The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-10/16/2024 Glenn Goldsmith, President *rjF SUUl Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �� 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski l J Southold, New York 11971 Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641 ol�coUM`1,� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1 DEC 2 Q 2024 Minutes Wednesday, October 16, 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 October 16th, 2024 meeting. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance is recited) . 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 and Civics expert Lori Hulse, and Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, and Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. And from the Conservation Advisory Council we have Carol Brown. Agendas for tonight' s meeting are posted on the Town's website and located out in the hallway. We do have a number of postponements tonight. Postponements in the agenda are on page six, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, numbers One and Two: Number 1, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of JOSEPH MINETTI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install a steel bulkhead and two returns with anchorage system; re-use existing stone on-site 'as toe stone and install new stone; excavate an area for toe stone installation; and to Board of Trustees 2 October 16, 2024 install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer _—_____-consisting of a .stone splash apron and plantings.. Located: 2500 Point Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-16-1-1 Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NEOFITOS STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' top platform flush with surrounding grade to a 41x4 ' upper walk to 41x16' steps to a 41x4' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 4'x4' platform to 41x16' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 4'x4' steps to a 4 'x4 ' platform to 41xl6' steps to a 41x6' platform and 4'x8' retractable aluminum stairs to beach. Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77 On page six, number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT REAL ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' deck (flush with surrounding grade) at top of bluff to a 41x4 ' top platform to 41x8 ' steps down to a 41x4' middle platform to 41x7 ' steps to a 4 'x4 ' lower platform with 31x6' retractable aluminum steps to beach; all decking to be un-treated timber. -Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6 On page ten, number 17, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of KIM & BRENT DOHNAL requests a Wetland Permit to construct 48" wide by approx. 17 linear foot long set of stairs built into the existing bank with one (1) 36" high railing on left side of staircase and a ±6' long by 48" wide pervious pebble middle platform at grade; each step to be 12" deep and 7" high constructed with 6x6's and 2x8's with a compacted crushed stone base and open grate decking; lumber to be both non-treated and pressure treated "Legaxy XP" Polypropylene decking by Thru-Flow to be used at bottom three (3) treads; stairs not to extend seaward of mean low water; and for a 4' wide access path to the stairs. Located: 1225 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-29 And on page eleven, numbers 18, 19 and 20: Number 18, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 9/10/24 AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHANIE PERL requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story dwelling with seaward covered patio; existing shed; remove existing paver patio, existing rear stone patio, driveway, masonry walkways and front porch; construct two (2) one-story additions; construct a front covered porch; reconstruct and enlarge rear raised stone patio area with outdoor BBQ area and an in-ground pool; install pool enclosure fencing and pool equipment area; install three (3) drywells; reconstruct gravel driveway; as-built outdoor shower, generator and a/c condensers; approximately 112.09 cubic yard of earth to be excavated for the additions with all fill not reused to be removed from property. Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43 And number 19, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN PROJECT Board of Trustees 3 October 16, 2024 DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 9/9/24 AMP Architecture on behalf of PATRICK DILOLLO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story dwelling with rear deck with steps, front patio with steps, and A/C units; two (2) existing 56.4sq. ft. Of retaining walls; construct a one-story addition to dwelling; construct an in-ground swimming pool with pool equipment area and a drywell for pool backwash; install pool enclosure fencing with gates; construct a patio between pool house and pool; construct a pool house with gutters to leaders to drywells; construct a detached garage with gutters to leaders to drywells with stepping stones from driveway to garage; install a pervious driveway; abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling; install stepping stones from dwelling to pool gate and patio; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the wetland vegetation. Located: 870 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-2-8. 1 Those are all postponed 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'm make a motion to have our next field inspection Wednesday, November 6th, 2024, at 8:00 AM. 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, November 13, 2024 at 5:30PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . III. WORK SESSIONS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work sessions Friday, November 8th, 2024 at S:OOPM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, November 13th, 2024, at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IV. MONTHLY REPORT: Board of Trustees 4 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for September 2024, A check for $30,213.11 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. V. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. VI. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 16th, 2024, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Listed as follows: Vanston Bear, LLC SCTM# 1000-111-10-14 Marilyn Pymm Irrevocable Family Trust SCTM# 1000-122-9-7 .25 Wolfgang P. & Brenda J. Haack SCTM# 1000-115-12-10 Charles Pardee & Jill Mennicken SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1 Anne Barabas Family Trust 2012 SCTM# 1000-66-1-36 Christopher W. Thompson, Walter J. Thompson & Mary-Irene Chodaczek, c/o Mary-Irene Chodaczek SCTM# 1000-70-4-10 1663 Bridge, LLC, c/o Donald & Patricia Brennan SCTM# 1000-118-2-4.2 Thomas Bradford SCTM# 1000-53-6-17 Soundhaus Hldgs, LLC SCTM# 1000-94-1-12.1 Paul M. Konowitz Trust SCTM# 1000-118-4-11 Jonathan Rebell & Noah Levine SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56 Ross & Tara Baltic SCTM# 1000-111-1-13.1 Ross & Tara Baltic SCTM# 1000-111-1-11 Peter Sabat SCTM# 1000-103-3-17.1 William J. Baxter, Jr. & Fishermans Beach, LLC SCTM# 1000-111-1-15 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . VII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Resolutions - Administrative permits, in order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to Board of Trustees 5 October 16, 2024 approve as a group Items 2 and 3, as follows: Number 2, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of KEVIN KEYSER requests a 10-Year Maintenance Permit for hand-trimming of Phragmites; replant area with Spartina Patens as needed. Located: 1356 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-3-11.7 Number 3, E. Danowski & Son Inc. , DBA Cutting Edge Landscaping on behalf of KENNETH & KATHLEEN HEIDT requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 12' x 30' on grade patio. Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Boulevard. SCTM# 1000-126-11-22 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, CHARLES DiSAPIO & XANNE PEREZ request an Administrative Permit for as-built construction of stone steps, small boulder border, and low wooden retaining wall. Located: 5780 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-115-10-7 Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection October 9th, noting this project is already started. It received a violation. Notes say it' s too close to the wetlands, the vegetation was cleared and negative environmental impact. The LWRP found it to be consistent. Due to the fact that the vegetation was cleared and that it would adversely affect the wetlands of the Town of Southold, cause damage from erosion, I make a motion to deny this application with the condition that the as-built structures need to be removed. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Krista Jones on behalf of THE bWELINE PISCOTTA IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to create a 2' walking path for certified environmental engineer/surveyor to mark wetlands boundary; saplings and trees will not be removed in creation of path. Located: 8554 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23. 8 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection October loth, noting a permitted pathway is not necessary to complete a survey. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Again, because it's not necessary to clear a path to complete a survey, and the potential adverse negative environmental impact on the environment, I'll make a motion to deny this application as submitted. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 6 October 16, 2024 IX. APPLICATIONS FOR 'EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Application 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 7 and 10 through 14. They are listed as follows: Number 1, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of LAWRENCE KAPLAN & DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10014, as issued October 20, 2021. Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3 Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10235, as issued October 19, 2022. Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18 .1 Number 3, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & ELIZABETH AUSTIN requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10315, as issued February 15, 2023. Located: 2200 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-5. 1 Number 4, KARL & MEGAN GRACE ABDELNOUR request a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10228 and Coastal Erosion Permit #10228C, as issued October 19, 2022. Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17 Number 5, ANDREW TERRONO & SHELLEY CHARNOFF request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #3754, as issued June 23, 1989, from John Dempsey to Andrew Terrono & Shelley Charnoff. Located: 387 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-29 Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of THE DANIEL DIVINEY REVOCABLE TRUST & THE SUZANNE S. DIVINEY REVOCABLE TRUST request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10620, as issued August 14, 2024, to increase the length of the approved replacement catwalk to 1161 , including the terminal 12' inclined sections of catwalk at each end, as per DEC requirements. Located: 400 Bay Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-8 & 23 Number 7, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of EAST END SEAPORT MUSEUM & MARINE FOUNDATION, LONG BEACH BAR BUG LIGHTHOUSE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit # 10542, as issued April 17, 2024, and Coastal Erosion Permit # 10542C, as issued July 16, 2024, to reduce the width of the proposed pier to no more than 5' (or match existing where applicable) and decrease the total area of the proposed platform from ±453sq.ft. To ±306sq.ft. Located: Off end of Long Beach Bar in Gardiners Bay, Orient. SCTM# 1000-132-1-31 Number 10, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JENNIFER RUSSELL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10444, as issued August 16, 2023, to construct a 20.75' x 21' one-story addition in lieu of the permitted proposed 22.75' x 20' one-story addition; construct a 5' x 12 ' covered Board of Trustees 7 October 16, 2024 porch and a 6' x 8' porch; install gutters and leaders to two (2) 8' x 4 ' drywells to contain roof runoff; and establish and perpetually maintain a 25' wide non-disturbance buffer along the top of the bluff. - " ---- --- ---Located: 1562 North Hill Road, Fishers Island SCTM# 1000=6=1-19 Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of SHEILA STOLTZ requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10589, as issued June 12, 2024, to remove and replace in-kind and in-place existing wooden post & rail fence; existing cedar trees are to remain with the exception of any dead or diseased individuals, which are to be removed and replaced in-kind and in-place. Located" 2025 Smith Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-98-4-19.2 Number 12, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of LASCELLE FAMILY TRUST c/o ROBERT & LISA LASCELLE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10449, as issued August 16, 2023 and Amended September 18, 2024, to cut off the extension of the float (4' x 21 ) which held up the ramp; float to be a standard 6'x20' float in "T" configuration. Located: 4210 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-28 Number 13, PHILIP & DEBRA RYBECKY request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10316, as issued February 15, 2023, to change the material used to construct the permitted proposed retaining wall from wood to a modular concrete block (Nicolock) . Located: 1065 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-24 And Number 14, Broadway National on behalf of LITTLE DUCKS REALTY, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10146, as issued on May 18, 2022, for the as-built rear steps and terrace near patio; outdoor kitchen; retaining wall east of pool; basement steps and bluestone pathway on south side of dwelling; concrete equipment pads. Located: 2095 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-3 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Patrica C. Moore, Esq. , on behalf of JOHN COSENZA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10185, as issued July 13, 2022, for the as-built outdoor kitchen island with gas grill,, coal grill, and sink; to plant non-turf buffer with drought tolerant native grasses and non turf cover such as English Ivy, Irish Moss, and Pennsylvania Sedge; permitted proposed parking pad not to be constructed. Located: 1700 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-5 Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection October 10th, noting the, pool fencing needs to be moved back away from the crest of the bluff, should become the new delineation between the lawn and the non-turf buffer, which would be planted with native vegetation. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the ten-foot wide non-disturbance buffer established in the Board of Trustees 8 October 16, 2024 2012 wetlands permit has been cleared. Proposal to create a non-disturbance area seaward of the top of the bluff with existing vegetation to remain. With selective hand-pruning in order to maintain viewshed is contradictory. The area is already protected by Board jurisdiction. Hand-pruning would be defined as a disturbance. And are the plants selected drought tolerant. Drought-tolerant species are recommended. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support this application. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the pool fence be moved back to where the retaining wall location was cited on the plans. That a non-turf buffer be established seaward of the fence in accordance with the original planting plan expanded with native species 18-inches on center, and with new plans submitted depicting those changes. That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Number 9, THOMAS & *JENNIFER SMITH request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit 410626, as issued August 14, 2024, to allow the existing 380sq.ft. Area of lawn to remain. Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10 Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection October 10th. Notes read not to enclose within 15-feet of the bulkhead, and new plans depicting no fertilization. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. And Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the lawn area is not to encroach within 15-feet of the bulkhead, and new plans submitted to show those changes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Ed Nicholson on behalf of DIANE SIMEONI requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit 410471A, as issued October 18, 2023 and Amended August 14, 2024, to construct a 20' x 30' permeable paver patio including new walkway tying new 'deck, front door, and patio together; add 25 yards of screened top soil surrounding patio to be seeded upon completion. Located: 1200 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-30 Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection October 10th, notes to add a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, subject to new plans showing the buffer. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. Board of Trustees 9 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . X. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X, Resolutions - Other. Number 1, Set 2024/2025 Scallop Season: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter 219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold: From Monday, November 4, 2024 from sunrise to sunset through Monday, March 31, 2025 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per Town Code. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees AMENDS the Resolution dated May 17, 2023 to read as follows: RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the application of ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH for a Wetland Permit to remove the existing floating docks and adjustable ramp off of the existing permitted 4' wide by 65 ' foot long dock with 8" CCA treated timber piles; off of seaward end of dock construct proposed 41x24' fixed dock extension with 4' wide steps down to a 4' wide by 16' long fixed "T" dock section supported with 8" diameter CCA timber pilings; all decking to be Thru-Flow type material; water and electric on the dock; install an aluminum ladder on the "T" section; total length of fixed dock to be 93' ; with the conditions that the backyard be replanted with native vegetation; with a survivability inspection after one (1) year of planting; the re-establishment of the 50' Non-Disturbance Buffer from the pool deck to the wetlands; allowing for a 4' wide access path to the dock on the side of the dwelling; remove the lighting in the area seaward of the dwelling; remove the irrigation in the area seaward of the dwelling; and remove the kayaks from their current location. Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3 That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into Public Hearings. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 10 October 16, 2024 (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This 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, David Bergen on behalf of JONATHAN RESELL & NOAH LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to cut back a section of the top of bluff totaling 15 cubic yards of material resulting in an angle of repose of 35 degrees; add three 2"x12" erosion control terracing structures planted with Cape American beach grass within the disturbed area; construct ±65 foot long bluff stairs to beach consisting of 4' wide stairs with railings on both sides plus two (2) 41x6' platforms, two 4'x5' platforms, two 41x4 ' platforms with last set of stairs to be retractable aluminum stairs; elevation of bluff stairs to be at least 3' above grade; support posts and support materials to be constructed with treated lumber with all stair treads and railings to be untreated lumber; establish and perpetually maintain a 4 ' wide non-disturbance buffer area along the top crest of the bluff with pressure treated beams anchored into the ground along landward edge of non-disturbance buffer; and establish and perpetually maintain a 25' wide non-disturbance buffer area along the landward edge of the top of the bluff with a 4' wide access path to the bluff stairs. Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56 The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 9th, noting concerns with cutting back the top section of the bluff, area has a history of severe erosion on the bluff and wiping out stairs. Suggest to armor toe of bluff prior to stairs. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Noting traditionally beach stairs in this area at risk of loss due to the high erosion of the bluff, and the action is recommended is inconsistent. The bluff restoration and stabilization plan mitigates loss concerns. It is recommended that the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer is shown on the survey, and that the use of CCA treated materials be minimized. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application, and end construction of the failing concave bluff, and recommends the bluff be vegetated with native plantings. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? Board of Trustees 11 October 16, 2024 MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Soul Searcher Consulting, on behalf of the applicants. Just one thing to clean up before we start, and I think Liz noted it. When you said you postponed number one of the Coastal Erosion, there are two number ones on the agenda, so just_for_ the record, make sure that it states which number one is postponed and which number one we are hearing tonight. That's all I ask. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we didn't postpone this one. (Participants laughing) . This is a situation where there was a Trustee permit #9755, issued back in November of 2020. It was a DEC permit issued in 2020 and that was 4738-04611. The Trustees, they were ready to build the stairs and then discovered the Trustee permit had run out. So we are now reapplying to the Trustees for what was already previously approved as far as the stairs went. Now, back then what the Trustees also approved was a revetment. The DEC was a hard no on the revetment. They said absolutely not. So this was also handled by Mike Kimack, who unfortunately passed away, so that's another reason for the delay and this all coming back up here now. So we here we are back before you for a Trustee permit for a set of stairs down the bluff. Since that time what we had done is a new survey, because we know that the bluffs along The Sound are very active. So we knew that the survey that you guys considered, or I shouldn't this Board, but Trustee board at that time considered, had a different survey, an older survey. So we've updated that survey for you, which you have. We have, we also had a pre-submission conference out on the site where you expressed your concerns about this, and I suggested at the time would you consider cutting back the top of the bluff, and you said you would consider that. So we have now come back and re-engineered this project. And right away I'll note a correction that has to be made on the plans. What we have done is we reduced the bluff angle to 45 degrees by cutting back the bluff. And it says on the plans "35. " So we'll submit new plans that will say "45" degrees for you. But we've cut the bluff angle back to 45 degrees by cutting back approximately ten feet of bluff, and as it shows on the plans, when that falls down, that will add material, obviously into a section of the bluff. The cutback is about 23, between 25 and 28 feet across. So we've also calculated on the plans the material that will fall down, that will help to stabilize what is now a very sharp angle of repose, bringing that angle of repose down to 35 degrees. And we have engineer, Joe Fischetti, here to address engineering questions that you might have tonight. We've added terracing and planting in that area that will Board of Trustees 12 October 16, 2024 be freshly disturbed once the bluff is cut so that there is some further stabilization in that area. We've added I think one of the comments in the inconsistency part was a non-disturbance buffer, and we've added --- ----- --- -in a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer. -- -As you see, the plans have been reviewed by an engineer, Joe Fischetti, who has stamped them, and we have also signed the 30-year maintenance agreement that goes with the coastal erosion hazard permit. So the clients are agreeing to maintain this structure for 30 years. So with that, I am here, and again, I should say the stairs are all the same design as was previously approved. We have not changed the design of the stairs. So with that, I'm here to answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one thing to note, you noted that there is a new survey. I just want to note for the record that previously when we permitted this house, that house was outside of jurisdiction. It is now, based on this new survey within jurisdiction. Which just goes to show how much bluff loss has occurred in this section, which is our major concern. You talked about we previously approved a set of stairs with a revetment. And if I'm not mistaken, I think we previously approved a set of stairs on one of the neighboring properties that was wiped out pretty much right after it was installed. So we do have those concerns. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. BERGEN: Joe Fischetti, the engineer for this project. MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening, I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. We had noted that the error on the plans, it should be 45 degrees as the angle of .repose. We use that to be more consistent with the rest of the bluff, which is basically at that angle.' So if have you any questions on that design. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What would be the impact to the neighboring properties? Lateral support for that bluff, by shaving it? MR. FISCHETTI: There is no impact. It says no impact. We looked at it and it's actually, it's consistent with the rest of the bluff and down to the bottom. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, good to see you, Mr. Fischetti, it's been a while. I think part of the take here is twofold. We've learned our lesson in this area already with regard to stairs and not protecting the property, and, you know, if we wait long enough we'll just keep marching back toward the house, I think regardless of what' s done. But also, the bluff is a natural feature, so my take after looking at it the field and talking about it with Mr. Bergen, it's a natural feature, it's a natural process. So we are not Board of Trustees 13 October 16, 2024 going to protect the toe but we are going to cut the top. I'm not sure, we are almost like horse trading with how we are going to maintain the bluff at this point. So, I understand, you -- --- - - MR. FISCHETTI: I don't think you are going to contain the bluff. We all know that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. MR. FISCHETTI: I mean, eventually it goes. We know that. It depends on which way the winds are blowing, which way the storm is coming from. You are not going to protect the bluff. What I can do is I can redesign these stairs so that the bottom, it is, this, we are in in VE-16. So at 16 foot, I can design the top, the bottom of those 16-foot of those stairs to be expendable so that it doesn't take the rest of the stairs down. Now, that will save a lot of that. But as to whether, saving the bluff, I don't think you're going to -- we are not here to do that. We are here to get to the bottom of the bluff. So I would be glad to do that. And it would be helpful. It would not take the rest of the stairs down with it when it's done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you stand at the top for a little bit of time, you'll get to the bottom pretty quickly. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. BROWN: Carol Brown from the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council. Nancy May and I saw this property last week, . and we're pretty scared about thinking about putting anything on that bluff. As you said, the bluff is a natural feature, to disturb it any- more than it is now is asking for so much environmental impact, negative environmental impact, and we feel very, very strongly that this is not the right thing to do on that property. We are also concerned, as Glen said, with the neighboring properties, because once you destabilize what you have there, that's as stable as it' s going to be for this week, this month, depending upon storms, that we feel that this is, would be a big mistake. It's not going to last more than the next storm, potentially, and it would be bad precedent for our town. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? Yes, sir? MR. REBELL: Hi, I'm John Rebell. I'm the property owner. I want to speak to a few things. One, you know, we are talking about stairs in the area, and I know there is a longer history, but one of the things with the neighbor' s stairs that you referred to earlier is they actually did not have, originally, the design that Joe is talking about, so that when the storm came through, I think that was 2018, it caused more Board of Trustees 14 October 16, 2024 damage than I think would happen with the design that Joe and Dave are proposing, so I do want to mention that. And the other thing I want to say is, you know, we want to be able to fully enjoy the property, but we want to make sure we are doing it in a way that is safe and environmentally conscientious. When we talk about the toe of the bluff and what can be done to reinforce it, we are open-minded to all of this. But, you know, going on six, seven years, we, have, been sort of pushed in different directions. And I know you guys have heard this before, but we are sort of looking at you saying, if I were to build these stairs, if there are ways to reinforce it, we are completely open to doing that, but we just want to be able to use our property and enjoy the beach. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MR. REBELL: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. BERGEN: If I could address the comments of the Conservation Advisory Council. Also, what we're doing, what we're proposing is actually stabilization of the bluff. The proposal to cut part of the bluff lip back is something that has been talked about for years as a way of helping to stabilize a bluff; letting it drop down, let it reach an angle of repose that is more natural. You plant plantings, you do stabilization of that disturbed area. And you're actually increasing the chance of success for stabilization of the bluff, rather than just leaving it as a straight angle down where it's going to continue just to follow. So actually, what we are proposing here is actually stabilizing that section of the bluff. And we are well off the property lines on either side, so I don't see how it will affect either of the neighboring property owners. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So, if I 'm hearing this argument correctly, we are going to cut the bluff top off in order to create a stable place to put a set of stairs that will be wiped out in the first few storms that pound the coast. Is that the Board's understanding? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the bottom. MR. BERGEN: That' s not my understanding. What we are offering here, as I said tonight, is redesign the stairs so the bottom section. The Board, from what I've heard, is very concerned about the bottom section. And now we have redesigned the stairs so the bottom section -- I'll use the term, even though I know this is probably incorrect from an engineering perspective, a breakaway. So if they were to go, they would not take the rest of the stairs down, which in turn would not destabilize anything above that point at all. Board of Trustees 15 October 16, 2024 So again, what we are looking to do is try to engineer something that will minimize the opportunity for this bluff to become destabilized and more stabilized instead, between cutting the top off, which again has been talked about for many years, - - as throughout storms. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In your recent memory, or even long-term memory, has there ever been a time where the bluff has been cut without a stair proposal attached to it? In other words would anyone go to change the angle of repose on their bluff? MR. BERGEN: I'll just be very honest with you. I don't remember one associated with stairs. I remember cutting top of bluffs after major events such as Sandy, to help, again, to stabilize the bluff when bulkheads and bluffs were taken out, as a way of helping to stabilize or rebuild that bluff was cutting back the top of the bluff. If there was room do that. And that was done back during Sandy. But, again, I can't say that was connected directly with a set of stairs. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to the point of engineering this,, we see a lot of projects that are over-engineered in order to get the applicant what they are looking for. And in this case I think it's hard to imagine that adding this amount of structure to an eroding bluff would not cause an adverse environmental impact. And also it's hard to imagine that cutting off the lip of that bluff would not affect the immediate neighbors. I find that hard to understand. So as one Trustee, I'm not sure that that makes any sense. MR. FISCHETTI: Can I answer? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. MR. FISCHETTI: I just finished a set of stairs in Orient that you people approved, and we stabilized the bluff, and we worked on the stairs for about three weeks, and it was done properly, and everything is stable and the stairs are stable. It' s normally done. Putting a set of stairs on a bluff is not unique. We do it all the time. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just to be fair, you are comparing this project in the western part of the township to one in the far eastern part of the township? MR. FISCHETTI : It's all the same bluff TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: But you've also said on record this evening that there is no saving the bluff and there will also be no environmental impact to the adjacent properties. Which I find a contradiction. MR. FISCHETTI: We are talking about timeframe. We all understand that -- I was here during the perfect storm, I think it was ' 91. And that storm came from the northeast, and what it did was it came to the northern part of the bluff, and that' s why I'm saying, it depends on which way the winds are blowing, how the bluffs are handled and how the bluff are affected. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. Board of Trustees 16 October 16, 2024 MR. FISCHETTI: I had 40 emergency repairs because there were, we had bulkheads up to ten feet. But that storm went above those bulkheads and washed the bluff behind it. So nobody is, if you take a look at any of the areas, of - - whether it' s eastern Southold or western Southold, eventual, - depending on how the winds are blowing, yes, certain areas do get hit. Sometimes they don't get hit. But you are on the bluff TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Are there any further comments? (No response) . I just want to note in our experience we have seen two or three foot of erosion per year at this area. One of the neighboring properties moved the house back, or structure back, 25 feet a few years ago. That same structure is now right at the top of the bluff. And as you said, we are not going to protect the bluff. It's eroding, and we can't stop it. So with that, I make a motion to close this hearing, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to deny this application due to disturbing the natural features, being the bluff, which will adversely affect the wetlands. Also the increase in the danger of flood and storm tide damage, as well as weaken or undermine the lateral support of neighboring properties. Because of that all that, I'll make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland permits, number 1, David Bergen on behalf of PAUL M. KONOWITZ TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to replace in place approximately 150' of bulkhead with a 19' northern return and a 28' southern return, and constructed 18" higher than existing using vinyl sheathing, 10" diameter piles 6' on-center, three (3) 6x6" timber whalers, one inch tie rods leading to horizontal logs with vertical deadmen and a fiberglass cap; remove and replace existing permitted 4 'x5' 6" cantilevered platform and 3'xll' retractable stairs to beach; remove and replace in place existing permitted 101x20' deck on new pilings, not attached to bulkhead; raise non-turf buffer area grade along bulkhead by 18" using 50 cubic yards of clean fill from an offsite source; and to establish and perpetually maintain the area between the bulkhead and the retaining wall as a non-turf buffer area. Located: 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-11 Board of Trustees 17 October 16, 2024 The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th of October and noted that it needed a minimum of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of a very steep bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application ---- --- - with the condition that the docking facility does not extend- past the pier line. I'm not really sure what that condition means. The docking facility does not extend past the pier line. Does not exceed the pier line. I'm not sure. That' s not applicable to this application. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent but required turbidity controls. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, Soul Searcher Consulting, on behalf of the applicants. This is an application where we already have a DEC permit for this. We've just received last week Department of State concurrence for this. I'll submit copies of those. What we are also doing is, I know you didn't mention it, but we are downsizing the deck that is there to a 10x20 deck. Now, with regards to an additional non-turf buffer up top, we want to note that we've already got I think about a 16 to 18 foot existing non-turf buffer down there between the primary bulkhead and retaining wall. We then have from the retaining wall up to the top of the bluff, about 30 feet, that is essentially a non-turf buffer. So we already have a non-turf buffer to a retaining wall, and a non-turf buffer behind that of about 30 feet. So as far as the top of the bluff requiring an additional non-turf buffer, what we -- the applicant is willing to consider that, and what we would like to propose is a five-foot non-turf buffer up there, when you combine that one, plus the non-turf buffer to the retaining wall, plus the non-turf buffer that' s already existing there between the primary bulkhead, we think we've accomplished the environmental concerns of trying to prevent runoff from herbicides, pesticides from percolating all the way down there to the bay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With all due respect to that point and with your past experience as a Trustee, the point of a non-turf buffer is not just to prevent the pesticides and the runoff, but it's what comes with runoff, which is erosion. And to call a bluff itself a non-turf buffer is kind of a new one for me. The 30 feet you are speaking of is a bluff we are, trying to protect -- MR. BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) so we can't count the bluff, it's not protecting itself. At the bottom is essentially a sand area. If you wanted to have a conversation about vegetating that area, that would be different. But aside from that I think we are looking to protect the bluff and the bay here. It' s two 1 Board of Trustees 18 October 16, 2024 features, so. MR. BERGEN: Okay. And, again, I would not argue with you, Nick, at all. I'm just asking for consideration of a five-foot rather than a ten-foot non-turf buffer. That' s all. -- --- - - - -- TRUSTEE -KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application; or any additional comments from the members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE-GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer vegetated with native species at the top of the bluff and new plans submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, First Coastal Corp. , on behalf of VANSTON BEAR, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove an 85' section of existing bulkhead and jetty along southern side of inlet and reconstruct in alignment with existing bulkhead using PVC sheathing; for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge approximately 500 cubic yards of bottom material at mouth of dug boat basin; remove approximately 1, 600 cubic yards of bottom material to create a deposition basin; place all dredged material on two upland areas and retain the material with staked hay bales; dried materials to be spread out above the Mean High Water line. Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-10-14 The Trustees visited the site on October 9th, 2024, and our notes from that visit read: What is the plan with the deposition area below mean low water. Typically cannot do that. Open bulkhead area should probably be moved back in line. Further, be fully in line with"the platform. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. And the LWRP coordinator for the Town of Southold found the project to be consistent, provided that seasonal restrictions for this work comply, January 1st through October 1st, to protect species in the area. And number two, turbidity controls are required in accordance with Chapter 275. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application? MR. TERCHUNIAN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Aram Terchunian, First Coastal Corporation, Westhampton Beach, New York, on behalf of the applicant. I want to thank you for taking the time to schedule this public hearing, and thank you also for conducting your site Board of Trustees 19 October 16, 2024 visit, and for the telephone call in advance, which my voicemail system sent to me two days later. This particular inlet is actively dredged, and what we've experienced over the last decade is that the current channel fills in within months. I believe that we submitted a report to - --you detailing that information, but I brought extra copies just in case. We also have received permits from the federal and state authorities, and I believe they were submitted, but just to be sure, I'll give you a set. As described, the object here is to realign the existing jetty that now curves into the inlet itself to create a wider opening, and to establish what is called a deposition basin, seaward of low water. The purpose of doing that is to provide an area, volume of sufficient amount that the sand that is naturally transported in the littoral drift will fall within the deposition basin, and that the channel itself is wide enough to accommodate the sediment as well. What this will enable us to do is two things: Number one, to decrease the frequency of dredging. So now it's dredged every year and it doesn't work. With this new configuration it would be dredged probably every three years, which would be better. And the spoil is designated to go up on either side of the inlet. And, as you know, I always get my directions wrong here, but I guess the north side is eroding quite significantly. As you can see from this photo, the tax map shows these lots going way out into the water, which they did in the ' 60s. So part of the sand would be going to the left and the north, and then part of it would be going on to the applicant' s property. The property to the north is owned by an association, and we have an arrangement with them to place the sand. And all of that material would be above mean high water, and would be stabilized so as not to reenter the waterway. , I'm happy to go into more details. I heard the two comments about realigning inline. Certainly open to that. And it seems a small but good suggestion. I was not clear about the suggestion about the deposition area because we don't plan to go below mean low water. That' s all going to be above mean high water. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Those comments were made prior to our work session, and at work session we discussed those comments and found the plans under further review to be sufficient to answer those questions. MR. TERCHUNIAN: Okay, great. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just a question. You have DEC and Army Corps for that deposition area? MR. TERCHUNIAN: Yes. Received DEC, Army Corps and DOS. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Anyone else wish to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 20 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a specific number slated to be placed on the adjacent property versus the homeowner' s property? MR. TERCHUNIAN: No, because it's going to be dependent on how much area is available to us on the north side. So we are going -- - -- to', maximize the -amount that can be placed there. Once-we reach - - - -that fill capacity on that that side we'll put the remainder on the applicant's property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, because obviously if we are, you know, we're pulling that sand out of the system and putting it on the applicant's property, it should really continue down, otherwise we're going to get down into the -- the conservatory owns that property, right? The nature conservancy owns that, so. MR. TERHCUNIAN: Our big problem there was the DEC did not want us to place it below mean high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. TERCHUNIAN: Which we would be willing to put all of it there, quite frankly. And from a design point of view, that' s the best place for it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? MR. FLOTTERAN: Joe Flotteran, and I also live on Nassau Point. I'm really just coming to just share some things that hopefully will be helpful to the applicant. The natural flow of the sand, because I live on the lagoon to the south of this property, is for the most part the sand goes from south to north. So the spoils would be much better served if they could be on the north side. 40 years ago we extended our bulkhead out, much further than the one you see there. And I know our applicant' s pictures are available today. What that served to do was, it made the entrance larger and allowed the lagoon basically to be open a little bit better. So I don't know if it' s the right answer on that property, it's not the same location. But the southern portion really should most likely further out with the way the flow is, if the goal is to keep it open. Other than that, I'm in support of it and it would be better for everything. Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with seasonal restrictions of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for January 1st through October 1st, for any work in the area, and that turbidity controls be placed to mitigate siltation of the benthic environment, and approve the application as submitted, with as much material placed on the northeast side of the property to be moved by the littoral drift as part of the natural movement of the sand in the area. Board of Trustees 21 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Kristin Trovitch on behalf of -- -- MARILYN PYMM IRREVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to install 84 linear feet of stone rip-rap with 30' installed to the north and 54 ' installed to the south using 200-500 pound stone on filter cloth; backfill of rip-rap with dredge spoil to be planted with Cape American beach grass at 18" on-center; dredge a 301x85' area to -4' below Mean Low Water yielding approximately 580 cubic yards of spoil which will be placed above Mean High Water along the southern point for beach nourishment. Located: 2504 Camp Mineola Road Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-9-7.25 The Trustees most recently visited the site on October 9th, 2024, noting to remove sandbags. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent. The use of vegetation only to control is recommended to further Policy Four. And use vegetative non-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazards, was the recommendation of the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. TROVITCH: Hi, Trustees and Chairman, I'm Kristin Trovitch, I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We are -- he, prior had a permit for 78 feet of stone rip rap that was completed a while back. He did renew the permit. Upon your inspection, if you can see, the wall that was put there, there was a washout behind it. There were plantings completed there, so what we want to do is just extend on the north side and close that up. And on the south side, what's happening is the sand from the wave action is pushing in that direction north, so Mr. Pymm can't even access his floating dock, which you can see from the photos is sitting on sand. So we want to close the south side up as well, by adding an additional rock revetment wall to the south side, to what was previously put there, so we can stabilize that area, stop the flooding of the sand into the northern part of the property, and also secure and stabilize the north side of the property. Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Yes, I would also note that we are in receipt of the DEC paperwork here as well. MS. TROVITCH: Yes, I do have DEC. They actually modified it. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: They did modify it and approve it. And while the Trustees typically prefer to see the minimum amount of Board of Trustees 22 October 16, 2024 structure put in a place, vegetation is always preferred in some areas that is just insufficient, and so we have seen a gradual approach with this property, first trying to shore up one piece of it and then now needing to come back. So the need here is understood after conducting a site visit. ------ Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application, to remove sandbags upon completion, and by Trustees and DEC reviewing conditions on site and deeming vegetative solution to be insufficient in this location, we are thereby issuing a permit to bring this into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. TROVITCH: Thank you, very much, Trustees. Have a great night. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You as well. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 4, WOLFGANG P. & BRENDA J. HAACK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock consisting of a 4'x55' 'fixed catwalk with Thru-Flow decking; a 3'xl4' wood ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured by four (4) 10" diameter dolphin piles. Located: 700 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-10 The Trustees most recently visited"the site on October 9th, 2024, and Trustee Goldsmith noted not enough water depth for a float, and exceeds pier line. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application and recommends the dock is located within the pier line, moving it back six feet. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a fixed dock if the water depth is inadequate. The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with the LWRP Policy 9. Number one, a permit for a dock was granted in 2005. Number two, further extension of the dock into public waters hinders the use of the waters. Number three, the extension further encroaches into a navigable channel and appears to extend past the pier line. Number four, the narrowness of the channel in this location should not be decreased for structure. Number five, a 75-foot non-disturbance buffer applies to the property established by Wetland Permit 6140. Board of Trustees 23 October 16, 2024 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. HAACK: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am the property owner. We can go ahead, I looked at a couple of things that we can do, what you suggested, we can move the dock back the six feet. If you would like, I can chock it 18 inches off the bottom, if that would be acceptable to the Board. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think when we were there reviewing, there is a concern with the water depth and the use of a float with the water depth. There is also, we noted that the proposed dock would be, would exceed the pier line between the immediately adjacent docks, meaning there is a line drawn between those two and your proposed dock, and actually looks like the entire float sort of exceeds that area. And then if we are looking at, once the dock is then pulled back to comply with the pier line of the immediately adjacent docks, there would, there is, looks like it would be around two feet of water, which would not be adequate for a floating dock. So we believe that a fixed dock would be more appropriate for that location. MR. HAACK: Okay, so I would have to redesign that and get back. Or we can redesign that and get back. Or we can chock it 18 off the bottom, if that helps. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Unfortunately, our code now is, you need at least 30 inches of water depth in order to have a floating dock, and so we don't allow chocking, unfortunately, at this time. MR. HAACK: Okay, fair enough. That's why it was moved that little bit out, to bring the back of that float to the 30-inch mark. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right. I understand the design of the project, yes. So I think if this was able to be dialed back to be within the pier line, modified to be a fixed dock, and then the, to address the LWRP in regards to the previous permit, which was -- MR. HAACK: 2006, ma'am. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. Permit number 6140, there was a 75-foot non-disturbance buffer that was part of that permit. So that would just be something that we would want to see on your proposed plans. And then a re-vegetation plan in order to have some of that area that may have been cleared, to be reinstated. And then I did have one clarification point. The description says a 3'xl4 ' wood ramp. But I guess if we are changing it to the fixed dock, that would not -- yes, there was a discrepancy in the size of those. But all of that would just be addressed, and then we would need a new description, or the notes that correspond with the revised design. MR. HAACK: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sir, thank you, for your, the discussion with all of this. We have an option that, at your request, we could table this application or we could move forward with it and then Board of Trustees 24 October 16, 2024 condition it subject to new plans. MR. HAACK: I would assume just condition to new plans, I would assume would be the most logical at this point. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That is something the Board would be agreeable -- -- - with it.. I just want to make -sure that you are comfortable with------- -- that since you are the applicant. MR. HAACK: I would have to at this point. Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? Yes? MR. HEANEY: My name is Sean Haney, Heaney Marine Construction. I had a question. If we are taking off the floating dock to get into the pier line, it looks like then could the fixed dock be possibly extended out into that pier line? It almost looks like, you know, the fixed dock could then be pushed out to the p ier line then, so he' s gaining a little bit of fixed dock but he's taking away the floating dock. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, if I understand you correctly, you are basically noting that the fixed catwalk would be extended out to incorporate, and then -- MR. HEANEY: Yes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. Great. That is correct. So as long as the seaward-most side of the complete project is within the pier line then that would be sufficient. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And if you didn't want to do the "L, " you can do a "T, " and some people do a stepdown. So as long as the seaward end of that fixed dock now does not exceed past the seaward end of the floating docks on either side. MR. HEANEY: Right. Understandable. Got it. Thank you. MR. HAACK: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? (No response) . ' Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. MS. HULSE: One moment. (After a brief pause, this proceeding continues as follows) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to rescind my motion to close. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't have to vote to rescind. You don't need a second. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Sir, would you mind approaching the microphone at the podium please. MR. HAACK: Yes, ma'am. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. So speaking with legal counsel, we want to make sure everything is very clear. Again, the Board is prepared to move forward with this application this evening, but just want to confirm. Would you design it with a "T" or an "L"? Board of Trustees 25 October 16, 2024 MR. HAACK: I apologize, I hate to waste time. But would it make a real difference? I don't know, to be honest with you, whether it's an "L" or a "T. " Does it impact the bluff or anything? If so, then I 'll redesign it. Just let me know. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That' s .the only thing. We are trying to mov._e_.._....__. forward with it tonight, but if you are not sure, we can table it for you to get together with your contractor. MR. HAACK: I would like to go with an "L. " Remain the same, just remove that ramp, and push the pier line back the six feet. That way we'll keep everything else as designed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So essentially we'll end up with a four-foot fixed pier that will terminate with an "L" and that will all be within the pier line, correct? MR. HAACK: Yes, ma'am. Moving it back the six feet and the removing the ramp so is it will become a fixed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the length of the "L. " (Board members perusing drawings) . MR. HAACK: I just think that would be a little easier. Because I would not have to touch any vegetation. There is no vegetation, for some reason, there, where the L is. I would not have to touch anything that is already grown on that slope. So I think that would make more sense to hold that slope in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because there is a non-disturbance there, I guess was a condition of the house, none of that, can be trimmed or anything like that. MR. HAACK: It's not touched anyway. Since I have the DEC and ACE permits for you, I'll contact DEC and Corps of Engineers with the updated plan and then resubmit that paperwork to you also. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MR. HAACK:, Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the following stipulations: That the dock is modified to become a fixed pier in an "L" configuration, with the "L" to not exceed 20 feet long, and that the entirety of the dock is dialed back to be within the pier line at the immediately adjacent docks. And to reinstate the 75-foot non-disturbance buffer. And it would include a planting and re-vegetation plan for this area, based on the previous permit 6140, and by reinstating the non-disturbance buffer and moving the dock back within the pier line, it thereby bring it into consistency with the LWRP. And subject to new plans. That is my motion. Board of Trustees 26 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of. _ CHARLES PARDEE & JILL NENNICKEN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1 111 story dwelling; demolish existing second floor area and construct a 906.2sq.ft. Second floor; reconstruction and additions to the existing first floor and sunroom; new south landing; new landward covered porch; abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 6760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1 The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on October 9th of the new plans, noting that the pier line is not on the new plans. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the new addition doesn't extend any further seaward than the existing structure. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant. Just for clarification, I just want to confirm that you are reviewing the revised plans that were submitted on, that are dated 9/18 of '24, that shows the proposed 15-foot wide buffer as per the pre-inspection discussion with the Trustees in September. Sheet number, of the original set, was sheet number S-2, did include the pier line, that was just a pier line diagram. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We did see that. We would like to see that imposed on the main plan as well. MS. POYER: I can do that. Yes. That's fine. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great. Thanks. MS. POYER: So just to discuss the project. The Trustees were there. The proposed project is to expand the seaward sunroom by about 91-square feet, which would be three feet closer, but as noted on the diagram, it is significantly still landward of the pier line. And then also the project includes an additional first-floor addition of about 300 square feet located on the landward side of the residence, and then a second-floor reconstruction with a small addition of 297 square feet expansion on the second floor. And additional work will be done, there is a small basement area, about a quarter of the footprint of the existing house that is a seven-foot tall ceiling, they would like to expand it to be nine feet tall, and the proposed landward addition will tie into that existing basement area. The rest of the basement is crawl space and there is no expansion in Board of Trustees 27 October 16, 2024 that area. We'll relocate the Bilco doors as part of the project; an IA system will be installed; the roof runoff will be tied to gutters and leaders for the new areas; and as I mentioned - -- - - before, the proposed project will include a 15-foot wide buffer- --- --- - Prior approval for the site did show an eight-foot wide buffer, so we'll expand it to a 15-foot wide. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition new plans be submitted showing the pier line. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. POYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANNE BARABAS FAMILY TRUST 2012 requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of the existing 50' jetty and construct a new 50' low-profile jetty using vinyl sheathing. Located: 550 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-1-36 The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th of October, noted we would like to provide a reference point from the bulkhead to the top of the groin structure. And that the structure should not exceed 18 inches. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this; and the LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. It's a very simple application. We have DOS, Army, everybody. So it' s, you know, it always held the beach elevation there, and at one storm event the beach elevation dropped, and we are just looking to replace an existing structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we have done this before with you. Does the groin tie into the bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if you could just provide, you don't have to do a full set of plans, but a partial, you know, you have many page in your sets. But just showing an elevation of the existing groin and how it will remain the same off the bulkhead, so we know which height you are starting at, like as a reference point, if that make sense? Is that drawn already? Board of Trustees 28 October 16, 2024 MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's basically the same as it is, because once that beach elevation dropped during that storm event, it wound up being 12 to 18 inches out of the beach, where it was completely full until that time. So if you look at elevation view AA. If you don't have that page, I can provide it. I have a new set of plans. Do you have it, Nick? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Perusing) . MR. COSTELLO: It' s a scale drawing, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could just resupply this page to just show the exact measurement drawn out from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So a Trustee in the field could measure that distance. You know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know what I mean? Or do you want me to point it out. MR. COSTELLO: No, I got it. I'll donate a bunch of scale rulers to the town. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We appreciate that. And the only other thing, and this is just housekeeping, is that in the description it reads "jetty. " And under our definition it would be "groin. " So just change that in the description. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Or any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . I'll make a motion to approve this application with submission of new plans showing the height differential between the top of the existing bulkhead and the top of the proposed groin. And also with the description to read as follows: Request a wetland permit to remove and dispose of the existing 50' groin and construct a new 50-foot low-profile groin using vinyl sheathing, not to exceed 18 inches. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 7, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. , on behalf of CHRISTOPHER W. THOMPSON, WALTER J. THOMPSON & MARY-IRENE CHODACZEK, c/o MARY-IRENE CHODACZEK requests a Wetland Permit to rehabilitate the existing ±105 ' long rock revetment by adding one row of two-ton toe stones and resetting Board of Trustees 29 October 16, 2024 dispersed rock; not to exceed 2.5 tons per linear foot; and to revegetate disturbed area landward of rock revetment. Located: 3125 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-10 The Trustees took a look at the site October 9th, found the project to be dialed back; north portion needs -reinforcement; - - - southern portion is functioning well; half of the project could be cut out. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. Recommending the disturbed areas to be planted with native vegetation. And the LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent with its policies. We welcome donations of scaled rulers to the Town and comment from the public. MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. This is simply a clean-up job, really. It's part of a failed wall. We are just adding one larger stone at the toe of the wall and rebuilding the existing wall. It's a straightforward, simple application. ' TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you be able to speak to the comments from our field inspection, that the project could be cut in half, I suppose, is the language here reads. Essentially we are looking in the field and a lot of the prior revetment is now buried in sand. And we noticed that one corner is experiencing significant erosion, and we think that your approach is solid and sound, but that if the project were to be limited, say from 110 feet to 75 or 80 feet, that that other portion where the dock area is, is well vegetated and isn't experiencing the same amount of erosion in that area. MR. COSTELLO: We are not doing west of the dock, we're just doing up to the dock, or we'll just be back here the next year or year after. This is just a way to finalize this project. I don't think we are going to see erosion go further west of the dock. It will be an inconsistent structure. If I, you know, the erosion is worse to the east. I feel the area from, you know, the east end to the dock at the west is, you know, it' s really, like I said, a minimal job. It's just a matter of straightening up. And as far as an engineering standpoint, that' s going to be the point of failure, and we'll be right back here again next year. Because as you can see, that erosion is coming up, it's really bad at the east end. That sand is inevitably going to keep on moving into the creek. We are not applying for a jetty or anything, we are just looking to fortify that rock structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree with you, and sometimes you chase erosion down the, you know, wetland lines. Over on that side, though, there is a healthy- growth of Spartina in front that is doing that natural protection, and I don't know if introducing more rock structure is going to negatively affect that, in terms of trying to keep things as natural as possible. MR. COSTELLO: Well, the Spartina Alterniflora should be down in Board of Trustees 30 October 16, 2024 the tidal range. Although at that end the work I'm going to be doing is above that range of the Spartina. You know, it doesn't exist at that elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the height of the structure to? MR. COSTELLO: Overall, it's about, from one end it will be--about------- seven feet, based on low water. So at one end it' s going to be three to four feet high, and at the far end where the erosion is the worst, is going to be six to seven feet tall. But it would seem silly to do all this work, because I think we all realize the erosion is going to continue down to the dock. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think what Trustee Krupski is referencing is our hesitation to harden any shorelines where it' s not absolutely necessary. And of course, while we understand this project is being proposed beyond the Spartina, the hazards of the hardened shoreline scouring away that land in front of the rock structure is what we are concerned about. MR. COSTELLO: It's already hardened, and it' s failing. The rocks go all the way to the dock and past the dock. So we are looking to -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would agree with you it' s failing on the northern side of the property, but not the southern side of the property where the sand has built up is now functioning as -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Costello, one. of our questions was, it's a little confusing from the plan, because it looks uniform height and design from west to east, but you're saying it's going to taper down? MR. COSTELLO: Well, no. The top elevation will be the same, but as far as the visual aspect you are not going to see that, because that erosion will continue down. So if we do a baseline at low tide, the wall is going to be six or seven feet tall, and down toward, I would call it the west, is going to be varied. You are not going to see it. Because I think we all realize at some point in the near future, without the barrier beach out there anymore, that erosion is going to continue down. Because that is constantly getting buried with the sand as it moves down. I mean, ten years ago that rock wall was three feet out of the ground. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the toe stone on the western end would pretty much be buried. MR. COSTELLO: It would be buried. You wouldn't see it. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Let's say the project proceeded as it' s been designed, would we see a difference in the height between what is existing there now and what is proposed? MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it would not increase the height of that hardened structure upland. MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: From the plans it would appear that you are going to see a seven-foot rock wall, and our notes from the field, our observations, is that this part on the western side Board of Trustees 31 October 16, 2024 is fine. The eastern side definitely needs that armoring. But if you are providing plans to depict that base. MR. COSTELLO: Right. So the top elevation is going to be the same and the bottom elevation is going to disappear under the sand. Because that is going to continue to migrate, you. know,.__. to the west. It' s like one of these things, whatever it is, a hundred feet long, it's a small project, and it' s going to continue to go. We've watched it go. And it' s not going to change what you see esthetically there. Except there will be one large stone at the base of the wall. And then as that beach level comes up, they'll be gone. You won't even see them. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I appreciate the clarification. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you be able to provide us just a copy that shows that? Because this is what I'm looking at (indicating) . MR. COSTELLO: Okay, I mean, I guess I could -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Can you do some drawing this week? MR. COSTELLO: I can put the current contours on there, showing where the sand elevations are now and where the rock wall will be buried, as of today, which is not going to be the same in, you know, next week. But if that pleases the Board, that' s what we'll do. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that would be helpful. And I almost wonder, you know, when you're doing the further study, if it makes sense to you have kind of the largest point, and then perhaps show what kind of, and that would be on the eastern portion, and maybe depict a section of what the western portion would like, and then we can kind of imagine what happens naturally in between those two. MR. COSTELLO: Sounds like I'll have to break out my crayons. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Get that ruler out. MR. COSTELLO: I can do it. I understand what you want. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE. SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding the application? (Negative response) . Members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing no one further wishing to speak, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition of a section of plans showing the elevation of the wall tapering toward the west. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 32 October 16, 2024 MR. COSTELLO: Thanks. Have a good night. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 8, Joe Flotteron, President of the - Lagoon Association on behalf of 1663 BRIDGE, LLC, c/o DONALD & PATRICIA BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge over an area of approximately 4, 125sq. ft. Within the Lagoon entrance to a depth of 5' below apparent low water elevation; approximately 550 cubic yards of material will be excavated and •dried on adjacent land/beach along a 11, 600sq. ft. Area where it shall remain and be the final disposal area; a clam shell bucket on either a barge mounted crane and/or land mounted crane will be used to perform the dredging/excavation operation; and a turbidity curtain will be installed to enclose the dredging area. Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118.-2-4.2 The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of October, noting a straightforward application. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application and resolved to support it. Is there anyone here wishing to speak? MR. FLOTTERON: Not if everything is good. I was here only if you needed clarification. I'm Joe Flotteron, President of the Lagoon Association, Nassau Point. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And I also would note that this is a maintenance permit, and it's just a renewal of, essentially a renewal of something that had been previously permitted. MR. FLOTTERON: Right. We've been dredging here for 90 years. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: All right. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . , Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 9, AMP Architecture on behalf of THOMAS BRADFORD requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story dwelling, deck, porch, foundation, and septic system; construct a new foundation with a two-story dwelling, covered front porch, rear patio 8" above grade, attached one-story garage, outdoor shower, A/C condensers, two propane tanks; Board of Trustees 33 October 16, 2024 install a gravel driveway; install an I/A system; and install shallow depth drywells. Located: 3755 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-17 The Trustees most recently visited the site on October 9th, ._2024, and noted double check grade changes/fill/ retaining._. .... . walls. None currently pictured. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because the project does not meet the setback requirements. The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with Policy 4 .1, minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. And, (A) , minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. A portion of the single-family residence is proposed within the FEMA flood zone VE Velocity Hazard. The flood zone poses a flood risk. It is recommended that the Board move the single-family dwelling to outside of the structural hazard area. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture. I don't know if it matters, the page I have says I'm Number 8. I don't know if it got changed, but, sorry, for the record. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Your copy says "8"? MR. PORTILLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is that the one you got from the hallway tonight? MR. PORTILLO: I printed it earlier. Maybe it changed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Earlier. I think some things got shifted around a little. MR. PORTILLO: I just didn't want to -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: On the official agenda, you are #9. MR. PORTILLO: Okay, great. So just a quick summary on the project and then I'll get into the comments in regard to the VE Zone. So there is an existing home on the property. We initially did an analysis, do we keep the home, try to keep it under, you know, as a reconstruction. It just didn't, it was not valid for the condition of the home. So then looking like a reconstruction, so we said, okay, it doesn't make sense, because it is in the V Zone, so let's move it back and get it out of the V Zone. So I was surprised to hear that the Board indicated in that report that it was in the V Zone. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That was in the LWRP. MR. PORTILLO: Oh, okay. I apologize. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If I'm looking at the plan here, there is a tiny sliver that it does exceed that zone, the plan that you Board of Trustees 34 October 16, 2024 submitted and stamped received October 4th, 2024 . MR. PORTILLO: So the proposal is to have the home completely out of the V zone and in the X zone. I provided a blowup map of FEMA, just to show the Board. Our site plan is based on the survey. But I just did a quick analysis and. plotted it on the actual FEMA map, and we are actually even more, I think their survey is a little bit off in the sense of where this line is. We are actually even further back from the V zone. The larger maps, just to show the Board where the X zone is, it is a very odd location of zones, but, the proposal is to be in the X Zone and not to have to elevate. And also, because we are demoing the building, it only 'made sense not to build inside of a flood zone. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it sounds like just a slight modification of the plans. MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I was looking at -- TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Shifting it back a little bit. Because there is a discrepancy between what we have that was previously submitted and what you just submitted today. MR. PORTILLO: Again, we based our zone on what the surveyor provides. This analysis is done to show that really the surveyor's a little bit off, in my opinion. But we don't normally go back to a surveyor and tell them how to do their jobs, so we just use their analysis. But I think if you look at our site plan, we are landward of the V zone. We're in the X zone. The corner of that building is landward of that. Then there is an on-grade patio being proposed that is not elevated. Actually, and just a little further into the story here, we had to go to zoning for some of these things. Zoning asked us to remove the deck. We proposed a deck. Remove the deck. And we are proposing just an on-grade patio, that reduced our lot coverage. And some other things, we got rid of the, we had a pyramid relief we were requesting, we got rid of that. So we did some adjustments in regard to what zoning requested. Obviously kept in mind to be ahead of the pier line. So we are behind the pier line. But in all -- but the plan is to be in the X zone, which, as we go to the Building Department that would be shown in our drawings. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So then you could just revise and submit a drawing to the Trustees that would reflect that. Since you are going to do it anyway. MR. PORTILLO: Yeah, I still think that our drawing shows it in the X zone. Maybe I 'm missing what you are saying. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Do you mind just approaching. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So this is what we have submitted in our file. So this is what we are reviewing. MR. PORTILLO: (Indicating) . So this one here. And if you look at this. If you look at the floor plan, if you could actually, i , Board of Trustees 35 October 16, 2024 we plotted it on there as well. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, if you could just go back to the microphone. I think it might be a little clearer. So what we were just looking at was on one page. MR. PORTILLO: Correct. If you look at the floor plank I think-we - plotted it on there as well. The 02 page. Which I think might be a little clearer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what you and I were just looking at is the 01 page. MR. PORTILLO: Correct. So if you look we plotted the FEMA line and the pier line on there to show the house is not seaward of the, or in the V zone. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, again, I think if you can make a small modification, keep it inhouse, and just resubmit that. I think that clears everything up for our Board and the LWRP. MR. PORTILLO: Sure, I'll do that. And just further, too, I just wanted to speak on what we were doing, with like the civil situation. We are doing an 'IA system. We are providing proper drainage, and all leaders will be going to proper drainage. So I think it' s a good project. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Can you speak to the question about retaining ° walls, and any fill -- MR PORTILLO: No, actually our plan for septic, it doesn't have any fill plan. We were able to get everything, we have a low-lying leaching system. We have shallow drywells. No retaining walls proposed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's refreshing to hear. Thank you. MR. PORTILLO: I know you guys. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We are familiar, obviously, with some proposed projects in this neighborhood and often that is part of it. So we just wanted to clarify. MR. PORTILLO: Yes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then is there any sort of, I know we don't have a planting plan, but I do think when the Board was there, we noted that having a couple of trees would be nice to have planted. Native hardwoods. MR. PORTILLO: Sure, we could provide that. Is the thought to be on the seaward side or are you saying more like on the property, on the neighboring property line? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think there is a little bit more room on the seaward side. You know. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Okay, I'll come up with something and speak to the owners. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And Trustee Gillooly just reminded me that we just kind of spoke about a native tree. So if you could be yours and your client's discretion, as long as it's a native tree. MR. PORTILLO: Of course. So I think, I don't know if there's any other questions. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that touches on everything I wanted to bring up. Any other questions or comments from the Board? I j Board of Trustees 36 October 16, 2024 I (Negative response) . Anyone else here wish to speak? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: That there are no retaining walls on the property; to stipulate the addition of two native two to three-inch caliper trees. And that is all subject to -- and subject to new plans showing that the entirety of the house is within the FEMA flood zone X and no longer in FEMA zone VE. With all of that said brings it into consistency with the LWRP by moving the house landward from the existing location, and ensuring that the proposed new house is no longer in the Zone VE. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. PORTILLO: I'm sorry, the caliper size again? TRUSEE PEEPLES: Two to three inches, please. And just native. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardwood. MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, East End Pool King on behalf of SOUNDHAUS HLDGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a swimming pool with raised pool patio, 341x22' retractable deck/pool cover on sliding rail system; install railroad tie retaining walls around proposed raised pool patio; install pool I enclosure fencing, pool drywell and pool equipment area; construct a deck landward of pool patio; install a 71x7 ' spa, install� a 41x4' outdoor shower; install a bbq area, a planter, and a bench. Located: 2635 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94.-1-12.1 The Trustees conducted an inspection October 9th, noting retaining walls to be moved off the property line, and to move the drywell landward. The LWRP found this to be consistent, with a couple of notes. The as-built landings and decks seaward of the top of bluff were denied. An updated survey was required. A 22-foot wide non-turf buffer was required. And it is recommended that the drywell be relocated to maximize the distance from the f bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. DEL VAGLIO: Hi, Jennifer Del Vaglio, representing the Board of Trustees 37 October 16, 2024 client, for Soundhaus. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So could you address, the west side, as far as the retaining wall that is right on the property line. It's been the policy of this Board not to allow retaining walls right -- -- - - -- on the property line due to neighbor concerns. We usually like to see that two to three feet off the property line as well as no higher than two feet. MS. DEL VAGLIO: Glen, can you just give me clarification. When we were on the site, are you talking about the one that is the neighboring property, that' s the concrete wall that has storm water coming out to it? Like what retaining wall? I'm so sorry. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, on plans here stamped received July 18th, 2024, dated 4/1/24, on the west of the pool, west of the patio, there is, it says the proposed retaining wall that runs -- that one. MS. DEL VAGLIO: Oh, oh, okay. So that area right there, if you remember, the property has quite a pitch from the front yard to the rear yard. So what we are looking to do is just shore up that so that it isn't a gradual decline, so that we can use that space for a built-in barbecue, perhaps, in the future. It's there, proposed barbecue area, 11x14. So if we can put in a retaining wall right there, then we can just grade cut that carefully TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm a little confused. I apologize. So that retaining wall does not extend north along the property line? MS. DEL VAGLIO: No. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It' s just that one. Okay. MS. DEL'VAGLIO: Correct. But that's, the dotted line that you are looking at, I think, indicates where the fence is going to go. The retaining wall that we are proposing would just go laterally, you know, from west to east but not back up toward the -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Thank you. I apologize. We were confused. MS. DEL VAGLIO: That' s okay. They should use different lines, dashes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So that' s the only proposed retaining wall in this project? MS. DEL VAGLIO: No, then we are proposing to do a retaining wall around the pool area because we need to get the pool up to one plane. So we are proposing a three-tier eight-inch railroad tie retaining wall. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is that, I'm sorry, is that the dash line with the "X" around it on the plans? MS. DEL VAGLIO: It' s right to the outside of where the "X"s are. The "X"s will be in essence on top of the retaining wall. It would be done out of railroad ties. It would not exceed over 21 inches. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So it does look, to me, unless you can clarify this, that on that west side, I see where you are Board of Trustees 38 October 16, 2024 talking about the proposed retaining wall prior, but now this other three-tiered railroad tie that will go around the entirety of the pool. MS. DEL VAGLIO: Sorry, I guess I should have used highlighters, _. or_ maybe some crayons. The retaining wall is really-..just .to- b_e on the west side and the seaward side. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. MS. DEL VAGLIO: There will be no retaining wall on the east side of the property. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you probably meant east side, not the west side? MS. DEL VAGLIO: Yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so there is no proposed retaining wall on the property line. MS. DEL VAGLIO: No, not at all. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And what about that, the proposed drywell, eight-foot diameter and four-foot deep, that's seaward of everything? MS. DEL VAGLIO: Can I just give you the revised that we are working on right now? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure. MS. DEL VAGLIO: (Handing) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. MS. DEL VAGLIO: So the survey that I gave you was after we got the letter from the LWRP, and we did move it landward per your recommendation on our site visit and to be compliant with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. And one other thing to address would be the LWRP and I think it was the ZBA, as far as the deck and the bluff stairs, that' s on a separate application, correct? Or separate permit that's not part of this? MS. DEL VAGLIO: We have no application in to do anything with the stairs or any of the platforms, but per the ZBA, they've asked us to remove the lower landing and the side platform. Which we are doing. And we have the survey to reflect that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. That was the one you just handed in? MS. DEL VAGLIO: Yes, it should say -- oh, no, it does not. H ave it, so I can submit it to you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding application. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have one more question. Maybe this is on the new plan, Glen, but is there a, what is the dimension from the extended patio to the top of bluff when it's in its extended position? MS. DEL VAGLIO: Are you referring to the deck that slides? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, the sliding patio. MS. DEL VAGLIO: Trustee Goldsmith, that's not on the plan? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think I have that dimension. MS. DEL VAGLIO: It would be about 31 -- hold on. About 47 feet. But it would be within that retaining wall of the railroad ties, Board of Trustees 39 October 16, 2024 before where you see the fence. So it wouldn't exceed that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How is that deck that slides going to be supported and, you know, what action is it going to use to be moved? -- - MS. DEL VAGLIO: So you can do it one of two ways. One,- -you--can - .__ ._..-- do manual or you can do electronic. We are looking to do manual, and it would be on a track system. And the track system would be, that's why we are trying to retain that extra area back there. I can send, of course, the drawings, but we are working on the engineering plans right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are proposing right now a manual track system with bearings and -- MS. DEL VAGLIO: It' s on a rope pulley system, so you pull it open and closed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So then, and I may have missed this earlier, so then you have the note retractable deck/pool cover on sliding rail system. So are the rails, are they exposed when the deck is covering the pool? MS. DEL VAGLIO: Correct. It would be exposed. It' s very similar to if you were doing an automatic cover after a pool installation had happened originally so you can't put it underneath the coping, you would have to put it on top of the patio. So it would be similar to that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So that structure would be visible then seaward of the pool area. MS. DEL VAGLIO: It would be. But it' s a small, like a small, little channel track. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. The reason -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So just one more meas-urement. The closest corner of the retaining wall to the top of the bluff. I see you measure it closer to that 52.3 number. MS. DEL VAGLIO: It would be 41.1. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what we have been discussing is due to the proximity of the bluff here, if there is a way to make all of the structures a minimum of 50-feet away from the top of the bluff, which you are fairly close as now if that pool cover or . whatever was 47, you know, if we could dial that back so we have 50 feet between the tiered retaining wall and the top of the bluff. Just to add more protection for that bluff and give it a little more distance. MS. DEL VAGLIO: On the survey you are looking at, there was a typo for pool, and you'll see it measures the pool at 20'x32' . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. MS. DEL VAGLIO: The measurements, to keep the whole project moving, the measurements we decreased the pool size to actually be 15, so that we could keep the measurements all the same to the bluff line. So we can actually give back five feet. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think that would work then because you are talking about 47 feet prior, so. Okay TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But I think what we were also talking about is Board of Trustees 40 October 16, 2024 the retaining wall being pulled back to 50 feet, which I think was a little bit closer. I also think we want to limit the retaining wall to no higher than two feet. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It would be my understanding, that obviously if have you 15-foot pool as opposed to a 20' pool you don't need as much distance for that cover, so we could dial everything landward of that five feet retaining wall and -- MS. DEL VAGLIO: I can do that and I can stay within the two feet elevation for the retaining wall. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Should we see the updated removal of those structures on the survey, on the bluff, so any of those steps that are going to be removed should also be part of the next submission. MS. DEL VAGLIO: Okay, can I ask one other question. When we were on the property, you know, how they had the walk up to the deck, to the first platform, if you will, is it an appropriate time to ask permission to get that down to grade, if we submitted engineered plans or should we do that at a different time? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think this is the right application for that because we are talking about the pool and everything. So I don't want to further complicate it. MS. DEL VAGLIO: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or comments? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . I'll make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: That all of the structures be a minimum of 50 feet away from the top of the bluff; new plans submitted showing more than 50 feet away from the top of the bluff; showing the seaward most drywell being moved landward; and plans removing the landings and decks in accordance with the ZBA. That is my motion. And the height of retaining wall not to exceed 24 inches. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five- minute recess. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, back on the record. Number 11, Karen Hoeg, Esq. , on behalf of BRENDAN & SARA OSEAN Board of Trustees 41 October 16, 2024 requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing foundation and structures on the property; construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with basement, covered front entry, side entry stoop, seaward side covered porch with deck over, seaward screened porch with deck over, and a/c units; install a new I/A sanitary system; install a private well; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; install a gravel driveway; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 12632 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-8.2 The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the 9th of October. It was an in-house review of the new plans followed up additionally at our work session. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application due to insufficient setbacks. And the LWRP found it to be consistent, but noted that there should be a heftier vegetated buffer due to a ZBA 2010 decision. It should also be noted that within this file are several pages and e-mails and letters from neighboring properties: Sophia Antoniades sent several documents in against the application, for various reasons, that have been reviewed by the Board. Additionally, I'm in receipt of a letter from a Robert Kelly, additionally not in favor of this project. I think that's everyone. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. HOEG: Sure. Karen Hoeg, on behalf of the application. Thank you, for the break, it was obviously well needed. Here with me this evening is Jeff Butler of Butler Engineering. Mr. Butler was also the engineer of record in 2008 on prior applications to the Trustees and ZBA for a prior owner. Also with me is Brendan Osean, the property owner who purchased the property in April of 2021. Some questions were raised by the Board at the two work sessions, and in particular last week's work session relating to the grading and test hole data, and Mr. Butler will discuss those questions. Before turning to Mr. Butler I want to provide the Board with an overview of the project. The application before you is for construction of a new two-story dwelling with a maximum of five bedrooms with rear porches and decks, and new IA sanitary system and private well. There is no garage proposed, although a basement is proposed for storage. The proposed first floor area is 1, 486 square feet. The second floor area is 1, 592 square feet. The property is fully bulkheaded and burdened by a 15-foot right-of-way on the easterly side of the property for access from Main Road. The right-of-way was created as a result of a Zoning Board land division on February 17th, 1972, appeal number Board of Trustees 42 October 16, 2024 1495. The property is 17,532 square feet and is a nonconforming parcel in the R-40 zone. It is also located in flood zone X. The property is currently developed with the remnants of a - - - - - - --foundation which remained after the demolition of the original - - house by a prior owner and is proposed to be removed. The existing well, which is currently located north of the CEHA line on the west side of the property is going to be abandoned, and a new well is proposed on the easterly side of the property, also north of the CEHA line. The challenge in redeveloping this lot due to maintaining the setbacks from wells and the proposed IA sanitary system on the subject property, as well as wells on the neighboring parcels. We sought to have public water, which would have eliminated this issue, however the owner of lot 8 .1, the Antoniades family, which is the northerly lot, declined to permit the applicant to run a public water line through the 15-foot right-of-way. This situation required the applicant to apply to the Health Department Board of Review to obtain a variance due to well sanitary setbacks. The Board of Review issued a determination on February 15th, 2024, granting the variances for the location of the proposed IA sanitary and shallow private well, provided that New York state DEC approval was obtained as well as the Town Wetland permit, and also that there be treatment for excess iron in the well water. Water review noted that the approval is in harmony with the intent to the sanitary code and to protect ground water and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources, public health, safety, and welfare. And a copy of that decision is included with the application. The house location was driven by the installation of the IA sanitary system, and maximizing the system as far from the bay and neighboring wells as possible. A statement was made at the work session that the house was large for a lot this size. And for the record it complies with building and lot coverage. Proposed building coverage is 14.87% based upon buildable land area landward of the CEHA line where 20% is permitted, and it also complies with gross floor area. The proposed house also complies with the dimensional regulations for height and pyramid. In March of 2023, the Town Building Permits Examiner advised that the project can be reviewed under the former Town Zoning Codes, and no variances were needed. On October 2nd we submitted a revised site plan, last revised September 22nd, 2024, which provided the pier line to adjacent primary and accessory structures, so that the Board can see that the easterly property's primary structure is closer to the bulkhead and that the proposed house complies with pier Board of Trustees 43 October 16, 2024 lines. The revised site plan also shows spot elevations. Comments were also made at an earlier work session about view impacts, and I just want to note for the record that New York state does not recognize an easement for light, air or_ view, except where created by express agreement. Although it is well settled under New York state law that one does not have a legal right to a view, the applicant took great care locating the house so that it sits well behind the adjacent waterfront lots so that their impact to the bay is diminished and would not be impeded by the construction of the home. I have some aerials that I would like to hand up to the Board showing the property in relation to neighboring properties. The neighbor to the west has several trees along the property line providing a buffer between the Osean property and the property to the west. The westerly property view at 12500 Main Road is also shown in a 2022 Trustees application for administrative permit number 10180-A for renovations to their home. An 18-foot vegetated buffer is also part of that application. To put the application in context, it's helpful to understand the history of the property. This property has been before the ZBA and the Trustees as far back as 2008. The Trustees on July 23rd, 2008, issued a permit to renovate and construct additions to the existing dwelling, and upgrade the sanitary system with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. The ZBA granted a variance number 6367, dated August 26th, 2010, for demolition and reconstruction of the single-family house, less than the code required, ten foot on the side yard and less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead. The Board granted a variance of 55 feet -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, we try to limit things to five minutes and we are really kind of getting deep into it here. And a lot of this the Board has already read and is in the file. MS. HOEG: All right, so I'll just make a couple of other comments that, you know, the Board in their prior, the Zoning Board in their prior, the Zoning Board in their prior decision said that there will be no adverse impacts and environmental or physical conditions if gutters and leaders are installed and tied into a drywell. And they required a 50-foot buffer be installed. LWRP dated August 8th, 2024, noted consistency with the requirement of the 15-foot vegetated buffer. There was a DEC letter of non-jurisdiction dated October 8th, 2021, which has been submitted. And before I turn it over to Mr. Butler, the applicant is in compliance with Section Board of Trustees 44 October 16, 2024 275-11 for the following reasons: Drainage is proposed to be maintained on site to prevent storm water runoff. Erosion control features such as silt fencing is proposed. Compliance with the pier lines so that the project is not closer to the bay -- - --- than the neighboring parcels. the 15-foot buffer area is proposed and previously agreed to by prior regulatory boards. The project also complies with Town Code section 275-12, and there is no adverse impact to town wetlands. And it's consistent, as I said, with LWRP. There is no evidence that the project will substantially cause damage from erosion. There is no cause of salt water intrusion into the freshwater resources of the Town. There is no evidence of any adverse impact to fish, shellfish or marine organisms or an increase in danger of flood and storm tide damage as the property is not -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt again. You are making these statements that it's for the Board to decide if there is any of those under our code which you reading directly out of are impacted. MS. HOEG: Yes, I understand that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are making statements into the record that there is none of those. Direct statements. Which, again, that' s for the Board to decide, and it's being read directly out of our code which is in front of and is for us to review. MS. HOEG: Understood. One point I just wanted to also make is on the plans that were recently submitted in October, it indicates a ten-foot non-turf buffer when it should have been revised to state 15. So I' ll turn this over to Mr. Butler for further comment. MR. BUTLER: Good evening, Members of the Board, Jeff Butler on behalf of the applicant. As counsel had said, I'm the engineer of record for the site plan, and I'm here to answer any questions or concerns you might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good evening. MR. BUTLER: Good evening. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So in reviewing the plans, are there, in terms of could you speak onto the record in terms of grade change or retaining walls needed for the project. MR. BUTLER: There are no retaining walls needed. The grade changes to the site, we are going to generate with the new construction about 300 cubic yards of clean material. There is an existing foundation area needs to be removed and filled in. And then there is some minor grade changes to create positive drainage away from the house, probably from the foundation six feet out, to create positive drainage so that the drainage system works. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Butler, can you comment on the depth for the sanitation, IA system? This is, not just in this instance, but this is something that comes up in front of this Board all Board of Trustees 45 October 16, 2024 the time. What is the minimum depth that you need? MR. BUTLER: It's dependent upon the system and the size and the galleys. The IA systems can actually go into groundwater and can be anchored. The galley separation distance to groundwater - ---is- dependent upon the lot. And in this case we have I believe two-and-a-half foot deep galleys, and then below that we have proper separation to highest expected ground water. Now, the test holes show ground water at NAVD deviated elevation one. This groundwater on this property is tidal. That was taken, I think the dwell time was probably two or three hours after high tide. We use, and that's typical for this coastline where we have tidal water. The Health Department accepts that. We use two feet above that for our design to get that extra buffer. I do the same thing for any sort of footings or slabs on basements. We just give it an extra two feet to create that separation distance between groundwater and any structure. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you would not need to bring any fill or retaining walls in order to install the leaching galleys. MR. BUTLER: No. No. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, what is the distance on top of a leaching galley? How much do you need? MR. BUTLER: You need about twelve inches. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Twelve inches above, three feet below. MR. BUTLER: Yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So one of the concerns that the Board has with the project is, I mean, and thank you for answering the questions with regards to grade and sanitary. And certainly we can appreciate with a house that you need a functioning sanitary. And one thing that might not be a necessity though would be a basement, a full basement on a property such as this. You know, we are seeing sea level rise at minimum, approximately, you know, to this Board it seems a little bit more, but some of the averages have been an inch a decade. But regardless, we are seeing more perched water, we're seeing more aggressive storm surges, higher tidal range. I think with a property, and I don't know if this is for you to answer or not, but for a property such as this it doesn't seem appropriate to have a full basement. MR. BUTLER: When you say a full basement, we have a basement, it's only seven feet tall. My slab elevation, as I stated to the client, we are 3.7 feet above groundwater today. And that's, this is a tidal groundwater. So that is higher than the existing house that is still there with the slab that is there now, and I'm pretty sure it' s higher than the adjoining, the houses within that neighborhood, that it' s probably two or three feet higher. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to be clear, when you say existing house you are talking about a concrete slab, not an existing -- Board of Trustees 46 October 16, 2024 MR. BUTLER: Correct. The slab height that was there for decades. Now, without the ability to have a garage, the storage is somewhat important and the design was driven from groundwater to reasonable buffer, to slab, to height of basement, .to height of_ -- - --- --- -- house. That was part of the whole design thought that went into this. And as Karen had stated our Health Department approval dictates that we have treatment. So we need a place for treatment and he needs a place for some moderate storage. So the seven-foot basement is what we feel is a solution. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you do have Health Department approval? MR. BUTLER: We have Health Department approval subject to approval from this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're saying you need the basement for treatment with the sanitary equipment? MR. BUTLER: We need a place to put that equipment. So it would be nice to have the basement to do it, to put it down there. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is it reasonable to assume that you could also find space on the first floor of this home to store the equipment and also maybe some closets for storage? MR. BUTLER: It may be reasonable. I don't know the? Size and extent of this equipment. We just know we have a solution from Mermaid Water for the treatment system. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And the dimensions you have been referring to with regard to the sanitary system and the basement in terms of the depths that are available, is that based on the test hole location? MR. BUTLER: It' s based on the test hole, yes. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so the test hole location is on the landward side of the basement. What happens as you get further seaward? MR. BUTLER: Well, I could, like I said, the ground water is tidal. So we also know, from our work with the Health. Department, and from the ground water management maps, the ground water flow is to the southwest. So that would mean as we go further south, the distance to ground water is going to increase because water flows downhill. So the distance to groundwater, as we go closer to the water, would be greater than where it was where I took the test hole. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. MR. BUTLER: But given the small distance that we are talking about between one end of the house and the other end of the house, it would be like measuring the height of your water in your swimming pool at one end and going to the other. You are not going to find a difference because it's tidal. It's in direct communication. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for answering that question. I think you probably get kind of an understanding of the theme here, which is concern of the basement and concern of, you know, additional structure that is underground being with this close Board of Trustees 47 October 16, 2024 proximity to the shoreline. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Butler, it looks like there is a drywell, I believe, located in the 15-foot right-of-way, on the east side. MR. BUTLER: Correct, yes. -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would there be any way, due to the contentious nature of this property, . of moving that out of the right-of-way? MR. BUTLER: It potentially could be. We have separations to deal with between the wetlands. It probably could. Likely could be. If you saw that -- what would the reason be? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe probably somebody else is going to speak out against that proposed dry well so -- MR. BUTLER: I would find a home for it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: To be clear, this is the proposal. It is a two-story five-bedroom home, 55 feet from the bulkhead on this property; is that correct? MR. BUTLER: That's correct. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So in our code, the recommended setback is 100 feet for a living structure. 55 feet is obviously seeking a lot of relief from that recommended setback. Would you agree with that? MS. HOEG: Yes, and that was all subject to prior approvals with the Town. So that setback is what we have been working off based upon that precedent. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Prior approvals with this Board? MS. HOEG: Not -- we -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, because what I'm referring to is the code we operate under, which is the Chapter 275. So that' s what I'm asking. MS'. HOEG: Right, so there was a prior ZBA approval and there was a prior Trustee approval back in 2008 -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Which is no longer valid. MS. HOEG: Well, I guess that's a point to disagree with. But the Zoning Board decision which granted the variance relief that we -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And they perform a separate review from this Board, so let' s just be clear on that as well. MS. HOEG: Well, I 'm very clear of what the different setbacks are and what the different jurisdictions are between the different regulatory boards. So, as I said, the Zoning Board previously had approved 55 feet and that the Trustees at that time also approved the location with a ten-foot buffer. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you just confirm for me please that this proposed house is landward of the pier line of the adjacent houses? MS. HOEG: So what we've done on the resubmitted survey, the revised survey, we have shown the pier line. My copy has Board of Trustees 48 October 16, 2024 highlighted versions. So if it's easier for you to see, because I know there' s a lot going on, it' s a pier line from the adjacent properties on the westerly and the easterly side, as well as we did a pier line to the accessory structures just so - -- --- - -- - that it was very clear that we were behind the pier -line, -on- the- landward side of the pier line. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And for how long has there been no functioning home on this property? MS. HOEG: I would say prior to the Osean purchase in 2021. So maybe 2010? MR. BUTLER: Might have been 2010. Taking a guess. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. ANTONIADES: Good evening, Mr. President Goldsmith, members of the Trustees, Hon. Hulse and Ms. Cantrell. I do have some documents to forward up to you just in case you didn't get the multiple e-mails. My' name is Sophia Antoniades and I'm here on behalf of the owners of 12500 Main Road, which is myself and my husband; the owners of 12580 Main Road, which is myself, my husband, my son Nicholas and daughter Donna; and Country House By The Bay, which is 12680. Main Road, to formally object to any permits or approvals regarding the proposed two-story single-family dwelling at 12632 Main Road. There are four properties that surround this, the Osean property, and on the south side is the bay. The main loads does not cut across. So all four properties touch the perimeter of the property. The parcel identified as lot 8 .2 has had its permits revoked by the Town and according to the ZBA decision 6367, lost it's pre-existing non-conforming status in 2010. And the previous owner was required to rebuild the demolished structure within one year, a deadline that has long since passed. Our family, along with the new neighbor, lot 15, will be significantly impacted by the new construction on this lot. And the approval of permits by the Trustees is critical to a variance tentative approval the applicant seeks from the Suffolk County Department of Health. The Department of Health has received numerous letters outlining errors in the applicant's submissions, and I have to file multiple FOIL requests and appeals to obtain relevant documents, many of which were provided late and were incomplete. And additionally, I believe the Department may be in violation of federal mail fraud statute due to these issues. We never received the letter dated February 28th from the Suffolk County Department of Health, which was part of the applicant' s wetlands application. The letter distribution list includes eleven participants, three of whom are the neighboring properties for which I handle Board of Trustees 49 October 16, 2024 the mail, and none of us received a letter. Was this omission intentional? The Suffolk County Department of Health has agreed to a variance waiver for a new well on this parcel, however they have ____..___.__.__._. .....__... .._ --overlooked the fact that the lot lacks approved subdivision documents or buildable status. There is no option for a variance waiver in this case. And the history of this lot is that in 1981 the Suffolk County tax map records indicates a single deed which remained unchanged until the death of Perry Winkle -- Perry Huchol (sic) in 2004, and according to the Southold Planning Board there are no records supporting this parcel's approval as a subdivision when granted in 1972. And evidence has been previously submit to the Board. The Suffolk County Department of Health has failed to adhere to the Suffolk County sanitary code 760-604 . No property owner shall sell any parcel unless a proper pre-approved sell offer for sale of any parcel unless prior department approval has been obtained for the existing or proposed water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Exception to this is that the premise shall be demolished and shall not be occupied after the property transfer. It is clear in the sanitary code that if a piece of property is sold without Suffolk County Health Department approvals, the intention is for this property to be transferred and not utilized as a building lot. So sadly, whoever purchased this property did not find out that it doesn't have sanitary code approvals in place. The code explicitly states that any lots not recognized by the Town shall not receive building permits and development entitlements. And I ask you to accept this letter as evidence of a poorly executed plans. We have been submitting documents, correcting the plans of Mr. Butler, the surveyor and the attorney on this parcel. This is, the package I just submitted to you is the latest based on the plans uploaded into the system of,-October, 2024 . I had submitted a previous letter in August indicating other issues with the plans. Here are some of the specific concerns. First of all, 12832, lot 15, does not have legal public water. The Suffolk County Department of Health has failed to acknowledge that it does not have legal public water. I have brought to the attention of the Suffolk County Health Department that there is a legal well that is operational at the old Clancy (sic) property. I do have photographs of it. It does activate from time to time. In addition, the Clancy property, which no longer is the Clancy property, was sold yesterday. It has water service trespassing from the property on the north side of The Country House By The Bay, and a cease and desist letter has been issued to the owners, the Clancy's, regarding that water service line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry to interrupt, ma'am. But, again, we Board of Trustees 50 October 16, 2024 are four minutes into what we try to stick to is about five minutes. And we are really, we need to focus on this application specifically, and we are really dealing with the, you know, the environmental impacts and basically Chapter 275, which sticks to - - - - the code, which we have not really touched on from what we-are - - - hearing from you right now. MS. ANTONIADES: So the impact that this, the building of this property will have, is substantial to the neighboring properties because the Suffolk County Health Department didn't take into consideration the true representation of the neighboring properties. So the most recent errors I found on the Butler drawings that were uploaded in October are the test hole differences. Why is it that in August the plans show a difference of three-foot elevation to the test hole data and now they show a two-foot difference to the test hole data? I request that everything is reviewed but by a professional engineer, and perhaps the Board can hire a consultant to be paid by the applicant to go through these documents, because there are many inconsistencies to these documents. I have also, our family has also performed our own test hole just the other day on our property, and the ground water levels in this area are found to be eight feet below the surface area and that is at the area near the Osean driveway. According to daily records of the test holes that are just east of this property, the water, the surface, the ground water actually varies up to four feet up and down. So the eight-foot water table can go up, can go as deep as 12-feet or as high as four feet. Thus I'm not sure what impact all that will have to the IA system and all of the leaching pools. The driveway also seems to have a drain that is going to accommodate and catch all of the water, the runoff water, but it doesn't seem to have any place to go as there is no tank installed that would sufficiently accommodate additional runoff. And the sanitary pipe that' s coming out of the house seems to be higher than the driveway elevations. The elevations on the property, on the drawings, especially the preliminary drawing that was submitted just the other day, indicates that the current conditions are at an elevation of ten. But that is not the case. The preliminary drawing shows that the existing grade is 1015", where in actuality according to other maps they have submitted is 8166" . So my argument is that there, everything looks just fine on paper but it' s not going to work. There is not enough space for everything. The lot is barely 10, 000 square feet, and it would be overburdening to all of the four neighbors. Additionally, the property on lot, 15 was just sold yesterday. I highly doubt that the new owners are aware that there is a hearing and I do request that the new owners are also notified by the applicant that a house is going to be built or Board of Trustees 51 October 16, 2024 is trying to be built next to them. I'm sure they are going to submit letters of protest themselves. And we iterate and request that the Board obtain the services of an independent professional consultant as allowed by -. the Southold Town code 275-7, to follow through with an_ independent analysis to handle this application, because it's inconsistently representing the facts and has misrepresentations to the Board, and given the history of the property and extensive opposition submitted by multiple neighbors, it is necessary because of the impact the development will have. Thank you, for this opportunity. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Butler one question, you are a professional engineer? MR. BUTLER: Yes, I am. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you stamp these plans? MR. BUTLER: Yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you said you have pending Health Department approval? MR. BUTLER: That's correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Subject to the approval from this Board. MR. BUTLER: Yes. Thank you. MR. ANTONIADES: Good evening, my name is Michael Antoniades, I am the owner of 12500. So you understand, the pipe, the sanitary pipe leaving this building is above the existing driveway. So they are raising the elevation over two feet. Now whatever the same is a little slow. Over two-feet plus they raising the easement when they putting the IA system. And they are having a big hump in the easement. And no work supposed to be done in the easement. Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Mr. Butler, are you raising the grade two feet and is the sanitary pipe coming out two feet above the current elevation? MR. BUTLER: The sanitary pipe is coming out below grade. The grade in the front of the house where the sanitary is, is being adjusted a few inches to meet their grade on the property to the " north. Not two feet. Probably six inches or so. The grade, I think in NAVDAV8, when you compare the two surveys, they're probably six inches delta. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So are you proposing to bring in fill? MR. BUTLER: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did discuss earlier there will be some fill generated from the basement. That' s right. MS. HOEG: I just wanted to submit to the Board for the record the last notice of incomplete application from the Health Department. I mean, we were there for over two years between the applications and the Board of Review and the notice of Board of Trustees 52 October 16, 2024 incomplete states that the only thing pending is the DEC letter of non-jurisdiction and Trustee approval. So I can just submit it for the record. MR. ANTONIADES: For the record, the elevation for the drain pipe _.. coming out of the building is about six, eight, seven, I think.. .._... .. The elevation that they have on the drawings is about the same height. The existing elevations, you can look at the drawings that he submitted is right there. If you see the elevation of the existing pipe, the new pipe that comes out of the building, it has even elevation. If you can see that. It' s right there. And then they have existing elevations on the driveways and the easement. It' s less and the pipe they are talking about. If I remember correctly it was maybe eight eight seven, even elevation, and the existing elevations and the easement is eight six six. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. OSEAN: Good evening, I'm Brendan Osean, and I'm the owner of 12632 Main Road. Thank you, to the Board for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'll keep it brief. I just wanted to provide a little bit of context around the whole situation. There is a lot going on here. It' s a very complicated process, as everybody in the room can see. We purchased the property in March of '21. We were out there August of '21. So that' s a little over three years ago. It's me, my wife and three daughters. We went out, we were on the north fork, to check it out, talk about what we're going to, be doing and getting excited about it. We were there for an hour, and then we left. Five minutes down the road Ms. Antoniades called my wife. Oh, we'd like to meet you. My husband saw you there. How far are you, oh, come back, we'd like to meet you and say hello. We went, said hello, we went to the backyard of their home. Ms. Antoniades asked our daughters to go to the swing set and play. MS. HULSE: Sir, can you just keep your comments specifically to the application. MR. OSEAN: Okay. I'll be extremely brief. MS. HULSE: It doesn't necessarily have to be extremely brief. It has to be pertaining to the application. MR. OSEAN: Okay. Everything that has been done for over three years has been the effort to not allow us to build, and it' s not to keep the lot vacant, as Ms. Antoniades insinuates. It is, she told us flat out, she tried to buy .the lot. The seller would not sell it to them. They tried to buy it through other people. They tried to use an alias. She said she wanted it for her daughter. It was a dream for her daughter to have that lot. I can't imagine that was to just leave it empty. I think it was to have a house. At the end she said we will never give you the chance to have water. We are going to fight. You are not going to be Board of Trustees 53 October 16, 2024 able to build a house on this lot. We would like to buy it from you. And that was it. I just wanted to share that for a little bit of context. I appreciate what you're evaluating, and there is a lot of complexity to it. I respect that. But, thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be clear, we are not going to get into a back and forth. MS. ANTONIADES: Not at all, not at all, not at all. Not at all. The, most of the Town understands that my husband and I are preservationists. I would never build on that lot, but that's, you know. I'm protecting the lot, and the according .to the sanitary code that lot should not be buildable, according to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that lot should not be buildable. According to the sanitary code, there is access to public water. Public water is available within 250 feet. By the Suffolk County Health Department offering this variance or granting this variance, it is bypassing the natural order of things. The reason, whether they obtain public water through the property that we have or not, is part of the natural order. And a variance is violating the natural order, and the code. Thank you. MR. OSEAN: If I can just say one thing. That the first thing we did in the whole process was to offer, even that day or that encounter I just described, was to offer, to request that they allow us to access public water through their lot, and that we would pay to connect them as well, and that would be what is best, environmentally, water quality, land, and everything else. That would be the best. And that's been denied over and over. So I'm just having trouble with the commentary on how there is public water. The way to get it would be through the northerly lot. And it was impossible. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application or any additional comments from the Members of the Board? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: My only comment would be that I believe this house could be made smaller and pulled further back from the wetlands, and it would have a significant impact in terms of danger from flood and storm tide damage. I think 55 feet from the bulkhead here, in a very shallow area is not a lot of setback, and I think there is some work that could be done to make the house smaller and dial it back. So that' s just for the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, hearing no additional comments, I 'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: .Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trutsee Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Trustee Gillooly, nay) . Board of Trustees 54 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You don't want to close the hearing? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No, I would vote no on that because I would rather table the application for further work. So given that I believe this will adversely affect the danger of flood and storm ---- - --- — ----- -tide damage, I believe there is more work to be done, so I would- vote no to closing the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the entirety of the property to be non-turf buffer, with a minimum of 50% to be vegetated with native species, and submission of a planting plan to include a minimum of three hardwood native species trees. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Trustee Gillooly, nay) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So that concludes the hearing on that application, if you want, any other further. MS. HOEG: I just have a quick question regarding the re-vegetation plan or landscape plan and -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can reach out to the office tomorrow. MS. HOEG: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of ROSS & TARA BALTIC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 143 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing and raised height to 8 inches above existing top cap; install a proposed 3' wide by 18 ' long aluminum ramp to a 6' x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and supported with two (2) 10" diameter cca treated piles; all decking and top caps to be un-treated lumber or composite materials. Located: 370 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-13. 1 The Trustees were at the site on October 9th, 2024 . Notes read: Need a buffer. The Conservation Advisory Council in their review of the application supported it. And the LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent, provided that turbidity controls are required. Is there anyone in the public who wishes to speak regarding the application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And I'm just seeing what house is first. 370. Yes, as far as the buffer goes, the issue is here there is no vegetation. The entire backyard is a deck, which I believe would potentially fall within that buffer requirement. There's not going to be any runoff from any fertilizers, there' s not going to be any erosion, and it' s such a small backyard that it's going to be tough to put any sort of a vegetated buffer in this location. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are we looking at the same plans, Jeff? Board of Trustees 55 October 16, 2024 MR. PATANJO: Probably not. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I don't see a deck. MR. PATANJO: Yeah, we're looking at different plans. Oh, it's a walkway. You're right. Oh, we can do a buffer. Ten-foot wide - non-turf buffer along the -- ....... - - - - - TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak to this application? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do have a question about the height. Since you are raising eight inches above the existing top cap, there is that catwalk which I think may have been a little bit of that discrepancy just now. So the catwalk will stay at its current location, correct? It will not increase in height? MR. PATANJO: Correct, yes. And I'm also doing the application 540, which is one house to the north of this one so they are going up the same exact elevation. We are going to match heights. So, yes, it will remain at the same elevation. 250? MR. PATANJO: Yes, 250. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for the clarification. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is the bulkhead going up, with the catwalk, Trex walk, depicted on the plans staying the same. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's what he just confirmed. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sorry, I didn't hear that. All right, any other comments from the Board or members of the public wish to speak? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with new plans depicting the ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the seaward edge of this tax parcel TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROSS & TARA BALTIC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 110 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing and raised 8 inches above existing top cap. Located: 250 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-11 The Trustees most recently visited the site on October 9th, noting what are they proposing for line across boat basin, and needs a non-turf buffer. The CAC reviewed this application and resolved to support it. And the LWRP found this application to be consistent. Board of Trustees 56 October 16, 2024 Is there anyone here wishing to speak? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The line across the boat basin is merely the property line. That's all that is. That shows that this site is within that property. And we will continue, as with the application prior to ___ ____ _ this one, which was for 370, we will continue the ten-foot wide non-turf buffer around the bulkhead line. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll make a motion to approve this application subject to a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the edge of the bulkhead, and new plans depicting same. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. & FISHERMANS BEACH, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 30 linear feet of existing deteriorating timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing, and temporarily remove and reinstall existing permitted ramp and floating dock off bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 420 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-15 The Trustees most recently visited this site on October 9th, 2024, and noted plan to show 15-foot buffer and okay. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. And the LWRP finds that this application is consistent and noted the following: Turbidity controls are required. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, and we will modify the plans to include a 15-foot wide non-turf buffer, in lieu of the ten-foot wide that is shown on the plans. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So the plans have a ten-foot, we just want to make that consistent, because we would prefer that. Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak or any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Board of Trustees 57 October 16, 2024 Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application,_ .__. subject to new plans showing a 15-foot wide non-turf buffer that is included in the description but that is not currently on the plans, and to condition turbidity controls on this project. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PETER SABAT requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling and deck with existing foundation to remain and re-used for construction of a new two-story dwelling in same footprint with a landward addition, a front covered porch, a south addition, a new screened porch to a covered porch on south side, two new roofed over porches with decks above; existing seaward deck to be removed and replaced with an irregularly shaped bluestone patio; new connecting bluestone patio to the west leading to a pool patio with a proposed in-ground swimming pool, spa and kitchen area; demolish existing garage and construct new three-car garage with attached pool house, covered patio, and enclosed outdoor shower; install pool enclosure fencing, two A/C pads and pool equipment; existing sanitary system to be replaced with a new low-nitrogen I/A style system-installed landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-disturbance buffer area with a 4' wide access path to the dock along the landward edge of wetlands; all existing trees will be preserved and there will be no removal of any wetland vegetation. Located: 3000 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-17.1 The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 9th, noting need to add a ten-foot non-turf buffer to the edge of the existing 15-foot non-disturbance buffer. There's a question on the elevation of the pool, if it's on-grade or not. And what is the transition from the deck to the new patio. The LWRP found this to be consistent. It is recommended that the existing trees be preserved. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regardingithis application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I'll answer a few questions and call up Fred Weber, the architect, to answer a couple of other questions. As far as trees to remain, that is noted on the submitted Board of Trustees 58 October 16, 2024 plans as the Town of Southold Trustee notes, which is note number one, all existing trees to remain. The owner of the property has no objection to adding an additional ten-foot wide non-turf buffer on the landward side of the 15-foot wide non-disturbance buffer. And I'll call up Fred Weber to answer some information regarding the pool elevation and something else you said. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Transition from the deck to the patio. MR. PATANJO: Yes. MR. WEBER: Good eveing, I 'm Fred Weber, the architect for the project. So, there are no decks any more. That deck is being, actually, if you look at the drawings, existing wood deck replaced with bluestone patio, same footprint. So there is no transition. It's at the same level. But the patio is down a foot below the house elevation, so the patio is at elevation ten feet. So on the landward side it would basically be at grade. The other side is probably a foot-and-a-half out of grade. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So when you say "the other side, " are we talking the seaward side? MR. WEBER: The seaward side, correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So a foot-and-a-half on the seaward side tapered to on-grade landward. MR. WEBER: Right. The eight-foot contour, you can see, the eight foot contour is probably, I don't know, ten feet in front of the pool. So it probably will grade up another six inches or so to the pool. MR. PATANJO: I think, to clarify that a little bit. There will be approximately one foot or so exposed foundation wall or brick wall along the face of the pool. Just in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, we are seeing more and more of these and we discussed these prior about these in-ground that are not actually in-ground, and they are going up and up and up. And it' s a very bizarre thing. But I think if it was limited to, you know, a foot or less, I think, I mean we are getting pretty close to what we would want to see there. MR. PATANJO: We can place the condition that the pool, there will be no exposed foundation for the pool or patio over one foot in height. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you removing any trees for this project? MR. WEBER: I don't think so. No, I don't think so, no. The area to the south of the house is, I guess you guys were there, is a clear, open lawn. So I don't think we are going as far as any trees. MR. PATANJO: If any trees are removed we can add a condition and note that we'll replace one-for-one with a six-inch caliper tree. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Six inch? MR. PATANJO: No, four inch. Sorry. Four inch. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Native. Board of Trustees 59 October 16, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any questions or comments from the Board? - (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: To add a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the 15-foot non-disturbance buffer. To maintain all trees. Any trees that are removed a conditioned of two-to-one native tree replacement with two to three-inch caliper. Conditioned that the foundation of the pool and the patio not to exceed one foot in height. Also subject to new plans, and the new plans also need to show the pier line. That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. WEBER: Can I get a clarification on the pier line? MR. PATANJO: I'll clarify it. MR. WEBER: I know what the pier line is but I'm just saying if the neighbor has a pool, what do you need as a -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's living structure. MR. WEBER: It doesn't include pools -- it' s living structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our attorney is yelling at us not to have this conversation right now. MS. HULSE: It's defined in the code. MR. WEBER: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of KP REALTY OF GREENPORT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit for removing 1, 108sq. ft. Of existing grade-level masonry patio and 179sq.ft. Area of landscape retaining walls; construct 736 sf of "upper" masonry patio, 18 .5 ' x 46' swimming pool with 50 sf hot tub, 410 sf of "lower" grade-level masonry pool patio, and associated steps and planters; construct 18 ' x 23.5 ' roofed-over open accessory structure, consisting of unenclosed, covered patio (to remain unenclosed) , stone wall for outdoor fireplace, outdoor kitchen, and 16.33' x 21.84' subfloor/basement for pool equipment/storage; remove 34 if of existing stone retaining wall and construct +31.5 if of new +2 .7-ft high stone retaining wall; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50-foot wide non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to wetlands boundary, replacing approximately 3, 850 sf of existing lawn with native plantings and allowing for 4-foot wide cleared access path. Board of Trustees 60 October 16, 2024 Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12.11. The Trustees most recently reviewed this application at work session on October 10th, noted that there were new plans and additional changes, to include a reference that the docking structure was not included, and submission of anything for__this_ -- I'll read what it says about the docking structure into the record. MR. HERRMANN: Nick, if that's the prior plan, I just gave hardcopies to Liz. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just got it. Thank you. New plans stamped received by the office October 16th, 2024, read: Above the docking structure this site plan is in no way intended to establish, change or otherwise address the permit status of the existing dock or any of the existing structures unrelated to the proposed structure depicted herein. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this. And the LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Looking to hear from Tyler specifically. MR. HERRMANN: I was going to say off the record, I know the Mets are in the first inning so I'm going to make this brief. I did provide a letter that explained the modifications since the last plan, but the long story short to this is that at the last hearing the Board had two primary requests. One was to confirm that the covered patio/accessory structure, was zoning compliant. And we were also requested specifically to reduce the seaward extent of that same accessory structure to align with the seaward edge of the pool. These revised plans have been modified at the landward side in response to requests by the Building Department to create that zoning compliance. More relevant to this Board, the seaward extent of that accessory structure has in fact been pulled back. The seaward depth has been reduced by seven-and-a-half feet such that the seaward edge of that accessory structure now aligns with the originally proposed seaward edge of the pool, exactly as the Board had requested it at the last hearing and I believe reiterated in no uncertain terms during a subsequent site inspection. So we hope that you will find that we have revised the plans consistent with your request on those two notes. Also, the exempt language regarding the dock. And I think also Trustee Peeples had a fourth request that we had language to the accessory structure labeled to indicate that the unenclosed covered patio will remain unenclosed. Which we also anticipated would be a condition of any permit that the Board might grant. So with that, I can answer any questions the Board has, but hopefully .again you'll find that it took us longer than we hoped Board of Trustees 61 October 16, 2024 it would take. but we did get where you asked us to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishing to speak regarding this application or any additional comments from the Members of the Board? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Rob, for your time and study on this. I would say at the end of the day it is in line with what the Board was thinking. There still is an incredible amount of structure that is proposed as a part of this project, but I do think that you pulled together a project that was based on the Board' s feedback prior. MR. HERRMANN: Good. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the new plans stamped received by the office October 16th, 2024, which includes the unenclosed patio, with the addition of screening along the wall, along the south side of the property to complement the existing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Respectfully submitted by, 4-- U - Glenn Adsmith,"President Board of Trustees