HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/14/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President QF SU(/r Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
couffm
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, August 14, 20 4 Sep j
5:3 0 PM ®/j417® 9 ?04
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President0,
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
August 14th, 2024 meeting. At this time I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais. To my
left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee
Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we will have attorney
to the Trustees Lori Hulse, we have Administrative Assistant
Elizabeth Cantrell. With us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne
Galante, and from Conservation Advisory Council we have John
Chandler.-
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 tonight. In the
agenda, the ones that are postponed are on page four, under
Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, numbers 3 and 4:
Number 3, 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
Board of Trustees 2 August 14, 2024
consisting of a stone splash apron and plantings .
Located: 2500 Point Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-16-1-1
Number 4, 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 10'x10' top
platform flush with surrounding grade to a 4 'x4' upper walk to
4'x16' steps to a 41x4' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 41x4 '
platform to 41xl6' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 41x4' steps to a
4'x4 ' platform to 4 'x16' steps to a 4'x6' platform and 41x8'
retractable aluminum stairs to beach.
Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
On page five, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 5, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT REAL
ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs
consisting of a 10'x10' deck (flush with surrounding grade) at
top of bluff to a 41x4' top platform to 4'x8 ' steps down to a
4'x4' middle platform to 41x7 ' steps to a 41x4 ' lower platform
with 3'x6' retractable aluminum steps to beach; all decking to
be un-treated timber.
Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6
On page nine, numbers 18 through 21 are postponed, listed
as follows:
Number 18, Karen Hoeg, Esq. on behalf of BRENDAN & SARA
OSEAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing foundation
and structures on the property; construct a two-story,
single-family dwelling with basement, covered front entry, side
entry stoop, seaward side covered porch with deck over, seaward
screened porch with deck over, and a/c units; install a new I/A
sanitary system; install a private well; install gutters to
leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; install a gravel
driveway; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 12632 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-8 .2
Number 19, Robert Brown Architect, P.C. on behalf of DAVID
& CHRISTINE CZERNIECKI requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing dwelling and to construct a second story over existing
first story; enclose existing sunroom/breezeway in between
dwelling and garage; construct a landward addition and front
covered porch; construct a seaward side deck with steps; and to
abandon existing septic system and install a new I/A septic
system.
Located: 955 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-10
Number 20, Robert Brown Architect, P.C. on behalf of DON &
GLENNA RYAN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story
dwelling and to construct a second story addition; remove
portion of existing deck and construct a two-story seaward side
addition; construct a second story balcony; and to abandon
existing septic system and install a new I/A septic system
landward of dwelling.
Board of Trustees 3 August 14, 2024
Located: 760 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
Number 21, 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
And on page ten, numbers 22 through 24, listed as follows:
Number 22, 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
Number 23, James DeLucca, R.A. , LLC on behalf of DOUGLAS
P. ROBALINO LIVING TRUST & DIANE E. ROBALINO LIVING TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1, 628sq. ft. One-story
dwelling with attached 186sq. ft. East side deck with steps and
405sq. ft. West side deck with steps; as-built 181sq.ft. PVC
pergola; as-built 345sq.ft. West side concrete patio; 526sq.ft.
Of as built concrete walkways; 827sq.ft. Of as-built step-stone
walks; as-built 598sq.ft. Masonry block walk; as-built
1, 600sq.ft. Brick & asphalt driveway; existing previously
permitted 1, 380sq.ft. Two-story garage; and 10' diameter by 8'
deep cesspool with shallow dome.
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21. 1
Number 24, 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;
Board of Trustees 4 August 14, 2024
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, so there will not be hearings
tonight on those.
Under Town Code 275-8 (c) files were officially closed seven
days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that date may result
in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Wednesday, September 11th, 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, September 18th, 2024 at 5:30PM at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, September 16th, 2024 at S:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday,
September 18th, 2024 at S:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting
Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the July 17th, 2024, meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 5 August 14, 2024
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:. Roman numeral V, Monthly Report. The Trustees
monthly report for July 2024. A check for $25,083. 18 was
forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices. 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,. August 14, 2024 are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA, as written:
Fussy Monkey Properties, LLC SCTM# 1000-21-2-12
Thomas & Jennifer Smith SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
Patrick & Ann Marie Browne SCTM# 1000-63-7-38
Peconic Land Trust, Inc. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.12
Jonathan Presseau SCTM# 1000-136-2-4
Orient Acres, LLC SCTM# 1000-14-2-25
Edward & Meredith Rerisi SCTM# 1000-63-7-37
Jennifer Maye & John Bernhard, Jr. SCTM# 1000-103-10-1
Andrew Flinn SCTM# 1000-31-8-12. 9
Nan Molofsky & Arthur Skelskie SCTM# 1000-111-14-36.8
Evan M. & Elizabeth A. Minogue SCTM# 1000-115-10-6
The Daniel Diviney Revocable Trust & The Suzanne S. Diviney
Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-43-5-8 & 23
Wyandanch Real Estate Corp. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2
Rocky Bluff, LLC, c/o Richard Reisman, Member SCTM#
1000-21-1-26.1
Win Wunn, LLC, c/o Roni Jacobson SCTM# 1000-86-6-11
Brendan & Sara Osean SCTM# 1000-31-14-8.2
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -
Board of Trustees 6 August 14, 2024
Administrative Permits.
In order to no simplify our meeting the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 and 2, as follows:
Number 1, ROBERT J. HARRISON & PATRICIA A. KOVATCH request
an Administrative Permit to replace approximately 20' x 10'
existing at-grade patio with 31' x 15' at/below grade patio
using concrete pavers on sand base.
Located: 260 Huckleberry Hill, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-16-5
Number 2, JEFFREY L. WADE & MARK G. WADE request a 10-Year
Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites
australis) to not less than 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-17
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, again, in order to
simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 and 2, and 4 through 7, as follows:
Number 1, DKJK FAMILY TRUST requests a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit #10202 as issued on August 17, 2022.
Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
Number 2, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of KEVIN KEYSER
requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9971
as issued on August 18, 2021.
Located: 1356 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-3-11.5
Number 4, JOHN E. & DEBRA A. GRACE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #6581 & Coastal Erosion Permit #6581C from James
Grace to John E. & Debra A. Grace, as issued on April 18, 2007.
Located: 190 Willow Terrace, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-6.1
Number 5, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DANIEL EGAN
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1535 from Gerald P.
McGinty to Daniel Egan as issued on May 12, 1982.
Located: 355 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-24
Number 6, Ed Nicholson on behalf of DIANE SIMEONI requests
an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #10471A to
construct a reduced size 5' wide, tapering to 4' and 2.5' ,
wooden deck on seaward side of existing dwelling.
Located: 1200 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-30
Number 7, Rick Campos on behalf of ROBERT & PATRICIA
DELSIGNORE requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit #8885A for the existing exterior deck
which is smaller in square footage with shortened outward
footprint dimensions.
Located: 955 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-5-16
Board of Trustees 7 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, WYANDANCH REAL ESTATE CORP.
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #9957 from Michael
Monteforte to Wyandanch Real Estate Corp. ," as issued on July 14,
2021.
Located: 4060 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection August llth,
2024 . Notes that it is not okay to transfer, that what was
constructed does not match the permit.
Accordingly, since what is out there does not match what
was permitted and approved, I 'll make a motion to deny this
transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, I'll make a motion to
approve Number 1, as follows:
Number 1, JOSEPH PAGANO requests a Stake and Pulley System
Permit in Goose Creek for a 14 ' outboard motorboat, replacing
Stake #S133. Access: Public
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to go off
our regular meeting agenda and enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
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.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and 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
i
Board of Trustees i 8 August 14, 2024
i
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"x12" 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
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 conducted a field inspection
August 7th, 2024, noting the rock revetment to start at the
existing toe of the bluff, and to show the angled returns on the
plans.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is a Bank Swallow colony was reported nesting in the bluff.
Bank Swallows are federally protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. The action includes manipulating the bluff base and
slope and disturbing the soil. It does not meet the policy below
in that a physical loss of the Bank Swallow habitat would occur.
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
application?
MR. CARR: Yes. Ed Carr, Taplow Consulting, the agent for the
applicant. And with me is Tom Brouillette, the agent for the
owner.
I wanted to enter into the record a photograph from when
you made your field visit, showing the stakes and the proximity
to either the cottage on the top or some of the other landmarks
that are there that way, because what we are proposing is that
we follow the stake agreement that I think we had all
collectively agreed to on the site visit.
So I wanted to just enter that into the record so it was
memorialized..
So if I could approach and turn this in.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. CARR: (Handing) .
So if my photograph showing the stakes becomes part of the
record, and we would propose that the rock revetment go from
where the mud line of the bluff hits the sand, and then
projecting out about seven feet to where we had placed the
stakes.
The other comments on the LWRP regarding the Bank Swallow,
I believe we had addressed that at the last hearing, where the
Board of Trustees 9 August 14, 2024
DEC would allow us to perform the work in two phases. Phase One
would be that the rocks could be placed on the beach
immediately. And then Phase Two would be in the autumn once the
Swallows have vacated their nests, which I think is actually
next month, sometime in September, that they would allow us to
come in.
The DEC Marine Habitat Bureau had also indicated on their
permit that they felt this would not be detrimental to the Bank
Swallow, that there are plenty of cuts or openings in any bluff,
including this one, because not 100% of it will vegetate. There
will always be small pockets that the Bank Swallows are able to
borough into those areas.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I will make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the rock revetment start at the existing toe of
the bluff, and not to exceed more than six-foot seaward from the
existing toe; condition of vegetated non-turf buffer seaward of
the house at the top of the bluff; condition that there is no
disturbance of the Bank Swallows in accordance with DEC
regulations; and also conditioned an inspection prior to
construction where the applicant will need to notify the office
one week prior to construction with the area staked out prior to
construction, thereby bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. CARR: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you for your presentation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 2, Taplow Consulting, Ltd. on behalf of FUSSY MONKEY
PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to install 43 linear feet of rock revetment consisting of
2-to-4-ton stones at a max of 2.5 tons per linear foot along the
toe of the bluff; re-vegetating the scarred bluff areas with
beach grass plugs 12" on center; installing 2"x12" terrace
boards every 10' along the disturbed bluff face; work to be
accomplished by using a crane on the property located at 905
Aquaview Avenue and lowering a small bob-cat, boulders, and
terrace boards to beach; all materials to arrive and be stored
on the upland site; and the crane will also be used to remove
Board of Trustees 10 August 14, 2024
any shoreline storm debris (collapsed trees, construction debris
flotsam, etc. )
Located: 955 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-12
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of August and noted that the rocks start at the toe of the
bluff, return needs to be shown on plans.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent, citing proximity to
a coastal erosion hazard area, and modifications to the bluff
eco-system.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not
support the system, the proposed plan to accomplish the angle of
repose will affect the size of the beach.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CARR: Ed Carr, again, from Taplow Consulting. I' joined by
Tom Brouillette, the agent for the owner.
