HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/18/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President QF S0(/�y Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� Old 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
P4UNT`1,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RE �" LU
Minutes
Wednesday, September 18, 2024 Nov 14 20
5:30 PM. Sotit'hold Town Clerk
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President =
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday
September 18th, 2024 meeting. At this time, I would like to call
the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the
dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have
attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, Administrative Assistant
Elizabeth Cantrell, Office Assistant Thomas Hobson. With us
tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from the
Conservation Advisory Council we have Nancy May.
Agendas for tonight' s meeting are located out in the
hallway and also posted on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements in the agenda, on page five, under Wetland &
Coastal Erosion Permits, numbers one through three, as follows:
Number 1, 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
Board of Trustees 2 September 18, 2024
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
consisting of a stone splash apron and plantings.
Located: 2500 Point Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-16-1-1.
Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NEOFITOS STEFANIDES
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' top
platform flush with surrounding grade to a 4 'x4 ' upper walk to
41xl6' steps to a 4'x4 ' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 4'x4 '
platform to 41xl6' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 4 'x4' steps to a
41x4 ' platform to 41xl6' steps to a 41x6' platform and 4 'x8'
retractable aluminum stairs to beach.
Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT REAL
ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs
consisting of a 10'x10' deck (flush with surrounding grade) at
top of bluff to a 4'x4' top platform to 41x8' steps down to a
4'x4 ' middle platform to 41x7 ' steps to a 41x4 ' lower platform
with 3'x6' retractable aluminum steps to beach; all decking to
be un-treated timber.
Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6
And on page ten, numbers 19 through 21, as follows:
Number 19, Joe Flotteron, President of the Lagoon
Association on behalf of 1663 BRIDGE, LLC, c/o DONALD & PATRICIA
BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Maintenance Permit to dredge over an area of approximately_
4, 125sq. ft. Within the Lagoon entrance to a depth of 5' below
apparent low water elevation; approximately 550 cubic yards of
material will be excavated and dried on adjacent land/beach
along a 11, 600sq.ft. Area where it shall remain and be the final
disposal area; a clam shell bucket on either a barge mounted
crane and/or land mounted crane will be used to perform the
dredging/excavation operation; and a turbidity curtain will be
installed to enclose the dredging area.
Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118.-2-4.2
Number 20, 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 21, 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
Board of Trustees 3 September 18, 2024
"upper" grade-level masonry patio, 181x46' swimming pool with
60sq.ft. Hot tub, 428sq.ft. Of "lower" grade-level masonry
patio, 18'x31' roofed-over ,open-air accessory structure with a
±6' x ±31' enclosed storage shed that has closets, an outdoor
fireplace, and a basement for storage and pool equipment, an
outdoor kitchen, and associated steps and planters; install a
pool drywell and 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates;
remove 34 linear feet of existing stone retaining wall and
construct 24 linear feet of new 2.7' high stone retaining wall;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50 foot wide
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
wetlands boundary, replacing approximately 3, 850sq. ft. Of
existing lawn with native plantings and maintaining a cleared 4 '
wide pathway to existing dock.
Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12. 11
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the
applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I' ll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Wednesday, October 9th, 2024, at 8:OOAM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, October 16th, 2024 at 5:30PM at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session Thursday, October 10, 2024 at 5: OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, October
18th, 2024 at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 4 September 18, 2024
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
our August 14th, 2024 meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for August 2024.
A check for $23, 405.31 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 Roman numeral VII, 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 X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 18, 2024 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA,
as written:
Harbor Lights Property Owners Association
SCTM# 1000-71-2-1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
Kim & Brett Dohnal SCTM# 1000-55-3-29
Topaz Page-Green & Emmanuel Roman SCTM# 1000-65-1-16
West Lake Association, Inc. SCTM# 1000-90-1-11
Elizabeth Rerisi & Samuel Fishman SCTM# 1000-55-3-31
Nicholas & Barbara Pallante SCTM# 1000-111-14-30
Robert Finn SCTM# 1000-126-5-19
Don & Glenna Ryan SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
David & Christine Czerniecki SCTM# 1000-71-1-10
Gary M. & Mary L. Napolitano SCTM# 1000-57-1-34
North Oakwood Partners, c/o Keith Dorman SCTM# !000-127-6-6
Ajit Kumar & Jennifer Ecclestone SCTM# 1000-81-3-20
Patrick Dilollo SCTM# 1000-43-2-8 . 1
Sam Orlofsky SCTM# 1000-51-1-12
Revocable Trust of Abby P. Rosmarin Dated October 19th, 2020,
c/o Abby P. Rosmarin & David M. Ross as Trustees
SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.1
Mark & Ann Schaefer SCTM# 1000-64-3-5
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
Board of Trustees 5 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, Under Resolutions -
Administrative Permits, in order to 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 through 3. Listed as follows:
Number 1, Bruce Kinlin, Architect, on behalf of HAY HARBOR
CLUB INC. Requests an Administrative Permit to rebuild deck
boards, decorative railings, and painted trim boards on existing
porch; install finish ceiling boards on existing frame; install
new light fixtures and ceiling fans.
Located: Fox Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-9-3-1
Number 2, JOSEPH & NANCY COCOPARDO request an
Administrative Permit to repair existing deck with pressure
treated lumber; install one 4"x4" weather treated wooden post to
be covered with PVC with two attached grab bars; remove existing
side rails and replace with PVC railing.
Located: 65 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-2
Number 3, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of LINDA & DONN
COSTANZO requests an Administrative Permit for interior
renovation with movement of some windows; change of roof line
and exterior walls for construction of partial second floor;
construction of new entry deck and stairs; install new plumbing,
finishes, fixtures and heating/air conditioning.
Located: 365 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-28
All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IX, Application for Extensions
Transfers and Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion
to approve as a group Items 1 through 4, 6, 9 through 11 and 13
through 16:
Number 1, ROGER SIEJKA requests a One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit #10210, as issued September 14, 2022.
Located: 955 Blossom Bend, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-6-22
Number 2, DEBORAH McKEAND & SHANNON GOLDMAN request a One
(1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10256 as issued on
November 16, 2022.
Located: 100 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-3-11. 1
Number 3, William and Marilyn Pymm on behalf of MARILYN
PYMM IRREVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST request a One (1) Year Extension
Board of Trustees 6 September 18, 2024
to Wetland Permit #10220 as issued September 14, 2022.
Located: 2504 Camp Mineola Ext. , Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-122-9-7.25
Number 4, Patricia C. Moore, Esq: On behalf of ESTATE OF
THEODORE A. EIRING c/o STEPHEN GUTLEBER, EXEC. Requests a Final
One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9972, as issued on
August 18, 2021.
Located: 4077 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-2-18.4
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Number 6, JOSEPH BUCZEK & CHRISTINA SPORNBERGER request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #483 from Bernard & Carole Kiernan to
Joseph Buczek & Christina Spornberger, as issued on February 8,
1988.
Located: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-15
Number 9, Richard Boyd, R.A. on behalf of CHRISTINE HOWLEY
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10150,
as issued May 18, 2022, for the as-built 129 linear foot
decorative rock landscaping wall and as-built 170 feet of
on-grade stepping stone pavers landward of timber retaining wall
on east side of the property; removal of the existing southern
pier instead of as-built northern pier; existing northern pier
to remain; as-built stone steps leading towards and off
retaining wall to dock.
Located: 320 Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3
Number 10, Richard Boyd, R.A. on behalf of CHRISTINE
HOWLEY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9803, as issued January 20, 2021, for the as-built generator
and AC condensers on the north side of the property adjacent to
exterior garage wall with landscape screening.
Located: 320 Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3
Number 11, North Fork Pool Care on behalf of CHARLES &
GERALDINE RIESTERER requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #9681 for relocation of pool equipment area;
existing ±900sq.ft. paver patio; existing pool enclosure
fencing.
Located: 1945 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-47
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, the Adam Miller Group P.C. on
behalf of SAMID HUSSAIN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8547 from Joseph & Robyn Romano to Samid Hussain, as issued
December 17, 2014.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14.
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection September 16th,
noting that the permits for a seasonal dock at present is an
extra "L" at the end of the permitted 70-foot fixed dock, so the
Board of Trustees 7 September 18, 2024
dock does not meet the conditions of the permit.
As such, since this existing dock does not meet what was
permitted originally, I'll .make a motion to deny this transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, MICHAEL & ALEXANDRA PRISCO requests
a Transfer of Wetland Permit #108, as issued on April 26, 1960,
from William Krumholz to Michael Prisco & Alexandra Prisco.
Located: 905 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-1-17
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection September
16th, 2024, noting that the dock is in rough shape,
non-functioning. Upon further review, we found that the dock
does not meet the original dimensions, and because it is a
non-functioning dock I'll make a motion to deny this transfer.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf
of LASCELLE FAMILY TRUST c/o ROBERT & LISA LASCELLE requests and
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10449, as issued
August 16, 2023, to amend the catwalk to be 4' x 271 ; remove
existing 4 ' x 2' floating platform and install a 4' x 21 -
extension to the seaward end of existing catwalk.
Located: 4210 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-28
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection September
16th, 2024, noting that the dock is to go no further seaward
than existing.
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted
with the condition that the amended dock extend no further
seaward than the existing dock.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, Precision Design on behalf of
ANDREA SPINARIS requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit #10346A to remove existing wood platform;
install pavers on-grade; relocate hot tub.
Located: 3175 Kenneys Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-26
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection September
llth, 2024, noting the trench drain due change from deck to
pervious patio on grade to contain runoff. Drywell drain to be
landward of patio, and vegetated non-turf buffer with native
plantings.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 8 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I want to make an amendment to the work
session dates, it was a misprint in the agenda. The actual next
work session dates are Thursday, October 10th, 2024, and
Wednesday October 16th, 2024.
I'll make a motion to approve the amended dates.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X. Public Hearings.
At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular
meeting agenda and enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Kenneth
Peterson on behalf of HARBOR LIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit
to dredge the entrance to the canal to a depth of 4' below Mean
Low Water by using a clamshell bucket and a payloader to move,
place and spread spoil above the Spring High Water mark to a
maximum depth of 2 feet on the association beaches adjacent to
the inlet.
Located: Harbor Lights Canal, 715 Harbor Lights Drive & 595
Schooner Drive, Southold. SCTM#s: 1000-71-2-1.1, 1.2 & 1.3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection September 11th,
2024, noting this is a straightforward application, in-house
review.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the recommendation the soil is placed above mean high
water.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response) .
Board of Trustees 9 September 18, 2024
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Cole Environmental Services on behalf
of KIM & BRETT DOHNAL requests a Wetland Permit to construct 48"
wide by approx. 17 linear foot long set of stairs built into the
existing bank with one (1) 36" high railing on left side of
staircase and a ±6' long by 48" wide pervious pebble middle
platform at grade; each step to be 12" deep and 7" high
constructed with 6x6's and 2x8' s with a compacted crushed stone
base and open grate decking; lumber to be both non-treated and
pressure treated "Legaxy XP" Polypropylene decking by Thru-Flow
to be used at bottom three (3) treads; stairs not to extend
seaward of mean low water; and for a 4 ' wide access path to the
stairs.
Located: 1225 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-29
The Trustees most recently were on the site on the llth of
September, noted that the bottom section to be through-flow.
Check with building for proximity to property line.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, but did
bring to light that this area is, there is a dock ban in this
area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak with regard to
the application?
MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, agent for the
applicant.
As Trustee Krupski mentioned, we met the Trustees onsite.
We have amended the plans to note that the bottom section of the
staircase to be a walkway, to be through-flow decking to allow
for water to flow through.
Per Trustee comment as well we addressed the pipes that
were being directed directly out into the waterway and have
added a trench drain, and because there is a dock ban, we made
the staircase or walkway ending at the limit of the tidal
wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak to this application?
(No response) .
I should also note that there is a letter of support from
the neighbor in here.
Board of Trustees 10 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is that letter from the immediately adjacent
neighbor?
MR. COLE: Yes. It's the one closest to the walkway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ms. Pechofski (sic) . In support, helping with
soil erosion.
So, during work session, the Trustees discussed the
application. A few of the concerns that arose, which were
conveyed briefly in the field are the location of the dock. It
is very close to the property line. Um, certainly they -- not
dock. Excuse me. Steps. Certainly it's something we would want
to see moved off.
