The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-11/13/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President rjf Sorry Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski J J Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DEC 2 0 2024 Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 5:30 PM Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Eric Sepenoski, Trustee Liz Gillooly, Trustee . Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant Lori Hulse, Board Counsel CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday, November 13th, 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 (The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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. We also have with us tonight Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from Conservation Advisory Council we have Nancy May. Agendas for tonight' s meeting are out in the hallway and posted on the Town' s website. We do have a number of postponements tonight. The postponements in the agenda, on page five, numbers 3 and 4: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NEOFITOS STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' top platform flush with surrounding grade to a 41x4' upper walk to 4'x16l steps to a 41x41 platform to VxV steps to a VxV platform to 4'x16' steps to a VxV platform to VxV steps to a Board of Trustees 2 November 13, 2024 4 'x4 ' platform to 41x16' 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 4, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT REAL ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 10'x10' deck (flush with surrounding grade) at top of bluff to a 41x4 ' top platform to 4 'x8 ' steps down to a 4'x4 ' middle platform to 41x7' steps to a 4'x4 ' 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 Page nine, number 16, BARBARA LASKIN REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o BARBARA LASKIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ±416" x ±11' addition onto the southerly side of the existing permitted one-story dwelling. Located: 480 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-8-8.5 And page ten, numbers 17 through 19: Number 17, Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of WALTER GLESS, AMY FEULNER, CHRISTOPHER GILLANDERS, GARY GILLANDERS, KEITH GILLANDERS, LAUREN STRUNK, PAUL GILLANDERS, BRIAN SINCLAIR, & SUZANE CALTAGIRONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing bulkhead with 83 linear foot low-sill bulkhead with a 15' return on south side; remove existing ramp and floating dock and construct a new dock consisting of a 41x10 ramp to grade landward of low-sill bulkhead to a 4'x56' catwalk with Thru-Flow type decking, a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp, and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "T" configuration; a rope handrail to be installed on one side of the catwalk; revegetate disturbed area landward of low-sill bulkhead with Spartina patens, Baccaris halimifolia, and Iva frutescens; and to trim the phragmites to not less than 12" by hand on an as-needed basis. Located: 800 Koke Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-7 Number 18, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other surfaces on the property; construct a new 3,287sq.ft. Footprint (5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story, single-family dwelling with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio, 167sq.ft. Side screened-in covered patio, east bluestone covered porch, and 149sq. ft. Front covered bluestone porch; construct a proposed swimming pool and hot tub with a 1,357sq.ft. Bluestone pool patio surround, pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and parking areas; and to install an I/A septic system. Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2.1. Board of Trustees 3 November 13, 2024 Number 19, 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: 2,880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43 All of those are postponed, so they won't be heard tonight. Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of the application. I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our next field inspection Wednesday, December llth, 2024, at 8:00 a.m. 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 December 18th, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. , at the Town Hall main heating 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, Monday, December 16th, 2024, at 5:00 PM, at the Town Hall annex, second floor executive board room; and on Wednesday, December 18th, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. , at the Town Hall main meeting hall. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Trustee Minutes of the September 18th, 2024 meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. Board of Trustees 4 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . V. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, monthly report. The Trustees monthly report for October 2024. A check for $27, 713.38 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. VI. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, public notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s bulletin board for review. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under numeral VII, State Environment Quality Reviews. VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under State Environmental Quality Reviews: RESOLVED That the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 13, 2024 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: They are listed as follows: ' Tony & Maria Kostoulas SCTM# 1000-21-2-13 JSK Park Avenue, LLC SCTM# 1000-123-8-9 & 1000-123.-8-10 David & Randi Vogel SCTM# 1000-35-4-28. 41 Lawrence M. Tuthill SCTM# 1000-117-5-46.4 Paul Frade SCTM# 1000-87-5-23. 6 David & May Jane Cassaro SCTM# 1000-87-3-44 . 1 Michael Gulizio & Steven Cordoves SCTM# 1000-57-2-26 Howard & Eva Jakob SCTM# 1000-78-2-37 Yasmine Legendre & Corey Worcester SCTM# 1000-112-1-13 Anna M. Ten Napel SCTM# 1000-78-2-21 Andre & Andrea Curto SCTM# 1000-111-1-16 600 Glenn, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-2-24 Richard & Amy Braunstein SCTM# 1000-114-1-7 .2 Robert May, Paul May, Marilyn May, Richard May, Kathleen May, Joan May, Nancy May, Peter May, John May, Barbara Mahoney & Suzanne May West SCTM# 1000-92-1-5 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 5 November 13, 2024 VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions - Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meeting, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that .ar.e __ . _. minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group items one, two and four, as follows: Number 1, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of DAHNA BASILICE REVOCABLE TRUST request an Administrative Permit to construct a 133 sq.ft. Roof over entrance area to dwelling; install a generator on a concrete pad on-grade plus small pad for propane tanks. Located: 3255 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-8 Number 2, Amato Law Group on behalf of 40200 MAIN LLC requests an Administrative Permit to remove and replace three (3) existing antennas with three (3) new antennas, and remove six (6) existing diplexers and replace with three (3) new quadplexers within the existing concealment pole; within existing equipment compound, remove one (1) existing cabinet and replace with two (2) new cabinets; remove and replace one (1) existing battery cabinet; twelve (12) RRH's to be removed and replaced with nine (9) new RRH' s; and three (3) new quad diplexers and three (3) new quad triplexers to be installed; there is to be no ground disturbance. Located: 40200 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1 Number 4, Katherine Wilcenski on behalf of NICOLE NAJAFTI & SAMUEL COOPER requests an Administrative Permit to remove section of wood deck planks and revegetate with native coastal plants including American Beach Grass, Northern Bayberry, and Panicum Virgatum. Located: 2400 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-16-8 TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: .Number 3, 265 ARSHAMOMAQUE LLC, JANES ROBERTS, MEMBER requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 3245 sq.ft. Dwelling with 278 sq.ft. Attached garage, 122 sq.ft. Front porch, 124 sq.ft. Rear porch, 221 sq.ft. Rear patio; install I/A OWTS septic system; install 2 drywells for drainage and 1 drywell for pool backwash; install gravel driveway; construct pool fencing; install 4x4 outdoor shower. Located: 265 Arshamomaque Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-2-14 The Trustees conducted an inhouse field inspection, new plans and visited the site to confirm the plans. Correction. Sorry about that. Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection on November 7th, 2024. Notes say: Future permit would be needed for anything within 100 feet of top of bank; pull out any language related to pool which is not depicted; add a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of bank, and non-disturbance seaward; Board of Trustees 6 November 13, 2024 and preserve all trees in jurisdiction. The LWRP found this to be consistent, with the notes: Require significant vegetated buffer; integrating existing vegetation to further Policy Six; landward limit could be the _ 18-foot contour; minimize turf and fertilization areas. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the following amended project description. 265 ARSHAMOMAQUE LLC, JAMES ROBERTS, MEMBER requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 3,245 sq.ft dwelling with a 278 sq.ft. Attached garage, 122 sq.ft. Front porch, 124 sq.ft. Rear porch, 221 sq.ft. Rear patio; install I/A OWTS septic system; install 2 drywells for drainage; install gravel driveway; install 4x4 outdoor shower. Located: 265 Arshamomaque Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-2-14 with the following conditions: Add a 15-foot vegetated non-turn buffer from the top of the bank to the 50-foot contour line; non-disturbance buffer landward of the top of bank at the 18-foot contour line; and that no tree removal is to take place within Trustee jurisdiction without a permit. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IX, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify our meeting I 'll make a motion to approve as a group Items 1 through 4 and 7 and 8, as follows: Number 1, 18975 SOUNDVIEW AVENUE, LLC c/o CHRISTOPHER MOORE requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10249 and Coastal Erosion Permit #10249C, as issued November 16, 2022. Located: 18975 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-16 Number 2, Finnegan Law on behalf of ASGARD NORTH FORK PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5834, as issued December 17, 2003 and Amended December 20, 2004, from John Morse to Asgard North Fork Properties, LLC. Located: 820 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-15 Number 3, Finnegan Law on behalf of ASGARD NORTH FORK PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #8744A, as issued March 23, 2016, from Mark Cohen to Asgard North Fork Properties, LLC. Located: 820 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-15 Number 4, JUNE BECKSTEAD requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5075, as issued November 1, 1999, from Adrian & Jackie Edwards to June Beckstead. Located: 1392 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-2 Number 7, Karen Hoeg, Esq. On behalf of ROY JOSEPH SALAME Board of Trustees 7 November 13, 2024 REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit # 9355, as issued November 14, 2018, and Amended February 18, 2021, from William & Joan King to Roy Joseph Salame Revocable Trust. Located: 770 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-14 Number .8, Karen Hoeg, Esq. On behalf of ROY JOSEPH SALAIME___. __ REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9355, as issued November 14, 2018, and Amended February 18, 2021, for the as-built stone masonry outdoor fireplace in lieu of the permitted outdoor cooking area with gas BBQ. Located: 770 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-14 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, DANIEL & LORRAINE CATALDO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1868, as issued September 10, 1984, from Thomas Killip to Daniel & Lorraine Cataldo. Located: 1750 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-9 Trustee Krupski did a field inspection November 8th, 2024, noting that the current existing dock does not match what was permitted. Seeing as what is there is not permitted and it' s longer than the existing dock, it is longer than what was permitted, I'll make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, ANTHONY & KAREN DELORENZO request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10384 to construct a 2' x 24 ' deck extension with railing along north side of existing permitted swimming pool. Located: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-21.1 Trustee Krupski conducted field inspection November 8th, 2024, noting that it' s too close to the wetlands to extend a deck. The LWRP found it to be inconsistent, seeing as I believe it was six-feet from the edge of the proposed deck to the wetlands, structures are too close to the wetlands and present an adverse environmental impact, therefore I'll make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into our public hearings. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 8 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public-. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less, if possible. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, Number 1, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 10/23/24 L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of JOSEPH MINETTI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for ±151 linear feet of new steel bulkhead that includes two returns with anchorage system (wale/tie rods/anchor sheeting) installed approximately 817" to 1314" landward of the existing concrete wall and raised approx. 36" higher than existing bulkhead; existing concrete bulkhead within property lines is to be removed and disposed of at an approved upland facility; re-use existing stone on-site, install new armor stone, and install additional armor stone on Suffolk County Parks property for a total of ±184 cubic yards over ±900sq.ft. ; excavate ±90 cubic yards of material over an area of ±900sq.ft. For toe stone installation with all excavated material to be placed on top of the toe stone as beach nourishment; approx. 155 cubic yards of clean sand from an upland source to be used as backfill behind the bulkhead along with any excavated material for the installation of the bulkhead; install ±151 linear feet of 42" high aluminum railing on top of bulkhead; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer consisting of a stone splash apron (±80 cubic yards over ±1, 000 sq. ft. ) , and plantings 12" on-center over the ±1, 00sq.ft. Buffer. Located: 2500 Point Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-16-1-1 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 7th, confirming the revised plans that we got from DEC noting that looks straightforward. LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any questions 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) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application Board of Trustees 9 November 13, 2024 as submitted. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/12/24 Taplow Consulting, Ltd. On behalf of TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 60 linear feet of rock revetment including 10' east return consisting of boulders at a max of 2.5 tons per linear foot along existing toe of bluff; existing well house/brick building to be removed and regrade with clean fill from upland source (+/- 5 Cu.Yds) ; on steep slope, remove topsoil and non-native plants; replace with sand as needed; re-vegetate bluff area with beach grass plugs 12" on-center; and install 2"xl2" terracing boards every 10' along disturbed bluff face; install a 1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff, cover with one layer of jute matting o/e; establish and perpetually maintain a 12' wide non-turf vegetated buffer including the berm along the landward side of the top of bluff; in the berm area, soil and mulch must be removed and replaced with sand as needed; remove all concrete paving blocks from under existing decks, and regrade if necessary. Located: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-13 The Trustees most recently visited the on the 6th of November and noted that the toe of bluff was straightforward. They discovered a waterfall effect with a, under the existing deck, there was a patio that had fallen down, possibly, and should be removed. Need to remove the brick pump house at the base of the bluff. LWRP found this to be consistent, noted preserve and integrate existing vegetation to further Policy Six, and require access route for project construction from landowner. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application due to the fragility of the bluff and questioned the access. It should also be noted that I am in receipt of new plans stamped received by the office November 8th, and a new project description stamped received by the office November 12th. Is there anybody here wishing to speak to this application? MR. CARR: Hi, my name is Ed Carr, representing Taplow Consulting and the applicant. The revised plans that you have before you, we have added the removal of the stone pump house. We also noted on the plans the removal of the old brick pavers that were part of that patio. I 'm not sure if it was a patio or just a series of brick pavers under their deck. That that has been added to the plans. Regarding the Conservation Advisory Council determination on access, the access from the property, the Conservation Advisory Council is correct there is no access from the Board of Trustees 10 November 13, 2024 property. So the owner is using access with two other projects located adjacent, namely 905 and 955 Aquaview. So this would be a third project. And, for economy, it' s scaled and the same contractor would be doing all three at the same time, only requiring that easternmost. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. SATCHEL: Pamela Satchel, Taplow Consulting. Regarding the buffer, I just wanted to ask one quick question, because there are several properties in a row. It' s a 15-foot buffer zone with a five-foot berm. There is a little bit of existing vegetation on one of these three properties, which would be left. For that 15-foot, I have a homeowner asking me, 15-foot buffer would include that existing vegetation or would start from the landward side of it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Board felt given the amount of decks and how built the rear of that property was -- MS. SATCHEL: I'm actually speaking about just a buffer in general. Not necessarily that property, because there's decks there. It's different. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So it would be specified on the permit if it' s top of bluff, then it would be from the top of the bluff line, landward. MS. SATCHEL: And if there is existing, say four feet of vegetation existing at top of bluff, and you are putting in a 15-foot buffer zone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would include that four feet. MS. SATCHEL: That's exactly -- okay. Thank you. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In regard to this application though, which is what we are speaking about this evening, there is a note on the plan that refers to a 12-foot non-turf buffer, and that should be eliminated because there is a further note that is more keeping in line with what the Board has discussed here, that is seaward of the living structure is to be the vegetated non-turf buffer on this property. So there is one note about that, I think a 12-foot non-turf buffer, so just to eliminate any confusion. MR. CARR: Okay, so I can -- we can provide revised plans, eliminating that 12-foot notation. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Just bringing the conversation back to this application with regard to the non-turf buffer. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. TURNER: Marianne Turner. Is there a list of native vegetation, salt-tolerant vegetation that is planned for that project? It' s noted that there will be some, but it doesn't say what they are. And does the Town have a list or -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The Town goes off of a list that Cornell provides of native plantings in our area, typically includes Board of Trustees 11 November 13, 2024 Cape American beach grass, um, there is a lot of shrubbery that we use, bay laurels in the area, that we put. There's Panicgrass, Little Bluestem. MS. TURNER: There is a list on the Cornell Cooperative? ----- -- ---- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: They have a list of native species. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For this particular application they are proposing Cape American beach for the bluff itself. MS. TURNER: Well, I just thought, there' s is no beach grass on that cliff, on either side. What about the people who have property on either side of that construction that is going to be going on, is there going to be more erosion to their banks as a result of this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we actually get asked this question quite frequently from adjacent property owners. I'm assuming that you are an adjacent property owner? MS. TURNER: I'm in the neighborhood. That' s all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So one of the properties immediately adjacent is tied in, and they are also going to be doing a toe armoring, so if anything this would stop any erosion on that side. And then what we typically ask the applicants to do is to flair the end of the revetment going into a neighboring property to try to avoid a hard 90-degree end to any rock revetment, so theoretically that would mitigate any erosional concerns as much as possible? MS. TURNER: And what about the three that are going to be done together? Is that just going to be just straight across? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it's relatively straight, but it's also, it's following the bank, and then also the reason that this Board goes with revetment versus, you know, seawalls is so that there is a lot of structure and cracks and crevices, and it's not perfect, which allows, you know, ideally, the beach to be maintained. MS. TURNER: Okay. It also indicates that after a storm there might be some resetting and backfilling of materials. Who, how does that work? Does somebody come to the Town and say can we do this? Or do they just do it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, for the duration of the permit that they have, they would be able to continuously fix the project. I mean, typically when we see restoration projects of any scale, whether it be a bluff, a bank, a creek, mother nature is the, you know, the toughest player in the equation. So if you have a storm sometimes you have to come back and fix, especially the planting, so until they really root and take hold of the surface. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the DEC usually designs these rock revetments, for more just the normal tide. But in storm surge you will lose some. And it's designed that way by the DEC. So in a storm event you will get some sand to replenish some of the beach. But on a normal day that revetment is supposed to protect the toe of the bluff. Board of Trustees 12 November 13, 2024 MS. TURNER: What's the duration of the permit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Five years from us, this Board, if we were to issue a permit. MS. TURNER: Do we know who the actual construction company is ------ -- that will be doing the work? -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is not something this Board handles. MS. TURNER: Is there any monitoring or reviewing as the work is proceeding? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: They would have to have a coastal contractor licensed with Southold Town. MS. TURNER: And they don't have to tell you who that is? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not as part of the permit application, no. But during construction they have to be licensed by Southold Town in order to do the work. MS. TURNER: And, again, is anybody monitoring the projects as they are proceeding? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. MS. TURNER: How frequently? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The best is the neighbors, see something say something. If you see something going on. I believe part of the condition on those other permits was that we go out and review, right prior to construction. So I think there are a couple of reviews in place. MS. TURNER: Milestones. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. And then as part of normal course, after the project is complete and they say it's complete, the Trustees will go out and do inspection to make sure it was built according to the permit. And if not, we address it and correct it then. MS. TURNER: It talks about lowering equipment to the beach, but then it says equipment can't stay overnight. Does that mean there will be a crane moving equipment up and down the bank or , over the cliff to get to the beach? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would assume so. It is, in certain spots, it is a normal course of action for them to do that. You know, if there is a road ending or something where you can access it, you don't need to do that. But it is typical to lower it. MS. TURNER: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You're welcome. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application, or any additional comments from Members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approving this application with new plans to show all of the rear yard to be non-turf buffer, with the stipulation that the deck at the bottom of the stairs conforms with Chapter Ill and Chapter 275 standards, and Board of Trustees 13 November 13, 2024 with the stipulation that the Trustees are contacted during the first week of construction for a site visit. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Wetland Permits, number 1, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/12/24 En-Consultants on behalf of JSK PARK AVENUE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to upon merger of lot #'s 1000-123-8-9 & 1000-123-8-10, demolish two existing single-family dwellings and appurtenances, and construct a two-story, 2, 670sq.ft. (Footprint) single-family dwelling with a 562sq.ft. Roofed-over unenclosed masonry patio, a 463sq.ft. Raised (12"-16") uncovered masonry patio, and 141sq. ft. Grade-level masonry patio with outdoor kitchen; construct an 181x50' saltwater-filtration swimming pool (including 5'x10' spa) , and a 872sq.ft. Grade level masonry pool patio; install a pool drywell, 4' high pool enclosure fencing, and a 113sq.ft. Grade-level pervious gravel pad; remove existing septic systems and install an A/I sanitary system landward of dwelling; install stormwater drainage system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 20-ft. Wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the top of bank, allowing for allowing for a 3-ft wide ,stepping stone path to proposed 3.5' x 4' wood platform, 3.5 '-wide wood stairs, 6' x 13' grade-level wood platform, and 3.5' x 4 .25 ' wood platform with 3' x 9.16' steps to beach, to be constructed in place of existing stairs and platform on west side of property; and permanently remove existing stairs, platform, and steps on east side of property. Located: 2150 & 2200 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#'s 1000-123-8-9 & 1000-123-8-10. The Trustees were on site on the 6th of November. The notes from that visit read: Limit to one set of stairs, maintain existing trees to the fullest extent possible. The LWRP coordinator found the project inconsistent, and gave four reasons: The distance from the top of bank to the pool is not shown. It's too close. Preserve and integrate existing vegetation into the design to further Policy Six. Require access route for project construction from the land owner. Number four, the proposed wood stairs and 99 square-foot platform shown are not permitted. Permit not found on laser fiche. The LWRP does not support replacing unpermitted structures. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because we dwelling and pool are too close to the bluff. Conservation Advisory Council recommends proposed Board of Trustees 14 November 13, 2024 structures are located beyond 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Is there anyone wishing to speak regarding the application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Thank you, Eric. Rob Herrmann of _ En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant; Jo.sh Serkan, one _of __ _ ._ the owners, the applicant is here, also John Pates the landscape architect is here. I do want to just touch on a couple of clerical issues. One, is there a typo in the revised project description relating to the stairs, which I would like to blame Liz, but I think it was my typo that I gave her, that 6x13 grade level wood platform should be 6xl6.5. If you look at the revised plan, the 13 is the portion of the platform to the side of the stairs, but if you include the width of the stairs then that really should correctly read 16-and-a-half. It's still designed to be less than 100 square feet, but we picked up the wrong dimension in the description. So, sorry about that. A couple of things regarding the comments: One, we do show the site plan does in fact show the 45-foot setback from the top of the bank to the pool, and its also important to note that this a top of bank and not a top of a big bluff. To quickly review the project, this is a proposal to merge two existing single and separate developed parcels, each of which has a dwelling on it that could be renovated in place. The properties could be redeveloped each with their own septic system, pool, garage, et cetera. So this proposal reduces all of that to one parcel with one dwelling and accessories, and sterilizing the other. Always a good thing from the town' s perspective, particularly on a waterfront property. Additionally, the merger requires the removal, although it is outside the Board' s jurisdiction, the removal of one of the two additional accessory dwelling structures, legal accessory dwelling structures, that are on the property near the road. So actually there is a net reduction of four dwelling structures to two as a result of the project. With respect to the locations of the house and the pool, the project proposes a significant landward relocation for the proposed dwelling, relative both to the existing homes and the two neighbors to the west and the east, as the proposed house would be situated well behind the pier line, to the point that moving the house any farther landward would actually create a situation where the two adjoining houses would begin to severely restrict water views. The top of bank setback from the existing dwelling on the west side of the property increases by 33 feet to the nearest corner of the roofed-over patio of the proposed house, and further to the livable dwelling footprint, which is almost 90 feet from the top of bank on the west side, and almost, sorry, almost 95 feet from the top of bank on the west side, and almost Board of Trustees 15 November 13, 2024 90 feet from the top of bank on the east side. So the majority of the livable footprint is actually outside of Chapter 275 jurisdiction. As for the pool, the Board knows, we discussed this, the code change requirement for the 50-foot top of bank setback_ for _ . __._.. .