This is an adjacent property located to the west. The same
approach would be taken regarding the Bank Swallows, that work
would only be done as per the DEC permit afterwards.
We would also agree to pull the rock revetment back within,
I believe you said six feet on the last hearing. So we would
agree with that.
And as for the returns, we are hoping to not have to do a
return only because the properties are adjacent, but we
understand on both the, I guess would be on the west side of
this property, we would need to put a return in. Our draftsman,
quite frankly, was away since we met at the site visit and was
unable to get the plans in here. I would -- I 'm sorry, the east
side. But we are going to be able to have these plans to you, so
if you would be comfortable with setting a condition subject, or
your approval subject to a condition that we provide adequate
plans showing the proper return, not a 90-degree angle but
feathered in, if it's required.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans showing a non-turf native vegetated buffer
seaward of the house; rock revetment to start at the base and
extend no further than six-feet outward from the toe of the
eroded bluff; plans also to show softened return as needed; not
to disturb the nesting birds, in accordance with DEC
regulations; that if seaward side deck is disturbed, or in need
of repair or replacement during this project, it will comply
Board of Trustees 11 August 14, 2024
with Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 regulations; and that an
inspection is required; to be staked out and contact the
Trustee' s office one week prior to the start of construction,
thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 1, under Wetland Permits, 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.
The Trustees visited the site and reviewed the plans inhouse on
August 7th, 2024 . Notes from that read: Inhouse review further at
work session, entirety of property to remain non-turf, which, based
on my recollection, the property already is non-turf.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SMITH: Hello, I'm Tom Smith. I'm the owner and the applicant.
I'm here with my wife Jennifer.
I think the application was fairly straightforward. This
is a small, 1,200 square-foot seasonal cottage that we use. We
are not expanding footprint. We are not going up. We are not
adding to the bedrooms or the bath. It' s really an improvement.
Lifting the roof line ever so slightly to add bigger windows.
Windows, doors, and interior changes, but for the most part,
again, not adding a second floor, not changing the footprint, no
additional bedrooms and no baths.
So, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer
anything you have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone wish to speak by members of the
public, or questions or concerns from 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 make a motion to approve the application
with the condition that the property remain as a non-turf
buffer.
MR. SMITH: Can you explain what you mean by a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait until he finishes the motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's my motion.
Board of Trustees 12 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: A non-turf buffer just means no grass.
MR. SMITH: Okay. Now, there is currently a front yard that is
only about 380 square feet. I have a picture if you want to see
it. I would like to maintain that if I could. I mean the
neighbors, for example, their grass area is between five and ten
times larger, with no bulkhead, and mine is, honestly, it's
nothing more than really a postage stamp just on the front yard.
It's, I have pictures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, the hearing is closed. But contact the
Trustee office and we can have a conversation on that matter.
MR. SMITH: Okay. Appreciate that.
MS. HULSE: The Town Code provides a fuller description of the
non-turf buffer definition, if you wanted to review that. We
can show it to you if you would like.
MR. SMITH: Okay, please.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. ,
on behalf of PATRICK & ANN MARIE BROWNE requests a Wetland
Permit to install a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp leading onto a 6'x20'
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured in
place with two (2) anchor pilings; install two (2) tie-off
pilings; and re-deck existing permitted 41x120' fixed dock with
Sure-Step open grate decking.
Located: 1645 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-38
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 7th,
2024, noting to check permit history, which we have subsequently
completed, and ensured the dock does match the current length.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent. They
noted that in 2022 the Board approved a 121-foot-long dock,
under Permit 1950c. This action will add nine feet to the
seaward limit of the dock. And that the applicant failed to
approve that the action meets the LWRP's policy having a Trustee
permit before building a dock.
It also states that the dock does not meet the one-third
rule and will further encroach into the public waters on public
lands and is inconsistent with Policy 6.3 and 9.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
this application because the docking facility extends beyond the
pier line.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant.
This dock is just adding a ramp and a floating dock. We are
not doing any seaward expansion. It meets the criteria for the
distance across the waterway, so, I mean, this is a pretty
Board of Trustees 13 August 14, 2024
simple application. I don't understand the inconsistencies.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I concur. I don't know that, looking at it
and looking at the plans and looking at the dock, there is no
seaward extension. It's going sideways. So there is no further
seaward extension of the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It points towards the bay. I'm not sure, yes.
MR. COSTELLO: It' s not pointing towards the opposite shoreline,
so it' s not encroaching anything.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone here wishing to speak
regarding this application, or any further questions or comments
from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that upon site inspection the Trustees noted
no significant seaward encroachment due to the L-shape of the
additional float, thereby bringing this into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, 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.
Located: 10273 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#
1000-79-5-20.12
The Trustees most recently visited the site on July 9th,
2024, and noted that this application is straightforward.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with
Policy 6.3.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from 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 PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and noting that due to the net environmental benefit
of the shellfish hatchery located within this building, and
Board of Trustees 14 August 14, 2024
granting a permit it thereby brings it into consistency with the
LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, 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 6'x20' 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 6'x40' 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
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
August 7th, noting the permeable bulkhead to start at ten feet
on the east side and taper down to six feet on the west side.
The western bulkhead near travel lift needs County permission
and should be re-vegetated behind.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to recuse myself from this
application due to the business relationship with the applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Questioning the need for the permeable bulkhead. Proposed
replace a shoreline intertidal area on the west side. And
turbidity controls are required.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicants. Thank
you.
Yes, my notes did reflect that we would start at the six
feet, which is the tighter area for navigation, and then angle
it out to ten feet.
So we were in agreement. And Jeff Patanjo is here, and he
did the drawings. So I was just briefing him on that.
I did have a question about the County' s approval. I don't
believe we are on County land or are going to be dealing with
the County, so I'm not aware of needing their permission.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there a plan .to re-vegetate the portion
Board of Trustees 15 August 14, 2024
behind the bulkhead, on the western side of this project, which
abuts County land?
MS. MOORE: He' s reminding me, there might be some area that is
re-vegetating.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The County is, it's also the immediate
neighbor, and its common practice, and we have been saying it
since the start of this project that they should just get
permission from the County, or at least notice.
MS. MOORE: Notice is not a problem. Permission, is harder to
find somebody.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MS. MOORE: Do you know somebody at the County that actually
supervises this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would call your local legislator.
MS. MOORE: My local legislator. Okay. Former legislator, would
they know?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so.
MS. MOORE: I'll check with the legislator.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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 SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, 'aye. Trustee
Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Gillooly, aye. Trustee Peeples,
recused) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the permeable bulkhead in
front of the concrete wall start at the six-foot on the west
side and extend out to ten feet on the east side, with new plans
depicting; and also need for County and DEC approvals for the
western permeable bulkhead. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee
Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Gillooly, aye. Trustee Peeples,
recused) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 8/14/24 AMP Architecture on behalf of
JONATHAN PRESSEAU requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
two-story dwelling with seaward side deck and second-story
balcony; remove the front entry stoop, garage, driveway and rock
walls; construct a garage addition, a front covered porch &
foyer with steps, and a second-floor addition onto existing
Board of Trustees 16 August 14, 2024
dwelling; reconstruct and relocate driveway and rock wall; ±3
cubic yards of earth to be excavated and ±10 cubic yards to be
used for backfill or regrading; existing A/C unit; as-built
shed; install two (2) drywells to contain storm-water runoff;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide vegetated
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of wetlands.
Located: 2905 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-4
The Trustees visited the site at field inspections on the
7th of August. Noted the check permit history on the ramp, is
there a pier line available for the property. And it would be a
larger vegetated buffer, given the proximity of the high tide
line on the lawn.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent, but
strongly recommended an IA sanitary wastewater system, and a
large vegetated non-turf.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the structure and application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Good evening, Board, Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
Just starting with the couple of comments during the site
visit. I did, I was able to find on the Building Department
record in December 15th, 1986, there was a complaint of the
ramp, and then it looks like an inspection from Mr. McCarthy,
and he indicated that the foundation of the ramp and the
footings for the deck were submitted to the Building Department,
and in place prior to April lst, 1985. No violation at this
time.
So I did find that on record. I could submit that, if
you'd like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We found the same, thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, great. We updated our drawings to provide a
15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. From your site visit, I was
not sure what you were thinking there.
The reasoning for the 15-foot, not larger, is how it sort
of would encroach on the existing ramp and staircase that is
there. So like if we are to come any more, say 20 feet, it
might start encroaching onto that staircase that accesses that
boat ramp. So that was our thoughts on the 15-foot.
We also added in these plans that were not in the original
submission, dry wells for the entire roof surface because I went
back and looked at the photos, there are no current dry wells,
you can tell from the leaders it's basically just dying onto the
yard.
So we did provide that in calculations for the two dry
wells, which we will connect the leaders to those dry wells.
Pier line was a little bit of a question, and I did go back
and read your code in regard to pier line.
It' s a difficult situation. You have two vacant lots next
Board of Trustees 17 August 14, 2024
to it, and if you were to go, let's say, to the next neighboring
lots, there is one neighboring lot that is on the same water,
and then the other one that would be next to that vacant lot is
not on that waterway.
So in my opinion the pier line would be from the
neighboring, the second neighboring lot or adjacent lot to my
client' s home, would basically create that pier line, and then,
so you essentially we would not just, we would have to avoid
going further seaward of what the current footprint is, and our
proposal is not to extend past the existing footprint with the
second floor.
I think that is the correct interpretation. If I'm
incorrect, maybe we can have that discussion. But that home
sort of, is going to start dictating the pier line in that area.
From my understanding.
Our addition is landward of the existing garage and it's at
the front of the home, so they are not requesting anything
seaward. The second-floor addition is on top of the existing
footprint. And that is really our proposal there.
If there are any further questions, I can answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there were just a couple, from a couple
of the different organizations involved questions, because we
didn't see the IA in the plans.
MR. PORTILLO: So it's not a reconstruction. The existing system
is large enough to handle the occupancy or the bedroom count.
So the proposal for the IA was not something we put into our
design.
Again, this is more looking at Health Department, Building
Department requirements, where it's not a reconstruction, it' s
not a change in occupancy, and the existing system is
functional. And that the reason.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that something that your clients would
consider?