It is, for an area that is extremely sensitive, you know,
the headwaters for this whole waterbody here, with a dock ban,
it is a little bit overbuilt and obtrusive on the location. And
the fact that it's built into the bank and the bank is a feature
that we often try to protect and preserve, now granted, you are
seeing some erosion there, but that being said, it' s part of the
natural process.
The Board felt it would be more appropriate to move it off
the property line, ideally tuck it in so it's not sticking out
into the creek, and reduce the size and structure as much as
possible. This is steps built in to a gravel walkway, to steps
built in again, it would probably make sense to go with as small
a hole as possible and as little structure as possible. And
again, tucked into a more appropriate location there.
MR. COLE: So we did speak with the Building Department and they
said they have no issues with the location in terms of the
property line, it would have to be like a, really like a
platform for them to consider it.
We did look at other alternative locations. We looked at
the area on the other side to the east, I'm sorry, to the west
of the property, and it's a little less steep there. However, I
have some photos here that I can show you guys, that it does
become, at low tide, it's very muddy and the water goes more or
less like in line with the house. So I 'll just show you this.
(Handing) .
So we did look at, you know, alternative locations and we
tried to choose the area that would get them to water without
having to go through the mudflats in order to access the water.
And also we were trying to be mindful of all the trees that were
onsite. The site was pretty wooded so we are trying to avoid
having to take down any trees, and also if we were to go down
the steeper area it would have to be cut into the bank even
further.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm a little confused why you have to cut into
the bank at all, to put, I mean we, this isn't a dock, but we do
a lot of steps associated where docks.
MR COLE: I have the architect, Jake LaChapelle here, to comment
as well.
MR. LACHAPELLE: So, I think we can come up with the geometry
Board of Trustees 11 September 18, 2024
that doesn't cut into the bank, if that' s preferred. It
changes, well it just changes how the stairs are constructed. I
think it' s more treads below and fewer up above, something like
that. Because it' s quite steep.
And as far as the distance off the lot line, can I ask how
far off the lot line? Because I think the owners are very open
to that, it's just this seemed like a convenient place where
there were not many trees there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The code speaks to 15 feet per dock. Now this
is a situation where steps are not associated with a dock
because you can't put a dock there. But that's probably a good
standard to start with.
MR. LACHAPELLE: Okay. I'll see if we can thread some trees there
and if so, great, we'll relocate it, assuming that the owners
are okay with that. If we are going to hit trees, if we would
have to take out a tree or two, would that be objectionable?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think, I mean the goal here is to have
as little impact in this section of the creek as possible. So I
mean they might have to step through the trees, but a small
stair structure that just runs straight down with as small piles
as possible is probably the most appropriate action.
MR. LACHAPELLE: And just to make sure I understand, it sounds
like what you are pointing at is a stair that is posts set into
the ground with stringers that are set above the ground. Not
disturbing the ground. Then flow-through material above that
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. LACHAPELLE: That' s doable. There will probably still be a
landing midway down. Is it preferable, would it be preferable
that it lands on the ground and there' s gravel there or do you
want to see that built above the ground?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The bank is a protected feature, so we really,
and be as mindful of that as possible. And again, as little
structure as possible in terms of the landing and steps is
recommended.
MR. LACHAPELLE: We'll see what we can do.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I also wanted to speak to, in the written
description that we had it says stairs not to extend seaward of
mean low water. We'd like that to be high water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, we have plans to reflect that.
MR. COLE: Yes, that was typo. It won't be extended past the
tidal wetlands.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would also recommend, and I completely
understand not wanting to trudge through the sediment there. The
spongy sediment. And I think you are going to run into that
along this entire property, to be honest. But as far as you can
tuck it into the cove would be ideal. And even looking at this
picture, you do have some leeway there to probably bend in, so.
MR. COLE: All right
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you.
Board of Trustees 12 September 18, 2024
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How do you wish to --
MR. COLE: We'll table and come in with modified plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table this
application for the submission of new plans at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 3, Margot & Clay Coffey on behalf of
TOPAZ PAGE-GREEN & EMbGkNUEL ROMAN requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing 2-1-� story dwelling and to perform repairs
consisting of replacing windows and doors in-place; replace
existing seaward side deck, railings and stairs with new
slightly larger deck; reconstruct existing east porch landing,
railing and stairs in-place; reconstruct existing north porch
landing, railing and stairs in-place; existing 152sq. ft.
Lighthouse to remain and repair the interior and exterior where
necessary; existing 184sq.ft. Beach cabana with an outdoor
shower to remain and replace roof shingles, siding, windows and
doors; and to replace in-place and in-kind existing upper wood
platform with steps down to a partially cantilevered wood deck
with steps to beach.
Located: 2080 Town Harbor Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-65-1-16
The Trustees visited the site on 9/11/24, and notes from
that visit read: Open-grate decking required for beach cabana
deck; no bathroom permitted in existing beach cabana.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The LWRP program coordinator found the portion of the
project to be consistent with its policies, and the portion
associated with the beach cabana inconsistent with Policy Six.
I have three notes. Number one, a wetlands permit was not
located in Town records for the cabana, referred to as a
bathhouse on some of the plans. Retaining the structure in the
location will set a precedent. Number two, what size of the deck
is landward of the top of bank. Platform associated with stairs
may not be larger than 100 square feet. And number three,
structures in these areas are subject to repetitive loss due to
storms.
I 'll make a note that the Board received a planting plan on
September 18th, 2024, depicting removal of invasive species,
Japanese knotweed and replanting with a native species of
American beachgrass, Eastern Prickly Pear, among others.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
i
Board of Trustees 13 September 18, 2024
MR. COFFEY: Good afternoon. Thank you, for taking our time. Clay
Coffey, with Isaac Rae Architects, with Margot Rae.
So I think just regarding a couple of initial comments
about, around existing cabana. We do have a bit of research that
has gone into that, which we are happy to provide the Board,
along with the letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC landward
of the bulkhead, which is also, the cabana is landward of the
bulkhead.
So based on what we have been able to find on the GIS
records and from the aerial photography from I think 1967, the
cabana has been there for, since 167, as far as we can tell. The
DEC has confirmed that pre-174, the bulkhead was there. So I
think the request here is just to rebuild in-kind of what is
historically there onsite.
MS. COFFEY: And also just confirming there is no bathroom
planned in the cabana.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm sorry, you were saying?
MS. COFFEY: I'm just also noting there is no bathroom planned
for the cabana, or existing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Excuse me, one second. Anybody in the
doorway, please come in. You can't block the exits. Thank you.
MS. HULSE: Regarding the cabana, if I could just step in. The
language you use was to rebuild. So if you were to rebuild,
reconstruct that bathhouse, then it would trigger ZBA because
that would require a variance.
I understood the application to just be sort of fixing the
decking around it and sort of repairing. But you need to do
repairs, but not new construction. But a rebuild means that
would certainly triggers ZBA, just for your information.
MR. COFFEY: Yes. And we are happy to update the terminology on
it, and the language. The goal of the client is to repair what
is there.
MS. COFFEY: They love this historic estate. They want to keep
everything in kind and just repair it as well.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
MR. COFFEY: Thank you. Any other questions?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Can you speak to the LWRP's question about
the size of the deck landward of the top of bank?
MR. COFFEY: Adjacent to the house? The decks that are adjacent
to the house? Is that your question? That would be landward.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That would be.
MR. COFFEY: We can provide provisions on the plans. It's
essentially the existing, repairing the existing deck in-kind.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The deck that's associated with the primary
structure,' I don't think the Board of Trustees had any concerns
with it. I think the LWRP was attempting to make, attempting to
call off, question the platforms associated with the stairs on
the bank.
MR. COFFEY: We can certainly notate the square footage on that
plan and resubmit it. We are happy to do that. And we can make
Board of Trustees 14 September 18, 2024
it compliant with the 100 square foot.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, because by code, if it's attached to the
stairs it has to be less than 100 square feet.
MR. COFFEY: The landings.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. COFFEY: Okay. And we'll take another look at that and see
what it is. Just landward of the bulkhead maybe we do that; is
that right? Between the bank and the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So if that deck platform is connected to
those stairs then it' s part of the stairs, which limits it to
100 square feet.
MR. COFFEY: Understood. Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: When the Trustees visited the site we noted
the historic nature of the structure and the health of the beach
grass in front of it, and the efforts to reclaim the bank with
native species is a huge improvement to the property, and found
the soils in the area stable, and the beach in good condition.
The only concern that the Board raised was the water
associated with that deck structure. And as one Trustee I would
be comfortable moving forward with this application if there
were no plumbing associated with that structure and the decks
around that cabana were repaired with through-flow decking to
mitigate any upthrusting waves that might impact in the case of
a large event, storm event.
MR. COFFEY: I think that's something the client would be
amenable to. We'll confirm with them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions or comments from the
public?
(No response) .
Comments or questions from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COFFEY: Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the condition that the written description reflect a dry
storage structure on the beach, and no associated running water
or plumbing be constructed in that structure or running through
that structure; and that the platforms associated with the
stairs not to exceed 100 square feet in size. And the deck
surrounding the dry storage structure being of through-flow
decking to mitigate storm water damage.
And additionally, for stabilization of that area, we would
like to apply a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward from
the top of bank, thereby bringing the project into consistency
with the LWRP. And new plans depicting the aforementioned. That
is my motion.
Board of Trustees 15 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, Ken Quigley, President on behalf of
WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten
(10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge the channel into West
Lake by dredging to 48" Below Average Low Water and maintain an
8'-0" wide dredging area to avoid undermining adjacent
bulkheads; dredge spoils to be placed at the end of West Lake
Drive for de-watering and then removed off-site.
Located: West Lake Channel, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-11
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
11th, 2024, noting it's a straightforward dredging application.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent, recommending turbidity control.
The Conservation Advisory Council recommends the applicant
consider rebuilding the failing bulkhead, which I'll note is on
the neighbor' s property.
I am in receipt of the DEC permit for the dredging, and
also in receipt of a letter from an attorney named Michael D.
Solomon who is representing 106 Mulberry Court, which is the
neighbors, addressed to the gentlemen of the Board of Trustees.
I read it anyway.
This is a letter that is objecting to the dredging, and
noting that there are some property issues that are unrelated to
this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of West Lake Association. I
was added on with the authorization form submitted to the
Trustees office.
This is a renewal of a previously approved dredging permit
from this Board. As was mentioned, already has DEC approval. Had
a previous permit from the DEC which ran out, just as the
Trustee one has.
With regard to, I know there's some concerns have been
mentioned about the bulkheads on both sides of this inlet, and
you'll notice in the design of the dredging, it's six-foot off
on each side setback, and then as it goes down in shape, it's
eight feet across at the bottom.
So they engineered this, the dredging for this to take into
consideration that the bulkheads on both sides are old and at
least one side definitely in need of repair.
The dewatering sites for this are the same location as the
dewatering sites for the previous permits.
So I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Board of Trustees 16 September 18, 2024
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that turbidity controls are required as part
of this process. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 5, David Bergen on behalf of ELIZABETH
RERISI & SAMUEL FISHMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story, 2, 878sq. ft. Dwelling with entry porch, rear porch,
side entry, basement entry and attached garage; install A/C
units and generator; install an I/A OWTS system landward of
dwelling; install a permeable driveway; install gutters to
leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; establish and
perpetually maintain a 25 foot wide Non-Disturbance Buffer area
along the landward edge of the top of the bank with a four (4)
foot wide access path to the water.
Located: 3085 Laurel Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-31
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
llth, 2024, and Trustee Gillooly made the following notes:
Redraw top of bank to match dark contour line on the plan.
Non-disturbance to increase to 50 feet. Preserve all trees not
marked for removal.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent with the
following notes: Increase the width of the non-disturbance
buffer, specify the trees are not to be removed but can be limbs
up as necessary to maintain a view.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
this application because the project does, is not in compliance
with Chapter 275 setbacks. The main structure has a proposed
setback of 75 feet from the wetland boundary.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Yes, Dave Bergen here on behalf of Rerisi and
Fishman.
Thank you, for those notes. We did receive and we submitted
to the office a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC on this
project. This is a new construction home on a beautiful wooded
lot. The applicants are very much, one of the things that was
attractive about this lot for purchasing is the fact that it' s
heavily wooded.