______.. pools occurred after the property was purchased, and when we were well into the design phase. So as we discussed with the Board during the pre-application conference, while the pool had already been proposed more than 60 feet from the bulkhead, and farther from the surface waters of the bay, instead of relocating the pool farther landward to a 50-foot top of bank setback with a 15 or even ten foot non-turf buffer, for example, as was required for the new dwelling and pool construction, two parcels to the west, we moved the pool farther landward to a 45-foot setback, where the proposed 20-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer, which as you can see from the site inspection significantly restricts the amount of lawn between the house and the top of bank, and provides much greater buffer than was provided on that recently approved project to the west. So, overall, both the sterilization of one of the properties, the increased wetland setbacks, increased bank setbacks, and the significant buffers, I think provide greater protections than what would have been provided before the Town changed the code, or even what prior boards may have required through your discretionary powers. So we do thank the Board for talking with us about the design, and I guess as a final point, it was mentioned during the pre-hearing inspection, touching on that issue with the stairs, we had talked about the fact that one of the stair sets had been previously approved pursuant to a wetlands permits that was issued to the prior owner in 2003, but I think Trustee Goldsmith had mentioned the fact that with the merger of the parcel you would need to reduce two sets of stairs to one. So that is the revised plan that we gave. So in fact both of those existing sets of stairs would be removed and replaced with one single set of embankment and beach stairs, which would be a customary proposal for any waterfront parcel. And we did design the platform and stairs so the stairs would be parallel with the bulkhead rather than sticking out perpendicular to the beach. So we do hope that the Board found that the plan changes complied with our prior discussions, but of course if there are any questions, we're happy to try and answer them. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Mr. Herrmann. Would you be able to reiterate what you said in the beginning of your talk about the size of the discrepancy between the plans and the written description here? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. The short version is where the platform says "6xl3, " it should say "6x16.5. " So "13" becomes "16.5". Board of Trustees 16 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: To clarify, that's as it exists in the field currently or -- MR. HERRMANN: No, that's is as it is depicted on the proposed plan. -- -- - TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you. - --- ----- MR. HERRMANN: And again, that' s my bad. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Did you retain one of the locations and just re-work the -- MR. HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Essentially it's the same access point -- MR. HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: (Continuing) just reconfigured. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES Thank you. MR. HERRMANN: So one is retained and reconfigured and replaced. The other is just completely removed. The one to the west is retained. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Yes. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 6'xl6.5' . MR. HERRMANN: Correct. If you look, the plan shows that it's two dimensions; three-and-a-half, which is the width of the stair, and then 13 feet. It' s 13 feet to the side of the stair. Which is where the typo came from. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding the application? (No response) . Members the Board? (Negative response) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the amendment to the written description of a 61x13' grade level wood platform, to a 6'x16.5' grade level wood platform. To address the LWRP's comments, briefly, which I think Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants spoke to, that the structures are- being demolished and the new structure will be moved back, significantly behind the pier line; that there is a 60' -plus distance between the bulkhead and proposed pool, which is behind the current pier line on that property. There is going to be removal of the one of the wood stairs that goes along with the properties being consolidated into one parcel, thereby reducing the structure along the bay; and the addition of a 25-foot vegetated -- 20-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of top of bank will preserve and integrate existing vegetation into the design to further Policy Six. So I make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped November 8th, 2024, thereby bringing the project Board of Trustees 17 November 13, 2024 into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Sepenoski, aye. Trustee _Gillooly., aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. . Trustee_ Krupski., MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. Thank you, again, for your time. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, Joan Chambers on behalf of DAVID & RANDI VOGEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story dwelling with 1,785sq.ft. On the first floor and 1, 563sq.ft. On the second floor, a 533sq.ft. partially covered deck on seaward side, 281s. ft. Covered front porch and 55sq.ft. Open deck, 140sq.ft. Northerly open deck (a total of 1, 009sq. ft. Raised decks with 421sq. ft. Of that total deck under porch roofs) ; a hot tub on seaward deck; a new I/A OWTS system landward of the dwelling; three window wells for basement egress windows; install 518sq.ft. Of eco-permeable pavers in gravel beds; install an 81x5' outdoor against side of dwelling; place approx. 250 cubic yards of fill to raise the center of the property; install a ±1, 620sq.ft. Pervious driveway; and to install and perpetually maintain a 15' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28. 41 The Trustees most recently visited the site on October 6th, 2024, noting need pier line on plans; project needs to be pulled landward of pier line; preserve as many native hardwoods as possible so south; distances from property line on seaward edge are not useful, distances should be drawn from bulkhead; and configure septic on the northeast corner. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent, noting the single-family residence is proposed in a FEMA flood zone AE elevation six. And the CAC resolved to not support this application because the proposed project is within a flood zone and located 58 .7 feet from the wetlands. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. CHAMBERS: Yes. Joan Chambers representing the owners, the Vogel' s. As the Trustees are probably aware, they've issued several permits for a house to be built on this property in the past. The property finally was sold to people who are actually going to build a house on it. So we are just beginning that process now. I didn't hear the first few things you said, something about pulling back behind a tie land? Can you repeat that, please. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure. The pier line is not currently depicted on the plan that was submitted to us, stamped received October 30th, 2024 . MS. CHAMBERS: The pier line? Board of Trustees 18 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The pier line from the neighboring structures, so the line, the imaginary line created by drawing a line from the seaward side of the two adjacent neighboring houses. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay. _TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So we would need to see that on--the plan, and.._______ we would need to see the structure pulled back behind that pier line. The distances that are currently depicted on the plan appear to be listed from property line rather than the bulkhead. So we would need to see new distances drawn from the bulkhead. MS. CHAMBERS: Actually, Elizabeth brought that to my attention, and we had the surveyor go out, and those dimensions are on a survey that was submitted -- I can probably find the date for you. (Perusing) . Yes, 10/24 . In your e-mail dated September 5th, you requested to add an additional dimension to the site plan to show the distance from the bulkhead to the house. I asked the surveyor Ken Woychuk to provide me with this, and he sent me a revised survey, which I have attached. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Unfortunately I am not seeing that in the file here. MS. CHAMBERS: Hang on. I have a copy, but it's very small. I'm just making sure this has what you want. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's kind of regardless because we are going to going to need a new set of plans that show it with the pier line and pulled back, so that new set of plans with the new proposed location should have the distances from the bulkhead to the proposed structure. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay, understood. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We would also need to see the pool pulled back to at least 50 feet. MS. CHAMBERS: Pool pulled back 50 feet? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 50 feet from the bulkhead. MS. CHAMBERS: I don't think there' s a swimming pool in this application. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It says "future. " MS. CHAMBERS: Future, yes. That was only put on the site plan so that we located the septic system correctly, but that's not part of this application. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So remove that from the new plans. MS. CHAMBERS: I'm sorry, say that again? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Please remove that from the new plans. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay, certainly. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the plans should just show what you are going to build, not what you may build in the future. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And in addition to that, given that this is a fully-wooded lot being built for the first time in 2024, we would like to see a planting plan for all the trees that will be preserved, and we would like to see a lot of trees preserved on this property so, and a one-to-one replacement for any trees that will need to be removed. Board of Trustees 19 November 13, 2024 MS. CHAMBERS: What replacement? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: One-to-one tree replacement. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So given those changes, how would you like to -pr.oceed? MS. CHAMBERS: Let's table this and let me make these changes to the plans for you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I make a motion to table this application at the applicant' s request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, David Bergen on behalf of LAWRENCE M. TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit to install a 150' rock revetment along the toe of the bank to protect the property and marina access road consisting of first course of 1, 000-1, 5001bs. Stones placed over filter cloth and buried below grade, with upper levels to consist of 500-1, OOOlbs. Stones, placed no more than 4' high at an angle resulting in 6' width; total weight of stone not to exceed two tons per linear foot; height of 115' of revetment will be approx. One foot higher than road elevation; height of northern most 35' elevation to be tapered down to 1' in height; area in back of revetment to be filled with clean sand and planted with Cape American beach grass plugs one foot on-center; existing deck and beach stairs to be removed; existing road to be restored using gravel/stone mixture. Located: 945 Orchard Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-46. 4 The Trustees most recently visited the site on November 6th, 2024, and Trustee Krupski made the following notes: Staking in field appears to be further seaward than needed. How does proposed project end at the northeast side. Large stakes versus small stakes. The LWRP found this application to be consistent and made the following notes: Minimize the structure to the greatest extent practicable. Number two, protect public access along the foreshore. Number three, minimize encroachment into the beach area. Number four, require vegetative methods in the design capable of mitigating erosion. The Conservation Advisory Council noted that a quorum was not present, however the members were in agreement to support the application as submitted. I'm also in receipt of an update from, based on the field inspection notes from Dave Bergen, with including images of re-staking with lollipop stakes that were noted to be on the seaward side of the revetment. And tall driveway stakes at the landward side, approximately, of the revetment to address the notes from the Board. Board of Trustees 20 November 13, 2024 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this application? MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of the applicant Lawrence Tuthill. This is a project that has been caused by the erosion from the bay to the access road that goes into a marina and --a- - - private residence. It's eroded to the point now where it's impassable. So what we are trying to do with this project is rebuild the road and protect that road for the future with a revetment. We had already tried, and through emergency permit, replenishing sand, and the sand just got washed away. With regards to some of the questions in the field notes, or some of the points made in the field notes, I did go out and re-staked this. And I understand the confusion because of the six-foot wide revetment. What I was trying to do was initially stake at the most seaward side of the disturbance, not in the middle of the proposed revetment, so to speak. The point being that the entire construction of this revetment, and the revetment will be well above the high tide as that was something that was of concern for the DEC, as well as sprint high tide. So that's why we did the other set of staking, and as you see on the plans that the revetment is set right up to within a few feet of the road, and the reason for that is we are elevating the revetment approximately one foot higher than the road, filling in with sand, clean sand and American beach grass, so there is a little bit of a buffer there between the road and the top of the revetment. So that's why there's about three feet and of course with the revetment there' s a little undulation along the way. But that's why we didn't want to take it all the way up to the road. We wanted to be able to provide a little bit of a buffer that will be vegetated with Cape American beach grass. To address the one concern that I heard about public access on the foreshore, there definitely, because this is going to be above the high tide mark, it will not affect at all or impede public access along the road. As far as the north end, I don't want to try to guess as to what the concern was, but my guess was that possibly because this revetment drops down, and what we have done is provide a plan so the revetment drops down from the maximum height down to a one-foot height in the last ten feet. But it could very well be there is concern about storms with water getting around the back of the revetment. Again, I'm not sure what the concern was. But we can address that with amending the last ten feet of the revetment to actually come in approximately 45 degrees, if the Board would like that, so that that would help protect that northern end. Again, it' s something I'm offering up to the Board as a way to address that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. If I could just interject. So what Board of Trustees 21 November 13, 2024 those notes spoke to were our initial field inspection. I went back after you re-staked it. I mean, and I think you are probably at the end of addressing them, but those are pretty dated points at this point. - - — -- What we were speaking to, just to clarify for the record, there is a whole other set of stakes out there that are going down the middle of the beach that have nothing to do with this project, I'm assuming. MR. BERGEN: Oh, no, those were stakes for the DEC. You'll notice little numbers on them, that Cole Environmental put those stakes in. They are noted on the plans here, mean high water mark. And that's what those small, the very small stakes are that are in the middle of the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The initial staking was extremely confusing. And they were at mean high, but it was still, for the sake of our inspection and plans, it was a little too confusing to go on. So that's what we were speaking to with the initial. MR. BERGEN: Okay, maybe I should have met you out there for the code inspection. But, yes, Cole Environmental usually puts little numbers on the stakes that correspond to their mapping. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the small stakes that you are referring to that Cole Environmental placed at mean high, correlate with the red line that is here on the plans that we have. MR. BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. That is helpful, and thank you for walking us through the rest of the project and addressing the comments of the LWRP. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak, or any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. BERGEN: The only other thing I would like, just for the record is we already received concurrence from the Department of State. There is no federal permits required for this. I have a copy of it. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Bergen. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak, or questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, 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 to maintain as much existing vegetation as possible during and after construction, and removal of existing sand bags and debris that related to the emergency permit. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 22 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, PAUL FRADE requests a Wetland Permit to install an 181x36' on-grade in-ground pool with 995sq. ft. Pool patio and walkway; install a 29' long by 2.5 ' tall at highest point retaining wall; install a 48' long, 1.3' high upper retaining wall and a 48 ' long, 1-.5' -high lower -- retaining wall; install 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing; install 45sq.ft. Pool equipment area; install a 41x4' drywell for pool backwash; approx. 100 cubic yards of pool fill to be excavated with ±70 cubic yards of fill to be used to raise and level the proposed patio and walkway and slope grade from patio to the existing grade, and ±30 cubic yards of fill to be used around retaining walls. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23. 6 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 6th, 2024, noting a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of fence. Install drainage at the seaward side of driveway. Noting that we've noticed at least 12 trees have been removed without a Trustee permit, and the need for tree replacement. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are: The setback to the regulated natural features not shown. What is the setback. A 60-foot non-disturbance buffer was required under Wetland Permit 6236. A buffer is referenced in a C&R filed with Suffolk County in 2013 and still applies. The pool is located within a flood zone. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because the project does not meet setback requirements. The project is within a flood zone. No test hole data was provided, and the project was not staked. There is also a letter in the file here from Cove Condominiums in opposition to the proposed project. . Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. FRADE: Paul Frade, I'm the applicant. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. MR. FRADE: As far as the setback, the non-disturbance buffer. So I have a 50-foot from the back of the house with a non-disturbance buffer. The pool with the patio is only 26 feet all together. So I'm far from the non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So the LWRP does an inhouse review, and so I think some of it was unclear to the LWRP coordinator. We however in the field were aware of the existing buffer that is being maintained, and so I think that is not so much a question for us, it's just a part of the record. MR. FRADE: Okay, and as far as the trees, they were in my original permit to build a house, so that' s why the trees came down without, I thought it was part of the permit. The permit had been closed already. So I'm willing to take out a permit or ' replace the trees, whatever the Board wants, I can do. So what was the other issue with it? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, we had, we need a 10-foot vegetated Board of Trustees 23 November 13, 2024 non-turf buffer landward of your proposed pool fence. MR. FRADE: Ten-foot landward. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We also noticed that the terracing off of the driveway, it' s a pretty steep slope there. I do see, I believe, one proposed drywell in that area? MR. FRADE: There is one drywell there for the existing house on each side. That is where they are going to bring the drainage to, from the original build. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Because we don't want that, you know, the way it's kind of set up now, is any rain event, it' s just going to act like a waterfall of Main Bayview, over your terracing. So you need to do some sort of drainage plan. MR. FRADE: Drainage on top of the retaining walls? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. MR. FRADE: Okay. And a separate drywell not going to the same, the existing one for the house? Or the same? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it can handle it. You know, if it conforms to Chapter 236 and can handle the house and the driveway, I don't think this Board would have an issue with that. MR. FRADE: Okay, because the driveway is also a gravel driveway. It's not like it comes flying down. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And in looking at the plans submitted and stamped received October 24th, 2024, it does look like that drywell is, you know, between the edge of the driveway and the first set of terracing. So I think you can engineer something to funnel any water into that existing drywell. MR. FRADE: Right. And as far as the staking, I staked everything out. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, we checked the staking. Yes, sir. MR. FRADE: The staking was okay? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. MR. FRADE: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. SANDIGLER: Good evening, I'm Margaret Sandigler, I live in the neighborhood. I have three concerns with this application. The first is that, based on what I could see online, I could not find the proposed location of the proposed retaining walls. So it was not clear if they were within or not within the required setbacks. I think there is a setback for construction and demolition debris in the Town Code. If the product of digging the pool is considered C&D debris, it was not clear to me that that would also meet the setback. But you guys are the experts, I trust you to figure it out. That' s the, the location of the retaining wall was one concern. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right at the bottom of the driveway, is where the retaining walls are. MS. SANDIGLER: Thanks, I'll take another look offline. I noted in the file that a neighbor, Mr. Douglas Rokler had requested Board of Trustees 24 November 13, 2024 that an assessment be made of the current location of the waterline relative to an historic one that appeared to have been used, he said, 2005. I can't tell if the waterline established location was updated based on his request. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are you talking about a waterline as in -- potable water, or -- MS. SANDIGLER: No, no. Sorry. I mean the location of the mean high -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, tidal water. MS. SANDIGLER: Yes, tidal water. I think he has good point, that the waterline is moving and the latest should be used for setback establishment. My third concern had to do with compliance to a different section of the Town Code. Not 275, but the town lighting code. This property is not in compliance with the Town lighting code. MS. HULSE: This has nothing to do with this Board. MS. SANDIGLER: I know it has nothing to do with the Trustees. But I would say as a member of the public, it would seem there is an opportunity for those who work in Town government to coordinate -- MS. HULSE: This Board doesn't do that because this is a public hearing for the application which has nothing to do with that aspect. MS. SANDIGLER: I'm just offering my comments and opinion. Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. BERLANDT: Hi, my name is Douglas Berlandt, I'm an adjacent property owner. I think you've all addressed what I was going to speak, but I just wanted to the clarify it, if that's all right. To the many trees we've noticed recently removed, I wanted the Board to just verify that none of them were supposed to have remained, and if they were cut down incorrectly by mistake, that they should be replaced. My second point would be should a drainage study be done since it's a very steep decline from Main Bayview into the creek? We were concerned with the increased rainfall, that during storms it would be a significant amount of erosion into the creek and I wanted to make sure that proper drainage was being taken into account with the plans for the pool. And then my third point for your consideration was, especially in light of all the trees that have been cut down, can the Board recommend to the owner that arborvitae or some other organic, natural tree or growth can be placed on the property line to increase privacy, both visually and of sound. Thank you, for your consideration. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Board of Trustees 25 November 13, 2024 MR. BERLANDT: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: To those points, there are really three things that really mitigate the runoff. One is re-establishment of trees. The canopy would prevent rain from hammering exposed soils ,and washing them into the creeks. -- ------ - --- -- -- Number two, the addition of a vegetated non-turf buffer is going to be helpful to slow whatever surface waters might be running downhill toward the creek. And the third is the existing non-disturbance buffer which is heavily wooded, and is, in our field inspection, shows healthy shrubs, grasses and other plants that are preventing those waters going down. In addition to that, number four, the drywell, to catch runoff from the driveway and the house structure itself. That' s really four factors that we think are going to mitigate those concerns that you mentioned on the record. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: A one-on-one tree replacement for the 12 trees that were removed, using a two to three-inch caliper native hardwood. A ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the proposed pool fence. All lighting to be Dark Sky compliant. And a drainage plan to address the edge of driveway, subject to new plans, and with those proposed changes, will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Ural Talgat on behalf of DAVID & MARY JANE CASSARO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1712"x2215" (386sq.ft. ) Covered screened-in porch over a portion of the existing wood deck against the seaward side of the existing two-story dwelling. Located: 2750 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-44.1 The Trustees most recent visited the property on the 6th of November and noted it was a straightforward covered area that was already deck. Board of Trustees 26 November 13, 2024 The LWRP found this to be exempt. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this _ application? - - MR. TALGAT: Ural Talgat, for the owner, here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application, or any comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/7/24 Cole Environmental Services on behalf of KIM & BRETT DOHNAL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 41x4' top platform to a 4' wide by approx. 12 linear foot long set of stairs elevated above existing slope with one (1) 36" high railing on left side of stairs, (total of approx. 16 feet in length) ; each step to be 12" deep and 7" high constructed with 4"x4" posts and open grate decking to be used on all treads and landing surface; stairs not to extend seaward of mean high water; existing pipe leading from southwest downspout to be abandoned with stormwater being rerouted to a proposed perforated trenched pipe leading to a proposed rain garden; and for a 4 ' wide access path through the non-turf buffer to the stairs. Located: 1225 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-29 The Trustees reviewed the application on the 8th of November, 2024. Notes from that review read: Stairs need to be 15 feet from property line, open-grate decking. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent and it is recommended that a future dock be prohibited from the stairs. And the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the project was not staked and it was unclear where the bottom of the stairs would rest. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental. The architect is also present, as are the homeowners, if you have questions for them. Board of Trustees 27 November 13, 2024 As per the Board' s comments at the previous hearing, the clients took those comments to heart and worked with the architect to address as many as possible. They did explore alternative locations. They know the -- sticking point is the 15-foot.. But other locations the bank is - - much steeper, so it would require either digging into the bank or removing trees. So the proposed plans do have the stairs as five feet. But we'll have elevated stairs above the bank, the overall square footage has been reduced. There is less disturbance as well because we are now only proposing six pilings versus eight, and everything still terminates landward of mean high water. So if we were to move the stairs at least 15 feet, we would have to cut into the bank, there would be far more disturbance, and we would have to remove at least several trees. So this was the location that is, has the most gentle slope, and it was the one that was determined to address all the environmental issues. I also wanted to note that the adjacent owner, the adjacent property owner has no objections and has added in a letter of support. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Members of the Board? MS. DOHNAL: Hi, my name is Kim Dohnal, I'm the property owner. I'm otherwise known as Kim Kramer, actually, too. Professionally, and my maiden name. I am an attorney for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and I have spent the last 27 years and counting working under the Clean water Act implementing, enforcing and carrying out EPA' s oversight roles, including protecting waters locally around here and throughout the state and nationally during my time at headquarters. I wanted to personally thank you all on the Board for protecting the local waters and the surrounding upland. It's been a lifelong dream of mine to have a house on the water, and to be able to access that water for a variety of recreational means. And we are looking for safe access to the water with the least environmental impact, and truly believe that this is the location to do so. And the 15-foot from the property line is, you know, more environmental impact, including with the excess, extra pilings and cutting into the bank. So, thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anything from -- -Lori, I mean the 15 feet off of the property line. The consistency of giving some distance between the property line and construction or something like, the stairs. MS. HULSE: Are you asking for zoning code or construction, during construction itself? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, they are applying for five-feet off the property line. Board of Trustees 28 November 13, 2024 MS. HULSE: I don't know if there's a minimum, during construction, if there is a minimum. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not during construction. It' s final product. It' s five-feet off the property line. MS-. HULSE: It's ZBA. Do they have ZBA? -.- -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you have ZBA, a variance, on building something five feet off the property line? MS. DOHNAL: The Building Department had no objection. MS. HULSE: So you didn't get a disapproval from the Building Department? MS. DOHNAL: No, we had them review the plans and they had no objection. MS. HULSE: They haven't changed it? MS. DOHNAL: No, not the five feet. MS. HULSE: Okay. I guess they're okay with it. MS. RUMMEL: We also wanted to .point out that the property was staked and is staked, so we are not sure why, I'm not sure who that was that mentioned that it was not staked, but it is staked, and it's been staked, and you all have been there since it's been staked. So I don't know what that was. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That was a note from the September review of the project. So it might have changed. MS. DOHNAL: And we are not planning on building a dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think I've ever talked so long about a 12-foot section of stairs, to be honest with you. And I find this troubling that, and the Trustees wanted to tuck this into the cove, to be least impactful to the largely virgin shoreline. And I can appreciate the argument that at low tide there it's difficult to access the water, but I find it a little, and certainly cutting the natural feature of the bank is not an option for a small set of steps. But I find it hard to believe that along the whole length of that property, from 15 feet off the property line until the water access and, um, you know, muddier area, siltier area, that there is no other option to add an extra tread or two and put in a section of steps. MS. RUMMEL: I just wanted to note that there is a deck that was previously approved. So we can't propose the stairs where the deck is now going to go. There is just the way the bank is, there is not going to be safe access. So that removes that section from being an option. But the bank is quite steep there as well, so. MS. DOHNAL: And the Cove access, it' s muddy, it's mucky. We've tried to walk through it, and if we are carrying a paddle board, we will break an ankle. It' s just not acceptable, that area of the property. MS. RUMMEL: This is where we can maintain a small square footage, everything is going to be through-flow. No trees are proposed to be removed. It's a gentle slope. It's elevated above the bank. The DEC has also noted that they do not want vegetation to be removed. Board of Trustees 29 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just don't remember, recollect, in my tenure on the Board of allowing something five feet off the property line. As been stated, it usually gets a disapproval from the Building Department and ZBA requirement. I. know it' s written in our code, at least as far as _docks____.__ go, it's got to be 15-feet off the property line. I know you have a letter of support from the neighbor, however, you know, it might not be the same neighbor in the future who could potentially object to having the structure so close to the property line. MS. RUMMEL: Well, I understand, a neighbor in the future would know what they are getting into. The stairs would exist. So they would know that. But also there is plenty of room for them to plant vegetation if they would like to obscure it. So I don't see that being an issue down the line. Also, we are talking about like removing shade trees versus having a five-foot setback .versus a 15-foot. So I think the future neighbors would appreciate keeping trees versus pushing the setback. MS. HULSE: You can get a permit without building something. You can still have a permit and have the right and not have it built. So there is no actual notice just because you get a permit issued. MS. RUMMEL: Valid, but I do believe that these clients do intend on building the stairs if they are permitted. So we understand your concerns, but the options are keeping it five feet with the gentle slope, not taking down trees, or disturbing the bank and removing trees, which are stabilizing the bank. I mean the bank is all trees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a fourth option. I mean, I can't believe I'm saying this but when I first looked at this property, to me it was a no brainer to tuck it into the cove. Again, I don't want to go back over that, because I understand your argument on that. I almost think it makes sense, because I can't, I'm having trouble fathoming that that is the only option here. So I almost want to take another look at it for a 12-foot section of steps. But again, it' s your party. MS. DOHNAL: One of the other things you have to consider is that our property line, where the property line ends, which is, which limits access between the cove area and the 15 feet, you would have to go into common space, right? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Trustees Sepenoski, you have the folder for this. Is there an indication of that deck that they mentioned on the plan? Because you referenced -- MS. RUMMEL: Not on the stair plan, it hasn't been. It was approved previously. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it is a permitted -- MS. RUMMEL: Yes, you approved it a few months ago through an admin permit. It' s not been built, so it's not currently on the plans were taken from the survey. Board of Trustees 30 November 13, 2024 MR. LACHAPELLE: I 'm Jake LaChapelle. If it' s useful, I have spoken with the Building Department twice on this to make sure that they don't -- that a filing isn't necessary. I've also scoured the code for any setback requirements that would apply, and haven't found any. ----._- - If it' s helpful, I can try to get an agreement in writing from the Building Department. I'm not sure that I'll get it, but I can write a letter characterizing our conversation, if that's helpful. I don't know if that' s a sticking point or just peripheral. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Again, a small set of stairs, we have made much ado about this. MR. LACHAPELLE: We agree. MS. RUMMEL: The hearings are nothing if not entertaining. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I agree. I think that Trustee Krupski, he wants to take a ride and take a look at it. I doubt the other Trustees would object, I think just to do our diligence. The reason I think this is such a sticking point is this is a really well-protected section of the creek. And, you know, it is some personal experience, this area, I grew up in this area, and it's full of clams and ducks and sea life. There are no docks permitted in this area, to protect that benthic ecosystem. So I appreciate your effort to make a design that limits any kind of damage to that bank. We are also looking ahead to the future about property lines and setbacks and want to be consistent in our approach to that. So I would take Trustee Krupski's lead. MR. RUMMEL: I do want to note that most houses on the creek do have some sort of staircase. Most of them. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That makes sense to me. And I don't think the Board objects to a staircase. I think at this point we are talking about where within that small section of your property line it would be the best location. Anyone else wish to speak regarding the application? (The stenographer indicates this conversation is inaudible) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could just go back and repeat that so we can get it on the record. MS. DOHNAL: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I did see that. If you want to leave that up here, that would be great. So if you could just repeat that for the record, please. MS. DOHNAL: For the record, I walked up and handed the survey to Trustee Krupski and pointed out that the property line limits the areas where the staircase can be located because it cuts off part of the bank. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just like to note for the record that I did speak with the Building Department today and they did confirm they have no objection to the current location as Board of Trustees 31 November 13, 2024 proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean this, we might have to dig into this a little deeper, but this Board approves structure on common property regularly, so -- - -- - ' MS-. RUMMEL: Does that not merge into dock territory for the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would it be titled a dock? Stairs are stairs, regardless if it' s stairs over common -- MS. DOHNAL: That area of the survey that is cut out, which is in a common area, is steeper than all the other areas, and so that would also require cutting into the bank in order to have the staircase land above the mean high water mark. MS. RUMMEL: If you can see the elevation contours on that one, but they are much closer together in that area, where I believe they are proposing -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you clarify something for me. Why would you need to cut into a bank for a set of stairs? MS. DOHNAL: Because it would be too steep. The slope would be too steep. In order to have the bottom stair be above the high water mark. MR. DOHNAL: If I can speak as well, Brett Dohnal, also a homeowner. We, after the comments from the last time, we went and walked the entire length of the property. And we understand the intent of having an elevated stairwell that does not dig into the bank, but because of the limitation that we can't build a dock on the beachhead, we can't have any stairs on the beach head, the safe slope that allows us to go from the height of the bank down to access the water is too steep on just about every space of that property from where we've proposed it here all the way down along into the cove. So that' s why we went back to the area that you denied last time was because it just was not safe to have a safe slope for the steepness of the stairwell, and so as a result, if we had to build it in that location 15 feet and to west along the cove, it would have to be down into the embankment in order to have it end on the beach so that we weren't, you know, dropping two feet from the edge of the stairs onto the beach head. And we also looked at the proposed area for the west side into the cove, and because it' s so mucky but also it's so shallow, even if we were to walk down along that area, that area of that beach is also under water at high tide, so we would have to walk down either into the shallow mucky area and walk through the muck in order to board a kayak or a paddle board because it's just so shallow, if you put a kayak or a paddle board or any kind of recreational into the water at that point, you're not going to go anywhere. So you have to truck through the muck to get out to the water where you can start to paddle. And otherwise at high tide it's all under water. So you are walking through water on a shallow beach, through that area. And so Board of Trustees 32 November 13, 2024 that is the only reason we went back that location was because we couldn't meet your intent for all of the other areas along the water line. So we tried to meet it, it' s just not possible, and that' s why we went to the five-foot location, because it's the shortest -- - point from the bank at the top to the beach at the bottom. It allows us to create an elevated platform that allows it to end at the beach head so we are not encroaching on what would be considered a dock or a platform on the beach head, and it requires us to have minimal impact on the embankment. We are not removing trees, we are not having to dig in like we had previously proposed, which is what you wanted to avoid. So we went through all the considerations and we understand what the goal is, but we can't meet every consideration given the nature of our property. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. So I'll just echo Trustee Krupski' s sentiments. I think, as much as I don't want to, I think it's best we all meet out in the field again to take another look at this, because I think there is a way to do it, and we don't want to be sitting here setting a precedent of creating a structure five feet off of somebody's property line if we don't need to. So I think it would be best for all of us to table this and meet at the next field inspection so we could all put eyes on the same thing to see if there are any alternatives. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding the application? (No response) . Members of the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing no further wish to speak, I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, AMP Architecture on behalf of MICHAEL GULIZIO & STEVEN CORDOVES requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, decks, porches, walkways, existing septic system, and shed; construct a proposed two-story 1, 873.7sq.ft. Dwelling with 11.7'xl6.10' front porch and steps, 40' (max. Width) x 18.7 ' seaward side deck with integrated 151x30' pool, 450sq.ft. Hot tub, pool to have 2. 61x30' overflow basin <8" from grade; construct an I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling; modify existing driveway; install Cultec stormwater chambers seaward of dwelling; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 20' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the wetlands. Located: 525 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-26 The Trustees most recently visited the site on November Board of Trustees 33 November 13, 2024 6th, 2024, noting save as many oaks as possible; 20-foot buffer to be native vegetated; at least four trees to be replanted for what will be lost. The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application ------ ----------------- -- and resolved to not support the application because .most .of_ the__.- construction is located within a moderate wave action FEMA flood zone and doesn't meet the setback requirements. And the LWRP found it to be inconsistent, noting the single-family residence and pool are proposed in a FEMA flood zone AE elevation six on the parcel, with lower elevations. The sanitary system is not shown. Groundwater is expected to be high and flooding of the parcel is imminent. The setback to the wetlands should be greater in distance. Buffer should be vegetated within with native vegetation. I am also in receipt of a letter of objection from the Island View Homeowners Association, who listed several concerns that were reviewed by the Board of Trustees. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application. MR. PORTILLO: Good morning, Board. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture. In regards to the comments from the Board, we have no problem providing the trees back, and I believe we've shown a 20-vegetated buffer on the plans. Based on our original site visit of maybe a year ago now, or nine months ago, we also provided some native shrubs that are basically going to mitigate, like a visual mitigation against the pool wall, which was something that was brought up by the Board.. Just on the survey that we provided, it's pretty clear that we are landward of the FEMA moderate wave action line, so I 'm not sure what that comment is about. We are in AE-6 and we will meet all FEMA codes. We are approved for an IA system in the front yard. We are providing drainage for the new structure. We are also landward of the pier line. I think if you look at what is existing and what we are proposing, I think we are bettering the lot. And obviously if we were to bring the existing structure into FEMA compliance we would have a real tough time doing that, so I think just for the safety of the house itself, our proposed design makes a lot of sense. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for your comments. I do think, for the record, I just want to verify some of the things that you said. The structure that exists there is currently 38 feet away from that stone wall, which, and it' s now being proposed at 80 feet, which is about 40 feet landward of the pier line right now. So it is a significant pulling back of the structures on the property, and I think that is the responsible thing to do. I do see that you have included a plan for the IA system, it was on the last page, and so maybe that is something that was Board of Trustees 34 November 13, 2024 missed. I do have a question regarding this storm water chambers on the seaward side of the pool. Can you just speak to that? MR. PORTILLO: So we basically provided -- if you were to look at -- -_ - ----- -what we are proposing in regard to the septic design,.. driveway_,_._ .__ our proposal was to have the rainwater collection at that location. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And was there not an opportunity to bring that to the side yard? MR. PORTILLO: Possibly a portion of it, I would say, now that I'm looking at it and you are asking me. I think we could probably fit -- I'm sorry. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I was going to say, typically when we see drywells that are seaward of the pool, we ask that they be dialed back in line with the pool or further landward. So I think it's a similar situation. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Yeah, I'm just looking, making some computing .in my head, I would imagine we have the room. I mean, five-foot off the property line. We have 20 feet. We do have some limitations. But we could probably put a row, and maybe a row on the seaward side would probably work. Again, I'm just basing it off a quick analysis. So I would have to do that. But I think so, yes. And a good point. I think it' s actually advantageous to everybody. So I'm okay with that. I could revise it. I'm not sure of, you know, the only question would be removing those trees, I guess, but we can replant the trees on the side there. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It would be a shame to lose more of these oaks. I see on the first page of the plan, you say existing four trees to be removed, and it wasn't clear until you flip to the fifth page where you see the IA system is going to be installed underneath those trees. So it's sad to be losing those trees. If there is a way to pull this, you know, the drywell essentially back without losing the two oaks on the side yard, I think that is something we would like you to try to explore. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Sure. And, yes -- sure. It does look very tight. And now that I'm sure that my thought behind not doing it was to avoid removing those trees if we didn't have to. Maybe on the other side. Okay, so I can take a look at that. I understand. I think we can explore something. There might be a need for some of the chambers to be on the seaward side, but maybe a line on the side yard is possible. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If you think it' s possible, to take a look at that, I think that would be really beneficial to the project. So with that I would recommend that we table this application for your further review. MR. PORTILLO: Not a problem. Are there any other comments prior to or except for that? Board of Trustees 35 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think if you are taking another stab at this, we want to see a one-on-one tree replacement. So if you could pencil those in where they would ultimately end up, that would be helpful. ---- - - And if there is anyone else here wishing to speak regarding- - this application, you are welcome to speak. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just say, please, keep in mind, that I would rather save as many mature oaks that are existing as possible. And if we have to move some things around for that, I would prefer that. So. MR. PORTILLO: So try to avoid removing oaks for the drywell location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my two cents. MR. PORTILLO: So, I think I could fit some on the other side. I think I could fit one line there and one line in the rear. Okay, not a problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be great. I would prefer that, personally. MR. PORTILLO: I guess, I would like to ask the Board, since I believe I can do that, and I think I can do that, can I just provide a revised set of drawings showing that with the trees? 'Or do we need to table this? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would be comfortable with that. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm okay with that. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yup, I think that may be something we can move forward with. And, you, you know, so give me a second while I formulate my motion here. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If you, Mr.. Portillo, just the general gist of that conversation was just exploring the options for those drywells or chambers, whatever verbiage you were using, and also try not to remove anymore trees. You are very skilled at that. So let' s see what you can come up with for us. Thank you. MR. PORTILLO: My next application I hope to show you guys how skilled I am, but. (Board members laughing) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The test is on. MR. PORTILLO: Not a problem. And I think that is definitely feasible here. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application subject to new plans depicting the drywell being pulled back landward of the pool; no removal of trees within 100-foot setback; and four native hardwood trees to be planted with a Board of Trustees 36 November 13, 2024 minimum of two to three-inch caliper to replace the trees that will be lost for the septic. And having thoroughly reviewed this plan and this parcel, the Trustees have noted that this is an overall net benefit and - ...that the IA system is considered on the plans, thereby.bringin_g__..___.__ this into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/7/24 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 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; install outdoor shower enclosure on side of pool house; 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; 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 performed an in-house review of the new plans on November 8th, 2024, and Trustee Goldsmith Smith noted that the garage is too close to the wetlands and should be relocated. I am just going to read into the record the comments that were noted on the field inspection at the site on September 11th, 2024. Trustee Sepenoski noted: A large portion of the property on the western end features healthy native hardwoods and shrubs. These natural features are contiguous with the protected wetland species. Proposed garage is not suitable in this location. Pool and pool house should be relocated to preserve as many trees as possible. Bulkhead on the western end appears non-functional. The LWRP finds this application to be consistent, with the following note: A vegetated buffer, including existing trees should be required landward from the bulkhead to the AE EI Six flood zone line, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and recommends a landscaping plan to include retaining walls as needed. There is a concern with the pool being too close to the flood zone. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this Board of Trustees 37 November 13, 2024 application? MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Hi. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture. Based on the last hearing we had Scalese Surveying Company go back out and locate the trees on the property. I'm just going to walk you guys through what we did and then we- 'can go---fromWe then plotted the trees on our site plan, what we had proposed originally, and we came up with an alternative design; one on the garage, which is basically cutting garage in half. And also another thing I want to note that we did was we removed the half bathroom which we were proposing in the garage, which meant that we would have to run the septic line from the IA system to the garage, which alleviated a lot of removal of trees. And then we sort of tightened up the pool house and the pool, so we made it ten foot from -- the pool is now ten foot from the pool house, and we tried to get it further away from the water side of the home, as tight as possible. And ten foot from the pool house I think that's, by the least, we really can achieve there. So, those are the things we did. And then I did a little bit of an analysis for the Board, and, you know, with this being said, we are willing to replace all trees that are being removed. The original design, if you were to take the trees that were plotted and what we were proposing, we are going to be removing 36 trees. And our proposed, currently-proposed design, alternative design, we brought that down to 18 trees, based on the originally proposed and the now proposed. Just another note here is the original design the pool was 13.9 feet from the pool house and we basically brought it back four feet. Again, just to tighten that up as much as possible. And it saved, actually, a couple extra trees by doing that. I think that just to also note, that the way the garage is laid out, due to the fact that the property is a corner lot, we do have, we are basing the location on the required setbacks. So we have to be 50 feet off the front yard. It's a two-car garage, so we are requesting 25 feet for the width of the garage, which fits two cars, and 25 feet deep, which is, again, very much a minimum of a two-car garage. So we really have decreased that garage, based on our first ask. One other note I would like to just make is the lot coverage has been decreased on the new proposed design to 9.3%, and our original design I think was 10. 6%. I don't have that. So we brought down the lot coverage as well based on reducing that garage. So I think those are the -positives of the requested revised design. And I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for walking us, through that, because I personally did not notice the trees that are going, looks like they are going to be retained kind of near that notation of the 50-foot front yard setback on here, and I'm assuming that is due Board of Trustees 38 November 13, 2024 to the fact of that septic line you are referring to, correct? MR. PORTILLO: Correct, yes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So that is helpful. I guess I was a little surprised to still see the garage on this plan because I feel when .we talked about. it, it was, .you . . .. ... know, the existing house with the addition of the pool house and the pool seemed, you know, understandable. The addition of the garage structure seemed fairly significant. And I think there are a couple of reasons for that, and I think one is, as you mentioned, it is on the corner lot, which means it's bound by setbacks. Which is understandable. Now, have you been to ZBA for any relief on those setbacks? MR. PORTILLO: Our proposed design does not require any reliefs. We thought that, you know, that' s not, I mean, again, it' s a very bit lot. I understand there is a large wetland on the lot. The garage is, because the house is, it's a ranch house, there is no storage, there is no parking garage. Um, you know, I do think the location makes the most sense. I understand that it does require the trees to be removed. But the owner is looking for a place to store stuff. I mean, that's really what this is for. So, if the garage is really a no-go with the Board, you know, then I think we should just take it off the request for now and we can stick with the pool and pool house. But I did think that the revision and the decrease in the structure and the removal of the septic line, I thought those were good compromises from the owner, personally, so. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, obviously we do appreciate you revisited it and that you worked with your client. It's clear on the plan that it is about 50% less space that it occupies. What I am noticing is that it's almost equidistant from the inlet lane and the wetland. You know, it's 50 feet on each side. So I think my comment about the ZBA was, you know, is there some way to bring that a little bit closer to the road, further away from the wetland. And I think the other discussion that the Board was having during work session and when we have been talking about this property, is the fact that that Manhasset Avenue is the access to the Town beach area. And so now you are proposing a driveway cut on that public access road, obviously the clearing of the trees in that area, and then as you move east, that kind of eastern dogleg of the property is, you know, heavily vegetated and, you know, would be an area that the Trustees would consider to be non-disturbance, you know, basically kind of where that chamfer happens. MR. PORTILLO: I understand. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Due to the public access, while we know that this property is not for public access, it is along that route. And it's interesting, you know, the flagged wetland line here is significantly landward of the bulkhead. And so we do Board of Trustees 39 November 13, 2024 take that into consideration as well, even though there is a bulkhead there. So. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I would say, I mean, in consideration of moving the structure where it would require relief from ZBA, then I would just ask that we remove it from this application,- - because I would have to do that. And I don't even know if that is something he would consider. So the Board is saying that it's not in a location that would be approved, I think he's looking at what he' s really trying. But we figured we show off an holistic plan of what -- he does want a garage. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate that. It does makes sense, with the size of the house. I mean, in the field, for me, I would see it up by the house and the pool, and the garage in my mind makes sense. What is currently is proposed, it seems like, it's like it's going to tap into a really nicely-wooded spot. And I also wonder about the logic of locating the garage so far from the house, where you are not going to walk to it through the woods. You have you to drive around and use a different driveway. MR. PORTILLO: It was went meant for like his, you know -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Storage. MR. PORTILLO: More storage and not cars so much. You know, and then like a boat and stuff like that. It's not really for cars. Because it is a summer house. With what you're saying, I think it's probably best for him to move forward building the other structure. And the garage might work itself out differently in taking into consideration what the Board is saying here. Because I don't want to come back to the board with a proposal that I have to go to Zoning and get approval for. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Makes sense to me. I'm fine moving forward with it, with the garage off the plans. MR. PORTILLO: I think that's fair. I actually had that discussion with him if this was coming up. And he agreed to that, so. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I also just want to say that we do appreciate the holistic approach. We do like to see what the future plan is for the property so that it can be part of our consideration. So while segmenting a project is not normally something that we recommend, I think in this case it makes sense. MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I think also once the pool house and pool are actually constructed in reality, it might change how you put the garage and such. But I know his intent is not for cars. It's for water sports, those types of things. But I appreciate that and I'll talk to him more about how to relocate this in a better location. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. I think I missed some of that conversation but thank you for the study on everything. MR. PORTILLO: Of course. Board of Trustees 40 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I do have, I do appreciate that kind of consolidation of the pool and the pool house area. Are there still retaining walls that correspond with the pool? Because I remember a kind of initial iteration there was -- -one. - - - --- MR. PORTILLO: Yes, and the pool was actually closer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It was closer and larger, and -- MR. PORTILLO: And then based on your site visit, the request was to move the pool back. So we moved it back and then we actually even moved it further back. I have no proposal for retaining walls. The grade actually doesn't change much in that location. It happens more toward the bank or the wetlands area, so. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's fantastic, and I would say thank you for doing that. It makes sense. MR. PORTILLO: For sure. It made sense after the site visit, I throughout why not bring it back. Some of this again is just the owner having his ideas and dreams, but -- TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, it's a beautiful property. There are a lot opportunities with it, so thank you, for exploring that. So just to confirm, there are no retaining walls proposed as part of this project. MR. PORTILLO: That is correct. No retaining walls. And the IA system is going to be going in, so he' s upgrading the current septic system which is really just leaching into the ground currently. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that' s landward of the house. MR. PORTILLO: That' s correct. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And in the new location of the pool, approximately how many trees will have to come down? MR. PORTILLO: Can I give you that table in my submission? I would say it' s a lot less. I mean, I calculated 18 - 1 would say it's even less than 18.I mean, less than half. It's probably more like seven. Six or seven. I can give you a calculation on that. And he'll replace those trees. I'll add that to my site plan. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. MR. PORTILLO: No problem. Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Bear with me one moment, please. (Participants joking off the record) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to speak or any other questions or comments from the Board. (No response) . Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application subject to new plans depicting the following revision: The removal of the garage and associated structures on the Board of Trustees 41 November 13, 2024 plan and the project description. That there are to be no retaining walls on the property. And if that changes they would need to come .back to the office and the Board. One-on-one tree replacement with native hardwoods, with a minimum of ten trees _.__proposed, .and. a planting plan .to show those locations.. __._...._..__.__.- 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer that is landward of the bulkhead area. And that the dogleg area of the property off of Manhasset is a non-disturbance area. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board, have a great night. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/8/24 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of HOWARD & EVA JAKOB requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing seaward deck attached to the permitted two-story dwelling; construct a new 660.5sq.ft. Deck at first floor elevation with new double stairs to grade; install an 8'x8' hot tub within the new decking (partially below and above the deck elevation) with locking cover; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 20' wide non-turf, no fertilization vegetated buffer along the landward side of the vegetated wetlands. Located: 2000 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-1000-78-2-37 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 6th, noting the need for a 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer with native vegetation. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. We are in receipt of new plans stamped received November 8th, 2024, that do show a 20-foot vegetated buffer. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, Twin Forks Permits, on behalf of the applicant. I believe we have submitted the requested revised plans to show the vegetated buffer. And there will be no trees removed as part of this project. It' s a minor project. I think it's basically just a deck addition with a hot tub inset. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, if I may. We had one question. On the plans, I guess it's the northwest corner, that little squiggly line that says "wooded. " MS. POYER: It's a heavier-vegetated area. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is that like the edge of wetlands area? MS. POYER: That' s -- yes, there are areas there. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern is the proposed 20-foot wide non-turf buffer is inclusive of that. So our idea out in the field, and I know it doesn't translate to this plan very well, but there was that little established planting area, so we wanted from the existing vegetation to that planted area to be a non-turf buffer. But I don't know if that' s depicted on the Board of Trustees 42 November 13, 2024 plans just because on the northwest most corner it looks like that proposed 20-foot wide non-turf buffer ends at the edge of wetlands. MS. POYER: There is the wooded area and there is a wetland line that is shown on the plans. And the vegetated buffer is from the" wetland line, and in that other area, it does include that wooded area. The most little planting bed that you saw in the field is landward of the 20-foot-wide proposed buffer in the field. I think Nick had scaled it off. It' s landward of this proposed buffer. Because when you field marked it out when you were at the site at inspection, you started at the wetland line and counted forward to the edge of that little planting bed, and that was 20 feet. And that's where we decided to go from the wetland line to the seaward edge of that mulched area. Can I approach? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just hold your comments until you go back. (A conversation is held off the record) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, if you could just go back so it's on the record. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just to confirm then. So the plans that we have then, November 8th, 2024, that show that proposed 20-foot wide non-turf buffer, will end at the seaward section of what is basically considered a non-turf buffer currently, that has the mulch and the plantings. MS. POYER: Yes, but the owners would like to be able to plant, and seasonally change the plants out there for their purposes of visual impact from their deck. We are still providing the requested 20-foot buffer. And that's what we will provide. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the plans submitted stamped approved November 8th, 2024, that shows the proposed 20-foot wide non-turf vegetated buffer ending seaward of what is basically an existing non-turf buffer. That is my motion. 1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. POYER: Do you need another clean copy? (Handing) . Board of Trustees 43 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I'll swap it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 11/8/24 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of YASMINE LEGENDRE & COREY WORCESTER requests a Wetland.Permit to construct a 530sq.ft. Raised swimming pool, a 58sq. ft. Spa; 1, 225sq.ft. Decking/patio and walkway; the raised decking area will be 6" above grade, using IPE decking material, and have an outdoor kitchen area, dining area, lounging areas, and bar seating area; install pool enclosure fencing along edge of decking, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; install wood railings and a stainless steel trellis; install an outdoor shower; install 246sq.ft. Of pavers set at grade between dwelling and raised pool area; install floating pavers (152sq.ft. ) Set at grade to act as walkways on the seaward side of the pool decking area, on west side of raised decking as a step landing, and on east side of dwelling as a sidewalk; relocate exterior doors for access to new decking areas; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf, no fertilization, vegetated buffer along the landward edge of the top of the bluff. Located: 4355 Aldrich Lane, Ext. , Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-112-1-13. Trustee Peeples most recently visited the property on the 6th of November and noted that a 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of bluff would be a welcome addition to the application. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent due to the proximity to the bluff, where 100 feet is required. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because the proposed structures do not meet the setback requirements in accordance with Chapter 275 due to the existing erosion on the bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a 20-foot vegetated buffer planted with native vegetation. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf .of the applicant. There were revised plans also submitted, I believe stamped November 8th, which should be in your file, that shows the requested proposed 15-foot wide buffer landward of the top of bluff, as per the field inspection. We do have a ZBA hearing set for December 5th. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that buffer that you have on the plans is vegetated, as it' s called out here. MS. POYER: It will be, correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How high is that retaining wall for the pool? I believe we talked about that in the field. MS. POYER: It's basically a raised pool coping, because the pool itself is going to be slightly elevated. I think it's one-and-a-half feet. It's just surrounding the pool area itself. Board of Trustees 44 November 13, 2024 Actually the swimming pool water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we talked about trying to minimize that to a 12-inch in the field with you. Is that a possibility? MS. POYER: I don't think so, but we can revise it. Correct. ----.-. --- - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. -.- - -- - -- MS. POYER: I can have the pool cross-section provided. It shows there' s 1' 6" . So if you would like that as twelve inches, we can have that revised. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Or any additional comments from the members of the Board. (Negative response) . Are there any proposed trees to be removed? MS. POYER: No, there are not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the new plans stamped received by the office November 8th, noting that the retaining" wall for the pool being no higher than 12 inches tall. Noting that the pool is tucked into the house footprint, and the property slopes away from the bluff, thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. ,POYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, Islandwide Engineering & Land Surveying on behalf of ANNA M. TEN NAPEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 91x17' one-story addition onto the seaward side of the existing one-story dwelling with attached garage; remove existing paver pad and deck stairs, and relocate stairs on existing seaward ±1316" x ±18 ' deck; abandon existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS system landward of the dwelling; and remove one tree near the driveway. Located: 320 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-21 The Trustees visited the site on the 6th of November, 2024 . Notes from that visit read: Addition seaward of pier line, 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the proposed project does not meet the setback requirements in accordance with Chapter 275. Is there anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the applicant? Board of Trustees 45 November 13, 2024 MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, through Island Wide Engineering. As far as the application goes, it's a simple, straightforward job. We are removing the existing conventional -- -- sanitary system from the rear yard, moving it to an IA system in front yard, which is a benefit to the environment and the property. And we have no further seaward projection of the proposed one-story addition. It doesn't extend past the existing deck, as you see out in the field. My plan doesn't show pier line but there is no further seaward projection of the property for the proposed addition. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Jeff, I don't think we're reading the plans wrong. I think the addition is ahead of the pier line. MR. PATANJO: No, if you look at the existing deck, it's inline with the deck as I staked the existing deck, at the back of the property, the rear of the property, on the seaward side of the existing building. It' s really an extension, if you take the existing deck, which is to remain, it's just a simple extension of the deck, as I staked in the field. There is no seaward extension at all. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right, but you are converting deck space into living space. MR. PATANJO: No, the existing deck is to remain. The only proposed living space is the addition, which is to be the west side of the deck. I can approach and -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is the existing deck the covered deck? MR. PATANJO: No, it's not covered. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So it would normally would not be considered part of the primary structure, which is why it's not part of the pier line. So the deck itself is open deck and does not apply as part of the pier line. MR. PATANJO: Okay. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Does that make sense, Jeff? MR. PATANJO: It does. On past projects I've utilized decks as pier lines. You know, as far as Chapter 275, does it indicate if a deck or an actual structure is part of the pier line? Because in multiple different ways it says -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think it says living structure. So we don't consider an open-deck living structure. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Now, if the deck had a roof on it, and it was covered like a screened porch, that would be considered -- MR. PATANJO: We'll put a roof on it. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: No, no. If it' s currently existing. MR. PATANJO: Right, right. So I think we should amend the drawings to reflect the neighboring properties on either side, to indicate the pier line, because we did that in the office and we did show that it does not protrude beyond the pier line of neighboring "properties. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If you would like to do that study, I think -- but do you have a pier line on the plan? Board of Trustees 46 November 13, 2024 MR. PATANJO: No, as I said, it's not on the plan. I apologize. We can provide that. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But based on the outline of the adjacent structures on the plan, it seems hard to understand how this --------------- -- -couldn't- be seaward of those. -- - MR. PATANJO: I can provide amended drawings, and a magnifying glass. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Jeff, I think at this point we would like to see, take another look at this with the pier line drawn on the plans. So if you would like to postpone decision on this? MR. PATANJO: Before we postpone, are there any other comments or issues with the drawings? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : No, just the pier line consideration, take a look at that, the living structure, something that' s covered, and the 15-foot vegetated buffer on the plans. MR. PATANJO: So you are looking for 15-foot off of the existing wetland line, or -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes MR. PATANJO: Okay. Did you notice we're removing one tree for the sanitary system or no? How about we do a one-to-one tree replacement on that? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You're spicing things up. I like the way you are talking right now. MR. PATANJO: You noticed that. (Participants laughing) . All right, pier line. One-to-one tree. 15-foot buffer. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Jeff. Does anyone else wish to speak regarding the application? (No response) . Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANDREW & ANDREA CURIO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 171 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing (except for shortened section on west side beyond property line to be shortened to maintain work inside property line) , and raised height 18" above existing top cap; remove and replace existing docks, ramps, platforms, walkways and at-grade bluestone patios landward of bulkhead in same exact location and same exact sizes as existing consisting of a fixed dock with 2.51x18 ' section leading to a 6'x20' fixed dock "L" section, and a second dock to east consisting of a 31x6' platform leading to a 31x9' ramp to a 6'xl2' floating dock, on-grade bluestone patios landward of existing bulkhead consisting of 91x46' irregularly shaped, 15'x35 ' irregularly shaped, and existing walkway to dock and Board of Trustees 47 November 13, 2024 associated steps approximate size of 91x12 ' ; all docks and platforms shall have un-treated timber decking installed after replacement. Located: 560 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. -- ... -- -- -- -SCTM# 1.0.00--111-1-16- - - The Trustees most recently visited the site on November 18th, which doesn't seem possible. I believe it' s November 8th, 2024 -- and noted to check history of patio, and the bulkhead is okay. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent, noting that only one mooring or dock may be permitted per residential lot, and that two docks occupy the same parcel. And that it is out of consistency, therefore, with Chapter 275. The CAC reviewed this application and supported the application with the recommendation that five foot of the stone is replaced with a buffer with native plantings. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of the application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The project is simple, straightforward remove and replace the existing bulkhead. Everything else is to remain in-place/in-kind. As far as a non-turf buffer, there is no turf on the whole entire rear yard of this property, so to, and you see how close, you've been there, you see how close this property is and the house is to the water. As far as, you know, adding in a five-foot wide non-turf buffer kind of makes the entire backyard unusable. And this project is simply remove and replace bulkhead to stop the existing deterioration of the existing bulkhead from letting this house fall into the water. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any further comments or questions from the Board? (Negative response) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, I believe that while maybe a vegetated non-turf buffer is not possible, a non-turf buffer is still possible. MR. PATANJO: A non-turf buffer consisting of decking is absolutely possible, with permeable decking we can space the deck boards at half-inch wide to that you can let some water leach behind the bulkhead. And we can put a condition on it that we could never have fertilizer-dependent plantings from the seaward face of the house toward the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sold. Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this Board of Trustees 48 November 13, 2024 hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . __-- -- -.-- --TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with a five-foot non-turf buffer, not to be bluestone patio, and noting that the cut-in on the property brings secondary dock tucked within the property, while creating more wetland and therefore bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. And new plans depicting the five-foot non-turf buffer with spaced decking. That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 600 GLENN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 41x32 ' fixed dock with 4 ' wide by 20' long fixed "T" section at seaward end, including landward steps up and steps down to fixed T section; with all decking to be a Thru-Flow type material. Located: 600 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-24 The Trustees most recently visited this site on November 6th, 2024, and Trustee Peeples noted does length of dock meet 25% distance across the creek for navigability. Survey should show permitted structure and non-disturbance buffer. The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent and noted the following: 9.3, preserve the public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the state and the Town of Southold. (a) , limit grants, leases, easements, permits or lessor interest in lands underwater in accordance with an assessment of potential adverse impacts of the proposed use, structure or facility on public interest and public lands underwater. The navigation of the water body could be negatively impacted when a boat is moored at the end of the dock. The width of a representative vessel is not provided. A certain width of the navigable channel should remain free and clear of potential obstacles. The proposal to construct a dock in this location is inconsistent with this policy. I do not show a record of the CAC findings in this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Just confirming, you have the plans dated 10/13/24, which shows the proposed dock in a T-configuration fully within the property_ lines? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do show it's dated 10/30/24 and then we have it stamped and received November 4th. MR. PATANJO: 30? Board of Trustees 49 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, 30 would be the most recent date. MR. PATANJO: On the lower, right-hand side? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. MR. PATANJO: All right, you have a more updated plan than I have -. -- TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. And then it's stamped and received_. November 4th of 2024. The date prior to that is 10/13/24, and it is within the property line as you noted. MR. PATANJO: Yes. So you know what you have? I know which one you have. Same thing but it's just shifted over. So as far as the plan goes, it was brought to our attention we needed permission from the neighbor due to we had a different plan originally submitted on this. It went further out into the water body, west Creek Canal. We were not permitted, based on a, I guess it would be a covenant and restriction on the subdivision of this property that we had to pull the dock back within the property line. So what we did was we pulled back the proposed dock within the property line. This is a fixed dock and at its current location we still have approximately three point -- um like 2. 9. So approximately three feet of water, which is above the typical approvable two-and-a-half foot of water at low tide, which is based on the survey elevations provided and the survey provided by John Gerd Heidecker. If you look at the offset dimensions, the canal width is, I have on my plan 71 feet. We are only projecting out from the low tide ten feet out, so that's 7.1%, which is the distance of the waterway width. It' s only 7 .1% of the waterway width, as opposed to the neighboring dock which projects out 27 feet, which is 38% of the waterway width. So this proposed dock is going out, we could do the math, I guess it's 20% less than the dock across the street waterway width, well within the DEC requirements and the Trustees requirements. So the projection out into the waterway width meets the requirements. And it's also fully held within the property line of the subject property. It is also within the 15-foot offset dimension of the property line, and as you have been in the site, they're currently building a house, was not part of those proposed plans, the proposed permit, so I don't know if there is any issues with that. I did stake it, I set the float out there, and you see it doesn't conflict with navigation of the canal, and meets water-depth requirements. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Patanjo. There actually is a house there currently. MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I think there is a little big of a challenge here, that the survey doesn't include the house, and there also is a non-disturbance area that are affiliated with that house. So I think that would be important to include on this survey. So we need to see that. MR. PATANJO: Okay. Board of Trustees 50 November 13, 2024 TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Because it currently notes that it's wooded, and it's not. There are not as many trees as there were before. MR. PATANJO: I walked through them. I got three ticks. But there is definitely, there's woods in there. It was tough to mark it as you walk through it as well. So I can amend the drawings to show the actual existing house per the proposed plans that have been approved. And also show the non-disturbance buffer that was outlined on those proposed plans. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, the wooded area that you are referring to is the non-disturbance area. So that is important that it is still maintained a wooded area. MR. PATANJO: What I can do is I can show a four-foot wide hand-cleared path through that to the proposed dock. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, that would be great. Thank you, for those proposed updates. Now, in regards to the dock, I appreciate that you have now pulled it onto the property line as per the covenants and restrictions, the one thing that we did not in analyzing this is that you have 63 feet wide across the canal noted, and in order to be in compliance with the Town Code of the one quarter total width of the water body to preserve navigation, that would need to be dialed back a little bit more than the ten feet that you have shown here. We are assuming that, because that is inclusive of a boat, assuming an eight or nine-foot beam, that' dock including the "T" should be dialed back to seven feet off the mean low instead of ten feet. MR. PATANJO: Yeah, it's just 7.75 feet for an 8-foot beam boat, so I'll pull it back seven foot. I'll shift the whole entire thing back seven foot off of that mean low water line. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, that would be great. Thank you. MR. PATANJO: Approved. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is anyone else here that wishes to speak? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application with updated plans showing the survey with the permitted structure and corresponding non-disturbance buffer that are previously permitted to be shown on the survey, and to reduce the length of the dock to be in compliance with code, so that no dock length shall exceed a quarter of the total width of the water body, which will bring that dock to about seven feet off of the mean low water. And with the updated project complying with Chapter 275, that thereby brings this into consistency with the LWRP. That Board of Trustees 51 November 13, 2024 is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RICHARD & AMY BRAUNSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to install 80 linear feet of rip-rap stabilization in same location as previously installed eroded coir logs and plantings. Located: 1885 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-7.2. The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 6th, 2024. Notes say that the coir logs appear to be holding. Will review further at work session. LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. This is a project I did probably three or four years ago. Planted coir logs, planted stabilization along the bank, total of 80 feet: 55, 25 and 12. No, it's more than that. There's math involved there. 92 feet total, which was originally installed. There is a lot of wave energy over there from the marina and the tides coming in. They couldn't keep it stabilized. It didn't last. You saw it, the coir logs are actually falling over. It could be from deteriorated stakes, it could be from the vegetation not actually taking hold. I know it was done properly in consideration for other ones that we've done in the past. So this is a more stable means that still allows for some vegetation and some growth in there, so it will last for wildlife to make their little habitats in there. Typical for a shoreline restoration project over here. And DEC has the plans, didn't have any comments yet, so I don't have an approval from them yet. But typically if we are under that, they have 2.5 tons per linear foot, we'll be well under that. It' s only a two-and-a-half, three-foot tall thing with some small stone with some geo-textile fabric behind it. It' s a simple shoreline stabilization and everything else applies to the site. No other changes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So based upon our field inspection, it did look like the coir logs that are there already are holding the bank. We were thinking potentially adding another coir log in front of the, I believe it' s two that are there, with some backfill and planting, may achieve what you are looking for. You probably can do it under an administrative amendment to the existing permit, save yourself a whole new wetland permit. It' s not where you are losing property, it' s just that the plantings, whatever was put with that coir log is not there now. So the coir logs appear to be doing their job, it just needs a Board of Trustees 52 November 13, 2024 little bit more attention to achieve the desired affect. MR. PATANAJO: Has thought been given to a combination here, a hybrid, with a lower level of rock on the lower side and creating sort of a quasi-low-sill bulkhead with a lower-level rock, with an upper-level coir log, with plantings in between ----- the two, so we don't have that washout? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I mean potentially putting some stone in front of the proposed coir log, maybe in addition to putting another section of coir log in front of the existing, maybe some stone toe armoring for that, I think could potentially achieve the desired affect with a lot less hardened structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would echo that. I mean, I know what you're saying. But I think it looks relatively good. It's not perfect, and I understand that, and I know some homeowners want perfect when they walk down to their dock. But it' s, relatively speaking, it is functional. So I'm not opposed .if you want to go back to the drawing board and come with like a minimal toe armor built into something. I'm not opposed to that. MR. PATANJO: All right. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Installing the coir log, backfilling and planting, would be successful with that. MR. PATANJO: So continue under this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. PATANJO: So we'll come back with a revised cross section, with some toe armor to fortify so there is no sediment, no sloughing off of any of the coir logs which holds the plantings, and propose new plantings. Because the first time we did this, it didn't hold. The toe, as you saw in the field, the toe coir log fell out. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So with that said, what you can potentially do to save your applicant some money, is do that as an amendment to the existing permit. MR. PATANJO: Didn't they spend the money already? Do you refund the money from this? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Oh, never mind. Never mind. (A conversation is held off the record) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Never mind, scratch that. Okay, is there anybody else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That covers it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to table this application for submission of new plans with a less hardened structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15. Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT MAY, PAUL MAY, MARILYN MAY, RICHARD MAY, KATHLEEN MAY, JOAN MAY, Board of Trustees 53 November 13, 2024 NANCY MAY, PETER MAY, JOHN MAY, BARBARA MAHONEY & SUZANNE MAY WEST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing timber bulkhead with 100' of new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing; and to remove and replace in-place existing - --"-" - 3.51x7.5' steps to beach off bulkhead. Located: 1340 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-5 Not sure how to handle that one. MR. PATANJO: You did beautifully. Not sure how to handle the paperwork on that one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Trustees most recently visited the property on November 6th, noted that a ten-foot buffer vegetated with native species should be installed landward of the bank. Refrain from future pruning of the bank vegetation, and all trees and vegetation to remain. The LWRP found this to be consistent. And Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum, but recommended that the trees should remain and establish 20-foot non-turf vegetated non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak regarding the application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. It' s a simple remove and replace existing bulkhead, to replace a deteriorated bulkhead, as shown on the proposed site plan dated 7/10/24. There is currently a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer at the top of bank in place from previous projects. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application I thought we'd get a showing from the May' s here. MR. PATANJO: You got me instead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Hearing none, thank you for sticking around -- hearing non, I make a motion to close this hearing TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation of new plans to note all trees and vegetation to remain. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . XeGlennctGo submi tted by, smith, Presid entt Board of Trustees