MR. PORTILLO: It was discussed due to past projects that I have
been in front of the Board and so that this could come up as a
request from the Board. They are not necessarily into spending
the money on it. They are obviously going to be putting money
into the addition.
The system, I think is -- not I think. The system is not a
cesspool, so it is a contained system and has a proper leaching,
et cetera.
So it's not something they would like to do, but if it's
something the Board is going to require, I guess they don't
really have a choice there, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any thoughts from the Board on that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we have been pretty consistent with
any additions on homes, especially that proximity to the water,
to put an IA system in. So, I would like to see one in this case
as well.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I just keep presenting it this way because,
Board of Trustees 18 August 14, 2024
again, it' s not really a requirement anywhere, and I think I'm
just looking for the Board to maybe reconsider these things,
because it's a pretty hefty cost. You know, it's $30, 000, if not
more, depending on the type of system. And you have a working
system. It is a self-contained system, not a cesspool, as I
reviewed it.
I understand the benefits of the IA, and I get that, but
again, this is not leaching all over the yard black water or
gray water, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would agree with Trustee Goldsmith on this,
and also the fact that when, you know, an application is in
front of us, with, as you mentioned, it's not an extensive
renovation, but it still is an addition. They are upgrading
their home, and the way we look at this is sort of into the
future, in the hopes that by doing this upgrade and this
addition to the home now, they are not going to do a project for
quite a while, so we kind of look at the longevity and the
future of what is being proposed.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I just give the requirements to my clients
in regard to what the Building Department and Health Department
requires, then obviously if it's something that the Board is
going to request, we'll have to take care of that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I can appreciate the constraints that your
clients are under. We're also looking at the aerial, the
location of this home and the two adjacent lots. It' s at the
headwaters of a creek, in a sensitive environmental area, and a
nicely vegetated salt marsh system in that area. And where in
the backyard, the clients enjoy lovely ramp access to the creek
and it could be the right move to protect it.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. They're a growing family and they live here
year-round, so they need to do the work. So I would say it' s
something they would consider, and if we want to put that into
the approval, that is fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to address
this hearing?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with new plans depicting an IA system, and the stipulation that
if the ramp is ever resurfaced, they change it over to
open-grate decking.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 19 August 14, 2024
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Enjoy the evening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Martin Finnegan, Esq. On behalf of ORIENT
ACRES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x50'
in-ground swimming pool with 2, 900sq.ft. Patio at grade;
construct a 350sq.ft. Pool house with 13.21x24 ' roof over patio;
install pool enclosure fencing with gates; install a drywell for
the pool house and a drywell for the pool; and to install pool
equipment area.
Located: 32655 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-25
The Trustees visited the site on the 7th of August. Notes
from our visit read pool location is okay, associated structure
or pool house should be pulled to or beyond the 100-foot
jurisdictional line from the top bank.
Questioned the septic IA plans for the structure. Needs
Buffer along bank edge.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
it because the location of this project is less than 100 feet
from the top of bluff, or bank, in our study of the location.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. FINNEGAN: Yes. Good evening. Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main
Road, Mattituck, for the applicant Orient Acres.
As you are aware, this is a pretty large ten-acre parcel
that's improved with just one single-family residence.
The proposed pool is going to be 73 feet from the top of
the bank, well outside of the allowable setback. And the pool
house is a small code-compliant 350 square-foot structure that
is almost 100 feet, 96 feet, from the top of bank. So we'll call
that substantially compliant.
And if approved, the applicant will be,-applying for
approval for a small conventional sanitary system to be placed
landward of the pool house, obviously to accommodate the small
half-bath in that structure.
Unfortunately, the existing sanitary system is just too far
away to tap into that.
As you may be aware, ZBA relief for the side yard location
of the pool is granted back in March with also a consistent
LWRP. And there was no evidence of any adverse impact.
So I feel like it' s a pretty straightforward application.
Obviously, again, this is a super-huge parcel. The location of
the pool and pool house is just physically next to the house for
the convenience sake. If that is an issue with the location of
the pool house, I don't think my client would have a problem
pulling it back four feet. I don't think I can sit here and
argue loud about that. So if that is what you like, I think we
can make that happen.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Very well. Is there anyone else who wishes to
Board of Trustees 20 August 14, 2024
speak regarding the application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board wish to comment?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I guess I have a question about the sanitary
system. Did you say it's a traditional sanitary system?
MR. FINNEGAN: It will be a small conventional. IA systems are
only really required when bedrooms are involved. And this is
just a -- it' s a half bath. So it' s a contained landward system
that would accommodate the bathroom. The small bathroom in that
structure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: How many bedrooms are in the existing house?
MR. FINNEGAN: I believe there are four bedrooms in the house.
I'm not actually sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I don't believe the plans indicated that
sanitary system that --
MR. FINNEGAN: We have not applied yet because we are waiting to
get the other approvals in place and then the application is
going to be submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so then you would come back to this
Board?
MR. FINNEGAN: Well, the intent was to do it outside of -- it
would be outside of your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it would be landward.
MR. FINNEGAN: Yes. It' s about eight acres available to put it
in there, so.
And just with respect to the comment on the buffer, there
is an existing vegetated area landward, so that would be
landward of the bank itself, right? That's where you would be
looking for a buffer. Is that the normal ten-foot buffer? So
we could incorporate in the plan what is there to be included in
that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yeah, given our site inspection, it's very
exposed property, with grass almost the entirety of the
property. Personally, I'd look for a 15-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer. Ideally would be vegetated with native plantings so
they could withstand the abuse that they take from the salt in
that very exposed area.
So if a 15-foot buffer can be incorporated onto the new
plans depicting the property with movement of the pool house out
of jurisdiction.
MR. FINNEGAN: Okay, but we could use the area that is already a
buffer there and add to that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And add to it, yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Only what begins at the top of the bank.
MR. FINNEGAN: Yes. From the revetment itself. There is a rock
revetment, right. Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, there is that. But there is also, there
is also a vegetated area on the bank, and what Trustee Sepenoski
is referring to is that 20-feet from that top of bank.
MR. FINNEGAN: He said 15.
Board of Trustees 21 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sorry, sorry.
MR. FINNEGAN: That' s okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do I hear 30?
(Participants laughing) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. 15-feet. Yes. Is going to occur landward
of the top of bank.
MR. FINNEGAN: Landward of top of bank. Okay. So we'll get it
onto the plans and hopefully all good.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: At 15 feet. Sounds great.
MR. FINNEGAN: 15 feet. Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Does anyone else wish to speak regarding
application? Or members of the Board wish to comment or
question?
(No response) .
Hearing no further, I'll 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
with the following conditions:
A 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer beginning at the top of
bank, extending landward. And the movement of the. pool house
structure beyond the 100-foot Trustee jurisdictional line. And
subject to new plans depicting those conditions.
MR. FINNEGAN: Very good. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, AS PER REVISED PLANS & DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 8/1/2024 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, second story
balcony, and fireplace chimney; convert existing pool to salt
water, maintaining at current grade and shape; 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 drywell for pool
backwash, A/C units, buried propane tank, and gutters to leaders
to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 520 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-34
The Trustees most recently did an in-house review noting
that the structure still seems to exceed the pier line in some
sections.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council inspected the
property and project was not staked, therefore no recommendation
Board of Trustees 22 August 14, 2024
was made.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen here, on behalf of the applicant.
As you'll recall, we were here two months ago for a
hearing. And just to briefly review, this property was given an
NJ determination, non-jurisdiction determination from the DEC.
It's a very constrained property, and the existing gross
square footage was 4, 379 square feet, 26% lot coverage.
We had proposed a gross area footage of 4,237 or 23% lot
coverage. So we had decreased the gross square-footage, we had
decreased the lot coverage.
We had received ZBA approval, and in their approval
process, they also found this consistent under the LWRP.
The project includes an IA sanitary system, dry wells
containing roof runoff. Removing the non-pervious driveway
replacing it with a pervious driveway. We had Health Department
approval pending, of course, Trustee approval.
That gets us up to this hearing tonight where what we have
done since the last hearing is we have pulled the southwest
corner of the structure back approximately eight feet, so the
new gross square footage is approximately 160 square-foot less,
or 4, 131 square feet. Approximately 22% lot coverage. So it
decreased the lot coverage as well as decreased the square
footage.
I have several items for you folks tonight. First is a
front yard rendering of the house from the architect, John
Seifert, who is here tonight. Second, it was the, addressing
pier line. When we were here two months ago there was an
agreement from the Board and this is an unusual shoreline in
that it' s not perfectly straight.
Under Chapter 275, the definition of the pier line is an
imaginary line between immediately adjacent existing structures.
So what we have done is we used a GIS mapping and we had created
that pier line, as you can see with the two adjacent homes. And
so that has been superimposed on the new set of plans that you
folks received. And again, we took the structure back, on one
corner of it was 24-and-a-half feet, approximately, away from
the bulkhead. It' s now 3119". Another section was presently
20 -- it was previously proposed to be just over 29 feet. It' s
now 37 feet back. So we have moved the structure, we feel,
significantly back.
We cannot move the structure toward the road because that' s
where the IA system is and because the IA system as well as the
drainage pools for the runoff and the ground to surface water
table, we cannot move that, move the house any further that way.
So if you want more information on that, again, Mr. Seifert
here, is the architect. He can address that.
So that brings us up to where we are tonight. So any
questions that you folks have?
Board of Trustees 23 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think there are two kinds of areas of focus
of where our discussions took us. The first would be that we do
appreciate the pier line that is now on the plan, and recognize
the work that went into providing that to us using the adjacent
houses, and had to be a little creative, and so we appreciate
that.
I think what we are seeing though was almost a little
confusing. It seems like there is a dotted line on the plan
that would show the structure being dialed back to be within the
pier line. But I do not believe that is what is proposed in this
plan, so I just wanted some clarity on that. Especially in that
corner where the peak of, the apex of that line is.
MR. BERGEN: Sure. The dotted line is an imaginary pier line
that matches what I had submitted. And you are correct, there is
a small section of that structure there that is outside the pier
line. But what we have done is dialed it back as far as we can.
And actually what we did is we moved what was a proposed cabana
that was in that area, and moved it farther into the bathroom,
into the footprint seaward -- excuse me, landward of the pool
next to the house. So we just moved a piece of structure to
another area that would be right inside the pier line.
Again, it still resulted in a reduction of 160 square-foot
of space. But that one there is a corner of the structure there
that is still outside of this pier line and we just can't move
the structure back any further because of the IA, or any more
landward because of the IA system as well as the drainage pools
that are in there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Bergen, we do appreciate your study on all
of this. If I 'm reading the plan correctly here, and what is
sort of seaward of the pier line, it actually appears there is a
wedged piece. So it' s not just one corner, unless you are
indicating that the structure is completely moved back to that
smaller dotted line. The finer dotted line that I think
indicates the garage.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, there is, and maybe Mr. Seifert can explain
this better. I think I see what you are talking about, the
wedge piece, there are actually two corners there that are
outside. Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. I think, you know, as one Trustee, the
study that you have taken in regard to the pier line is very
much appreciated, and I think that from my perspective I would
like to see all of the built structure behind that pier line
area. So, you know, perhaps it's modifying the design. That is
just my input there.
The other thing I wanted to ask you about is you just
submitted this evening alations of the front of the home --
MR. BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: (Continuing) that show kind of a stone cladding
on the foundation area of the home. And when we were looking at
the elevation of, the rear elevation, which is not depicted in
Board of Trustees 24 August 14, 2024
what you handed us this evening, it seems that is fairly
significant, the foundation wall that is going to be visible
with that stone cladding. I think even with it dialed back, my
calculations there it's about four-and-a-half feet high.
MR. BERGEN: Again, I would ask Mr. Seifert to address that. I
didn't, at the first hearing there was no mention of a problem
with the front of the building. So.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, obviously with extended study on an
application there are other things, you know, we were focused on
some of the other areas. And I think in looking at everything
holistically, that was something that was observed that there
would be that face.
MR. BERGEN: So is the concern the esthetic look of the face? Is
that the concern? What exactly is the concern? Because this has
already been through ZBA, it' s already been through lots of
processes. So I'm trying to figure out what the concern is that
you have on the face of the building.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The concern is similar to that of a retaining
wall. And I know on this property we already kind of addressed
that with terracing of the retaining wall so that there is not a
very large plane that is visible from the pond there.
So I think in my mind it reads as similar to the
conversation that we. had about the terracing for the retaining
walls, that all of a sudden there is going to be this very large
wall that is, you know, facing the pond there.
MR. BERGEN: I 'm sorry, I don't understand how a retaining wall
that's behind a bulkhead and in front of a pool have to have an
impact on the front facade of a house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I'll take a different direction with
this. I think what happened was the Board was presented an
application for the pool, the as-built pool and retaining walls.
And then now we are reviewing an application for an entire
rebuild, a demolition, Town Code definition of a demolition, and
I think that this four-and-a-half foot or whatever the
calculation would be on that wall, the foundational wall, is now
part of the design, and it's going to be very visible. And if
there was an opportunity for this Board to look at the entirety
of the application, including the previous submission, which is
permitted, there could have been perhaps a way to look at all of
this holistically instead of now we are looking at it piecemeal,
and we are confronted with a lot of structure that is so close
to the bulkhead.
And now I'm just, I'm asking these questions in an effort
to try to address some of the concerns that this Board typically
has about having these high walls, that are blank walls right
there on the viewshed of another others.
MR. BERGEN: And not to get argumentative, I would understand if
this was a separate landscape wall that is completely separate
from the structure of the house. But this is the front of, what
I understand, this is, you're talking about the front facade of
Board of Trustees 25 August 14, 2024
the house, and it has nothing to do with the retaining walls
between the bulkhead and the pool, in my opinion. But that' s
just my opinion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's correct. I think the concern here is
that all of a sudden, it' s essentially now almost a three-story
high house that is visible from Gull Pond. And I think that
there could have been some solutions on the property to address
that, and I think in terms of requesting that the primary
structure be pulled back landward is a part of the way to sort
of have some sort of middle ground around here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, it' s a tough lot. It' s an
oddly-shaped lot with not a lot of to move. The Trustee came
through this with the pool first, and just reviewing the pier
line I see on the plans you provided us; it seems like there is
an opportunity to bring it more into conformity with that pier
line that you drew.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Perhaps Mr. Seifert can comment on it as ,
well, because I saw him shaking his head.
MR. SEIFERT: My name is John Seifert, I'm the architect on the
project.
If you are referring to the front wall of the house from
the street, that --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: From the rear facade.
MR. SEIFERT: So there is some stone base to it, the house on
that side. It doesn't have anything to do with the foundation.
It' s more of an esthetic than anything else. That can be easily
lowered if it's objectionable to you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So part of the reason why the terracing exists
on the seaward side of the pool is because the Trustees don't
typically allow for any walls over two feet in height. And so
that is why it had to be stepped down. So I think what Trustee
Peeples is referring to is, again, we are faced with another
four-foot wall that needs to be softened in some way.
And I also echo the sentiment that we would like to see the
structure pulled back to conform with the pier line as it's been
presented on this plan.
MR. FINNEGAN: On that point, again, I know you are aware that
this application, or this project, was already reviewed by the
ZBA and approved. It varied the initial existing structure, also
got ZBA relief back in 1978. Both of those variances were
granted in recognition of the constraints of this lot. ' And •I
think what we are asking for you to do is actually to give that
same consideration here. ,
You have to, this is a very oddly shaped lot. It' s an
atypical formation to apply the imaginary pier line definition
to this property, it really cannot be done. So it is a, you
know, a regulation that can't fit here. We have the apex of
these properties, every other property that comes before you is,
you are going like this with the pier line. Here we have an "X"
across the property and you're asking to comply with that, which
Board of Trustees 26 August 14, 2024
really is not fair. It's not the code definition, and I think
the applicant has done their level best to bring this thing back
in to comply with a policy that it doesn't really fit on this
property. And I mean every other, the Boards that have looked
at this now have said constrained property, that' s the reason
that relief was given, and all of this construction is actually
within the existing footprint of the structure, it's already
there. And it's being pulled back. And so, you know, I think we
are just asking for that same consideration here. A great effort
has been made here to come into compliance, and I don't know if
there is a way to feasibly do that, and I don't know that this
pier line is fairly applied to this property. And I think you
have o acknowledge that. It doesn't work the way it --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That' s where our discussion this evening is
-- it' s what it's about. A public hearing is in service of an
open and honest discussion about observations in the field,
considerations of our code and our practices and consistencies
or our policy.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, as you know, we want to minimize the
impact of any project. And what we always do is maximize the
distance back from the wetland. Realizing this particular
location you are constrained by that, however, you know, it is a
demolition, so it's starting from scratch, so we are not
necessarily working within the footprint, because by Town Code
definition, this is a demolition. Realizing, again, that we
can't draw the line between the two adjacent properties because
it would be un-buildable if we did that. So we are trying to
take the average setback of the neighboring houses into effect
with this one. Realizing, again, you can't move it further
seaward because of the IA system. However, it's also a
4, 000-whatever foot house, that could be shaved, potentially a
little bit, to bring it back within that pier line using the
average setback of the neighbors. And that' s what we're talking
about here.
MR. FINNEGAN: And I understand. I just, I mean, it is a demo by
Town Code definition. It is not a demo, the construction is
within what is an existing footprint of this house. So I
understand what you are trying to drive with the pier line in
keeping everything landward of that line, but there has been a
substantial cutback of it, and I 'm just asking you to consider
it.
I mean, we have now a very minimal intrusion beyond the
pier line, and I guess we are just asking for the benefit of the
doubt. Because of the fact if we could open this property up
and make it a rectangle, okay, like every other lot, this house
would push forward and we would not have any trouble.
It is what it is. The subdivision map was created that way,
and the house was built that way. And actually, the ZBA
recognized that the end result here is a lower house with less
mass, and all around more conforming to the code.
Board of Trustees 27 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The ZBA does a separate and totally different
review than what we do.
MR. FINNEGAN: I understand that completely. But under your
criteria and the standards for your review, you need to make a
finding that there is a substantial adverse impact to the
wetland by what we're proposing here. And I would submit that
there is no substantially adverse impact to the wetland by this
minor intrusion beyond an imaginary line. That's our position.
I understand completely what your mission is and what you
are trying to do. That' s all we are trying to say is that we've
done our level best to come into compliance.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate those comments. And our purview
as Trustees extends not only to the concerns over wetlands, but
also the esthetic viewsheds of the adjacent area. People don't
want to look walls when they're kayaking in our bodies of water.
They don't want to look at engineered solutions to properties
that benefit a single homeowner and degrade the general welfare
and enjoyment of our waters. So those are also part of our
considerations. What's the house going to look like when you
stand there on the shoreline. That' s part of it. It's not just
the health of the salt marsh.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And in addition, the danger from flood and
storm damage. So obviously the further back from a bulkhead, the
less likely you are to get storm damage.
MR. FINNEGAN: I completely understand. I'm just making the
pitch of, you know, we've come a long way here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think it' s important to note that this Board
does recognize the constraints of this property and that' s why
we allowed for the pier line study. If we had drawn the line per
code, as Trustee Goldsmith mentioned, this lot would be
un-buildable. So there is already some relief granted to the
code in support of this property and its unique shape.
So I think that does have to be acknowledged, and I do
believe this structure can be pulled back to comply with the
pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I will say, because I have to, I would take
issue with someone with zero environmental background putting on
the record that a house proximity to a wetland has no negative
environmental impacts.
MR. FINNEGAN: I was not trying to testify as an expert, Nick,
I'm just saying --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then don't.
MR. FINNEGAN: I was just saying that I don't know --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then don't.
MR. FINNEGAN: I don't know --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then don't.
MR. FINNEGAN: Right. Okay. Fair enough.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The current structure is proposed at 37 feet
from the wetland. For a brand new project, that is something I
Board of Trustees 28 August 14, 2024
don't think this Board has ever done.
MR. SEIFERT: Just for the record, with regard to the flood zone,
all of the house is in Zone 10. So it' s out of that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think you've heard the comments from the
Board. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response) .
MR. BERGEN: If there is nobody else, I was just waiting to see
if there was anybody else who wanted to speak or if there were
any other comments from the Board.
Given what you are saying, I would request this application
be tabled again for further conversations with the client.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one thing for the record, 275-11 (a) (3)
states, New and Remodeled Homes: New and remodeled homes can
not be situated or modified such that they project closer to the
wetland boundary than the mean seaward projection of homes in
the general vicinity and on either side of the subject lot. So
that is in addition to the pier line definition.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to table this application at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, David Bergen on behalf of EDWARD &
MEREDITH RERISI requests a Wetland Permit to relocate and
reinforce approximately 88-feet of an existing, permitted
146-foot revetment along the toe of eroded embankment using 500
lbs. To 1, 500 lbs. Stone; existing stone to be removed and
reused with new stone to rebuild revetment; area landward of
revetment to be vegetated with Cape American beach grass; and to
remove an abandoned drainage system in bank.
Located: 1515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-37
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 7th,
2024, and noted: Trustees open to leaving existing rocks as
they currently allow for vegetation to grow behind. Additional
rocks are okay to shore up the top.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
And 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 here, on behalf of the Rerisi' s.
I have, back in 2007, was when this stone rip rap was
approved to be put in there. And I have here the pictures that
were included in that application, as well as the approved set
of plans that includes the survey at that time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's additional to what we have in the file?
MR. BERGEN: Yes, I don't know whether you have the old Trustee
permit in your file there.
Board of Trustees 29 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BERGEN: And it was Trustee permit 6544 from March, 2007.
The reason I bring these up to you tonight is you'll notice
where the toe of the bluff was. When you look at, the stamped
approved plans, stamped approved by James King on 3/21/07 in the
survey that goes with that, there is the toe of the bluff back
in I believe it says ' 94, and the toe of the bluff in 106. And
you can see how the toe of the bluff migrated landward. In other
words erosion was taking place. So the rip rap was placed
there, at the toe of the bluff then. And there' s pictures that
show that.
Fast forward now to today, you look on the plans, you can
you see how far back the erosion is continued on this property
beyond the rip rap. Hence the reason for the small revetment at
the current toe of the bluff. We had the properties reviewed by
Cole Environmental because there are some wetland species there
and the new revetment would not interfere with the intertidal
marsh with the high tide species that are there.
There is actually room between those species that are
growing right now and the toe of the bluff to place this small
revetment.
So that is our application. It is to put this revetment in
to try to stop the continued march landward of the tidal
boundary here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for the history on the property.
That is helpful.
I do note here on the plans that we have stamped July 30th
of 2024, that Cole Environmental noted a high marsh area and an
intertidal marsh area. That is what the Board observed when we
were there on site. And I think when we were there, what was
noted on the inspection sheet is, if there was, you know, what
if that sort of tail were to remain that is kind of angling out
into the water there, and then the line of rock sort of
installed behind that.
So it would, you know, so as not to lose some of that marsh
area. The concern is that once everything is sort of pulled back
then that might no longer be a vegetated area.
MR. BERGEN: And we are willing to do that. We were going to use
that rip rap as part of the construction of the small revetment,
but if you want to leave the rip rap there where it is, we can
leave it right where it is, if that will help support of some
vegetation in there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That' s kind of what we thought when we were
observing in the field.
MR. BERGEN: We are willing to do that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Understand that's a little bit more rock, but
we are not even necessarily speaking about too much of, you
know, the additional kind of tale that I'm referring to. So if
that seems reasonable.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, we are fine with that.
Board of Trustees 30 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from 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 PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans that indicate a portion of the wall that is
seaward of the intertidal and high marsh areas.
MR. BERGEN: I'm confused by that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I was trying to describe it. Trying to help
move the project along here.
So subject to new plans that keep the existing rock
revetment in its location --
MR. BERGEN: Rip rap.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Rip rap. And then install a smaller area that
is landward of that, behind it.
MR. BERGEN: I'm sorry, that's just not clear to me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: She did make a motion though, so.
Do you want to rescind that and discuss? Does that work?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to rescind that motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just approve it with the condition that the
existing rip rap remain in place.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And subject to new plans depicting it?
(Board members discussing amongst themselves) .
MR. BERGEN: Could we --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing is closed, so.
MR. BERGEN: I was going to suggest can we re-open the public
hearing so I can at least listen to what you are proposing and
have a possible discussion on that. Because I don't know what
you are going to propose right now.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It' s just based on the discussion we just had,
SO.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think it's straightforward. It's making it a
little bit more straightforward for everyone. Okay?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I would like to make a motion that, to
approve this application, with the condition that the existing
stone rip rap remains, subject to new plans depicting the
following. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All those in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for bearing with me.
MR. BERGEN: Sorry it got confusing. Thank you.
Board of Trustees 31 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, 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 two
(2) 16' vinyl returns on both sides of existing 141x16' 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 6'x20' 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
The Trustees conducted a field inspection August 7th, 2024,
noting expand the buffer to 15 feet.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC does not support the application because the
setbacks of the pool and porch and proposed addition are not in
compliance with Chapter 275, and recommends a ten-foot buffer
planted with native vegetation.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We have no
problem expanding the non-turf buffer 15 feet. Any other
questions, we'd be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we have a question about, on the plans it
says remove existing 3'x40' wood deck and replace with new
4'x40' wood deck in same location.
There is no 3'x40' wood deck currently.
MR. PATANJO: What job are you talking about?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Williamsburg Road.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, on the project description. You can scratch
that out.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On your plan. Okay. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The only other comment I had was to try to
preserve the trees that are onsite. I know we have the
Long-Eared bats there. And so if they can be mapped on the plan
and preserved.
MR. PATANJO: Where applicable. And if not, do a one-for-one
replacement for anything that is removed? Because as part of the
DEC permit we will have a Long-Eared bat seasonal, and I thought
we added a note on that last time. It's all on the plan already.
Board of Trustees 32 August 14, 2024
We have seasonal Long-Eared bat removal baits, which we
discussed last time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I thought you were removing them.
MR. PATANJO: No.
(Participants laughing) .
MR. PATANJO: (Continuing) And then any trees, that was a
condition at the last hearing, the last time. Any tree
replacement would be one-for-one. So all of those are located on
the plans already.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And seemingly, based on your plan, the trees
that are seaward of the house would not need to be touched. So
perhaps it' s the trees seaward of the house are to remain, and
then --
MR. PATANJO: Do you want us to indicate those?
It's already noted here that we can't remove certain time
periods and if we do remove them, we'll replace them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I was requesting that they be indicated on the
plan, but I'm open to other Trustees' opinions on that.
MR. PATANJO: There won't be any work in that area. We can, if
you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are talking about the two mature Maples
there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That are seaward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would like to see the Maples stay,
and if, for part of this permit, I think we would like to see
the Maples stay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And then just, what I was saying was just put
them on the plans so we can see that those two trees are to
remain.
MR. PATANJO: No problem.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Sorry to complicate things.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions: That the buffer be expanded to a
15-foot non-turf buffer; to strike the section about construct a
new four-foot wide by 40-foot-long boardwalk on grade with
untreated timber decking; with the condition of new plans
showing any trees to remain, as well as any trees to be removed;
and that any trees that are to be removed be replaced on a
one-for-one basis, using native hardwoods; and that no trees are
removed according to DEC regulations for the timeframe for the
Board of Trustees 33 August 14, 2024
Long-Eared bats. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PLANS SUBMITTED 8/5/2024 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
JENNIFER MAYE & JOHN BERNHARD JR. request a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed dock with landward steps and a seaward fixed
"T" dock section with the use of thru-flow type decking for
entire dock.
Located: 2285 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
August, noted that they would review of the plans further at
work session.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent due to the lack of
water depth for the dock in general. And also, the navigational
area, the upper reach of Mud Creek is limited, bottom benthic
impacts from motors are expected.
The Conservation Advisory Council could not make a
determination due to the lack of staking and lack of detail.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. This
was a holdover from last month, and at last month's hearing the
Board had requested that we shorten the dock by approximately
eight to ten feet, which I did. I moved it back, I believe it
was nine feet, to landward, which would be to the west, so we
shortened the dock. And also, the Board had asked if we could
rotate it to the east, or to the southeast, I should say. Which
we did, to align it a little differently.
And as discussed at the last hearing, the dock length, you
will see the dock length went from the original submission of 75
feet to 111 feet. That was due to the request of the New York
State DEC to extend the dock portion, the landward portion of
the dock over beyond the wetland line. We discussed that at the
last hearing. So now the dock will be all through-flow decking
for its entirety, and it' s going to start at the wetland line so
wetlands could naturally re-vegetate surrounding the dock. And
we relocated it at your request per the last meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so we appreciate the changes there. And
we did revisit the site to do another inspection to confirm.
Because this, you know, we are on the headwaters of Mud Creek
here, definitely a sensitive area, it backs up into basically a
freshwater recharge, in very close proximity, which is feeding
that creek.
The first note really is that upon the site visit there is,
and it's very close to the property line, but there is an area
where it's not really well depicted on these plans, but it' s
just a pure sand walking path, so.
Board of Trustees 34 August 14, 2024
MR. PATANJO: That's the intention of that' s where to put this
dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. And it wasn't staked there either when we
went there the most recent time. The staking was moreover, was
still on the Baccharis on the landward side. So unless something
was removed.
MR. PATANJO: No. If you go all the way, if you're walking
through the properties and you go all the way towards the right,
there is a woods line there, back in the corner there's some
kayaks there, last time I was there. And there is a tree that is
laying down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup.
MR. PATANJO: That' s where our proposed dock is going to go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. PATANJO: That's this location on the plan. This evening, by
the property line, it doesn't show had the woods line on here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it's, part of my issue with the plan is,
you know, this plan will stay with this file and application in
perpetuity, theoretically. So it' s not really depicting the
clear line and no vegetation. It shows the dock traversing
through upland wetland and, you know, subsurface wetlands. So
it probably should show new plans showing the cleared area.
MR. PATANJO: Add some additional clarifications for where the
existing vegetation and woods line is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, because really with this move, we are
moving this dock where it's not impacting any wetlands on both
sides. So it sort of, you know, tails down then and then picks
back up at the neighbors. Probably from extensive kayak use
over the years. But it is already existing, it' s already there.
You know, we should put it back where it is. And I know you
sort of talked to that. But we would really need to see that.
The other thing is, because the wetland is not there, and
we were reviewing these plans in the hearing last time we were
discussing this, and we went again and looked in the field. And
given the other lengths of docks in this creek and the fact we
are in the headwaters, it was the feeling of the Board,
especially with still not graining much depth there, because it
just doesn't exist, to shorten this dock additionally.
Now, granted, we did ask you last time to shorten it, but
after further review it makes sense to pull it in a little bit
more.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So those are really my two points to clarify.
MR. PATANJO: Can we go to a depth, like, you know, 12 foot -- 12
foot? Yeah, that' s pretty deep. 12 inches of water at the one
foot line. And perhaps I can reconfigure it to come out and
maybe put a break point in the middle of the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One second.
MR. PATANJO: Your latest one should be 7/24/24.
(Board members perusing documents) .
Board of Trustees 35 August 14, 2024
MR. PATANJO: I know exactly, what you're saying, I hear what you
want to do here visually. So you want to make it come out more
perpendicular to the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to approach?
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just try not to get into a back and forth, so
it can be on the record, but, if you turn this way then you can
just line it up right here and that pulls the whole thing in ten
feet.
MR. PATANJO: I can do that. And as part of that I'll have to
indicate that clearing on the plans, and even if I have to come
out, not perpendicular, and then break it perpendicular so I can
get that "T" section parallel to the line, while giving us 12
inches water. Easy.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other thing that does is it pulls it off
the property line a little bit more on the water end of things.
Which is a positive, so.
MR. PATANJO: Great. I'll make the changes.
So we' re going to come back for a revised plan, obviously?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean "come back"?
MR. PATANJO: Are you going to approve it based on revised plans
or are we going to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Potentially. So. Maybe.
(Participants laughing) .
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application, or any additional comments from the members of
the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We'd so love to see you in the field
sometimes, Jeff. It would make our lives better.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other thing is there is no buffer here, but
there is about 20 feet of vegetation there. Does it make sense
to just allow that to remain? I know they don't have plans to
improve the property.
MR. PATANJO: This is, as you can see, it's natural, natural.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, 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 new plans that shows the dock passing through the already
cleared area, not impacting any wetland or upland vegetation;
canting the dock to come out parallel to the property, or
perpendicular to the property, rather; to exceed no further than
one foot of water; and to include plans showing a 20-foot
non-disturbance buffer, which is already existing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. .
Board of Trustees 36 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ANDREW FLINN requests a Wetland Permit to install a sanitary
line from the existing permitted shed to the existing sanitary
system, and relocation of existing water service serving the
shed.
Located: 1500 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-8-12. 9
The Trustees reviewed this application at work session on
8/7/24.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application. I welcome comments from the public.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
This is an existing shed that really, it' s the Health
Department has approved it already, the layout of it. We were
going to connect the existing shed that is going to be converted
to a pool house into the existing sanitary system. And this
whole plan really, whole submission, was based on the
determination of where the jurisdiction line is. So the only
work we are doing under the Trustees' jurisdiction is going to '
be the installation of a proposed water service that has to go
around the outside of the pool. Otherwise there is no work
within the Trustees jurisdiction.
So this whole project is going to probably take four hours
time, and it will. be restored that day.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for that information.
Are there any other comments from the public or members of
the Board wish to question or make comment? .
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PLANS SUBMITTED ON 8/13/24 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NAN
MOLOFSKY & ARTHUR SKELSKIE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a partially raised 161x28' swimming pool with
associated brick pool patio surround with varied dimensions of
approx. 4' surrounding the north and east sides of pool along
with a 141x17 ' area extending on the east side with steps to the
existing patio and deck; install a 2 ' tall landscape retaining
Board of Trustees 37 August 14, 2024
wall placed along the north and west side and planted with
native vegetation; install pool equipment and backwash drywell;
install pool enclosure fencing with gates where required;
existing trees to be protected; and a temporary 41x6' storage
shed.
Located: 510 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-36. 8
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 7th,
noting proximity to wetland could be a concern; wall height of
seven feet at seaward side is excessive; typically okay for
two-foot wall; need wetlands to be flagged on west side of
property; replace/remove trees one-to-one; move pool equipment
and backwash/drywell landward; needs elevation plans and
buffers, question mark.
The Trustees are in receipt of new plans that were
delivered yesterday, August 13th, 2024, that do depict some of
the changes that we had requested in the field, which we
appreciate.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And the
applicants are here today if we have any questions for them.
But the comments that were addressed during your opening
project description, we made a bunch of changes, and I just
passed forward to the Board a couple of renderings of the
parcel, and I also had sent some in. They were smaller photos
that I sent in with the revised plans yesterday, and were
e-mailed to the Board as well.
So the comments that were addressed during the site
inspection, we could take them one by one, which would be the
wetlands flag and the wetlands identification.
There were two orange flags that were identified by the
Trustees during the inspection. We did have our wetlands
identifier Sean Baron MS (sic) , go out and reconfirm the
locations. He did go out and he provided the letter which I
submitted to the Board as well, that identifies the location of
the wetlands line as flagged. It is accurate on the submitted
plan which was surveyed in place by Nate Corwin. That is
identified on my proposed plan as well. And it would be shown on
the survey that was done by Nate Corwin that was submitted to
your office with the original application submission.
With regard to the height of the wall, we did modify that
plan to include a landscape wall in the front of the pool, to
include vegetation in it, as you see on the renderings.
Also identified on the plan will be a two-foot-tall wall
that projects out three feet from the face of the, from the
pool. So it would be all landscaped to help with the visual
Board of Trustees 38 August 14, 2024
impact from the water side.
We did move the pool equipment further back from the
wetlands line. It' s now behind the pool, closer to the proposed
fence. We had also done some, I did not indicate it here on the
plan, but I could add revised plans that any tree removals will
be removed and replaced with a one-to-one factor. So if we do
any tree removal, which will only be small little scrub, some
little juvenile cedars, I believe they are, and some small
evergreens. But we will do the one-for-one replacement somewhere
else on the property. We have no problem doing that.
And I think that addressed most of the comments that we had
made revisions to. '
Any other questions, I would be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think -- we definitely do appreciate, we had
a long talk with the homeowner in the field, and appreciate the
care that was taken with some of the comments that we made which
remember, you know, largely to try to begin the pool from the
elevation, you know, where it exists. So not start by going up
but actually start level.
I see the patio here is level. Which, you know, still does
sort of create a face. Because if you didn't have that patio
portion you could probably have less of a wall on the side.
I know that some Trustees had also brought up the idea of
of mirroring it, so that instead of having to lose so many
trees, if this project could move more in front of the house,
that would be preferable to the Board of Trustees.
MR. PATANJO: So you mean stick it closer to the house so we have
more of a separation from the wetland line? Is that?
Because I show on the plans 75-foot wetland setback line, which
is for the DEC, not specifically for the Trustees. Because the
DEC has a 75-foot requirement.
So we do have a DEC permit for this, by the way. So this
is permitted and reviewed by the DEC as it sat originally. So
this is something we'll have to -- the pool is staying where it
is? Unfortunately, with the pool, based on the proposed design
and the layout and the locations and the distances,
unfortunately, we cannot move it in any other location.
And we certainly can't move it to the south closer to the
property line because we have a 25-foot required setback from
the Town Building Department. Unless -- and there is also a
significant amount of trees that would need to be cleared. So
we are trying to keep all the natural vegetation in place while
still having the pool.
And as shown on the plan, the proposed pool is outside of
the 75-foot wetland line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you saying the DEC minimum is 75 feet?
MR. PATANJO: DEC's requirement is 75 feet. Or you can -- I
shouldn't say that. You can do something within that area but
now that just triggers further review and a possible variance
from the DEC.
Board of Trustees 39 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my issue is, and having grown up biking
all over, you know, Nassau Point, and sledding, and not even
speaking to the environmental portion yet, but, you know, part
of the amazing design of this whole neighborhood is that there
are trees everywhere, and you have privacy. And what I'm seeing,
and then getting into the environment, obviously, protecting all
the native species, and you are speaking to juvenile red cedars,
and I think, to be honest with you, they are probably stunted.
They could be very old, but from living in that, you know, salt
environment, they have been there forever, plus they're on a
bank and it's probably very sandy.
So they are not really to be taken lightly. And one thing
we have been seeing more and more of is, you know, people moving
in and just kind of wiping out all their native trees and
putting back some Green Giants and some Japanese maple.
So the way I was looking at it is if you were to slide
this pool further across the house, basically, you might
actually be getting closer to the wetland, which typically we
try to pull things back. But I think you are moving it away
from one of the few last remaining portions surrounding the
house on the property.
And then also I have some concerns, and I'm not sure who
came out and did the wetland delineation but there is Baccharis
like 15 feet from the water's edge here.
So I'm not clear, and I didn't spend a lot of time there,
but, you know, coming from a wetland science background and
habitat restoration, it sort of seems like the wetlands has
moved in from that south side there and is sort of taking over
the beginning to that peninsula.
So I'm not sure what the CV is on whoever came and
inspected that. But I'm not really sure if that' s wetlands or
not, to be honest, without spending more time there. And it
certainly is edging in that direction.
So that is speaking to the viewshed, the neighborhood, the
environment. And then really the last thing is I understand the
infinity pool is very nice and the four-foot wall requires that
you don't have a fence across that side. But, I mean, you know
from working with this Board, we are not trying to put four-foot
walls facing the waterfront or neighboring properties or
anything like that.
So those are just a few issues that I have with the
application that make it particularly challenging for this site,
to be honest with you.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would like to echo what Trustee Krupski
said, even though the distance to the wetland might be less, if
you flip the pool around, I think the environmental impact is
less. Because we are proposing to put this pool in the one area
of that property that does have trees and growth, whereas the
front of the house is all manicured lawn.
Board of Trustees 40 August 14, 2024
So the distance might go from 75 to 60 or whatever that is.
However, I think it won't be cutting down any trees and we'll be
maintaining the environment by doing so.
MR. PATANJO: If the owners wanted to keep the pool in the
current location, however, do a two for one planting of the
native cedars, similar size, similar calipers, we could come in
and plant Rosa Rugosas, baccharis, a one-for two, to add
additional vegetation and additional wetlands along the
forefront, along the shoreline, so to say with, wherever the
plants would actually grow and mature in the proper elevation
wise with the regard to the roof, root systems and whatever is
going to grow naturally.
If anything we did, such as something over, that was
removed anything over an inch-and-a-half of a caliper that is
currently there, we would replace that with two for one,
matching of like size.
So we are by way of that we are really adding a lot of
additional plantings and area that you are, you know, wetland
area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just also wanted to add one other thing,
because we spoke to the homeowner, who was very nice when we
were out there, and he stated, well, the neighbors have a
similar wall on their pool, but, you know, we did permit a lot
of the house that is neighboring. And each property is unique
and different. But this property, the whole thing is built on
what probably would have been considered a bluff before it was
built on. You know, it drops straight down from the road and
it's pretty steep going into the creek. So, you know, that has
to be considered too in terms of use. And then also the
neighboring house and pool and surround are significantly
further back. And while there is a steep drop off to get onto
that property from the pool, there is considerably more
distance and less, certainly less drop from there on out. So
it's just one thing to add for clarification.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. And based on what you were saying is, you
know, when I was out there in the field, staking the pool and
the patio, you can't see the neighboring houses. You can't see
the neighboring decks. None of the neighbors are going to see
this. This is very well protected. And with the addition of the
plantings that is going to even give an additional buffer. You
can't see this from the water. Unless you are over by where his
boat is, all the way to the north. This is such a well-protected
not visual from the water property. And with adding in the
additional terraced wall in the front with the additional
plantings, and adding in additional plantings along the
shoreline, I mean, I think most of your concerns are essentially
met by way of the additional plantings on a two-for-one.
And the fact that there is no visual impact from the
neighbors. When you were out there, you stand here, and you look
north to the south, you can't see the houses. It's so dense in
Board of Trustees 41 August 14, 2024
this area. Which is what the homeowners want. They don't want
to, anybody to look at them out in the pool. You know, it' s a
private, serene environment. And that's why they chose this
location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be clear, with the rendering you gave
us there is a small retaining wall then there is still a
four-foot face behind that for the pool?
MR. PATANJO: Approximate, yes. And it' s not going to be an ugly
concrete wall, it's going to be nice, natural-looking stone with
plantings. And those plantings that we could choose are going to
be two foot up and four foot of wall. However, the plantings
aren't going to be down here. The plantings are going to pretty
much cover that wall. Obviously they want that infinity look, so
they're going to trim those plants at three foot down. So the
majority of that wall is going to be covered. And if you would
like us to plant plantings in front of the lower wall, so you
don't even see the lower wall, you'll only see the top one foot
of that pool edge. And you're not even going to see that. You're
going to see water flowing down.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Patanjo, so if the, what Trustee Krupski
and Trustee Goldsmith proposed, shifting the pool kind of more
seaward of the house there, by doing so it seems that you could
actually reduce the depth of the patio that is closest to
currently connecting to the existing patio. And it seems that by
doing that you could actually pull the pool landward. Which
would, I would think reduce the height of these walls, which you
heard in the conversation is part of the concern here, is the
viewshed of that wall face of the pool.
So I'm just bringing up, their proposed, you know, option
there would, I believe, help with the height of those walls and
reduction of the walls.
MR. PATANJO: Right. You know, part of the reason for a pool is
so you can lay out some chairs and put a little table and have a
little picnic out there. By doing that, that' s not, we don't
even have a large patio here. It's l4'xl7' . It's this little
chunk here. We are not talking a huge area to sit poolside with
the family and grandkids and whoever it may be.
So by way of moving it closer to the house, you are
eliminating that area. And also to add to the, positives for
this, I did not indicate it on the plans but we'll put a silt
fence surrounding the entire project until it's fully
stabilized.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is the plan at all inclusive of a buffer
along the water's edge?
MR. PATANJO: I thought we currently had a buffer. Do you have a
non-turf buffer? There currently is one around the parcel. I
just don't show it on my plans. But we do have, currently, a
non-turf buffer. I think when I did the dock it was implemented.
I have to look at Nate Corwin' survey.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I didn't see it on the survey.
Board of Trustees 42 August 14, 2024
MR. PATANJO: You didn't?
And one of the other items that the applicant had just
mentioned is one of the reasons why we can't move this is there
is those two large, mature oak trees next to the house. We can't
move it any closer because we don't want to damage any of the
roots of those existing trees that would be protected and remain
in that area. I specifically said protect existing trees. There
is the two existing oak trees. If we move any closer we are
going to start to get into that root system.
Limit of non-turf buffer, it's shown on the plan. I don't
know how wide it is. I believe it's ten or 15 feet, but there
is a non-turf buffer on the survey, and it was identified on
Nate Corwin' s survey. They pre-existed. So it' s currently one
on the site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you speak to, because I asked earlier,
maybe I missed the answer. So who is Sean M. Barron (sic) ?
MR. PATANJO: Sean Barron, he's a scientist, he does soil borings
and wetland identification. I've been using him for years now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Now, as Trustee Krupski mentioned, there are a
lot of protected species in the wooded area that goes out to
that peninsula. I think we would like to find a way to sort of
memorialize that area has a non-disturbance area. I think that,
you know, to make sure that that is somewhere on a plan that
says that that area should not be mowed or disturbed in any way,
SO.
MR. PATANJO: We can absolutely add a notation on the plan that
the peninsula remains non-disturbed for perpetuity.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to clarify, Mr. Patanjo, that seaward
section of the wall, the infinity pool, it will only be two feet
exposed, roundabout?
MR. PATANJO: After the plants, we can -- well, you'll have a
two-foot lower section, which we added to the proposed plan,
which is a little terrace. And then there will be approximately
four-foot more exposed, however we can indicate on here that
they shall plant plants that are at three foot of height and
maintain three feet of height for the existence of the thing so
you, only see one foot of wall.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no --
MR. PATANJO: One comment. So you were chatting for a little
while, so I want to make sure you heard that we will identify
that a silt fence will be installed around the project until
it's fully stabilized. And that can be on the amended plan.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Can you repeat the last part about the
Board of Trustees 43 August 14„2024
retaining wall height, that you just talked about?
MR. PATANJO: The lower section is two foot and the upper section
will be four feet. It's a total of six-foot height. It will be
two and then four. However, we are going to indicate that we will
plant plants at the time of planting to be three-feet tall to
block the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And is there a possibility of terracing it
down so that there could be two two-foot walls to reduce the --
MR. PATANJO: I don't know if that will work with the design for
the infinity pool, because he' s got to put in some stuff in
there. That's the problem. And that will also bring it more
seaward, which we are trying to stay landward.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: There was a question from the neighbor
regarding construction practices, how the construction vehicles
will be brought in, given the dramatic slope on this property.
Can you speak to that at all?
MR. PATANJO: They'll come in around the driveway side. Come in
through the driveway side behind the house and restore their
work route on the way out.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We had to kind of weave our way to get around
that just with our bodies. So it seems like possibly some
vegetation would be removed.
MR. PATANJO: Any vegetation removed will be replaced for that
area. And any vegetation in the pool area will be replaced
two-for-one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There' s a huge wall. You can't get an excavator
back there.
MR. PATANJO: The wall is shallow at the start. ' They could go up
and over. It' s not a huge pool. a can get a crane in there and
crane a mini over the wall. I could lift, yeah, you can do it.
Absolutely. You don't need a big machine back there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no further comments I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Bear with me.
I make a motion to approve this application with the
following conditions: Native tree replacement at a rate of
two-to-one for every tree removed, with a minimum caliper of
three inches; vegetation restoration for any vegetation lost
during construction; new plans depicting a non-disturbance area
on the entire peninsula; and a native 15-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer along the edge of the wetlands; no retaining wall to
exceed four feet; and native plantings in between the retaining
walls at a height of three feet. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Sepenoski, aye. Trustee
Gillooly, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Trustee Krupski, nay) .
Board of Trustees 44 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll propose a five-minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, this proceeding continues as
follows) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, we're back on the record.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN M.
& ELIZABETH A. MINOGUE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace an existing wood retaining wall and 279sq.ft. Raised
wood deck with masonry retaining wall and 418sq.ft. Grade-level
masonry patio with 6'x10 steps constructed further landward;
excavate and remove approx. 20 cubic yards of soil material from
existing raised yard area between existing and proposed
retaining walls; re-face and re-post existing 41x10'
second-floor balcony; remove and replace existing 41x8 . 4' wood
entry landing. with 41x7 .5' masonry entry landing; and relocate
proposed permitted 81x10' grade-level stone paver patio to
landward limit of covenanted 6' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 5650 (aka 5550) New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-115-10-6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 7th,
2024, and noted planting seaward of retaining wall.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not
support the application because the project does not meet the
required setbacks, and they are concerned with lot coverage.
Is there anyone here who wish to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants Evan and Elizabeth Minogue.
This is essentially a replacement and partial landward
retreat project to address an existing raised deck that sits
behind a wood retaining wall on the creek aside of the existing
dwelling.
The dwelling renovations and existing deck were the subject
of past wetland permits, and the current project proposes to
replace the existing deck with a grade-level patio that will be
relocated landward as much as seven feet farther back from the
existing deck at its eastern corner, and replaced with a stone
retaining wall, also relocated landward from where the existing
wood retaining wall is located. And then excavating that raised
area down to meet the existing surrounding grade.
So basically, you take a significant chunk of this raised
area retaining wall and deck on the seaward side of the house,
you pull it back and flatten it with a grade-level patio. And
actually that helps with lot coverage. There was a lot coverage
variance issued many years ago. The finished lot coverage here
will remain below what was established by the ZBA at that time,
and of course the grade-level patio does not contribute to lot
coverage, which is one advantage of the grade-level patio being
used instead of the raised wood deck as it exists now.
Board of Trustees 45 August 14, 2024
There is one other, a couple other minor elements to the
project but one of note on the seaward side is there was a
previously-issued wetlands permit for the bulkhead replacement,
at which time the Board allowed for an 8x10 stone paver patio to
be constructed adjacent to the bulkhead, and as part of this
project, the same patio will be installed, but we are pulling it
back six feet behind the bulkhead so it will be behind the
covenanted non-turf buffer, rather than sitting in the
covenanted non-turf buffer.
Oh, and there was, so there was a question also in the
field regarding softening the face of the replacement retaining
wall with plantings. We talked with the landscape contractor
when we were there and they verified with the owner they're in
complete agreement with that as a permit condition if the
Trustees see fit to require plantings in front of the
replacement wall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Herrmann. One question I was
going to ask about was that proposed stone paver patio. You said
that it was permitted, but I don't -- we didn't see it.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So there is a prior bulkhead permit which
is still active, that allows for construction of that 8'x10'
patio adjacent to the bulkhead. So we had two choices: We could
either go back and amend the bulkhead permit to move that patio
back, but instead we just tried to include it in here, as a
feature of this plan that is in front of you currently, as
opposed to modifying the existing permit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Would the applicant be amenable to a pervious
patio there?
MR. HERRMANN: In constructing the stone paver patio in a way,
for example, that it has like permeable joints as opposed to
masonry joints?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean it' s typically we, I mean, this Board
has asked for stone patios to be removed that are so close to
the wetland. So I think the fact that there is not currently
one there, understanding that there is a permit, just trying to
work with you on how we can make that something that might be a
little bit more digestible.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I mean, my concern would be if I, I mean
they have been waiting to build the patio, and I don't want them
to feel like they have been punished for trying to relocate it
landward. And I don't want to be in a position to say, okay,
well if you won't let them do this, they'll just build it
pursuant the current permit.
So I would just suggest as a compromise, instead of it
being 100% masonry patio, with masonry joints, to actually have
permeable joints in the pavers to at least make it
semi-permeable.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's reasonable, I think. And one thing that
the Board did talk about is increasing the buffer to ten feet.
MR. HERRMANN: I mean there is not --
Board of Trustees 46 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Which would shift the.patio back just a little
bit, but you are, you have gained that area there by shifting
the wall.
MR. HERRMANN: That is true. Um, without the client being here,
without anticipating that question, I would be concerned about
committing him to that, if for some reason he wanted to have
further discussions. So I'm afraid I would have to ask the
Board to table so that we could go back and have that
discussion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just refresh my memory? When was that
bulkhead permit issued?
MR. HERRMANN: You'll have to give me a minute to refresh your
memory. (Perusing) . So it was wetland permit #9786. It was
issued on December 21st, 2020, and it was most recently extended
December 14th, 2023, at which time the Board granted the last,
or final, one-year extension for the permit through December
21st, 2024 . So it would be in a few months, basically.
And, you know, as I said, the discussion had always been,
it really is, I mean a form of mitigation, I suppose, in
connection with this project. Held off on installing the patio,
as it currently improved, with the opportunity to offer to the
Board to relocate it landward six feet.
As I said, it' s just, I don't, I feel like they were trying
to do the right thing with the request. And I don't want them to
feel like they have been punished by not acting on the existing
permit, because I think, you know, ideally they would like to
have the patio down there near the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As one Trustee, I don't mind the location of
the patio. With permeable joints it makes sense that the rain
can percolate through, it doesn't create any kin do f hazard to
the wetlands.
To Trustees Peeples point, situated a buffer in that
location. The patio could be included in that buffer.
MR. HERRMANN: So that's a little bit different from what I
heard. So the patio can stay where it's proposed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's my proposal.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. You're authorizing. But what you're
stating is that one perspective is that would remain where it' s
proposed, but the non-turf buffer would extend to ten feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think there are some design options available
within those constraints. And I think it sounds like the Board
is kind of in agreement that a ten-foot, non-turf buffer, and
the patio, if you want to keep it in that location.
MR. HERRMANN: So either leave it where it's currently permitted
or slide it back where it's shown. But either way it would be
ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Let's keep it where it's now located on the
plants.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yeah, I don't think we were shifting it back to
the bulkhead. I think what I referred to keeping it at the
Board of Trustees 47 August 14, 2024
proposed location because currently it's six feet back from --
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. I'm trying to reconcile, make sure I'm
hearing correctly.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the option, I think what the Board is saying
is a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and then the patio could either
shift back that four feet. And it could stay as you have
proposed with the permeable joints. Or it could be a part, kind
of compiled into a non-turf buffer.
MR. HERRMANN: I think that's reasonable.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then you did mention how that we had
discussed onsite about the screen.
MR. HERRMANN: I did mention that, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So we would just need to see that updated on
the plan that shows the screen in front of the wall.
MR. HERRMANN: And we would have to give you a proposed site plan
to address those issues.
MR. HERRMANN: And we would have to give you a revised site
plan to address both issues.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct, yes. And if you would just indicate
the planted area, I think that would be helpful.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(Negative response) .
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Or any other questions
or comments from 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 PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans that indicate planted screening area
seaward of the retaining wall; a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and
that the patio that is seaward, in the location seaward of the
bulkhead, is, I'm sorry, landward of the bulkhead, has pervious
joints.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And thereby with the additional native
plantings, and granting it a permit will bring this into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of THE
DANIEL DIVINEY REVOCABLE TRUST & THE SUZANNE S. DIVINEY
REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place existing 3'x71' fixed timber catwalk (foot bridge) ,
with 4 'x95 ' elevated fixed timber catwalk constructed with
open-grate decking (includes 12-foot incline at each end) .
Located: 400 Bay Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-8 & 23
The Trustees conducted a field inspection August 7th, 2024,
Board of Trustees 48 August 14, 2024
noting the project is straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard to
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. I was asking Dan is it Diviney or is it Diviney?
Because we've been trying to figure that out inhouse for a
while. I never wanted to ask the question. So now it' s time.
Diviney.
So this is an application, it is basically a maintenance
application of an existing footbridge that crosses Gull Pond
inlet. It' s similar to several others that are located down
here, similar to others the Board has approved over recent
years. The original footbridge construction here dates back to
Town of Southold wetlands permit issued in 1986. Of course the
wetland and waterway area has widened a little bit over the
years. So what we had discussed in the field was the design
here to replace the existing 71-foot-long catwalk with a 95-foot
long catwalk, because you would have a 12-foot incline section
on each side that would actually allow the foot traffic to get
past the edge of the vegetated marsh on each side, and kind of
land more in the existing travel path as opposed to landing in
the wetland vegetation that is trying to establish itself there.
So the finished footbridge would be 4x95. And that's really
all there is to the application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approving this
application in accordance with the plans stamped received August
12th, 2024.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of
WYANDANCH REAL ESTATE CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4 'x29' elevated
catwalk with open-grate decking, 3'x14 ' aluminum ramp, and a
5'xl8' floating dock situated in a "T" configuration and secured
by two (2) 10" diameter pilings; and to clear and maintain a 4 '
wide access path to dock through the 50' wide non-disturbance
buffer.
Board of Trustees 49 August 14, 2024
Located: 4060 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of October and noted it seems to be within a rough estimated
pier line.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not make
a recommendation due to insufficient information and the project
is in a proposed critical environmental area.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. It is a reasonably straightforward dock application.
We have designed it pursuant to all the current standards of
Section 275-11 (c) .
You were able to see the staking, just barely, when we were
out there with the tide. This is, it is a dock, there are docks
in both directions, and Strong' s Marina basin is across this
dredged canal on the other side.
It seemed like a straightforward review. If the Board has
any other questions, I can try to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I think we do take into account
the, I mean the 50-foot non-disturbance is very nice, but then
the term, speaking of the dock it is right across from a pretty
intense marine operation.
Is there anyone else that 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 this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of ROCKY
BLUFF, LLC, c/o RICHARD REISMAN, MEMBER requests a Wetland
Permit to construct onto existing two-story, single family
dwelling an 18'x25.7' second-floor dormer addition with a
4.2'x23.7' roofed-over second-floor deck (in place of 562sq.ft.
Portion of existing second floor, with same roof line) ; and a
408sq.ft. One story addition (in place of 313sq.ft. Screened
porch and 95sq.ft. Portion of 165sq. ft. Covered entry to be
removed from between dwelling and existing accessory garage) ;
remove existing outdoor shower and install a 4 'x7' outdoor
shower; remove brick walkway and install 4.5' wide masonry
walkway; relocate existing 8'x12' shed more than 100' from
bluff; remove conventional septic system and install an I/A
Board of Trustees 50 August 14, 2024
sanitary system with associated 2' high by 48 ' long concrete
retaining wall more than 100' from bluff; install stormwater
drainage system; replace existing pervious gravel driveway; and
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf
buffer along the top crest of the bluff to be planted with
native vegetation.
Located: 645 Rosenburg Road (Fire Road #3) , East Marion. SCTM#
1000-21-1-26. 1.
The Trustees visited the site on the 7th of August. Notes
from that visit read straightforward.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, noting the buffer should be 20 feet.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its
policies.
I welcome comments from Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants
and anyone else who chooses to speak regarding this application.
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. The owners of the property are also here.
This is a reasonably straightforward application, as you
saw in the plans and in the figures submitted with the
application. The primary element is basically a dormer addition
within the existing footprint. There is a proposed ten-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer proposed along the top of the bluff
nonetheless. There is an upgrade to an IA sanitary system, and
that's really about it.
There is a modification that is proposed on the landward
side of the house, which you saw on the plan. There is a shed
that is being relocated from within the Trustees jurisdiction to
outside of the Trustees jurisdiction. Storm water drainage is
proposed. It' s a pretty good project. There should be actually a
net environmental benefit as a result of the project.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: One of the features, or I should say lack
thereof, is there is no staircase going to the beach at this
particular location. And that' s I think a benefit because of the
steep slope and the vegetated buffer at the top is allowed to
hold that bluff face in that area.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment from the Board or the public, I'll
make a motion to close the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 51 August 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of WIN
WUNN, LLC, c/o RONI JACOBSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace in-place and 12 inches higher, approximately 104
linear feet of existing timber bulkhead and ±8' westerly return
with vinyl bulkhead and return; backfill with approximately 25
cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in from ana
approved upland source; remove existing masonry fire pit, and
replace in-place approx. 182sq.ft. Portion of masonry patio
landward of bulkhead as needed; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 15' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead.
Located: 1055 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-11
The Trustees visited the site on August 7th, noting:
Question needing to raise the height of bulkhead, concerns of
viewshed from creek.
The LWRP reviewed the application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann, of En-Consultants, on behalf
of the applicant.
It is a straightforward bulkhead replacement project,
except for the question that was raised, as you just mentioned
during field inspection regarding the height.
We would really like the Board to seriously entertain the
raising of the height of the bulkhead up to no more than twelve
inches. I did check back with the homeowner, as I mentioned in
the field. His concern was spurred in part by the fact that
during one of the nor'easters in March they did actually get
overtopped. It did, the over-wash event did scour out some of the
bulkhead behind.
I understand you can't build for every single storm, but of
course they are reading the same thing we are all reading. The
latest climate change report issued by NOAA in February is
predicting a strong likelihood of an additional ten to 12 inches
rise in sea level by 2050, which is basically 25 years away.
And, you know, these are supposed to, should be 30-35 year
construction events. So we are sort of planning into that
timeframe already.
Also, as I mentioned in the field the Board has
historically favored a. modest rise in these walls where there is
a bit of a steep slope behind because it helps to lessen the
slope runoff through the water, and it's not just raising the
wall in a vacuum. This is coupled with a proposed 15-foot
buffer. And we do have all of the other agency approvals in hand
to raise up to 12 inches.
As far as the viewshed question, I think it is worth
pointing out that we are not talking about raising the entire
Board of Trustees 52 August 14, 2024
length of the wall. We are talking about raising the lowest
section, the front parallel run, that on the one end of the
project that wall goes up by about three feet. So we are not
talking about raising that also, just the main stretch on the
bottom, which is currently about seven-foot elevation. So you
are really talking about going up to eight, which is pretty much
the elevation of the bottom of the slope right behind it.
So I don't think you are really going to get an appreciable
difference in terms of the viewshed from those 12 inches.
So we are just, we would ask the Board to take all of that
into consideration.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think the Board has discussed being open to
raising to a height of six inches.
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Anybody else wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the bulkhead not be raised any higher
than six inches, and with new plans depicting that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
(After a brief conversation with counsel, this application
continues as follows) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I rescind my second.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And with the condition that the 15-foot wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge be maintained
perpetually as a vegetated, with native vegetation, non-turf
buffer. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Gol#smithlPresident
Board of Trustees