With regard to the top of bank and the mention in the field
inspection notes about possibly that top of bank is not correct,
I'll call it on the eastern end of the property, you'll note
Board of Trustees 17 September 18, 2024
that we, when we saw that in field inspection notes, we had
Nathan Corwin go back out there again, who is a licensed
surveyor, and we resubmitted just the other day from Nathan the
survey as well as his letter stamped and signed where he is
stating most definitely the top of the bank is exactly where he
had marked it on the survey originally.
I'm not going to try to second guess what went on out in
the field, but you probably noticed that at the road in there,
years ago, the Town installed their version of drainage, which
included cutting a trench, I'll call it, over on this property
going down to the creek. So that, for better or worse, the
drainage system included draining water, the Town's drainage
system included draining water into the creek.
And it could very well be, as Nathan noted in his letter to
you, that that one side down there where you thought maybe the
top of bank was wrong, it's probably because of that work that
the Town did years ago, and that it creates another cut in the
land, so to speak, where that drainage is located.
I went out and I took additional pictures of that specific
area, and it, I really, in that area it does not show any type
of sharp elevation at all beyond where Nathan marked the bank.
On the survey you'll note, I believe it's six foot at the
top of the bank, needing the precipitous slope from that area
down to the water. After that, the whole property slowly slopes
up hill, and hence the reason for non-jurisdiction from the DEC.
And up in that area where the ten-foot contour is, is
obviously up to about ten feet. So it's not like a sharp bank.
It' s just a - slow incline going up to that area.
So our point of all this is that we feel that the top of
bank is exactly where Nathan depicted it on the first survey and
where he went out there the second time to double check his
work. He maintains that is truly the top of the bank, and as a
licensed surveyor I would certainly take his professional
opinion.
The reason that is important is because of the setback
issues, and we don't want to change, we don't want a decision of
moving the top of the bank to another location to impact the
setback issues.
This house has been located beyond the pier line, as you
have seen on your drawings. They are taking down minimal amount
of trees possible and as a matter of fact we made an effort to
go out there an mark trees so you would see exactly what is
coming down and what is not coming down.
So with regard to the concern of possibly razing trees, in
other words taking off a number of branches to maintain the
view, of course if that' s in a non-disturbance area we would not
be doing that.
With regard to the last item, the non-disturbance area, we
were hoping for a 25 foot non-disturbance area. 50-foot would
create a real challenge because now you are within 20-25 feet of
Board of Trustees 18 September 18, 2024
the proposed structure, which gives very little yard for the
family to work with.
So what we would like to come back to you with is possibly
35 feet from our top of bank so that we would reach, so to
speak, 35 foot non-disturbance buffer with just that four-foot
path through it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Bergen, for explaining your
response and how you worked through the notes that you saw from
the field inspections. Thank you, very much.
I will note that we have a letter dated stamped and
received September 17th, 2024, from the Nathan Corwin surveyor
that explains exactly what you noted. So we do appreciate that.
I think what we observed, and there is this darkened line
that follows that ten-foot contour on the plan. And I think
what we were observing there is that rarely is a bank condition
kind of very straight across. Often there is topography that
allows that line to be a little bit more organic. So I think
it's a combination of being on site and noting that it does seem
to be a little bit more naturalized in this line versus this
line.
So I do understand that there may be different paths on
this property based on the drainage basin that is on the
adjacent property there and, you know, we do obviously
understand the desire for the applicant to have a yard.
This is currently an untouched property. There are no
structures on the property. It is very lovely space, very
wooded. It' s, we were commenting on how, you know, the addition
to the community, the character of that wooded lot. However we
do understand that there is a right to build here.
So I think in conversation we did, we were actually
thinking the 50-foot non-disturbance from that kind of darker
ten-foot contour line. So, you know, I appreciate having that
updated survey and confirmation of that.
So that is in fact our top of bank that we are working
with, the setback nine-foot contour line, then perhaps we do
work with that 50-foot non-disturbance buffer that was suggested
by the Board. Because that comes to about the 13-foot contour
line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, Mr. Bergen, I'm a little confused. You
stated that the people are attracted to this property because
it's a heavily wooded lot, but now they want to remove the woods
from said lot?
MR. BERGEN: No, the exact opposite. What they're removing is
just what they need for the footprint of the house. Well, you
saw, you were out there. The trees were all marked. They want to
maintain as many trees as possible.
So, no, it' s that they are looking to remove trees at all.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: May I ask for clarification. There were a lot
of trees marked with caution tape. Were those for removal or to
keep?
Board of Trustees 19 September 18, 2024
MR. BERGEN: The trees marked with caution tape were for removal.
They were outside the footprint of the house, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, that was confusing. There is a little
bit of alarm when you see a lot of yellow caution tape around
trees.
MR. BERGEN: Oh, yeah.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do think that preserving the trees on this
particular piece of property is very important.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The Trustees were at a nearby property, as
you could see up on the right-hand side of the screen. We
worked really hard with this applicant in that case to vegetate
and return some of that seaward edge of the property to
something that would hold the soil, and I think in this case a
large buffer makes sense given how well the bank is holding in
that location.
I would also just say, while some of this project may be
out of jurisdiction, it is next to a public road end, and it
would behoove the applicant to leave as much of that vegetation
in place for privacy.
MR. BERGEN: Okay, thank you.
And again, to reiterate what you are saying, is if we went
with a 35-foot non-disturbance buffer that is a lot of area that
will be not disturbed. And, by the way, the four-foot path
going through there, we are not looking to take down any trees
for that four-foot path.
You might have noticed right at the beginning of the path
is a big tree. We have no intention of taking that tree down to
support the four-foot path. We would work around it.
So, Trustee Peeples, I just want to clarify from your
comments, that the setbacks will still be taken off of the top
of the bank as determined by Nathan Corwin.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that is a little bit of a sticky point
here. You know, we did feel that that ten-foot contour in the
field felt a little bit more or perhaps something in between
those two. However, we do have something that is a certified
document by a licensed surveyor, and I do respect that document.
So I think that, you know, in terms of for stating on the
record, it did not feel like it was quite that rigid of his top
of bank indications. It felt like there were portions that
would come more landward, perhaps, you know, as it notes, there
is an overlap there with his documented top of bank and with
that ten-foot contour line.
So, you know, I would say that for the purposes of this
application, I believe that that may have had a little bit more
wiggle room, but in terms of moving forward, I believe that, as
one Trustee, feels it's acceptable to accept that document from
his top of'bank.
Now, with that in mind, in regards to the LWRP and what the
Board is inclined, 'based on our field inspection and our
discussion during work session, that 50-foot non-disturbance
Board of Trustees 20 September 18, 2024
buffer does feel a lot more applicable to this property based on
the fact that it is an untouched lot with noted current
development.
MR. BERGEN: Well, first off, thank you, for your clarification
of top of bank. I appreciate that. 50 foot is a lot to ask.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I will just reiterate it would be 50-feet
from what is currently marked on the plan dated September 17th,
stamped and received September 17th, 2024.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Can I have ten seconds to talk to the client about
this?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I suppose. I mean, we are ready to move forward
with the hearing.
MR. BERGEN: I understand.
(Mr. Bergen is speaking with his client) .
MR. BERGEN: Would the Board give consideration to 40?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would close it and move forward.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the Board is ready to move forward with
the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just close it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that there is a submission of a planting plan
indicating any tree removal, and that there is a 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer, and subject to new plans depicting the
following. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, AS PER REVISED PLANS & DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 9/10/2024, 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 two 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
This application was tabled at our previous hearing.
Board of Trustees 21 September 18, 2024
The Trustees did an in-house review of new plans September
11th, 2024.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council inspected the property
and the project was not staked, therefore no recommendation was
made.
We are in receipt of new plans and project description
stamped received September loth, 2024.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of the ECAE 149.
First I'll just stipulate that all the comments from the
previous hearing are entered into the record tonight so we don't
have to go through that again.
I just, while it's fresh in my mind, I did stake this and I
submitted pictures to the office to show that it was staked
prior to I think it was a week ago Monday.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Just to clarify, the Conservation
Advisory Council was dated a couple of months ago. So previous
to this.
MR. BERGEN: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes, we are back before
you because as you have seen we moved the, that one corner of
the house so that it is back on or behind the pier line.
So we complied with what the Board was asking for. That is
depicted in the revised project description where we put in bold
face the changes from the old project description to the new one
so you can see what it was.
And so we are, there still is a net reduction of 111 gross
square foot from what is originally there. So we are still
maintaining a smaller structure than what is currently there,
and we met the pier line requirement.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. And I would just like to state for the
record that the new plans stamped received September 10th, 2024,
do show everything landward of pier line. So I want to thank you
for that.
MR. BERGEN: So I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't have any questions. Is there anyone
else here wishing to speak?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have a question. It's in regards -- thank
you. As Trustee Goldsmith mentioned. How all of the previous
hearings have culminated in what have before us this evening,
and the fact that the portion of the structure has been moved
landward of the pier line on the property. There was a question
of there is that area now between the edge, that kind of chamfer
of the garage, and then the stairs that are part of the existing
retaining wall structure that is there. And what is going to
happen there in terms of the grade. It seems like their might
need to be some sort of, hopefully there would not need to be a
retaining wall or fill, or something like that. But it seems
like there needs to be some sort of resolution there since no
Board of Trustees 22 September 18, 2024
longer a patio. And I would just like to confirm what is
happening there.
MR. BERGEN: Sure. Because I heard those comments, I believe I
saw them in the field inspection, I heard them the other night.
I heard them the other night when I attended the work session.
And the architect assured me that this is really any grade
change there at all, but that they are going to landscape that
area between the stairs and what will now be the new location of
the wall with native plantings in there, because it will match a
similarly-landscaped area of the property right next door where
they have white stone and native plantings and grasses, mostly,
put in there. And that' s their intention.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for checking on that. Native
vegetation sounds like a nice addition. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other question or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans and project description stamped received
September 10th, 2024, with the condition of planting of three
native hardwoods of two to three-inch caliper.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 7, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NICHOLAS
& BARBARA PALLANTE requests a Wetland Permit for the
construction of 90 linear feet of shoreline stabilization
consisting of two (2) rows of coir logs along eroded shoreline;
each row shall have three (3) logs stacked and staked with 2"x2"
oak stakes and be infilled with native soil and planted with
approved wetland plantings.
Located: 4302 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-30
Trustee Krupski most recently visited the site and
mentioned the possibility of one tier to start in preserving
what is there.
The LWRP coordinator said to please verify the 20-foot wide
non-turf buffer is in place pursuant to Wetland 8380.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
The proposed plan is simply for stabilization of the lower
Board of Trustees 23 September 18, 2024
section of this bank. As you see on the proposed plans, I only
have three feet of height. If you look in the field there is, it
varies from one foot to about three feet of height of
disruption.
Over the past four or five years, the applicant has seen
signs of a lot of erosion that is happening at the bottom of the
bluff and plants are starting to work their way down, fall down.
So as a softer means of bank protection, we wanted to provide
the coir logs with the plantings, something that will naturally
re-vegetate the bluff and provide some stabilization for future
erosion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I visited this site. I certainly see the
need for some project there. In terms of going in softer, it' s
definitely, it' s definitely a good start. It would be nice to
see the scope start maybe a little bit smaller. But I
understand what they are trying to do, and they are trying to
stay ahead of it.
I think a project like this, and with anything with coir
logs and stabilization, should be done a little artfully. So
there is a lot of existing vegetation there. There is a small
string of Spartina in front of this area.
So I would just want to see no vegetation removed
whatsoever; no tree cutting; the Spartina to remain in place.
And then speaking to the LWRP' s comments, I think a set of
new plans showing the buffer 20-foot wide buffer for Wetland
Permit 8380, should be there. And where not installed, it
should be installed as part of this project.
MR. PATANJO: I'm not privy to 8380. That was a 25-foot non-turf
buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was a 20-foot wide non-turf buffer from --
MR. PATANJO: Mean high water up the bank?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does not reference that here, and I do not
have it on the survey.
MR. PATANJO: I can pull it up on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pull it up and make sure it's there, and
wherever it is not currently existing it should be added to.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. We'll amend the plans to reflect that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from 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 make a motion to approve this application
with the following stipulations: The project will not destroy
any existing wetland vegetation, including Spartina, and no
trees or native vegetation will be removed. The height of the
Board of Trustees 24 September 18, 2024
project is not to exceed three feet in any spot. And that- new
plans depicting the 20-foot wide non-turf buffer from Wetland
Permit 8380 are submitted to the office. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 8, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/16/2024 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ROBERT FINN requests a Wetland Permit to remove 90 liner feet of
existing masonry bulkhead, masonry returns and steps; construct
a new vinyl bulkhead with two (2) 10' long vinyl bulkhead
returns, and two sets of 41x4 ' cantilevered platforms with 4'
wide steps to beach in same locations as existing; install a 24"
high retaining wall landward of the non-turf buffer with two (2)
sets of stone steps down; and to install and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward
side of the bulkhead.
Located: 8908 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#
1000-126-5-19
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the llth of
September, 2024. Notes from our field inspection read: 15-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer.
The Trustees received a consistency report from the LWRP
coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. As you
see on the proposed plans that were revised and submitted to
you, I have them dated the loth, but I think I submitted them on
the 16th or something. It was noted in the meeting Minutes.
The project includes remove and replace the existing
failing brick bulkhead. Replacement of the stairs. We did want
to add an additional terraced wall, landscape retaining wall
constructed out of timber with rock steps.
Due to the limited size of the backyard and the adjacent
residence with the existing stone terraces and patios, we are
asking for a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer which is going to be
a level-lower area which will be non-turf sand and gravel or
mulch, or something similar. If requested by the Board we could
do some sort of a plantings with native vegetation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, I'm looking at two plans here, one
we just received September 16th, 2024.
This project depicts a retaining wall, the ten-foot buffer,
and addition of two landing staircases on to the beach.
The July 5th, 2024, depicts none of that, and spells out
the replacement of the failing bulkhead and disrepair.
I believe that in this location the stairs to the beach are
over-building in this location. I think the retaining wall is
Board of Trustees 25 September 18, 2024
unnecessary, and I think the addition of a 15-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer is appropriate in this location given the wave
energy and the ability of the vegetation to hold the soil.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application or any members of the Board who wish to comment?
MR. PATANJO: Here again, Jeff Patanjo.
So with the existing plans do represent the six-foot wide
right-of-way on the north side of the property. Currently
existing in place are two recessed stairways. There is one for
the existing residence at the subject property, 8908 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, and there is also an existing stairway
which is owned by the same property, which is the current tax
map, but it is utilized as a right-of-way for the other members
of the area. So there are three or four other houses here that
utilize the .steps.
So existing, there are currently two recessed stairways;
one on the subject property used by the homeowner, and one
within the six-foot wide right-of-way utilized by the other
property owners.
So our intentions here are to not have cutouts, but to
remove and replace the stairways, same locations, and one is
utilized by the neighbors' residents and one is utilized by the
current homeowner.
With regard to the retaining wall, we have no problem
moving it back an additional five feet to have it 15 feet, which
would be non-turf buffer.
The intention here is to, you know, do this upper retaining
wall, landscape retaining wall as I called it, for the purpose
of levelling out the yard. The yard is a little bit steep and it
will also add some additional protection against wave energy,
adding a 15-foot wide non-turf buffer, and also adding in the
additional retaining wall and saving loss of land.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Now we are on the same page with the buffer,
15 feet. Again, I think the project is overbuilt in its
September 18th version.
MR. PATANJO: But again, taking into consideration there's
currently two stairs, and one is utilized within our
right-of-way, and we to provide as part of the easement a set of
stairs specifically for those residents.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think the difference in the plan, one of the
differences is that you are proposing structure on the beach
now, so having adding a set of stairs on the beach whereas the
steps were cut into the existing property.
So I think that it's preferable for the Trustees to
eliminate more structure on the beach.
MR. PATANJO: What if we proposed both of the stairways to be
retractable and removable like we do on the bluffs on the north
shore?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Unnecessary. And also the property in our
field inspections was not significantly sloped. We've seen far
Board of Trustees 26 September 18, 2024
steeper areas held perfectly fine with a vegetated non-turf
buffer.
Anyone else wish to speak regarding the application?
(No response) .
Members the Board wish to comment?
(Negative response) .
MR. PATANJO: Can I table the application? I would like to table
the application so I can talk to the client who unfortunately is
not here. He wanted two sets of stairs and I don't know that
that is where this is going.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the plans stamped July 5th, 2024. These plans are much
more in keeping with the policies of the Trustees to protect the
natural features of the coastline and mitigate additional
structure in the beach area. And a new project description with
new plans depicting those July 5th plans. And a 15-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of the bank.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 9, 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.
Located: 760 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
The Trustees originally visited the site on September llth,
2024, noting to ask for the pier line on the plans, to locate
existing trees on plan and preserve during construction. And
confirm the buffering to previously-issued dock line.
The LWRP coordinator reviewed this application and found it
to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, Architect.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. We are in receipt of new plans
stamped received in our office September 18th, which is today,
that do depict the pier line and a non-turf buffer.
One note on the buffer here is that our previously approved
dock permit had required the removal of the concrete pad, while
we had allowed the stone fire pit to remain. We would need to
see new plans reflecting what was previously approved in that
non-turf buffer.
MR. BROWN: Okay, and that was obviously some confusion because
Board of Trustees 27 September 18, 2024
the DEC had allowed the pad. So we'll take it out of the plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Yes. We were referencing what was on
the file for us with the previous permit number 10405.
MR. BROWN: Of course.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So that would have to be removed. And then the
other thing that we had requested is a mapping of the trees
within our jurisdiction so that we can be aware of where they
are and ensure they are not removed or disturbed during
construction.
MR. BROWN: The plan that was submitted today shows a few trees
in the front yard which will have to be removed because of the
installation of the IA septic system.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, we do understand that, and we understand
also the benefit of the IA septic system, so unfortunately we
lose trees but in this case we do understand that.
MR. BROWN: Nobody is happy about that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. Right. I think what we would also like
to see though are the trees within a hundred feet of the
wetlands not on the plans so that we can keep an eye on where
they are and that they aren't disturbed.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Anyone from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll make a motion to approve this application
subject to trees being added to the plans and removal of the
concrete patio required by previous permit #10405. And that is
my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five-minute recess.
(A brief recess is taken) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are back on the record.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 10, 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
Board of Trustees 28 September 18, 2024
The Trustees most recently visited this site on September
11th, 2024, and Trustee Peeples made the following notes:
Mark existing trees if removal required; one-for-one
replacement of native hardwood; vegetated non-turf buffer
seaward of top of bank; question if the work meets Town Code
definition and will make the third floor on the rear side of the
house.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent and noted
a vegetated non-turf buffer is recommended landward of the
existing timber wall.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the recommendation that the size of the deck is
reduced to be in compliance with Chapter 275.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
(Unidentified audience member speaking) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If you want to say something, please approach
the podium. This gentleman appears to be here first, so.
(UNIDENTIFIED PERSON) : Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. BROWN: I'm Robert Brown, Architect. I'm here to answer
questions as well. But she can speak first.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Allison Boyd-Savage, and I live at 870 North
Parrish Drive, Southold, directly opposite the property.
I was just wondering about the landward addition. The
existing property is very close to the edge of the property line
in the front. There is a garage right at the front, and I
wondered if it would go beyond that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So if you want to address that question to the
Board, and we'll review the comments and then we'll talk to the
architect if there are any questions.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it appears that the, according to the plans
that we received, the only landward additions are enclosing the
existing porch and enclosing the breezeway that connects the
main part of the house with the garage.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Okay, that sounds good.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And if you would verify that is correct.
MR. BROWN: That is correct, all of the work is to the house, not
to the garage. So the addition is --
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Okay. That sounds fine to me. Because I saw
"landward addition" and I thought that might be a little too
close. And one of my concerns was is the garage staying where it
is, pretty much.
MR. BROWN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to address your comments to the Board.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: I'm sorry. If the garage is staying directly
where it is there won't be a lot of outdoor lighting. Will the
lighting be Dark Skies compliant from my property?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That is the law of Southold Town that the
lighting be Dark Skies compliant.
Board of Trustees 29 September 18, 2024
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Because there is a new house down the road that
has floodlighting in the trees.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You can always call code enforcement for
something like that.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: I can, all right.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And also, you know, getting to know your
neighbor and having that discussion with them, based on your
concerns, would be beneficial as well. But based on the Town
Code, it should be Dark Skies compliant.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: And I'm fine with what it seems to be for a
house opposite me. I just wanted to come along because, you
know, I live right opposite and, you know, see what was going
on.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We appreciate it.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Okay, thank you, very much, and thank you for
the work you do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to that point, if you see houses that are
egregiously out of compliance with the Dark Skies law, please
call code enforcement because it is a problem that is plaguing
the Town, and, you know, someone like, it's a big issue.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Yes, I know. I noticed the reduction, I only
have motion detector lights. I'm not being smug, but I do try.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
MS. BOYD-SAVAGE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I also note that I'm in receipt of plans
stamp-dated September 18th, 2024, and it does map out the
existing trees to remain in their approximate location, that are
identified for us. So we do appreciate that. Thank you.
In terms of the other comments from the Board about a
vegetated non-turf buffer, there is quite a bit of existing
vegetation, which is great. We just, I think balancing the
additional structure with what is in an area that has bank, we
thought it would be beneficial on the property.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: What I'm looking here at the plans, it seems
that approximately 14-foot contour line would be a reasonable
place to work off of with that vegetated buffer, so that would
be seaward of the 14-foot contour line. Obviously a four-foot
access path would be reasonable to access down to the boardwalk
and the dock.
MR. BROWN: Okay. And for the record we didn't plan on taking out
any trees at all. The one closest to the house might have to get
trimmed for the construction, but we didn't plan on removing
anything.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I appreciate that and I appreciate that you
were able to work on the project that doesn't involve tree
removal.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's very rare these days.
1
Board of Trustees 30 September 18, 2024
MR. BROWN: Yeah, we're just going up, we're not going out, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak or 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
with the condition that there is a one-to-one tree replacement
for any tree removal that might have to happen on the project.
And that there is a vegetated non-turf buffer that is
installed seaward of the 14-foot contour line, with the addition
of new plans depicting that. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How big is the buffer?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's from the 14-foot contour line.
MR. BROWN: That line is very skewed toward the west of the
property. So can we have a number? I think you said 15 feet
from the timber wall, originally?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I believe that was the note of the LWRP. And we
wanted to bring it back a little further.
MR. BROWN: Just because on the west side, the 14-foot line does
come up pretty far.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm in the middle of a motion.
MS. HULSE: Nobody seconded it, as far as I recollect. So I would
think you can continue amending that motion that you made, if
you wish. Or start it over.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would start it over, for clarification of the
record, maybe.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to restart my motion.
I make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a one-to-one replacement for any tree removal on
the project; and a vegetated non-turf buffer that is 25-feet
landward of the existing timber wall. Subject to new plans
depicting. That is my motion
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, Robert Brown Architects on behalf
of GARY M. & MARY L. NAPOLITANO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a partial second-story addition over existing
one-story dwelling.
Located: 1250 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-34
The Trustees conducted a field inspection September 11th,
noting straightforward addition within the existing footprint.
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends installation of an IA septic system.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 31 September 18, 2024
application?
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, Architect.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the only question I had is I don't
necessarily see in the plans, I don't recall, are there
currently gutters to leaders to drywells on there?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. BROWN: And the Napolitano's have hired an engineer who has
gotten the permit for an IA system in the front yard.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is that part of this?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This will be with the IA system addition?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, great.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of an IA septic system and new
plans depicting that system. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, Robert Brown Architects on behalf of
NORTH OAKWOOD PARTNERS, c/o KEITH DORMAN requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish (as per Town Code Definition) , the existing
one story dwelling by constructing interior and exterior
renovations that include the removal of existing 180sq.ft. Front
porch and 180sq.ft. Rear porch and construct in-place additional
new living space; construct a 101x22 . 6' deck with stairs on
seaward side of dwelling; fill and abandon existing septic
system, and install an I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling.
Located: 1980 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-6
The Trustees visited the property on the llth of September,
noted that we needed a pier line to be put on the plan, gutters
to leaders to drywells, maintain existing trees, and plans to
show 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
It should be noted that I'm in receipt of new plans stamped
received by the office today, September 18th, with all those
proposals listed.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, recommended a
Board of Trustees 32 ' September 18, 2024
non-turf buffer, which again has been added to the plans, and
that it be vegetated.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SIDOR: Brian Sidor, for Robert Brown Architects.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, thank you, for addressing the majority of
the concerns. One question we had was underneath the current
existing deck, which I guess is to be turned into living space,
there' s two retaining walls on either side and then an open
area. So what's going to happen with that portion of the
property and the structure?
MR. SIDOR: So all that concrete work is going to get ripped out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And in terms of grade there --
MR. SIDOR: As natural as we could get it back to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are going to return -- you're not going
to have a walk out there.
MR. SIDOR: No, underneath the house will be a foundation walk,
yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So there still will be a walk-out from the
basement?
MR. SIDOR: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So will there be two retaining walls installed
adjacent to the house, as existing now?
MR. SIDOR: Not retaining walls. Foundation walls, like for the
house, for the basement of the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just to clarify, right now they extend out
from the foundation? It won't be that current condition?
MR. SIDOR: No, everything outside of the footprint of the house
would be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, just to clarify further, the foundation
wall currently has a pair of double doors that opens out and the
retaining wall is holding, is perpendicular to that foundation
wall, to hold back the area so the doors open. So there will no
longer be door opening there?
MR. SIDOR: Well that, the area above, which is the deck, is
proposed to be interior space.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then with the grade --
MR. SIDOR: So that would be a full foundation with the first
floor above it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the doors will no longer be there then.
MR. SIDOR: They'll get moved to the new exterior wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I'm assuming with the grade, the way it
drops off there, you are saying you won't need retaining walls
on either side to maintain the walk-out.
MR. SIDOR: Yes. Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. SIDOR: I believe there was a foundation plan submitted as
Board of Trustees 33 September 18, 2024
well that should clarify that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just double-checking grade changes.
Is there fill being brought in?
MR. SIDOR: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding it this application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based on the new plans stamped received by the office September
18th, 2024, and noting a one-for-one tree replacement, to be
replaced with native trees. One-to-one replacement for said
removed trees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
MR. SIDOR: Good night.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 13, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 9/10/24 AMP Architecture on behalf of
STEPHANIE PERL requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
one-story dwelling with seaward covered patio; existing shed;
remove existing paver patio, existing rear stone patio,
driveway, masonry walkways and front porch; construct two (2)
one-story additions; construct a front covered porch;
reconstruct and enlarge rear raised stone patio area with
outdoor BBQ area and an in-ground pool; install pool enclosure
fencing and pool equipment area; install three (3) drywells;
reconstruct gravel driveway; as-built outdoor shower, generator
and a/c condensers; approximately 112.09 cubic yard of earth to
be excavated for the additions with all fill not reused to be
removed from property.
Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43
The Trustees conducted an in-house review on September
11th. 2024, and at our work session.
Prior review of this project elicited comments from the
LWRP coordinator, who found the project to be consistent. The
as-built structures were constructed without a wetlands permit.
Structures are located within FEMA AEER6 and X floodplain.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application based on submitted, time of review of the
application on July 10th, 2024, based on concerns that the water
table flooded and sea level rise.
I welcome comments from the public.
MR.. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo, architect.
So from the original comments, the plan was revised. We
rotated the pool to be parallel with the existing home and
Board of Trustees 34 September 18, 2024
accomplished 51. 6 feet setback from the flagged wetland. We also
are proposing a 50-foot vegetated non-turf buffer as part of the
notes from the Trustee visit. So I think we ,were able to
accomplish those revisions.
The, prior to coming to the Trustees Board we did receive a
variance from the Zoning Board for the addition at the front,
which is for a one-car garage.
Some of the other work that is being done on the home, just
to be clear, is a small addition for like a foyer area, and then
we are doing some roof work, really for esthetics for the
project. There is really no function to that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So based on those changes to the house it
would not meet the Town Code definition of a demolition, and I'm
assuming that the applicant would not at this moment be
installing an IA system?
MR. PORTILLO: That is not part of our plan.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: On review of the application in our work
session we took a close look at depth to ground water. And while
the property is bulkheaded and protected in large measure from
that wave energy, any overtopping or heavy rainfall would push
that water table pretty hard in that location.
And I think that we discussed a seaward face not to exceed
twelve inches. Currently in our notes from a prior review it
was 24 inches, the retaining walls, which is Trustee policy. So
when the exposed faces to the waterfront, and all around, in our
last review, we settled on a one-foot exposure for the retaining
wall. It seems the right height in that location.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Or on-grade, if possible.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: On-grade would be preferable. We understand
that there are certain constraints on the property.
MR. PORTILLO: I'm sorry, I'm just looking at my highlighted
section there.
So the level of the proposed patio extends from the,
following the existing level of the patio. That's the reason.
And then essentially our proposal, which is on P9, is to have
the pool deck would be at 4' 6" . Which keeps us about a foot from
groundwater based on the test hole.
So I mean to go any shallower with the pool, it would not
be much of a pool. Even at six inches it would be a four-foot
pool.
So our current patio height is two feet from existing
grade. So are you suggesting 12 inches from existing grade? Is
that what I'm understanding?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That' s what we discussed.
MR. PORTILLO: Is there any, I mean, just to get a pool that' s
four-foot in depth, would 187inches be something you'd consider?
I mean, because there is already an existing patio right there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree that going that shallow on a pool
is kind of a foolish option, but I would infer that if you don't
have the depth to put an in-ground pool in-ground, you should
Board of Trustees 35 September 18, 2024
not have a pool at that location. Because we are in the creek
practically, here.
MR. PORTILLO: I think, I mean just based on other areas, like
other lots here, it's not uncommon. I think even the neighbor
has a pool a couple of houses down. So, I mean it sounds to me
that it would be the opposite of us going higher with the patio
and then we could have an out-of-grade pool, or --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are starting to view these in-ground
above-ground hybrid pools as structure, so now we are really
encroaching on the wetland. And the idea is not to add more
structure closer to the creek. And, you know, if you have a
large lot and you are 100 feet away, I think there is something
to be said about having, you know, a higher pool, more
structure. But, I mean, here, this is a very small spot, and a
very low-lying area. And the whole street, frankly. And it' s a
. little tough to just add more and more and more. Because where
does it end there?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'd like to echo Trustee Krupski's comments,
because what we do is the in-ground pool has a different setback
than structure. So now we are starting to have these pools that
are more structure than in-ground. So to ask for the same
setback as an in-ground pool being it is now considered a
structure because it' s elevated, that's where we're running into
some trouble trying to figure it out.
MR. PORTILLO: Again, obviously I would have to discuss this and
adjourn, because I � can't make these decisions. But seeing there
is an existing patio there, maybe decreasing what the addition
of the patio would be to bring it further away from the wetlands
and trying to utilize more of the patio for the pool. Existing
patio for the pool. Is that a consideration?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to note that looking at the
satellite images it's difficult to find any of the houses on
Minnehaha Boulevard that have a pool in this very, very low
lying area. So, you know, that' s the whole street, the whole
seaward side of the street not seeing a pool.
MR. PORTILLO: So I guess what I'm suggesting is because there
already is an existing patio, we were trying not to utilize
that, obviously. But maybe if we were to bring the pool closer
to the home and utilize more of the existing patio. I don't
know. And I think I could also maybe reduce the height by
lessening the depth of the pool.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the direction that you are heading is
one that is exactly where these conversations are ported to go.
You know, instead of adding more and more and more, this is what
we have existing, we would like to add a pool. How do we figure
out how to do that with the least environmental impact.
And I think to echo what Trustee Krupski and Trustee
Goldsmith were saying, that it is a bit of a quandary that we
are in right now, because an in-ground pool is very different
than one that involves retaining walls, and many of proposals we
Board of Trustees 36 September 18, 2024
see involve retaining walls that are fairly significant. So it
is something that the Board is leaning toward looking at
differently.
MR. PORTILLO: And I think I understand what you are saying, so,
and I think I have some ideas, but obviously I would have to
think about that and discuss it. So with that I would request an
adjournment and try to propose a different idea.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application or comments from the Board?
Questions?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 14, AMP Architecture on behalf of AJIT
KUMAR & JENNIFER ECCLESTONE requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing two-story dwelling with entry stoops; to restore the
existing cabana with roof deck, cabana decking, ' steps with
landings, and retaining wall landward of cabana by replacing all
footings under all structures with new, replace northerly wood
walk to cabana deck, replace southerly top landing with steps
down to cabana deck, replace cabana deck and steps down to a
concrete slab at bottom of bank; repair roof of deck above
cabana with new roof membrane; replace all railings with new;
remove and replace in-place retaining wall landward of cabana;
replace siding on cabana; remove outdoor shower from cabana;
existing steps to beach off bulkhead to remain; install stepping
stones landward of top of bank; install a drywell to contain
roof runoff; re-vegetate an approximately 2, 057sq.ft. Area
throughout the bank face using native species; and to establish
and perpetually maintain a 623sq.ft. Non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the top of the bank.
Located: 1490 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-20
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
11th, 2024, noting to preserve all trees and any removal
requires a tree letter.
The LWRP reviewed the application and found it to be
inconsistent for three reasons:
First, the as-builts do not meet policy 6.3, which supports
the Board' s authority in the permit process.
Number two, the cabana is an unpermitted structure on the
bank, subject to erosion and storm damage.
And number three, if approved, it is recommended to retain
trees to allow remaining trees to establish as necessary.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved not to support the application because they state
the cabana is over 100 square feet.
Board of Trustees 37 September 18, 2024
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Anthony Portillo. So I did meet the Board
onsite about this due to my uncertainty of the building and the
location of it. And the thought process here was to basically
restore what is there. I would just be repairing that existing
structure. And that is the way we'd move forward.
I actually hired John Conlon to provide the engineering
drawings, which I did provide to the Board. One, because that is
not my specialty, and I did not want to get into how to deal
with basically structuring what' s there. So the plan is to
rebuild that based on John Conlon' s plans and, you know, fix the
current staircase that is there going down to the beach.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
I think it's worth noting that the Trustees do recognize
the historic nature of this structure, and similar to other
discussions we've had this evening, the thing we would like to
see removed is any water features. We would like to see it
converted into a dry storage shed, which is indicated on the
plan, that the outdoor shower would be removed. And that is
something that we had discussed in the field and has been
followed through.
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to the following conditions: That all decking
associated with the dry storage shed be replaced with
through-flow decking; all language referring to "cabana" be
changed to dry storage shed; no tree removal is permitted with
this permit. Any tree trimming or removal associated with this
project would require a separate tree letter and inspection from
a member of this Board. And new plans reflecting those changes.
And by issuing a permit and making those conditions, we are
thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 15, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/9/24 AMP Architecture on behalf
of PATRICK DILOLLO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
one-story dwelling with rear deck with steps, front patio with
steps, and A/C units; two (2) existing 56.4sq.ft. Of retaining
walls; construct a one-story addition to dwelling; construct an
Board of Trustees 38 September 18, 2024
in-ground swimming pool with pool equipment area and a drywell
for pool backwash; install pool enclosure fencing with gates;
construct a patio between pool house and pool; construct a pool
house with gutters to leaders to drywells; construct a detached
garage with gutters to leaders to drywells with stepping stones
from driveway to garage; install a pervious driveway; abandon
existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS system landward
of dwelling; install stepping stones from dwelling to pool gate
and patio; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the wetland
vegetation.
Located: 870 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-2-8. 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
llth, 2024 . And Trustee Sepenoski made the following notes: A
large portion of the property on the western end features mostly
native hardwood and shrubs. These natural features are
contiguous with protected wetland species. Proposed garage not
suitable in this location. Pool and pool house should be
relocated to preserve as many trees as possible. Bulkhead on
western end appears to be non-functional.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent, with the
following notes: A vegetated buffer, including the existing
trees, should be required landward from the bulkhead to the
AE-EI6 flood zone line, or 15 feet, whichever is greater.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application and recommends a landscaping plan to include
retaining walls as needed. There is concern with the pool being
too close to the flood zone.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
So I think some of the things, and I appreciate your
comments and understand them. And I've talked to Mr. Dilollo
about them. We are proposing a new IA system here, which I think
is a benefit. And I think that location, there is not much
vegetation or current vegetation in that area.
So just to kind of talk about the need for these
structures, so, you know, obviously the pool, enjoy for the
summer, a pool house and the garage is really for storage. It's
not a huge house that is there.
Some things that are mentioned that I think are important,
is with what we are proposing, we are only at 10.5% lot
coverage. We are not nearing 20% or close to 20%. And I just
want to make sure that is all understood.
I think Mr. Dilollo and myself, we want to work with the
Board to try and figure out some way to make some of these
things happen on here, in need of these structures.
So due to some of the comments, I already proposed to Mr.
Dilollo we should probably get the trees marked out and put them
on the survey, and then we can make some arrangements or some
Board of Trustees 39 September 18, 2024
changes in location based on, you know, trying to save as many
trees as possible.
Also, it's not a problem. He's willing and fine with doing
any of them one to one, for trees removed and replaced. But
basically our thoughts on that are the comments we received from
the Board on the site.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Portillo. And it was nice to
meet your client on the property. He was very receptive to our
comments.
I would maybe perhaps start with one that I think is a
little more straightforward from our perspective, which is the
garage. In looking at it, in elevation, it is a two-story
structure. So it is not insignificant. It's quite large. It' s
25'x47 ' feet in dimension. And I think the point that is the
most concerning, from my perspective, is that it' s 50.9' from
the wetland boundary. And in, not to reference previous
applications, but we were just talking about setbacks for pools,
and that is typically, you know, minimum setback for a pool. So
the fact that is a two-story, fairly significant structure that
is at what we typically look at for a pool setback, is
concerning, and perhaps eliminating that from this location is
advisable.
Now, kind of moving on, your comment about the IA system,
we appreciate that. That seems like a great location in the
front yard.
What is sort of happening, and I think is worth putting on
record, is that there is a bulkhead. There are areas of it that
seem to be functional, by the dock. There is a seating area
there. A little further extending west it seems to lose its
functionality. If you are reviewing the plan that is submitted,
the flagged wetland boundary is actually looks like about six
feet landward of what is noted as the bulkhead. So there is
some question on areas where that is currently functioning, and
then the notes that as we go further west, that is they're less
functionality and perhaps a good location for some sort of
restoration work there.
We do understand, as the applicant mentioned onsite, that
there is a town road there, so there is, you know, that to keep
in mind. But I know that would be part of your analysis when
you are reviewing it.
Moving east on the property, the pool and the pool house
with the patio. There are photos here that are submitted. They
are dated June 18th of 2024, and what I'm looking at, the photo
number one facing north, is almost completely shaded. And that
is the location that is currently proposed for the pool. And
when we were on site we were, it was a very sunny day, and we
did note that most people tend to enjoy their pool with sun. It
helps in reducing the fill for heating and also enjoyment of the
pool, so perhaps that location is not necessarily desirable
because in order to enjoy it in a way that might be necessary or
Board of Trustees 40 September 18, 2024
desired, there would have to be quite a few trees removed, and I
think that was concerning.
The other aspect of the pool is that it is very close to,
what is it, I guess the western, southwestern corner of the
pool. The way the grade changes on the property, it seems like
it would require a retaining wall, and if that is possible to
avoid, that would be desirable as well. i
MR. PORTILLO: All this is noted, and I think the analysis might
be necessary for us to make some of these determinations, and I
think that's what Mr. Dilollo is speaking about it. I think
though in regard to the garage, the size of it was something
that I brought up as well, that maybe we can look at a smaller
scenario, smaller design for the garage. I mean he really needs
to put a garage on. He really needs a garage, is essentially
what it comes down to. He's got, you know, kids and storage and
things like that. So I would imagine that if we can -- there is
also this scenario of this sort of corner lot where we have our
two front yards.
So a lot of this came into play when we were trying to lay
everything out on the site. Our original proposal before the
Trustees came out to site, three or four months ago, we
requested a site visit, the pool is, the pool and the pool house
we had sort of oriented differently and I think the request was
to try to get it behind the deck, back behind the deck and sort
of in the side yard. That' s where this sort of design started
bleeding that way.
So I guess I just want to ask the question that if the
garage, if we can get it smaller and preserve as many trees as
possible, I just want to make sure we are not saying the garage
isn't possible. Is that what we are saying?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the words I used were that it' s not
necessarily recommended in this area. In this location.
MR. PORTILLO: In this location. Understood.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So honestly, you are the professional working
with the applicant and so however you feel best to design this
property in order to accommodate the needs of the client, we are
obviously willing to look at that.
I think, you know, the takeaway here are there that the
current proposal has an incredible number of trees that needs to
be removed. So I appreciate that desire to have a survey. I
think that' s a great idea. You know, the lot coverage that you
mentioned is something that this Board is not necessarily, you
know, reviewing, but we do appreciate that comment.
So I think all of that --
MR. PORTILLO: I only bring in the lot coverage because, you
know, it' s not that we are trying to fill the lot up to 200 or
even come close to that. That' s was the only reason for that
comment. I understand that' s a zoning thing, but it's just
something to indicate that we are not trying to maximize our lot
coverage by any means.
Board of Trustees 41 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Have you gone to Zoning to ask for, to look
into a variance? Because there is a 50-foot setback, it looks
like, here. For that structure, the garage structure.
Is that 50 or 30? Excuse me.
MR. PORTILLO: It's 50. 9.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Very small plans.
MR. PORTILLO: So we are actually 66.3 feet from the bulkhead,
and we are at the 50-foot rear yard setback. So we don't need a
variance for any of the proposed work.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But if you decided to pull the garage closer
to the road, you may have to go to ZBA, and I think that would
be a way to accomplish pulling this away from the wetlands.
MR. PORTILLO: That's something we discussed and it might mean
that in our next iteration of the design we might just take the
garage off so we can move forward with the pool and pool house
and then we'll go through the process with the ZBA and come back
here with the Trustees in regard to the garage, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Two comments. One, you mentioned it' s 66.5 '
from the bulkhead. And that is true. But I 'm looking at the
50.9' dimension from the flagged wetlands. Which as I mentioned
earlier, the flagged wetland line is landward of the bulkhead.
MR. PORTILLO: Correct. But I don't think a variance is
required for that. That's what I was saying. I don't need a
zoning variance for that. This was reviewed by the zoning
department. No zoning variance was required.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Then the one thing I would say in regards, I
understand trying to, you know, break up the project into phases
in order to move things forward. That does make sense. I think
though what we have seen and is concerning is how we receive a
lot of applications, and I would say recently that are, they are
very piecemeal and it's not looking at the project as a whole.
And then when we approve one, and then we move on to the second
application that received on the same property, and we are in a
way pigeonholed into certain decisions based on what has
happened prior.
So I would just request that you kind of look at it as a
whole, and it does need to be broken down. I do understand that
need to try to move forward with the project.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I mean, unfortunately due to just the zoning
timeline is very long these days.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And we completely understand that.
MR. PORTILLO: But, again, we need to speak more about this
because the garage might just be a future project for him
anyway. I think the Board allows us a little more than a year, I
guess, for this process.
So I think our first step is we have to get the trees on
the survey and do a little bit better of an analysis. So, to
your guys' point that is what our plan is and we'll be sure to
present that next time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 42 September 18, 2024
Okay, so am I understanding --
MR. PORTILLO: I'm sorry, can we adjourn to next month please.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. And thank you for your attention
surveying the trees and revisiting the project.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Again, I would ask, obviously, I don't know
if can request another site visit but it would probably be good
if we can show you guys would come down, after we do all that.
So I could let the office know.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure. That would be great.
MR. PORTILLO: Great. Perfect. Thank you. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You, too.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I make a motion to table the
application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 16, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of
SAM ORLOFSKY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
25.4 'xl3.4 ' seaward side deck (open to the sky) with steps to a
proposed easterly 94sq.ft on-grade patio; install a
50.211x17. 42' on-grade patio along seaward side of dwelling;
construct a 13'x5.8 ' wood landing with steps to on-grade patio
off north side of dwelling.
Located: 18575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51.-1-12
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on September
llth. The notes read: Check the permit history.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition the deck is replaced within the same
footprint or less.
I also have a letter in opposition, from one of the
neighbors, Beatrice DuPont. She' s not in favor of the
application. Building too close to the bluff. So she objects to
more construction and disruptions on the bluff side and
respectfully requests the Board of Trustees to deny the permit.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Sam Orlofsky.
So the permit history, a little background, you probably
remember, in 2021 I got involved because the bulkhead work was
being done and caused the work as it was done was using the bank
as access, and when the Board granted the approval, I think they
were thinking it was going to be from the beach access. It had
nothing to do with Sam, it was the contractor, and so the
project got stopped.
At that time, we got a permit, we resolved everything, got
all the permits in 2021, and the Trustees permit was included,
Board of Trustees 43 September 18, 2024
reconstruct existing raised patio, because you'll be recalling
it was a raised cement patio, to original dimensions, which is
the same dimensions we have today. And resurface with IP
decking. So it was going to be the poured cement with just wood
top.
At that point, this is the activity which you guys saw wl�en
the bulkhead work was done. So you can see the footings were put
in already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you can continue speaking at the microphone,
otherwise he can't --
MS. MOORE: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. , I only had one picture. I was
looking back.
So this was the original house that had been raised, if you
want no know, the raised cement patio. So that was this one.
I don't know who the lead is on this one, so I apologize.
So that' s the original house. So in 19 -- excuse me, 2021
we did get the permit for the deck at that time, because the
cement got taken down, you can see it was already, it was just
the footings were in at the time. So it was taken down. They
didn't realize if they took it down it had to go to the Zoning
Board. So we got your approval. But when they went in to get a
building permit for the deck, they had to get Zoning Board
approval. So we then went to the Zoning Board, got the approval
for the proposed deck, that is back to you now for a permit.
So the deck itself has not grown at all, it's still there.
The footings were put down originally when the project was
originally proposed in 2021.
Because of the long period of time my client has a two and
a six-year old. Excuse me, two and four, now four and six, that
the wife is concerned about the footings being there, so they
just wrapped them in pea gravel, as you could see it, as a
temporary measure.
So the work was done with a permit, then we had to go and
get Zoning Board and back to you. So you charged them again for
an as-built, but we have a permit for the deck and then the
permit for the period of time, at the time we thought it was two
years, then we are not sure if it was three years, we asked for
an extension, we didn't get an extension, so here we are with a
new application. And I delivered the additional fee. Not,
honestly, I did not think it was an as-built. Because we had the
permit. And now it just couldn't -- the Building Department
process to get a building permit for the deck, we would run out
of time. So that, the footings are there, but the wood deck
can't be built until we get your Trustees approval. So that' s,
we are all right back where we started.
TRUSTEE. GOLDSMITH: So, a question. The proposed wood landing
with steps to grade, 13'x 518" . Is that already there?
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, which on is it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the west side.
MS. MOORE: Oh, the west side. No, it's not there yet. The deck,
Board of Trustees 44 September 18, 2024
the steps, the wood that you see there temporary by the Building
Department in order, to get a C of 0. So that's the minimum
access for the C of 0. But the actual deck has not been built
yet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That does not jibe with my recollection.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, that --
MS. MOORE: I mean, I'm telling you, it' s not there it' s not
there. I know what' s there. So, what you see there is the --
maybe this will, I don't know if this helps or not. This came
from the architect, just to make sure we were staking everything
properly. But that is the deck that is there, with steps down.
It's for the slider.
So the Building Department requires a minimum -- sorry. So
the Building Department had the owner put in those temporary
wood structures to be able to close out the CO for the house,
and it's been like that until we can come back and get the deck.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So just to clarify, there is a deck there just
not the deck with the specifications we are reading right now.
MS. MOORE: Well, they call it a deck but it's a landing for the
stairs. So it' s what the Building Department requires for
getting out of the house. So.
My memory is that that, was on the original application
because the stairs, you have to get out of the house. So --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, you know, we have photos that show that
proposed deck, whatever you want call it, is in fact there.
Hence the need for as-built fees. You also mentioned that the
deck had not grown, however there is also now a patio.
MS. MOORE: Yes, the patio is new.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Expands the whole entire width of the seaward
side of the house, within approximately 44 feet from the top of
the bluff.
MS. MOORE: If you are, they wanted a patio. If you say, well,
you know, that should be shrunk down to no further -- the patio
is not going any closer, it's staying in line with the existing
deck. But the patio has no footings. It' s just on grade. We had
to shrink everything down for the Zoning Board because we
couldn't exceed the 20-foot lot coverage and maintain the
setback. So the original plan of the deck behind the house
originally extended along the, in front of like, oh, gosh, it' s
hard to describe. It' s such an unusual back of the property.
The original deck was going to extend along the back, and
when we tried to do lot coverage, we couldn't meet the lot
coverage so that deck had to be reduced down. So not having --
having limited that space, they are asking for a patio because
that does not require a variance. But if you think it' s too
much patio, okay, I'll let them know it' s too much patio.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My concern, or our concern, is we are
starting to expand dangerously close to the top of that bluff.
If there was a patio, if there was a deck as you claim there
previously, there definitely was not a patio. So now we are
Board of Trustees 45 September 18, 2024
encroaching approximately 20 feet closer to a bluff that has
already been damaged from a bluff cut for construction that has
already taken place. I think the last thing we want to do is
move more structure towards this potentially damaged bluff
already.
MS. MOORE: Well, I would remind the Board that you were very
careful and the bluff has been restored. It's all revegetated.
It looks beautiful now.
So, but, yes, I appreciate your concern about being so
close to the top of the bluff. A patio on-grade, we could, I
mean it's probably going to be, I want to say we can specify
it's on sand. But I know you guys don't consider it completely
pervious because it's not 100% pervious, so.
This is what has been designed. If the Board, I mean, we
have a window well and stuff like that. I mean I can go back
and ask them how big a patio do you really need or just tell me
how big a patio or what distance you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: "Need" is a tough word to use there. But my
concern too, is that because there was such an egregious job
done there and the bluff cut, which has all been handled, but it
could be a little bit of a sleeping giant in that when they did
the restoration, you disturbed something going back to glacial
times. There was clay lenses and different sediment structures.
So in refilling that with, you know, it's supposed to be
like in-kind, but you still have this subsurface channel that' s
been created there.
So now to add additional infrastructure, under 50-feet
especially, and a patio, which is added weight and runoff
regardless of how pervious we try to make it. We are kind of
combining a couple of different issues there that could lead to
a catastrophic failure in the future.
MS. MOORE: Well, the decks are the most important part of this
project. So it --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, the bluff --
MS. MOORE: No, no. To my client. The bluff has already, a
tremendous amount of money has been spent and the bulkhead is
in. So a lot of the client' s funds when into this property.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: Is there anybody else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MS. DUPONT: I am Beatrice DuPont and I am here, and I'm a little
bit confused about what is going on with what Mrs. Moore is
saying because I have absolutely no objection to the Orlofsky's
adding an outside deck the same size of what was previously
there. And I think it would be a good idea for the Board to look
at the original listing when all I can send a link to the
members of the Board, and we can see in the aerial picture, the
photo of this thing, there is a lot of vegetation on how it was
cut down to accommodate some of the new construction that is
there. And you know, I don't object to that.
But however, with that, maybe I did not understand but Mrs.
Board of Trustees 46 September 18, 2024
Moore seems to say that the cement, the concrete way on the spot
where the old deck was, but that's not the case. Because I went
back to some picture that went under reconstruction and actually
on 8/28/21 a big complete truck came and started pouring
pillars, way out away from where the original deck was. And I
have a picture if you would like to look at this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. DUPONT: And those pillars now are buried under where the
gravel is. So I just don't know what problem from there
because, you know, I don't totally understand they want to have
privacy outside. They do have a nice deck outside which is
similar in size to what we saw the previous owner had. There are
plenty of outside. And I don't think we need more construction,
with sea of construction going on. In two years of construction
going on. And at some point we just are tired of that. And had
Zoning Code at this time can't be clearer, but we spoke and feel
the same way, so that's it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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) .
MS. MOORE: I'm just reminding the Board that I know you are a
different Board, but this deck, these decks, the smaller one on
the west and this proposed one, was approved by the Zoning
Board. Originally it was going to be a covered deck, which was
approved by the Zoning Board, and we actually are not building
the cover. It' s just going to be an open deck. And that's what
the Trustee application entailed.
As far as the patio, I leave it to your judgment, on
whether or not that patio, any part of that patio should be
built. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I'll
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
following revised project description:
Sam Orlofsky requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
25. 4 'xl3.4 ' seaward side deck (open to the sky) ; construct the
13'x5.8 ' wood landing with steps off north side of dwelling.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And requires new plans.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, you were going so fast. No patio
Board of Trustees 47 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No patio. New plans.
MS. MOORE: Find. So new plans, just remove the patio. Fine, I
can do that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of
REVOCABLE TRUST OF ABBY P. ROSMARIN DATED OCTOBER 19th, 2020,
C/o ABBY P. ROSMARIN & DAVID M. ROSS AS TRUSTEES requests a
Wetland Permit to remove existing pool and construct a new
16'x36' in-ground pool; remove existing pool patio and construct
a 1, 570sq. ft. Patio surround with steps; connect drainage to
existing drywell; install 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with
gates; existing black cherry tree to be removed and replaced
with a 3" caliper oak tree; and remove steps on east side of
patio.
Located: 640 Lloyds Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-4 .1
The Trustees most recently visited the site and noted there
is an existing pool in said location, and as with other
applications, a two-to-one tree replacement is heavily
suggested.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application due to concerns with distances with CEHA, patio
fencing and compliance with Chapter 275.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. I have Abby Rosmarin here as
well to listen in.
The project is pretty straightforward. It is removing a
pool that is damaged, it' s leaking, and it will be replaced with
a pool that is of a different dimension. Or one is kidney, or od
shaped and this one is 16x36. And the patio within is in the
general, same area, and the fence is shown on the plans.
So. I hope you'll approve this.
And I think the goal is not to remove the cherry tree, if at all
possible. They prefer to keep it but it may not be possible due
to equipment access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. KLEIN: Good afternoon, Trustees, my name is Joel Klein, I
live at 635 Lloyd' s Lane, which is the property that abuts the
subject property. Immediately to the southeast.
I want to put my comments tonight in context. I am here
very reluctantly. I did not want to be that neighbor. But
during 2022 and 2023 I was unable to use any of my outdoor
space, including my deck during those summers because of the
noise generated by the constant construction at 640.
I have some photos. The noise in 2022 was intolerable.
After several weeks, I noticed that no building permit had been
posted. I contacted the Building Department and was told that,
oh, they are just putting in some stairs.
Board of Trustees 48 September 18, 2024
Well, the stairs turned into a major construction project,
which you can see in those photos. I did not complain to Code
Enforcement. I did not call the Police, even though construction
vehicles were parking on my property. I did not call OSHA, even
though there is clearly an OSHA violation visible within those
photographs. And I would add I am an OSHA-competent person.
The applicants are rarely at the property. When I thought
they had finished, it turned out that they proceeded to
construct another structure, which is not shown on the plans
that you have, a bocci court, which is about 20 feet from my
yard. As a result you'll see the pile of dirt stockpiled next to
their home in one.
They raised the grade of that property immediately adjacent
to mine by somewhere between one and two feet. Two bulldozers
were parked for the entire summer on my property. The
construction vehicles damaged my lawn. They would park along the
edge of the roadway where the mailboxes are. In one case they
parked on top of my water meter pole. They, on several
occasions, partially blocked my driveway. Last summer, on during
the continuous construction they were constantly doing a lot of
interior work. There was a water saw operated for about a week
on a continuous basis, that generated noise levels between 90
and 100 decibels on my back deck, rendering it not only unusable
but unsafe, from a hearing perspective.
There were landscapers that continuously operated leaf
blowers outside the regulated hours. I did complain to the
occupant several weeks ago about this, and to the landscaper,
and they said they would take care of it. They did not. That
has continued. And I know the applicant is not home very often,
so is probably unaware of a lot of these problems. And I have
no objection to the work that they are proposing, provided that
the Trustees, if they can, condition some of the work.
And I have questions about what materials are going to be
used, how the demolition of the existing pool is going to be
done. I'm aware that you previously ruled that this is a Type II
action under SEQRA, but that doesn't mean there are not going to
be environmental impacts during the construction phase. And I
really feel I 'm going to be subjected to those and that some
form of mitigation would be required.
I don't know how long the construction is planned for; what
the construction window is going to be; what equipment will be
used in the demolition of the existing pool and construction of
the new pool; how the construction and demolition will be
handled; will it be put in dumpsters left on the street or on
the applicant's property; how long they will sit there; what
time of year the work will be done. I think these are all
questions that need to be addressed, and if possible, the
Trustees need to consider whether certain additional conditions
beyond those in the Town Code need to be imposed, such as time
of day when work will be done; whether work can be done at all
Board of Trustees 49 September 18, 2024
on Saturdays; whether work can be done during certain times of
the years, notably in the summer.
So, given that, I would request that the Trustees adjourn
this application until these questions can be answered and they
can evaluate the concerns that I have.
As I said, I don't have objections to the project but I
feel it needs to be given a lot more consideration and a lot
more information is needed before you can make a decision. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Just to address some of those
points. We go by Chapters 275, 111 and 96. So some of those
points you are bringing up are outside of our jurisdiction and
fall on other Board's within the Town.
MS. ROSE: Abby Rosmarin, I live at 640 Lloyds Lane, Mattituck.
I'm the property owner.
I know I'm supposed to address the Board but I would like
to address my neighbors. I'm so sorry and I didn't know. I. know
I'm supposed to address the Board, so I'll tell the Board, that
I'm so sorry. I am actually at the property quite a bit, so,
and I do take very seriously the idea that piece and quiet and
the neighborhood is something that is quite important. And I
have spent quite a bit of time making sure to the extent that I
have control over the contractors, for a house that was falling
apart, it was stately but literally falling apart, that to tell
them to be mindful of our peace and quiet of our neighbors. I
understand it's construction and that would not be good.
So I am deeply concerned about the concerns that my
neighbors couldn't enjoy their property. I didn't know. They
never came over and had a conversation with me to tell me this.
And I would certainly have minded it.
In terms of the rest, I just would say that I don't know, I
could ask, you know, different people about how they are
planning to ensure that, to the extent possible, concerns of my
neighbors. I would like to discuss with them about what would
happen to help them with their own home. I did not know about
any destruction of the property, any concerns about trucks and
things. I see trucks on our street, parked on the street all the
time. Not mine. Others. So I didn't know. I'm just telling you
that I didn't know.
The last thing I would like to say is that I do believe, if
it helps, is that the way that the contractors told us they
would be accessing the property is not on the side where my
neighbors are, but on the other side of the, if you look at my
house, to the right side of the house, which is why, I think why
they were concerned about. that cherry tree and were not sure,
which is the other side of the house is where it all is.
And I'm open to answer any questions. I'm looking forward
with my attorney, if there is anything you would like to know.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: As a Board, as one Trustee, I would encourage
Board of Trustees 50 September 18, 2024
conversation with your neighbors. Clearly we heard from both
sides and having that open dialogue is important for everyone
living in the community.
MS. PECK: Good evening, my name is Patricia Peck and I'm the
owner of 782 Bailie Beach Road. We directly abut the Lloyds Way
property on the bluff. The Peck family has owned this property
since 1952. It' s comprised of almost two acres and 250 feet of
beach. It is somewhat less now because the bluff has collapsed
at times.
Part of the reason for the collapse was Lloyds Way.
In 2000, the property above us on Lloyds Way, was a treed
property, full of vegetation. The property was sold and the new
owner defoliated the entire thing. After it was defoliated,
unfortunately there was a rainstorm, and when my husband and I
came out to view our property, part of the cliff was sitting on
the beach. We went down to the beach and the owner of this
Lloyds Way was standing there and looking at the cliff. And out
of the side of the cliff on his property, water was gushing out,
as if a fire hydrant had been open.
We brought the matter to this Board, which took action, and
required that person to try to restore the cliff before he could
build. That has been successful to this day, as rock armor was
put in, with bulkheading and terracing. It has been fairly
stable.
The property has been sold. This is not the same owner, and
they have taken steps to do renovations, which is fine. But what
they propose is to dig up the existing pool and patio, and put
in something that is much larger, or somewhat larger, and I'm
concerned that this will destabilize the ground, and we'll wind
up with a similar situation.
The bluff is fragile, as we all know. And we want to
preserve it. And my concerns in more detail will be told by my
daughter Barbara. Thank you.
MS. PECK: Thank you, for listening to our concerns. My name is
Barbara Peck, I'm Patricia Peck' s daughter. For the record, my
son Michael Gaye (sic) is in the audience. I don't think he's
going to speak but I just want you to know that he' s present
here because of an expression of our family' s concern with this.
I reviewed the application online, and I wanted to point
out two things that I believe to be inaccurate. First off, the
original owner that my mother spoke of had built the concrete
footing to his retaining wall, literally on our property. This
was the subject of litigation in 2000, which was eventually
settled.
Why it's relevant to this application, is the pink dotted
line on the permit application, on page eight color coded, it
seems to indicate the property on the other side of the
retaining wall belongs to Ms. Rosmarin, but in fact that is our
property. The retaining wall is the border. What is on the
other side of the retaining wall is our property.
Board of Trustees 51 September 18, 2024
I would like to point out on the plan, the same plan I'm
talking about, that' s the well that this pool, the existing pool
presumably drained in to, is literally over this retaining wall,
practically sitting on our property. Why is this significant?
The application for this proposed project says that there is a
flat grade. The pool might be on a flat grade, but the wells and
this retaining wall is most definitely on a slope. And our
property is at the bottom end of that slope. Anything that
happens with a leak is not only going to affect the bluff. We
are concerned not only from the top down, like what might happen
with a storm, but from the bottom out. And if something happens
from the bottom out and we are on the bottom end of the slope,
it is our property that is going to take the hit.
Our family is always out there. We've been out there for
over 70 years. We know the characteristics, contours and slopes
of this land. And I wanted to just point that out for
considering this application, that the plan is inaccurate in
those respects.
The application indicates that they are going to use
gunite. I am not a pool person, I am not a materials person. But
I do do some research on the internet. Gunite is supported by
some kind of steel support. I don't know what this steel support
is going to throw into the groundwater. I don't know if it' s
going to destabilize the dirt. I don't know how deep the
proposed pool is going to be. I don't know how deep the proposed
pool is compared to the existing pool. Because the statistics
and specifications of the pool that is proposed to go in is not
in the plan.
How much bigger is this new pool than the old pool? How
much deeper is it? How much more fill is it going to need? What
if it needs to be replaced? How deep is the pool? None of these
things is in the application.
Pointing to 275, I noted a particular section that I think
is worth reading into the record.
The plan has to indicate how all proposed drainage with
two-inch rainfall is retained within the subject parcel landward
on the wetland boundary. Retention can include but is not
limited to infiltration or impoundment. All drainage plans shall
show the calculations used to develop the plan.
There is no calculations in this permit. I have absolutely,
and my family has absolutely no idea how much water is going to
be coming into this one well. The only thing that is addressed
about the well and the drainage is that there is going to be one
well, nothing about the construction of the well, are they going
to improve it? Are they going to make it bigger? Are they
going to make it better? Because whatever is going into this
well is going to potentially run into our property from the
bottom down. Or it also could run to the bluff, going the other
way. Because, again, this property is sloped.
I do not know how big the new patio is going to be in
Board of Trustees 52 September 18, 2024
comparison to the existing patio. What does the application say
these materials are going to be? It appears that they are
impervious? What's going to happen in these big rainstorms. As
we all know from being out here happen and have devastating
consequences.
Is the water going to bead up and come onto our property. I
do know that people that maintain the pool on this property have
been caught by my husband dumping water onto our land. And even
from just a pool cleaning our land becomes like a sponge.
So what is going to happen if this leaking pool is not
repaired correctly, and if this leak and cracks go into our
property? We don't know. And the application does not address
any kind of safeguards that we are going to have. It doesn't say
they are going to post a bond or any kind of possible
consequences that it could have to our property.
My mother spoke very eloquently about water shooting out of
the cliff. This cliff is very unstable, and nothing really can
be done to move all of this stuff. Even the construction
vehicles that are neighbor has spoken about earlier, that
disturbs me.
All of this stuff, this cliff can be like a ticking time
bomb. And really, we need some more assurances before this
project can go forward. I feel sorry that my neighbor has a
leaking pool. We all have things on our property that we need to
address and take care of.
But the fact of the matter is there are different people
that are occupying this property on a week-to-week basis. How
do I know? Because we are always there, and the sounds of the
people on that porch, which echo on to our property like an
amplified echo chamber are different on a week-to-week basis.
So I don't know how much actual oversight Ms. Rosmarin and
her family are actually having over the day-to-day operations on
this property. But I can assure you that our family is watching
and monitoring the day-to-day operations of this property.
I want to thank the Board for your attention and for your
concern and for all the work that you do, and ensuring that
things are environmentally stable in this town. It's why our
family has been coming out here for 70 years, because of the
environmental character and because of the naturalness of this
town.
Anyone that' s gone up and looks at this pool will see a
giant field of trees. Because when my father was alive, and it' s
through him that the property was acquired, actually his father,
he actually planted many of these trees, with my Italian great
grandfather, to build a privacy barrier, out of appreciation of
the land, and realizing that you can't just rip this stuff out
and somebody will have to deal with the consequences.
Our landscaper will not even remove a tree stump that is
located on our property because that tree stump he's afraid
could disrupt the land.
Board of Trustees 53 September 18, 2024
This is where we are coming from. Thank you for listening
to my comments and my mother' s comments.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you,
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MS. ROSMARIN: I know I probably can't come up again, but I just
want to say two things.
Our property is a homeowner's property. We never rented
it. I have two dogs, kids, grandchildren. I don't know, I hear
talking about the nature of the area, I hear doors closing, I
hear them talking. They must hear me talking. We are near each
other. I'm highly aware of that. But I want to make clear that
this is not a property that gets used by not my family
basically. I just want to be clear about that.
And I also wanted to say, I was not quite sure, I just want
you to know this. We never, when I bought the property, I don't
know what happened to the prior owners. I never, I planted
trees, I've never taken down a tree. And I planted the bluff as
well. But so I have never done any of those things.' And I just
want to be clear about that.
MR. KLEIN: I just would like to make two quick points. The image
that you are looking at on the screen is out of date. That
Google Earth image. It does not show the extensive patio, steps
and outdoor kitchen that were constructed. And it does not show
the bocci court.
And I would like Ms. Rosmarin to know, one of the reasons I
believe she was not aware of some of these problems was because
she did extend the courtesy when she had a family event planned,
to leave a note in our mailbox with a phone number where she
could be called if there was a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
I would just like to address some of what was said. There was an
awful lot of testimony here, and without getting into a back and
forth.
I mean, I certainly understand living with construction
because I live in a neighborhood where it has slowly been
turning into second homes and, you know, first the house next to
me sold and they built a new garage. That took what seemed like
years but it was probably only a couple of months.
And then the house across the street from me, caddy-corner
sold, and that took a year, and they renovated that, and now the
house directly across from me sold. So have been going with,
dealing with that, as well as the non-stop landscaping as well.
So I completely understand. A lot of that is outside of this
Board's control, unfortunately. And, you know, I do hope that
the neighbors and the property owner heard these complaints and
understands. And, certainly, if people are parking on y our lawn
I would recommend calling the PD, because that's your property.
That' s not appropriate whatsoever.
Board of Trustees 54 September 18, 2024
And I, as much as we can't do anything, I do hope there is
an understanding here and in seeing through projects things are
done by best practices.
Speaking of some of the construction and the pool, I am
familiar with gunite construction, as well as the reinforcement
of it. The rebar is completely encapsulated within the gunite so
you are not going to see -- first of all, it's iron. We are
very iron rich here anyway, in the sediment. So health and
safety-wise there is no concern there. But also the design is
that iron will not be contacted by the ground and therefore the
moisture because that would blow the pool out.
There is a need for this only, not that there is a need for
a pool but only that if the pool is leaking it could be headed
for some sort of catastrophe with a blow out, if the pool is
compromised.
Looking at the design, the deck is, the patio is just
slightly larger than existing. The pool is very slightly larger
than existing. I do understand the concerns with the drywell in
proximity to the wall and the property line. Under groundwater
flow I can appreciate where you are coming from there
completely. As well as during construction because I was just
down to Nassau Point today, someone is building a new house and
the whole property is sloughing off because they didn't properly
retain the sediment.
So I completely understand your questions and concerns.
That being said, I think there are things that can be put
in place, if this were to go forward, to protect the neighboring
property. And more importantly, you know, there has been a lot
of talk about the bluff and that is something that is very, you
know, near and dear to this Board and especially myself.
So, are there any additional comments from the members of
the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just like to note that the pool that
is being proposed is over 100 feet back from the bluff, so it is
technically outside of the Trustees jurisdiction. They are
coming to us to apply for all of the activities that will occur
as a result of this pool. And I just think that is important to
note that this request is compliant with our code of 100-foot
setback for a pool on the bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would just like to make a comment to
Ms. Moore or the contractor, hearing concerns of the neighbor,
you do have a drywell positioned close to the property line on
the west side, so it may be appropriate to move that drywell to
the east side and slightly landward of the pool to alleviate
some of their concerns resulting from that.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I was thinking that might be a good solution. I
wish Dave was here because I know on the east, on the right
side, the I think it' s the east side, yes, east side, there is a
little bit of a slope. So I don't know if that' s practical to
put in a drywell in that area. But there may be, I mean
Board of Trustees 55 September 18, 2024
certainly we could say let' s keep the, if it's going to stay on
that side, to create a minimum setback of any drywells from the
property line. I'll ask him to move it to the east, but if
that's not possible, then keeping the drywell away from the
property line I think is prudent, based on what our neighbors
mentioned. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With all due respect, yes, there is a slope on
that side but Creative Environment will be there with a very
large excavator to demo this pool.
MS. MOORE: You don't think there will be a problem?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think they can dig a hole for a drywell.
MS. MOORE: I'm okay with that. I'm not a contractor, so that's
fine, I'll let Creative come back to you if there is a problem
putting a drywell on the east side. The drywell will be more
than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. We'll keep it away, so
it will be in that general area.
So, where it says four-foot pool code fence, it looks like
a good place for a drywell. I'm reading the plans and it has a
little, seems this area here might be a good area for a drywell.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing no further 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
subject to the following: New plans to show drywell on east
side of pool, farther away from the property line and clear of
wall. Project not to infringe on neighboring property
whatsoever. And silt fence with hay bales at project boundary to
prevent any runoff during construction. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to be a good neighbor.
MS. MOORE: So silt fence during construction showing on the
plans?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With hay bales.
MS. MOORE: Okay, so where he' s showing it, just add hay bales to
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I believe, if I'm correct, the motion
included on the property line. It' s not on the property line
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. It' s the project boundary, to prevent --
MS. MOORE: So on the -- that's what I was trying to understand.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: One here for the bluff but the other one is for
the property boundary.
MS. MOORE: Okay, yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I do hope people will be able to change
phone numbers and keep the dialogue open and will try to be
respectful of each other's property. Thank you.
Board of Trustees 56 September 18, 2024
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 18, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of
MARK & ANN SCHAEFER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
dwelling with west porch, seaward side covered porch and
landward brick walk with pergola; replace windows and siding
where necessary; demolish existing second floor and construct a
757.2sq. ft. Second floor over existing dwelling; install gutters
to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; abandon existing
septic system and install an I/A OWTS system landward of
dwelling; remove concrete pad in front yard; existing driveway
to remain; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 2300 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-5
The Trustees inspected the site 9/11/24. Notes read
15-foot non-turf buffer, check with Building Department
regarding demo.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent, and
recommended increasing the width of the non-turf buffer, require
all or portions of it to be planted with native drought-tolerant
vegetation.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application.
And any further comments from Patricia Moore?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. This project is not going out beyond what
is the existing house. It's really taking some of the existing
house and modifying the interior and select areas with the
second floor being added over the existing house.
As far as, it looks pretty vegetated so I'm trying to
remember what was the condition of the vegetated buffer. It was
already a vegetated buffer, as I recall. I don't have a picture
of that area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I can speak to the application. There is a
ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer on the property, with the
shed, that sits sort of halfway in that buffer. I think the
Board would be comfortable with an extension of that buffer in
the number of five feet, total of 15 feet, to be inclusive of
the shed on the front. That is all that I recall from our work
session.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I heard that 15. So that extra five feet,
what about the shed?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : You can see on the plans that that 15 would
include that shed, just kind of as a reference point.
MS. MOORE: Correct. Yes, leave the shed there that is there
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. That' s all I needed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Ms. Moore, does this project meet the Town Code
of a demolition?
MS. MOORE: No. No, no.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: For the Building Department?
MS. MOORE: The whole house, the first floor is staying in place.
Board of Trustees 57 September 18, 2024
The roof already has dormers. But I think the roof is getting
cut so that a second floor is being added, but it would not be,
I don't believe it would be considered 50% or more demolition
because you have a significant amount of the house that is
staying. So.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, very much.
MS. MOORE: Joe Fischetti is the architect/engineer on this so I
would hope that he would have considered that when he was
designing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And I make a motion to approve the
application with a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, using
native planting, drought tolerant species, and new plans
depicting that. And if the this project does indeed become a
demolition, that the applicant should come back and re-apply
before our Board. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
4-"
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees