and noted seems within the pier line.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent with Policy
6.3, and made the following note:
Although Wetlands permit 5021 for the dock was issued in
1999, the water depth at the end of dock is now 1.24 and 1.7 to
1.09 at mean low water and insufficient. Bottom impacts may
occur from motorized vehicles during tidal fluctuations.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
Application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
As mentioned, the project here is an existing permitted
dock. The goal is to extend it out a little bit further to get
some additional water depth for boat dockage. It's going to be
a fixed pier, no floating dock, and plans are straightforward as
far as meeting the pier line and meeting the width requirements.
And I do currently have a New York State DEC permit for the work
with this proposed project.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for letting us know.
Is there anyone else here 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 GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 32 July 17, 2024
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and with the, thereby granting it a permit, and noting
that the catwalk and pier are fixed, it brings it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
JENNIFER MAYE & JOHN BERNHARD JR. request a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed dock with fixed dock "T" section using
thru-flow decking for entire dock; establish and maintain a 4 '
wide path through wetlands with mulch or gravel to access
proposed pier.
Located: 2285 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection July 9th, 2024.
Notes read: Dial the dock back; relocate structure closer to
the property line to mitigate dock over wetlands and upland
plants; keep 15 feet off the property line.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are: The water depth at the end of the dock is
insufficient, at 1.77 feet to 1. 93 feet mean low water; the
navigable area in upper reach of the Mud Creek is limited;
bottom benthic impacts from motors are expected.
The Conservation Advisory Council says the proposed project
was not staked and due to lack of detail the Conservation
Advisory Council could not make a determination.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
I have no problem moving the proposed project or the
proposed dock a little bit further to the south. When I staked
it, and you were, the Trustees were there, and they saw the
stake that we set. There is that existing clearing that they
are utilizing as their pathway. That is, the location is very
close and proximate to here. We had that big tree that
overhangs, if you recall.
So the proposed location makes sense for the site so we
don't have to do any clearing. There is no wetlands in that
area, in that pathway. We can scale it back a little bit, I
would say we can scale it back, because I would like to get at
least a foot-and-a-half of water depth. And I can perhaps pull
it back the width of the T-section, which is four feet, and the
width of the steps. So approximately eight feet back landward of
the existing, which would give us about a foot-and-a-half of
water for dockage of a small boat. And it is a fixed pier.
DEC did review this, um, they only had one comment, and
their only comment is to extend out the, they actually, they
want us to extend the pier landward so that there is no walking
Board of Trustees 33 July 17, 2024
on the beach. So the possibility of allowing vegetation to grow
on the beach area.
So we will have a revised submission, now that I'm thinking
about it, to extend the dock landward. But concurrently when I
do that, are you acceptable, well, what are your thoughts on
reducing the seaward length of the dock by eight feet and
extending it landward?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I personally don't have an issue going
further landward with the proposed dock, especially over that
sandy area. It seems like there is a natural path to it.
I'm a little confused, looks like they hydrographiced the
whole Mud Creek, so there's a lot of numbers on here.
MR. PATANJO: Don't look at that one. Look at the blowup plan.
You can actually read that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But as we discussed, if we pull this back
and pushed the dock further to the southeast, it seems like you
would have the same water depth basically as you are proposing.
Again, kind of hard, but you are in 1.45 to 1. 93. There are
certain sections to the southeast that's 1.39 to 1. 91. So on
the bigger hydrographic survey. So since you have to get
something from the DEC anyway, maybe it would be better to
re-stake it further to the southeast, with the' starting point on
the land, as well as a shorter location out in the water, and
then we can review that in concurrence with the DEC.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. So looking at it from the water, if you are
standing there looking out, you want to shift it over to the
right, a little closer to that tree, kind of angle it over?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, that sandy path all the way to the
right.
MR. PATANJO: No problem. We can do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
MR. PATANJO: Do I have to table?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You can table.
MR. PATANJO: I request the applicant would like to table the
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, I'll make a motion to table the
application at the applicant' s request, to re-stake it at a
shorter distance so the Board can review it during our next
field inspection.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, David Bergen on behalf of ANASSAS,
LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the existing paver patio along
bulkhead, concrete patio, and retaining wall along east property
line; replace in-place existing bulkhead and a portion of
Board of Trustees 34 July 17, 2024
retaining wall using vinyl sheathing and fiberglass cap to make
entire bulkhead elevation consistent at TW 8.0; replace existing
dock with new fixed dock off bulkhead to aluminum ramp to
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured with
two anchor pilings; conduct reclamation dredging along the
entire bulkhead to a maximum depth of 3' in an area limited to
no more than 10' seaward of new bulkhead; dredge spoils o be
placed behind raised section of bulkhead and retaining wall; and
to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 615 East Legion Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-30
The Trustees visited the property on the 9th of July and
noted that the raising of the bulkhead might be too high because
of the area. Recommended the pavers should be removed, and
questioned the location of the neighboring property line to the
east side retaining wall.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
The paver patio was constructed without a permit, and there
is no record of a permit being issued for the dock.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Anassas LLC. Good
evening.
With regards to the concerns that you talked about from the
field inspection notes, the raising of the bulkhead, if you'll
notice the elevation that the majority of the bulkhead is
currently at 8. 0. When you get to the eastern corner of that
bulkhead, it drops down to 5.5. And what we are doing is just
bringing it up to 8.0 so that the bulkhead will be completely
even all the way across. So we are not raising it above the
rest of the bulkhead.
And then with the reclamation dredging, that will provide
the material that can go into that corner. In doing this, also
from an environmental perspective, you won't have the steep
slope going down into the waterway anymore.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On that corner.
MR. BERGEN: On that corner. And we are also, before I forget
it, putting in a non-turf buffer, as you see, all the way along
the length of this.
With regard to the removing of the patio, I have here, we
are willing to remove that patio, and I have here a new set of
plans, hopefully enough for all of you. (Handing) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. BERGEN: And you will note in this new set of plans, the
patio is removed. So that could address -- and this is, because
I know there are several patios on the property. We are talking
about the paver patio right behind the bulkhead. So we have
removed that. And hopefully that addresses the issues that were
Board of Trustees 35 July 17, 2024
brought up in field inspection notes.
So I'm here to answer any questions. Oh, I'm sorry. There
was of a question about the eastern boundary and that retaining
wall. And the survey shows that retaining wall is right on the
eastern boundary property line. And we are looking to replace
just a portion of that eastern retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How many feet in on the property line are you
looking to replace, Dave?
MR. BERGEN: I believe that was -- I know we had it in here. I
would have to go back and review. I believe it was
approximately 33 feet.
I did have it staked out there in the field for you, as
well as I had the elevation, the proposed elevation of that
corner marked in red paint so you'd see it would be even with
the other.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it' s just that eastern corner of the
bulkhead that is getting raised.
MR. BERGEN: Correct. That's the only part that we are raising,
so that it' s consistent across there. The elevation is
consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are going up in the corner on the
neighboring property as well?
MR. BERGEN: No, all the work is on our property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm sorry. On the, adjacent to the
neighboring property, you are going up in that corner, but you
are not going up past where it drops down there. That will be
at the same height.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, exactly. In other words, as you proceed
landward, you are talking about there, with the return, is that
what you are trying to refer to?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, it will be at the same elevation, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So then consistently between the bulkhead and
the retaining wall you'll have the same height.
MR. BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so then the bulkhead that would be, what,
to the west there, is the current height of the bulkhead will
not be increased then, correct? In terms of the part that is the
highest on the property.
MR. BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, because our concern when we were
reviewing onsite was that if you did increase that then there
would have to be potentially a retaining wall on the other
adjacent neighboring property. So I think there was a little
concern on how that was all going to engineer. But this seems to
make a lot of sense. So, thank you, for clarifying.
MR. BERGEN: And, I mean, just to have it on the record, with the
granting of, if you were to grant a permit here, it would
address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
Board of Trustees 36 July 17, 2024
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based on the new plans stamped received July 17th, 2014, which
includes the removal of the existing paver patio immediately
adjacent to the bulkhead, thereby bringing it into consistency
with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, David Bergen on behalf of JAMES &
VICKY VAVAS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
dwelling and construct a two-story dwelling with attached
garage; a landward porch; a seaward deck, a new driveway; and to
abandon existing and install a new I/A OWTS septic system.
Located: 3165 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-7
The Trustee notes, on July 9th, read mostly constructed
already.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the hardening of the deck space with pavers and
not wood as proposed.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen on behalf of James and Vicky Vavas.
This is a situation where the building permit was about to
expire, the applicant went to the Building Department and it was
noted the Trustee permit had expired. And so the Trustee permit
has to be renewed in conjunction to obtaining a building permit to
finish the project.
The project is just approximately 85%-90% done. Everything
on the outside is already done. The IA system is in. And, you
know, like I said, everything has been done.
I submitted I believe two days ago to the office a new
survey that had included in there the ten-foot wide non-turf
buffer that had been approved by this Board with the application
for the retaining wall. So as this will be the most recent
survey -- should you approve this project, this would be the
survey of record, so it had that ten-foot non-turf buffer in
there.
You'll also note on the new survey, it is a stone platform
there, because I know that it was originally proposed wood. It
got changed to stone. So that way that' s reflected in your new
set of, the new survey with the site plan on it.
Board of Trustees 37 July 17, 2024
So that way this will be the most recent plan, everything
should be, comport to what is actually there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments from the public or members
of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the new survey of the property depicting a ten-foot wide
non-turf buffer area and stone platform stamped July 16th, 2024 .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 12, David Bergen on behalf of DAWN DRIVE
LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing catwalk and
ramp and construct a new catwalk using Thru-Flow decking and
install a new aluminum ramp; existing floating dock to remain;
and to maintain the existing 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 715 Dawn Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-16
The Trustees recently visited the site on July 9th of 2024,
and noted in-house review, will review further at work session.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent, with the
following notes: Aerial photos show the dock in place since 1978
in this dug canal; verify that the float with the vessel moored
will not hinder canal navigation; and what is the purpose of the
40-foot long float.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Dawn Drive LLC.
I hate to use the term again, but, straightforward
application here. The goal here was to take what is currently
an unsafe catwalk and make it safer plus more environmentally
conducive by raising it, because right now it' s right on top of
the wetlands. We are raising it up. We are making it
flow-through. We are increasing the width for safety reasons.
There project does not extend at all seaward, the length of the
total structure that' s there. We have received a DEC permit for
this.
So I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Bergen. Thank you for your
considerations in the design of this project.
I do just have a couple of questions in regards to, I mean
I understand this is an historical dock in its location with the
float. And just looking at the Town Code in terms of the
one-third of the distance of the waterway, there is a dock on
Board of Trustees 38 July 17, 2024
the other side of the canal here, from this project. And just,
you provided us with the dimensions, which is very helpful. And
I'm a little bit concerned about the pinch point there, with
other boats that will be entering the canal. There are quite
large boats that we have been able to see in that area, and just
kind of spit-balling math, based off of the dimensions you've
given us, there would not be very much space for a boat. So I
don't know what size boat the applicant was intending on docking
there.
MR. BERGEN: Yes. I believe there was a Trustee permit, when I
say recently, within the last year, given for all this structure
that is there. I don't have one readily available, but I know
there was a Trustee permit where everything was permitted in
that was there within the last year, including the float and
including -- I mean, we are not projecting any of this to go any
further seaward, so it just matches exactly what has been
approved within a year by this Board, as far as the float goes
and the distance across the waterway.
So, again, we were trying to be very careful here with the
design of this so we would not decrease the available width of
waterway by increasing the structure in any way.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I guess, you know, this is an
historic location for this dock, and I do understand there were
some as-built permitting for this property.
You know, if we were looking at this project currently, we
might suggest a different location just because this is right at
that entrance to the canal.
Also, you've provided the water depth here, and if you kind
of look off of sort of the most shallow portion, is 28 inches.
And then if you look across from that 28, it goes down to 54
underneath that floating dock area. So within that six feet it
has quite a drop-off there.
So I don't know if there would be a possibility to just
pull that float landward a little bit, in order to -- there
would still be plenty of water depth -- and just allow a little
more navigation in that area.
I think that's the concern of this Board is the
navigational issues in that sort of pinch-point of the canal.
MR. BERGEN: And I respect that because, I agree with you,
throughout this section of Gull Pond, there are numerous docks
that are this length, that are beyond what code allows, because
they have historically been there.
To rotate the dock, I'll use the term "rotate" here. The
southern end of the dock slightly landward, the depth is there
to do that. I guess I would just have to ask the applicant if
they were willing to do it. Since the depth does come up from
64 to 42, I would just have to ask the applicant. Again, I
appreciate your comments, but again want to reiterate this whole
structure was only approved by this Board less than a year ago,
I believe. And so, you know, I wish if there had been redesign
Board of Trustees 39 July 17, 2024
of the docks, that that was the time to probably do it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would disagree on that point only because
this Board went down to look at everything that was there. At
the time, I believe, there was a sale of property. And we
blessed an existing dock with the understanding that, okay, it's
here, we're not going to -- I mean, typically, unless there is
something very egregious, we are not going to make you modify it
at that time.
But when we come back to say, you know, add width to it, it
might be a good time to have a conversation. But I think what
the Board is really asking, as a former Trustee and an avid
boater, I think you can appreciate the pinch-point at that
location, especially looking at the satellite image, it is
awfully tight. And because there is a history of larger docks in
this location, there is also a history of larger boats. So it
is a tricky little area.
So really what I'm asking is, is there anything you can do
to help us and the people on this creek.
MR. BERGEN: And, again, I think if the applicant would have no
problem, if the owner would have no problem, I would have no
problem recommending to him rotating, swinging, whatever word
you want to use, in slightly, to help with exactly what you are
talking about. Because, yes, I operate vessels of all sizes, up
to 80, 90 feet myself, so I know the challenges when you get
into places like this. Not that there are any boats 80 or 90
feet back in here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are some larger boats back in here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There's some large ones.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There' s some sizeable boats.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. BERGEN: There are some 40 to 50-footers. With beams that
are probably close to what you would find on a larger.
So I appreciate what you're saying, and I can certainly ask
him about that. So, I can do that. I'm sure it would not
require much change in construction. It's a matter of moving
the six-inch pilings that anchor that end of the dock, landward
a foot or so, so that the whole structure could be moved in a
foot or so. That end of the structure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the Board would appreciate your
experience and expertise in discussing this with the applicant
about this. And I think, you know, we didn't want this to have
any sort of dramatic change. I think that there is a solution
that can open up that navigation and have a minor impact on the
applicant and their project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Bergen, what size vessel is proposed for
this dock?
MR. BERGEN: To be honest with you, I'm not sure of the exact
dimensions of the vessel. It looked to me like about ,a 25-foot
length boat that is there now. But of course, you know, that
can change with a 40-foot float, sure.
Board of Trustees 40 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And our concern, I believe, off the top of my
head, on your plans is 86 feet, the width of the creek.
MR. BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one-third of that is approximately 29
feet. And the dock currently sticks out 22 feet.
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So seven-foot beam brings you to the third.
So 25-foot boat definitely has larger than a seven-foot beam,
which would be over that one-third rule. So that' s our concern,
the large boats, and boats are not getting smaller, as you know,
and there is a lot of large vessels in this section of creek and
up the canal. So a couple of feet here or there, a person on
the other side goes out and gets a bigger boat, you know, with a
bigger beam, and now, all of a sudden you've got a real choke
point. And I think, you know, looking at it, this is the
tightest point on that whole canal. So he's got a little bit of
peninsula where you can rotate, relocate, to give him more room,
to give the people up the creek more room. So I think there is
way to work it without causing a navigation issue for a lot of
boats.
MR. BERGEN: How about I propose this then. We agree to moving
the, I'll call it the southern end, swing the southern end of
the dock approximately two feet in from its present location
landward, and so that way you could approve it subject to
receipt of plans, since he already has the DEC permit here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sorry, I was just looking at the tax map. Would
you mind repeating that? Sorry.
MR. BERGEN: Sure. We propose swinging or rotating the southern
end of that float approximately two feet landward, that would
mean moving the six-inch pile over accordingly, and that way you
could approve this subject to receipt of plans depicting that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So you are basically pivoting off of the
eastern-most pile.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, where the catwalk is. That end. Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So that would remain in place and you
would pivot, you were saying, two feet.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, approximately two feet in. Yup.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Personally I think we would like to see the
plans on that before approving that. I would think. I mean,
given the water depth questions and all the other questions
that, you know, it' s pretty vague, to say. Pulling in
approximately two feet, I think --
MR. BERGEN: I could take the word "approximate" out of there and
just say pull it in two feet, subject to plans depicting that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's worth asking the question that,
you know, at least I was thinking of at field inspections: Is
there any reason that the client would not want to relocate the
dock to say where that small brick patio is on the south side of
the property?
MR. BERGEN: Again, not at this point, given all the construction
Board of Trustees 41 July 17, 2024
that he's done in compliance with your permit that was given
less than a year ago. I don't know that he wants to now change
the whole configuration and everything, down to that, you talk
about what is now listed as a brick patio. We would also have
to content with side yard issues, making sure extending that
property line out, that we're 15 feet, the float's at least
15-feet off of that. That means, well, I just don't think he
wants to go to that extent to change on this at this point in
time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Speaking of that permit that was issued with
several conditions, we had asked for the fence to be removed
that was going down into the wetlands. We noticed in the field
that that had not yet been taken care of. The non-turf buffers
didn't seem to be fully in place at this time. I hope there is
intention to get that done relatively soon.
MR. BERGEN: I will bring that to his attention.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, given sufficient water depth on that
dock area, there is no reason to, not to consider it an
appropriate location to improve navigation. It would not be a
hardship for the boat owner, so long as they have depth.
MR. BERGEN: Well, it means taking out the one, the structure
that is presently there, taking out the pilings that are there,
moving everything down there. It's a large project and it would
environmentally impact the area during construction. Plus
removing everything that is there, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He is keeping the existing pilings?
MR. BERGEN: Yes. Excuse me, the pilings we are changing on the
catwalk, because it's a four-foot wide catwalk. So it's just
the pilings had to be moved to -- it's presently a three-foot
wide catwalk, it' s proposed to be a four-foot wide, so we'd have
to move a piling for that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So it sounds like now would be the time to
make a better decision about where the location should be given
all the work that is about to occur.
MR. BERGEN: Well, I would disagree. I think the work that is
being done is very limited. It's very proactive
environmentally, and so I would disagree that moving the entire
structure down to the other end of the property, and having to
deal with setbacks, I would disagree that it's as easy as it
sounds.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, Mr. Bergen, as' one Trustee, I'm comfortable
with your proposed idea of kind of pivoting on that eastern
pile. I do think that two feet is probably not sufficient, so
would possibly be more comfortable with about four feet, moving
that landward. And understanding that is, you know, moving that
closer to the intertidal marsh, but really we are talking about
opening up for navigation, and I still think there is plenty of
room there and seemingly plenty of water depth, based on the
numbers that you've provided.
MR. BERGEN: (Perusing) . I would agree. I'm just looking at the
Board of Trustees 42 July 17, 2024
water depth. So that's why I'm taking my time here.
(Perusing) .
I would agree to that, given the water depth is sufficient
there. I just wanted to make sure we didn't get into a
water-depth issue. That's all.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Of course. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak, or any other questions or comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Given my strong preference for seeing it drawn
up before this is approved, I just would recommend not moving
forward with this tonight.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If I don't like what I see when the permit is
in the office, I don't have to sign it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that' s true.
MR. BERGEN: If we haven't drawn up what you've asked for
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just like to reiterate that I think
there is a lot of alternatives. I know he's going to go through
construction to begin with, but, you know, to relocate that dock
to a different section of his property helps him, helps the
neighbors, helps everybody with navigation. So to kind of draw
that line in the sand that we have to stick to this one section
because, you know, that's where a couple of pilings are, you
know, tell that to the people who are going to scream because
they can't get their boat in and out of .Gull Pond. That's a
very big concern.
Like I said, you shifted, looking at this picture, to the
right, which is the south, you don't have a navigation issue.
You've got wide open to the bay, basically. So there are a lot
of alternatives on this property that would work and be a better
product, in my mind.
MR. BERGEN: It sounds to me, I hate to try to predict the future
here, but it sounds to me there is sufficient concern from
different members of the Board about this, so that maybe we
should table this so that I can talk to the applicant and see --
I would prefer to move forward, saying we move it, we rotate it
four feet in, and so you could approve it subject to plans
depicting that. That is my preference.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak, or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee
Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Trustee Gillooly, nay) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the western-most piling, the southwest
piling, is shifted landward four feet, to pivot on the
northeastern-most piling, thereby swinging the dock in order to
allow for more clear navigation through the canal. And new plans
Board of Trustees 43 July 17, 2024
depicting the following. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 13, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of
BUDD'S POND MARINA, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit for various
proposed work consisting of on East Side of Marina-remove
existing rip-rap that remains outside of the permeable bulkhead
and within the property lines; proposed 61x20' floating dock
supported with one 10" OCC pile; proposed 97 linear feet of
permeable bulkhead landward of existing concrete bulkhead with
six (6) foot return on east end; plant area within permeable
bulkhead with salt marsh Cordgrass (spartina alterniflora plugs
@508sq.ft. ) ; and a proposed 61x40' floating dock; on South Side
of Marina-proposed 97 linear foot permeable bulkhead along edge
of bank (MLW) line; plant area landward of permeable bulkhead
with saltmarsh cordgrass (spartina alterniflora plugs
@250sq.ft. ) ; on West Side of Marina-remove and replace in same
location existing timber bulkhead with 242 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead; existing floating docks to remain in same location and
configuration.
Located: 61500 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-6-2.2
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm going to recuse myself from this
application due to a business relationship with the applicant.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The trustee most recently visited the site on
July 9th, 2024, noting new bulkhead must be staked; in order to
restore wetlands, a larger area must be replanted with Salt
Marsh cordgrass.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it consistent.
They did note that to assess the need for the permeable
bulkhead, plant area landward of permeable bulkhead with Salt
Marsh cordgrass, propose to replace a shoreline intertidal area
and turbidity controls are required.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, and they said they were encouraged to see the
restoration of the marsh and support an extension if possible.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Hi. Patricia Moore. Fortunately, I have Jeff
Patanjo, who did the drawings, and I asked him to stick around.
And I have the clients here, so hopefully it will be more
productive, and I apologize at the site inspection it was a
little -- I was less than clear. And I apologize.
We're here to answer any questions.
The permeable bulkhead was the request of the DEC. The
area of the permeable bulkhead -- and Jeff was just letting me
know -- that area had at one time some rip rap that the DEC
Board of Trustees 44 July 17, 2024
wanted removed, and the permeable, and to reestablish some
wetland vegetation along that line. So that --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry to interrupt you there. That was a
marsh that was covered in rip rap; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: I don't know that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Based on the photographic evidence we have, it
seems that the marsh was covered in rocks.
MS. MOORE: Jeff, I'm going to need your help because I don't
know what was there before.
MR. PATANJO: I don't remember.
MS. MOORE: None of us know what was there before, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: According to that photograph there it looks
like there was, a bit of marsh in that area.
So the reason the DEC is requesting this is --
MS. MOORE: Why don't you come up on the record, because you may
be looking at -- what year is that photograph?
MR. WITZKE: Can I answer that quick?
MS. MOORE: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WITZKE: Bill Witzke, Southold. Albertson Marine.
The majority of that marsh/wetlands there was damaged
during Hurricane Irene, and then the following year, I believe
it was the following year, correct me if I'm wrong, .was Sandy.
We got walloped within a short period of time and it took away a
good, vast majority of that wetlands there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So the photographs that you submitted to us
were before Hurricane Sandy?
MR. WITZKE: This picture here, that was pre-Sandy.
MS. MOORE: It would have been the only aerials that we had.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The aerials that we see on Google Earth show
that marsh existing long after Hurricane Sandy.
MR. WITZKE: How much of that marsh was existing? Because I know
we lost a good portion of that during those two storms.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This aerial is 2016.
MR. WITZKE: That marshland extended from the east all the way to
the west end of that area, parking area there. So it was a good
portion of that was depleted. I 'm not making this up.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe we do have a picture somewhere in
the file that has that, that has been submitted, right?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, we have several photographs in the file,
but they're not dated. The applicant is representing these are
before Hurricane Sandy.
MS. MOORE: I don't know, they were taken, they were provided,
they are what is available through Google Earth. We didn't date
them so I can't make that representation. I don't know when the
aerial was taken.
Again, this is all -- that' s what I was going to say, that
there is an order on consent by DEC that they are requiring
this, and in fact this work is supposed to be done by December
1st. So we are running into a very short timeframe that my next
step, depending, because I think one of the other things you
Board of Trustees 45 July 17, 2024
asked us to do is to stake the west side. So I assume that we
were going to be extending into next month. So I was going to
reach out to DEC and let them know where we are in the progress
of getting the permits. But we can't act on their consent order
until we'll have your permit in hand. So we are trying to
coordinate all that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood. I am looking at Google Earth from
2021. It does look like the majority of that marsh was still
existing in 2021, which is why I believe the DEC issued a
violation for the removal, the excavation and the rip rap
installed where the marsh is used to exist.
MR. WITZKE: That' s definitely not 2021.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm looking at Google Earth, 2021.
MS. MOORE: Oh, you're looking at Google Earth.
MR. WITZKE: Um, you can also see, I can tell that you picture
probably goes back, that's prior to us even building on the
property there, which is in 2008. This goes back at least to
2002 or so. I can tell by the color of our storage building.
And if you notice, there is some serious -- yes, I agree with
you, there is quite a bit of vegetation there, including some
short trees, I don't know what they're called, I'm not a plant
guy, but all of that was literally obliterated with the two
storms. Before the concrete wall was even -- so that's
pre-Sandy.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so, but we are looking at photographic
evidence here, of 2019, 2021, the marsh still existed about
halfway out.
MR. WITZKE: I don't doubt you, I'm just verifying the fact that
there was quite a bit of it was depleted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Understood. Understood.
MR. WITZKE: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: The permeable bulkhead is, will be re-vegetated, will
create a wetland area between the seawall that is there and the
permeable. So you are re-vegetating that area. And that's part
of the plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think given the extent of the amount of
marsh that has been removed, I think this Board would like to
see a greater restoration project.
Right here, I believe that wall is out approximately six
feet.
MS. MOORE: Which wall? I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The permeable bulkhead. Is that correct?
MS. MOORE: Let' s see the measurements. (Perusing) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Me, personally, I think I would be more
comfortable with something closer to 15 feet for a real marsh
restoration project to try to replace what has been lost in
recent years.
MS. MOORE: I mean, this is a working marina, as you know, and we
don't want to impact navigation in the marina. At least your
LWRP considers us, marinas, to be an important use in the Town.
Board of Trustees 46 July 17, 2024
So --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Marinas are absolutely an important part of
the Town. But --
MS. MOORE: Well, he was just asking about the bulkhead on the
county portion. That, we had to save for them to be able to
see. So that's --
MS. HULSE: Pat, if you're going to have your separate
conversations --
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I 'm putting it on the record to confirm.
MS. HULSE: Please do, but it' s getting confused now because
you're speaking --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And let's speak into the microphone so we can
have the recording.
MS. MOORE: So the application on the west end bulkhead is here,
but you asked that that be tabled to be able to see it after
it's been staked, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't we take these one at a time. Why
don't we work through the project one at a time.
MS. MOORE: All right, let's go back to this portion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one point is, this Board is certainly
pro-marina and water use. I mean, as you can see, it's a little
difficult, it's putting us in a bad situation that we would have
been happy to work with you on this, but Egan was there on
weekends digging it all out. So now we are looking at
photographs to figure out what we're putting back. And that's
not acting in good faith, and it puts us in a bad spot. So
that's where we're coming from with this.
MR. WITZKE: I can appreciate that. And the one thing, we do
have a DEC, wants us to do some particular work, so if you don't
approve of that, or you want to expand on it, or change it, then
we have to go back to the DEC. And so where does that leave us
to as far as meeting deadlines and so on.
So it' s not as if, yes, we are trying to work with you
also. We want to replenish that system. Um, whether we go out
four feet, six feet, ten feet, so on, it's an area that we can
say is it going to help anything if we go out even further. All
right? And has I said, you know, I hear what you are saying,
and I also hear you say that we have to do something to preserve
that, because as I mentioned, we have been obliterated, in two
storms I mentioned. Not to mention Gloria years ago.
But we're trying to keep our business operational, we're
trying to do within the confines of the rules to make everybody
happy. So, you want to expand on that, where do we go from here?
Do we tell the DEC wait a minute, we gotta stop, re-draw
everything?
MR. WITZKE: If I can comment -- Dave Witzke -- with Budd's Pond.
When I was dealing with the DEC violations, they calculated the
amount of marsh that was supposedly dredged out, and they came
up with the amount of marsh we had to replace, and that was
calculated by the DEC of how much they had real-time evidence of,
Board of Trustees 47 July 17, 2024
not pictures from 20 years ago, and so that was within their
compliance of the amount of restoration that they needed by us,
and we proceeded the wetlands restoration based off the DEC
permit, they want us to meet by December 1st.
So we are not disagreeing or agreeing with what was
removed. The DEC calculated what was removed by wetlands, and
they calculated what we needed to restore, and that was the six
foot when I was working with Jeff on this with the DEC. So they
were satisfied by what that six-foot buffer, because we go past
that six-foot buffer we are going into pre-existing docks that
are stamped on DEC permits, so we would now have to move docks
into our outer slips so now we are making our marina
non-navigable, so we can't go past that six foot.
So with the six-foot extension in replacing the wetlands we
were meeting the DEC' s requirement of what to replenish, and
their original requirement was a low sill bulkhead. So I want
to go with a high still, because we had eleven south storms in
this past year alone, so there's no way to guarantee the
wetlands that the DEC required for us to put back, with a low
sill bulkhead. So we are willing to spend more money to put a
high sill bulkhead in to guarantee the wetlands that the DEC is
requiring us to meet by December 1st.
So I do not want to push that bulkhead any further out on
this, because it will make the marina non-navigable for the
customers on our outer. We are willing to spend the money to
replace what was there, and within the DEC guidelines.
So on this portion we are very limited. You know, we are
laying out a lot of money to replenish more than what was there,
SO.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to note that that is a
self-imposed hardship. There was wetlands removed and then
docks created and placed where the wetlands used to be, and now
the argument is we'll be making those docks non-navigable, but
those docks weren't there when the wetlands was there.
MR. WITZKE: I was dealing with the DEC in this process and the
fines that were placed on us by the DEC, and what they required
of us, and they calculated the, with Jeff, they calculated how
much wetlands they wanted back, and we forseeded (sic) that with
this section, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's always best practice to come to the Board
of Trustees prior to doing this type of work so that we can work
together. Because we really do appreciate marinas, we all
understand the importance in Southold Town. All of us are
boaters, all of us appreciate the work that you do, all of us
are trying to make a living on the water. And so we get it. But
when we get put into a situation where are now having to deal
with the removed wetlands, and the DEC potentially putting
wetlands back on different parcel, you know, we are looking at
one parcel at a time. And right now we are looking at a
significant amount of wetlands that was removed on this parcel.
Board of Trustees 48 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Agreed. I totally understand what you guys
are trying to do. I get it. And with that permeable bulkhead,
you know, we know the limitations of having the low sill, with
trying to keep that vegetation alive, with the survivability
rates that are probably imposed by the DEC. With that wave
action that you get there, you probably won't be able to achieve
that with a low sill bulkhead. So I get the permeable bulkhead.
From our perspective it's just to protect or restore what
was lost. So I think that is kind of where we are at. You
know, obviously you want the navigation, to have the extra
docking and all that. From our perspective to put back as much
as what was lost as possible.
I think part of the calculation from the DEC, not
necessarily on this property, it was on the shoals with that
other section.
MS. MOORE: On the north side?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the east side. So which is not your
property, so isn't part of this necessarily calculation. But I
believe that the DEC counted that wetland in its totality for
the one-to-one replacement.
So obviously you guys can't speak on that because it's not
your property, but the vegetation to the east was also lost with
the vegetation on your section of the property. So, you know,
what's that number where we can get as close to back as what was
there as possible.
Again, this is impossible because it's so old of a picture.
The new one. So what's that number in the middle that would
work for everybody, give you the navigability, restore some of
the wetland that to what we had, and also protect that
restoration effort that you are going to put in so you are not
just dumping money after money trying to keep up with plantings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I also do want to say, too, I would agree with
what you said. I mean low sill bulkheads are excellent and I
think for creek uses and to keep boating in creeks as we see
siltation. They are such a great tool and really low impact.
I do think -- and we've had people apply for those hybrid
low sills, which you're applying for on the creeks, and I think
they are inappropriate there. But I think for marinas they are
perfect. Because you are providing a protection and putting back
and environmental feature, and ultimately I think you end up
with a pretty, like attractive viewshed for your clientele, too.
So I do, in this case, I do like the hybrid low sill. I
think that's a -- yeah, I would call it a hybrid low sill.
MS. MOORE: Or call it a medium sill.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Yes.
MS. MOORE: It's like, I know it's medium, so. Go ahead.
MR. WITZKE: Glenn, just on your comment, if they were
calculating the neighboring property that was removed, all the
potential bulkhead is just on our property. So if they had the
wetlands removed, calculated with the neighboring property, we
Board of Trustees 49 July 17, 2024
are definitely, we're passing, just on our property, what was
removed, within that six-foot length. Unless I misunderstood
you. I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, and, you know, looking at the survey that
was provided there' s a mean low water mark, I think that's
further seaward than the edge of the proposed permeable
bulkhead.
MR. WITZKE: It is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if that's the low water mark right now,
it's probably not navigable as it is. Unless you go and dredge
it.
MS. MOORE: We were just talking, if I could just interrupt you
for a second. We were, the width could be eight feet and not
impact navigation and that we essentially take in some of the
low water that you are addressing. So we have proposed six, it
goes to eight, and that, I asked, that could certainly be drawn,
and that would not impact the navigation of the marina.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't have anything in front of me, because
what is that, five-hundred and something feet?
MS. MOORE: The length?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, of the restoration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He's talking about square feet.
MR. PATANJO: 508 square feet.
TRUSTEE .GOLDSMITH: 508 square feet.
MR. PATANJO: It's 97 feet, two feet, another 200 square feet,
approximately. You gain another 200 square feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it would be up to seven and change.
MR. PATANJO: Which surpasses what was taken out according to the
DEC, you know, calculations. If we add in the additional two
foot of permeable bulkhead and wetlands plantings.
MR. WITZKE: And this is a stamped DEC plan from 2018 of the main
dock I'm concerned about, that would go into, which we could
push out probably a foot, foot-and-a-half, and still use.
That's not on there. So ,this was a stamped approved section of
work dock, I could show you guys. You might not have it, but.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to set your mind at ease, I don't think
you'll need to go back. The DEC is not going to fight you if we
ask for a little more than a little less. You know, if they
already approved the six feet, we can be more restrictive, not
less. So you are not going to have a problem going back to the
DEC if we land on whatever we land on. It it' s six or more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: While we are talking about this portion also,
are you planning on doing the cement wall as well, or is that
staying as is? The existing cement retaining wall to the
parking lot.
MR. WITZKE: We are willing to work with you guys what you would
recommend. I mean, it was leaned over. I'm assuming it's
cracked on the base, but that's going to have to be removed for
this construction and put back, but we might have to order
sections based on the contractor we use.
Board of Trustees 50 July 17, 2024
But if we are not, we would work with you guys what you
would recommend with that. So I'm assuming, because it's leaned-
over, some of them are cracked. That has a three-and-a-half
foot base on the bottom, it's seven-and-a-half foot wide. I
think they are like six-thousand pounds apiece. And, they have a
jersey barrier on the bottom of them. This was placed in after
Sandy when the whole parking lot was wiped out. So we got those
from coastal pipeline after Sandy, and installed those.
But we are going to have to move them during this
construction. And I don't know what kind of shape they are
going to be in. So, I mean, whatever you guys recommend on
that, whatever you want us to do, we'll work with you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, speaking for one, I would just
incorporate that, don't have any problem doing it. Just
incorporate that in these plans.
MR. WITZKE: Replace broken with same?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, replace --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In-kind replace.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, that way you don't get into an issue of
doing work that is not permitted, whether it's through the Town
or through the DEC. So just throw it all on this blanket
coverage for everything that you are proposing to do. If you
don't do it, no problem. If you do it, you're covered.
MR. WITZKE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we are moving in the right direction.
I think it would be wise to see it staked in the field at eight
feet, and just take look at that. And there is some other
staking that is needed to proceed with this project as well, and
I think that if we want to shift and start talking about the
other portion of the project, by the travel lift area, we would
want to see that staked and --
MS. MOORE: Then I already have requested -- Heidi Gurick (sic)
did the survey, I sent him them an e-mail and they are going to
stake it closer in line with your date of inspection because it
might wash away otherwise. But it has been put on order, and
they know what your inspection date it is, so. I'll have to ask
that they also stake the eight foot portion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's the same proposed permeable bulkhead
where every third sheet or whatever is down low?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With helical screws holding it?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The only other thing, just because of
bordering the county property, you may need a letter of
permission from them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some sort of documentation, just that they know
you are doing it and they are okay with the project.
MS. MOORE: Well, we did send them notices if they were adjacent.
I don't have it in front of me. I don't know --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm assuming I know, but what is the purpose
Board of Trustees 51 July 17, 2024
of the bulkhead on that side?
MR. WITZKE: The county marsh keeps eroding into our waterway,
into our travel orbit, and I mean, this winter alone we probably
lost 100 yards, well, the county lost at least 100 yards of
their marsh into our basin.
We had, this was an approved permit by the DEC and the
Trustees in 2018 that expired. So this was a
previously-approved permit for this bulkhead and we took the
same wall, so, and did the same, it's the same footprint as
that 2018 permit that was approved, and we just made it a
permeable high sill. So this was a previously-approved permit
that expired. And the purpose of it is for that because we are
just losing navigation into that whole area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's kind of why I assumed, and again, the
limitations of having that low sill, that would just complete to
the road and go over it.
MR. WITZKE: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this location, what is the height of this
bulkhead above -- it might be a Jeff question.
MR. PATANJO: It's 48 inches above mean low water. So you assume
it's two-and-a-half foot of tide change, so it's two-and-a-half
feet above mean high tide.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have DEC for that one yet?
MR. PATANJO: Well, we don't technically need DEC because we have
it on order of consent. So that automatically approves the
drawings that were submitted under the order of consent.
It' s automatically permitted. Any time you have a
violation, an order of consent for a violation, your restoration
plans and the plans you submit to them, automatically become a
permitted document.
MS. MOORE: They won't issue an after-the-fact permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Learn something new every day.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's 48-inches above mean low, right? So
two-and-a-half feet. So are the piles any higher or is that the
height of everything?
MR. PATANJO: That's the height of the top cap elevation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we also noted in the field that some
of the proposed new docks are outside of the property line, and
since they are on Town water for commercial use, we would like
to see just a letter from the Town Board and Town Attorney
giving permission for this commercial use.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I've never asked the Town for permission. I
think they assume the Trustees regulatory process is how you
legalize it. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pat, I would just say get clarification from
the Town Attorney on that.
MS. MOORE: I don't know that our Town Attorney -- no offense to
him. I don't know what he is going to know what to do with it,
SO.
Board of Trustees 52 . July 17, 2024
Is this the area they are talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there one dock that falls outside of the --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's 6x20.
MS. MOORE: It's this one. I mean, but who owns this piece here?
Is that --
MR. WITZKE: Well, that' s our docks.
(Ms. Moore discussing with applicants) .
Why don't you point out which ones you're talking about. Because
we're trying to figure out --
MR. PATANJO: The ones beyond the property line. It's all of
these. This whole entire cluster.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, a lot of it is existing. We are not
talking existing.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. That' s why I'm asking. I have only, I have
a proposed six-foot wide, 20 long.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pat, you have to talk into the microphone.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, I'm going to come up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or come up. Up here we'll just point it out to you
and then you have to go back.
MS. MOORE: Just circle it. Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Indicating) . Those are the two applied for.
MS. MOORE: Okay, perfect. I'll approach the Town Attorney.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other questions or comments on
this application?
(No response) .
MS. MOORE: We'll see you at the field, to continue this.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a
motion to table this application at the applicant's request.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee
Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Gillooly, aye. Trustee Peeples,
recused) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
STEPHEN & JACQUELINE DuBON requests a Wetland Permit to raise
the existing one-story dwelling an additional foot for flood
protection; install a new I/A sanitary system; remove cellar
entry; raise existing deck with steps; new covered front stoop
and steps; existing 5'x5' fire pit; existing shed; existing
outdoor shower; install drywells and two parking spaces.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
The Trustees conducted a field inspection July 9th, 2024,
questioned what is the grade change; the sanitary will
fill/encroach on wetlands; will right-of-way be accessible.
MS. MOORE: I thought wrote to you, but okay. Did I answer you?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hold on.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
just says establish a non-fertilization vegetated buffer
Board of Trustees 53 July 17, 2024
landward of the wetland line to further Policy 6.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
We do have new plans stamped July 15th, 2024, and a new
letter from Pat Moore dated July 12th, 2024.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. I do have Mr. and Mrs. DuBon
here.
So I did pass along those questions directly to Tom
Wolpert, the design professional on this. We don't need
retaining walls for the sanitary system. I did give you a copy
of the construction proposal from Clear River. They do, I don't
know if it' s just in their proposal, or they know, but they
believe that the material in the ground may need to be replaced
with clean sand, so there will be some material replacement, but
it's filling the hole with sand. So it' s, ultimately there
shouldn't be much of a grade change to the property at all.
Because it' s the whole - they should, I did -- actually, the
plans I gave you because the plans I originally gave you was
just a site plan. Then I realized you had questions regarding
the sanitary, so I asked for the full set, including the Health
Department design sanitary set, so those were the additional
sheets I provided.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ms. Moore, when you say not much of a grade
change --
MS. MOORE: Well, it doesn't show, I mean my common sense tells
me that there might be some mounding but not sufficient for any
kind of regrading, like a grade differential, otherwise the
Health Department would have called it out. You can't provide
any kind of significant grade differential at the property line.
So it should be, for the most part, I think they told you,
relatively, I don't want to say flat, but it's kind of tapered.
And if you recall from the property and the survey, it shows you
that you have the road that is quite wide there. And the
driveway -- the road itself, Stillwater, is relatively narrow in
that area, so you have, where all the cars are parking and the
neighbors park right there on the street, and then the property
is set back significantly. So you won't, the grade is going to
be on their property. But you asked as a kid and a parent going
to be able to carry their kayak across, and the answer is yes.
Originally the letter that was sent to the neighbors
anticipated that you might need a one or two steps. But they
don't, at this point they don't believe that there' s any steps
needed. That has been taken off. The steps was where, when it
was originally proposed with a retaining wall. Now there is no
retaining wall, so the steps are not necessary. It will just be
a gradual incline.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because I'm seeing 140 yards excavated and
140 yards of sand imported, so.
Board of Trustees 54 July 17, 2024
MS. MOORE: Well, it's for the material inside the hole. That' s
what they are anticipating for that system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And the only other question that we
had was with the fill being sand, or whatever, no encroachment
on the existing wetlands.
MS. MOORE: That is, I actually e-mailed you and said make sure
that Clear River, who's doing the construction, that they put up
the silt fence that is required during construction to make sure
that it retains any kind of material within the bounds of the
property. And keep it out of any kind of wetlands area.
That is going to be during construction, the monitoring,
more than anything we can do here. I can say yes, of course,
there' s not going to be an encroachment, but if your contractor
doesn't do a good job, we'll all be in Justice Court. Or he
will be in Justice Court.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, just for the existing elevation,
according to the survey, is about four feet, a little over?
Where the proposed system is going.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it looks to be, I'm looking at the topos, and it
looks like four-and-half to four. In that range. Between four
and four-and-a-half.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And with the new system, do you have a final
topo on what that would be.
MS. MOORE: Are you are asking me or telling me?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm asking.
MS. MOORE: I'm looking. It looks like, let's see, it's showing,
I'm looking at the cross-section. It' s showing the existing
grade, then it goes to five seven as it tapers up a bit --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Then it flattens out and it looks like there is,
where the bent holes are.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So no more than a foot-and-a-half from the
existing
MS. MOORE: Yes, that' s what it appears to be on the cross
section.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any 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 GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with the condition that no fill encroach on the
existing wetlands, and by granting it a permit, by making sure
nothing encroaches on the wetlands, it will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
Board of Trustees 55 July 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Good evening. Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION &
PLANS RECEIVED ON 7/15/24 Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
GREGORY SFOGLIA requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
dwelling with as-built covered porch, 2nd floor balcony, and 3rd
floor balcony; gutters to leaders to drywells; as-built outdoor
shower; remove the remains of the foundation in front yard;
install a French drain around perimeter of as-built on-grade
seaward patio to connect to drywells; stepping stone walkway to
front yard; masonry walkway; as-built bulkhead and bulkhead
return replacement with Thru-Flow cap; as-built wood deck along
bulkhead, remove a portion of wood and install Thru-Flow
decking; install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead, decking
and edge of wetlands with a 10' wide non-turf access path to the
bulkhead; remove rocks adjacent to wetlands, backfill area
behind proposed breakwater wall with clean sand from upland
source, taper width as wall extends landward and plant a mix of
Spartina Alterniflora, Spartina Patens, Iva Frutescens and
Baccharis Halimifolia; existing topsoil removed within proposed
buffer and replace with sand, as needed, planted area extended
landward on west side; additional armoring along the bulkhead;
pulling the rock sill landward and tapering it as it heads
upland on the southern end.
Located: 3480 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-21
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
July. They noted they should dial proposed breakwater landward,
remove fill and existing rocks, non-turf buffer seaward of patio
with native vegetation and trench drain at the edge of the
patio.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
structures were built without a wetlands permit. 2023 aerial
shows evidence of significant fill added to the parcel, verify
where the sanitary system is located. Consider requiring an I/A
sanitary system to further Policy 6.
Portions of the dwelling and property are located within
the FEMA Flood Zone AE-EI-6. A .2o annual chance of flood
hazard. Structures in this area should be minimized.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application as submitted. The Conservation Advisory
Council has concern with lot coverage and recommends removal of
stone patio and slate along the bulkhead.
It should also be noted that I am in receipt of new plans
stamped July 15th, 2024, from Cole Environmental.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 56 July 17, 2024
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. I also have Cole Environmental
here.
Just for the record, I know you are very familiar with this
property. This property had been owned by Gerald Lang. The
property had become what is commonly known as the zombie house.
My client acquired it, I'm not sure if it's from the Lang' s
or from the bank, but it was in really poor condition.
The house had an open building permit, and the property was
beat up. There were tires, where the rocks are in the wetlands
that are re-vegetated, there were tires used to retain the area,
and there was a dilapidated deck along the bulkhead, which had
been there for a long time. It' s not proposed in this project.
So, my client was issued violations for doing work without
having transferred the permits into his name. When we applied
to transfer, the Board did not allow a transfer because of the
activity that had taken place, and so we have been working, we
hope cooperatively, to try to get to a point where they can
restart the project. They have not done anything because any
activity that was occurring was not, should not be done. And so
he was told don't do anything. Stop. And in fact I mis-spoke
at the inspection and you corrected me. Because I was like,
what are you talking about, the drywells are there. They're
connected. Yes, because the drywells are in the ground, but the
gutters and leaders had not been installed yet because the
building permit, everything, just stopped.
So, thank you, for that correction, and I felt very stupid,
but that's okay. I'm used to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was hot out.
MS. MOORE: It was hot out. My ego can handle it.
So, we are here to talk to you about the project. I know
that the plans, based on the field inspection, you did suggest
pulling back the re-vegetation plan, the restoration plan, which
the plan was submitted to the Board for your consideration. So
we've tried to do what was recommended at the field inspection.
If have you specific questions or do you want Cole
Environmental to review the plan with you?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do have a question for Cole Environmental,
actually.
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. So, all the plans that I have show
the rocks to be removed. I don't have a final that shows them
not existing.
MS. RUMMEL: A final --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like a final set of plans. Usually when, you
know, like a proposed design would have them gone.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, we can -- ,
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Semantics, but yes.
MS. MOORE: Yeah, I think it's just the notation says to be
removed. But you want a clean version that shows them not
Board of Trustees 57 July 17, 2024
there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay, not a problem. So yeah, we did pull the sill
back and taper it as it comes toward, I guess that would be like
the eastern property. Um, and then we will need to just pull
further back into the upland just so we can maintain, you know,
that gentle slope.
And we did amend the restoration plan based on Trustee
Peeples' comments. We did leave a bit of space between the
patio and the, like the planted buffer; one, to allow for the
trench drains but also to allow for passage. And the patios
will be used for cooking, so we just wanted a little safe space
in between the plantings.
And I also wanted to note that the client was stunned to
learn that his little machine was not effective at keeping the
geese off. So he is interested in planting trees. He actually
was under the impression that the Board was against it. At some
point, I'm not sure where that came across, but he would love to
plant trees, especially along the side property line, but
perhaps other areas as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What kind of trees are you talking about.
MS. RUMMEL: Native.
MS. MOORE: Are we talking tree trees, or shrubs?
MS. RUMMEL: No, he would like to plant some native trees, but
specifically along the property line just to get that break so
that the geese don't use it as their landing pad, and so it' s
not just like an open space but perhaps in the yard as well.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Ms. Rummel, I'm happy to hear that, because if
you look at the satellite photo here, there is a very large tree
that was there.
MS. RUMMEL: I will say that is an incredibly invasive tree. So
that' s a Tree-of-Heaven, which is a host of the Spotted
Lanternfly, so it was removed, and unfortunately, because of the
way the tree spreads, it is now sprouting in other areas. So we
would like to, I guess will probably require revised plans as
per Trustee Krupski's comments, but we can note we'll be pulling
like the saplings, which is, they're pretty small right now, so
we might be able to just dig them out, but you can also just
hand-pull them as they come up, and that's a pretty effective
way when they're tiny.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have a proposed number of trees that
you are planning on planting?
MS. RUMMEL: I don't. I can note it in the revised plans, but at
the moment, no. I know he previously discussed planting perhaps
three in the yard, but I'm not sure exactly how many he would
like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And are you talking hardwoods or screening
trees? Do you know what you're talking about?
MS. RUMMEL: We had not discussed specifics, but we'll ensure
they're all native and appropriate for the area.
Board of Trustees 58 July 17, 2024
Most of them, I mean they would be behind the bulkhead, so.
It would be more protected from any salt water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you just speak to, and you briefly
touched on it, but how much room were you looking for, you were
talking about a buffer between the patio and the plantings. How
much space, feet wise, were you looking for there?
MS. RUMMEL: I believe it' s roughly about ten feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the first area?
MS. RUMMEL: From the patio to the buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you approach real quick and just look at
something, and then you can go back to respond, maybe.
So, is there anything going in this area here? I might not
have the right.
MS. MOORE: It's green with the buffer paper.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This came in today?
MS. MOORE: No, it would have come in together.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just stamp it in.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes. That' s just not to scale.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Perusing) . So this one does have the removal
of the stones on it. So I don't have this copy in the file.
MS. RUMMEL: That is just for the restoration plan, so it doesn't
include, because there is a lot going on on the property, and
there are a few different separate sets of plans. Putting
everything on one plan may make it a little difficult to read,
but, so the restoration plan was separate from the plan for the
rock sill and whatnot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, the green area is existing topsoil to
be removed within proposed buffer area, to be regraded towards
upland. Clean sand to be used as needed for plantings within
buffer.
So the green area is all planted buffer, vegetated buffer.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes. And the topsoil I think will be a little too
rich for the vegetation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. MOORE: With goose poop added for extra nitrates.
(Board perusing documents) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess this is this here. And that' s the
restoration area here.
MS. MOORE: Do you want her to compare?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think we're --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think with the final plan we would want to
see the removal of the rocks and the hatched area where the
vegetated buffer is going to be on one plan.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
(The Board is perusing documents) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, right. So if we could get the green line,
removal of the stones and the buffer area put on there, with the
condition of a few native trees.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I think it's page two out of three on
Board of Trustees 59 July 17, 2024
what you submitted, if we can take that and incorporate the
green non-turf buffer, and like they said, removal of the stones
so that we have it all on one sheet.
MS. MOORE: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I know this is very particular but I think
what is confusing, often when you see the green area is that it
looks like sod or turf. So perhaps you could utilize, since you
are already redrawing it, something with a hatch or another
color so that it' s not confused and doesn't look like it' s meant
to be a lawn.
MS. MOORE: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And in conjunction with it, if you could put
the proposed trees on that as well. That way we have everything
on one.
MS. RUMMEL: Since there are questions on the trees, is there
something the Board would like to see in particular?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say at least one hardwood. Everyone is
taking hardwoods down these days, so, but if they want to mix in
obviously red cedars or any cedar, you know, I could see that.
But we are open to options, and Cole has some extensive
environmental planting knowledge, so.
All right, is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Have you reviewed already the structures that we are
removing and all of that? Any questions on that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you're removing that one --
MS. MOORE: Right, it' s already down. It' s just plywood, but --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: .You're removing the plywood platform and the
stone.
MS. MOORE: And we are putting the cap on the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup.
MS. MOORE: And there was like a walkway, along the landward side
of the bulkhead. It was just framed, not finished or anything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that coming out, that walkway?
MS. MOORE: Well, it's like a, I'm assuming that' s where a boat
might be ultimately, along that bulkhead. So typically you have
some kind of platform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So that' s not coming out.
MS. MOORE: No, that's not coming out, unless you tell us it has
to come out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's how I read it on the plans.
MS. MOORE: No, we're requesting it in the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Sir?
MR. HUGHES: Good evening. Arthur Hughes, I'm on 3550 Ole Jule
Lane. Their southern boundary is my northern boundary, all
right? And if that -- can you move that picture a little bit to
get the house on the left off of there, and you get more of a
lineup with my house. There, that's better.
I own the house with the blue roof. My property line goes
Board of Trustees 60 July 17, 2024
right down to the water where you see the little bushes there.
And that's where the boulders are. You know the difference
between a rock and a boulder? I could throw a rock at you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please don't.
MR. HUGHES: I can't throw a boulder. These things are that high.
There must be 40 of them. And I 'm going to remove two. They put
them down my property line, and I had sense enough, a few years
ago, maybe two years ago, I put stakes in on the property.
Just, you know, 2x2's and I painted the tops yellow. And went
from Ole Jule Lane, right down to the monument on the water,
which is no longer there, the monument. It fell over due to the
erosion in the past two years. But the monument is there. And
the boulders were but right over my markers. No regard.
Landscaper, I do not blame these people or anybody else. It was
the landscaper that did the work. He' s a guy from Jamesport or
,some place in Aquebogue. And I don't know what landscaper does
moving around boulders. But they do that, I guess.
But anyway, I have a few more questions I would like to
ask. Has the property been surveyed lately?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me see what my latest survey in the file
is.
MR. HUGHES: That's very important that we find that out.
MS. RUMMEL: 2022. May of 2022 .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so the latest I have in the file would
match that, May of 2022.
MR. HUGHES: May of what?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 2022.
MR. HUGHES: Oh, May of '22, that's before it was bought from Lang.
MS. MOORE: I think they bought in '20. I think we had it
updated again.
MR. HUGHES: All right. I know it's supposed to be within five
years, I believe. I don't know if I'm correct on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are correct, sir.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That's correct.
MR. HUGHES: So that' s another point. I don't know. But I don't
see how anybody could make that mistake.
Now, my next question is, I don't want to take up much
time. It's getting late.
This notice I got in the mail has to be sent, I guess, it
has to tell you what is going on. Also this drawing. This you
can throw out the window. Couldn't read it. Don't understand
it. And I 've lived there all my life.
Now, this part says that you are going to remove the
remains of the foundation in the front yard. I don't blame you.
That was built there, it didn't have a permit, and it' s an
eyesore. Remove that, as far as I'm concerned. I don't blame
you.
Some of this stuff here, you are going to backfill. Where
are you going to backfill? I don't understand the backfill part
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So currently they are removing the fill that
Board of Trustees 61 July 17, 2024
was put in, and the only area that they, are going to add some
fill into that restoration area on the creek? And we can ask
Cole Environmental to clarify any fill to be removed or added.
MR. HUGHES: I 've lived there, but I was away for a while. But I
didn't know, and I didn't see any notice that there was going to
be any work going on with the yard, with the landscaping and the
bulkhead. I didn't know that. But that's my fault. I didn't
know it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, to be fair, there was not supposed to be
work done there. So that's what we are trying to remedy here.
So they received, their client received a violation there. So
the boulders and the fill went in, it was all a violation. We
were not happy about that either.
MR. HUGHES: Okay. All right, well, sorry about that.
Let's see, what else. Then I'll let everybody go home.
Oh, are there going to be drywells put in?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the structure, you mean?
MR. HUGHES: Yes. The roof doesn't have any gutters.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I actually brought that up at the field
inspection with the agent for applicant. They did not finish
installing the gutters, and that would be in terms of my, you
know, my goals here to put that in as a stipulation they have to
connect those drywells to the gutters. Certainly.
MR. HUGHES: Okay. And then just another subject I want to bring
up is, I have never been here before, but what you people are
doing, it seems very good. You are doing a good job, in my
opinion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, sir, that means a lot.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. HUGHES: Especially when you are into the environment.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. HUGHES: Now, getting into the environment, somebody, it' s
not going to be you, but you have to get into irrigation.
Because we are going to lose our water. And it' s not going to
be very along. I won't be around but, so, if they've got new
irrigation, they can do it, I guess. But you got to get a law
somewhere, with this irrigation, I can't say that everybody
shouldn't have irrigation, but it' s got to be timed or
something. Across the creek it' s on all the time. It' s a big
mansion across the creek.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Big problem all over town.
MR. HUGHES: And the irrigation is on all the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree with you. Do you want do go
ahead, Elizabeth, and --
MR. HUGHES: I don't want to get into the irrigation part and
hold you up. But that was on my mind.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sir, I appreciate your concern about our
aquifer and irrigation is an issue throughout town. While it' s
needed in certain areas, it's kind of abused in other areas, and
Board of Trustees 62 July 17, 2024
there is a committee within the town, the Water Advisory
Committee, that's working with the Town Board.
MR. HUGHES: I saw that on TV.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, and they are working with Town Board for
legislation to help monitor the irrigation throughout town. But
thank you, for your concern, and thank you for coming before the
Board this evening.
MR. HUGHES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I just want to echo, everything you are
concerned about, I felt the exact same way, so thank you for
coming in.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We really appreciate it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Have a good evening.
MR. HUGHES: Thank you. Bye-bye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding --
MS. RUMMEL: The native vegetation will just need irrigation to
establish, then beyond that it should be self sufficient.
They also do make smart irrigation systems that you can
just attach, and then it will like keep track of the weather.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hopefully that's mandated soon. And people have
to not switch, you know, switch them off because that's a
problem, too. Thank you.
Are there any additional comments from the members of the
Board?
MS. MOORE: I do have one question, because we are going to be
removing some of the clean fill that's there. I was hoping that
we could use that clean fill for when we remove the remains of
that garage that is in the front yard. I think it' s like barely
in your jurisdiction, but to allow it to be, rather than
bringing it onsite, use what we've got to clean it up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say just make sure you don't change the
grade there, especially with the overly concerned neighbor. You
certainly can use the fill, but don't create the next hardship.
MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And pay attention to those property markers.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that' s fair.
MS. RUMMEL: Absolutely, yes. Everything will be within property
boundaries.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, does anyone else wish to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the following stipulations: New plans to show gutters to
Board of Trustees 63 July 17, 2024
leaders to drywells; no more than ten feet of egress between the
patio and the native planting area; the rest of that corner yard
between the eastern return and the eastern property line to be
planted vegetated species in perpetuity, and labeled as such on
the new plans; add a minimum of three native trees, a minimum of
three-inch caliper, one of which to be a native hardwood; a
single plan to depict all these changes showing the stones to be
removed and the additional grade change to be removed from the
rear yard; thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
espectfully submitted by,
410- 41"
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees