Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/18/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President *OF S�(/jy Town Hall Annex A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President r h�V� ��� 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski l l Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641 couffm BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes .Wednesday, December 18, 2024 :JAN 17 2025 5:30 PM Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President souoid T�.-un Clerk 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, December 18th, 2024 meeting. At this time, I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance is recited) . I would like to start off by announcing the people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have the attorney to the Trustees, the Hon. Lori Hulse. We have Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell. We us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. From the Conservation Advisory Council we have John Chandler. And from the Town Board sitting in the audience is Brian Mealy. Agendas for tonight' s meeting are out in the hallway, and also posted on the Town's website. We do have a number of postponements tonight. The postponements are in the agenda on page four, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, numbers two and three, as follows: 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 10'x10' top platform flush with surrounding grade to a 41x4 ' upper walk to 4'xl6' steps to a 41x4' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 41x16' steps to a 41x4 ' platform to 41x4' steps to a Board of Trustees 2 December 18, 2024 4 'x4 ' platform to 41x16' steps to a 41x6' platform and 4 'x8 ' retractable aluminum stairs to beach. Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77 Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STERLING BRENT REAL ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NEMETZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 10'x10' deck (flush with surrounding grade) at top of bluff to a 41x4' top platform to 41x8' steps down to a 4 'x4 ' middle platform to 41x7 ' steps to a 41x4 ' lower platform with 3'x6' retractable aluminum steps to beach; all decking to be un-treated timber. Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6 And on page nine, numbers 18 and 19, as follows: Number 18, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of THE WILLIAM E. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o WILLIAM E. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE & THE KAREN B. GOYDAN REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST, c/o KAREN B. GOYDAN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing two-story dwelling, detached garage and other surfaces on the property; construct a new 3, 287sq.ft. Footprint (5, 802sq.ft. Gross floor area) two-story, single-family dwelling with an 865sq.ft. Seaward covered patio, 167sq.ft. Side ' screened-in covered patio, east bluestone covered porch, and 149sq.ft. Front covered bluestone porch; construct a proposed swimming pool and hot tub with a 1,357sq.ft. Bluestone pool patio surround, pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, and a drywell for pool backwash; construct a 752sq.ft. Two-story detached garage, gravel driveway and parking areas; and to install an I/A septic system. Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-2 . 1 Number 19, AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 9/10/24 AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHANIE PERL requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story dwelling with seaward covered patio; existing shed; remove existing paver patio, existing rear stone patio, driveway, masonry walkways and front porch; construct two (2) one-story additions; construct a front covered porch; reconstruct and enlarge rear raised stone patio area with outdoor BBQ area and an in-ground pool; install pool enclosure fencing and pool equipment area; install three (3) drywells; reconstruct gravel driveway; as-built outdoor shower, generator and a/c condensers; approximately 112.09 cubic yard of earth to be excavated for the additions with all fill not reused to be removed from property. Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43 Those are postponed for this evening. Under Town Code 275-8 (c) , files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of the application. I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time, I 'll make a motion to hold our next field inspection on Wednesday, January 8th, 2025, at 8:00 Board of Trustees 3 December 18, 2024 AM. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 January 15th, 2025, at 5:30 PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . III. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our organizational meeting Monday, January 6, 2025, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IV. WORK SESSIONS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work session, Monday, January 13th, 2025, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, January 15th, 2025 at 5:00 PM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . V. MINUTES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 16th, 2024 meeting and the November 13th, 2024 meetings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . VI. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Roman numeral VI, the Trustees monthly report for November 2024. A check for $30,534 .34 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. VII. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VII, Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. Board of Trustees 4 December 18, 2024 VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental Quality Reviews, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 18, 2024 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are listed as follows: Chris & Heather Masotto SCTM# 1000-44-1-17 Carmen Brooks SCTM# 1000-10-9-16 Walter Gless, Amy Feulner, Chistopher Gillanders, Gary Gillanders, Keith Gillanders, Lauren Strunk, Paul Gillanders, Brian Sinclair & Suzane Caltagirone SCTM# 1000-87-5-7 F1 Ascari, LLC, c/o Denis O'Leary SCTM# 1000-118-6-5. 1 Sticks & Stones Outdoors, LLC SCTM# 1000-70-4-1 Joseph Kadillak SCTM# 1000-135-3-35.1 Branko Jozic SCTM# 1000-31-14-10 Fritze Fishers LLC, c/o Anita Fritze SCTM# 1000-6-1-4.3 Hamilton Residences, LLC SCTM# 1000-5-2-4 Evan Giniger SCTM# 1000-137-4-14.1 HC NOFO, LLC, c/o Todd Feuerstein SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3 Ferry View, LLC (Contract Vendee) SCTM# 1000-9-8-1 Andrea Simitch Revocable Trust & Val Warke Revocable Trust 1000-64-3-7 ADF Ventures, LLC SCTM# 1000-114-1-6 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IX. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Resolutions - Administrative Permits: Number 1, Katja Patchowsky on behalf of WILLOW HAVEN LLC & JOAN PATCHOWSKY requests an Administrative Permit to install a 7'x7' hot tub; replace rotting boards on existing deck; expand existing deck an additional 26' .5" to align with dwelling; rebuild existing steps to deck. Located: 1345 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-30 Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection December 16th, 2024, noting the need for a non-turf buffer seaward of the deck. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a non-turf buffer seaward of the deck, and subject to new plans. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. Board of Trustees 5 December 18, 2024 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. 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 approve as a group Items 2 through 8, as follows: Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of BGV HOLDINGS LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10282, as issued September 14, 2022. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9 Number 3, Young Associates on behalf of GOMB BEACH, LLC requests the Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10047, as issued on December 15, 2021. Located: 54205 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-1-3 Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of BGV HOLDINGS LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10282, as issued September 14, 2022, from Joseph & Kristina Ottomanelli to-BGV Holdings LLC. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9 Number 5, VINCENT M. ILLUZZI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #9354, as issued November 14, 2018, from Leah Zara & Richard Kasnia to Vincent M. Illuzzi. Located: 400 Windjammer Drive, Southold. SCTM# 79-4-8.1 Number 6, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of NICHOLAS & ASPASIA RONTIRIS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6454, as issued September 20, 2006, from Gladys Milne to Nicholas & Aspasia Rontiris. Located: 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-15 Number 7, Sol Searcher Consulting Ltd. On behalf of ANASSAS LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10611, as issued July 17, 2024, for the replacement of the approved 3' x 10' aluminum ramp with a 3' x 14 ' aluminum ramp. Located: 615 East Legion Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-30 Number 8, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN E. & DEBRA A. GRACE request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7689 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7689, as issued November 16, 2011, for the as-built 11.1' vinyl bulkhead expansion at the northern end. Located: 190 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-6. 1 TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Constantine Rigas on behalf of PHYLLIS. SOUSA LIVING TRUST requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10286, as issued December 14, 2022. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12. 6 Board of Trustees 6 December 18, 2024 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection on December 16th, 2024, noting that the project is still in progress, under construction, but that a silt fence should be installed due to excessive runoff. The LWRP found this to be consistent. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that a silt fence be installed. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT FINN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10661, as issued September 18, 2024, to amend location of proposed steps and replace them in same locations with new 41x4 ' timber platforms and 4'x10' stairs to beach with thru-flow decking along face of proposed bulkhead. Located: 8908 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-5-19 Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection December 16, 2024, noting that the project seemed straightforward, but we need new plans with the previously approved non-turf buffer. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward from the top of the bank and with the submission of new plans depicting the buffer. That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At this time, I 'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into Public Hearings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a Public Hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of CHRIS & HEATHER MASOTTO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built reconstruction of the 20. 9' x 29.7 ',�' two-story dwelling consisting of a portion of the existing foundation piles to remain, extended pile caps and replace a portion of piers with reinforced concrete block and Board of Trustees 7 December 18, 2024 anchor to dwelling to conform to FEMA. regulations; existing northerly enclosed porch to be converted to an 814 '-�" x 24' 9" open deck; construct a 3'xl3. 6' second-story balcony; install new 4 ' wide by 1718 li�" long egress stairs and landings on east side of dwelling; remove existing masonry patio, brick patio and existing septic system, and install a new I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling with new sanitary retaining walls starting on west side behind bulkhead a ±17' wall (north-south direction) to a ±21' wall (east-west direction) to a ±7 ' wall (north-south direction) to a ±26' wall (east-west direction) to a ±20' wall (along east property line) with 6' wide front stoop and 5' steps to grade; remove existing concrete front walk, railings, concrete wall, and steps in County right-of-way; remove hedgerow in front yard; and restore gravel driveway, apron, walkway and retaining wall as needed; add ±55 cubic yards of clean fill for the I/A system; and to reconnect water and electric services. Located: 55915 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-17 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent with Policy Four. The entire structure is within VE elevation 16 structural hazard area.' Structures is these areas should be eliminated or minimized to prevent loss. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support this application due to lack of setbacks. The Trustees most recently visited the property on the llth of December, and noted that we reviewed plans further at work session. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application. MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. I also have Chris and Heather Masotto, the owners, are both here. Charles Kuehn, who is the architect, in case you have any questions. I know at the work session you had a question about the piles, and he can speak with respect to how we. are going to address the existing structure. You are very familiar with this property. This, if you recall, this got a permit to do renovations to the house, that then the owners got a building permit. They hired a contractor, the contractor started the work, and then the contractor didn't follow the plans and started taking down too much of the materials of the house, resulting in a stop-work order and what the Building Department considered to be a technical demolition. The house is still there, and the house, to the extent at all possible, they want to keep as much of the house as is existing because there is a great deal of value in preservation of the existing house. The existing house is two stories, as you know. It currently includes an enclosed porch in the back, on the Long Island Sound side of the house. This application went to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances because it' s pre-existing in its size of the property and pre-existing setbacks and buildable area, we were faced with all of the multitude of variances as if it was a vacant Board of Trustees 8 December 18, 2024 property. Clearly, it's not a vacant property and it' s been improved, and it has a pre-CO. It was built before zoning. In 1995 the prior owners did a major renovation of the house, replaced the piles, put in a new sanitary system. So the house was in good condition at the time. Or it' s been sitting, waiting for the permitting process, and it' s taken this long. You are the end of the permitting process. We have the DEC application pending, we have the Health Department pending the Trustees' approval. We got the Zoning Board approval. During the, as part of the application to the Zoning Board, the LWRP comes back with the same consistency recommendation as he gave to you, so we tried mitigate the LWRP comments by my client actually reducing the house and converting what would have -- the original plan was take the enclosed porch and make it part of the finished living space. That was changed and the house will, the interior part of the house will end where the porch begins, and then the porch will become a deck. So what is now currently enclosed is going to be just an open deck. We, the Zoning Board approved this, it got all its variances, and that is why we are before this Board, because you make us get variances first. The impact of declaring something to be a technical demolition is that we now need a new sanitary system, even though the system was adequate and replaced in 1995. It now has to be replaced with an IA system. Also, the house was raised in 1995 to meet the FEMA standards of the time, and now it has to be raised even more because the FEMA mapping was redone and therefore now it has to meet current FEMA standards. So Charles can speak with respect to the specifics of the piles, but the goal is to maintain, keep the piles that we have, raise them, raise/extend them, do whatever cement supports that are necessary, but keeping, again, as -much of the structure as is feasible here. The sanitary system obviously now needs different types of design criteria, and that is all on your plans. The other question that I recall from your work session was the staircase. You will notice that the only access to this house is the front door, but also the side. There were two doors there. What we did in order to try to minimize the number of access points and, you know, down staircases, Charles the architect combined, there are two doors, two landings, and then a combined staircase with one set of stairs. So while it looks like a lot of structure, it' s actually the landings on the level of the doorway and then one set of stairs that goes down. Otherwise it would have been two separate staircases to meet code. The back deck, I verified, there's no stairs in the back. The only -- the staircase is going to be through the house. I don't recall any other -- oh, the other points that you Board of Trustees 9 December 18, 2024 made at the work session was could this be a non-turf area, the entire yard be non-turf. I was able to get Nate Corwin to put a note on the current survey. And we added the property will have a non-turf area, no lawn. So that was the last thing I remember you, the condition that the Board was considering was, so I was able to get Nate Corwin to provide that. I would be happy to review anything further with the Board, but you are pretty familiar with this property, and I would rather address any questions the Board has rather than talk. So, does anybody have any questions? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Pat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only question we had following the work session the other night was what is the height, the face height of the retaining structures at the landward side of the property? MS. MOORE: The street-side of the property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, the retaining walls start over near the street side of the property, but they face the water. So what is their height? This might be more of a -- MS. MOORE: I have the survey here but I have to pull my glasses out, too. The elevation, the sanitary -- Nick, you're talking about, let' s start on the west side there is a sanitary wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, just state your name for the record. MR. KUEHN: Charles Kuehn, Architect. The wall basically has a variety of various heights. It starts sort of at a low wall at the street side of about two feet. It goes down to the house, and that's about six feet. And then looks like looks like basically looks like six foot would be the maximum height of the wall facing The Sound, at the front of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So across the whole seaward edge of the retaining wall, and that's six feet exposed? MR. KUEHN: Well we have -- ,MS. MOORE: So you have the bulkhead. You described it as what, two feet starts here? MR. KUEHN: Two feet, then it goes down to six. MS. MOORE: It works two feet and, because it's at a level, as the grade goes down, because remember the property is high at the street level, and it goes down to the bottom of the piles as you get to the back, the Long Island Sound portion of the property. So, right? MR. KUEHN: Okay, now basically there are two sets of walls. So there is the bulkhead. Are you referring to the bulkhead or are you talking about the wall at the house TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The retaining wall. MS. MOORE: Just the retaining walls. MR. KUEHN: Okay, so that goes from two feet to six feet. MS. MOORE: Six feet being where the front of the house begins. Board of Trustees 10 December 18, 2024 MR. KUEHN: Yes. MS. MOORE: You see the survey? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: On the street side MS. MOORE: Well, it's the street side at the front of the house. So the sanitary system -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sir, could you approach quickly. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I said sir, not Pat. (Participants laughing) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just don't speak up here because then we don't have a record of it. So just -- You mean this is six feet right here, and here? MR. KUEHN: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me, sir. If I understand correctly from what you just pointed out here on the dais, on the plan, the six-foot wall would face the Long Island Sound. MR. KUEHN: That' s correct TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So if you were in a boat on The Sound and looking back, you would see that six-foot face. MR. KUEHN: That is correct. But if you are at the street, you would not see it. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You would see the two-foot face from the street. MR. KUEHN: That's correct. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for clarifying. MR. KUEHN: But if you were at the street you wouldn't see it. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct. You would see the two-foot face from the tree. MR. KUEHN: If you were driving east, you would see part of the wall. You might get a glimpse. But then it sort of fades off. So you are really not seeing any wall, honestly, from the street. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for clarifying. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one question, why the need for six feet? MR. KUEHN: That basically is because that handles the existing grade. You know, we would rather not fill in what is under the house now. And the only way to reduce the height of the wall would be to bring the fill in under the house. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because this Board' s been pretty consistent of not allowing retaining walls of that height. MR. KUEHN: All right, because there are existing walls there. We are not, we are proposing to square off the one part because of the sanitary system, but there are walls there now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The walls that you are proposing are existing? Is that what you are saying? MR. KUEHN: Well, there are existing walls, and we are going to be adding to the walls, basically to level the grade in front of the house for the sanitary system. (The Board is perusing documents) . MS. MOORE: Do you want him to point out where the walls are currently? Because they're under the house right now. They are, see where the side, the entryway walkway is, there is a wall on • Board of Trustees 11 December 18, 2024 the left-hand side of that. There is an existing wall. The existing sanitary system is right now on the east side in that square, that rectangle, where the new system is going to go. Part of the new system. So that is where the existing -- so right now that portion of the property is filled, currently filled, and like a walkout from the street level into the house. That's how you get into the house now. And it's flat into the house. On the left-hand side right now you see the pilings, but the pilings will be blocked because the sanitary system is the expansion pool or the -- the leaching pool is right there. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the eastern side of the proposed retaining wall is for the sanitary stem, correct? MR. KUEHN: That's correct, yes. MS. MOORE: The existing one is being replaced. MR. KUEHN: If I can approach the bench, I can show them where -- MS. MOORE: Yes, go ahead. Point to. Because there are two parts at this system. You have the leaching field and you have the other portion. Go ahead up. Do you want him to point? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you speak to the eastern side of the property? It appears that the wall is quite a bit seaward than where it is now. MR. KUEHN: On the east, that' s the existing retaining wall. So if I can -- so you have the sidewalk that goes to the front door. To the left of the sidewalk is where the existing retaining wall starts. It goes from the street down to the house. It goes a little beyond the front of the house and then goes east. MS. MOORE: It' s under the house right now. MR. KUEHN: Under the house, yes. So we are proposing to fill in the area to west, which is currently right now just the grade that slopes down. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You used to be able to drive underneath the house on those two concrete -- MS. MOORE: No, now you have to drive on top. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You want to be able to drive straight to the front door with some fill. MS. MOORE: Right. So it will look like a normal yard, what people that have yards on County Route 48, that's what it' s going to look like. MR. KUEHN: So that white line coming out -- (The Board is perusing documents) . MS. MOORE: This house will look like the houses to the east of it. Skipping the Corwin. Skip Corwin and then the rest on the west and east. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The house has been hanging on in the wind. (The Board is perusing documents) . MR. KUEHN: The only reason they are proposing that is because of the sanitary system. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Which is appropriate for this area and this extremely constrained property. Board of Trustees 12 December 18, 2024 MR. KUEHN: Unfortunately, yes, with the Health Department this is what we have to do. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, we see the sanitary system as a benefit. Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. MOORE: Did you have enough explanation of the piles or, I think you figured it out at the work session, with the cross section. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We talked plenty about the piles. Thank you. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve both the Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit with the stipulation that all the property is a non-turf buffer, and new plans to show this. And after reviewing this at field inspection, and that the house is pre-existing, thereby bringing into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. MOORE: Do you want the survey that Nate Corwin provided for the file now. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Please submit it to the office. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, under Wetlands Permits, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of CARMEN BROOKS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 30.5'x32.2 ' dwelling, remove existing partial second floor and construct a full second-story addition; new 51x9' front covered stoop and a 6.21x30. 1' seaward covered porch. Located: 1232 The Gloaming, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-16 I made an inspection on the 9th of November. Notes from that inspection read: Work appears to be done already. No pier lines on plans, buffer recommended. On December 16th we reviewed the plans inhouse, and there is a 15-foot non-turf buffer recommended. The LWRP coordinator found the project both inconsistent and consistent. The as-built is recommended as inconsistent with Policies Four and Six because of the FEMA flood zone. And the replacement of the second story is recommended as consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection and therefore no recommendation was made. Board of Trustees 13 December 18, 2024 Is there anyone here wishing to speak. MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Brooks family, thank you, very much, for heading over to Fishers. I know that's a big commitment. This project actually was started with a building permit, because it was part of an existing house and renovation and addition. I think at the time the permit had been issued when the Trustees code didn't deal with second floors or whatever was done to the second floor was considered not to be something the Trustees needed to review. What happened is the porch in the back, when they started to work under the permit, they found there were no footings, it was the original rocks and nothing else. So at that point, um, we this to start the process and we had to go to the Zoning Board for setbacks, and then here. So that' s why the project looks pretty much complete, except for the final parts. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: At the time of my review, the project is in a commercial area, and it's in keeping with the adjacent properties and structures. And I think based on my observations in the field that the non-turf buffer was appropriate, so I welcome any other comments from members of the public. I doubt anyone from Fishers has made it, but. Members of the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application of Carmen Brooks understanding that the project is in a commercial area, and the project is in keeping with adjacent properties. It's elevated substantially above water. I think that this project does satisfy the LWRP' s concerns. I wish to add the condition that a 15-foot non-turf buffer be added, and new plans depicting this. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, AS PER REVISED PLANS RECEIVED 12/6/24 Joan Chambers on behalf of DAVID & RANDI VOGEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story dwelling with 1, 785sq. ft. On the first floor and 1,563sq.ft. On the second floor, a 533sq. ft. partially covered deck on seaward side, 281s.ft. Covered front porch and 55sq.ft. Open deck, 140sq. ft. Northerly open deck (a total of 1, 009sq.ft. Raised decks with 421sq.ft. Of that total deck under porch roofs) ; a hot tub on seaward deck; a new I/A OWTS system landward of the dwelling; three window wells for basement egress windows; install 518sq.ft. Of eco-permeable pavers in gravel beds; install an Board of Trustees 14 December 18, 2024 8'x5' outdoor against side of dwelling; place approx. 250 cubic yards of fill to raise the center of the property; install a ±1, 620sq.ft. Pervious driveway; and to install and perpetually maintain a 15' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.41 The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review on the 11th of December, reviewing the new plans submitted, after our previous public hearing. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent, noting the single-family residence is proposed in the FEMA zone AE elevation Six. And the CAC reviewed this application and resolved not to support the application because 'the proposed project is within a flood zone and located 58.7 feet from the wetlands. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application. MS. CHAMBERS: Joan Chambers, I'm here to represent the Vogel's. On the 6th of December I gave a revised site plan survey done by Ken Woychuk that I think addressed all the questions that were raised at the prior hearing. And just a few days ago I also dropped off a landscape plan that showed, you know, some of the plans for landscaping edge of the property. So I'm basically here to answer any further questions you may have. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you. On the plans for the house we see that you are preserving some of the trees near the water, on the southeast side of the house. MS. CHAMBERS: Yes TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any reason why you are not preserving more of the trees between the water and the leaching galleys? MS. CHAMBERS: The water and what? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The leaching galleys for the sanitation system. MS. CHAMBERS: I believe, what I asked the landscape designer to do is to put on here the trees that are going to be removed and added. So I don't think they are intending to remove any trees that are not directly in the way of construction of the house. So he just put them along the non-turf buffer. You see he's got listed here all the trees that are existing and staying, and then the ones that are being removed. Those are because they are dead or hanging over the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So this is the fully wooded property at the moment, and we are seeing a big, blank area on the southeast side of the house. So I think we would want to see more trees preserved on this portion of the property. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, I think that' s something we would like to see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Just to add to that, a lot of this property is invasives and locusts, and unfortunately for your client a lot of it is central to the property. Along with what I would call Board of Trustees 15 December 18, 2024 for arguments sake, the south side, there is a good area of, I think it's some oak and some Maples, so those should probably show up on the final set of plans. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Also, we noted the drywell is located pretty far away from the existing structure. Is there a reason for that? MS. CHAMBERS: You know, Mr. Woychuck put that on there, and I was wondering that myself why he moved that so far away. I really don't know. I'll have to ask him and back to you on that one. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. MS. CHAMBERS: I know he has one down the end of the driveway there that will catch any runoff from there. And the other one is on the north side of the house, and I'm not sure why he moved the south one so far away from the house. It may have something to do with the septic or the sanitary system, but I'll see if I can get an explanation on that. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Would you be comfortable if we said that we would like to see that tucked in and then you can come back to us if there is an issue with tucking that closer to the house? MS. CHAMBERS: Absolutely. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think when we were reviewing on site, we mentioned about the pier line. I just wanted to make sure claim MS. CHAMBERS: Yes, it's on the latest survey. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It was added, okay, thank you, very much. MS. CHAMBERS: No problem. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: After visiting the site and assessing the conditions in the field, the Trustees believe this is at the far end, inside the canal, which is less subject to most dramatic storms, and reinforces the bulkhead, and the Trustees deem this to be consistent with neighboring properties and thereby bring it into consistency with the LWRP. So with that I make a motion to approve this application subject to the preservation of trees seaward of the leaching field on the southeast portion of the property; the drywell being tucked in within 15 feet of the house; and new plans depicting those conditions, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of F1 ASCARI, LLC, c/o DENIS O'LEARY requests a Wetland Board of Trustees 16 December 18, 2024 Permit to remove and dispose of existing 159' lower retaining wall and construct a new 159' lower retaining wall with a 10' north return using vinyl sheathing, for a total of 169' ; remove and dispose of existing 36' upper retaining wall and construct a new 36' upper retaining wall using vinyl sheathing; and backfill any voids behind retaining walls using clean trucked-in sand. Located: 9180 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-6-5. 1 The Trustees most recently visited the site on December llth, 2024, and Trustee Krupski made the following notes: Replacing existing, could this be replaced with stone and retain the cedar trees. The LWRP found this application to be consistent, with the following comment: A vegetated buffer is recommended. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the substantial non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation, and the retaining walls are to be no higher than the neighboring retaining walls. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. It would not be practical to put rocks there considering both neighboring properties have standard bulkheads. So I have just one question. There a permit that has already been granted on this piece of property due to the fact that it fell into a default situation, none of the work ever got done, and now the property has changed hands and it's just a straight up replacement of the bulkhead. If there are any other questions, I mean, it's just a replacement. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would you be able to maintain those trees during construction? MR. COSTELLO: I think the majority of them stay. It doesn't seem like a lot of them are in the way. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And if they are somehow removed or need to be removed during construction, would you be willing to replace them? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Or we'll have to call the Trustees for a site inspection, because sometimes in the past when these trees are, you know, to a point where they are really not alive, I don't think the applicant should be subject to replacing them. You know, like even when Jay was on the Board, we'd bring him in, or when the place had a tree analyst, like, you know, this tree is not worthy of replacement. But if it got to a situation where we are starting construction, I would like if maybe one of the Trustees came down and looked at the trees to see if they warrant replacement. But that could be a condition. But I think any of the mature species that are there, especially the cedar trees, should survive most of the activity. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Also, when we were there, we noted obviously there is the retaining walls, and then there is a little bit more of an area of the bluff that there -- excuse me. Essentially the request is would you be willing to install Board of Trustees 17 December 18, 2024 vegetated buffer at top of that bluff there? MR. COSTELLO: It doesn't seem really necessary. There is not a lot of space. There' s only 40 feet from the crest of the bluff back to the patio. The bluff itself constitutes about over 20 feet of surface area, and as the eagle flies it's, you know, 15 feet away, so that bluff itself, I think should be good enough of a non-turf buffer area. And plus the backyard of the property, it' s not really pitched toward the bank. It' s a very flat backyard. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Jack, are you filling in behind the bulkhead? Bringing fill in behind the bulkhead -- MR. COSTELLO: Yes, of course. The bulkhead's got to be filled. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And to be planted with -- MR. COSTELLO: Planted with Cape American beach grass. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In reviewing the plans further, it seems that about 20 feet from the landward of the bulkhead, 20 feet landward of the bulkhead would kind of encapsulate that top of bluff. So if we did just indicate that that area would be vegetated area. MR. COSTELLO: So basically five feet from the crest of the bluff toward the house will be non-turf buffer. So it would be, you know, so it would be 20 feet overall to the face of the wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, we have been pretty consistent as a Board with buffers on top of banks and bluffs for any projects, almost irregardless of setback of house. Also, this is a new owner. Right now it's not fertilized lawn. There is no irrigation, nothing like that. It will be, so. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what would you -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would recommend at the top at least ten feet at the top of the bank at the bluff. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Which seems to kind of splits a difference that we are talking about here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' s been pretty typical, pretty consistent for what we've done for the last decade or so. MR. COSTELLO: That' s 25% of the whole backyard, but if that's okay, that's fine. Plus the whole bluff. But, we can do that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? (No response) . Or any other questions or comments .from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I'll 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 to retain the cedar trees, and condition a Trustee review if removal is deemed is necessary; and a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the top of bluff, with new plans depicting the following. That is my motion. Board of Trustees 18 December 18, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. COSTELLO: Thank you guys. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, STICKS & STONES OUTDOORS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing two-story dwelling; demolish existing detached garage; construct a ±210sq.ft. One-story addition with roofed over front porch, and a 730sq.ft. Attached two-story garage onto north side of dwelling; construct a 1,302sq.ft. Seaward raised masonry patio with a 448sq. ft. Pool within the patio; masonry patio to have steps down on west side, and two boulder retaining wall tiers with plantings in between each wall; existing 201x12. 6' easterly seaward deck to remain; abandon and remove existing sanitary system and install an I/A OWTS system; install basement egress stairs with drywell below; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain stormwater runoff; install pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment area, A/C pads, generator pad, and propane tank; and install a 975sq.ft. Driveway. Located: 3995 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-1 The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 11th, 2024 . Notes say keep the retaining walls under two feet. Review further at work session. The LWRP' found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are: Require a vegetated buffer along the waterfront, excluding access path to the dock, and no RCA fill or mixed RCA shall be used in the project to meet Police Six. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application. The CAC does not support the construction of the swimming pool on an embankment due to potential storm water runoff and erosion of the bank. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. ZUHOSKI: Ian Zuhoski, the owner. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Zuhoski, I think in further review of the plans, I believe those retaining walls seaward of the pool were two feet or under? MR. ZUHOSKI: Correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And to address the inconsistency with the LWRP, I know you have another permit for the bulkhead, you did some plantings. So we would be looking for something similar on the creek side, so to the east of that bulkhead, say a 15-foot buffer. You know, you can do Cape American beach grass or whatever, along that, to address the inconsistency. MR. ZUHOSKI: Does it have to be planted? Because there is a consistent beach now, and this application was approved prior. So I'm certainly happy to. It' s nice to have a walk-in, you know, for paddle board, so on and forth, but if we can do straight grass, you know, some sort of like small boulders across to kind of delineate and just extend the beach further. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you currently have the beach, sand, so we Board of Trustees 19 December 18, 2024 would be talking landward of said sand. Do some plantings that doesn't include you obviously have a four-foot access path trough that, so the sand or whatever is there can stay. It would just be a little bit more of a buffer landward of that sand or edge of wetland, to add that protection to address the inconsistency with the LWRP. MR. ZUHOSKI: So it does need to be planted, we can't just do a 15-foot, you know, ten or 15-foot straight sand strip just, I mean there is kind of minimal yard space as the way that it pitches. I understand, you know, I'm just trying to catch the view of the water as well. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Given that we are adding additional structure on the seaward side and the slope of this property, I think it would benefit from the vegetation prior to reaching the water. MR. ZUHOSKI: To be planted or just like a large -- because what was proposed was already approved, so I mean, you know, I would have to -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. What was previously approved had to do with the house and the bulkhead. We're adding something new, which is the pool, at this point. MR. ZUHOSKI: Everything here was 100% approved prior. The permit lapsed. That' s the only reason we're here today. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one other question while we're looking this up. Can you address the RCA fill? Are you going to use RCA fill? MR. ZUHOSKI: Just a gravel base for the patio itself. We're still looking for it to be permeable, not a concrete-set patio. And the idea to the retaining boulders is also to have vegetation so that small bit of patio sand, on the water side of the pool, is caught in the two-layer system. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That, just below the cursor on the screen there, that' s sort of beach sand going up. MR. ZUHOSKI: It' s actually kind of like a zoysia grass, it seems like. I'm kind of also happy to do something like that, too, where we cannot have, you know, an irrigated fertilized lawn to it, just to some lawn. Because it's minimal down there, and it does slope, so, you know, if we can kind of minimize the buffer and do, you know, a no-mow something that can be kind of easily maintained without the water and fertilization. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so we are looking at the plans here dated September 30th, 2024. On it you have the edge of turf lawn, and there' s an angular line for the seaward edge of marsh vegetation. So the west side of that is your natural beach and everything, which we can leave alone. But perhaps to the east of that, between the edge of turf lawn and that wetland line, add some plantings in that area. MR. ZUHOSKI: Is it depicted on there? Can I come up and look at that quick? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. (Mr. Zuhoski approaches/discusses with Board at the dais) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? Board of Trustees 20 December 18, 2024 (No response) . Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the edge of creek, with any existing vegetation to remain; no RCA fill, which will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. And subject to new plans showing the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, BRANKO JOZIC requests a Wetland Permit for the existing two-story dwelling (207.3sq.ft. Footprint) , and for the as-built 101x20' west side one-story addition; construct a 101x20' second story onto as-built addition and a 4'x10' deck off addition; and to repair the existing 11 11 x 19' seaward deck with steps. Located: 12960 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-10 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Verify the location of sanitary. Parcel is located within FEMA flood zone, AE elevation Six. The zone is not shown on the plans. Minimize structure in these areas, and if approved, a vegetated buffer reducing turf is recommended to protect water quality. The CAC members were denied access to the property, therefore no recommendation was made. The Trustees visited the property on the llth of December and noted it was a straightforward, minor addition. Recommended ten-foot non-turf buffer seaward of the bulkhead, and install gutters and leaders to drywells to the property. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the property, the application? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Can you just state your name for the record, please. MR. JOZIC: Branko Jozic. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you like to make any comments or are you just going to answer questions that we ask? MR. JOZIC: No, I'll just answer. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just to summarize what our field notes said, with any structures located within our jurisdiction, we need drywells for the gutters for the house, leaders to drywells as opposed to running on the ground. MR. JOZIC: Now, I don't know nothing about that, but if it has to be done TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I'm telling you. MR. JOZIC: No, I know nothing for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Okay. And also we spoke to a ten-foot Board of Trustees 21 December 18, 2024 non-turf buffer seaward of your bulkhead to match the neighbors. It just means you can't put grass there. MR. JOZIC: I don't put grass anywhere over there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. A condition, typical condition of our permits is that on your plans you would have a ten-foot non-turf buffer delineated, which in your case your neighbor has something very similar. He already has partial. So you already have a buffer there, it appears. MR. JOZIC: Yes, I have like maybe seven feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. So we are just asking, ten is our standard amount for an area such as yours, so we're just asking for a ten-foot buffer which would basically match the neighbor's there. MR. JOZIC: Okay, I can do that. Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. JOZIC: All right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application, or any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with new plans depicting the addition of drywells and a ten-foot non-turf buffer seaward of the bulkhead, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, Steven Affelt on behalf of JOSEPH KADILLAK requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built demolition of the existing dwelling (project meets Town Code definition of Demolition) , and the construction of a two-story dwelling on a new foundation with a 1, 100sq. ft. First floor and 746sq.ft. Second floor, 203sq.ft. Second story balcony, 23sq. ft. Front stoop, and basement entry; install gutters to leaders to drywells; permitted installation of an I/A OWTS system; install a generator, A/C units; existing permitted 8.51x4 .5 ' outdoor shower; maintain all trees on site, if the need arises to remove a tree, apply to the Trustees office for a tree letter; and to establish and perpetually maintain the area seaward of the dwelling as a non-turf buffer area with a pervious access path to the water not to exceed 4' in width. Located: 775 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-35.1 The Trustees visited the site on the 11th of December and recommended a ten-foot vegetated buffer to stabilize soils on the waterfront edge. Needs several hardwoods on property, full landscape fabric under mulch. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent. And the CAC of the Town of Southold supports the Board of Trustees 22 December 18, 2024 application with an adequate IA septic system, which is part of the written description of this project this evening. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. AFFELT: Good evening, my name is Steve Affelt, I'm here to speak on the application on behalf of my client. I've submitted a new wetlands app to the Board, as during construction the Building Department deemed our project to be a new dwelling as per the Town Code of the cost of construction. So our project is a two, was a one-story drawing that we converted to a two-story dwelling, with a new cellar, and we had, as part of our application was to have an outdoor shower, generator, rear and front yard stoops, the IA system, cellar entrance, and that is in the same spot as the existing one, and a second-story balcony. We also have several Trustees stipulations that we carried over to our new application, maintaining all the trees on site, not to regrade the site, and perpetually maintain the seaward yard. We don't have a ten-foot buffer, we did the entire rear yard as a buffer, except with the four-foot strip to get to the staircase. We believe the application should be granted for several reasons. First, the drawing didn't move any closer to the wetlands. Its footprint did not increase. And as part of the application the owner is now going to restore the shoreline to natural vegetation. And the IA system benefits, prevents nitrogen from flowing to the pond, is all beneficial, so. And I think you probably still have the old site line or pier line drawn on the file, which shows that the house is in the middle of the pier line, in its original location. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We had no issues with the pier line because we resolved that question in our prior version of this application. I think our site visit just raises several concerns that I think are easily remedied. One is there were trees that may or may not have survived the construction process, and it seems those trees didn't survive, and were chipped as part of the non-turf buffer in the rear yard. And I thought that a replacement of three hardwoods, native hardwoods in the rear-seaward side, and two somewhere else on the property, perhaps in the front yard, would bring the property back into its natural sort of connection to the adjacent properties. That whole edge of the wetland is wooded with oaks, it would be nice to see that property 'returned that way some day. We noticed landscape fabric underneath all the wood chips and while that is a good agricultural practice, in a landscaping practice, it' s just micro-plastics that we feel are going to break down over time. Weeds are going to get through no matter what. We feel that it is important to remove that barrier and then if you wish to return the wood chips to the area, that's perfectly acceptable, but to remove the landscape fabric underneath. Board of Trustees 23 December 18, 2024 MR. AFFELT: You're talking about in the rear yard, though? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: On the seaward side of the house. MR. AFFELT: I think the wood chips should also be removed though. As being not the person who put them down, I think that would inhibit the natural revegetation, right? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If you wish to remove them and install vegetation or install some other type of non-turf buffer there that is to your client' s liking, and fitting with the Trustees. We just don't want to see grass, fertilized lawn. MR AFFELT: I understand. I'm with you. I'll probably just -- I prefer to stick with the plan, you know, revegetate as we planned. So remove the chips, remove the fabric and get on with it. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. All right. And I believe that was it. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I did have a question about the fill on the property and any- regrading. On the landward side of the house it appeared there were various access covers that were above the grade when we were there. So it seemed like fill would be brought in to reach that point. There was also a concrete pad off of one of the ends of the exit or entryways, and that also was sitting proud of the existing grade. So, we really don't want to see a lot of fill, but it seems based on those observations that that would be happening. So could you speak to that, please. MR. AFFELT: Well, typically we would bring in six-inches of topsoil just to, so that grass would grow. We would not be able to grow grass out of the loam that's there right now. So, I can't lower the septic system. I can mound near it, around those, the manhole covers. But that' s probably the best we can do. The stoop, however, though -- I assume the concrete pad was next to a door. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If I remember correctly it was maybe the access to the basement. It was on the side of the house. I observed that. MR. AFFELT: Okay. So that access I haven't been to the site in probably at least two weeks, so I'm not -- I don't think that, I don't think I need to raise the grade in order to get the adjacent, like to the height of that entrance pad to the cellar entrance. So, again, I would just mound next to it rather than fill in the entire lot with that much topsoil. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, and I think every instance I mentioned is landward of the house, so our concern is obviously more on the seaward side, and it did appear there were some, almost like a cut into the soil there at one of the tree locations that was on the seaward side of the house. So I guess we would just want to minimize any of that topsoil. And that area is supposed to be non-turf anyway, so. MR. AFFELT: Yes, so we can just try to make sure when we do a final grade that everything is not changing, staying as is, as best we can, and then making sure we meet the adjacent grades on both sides of the property so we are not affecting the neighbors Board of Trustees 24 December 18,2024 on both sides. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And just in an effort to clean up the record and for the benefit of the other expediters in the room, you mentioned that you feel this should be granted because the footprint has not changed, but when this project became a demolition, its footprint was no longer grandfathered. Now we have done a pier line study and given the location of this house on the bend here, we made it consistent but that is not just because of where it was originally located. Once it became a demolition we had to go back and re-evaluate the pier line. MR. AFFELT: I 'm sorry, I didn't mean it should be grandfathered. I just meant it was beneficial to the application that it didn't grow to be a mansion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the Board or members of the public? (No response) . Hearing no more comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with the addition of three native hardwoods planted on the seaward side of the house, and two native hardwoods somewhere else on the property; to restore the natural wooded nature of the lot to keep it in consistency with the neighborhood; and to remove the landscape fabric on the seaward side of the house to benefit the maintenance and stewardship of a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, Bruce Kinlin on behalf of FRITZE FISHERS LLC, c/o ANITA FRITZE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 622sq.ft. One-story hallway to a two-story addition with foundation onto existing permitted dwelling. Located: 560 North Hill Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-6-1-4.3 Trustee Sepenoski recently visited this site on the 9th of November, noting it was a straightforward application. And the Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse inspection on the 16th of December to review the plans. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. KINLIN: Hi. My name is Bruce Kinlin. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hi, there. So, thank you for the submission. I think we see most of everything we like to see on the plans. Board of Trustees 25 December 18, 2024 We did note when we were reviewing it that there is a very extensive vegetated area, as is very common on Fishers Island, and we love to see it. But none of this area was marked as a designated, vegetated buffer. Would the client be opposed in any way to marking some of this as a permitted vegetated non-turf buffer? MR. KINLIN: So that it would maintain -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So they would maintain what they already have, but just that we would see that on the plans as well. MR. KINLIN: We can definitely do that. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application or any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative .response) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application subject to the preservation of all existing vegetation seaward of the house, with a minimum of 50 feet, and new plans depicting that buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, Bruce Kinlin on behalf of HAMILTON RESIDENCES LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing detached garage with new attached garage including finished rooms above; reconfigure windows and exterior walls in existing main house; renovate existing front porch; and replace existing pergola with screened-in porch. Located: 270 Pheasant Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-5-2-4 On November 9th, 2024, Trustee Sepenoski visited the site and made the following note, that this was straightforward. And on December 16th, 2024, the Trustees conducted an in-house review of this application. The LWRP found this application to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. KINLIN: Hi, my name is Bruce Kinlin. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. It appears in review of and study of the plans that it's essentially the same footprint and just modifications to the garage to change it from detached to an attached garage by connecting it to the primary residence. So is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? (Negative response) . MR. KINLIN: No, but can I just comment on that? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, please. Board of Trustees 26 December 18, 2024 MR. KINLIN: Just to describe the project a little bit. That's essentially right. The primary house footprint stays exactly where it is. The existing garage is a garage and has living space above it, and it' s a pre-existing, nonconforming condition, and it's not connected to the -- it's connected only by a breezeway. And that garage is also over the existing setback line. So the goal is to, in the process of renovating the house and renovating the garage, actually move the garage or build a new garage that is a little bit closer, landward from the existing garage, so that it becomes compliant in its setback, and building the connection to the house so that it also becomes compliant as one overall dwelling Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak; any others 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'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/13/24 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of EVAN GINIGER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1, 047sq. ft. Two-story dwelling and to construct a 342 .2sq.ft. Two-story landward addition; remove existing front porch and construct a new 65sq.ft. Front porch; existing 440sq. ft. Seaward deck; existing 24sq.ft. Outdoor shower; existing 360sq.ft. Detached garage; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 12, wide no fertilization vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of wetland vegetation. Located: 315 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-14. 1 The Trustees conducted a field inspection December llth, noting straightforward landward addition, 25-foot vegetated buffer, and add a buffer up alongside. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency, if approved, require a vegetated buffer to protect water quality. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the 15 to 20 foot non-turf buffer, planted with native vegetation. I do want to note that we did receive new plans stamped received December 13th, 2024, that do show the vegetated non-turf buffer along the seaward side up and along the side. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this Board of Trustees 27 December 18, 2024 application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant. Your project description was in-line with what the proposed project will be, and the project was designed to have the addition on the landward side of the house, so the addition itself does meet the required structural setbacks. And in accordance with the LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council, we have proposed a buffer that exceed what their recommendations were. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with new plans stamped received December 13th, 2024, that do show a 25-foot-plus vegetated non-turf buffer, which will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. POYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, AMP Architecture on behalf of HC NOFO, LLC, c/o TODD FEUERSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to excavate approximately 1,200 cubic feet of soil to be removed from site; install a 121x20' gunite salt water heated pool (5' continuous depth) , with 2'xl2 ' automatic cover, and 8" coping (320sq.ft. Total) ; install a 560sq.ft. At grade pool patio; install 312 linear feet of 4' high pool enclosure fencing; install pool equipment area, a drywell for pool, and two 120 gallon above ground propane tanks. Located: 6370 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The pool is located within the FEMA flood zone. The zone is not shown on plans. Minimize structures in these areas. The CAC resolved to not support the application. The CAC does not support as applied for or any other activity seaward of the dwelling, which is in the flood zone and floods regularly. The,Trustees most recently visited the site on the 11th of December and noted that the property is extremely low and close to the wetland, already very overbuilt in proximity to natural features. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Good evening. Anthony Portillo. I just have photos of the -- can I provide them now or should I just drop them off to your office? Board of Trustees 28 December 18, 2024 I TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can hand them to the clerk if you want. MR. PORTILLO: I just brought them. (Handing) . So, regarding the flood zone and location of the pool, per building codes the pool is allowed in a flood zone. It would be designed for a flood zone application. So there is no codes against that. So they'll meet any buoyancy calculations that are required. We did really propose a pretty minimal-sized pool. We're within 50 feet from the wetlands line, and we are proposing replacement of trees that would be removed due to the pool application, of the pool install. The patio around the pool, we are showing pretty good detail in that, but basically it would be pavers set in gravel and then it would be spacers around the pavers. I'm sorry, pavers set in sand and there will be gravel to allow for the area to be pervious. And then a pool fence, pool equipment, which will be on the, proposed on the side of the proposed garage, which will be elevated on the outside of the flood zone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I think the way that, obviously every property is different, every application is different. Part of the issue here is this is already a very tight lot. It is very low lying. The creek in this area has slowly been coming up year after year. I mean, visiting this property throughout the construction -of what is an extensive house. You know, the porta-potty is like in the wetland line, and did it start there, has it moved out? There's standing water all around it. It' s being held back a little bit right now with the silt fence. But the wetland is going to knock on the door of this house eventually, so that's something that has to be considered by this Board and hopefully future boards. MR. PORTILLO: I think it' s important to note that, you know, there is like almost another buffer in front of this property that will never be built on. It's really just vegetation and cattails and, you know, it's just, it's owned by someone else, but it is there. It's in its, it's pretty extensive out to where the creek line is. I mean, just an observation of mine, right, because it seems like it's a pretty large buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, just, there is a large buffer from the creek going up to the property, but that is wetlands. So that, when we do buffers and look at buffers, we're really talking about preserving the area between the wetland line and the structure. MR. PORTILLO: Understood. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is already minimal there and moving forward. Now, I would agree with you, there is a beautiful and healthy Spartina meadow there, and hopefully it stays that way. We have been seeing some die-off in the area from that salt water being perched up a little higher and not coming down as Board of Trustees 29 December 18, 2024 much at low tide, and sort of drowning out, if you will. But you're right, it's a beautiful piece of property, and that's part of what we are trying to preserve, too. And in part of keeping those meadows healthy is limiting the structure in and around them. MR. PORTILLO: I mean, we do show a section of the pool and, you know, what ground water was based on the test hole data. And, you know, we are proposing to be two feet above ground water. And, you know, it's really a wading pool, I guess, just a plunge pool. I mean, it' s only five-feet deep. Again, I mean in regards to any construction of an underground pool in a flood zone, FEMA has those requirements and we would have to meet those requirements to making sure it' s anchored properly. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Portillo, in regards to that, just a question. In test hole data it shows, like you mentioned, 2'1" from the proposed pool to ground water. However in your proposed pool cross section, it shows 1'8". Which is the correct? MR. PORTILLO: You know what, I think that dimension didn't make it all the way down to the water line. Because I'm looking at 7' 1" and 5'2", and I just did the math that way. I do see that, it looks to me like that dimension line was brought all' the way down. So that's what I think the issue is. You have your 711" to ground water and then if you look at grade seven foot, but then you have your wall is two inches above grade. And I'm showing 5'2" . So you're at five. So that's where you get the 2' 1" . I think what happened, you can see the dimension ticker that extends. So I can revise that. But it is the 2'1" is the accurate measure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional comments from the Members of the Board? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I was personally uncomfortable with the location of this house and how close it was in proximity to the wetlands, which is why I voted no on the initial application. Adding something now closer than the house to this project is inappropriate, in my view, and have an adverse effect on the wetlands. MR. PORTILLO: I mean, again, in respect to that comment, if us bringing the pool closer to the garage, I mean, I would say the building is going to be about 80 feet, I mean, just don't allow for some area -- we are in line with the rear deck that was approved. One other thing, just to state, there was an existing house on this property that was basically in the water, that was removed. So I think the application for the house, not that that is what we are talking about, is obviously better suited to this property and the wetlands area. You know, which did require us to get a variance, you know, the client had to get a variance. I wasn't the architect for that. 'So the variance was granted because of trying to get the Board of Trustees 30 December 18, 2024 house to where it' s located. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And they built a massive house on a small lot. MR. PORTILLO: The original house or this house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This house. The original house was the size of this house' s garage, and frankly would have allowed that large amount of space for a pool behind it or closer to the road. MR. PORTILLO: I mean, I think about the pool being, it is inground, so any flood water or water really isn't going to be an obstruction to that, right? And the house is designed to meet the standards, it has flood vents, there's no basement or crawl space. So I think, regarding flood waters, there isn't going to be, you know, a hindering. The pool is not going to hinder that, you know. I think also if you look at the pool location compared to how the wetlands line is delineated, the pool is actually a lot further from the wetlands than the house is. You know even though the house is, the pool that we are proposing is in line with the house, in terms of how the topography of the wetlands is. So in that area it's actually further away and further away from the buffer we're proposing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Portillo, to your point of the previous house, which when we did visit the property the first time, that structure, the existing structure was there, the small, modest residence. And to your point, it is very close to,the wetland. It is likely that when it was originally built that it was not that close. So a concern that I have with this property in particular, the house that is currently being built did have a previous permit that lapsed, and there was, you know, from my perspective, that was something that was already in play. In my mind, this property was not one that would have a pool as a part of the project. The house is very large and it is fairly maxed-out on the property, so the idea of adding a pool in addition to the house seems to be over-engineered and a lot of structure on the property. MR. PORTILLO: Just one I think I do want to state is, with the pool that we are proposing, and the property size, we are at 17.5%. So we are not at max lot coverage in regards of what Southold Town allows. So we are not asking for anything more. We are actually lower than that, right, we are at 17.5% as opposed to 20%. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think it is an interesting point because it is a property that would have allowed for the house to be built further away from the wetlands, which was my preference all along. And in that case perhaps a pool in the area where the house now sits would have been appropriate. But in its current . configuration, and the fact it was applied for just as a house, and later come back for a pool, it seems inappropriate to me. MR. PORTILLO: Listen, if I was representing the applicant at that time, and that was the discussion, I don't know what the Board of Trustees 31 December 18,2024 discussions were, and I can't really speak to that, but I do think that the location of where we are presenting the pool is better than the location of the house, because of how the wetlands line, you know, goes around the creek there, right? We are really far from the line. Again, this is my opinion. I mean, I think, and now, as I stated, if it's pulling it closer to the garage area, I mean, that's something we can consider. And we are not maxing out on lot coverage, so. I mean, those are my statements to you guys. Obviously you can take it as you want. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.. MR. .PORTILLO: I will say, too, we are at 64. 8 feet from that line. So we are, you know, a lot more than 50 feet, which I know is something that is granted. And also I believe in the code, the 50-foot setback. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To that point, the patio and the house is all within the 50-feet there. But this is tucked in the envelope there. And the point I think that the Board is trying to convey is it's not that the house is large, which it is, it's just that the structures could have been reconfigured here to pull everything further away, and when people apply for a house and then a pool or a pool and then a house, they kind of paint themselves into a corner or ask us then to try to remedy that, when it probably should have all come together as one. I know you understand that. MR. PORTILLO: That' s the way I would normally present it. And, honestly, if I was designing the location of this house I might have thought about a different location, maybe more where the garage is, to be honest, because it is actually in a better location, the garage than the house. But again, we are just in that pickle right now, you know, and I'm trying to make the pool fit the best that I think -- I think that's the best location, and as you can see, I kind of hugged it toward the corner there because I saw that you had that sort of rounded, you know, edge of the wetlands. You know. And it just made sense, and it got me the furthest from the wetlands. The only way to get maybe further would be, like I said, reduce that pool patio by a couple of feet, and I could be, like at 66 feet or so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application, or any additional comments from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to deny this application, noting the inconsistency with the LWRP, the CAC resolving to not Board of Trustees 32 December 18, 2024 support the application, the pool located within a FEMA flood zone, very low to the water table in this area, very close proximity to wetlands on the entire property. Also citing Chapter 275-12 (a) , (b) , (c) and (e) . That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Happy holidays. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good night. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of WALTER GLESS, AMY FEULNER, CHRISTOPHER GILLANDERS, GARY GILLANDERS, KEITH GILLANDERS, LAUREN STRUNK, PAUL GILLANDERS, BRIAN SINCLAIR & SUZANE CALTAGIRONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing bulkhead with 83 linear foot low-sill bulkhead with a 15' return on south side; remove existing ramp and floating dock and construct a new dock consisting of a 41x10 ramp to grade landward of low-sill bulkhead to a 4 'x56' catwalk with Thru-Flow type decking, a 31x14' aluminum ramp, and a 61x20' floating dock situated in an "T" configuration; a rope handrail to be installed on one side of the catwalk; re-vegetate disturbed area landward of low-sill bulkhead with Spartina patens, Baccaris halimifolia, and Iva frutescens; and to trim the phragmites to not less than 12" by hand on an as-needed basis. Located: 800 Koke Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-7 The Trustees visited the site and met with Cole Environmental and the homeowner on December llth, 2024. And our notes in the field states: Update plans to include site to south, and previously permitted buffer. Review pier line on dock. Excessive runoff from site work, hay bales at road and seaward edge of silt fence. This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. Further encroachment into public waters is not supported by Police Nine. And the CAC does not support the application because the proposed dock was not staked, and questioned that the height of the dock would be above mean high water, and what affect the bulkhead return would have on the neighboring property. There was also a concern with the 200 square-foot hole in the rear of the property, which appeared dangerous. Those comments were made on November 6th, 2024, prior to our visit at the site. And just to correct the record, we did not meet with the owner onsite. That was at a different location. Is there anyone here wishing to speak to the application? MR. COLE: Yes. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, agent for the applicant. We did meet the Trustees on site, and it was pouring. So obviously there was a runoff issue. We did mention to the main homeowner on the list of owners, to put some hay bales at the street so any future runoff, if we have another rain like that, is addressed. Board of Trustees 33 December 18, 2024 This should be a pretty straightforward project. We have permitted bulkhead and dock from 1972. I have copies of the permits mere. We are, had a permitted bulkhead in 1972, and we are proposing a low-sill bulkhead, eight inches lower than the existing bulkhead. You mentioned the buffer from the previous application, so the low sill should allow a transition of intertidal marsh in front of the low sill to wetland vegetation and then upland vegetation as a buffer. The dock is being brought into current standards with through-flow decking, light penetration going through the deck. And we had mentioned there is no dock on the other side of our proposed dock, but we do have a bulkhead that projects into the creek, and if we connect the two lines between the bulkhead and the dock on the other side, we create a semi pier line, or something that could resemble a pier line, and our dock stays within that pier line. We also wanted to mention, we have DEC, Army Corps and Department of State approvals for the dock and the low sill bulkhead as proposed. And I'm here to answer any other questions. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. So based on several visits to the site and the review of water depths, and our closer scrutiny of the project during our work session, our consideration of the unique contours of the coast line, sort of scoops out, making a pier line difficult to draw in that location. We also reviewed the adjacent dock and found it to be not depicted as it was permitted. So that dock likely exceeds its length in the permit. So taking all that into consideration, all I'm saying is that we, our discussion led towards a fixed pier, 56 feet in length, which would get this boat owner access to a depth of 27 inches of water, water depth, adequate to dock a vessel safely without damaging the bottom. And it would be a great improvement over what currently exists, which is a float in roughly 12 to 16 inches of water, which may on a low tide cause it to sit on the bottom and cause damage to the bottom. That is the discussion during our work session that we had MR. COLE: So looking at the plans and the soundings, we could have a shorter dock if it was re-aligned further to the south. There's 30 inches noted on the plans that would bring us even further back behind the pier line, or projected pier line, and a slightly smaller dock. Is that something the Trustees would be interested in? Because we would want to maintain the float at the property there. So we can get 30 inches at low tide. And, you know, I kayaked out there. There is significant depth out there. We had just kept the dock in the same location, and we kept it based on the pier line that was there. So we could bring it back a little bit based on there if that is something the Trustees would be open to. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: As one Trustee, I'm open to either our Board of Trustees 34 December 18, 2024 proposed 56-foot fixed pier in the location you are currently proposing and removing the ramp and float. Or to seeing a new concept come our way that would reduce the length of the dock and find adequate depth for a vessel to navigate in there. So it' s really up to the Board and yourself which way you would like to proceed. MR. COLE: I'll have to run this by the client. I can't speak for them to, if they can accept a fixed pier or they want to reconfigure. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, just one point, Mr. Cole, you said move it to the south, so looking at the screen, to the right? Is that what we're talking about? MR. COLE: Slightly to the right, yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, now the only thing with that, I would caution you, we need to keep it 15 feet off of that property line, so it doesn't look like you would have that much room to move further to the south. So just in your looking at it, keep that in consideration, to keep it 15 feet off the neighboring property line. MR. COLE: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Also, part of your consideration, I was unable to find a current permit for the immediately adjacent dock in its current consideration. The actual permit for that dock is much shorter than the current location. So we should draw the pier line based on what is permitted. MR. COLE: Noted. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And since you are submitting new plans, there was a previously permitted, vegetated buffer seaward of the house. If you could just include that on the project as well. MR. COLE: We can add that on. No problem. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think, you know, the most pressing concern, I think, that you are sensitive in the field was just the amount of erosion taking place under that heavy rain that we met you there on. MR. COLE: Yes. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, and I hope they can get some kind of hay bales and siltation fence up in that location to get the mud out of there. MR. COLE: Yeah, we brought it up and they're going to address it. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. So at your request, do you wish to table? MR. COLE: Table, please. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak to the application? Members of the Board? (No response) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to table application. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. COLE: Thank you, Board. Board of Trustees 35 December 18, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/16/24 Cole Environmental Services on behalf of KIM & BRETT DOHNAL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of bank stairs off of permitted deck consisting of a 41x7' Timbertech platform off deck to a 4' wide by approx. 24.5 linear foot long set of stairs with 36" high stainless steel cable guard railings; each step to be 12" deep and 7" high constructed with 4"x4" posts and open grate decking to be used on all treads; stairs not to extend seaward of mean high water; and existing pipe leading from southwest downspout to be abandoned with stormwater being rerouted to a perforated trenched pipe leading to a rain garden; and a 4' wide access path through the buffers for stair access and construction purposes. Located: 1225 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-29 The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 16th of December. That' s not true, is it? That's when we conducted our inhouse review of the new plans, and we most recently visited the site on the 11th of December., noting that we proposed alternative locations for stairs that don't impact bank, property line, and minimize loss of trees. We have since received new plans and reviewed them in work session. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent, and noting that it is recommended that a future dock be prohibited from the stairs, which is prohibited in this area. The CAC reviewed this application and resolved to not support the application. They did not support the application because the project was not staked and it was unclear where the bottom of the stairs would rest. This was from the September llth meeting, so they were not aware of the new plans at the time. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. RUMMELL: Kate Rummel, on behalf of the applicant. I have the homeowner and the architect here. Thank you, for putting so much of your time into a small section of stairs. But we have revised the plan so that the stairs are now built off of the deck. There is a small platform just so they can access, there will be a gate to the side, so they can easily maneuver a kayak when accessing the stairs. But the location was discussed on site and seemed to be preferred by the Board. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding the application, or any other comments or questions from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 36 December 18, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application subject to a continuous vegetated non-turf buffer on the entire seaward side of the house or dwelling, with a minimum of seven foot from, landward from the top of the bank, on the northern side of the property, with new plans depicting that change. MS. RUMMEL: I'm sorry, can you repeat that? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: A non-turf buffer with a minimum of seven feet landward from the top of the bank, on the northern side of the property, and seaward of the dwelling. So in the area where the drawing is, the entire area seaward. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 13, AS PER REVISED PLANS RECEIVED 11/19/24 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RICHARD & AMY BRAUNSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing rip-rap to remain undisturbed; remove existing failed coir logs and install a 25 linear foot section and a 55 linear foot section (80 total linear feet) of one lower row of rip-rap and three (3) 8" diameter coir logs staked landward of a 4 ' wide area of native plantings in between the rip-rap and the coir logs; rip-rap and coir logs to have a 3' maximum height. Located: 1885 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-7.2 The Trustees recently, on December 16, 2024, conducted an in-house review of the new plans that were received. The LWRP found this application to be consistent, with the following note: Preserve and integrate existing vegetation in a design to further Policy Six. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and recommends a repair' of the living shore line. The applicant should consider consulting with Cornell Cooperative Extension on how to grow a marsh in this location. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We were here last month to discuss the original proposal, which was modified, which originally included a couple layers of rip rap stone. We decreased the hardened shoreline. We did one course of the rip rap on the lower course, and modified it to be planted, vegetated plantings and coir logs on the upper two levels. As discussed at the last hearing, this was a revision from the original permit that was issued. The work was done. It . didn't last. It was coir logs, plantings; it wasn't stabilized, it wasn't holding. The toe was failing. The coir logs and the plantings all washed out. So the intent here now is to a, just a single layer of stone to stop all of the wave energy, and the two upper, the upper courses for the plantings. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. So we do appreciate your efforts to Board of Trustees 37 December 18,2024 create a more vegetated, more living shoreline style project here. When we were reviewing this at work session, reviewing the new plans which are stamped received November 19th, 2024, we noted that you have the stone at the bottom and then three layers of the coir log. And they are almost directly on top of each other. When we were discussing this, we were wondering if perhaps there might be a better success rate, and again, not in an effort to design this project, but perhaps it they were terraced a little bit more, so instead of being placed directly on top of each other, or almost directly on top of each other, if there was a step back of a certain distance with planting, and then another coir log set back, and then vegetation MR. PATANJO: We can stagger them 18 inches with plantings in between each course. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That was the discussion that we thought might be more effective. MR. PATANJO: Sure, we could provide revised drawings to reflect that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Would you be comfortable providing drawings if we moved forward with everything? MR. PATANJO: Of course. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak, or any other comments or questions from the Board? (NO RESPONSE) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application subject to new plans that show a terraced effect with the coir logs. That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 12/13/24 Islandwide Engineering & Land Surveying on behalf of ANNA M. TEN NAPEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 422 sq. ft. Second story addition; remove existing pavers and a construct a 153sq.ft. Seaward side deck addition onto existing ±1316" x ±18' deck; relocate deck stairs; abandon existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS system landward of the dwelling; relocate one tree near the driveway and preserve all other trees; and establish and perpetually maintain a 15 ' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the wetlands. Located: 320 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-21 The Trustees conducted an in-house review of the new plans December 16th, 2024. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support Board of Trustees 38 December 18,2024 the application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of Islandwide Engineering. This application, again, carry over from last month. Our plan was substantially decreased based on comments received at last month' s hearing. The proposed pool was removed, the deck expansion was considerably downgraded. In addition to the addition of the house was reduced significantly to be beyond the pier line. The plan that you have, and there is a bit of confusion. Do you have on your plans the pier line? Is it identified on your plans? I don't believe I have the right plans. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, we don't. That's one of the things we were going to bring up. MR. PATANJO: So I have the wrong plans. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The neighboring houses are shown on the plans, but we don't have them on -- MR. PATANJO: Yes, so our pier line, the extension that we have on this house, which is a seaward extension, it's about 4 .6 feet, as I recall. It's within the pier line. And I can provide modified drawings or additional drawing to represent that, and you can easily put a straight edge on here showing house to house. Original plans did show it from a deck to a house. The new ones with the pier line is representative from house to house. The actual structure of the house. So it is within that pier line. This project includes an IA system. There was questions regarding any tree removals, and tree removals, there is a notation on here that anything will be relocated or replaced one=for-one if there is a tree removal. As part of the IA system, it is identified on the plans that there is a tree in the front yard that they did like, they are going to transplant it on site, but in addition to that, it's shown on here, trees will be replaced one-on-one. Also included in here is the 15-foot wide flown turf buffer along the vegetated area on the shoreline that was recommended by the Trustees. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anybody 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 PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application subject to new plans showing the pier line, as well as depicting the 15-foot wide, non-turf buffer to be a 15-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer. That is my motion. Board of Trustees 39 December 18, 2024 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of FERRY VIEW, LLC (Contract Vendee) requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 2.5 story, 2, 470sq.ft. Single-family dwelling with +225sq.ft. And +950sq.ft. Attached decks and +615sq.ft. Unenclosed, grade-level masonry terrace; construct a two-story, +1, 630sq.ft. Accessory garage; install stormwater drainage system and I/A OWTS sanitary system; install a 41x4 ' outdoor shower enclosure, buried utilities, and gravel driveway/parking; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 25-foot wide non-disturbance buffer area along the landward side of the top of bluff which is to remain naturally vegetated and undisturbed. Located: Reservoir Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-9-8-1. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not perform an inspection onsite. The Trustees visited the site on November 9th and noted that it was an acceptable distance from the bluff, well vegetated, and that there were no neighboring structures to draw a pier line to. Is there anybody here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. It is a reasonably straightforward application for the development of a vegetated parcel. As you read, I do want to thank Trustee Sepenoski for taking time to go out there on a weekend to look at it. It is a bit of a balancing act between the bluff and front-yard setbacks. It has a Zoning Board approval, non-disturbance buffer pursuant to the recommendations of the LWRP coordinator through that process. If the Board has questions, I'm happy to answer them. But it seems like Trustee Krupski is moving me along here. So I won't have anything else to add unless you wish me to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application, or additional comments by the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing no other comments, I'll 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of ANDREA Board of Trustees 40 December 18, 2024 SIMITCH REVOCABLE TRUST• & VAL WARKE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place and ±6" higher approximately 55 linear feet of existing functioning concrete seawall with vinyl bulkhead; construct approximately 101 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place or landward of and ±6" higher than historical location of collapsed concrete seawall (landward of MHW) ; backfill with approximately 70 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in from an approved upland source, including approximately 950 sq.ft. Eroded embankment area to be planted with native vegetation; remove fallen trees from eroded embankment, and maintain all existing trees on bank to maximum extent practicable. Located: 2500 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-7 The Trustees visited the site on the llth of December. Notes were marked site inspection read: Maintain existing healthy trees. Remove concrete from location. The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent with its policies. And the Conservation Advisory Council of Southold supports the application with a ten-foot vegetated, non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation. I welcome comments from En-Consultants and whoever else would like to speak. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Eric. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. We had met the Board a couple of times here at this property, so you are familiar with the project. It is the replacement, partially in-place and partially landward replacement of an historically-existing concrete seawall with the new vinyl bulkhead. The property has been bulkheaded since prior to 1951. The wall failed a few years ago. At the time the then-owners could not afford to replace it, so that responsibility has been adopted by the current owners. We did talk onsite about a ten-foot, vegetated non-turf buffer in the area where the existing wall has sort of a flat lawn behind it and will be replaced in-place. And then to the northwest of that, basically maintain that entire area seaward of the top of bank as a re-vegetated and permanent vegetated non-turf buffer. If the Board -- it sounds consistent, plus a little more, with what was recommended by I think you said the CAC. So if the Board is accepting that we could, as a condition of approval, if you are willing to grant it, we can provide you revised plans graphically depicting that buffer. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. Would you just re-state in short what the ten-foot vegetated, non-turf buffer, and the location -- go ahead. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. It would be a ten-foot vegetated, non-turf buffer behind the existing functional seawall, to be replaced in-place, landward up to the top of bank as shown on the plan. So it would be deeper on the north side of the property than the south side. Basically the whole area that's being Board of Trustees 41 December 18, 2024 filled is going to be replanted, and that would be permanently maintained as a vegetated, non-turf buffer. And just with respect to the Board' s comments, the concrete would be removed and, you know, a pretty big part of the goal here is to maintain the existing healthy trees that are still there before they fall into the creek. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments or questions from the members of the Board or the public? (Negative response) . Hearing no further comments, I 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, the removal of concrete in the current location, a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer behind the new bulkhead, and new plans depicting the aforementioned. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of ADF VENTURES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story dwelling with attached deck and remove existing septic system; conduct construction activity within 100 feet from the top of bank in order to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage, porches, patios, outdoor kitchen, I/A OWTS sanitary system, and driveway, all to be located more than 100' from top of bank; construct a 201x40' swimming pool and 1, 346sq.ft. Grade-level masonry pool patio; install 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment, and a pool drywell; install stormwater drainage system; plant five (5) native hardwood trees within 100' from top of bank; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the top of bank. Located: 1775 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-6 The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review to review new plans, noting a non-disturbance buffer is needed seaward from the top of bank, and to plant more native hardwood. The LWRP reviewed this application and deemed it to be consistent, suggesting we increase the width of the vegetated buffer to the greatest extent possible. And the CAC resolved to support this application, with a 20-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation, no clearing between the top of the bank and the water, and that the pool is moved back at least 50-feet from the top of the bank, which, to be clear, in this version of the plan that we are looking at, it is currently located at 52 feet from the top of the bank in that line. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this Board of Trustees 42 December 18,2024 application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. As the Board knows, you've been to this site several times, including prior to my representation of the application. The Board had established a top of bank location which coincided with that point of inflection of that 23-foot contour. We thus added that top of bank location as per our onsite meeting with the Trustees to the site plan. We show a 15-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer on the landward side of the top of the bank. We showed the entire area seaward of the top of the bank down to the wetland' s boundary as remaining as a naturally vegetated, non-disturbance buffer. We did include in the plan the replacement of five native hardwood trees within a hundred feet of the top of the bank. So those all have to be planted within the Trustees jurisdiction. The pool was setback a little bit more than the minimum that we talked about on site of the 50 feet. And the new dwelling would actually be located more than 100 feet from the top of the bank, but as per our discussion, as this is an entire site redevelopment plan that includes demolition of an existing dwelling that is well within the bank setback. Everything is presented here as one comprehensive site plan, as the Board requested. So we hope that we have satisfied the different points that the Board had been articulating on the site for quite some time. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, very much. The most shocking part of this property when we first came up was the extensive clearing. Almost every single tree on this property was cleared, you know, landward of the top of the bank. So I do believe we may require a few extra trees. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And so is there anyone else here wising to make a comment regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Liz, just to that point, I had asked them to try to estimate, recall how many significant, mature hardwood trees were removed from that 100 feet, and they gave me the five, which is why I'm giving you five. If it's some number more than that, I don't anticipate that being a problem. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you. Yes, it is a rather large parcel, so I believe it can handle a few more, and in the spirit of the holidays, let' s be generous with the trees. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Like the famous man Johnny Appleseed TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else wishing to speak or any comments from the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with new plans depicting a non-disturbance buffer seaward from Board of Trustees 43 December 18, 2024 the top of the bank; a 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward, and the addition of ten native hardwoods with a minimum three-inch caliper instead of the five listed on the plan. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. HERRMANN: Sounds good. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. (ALL AYES) . Res ectfully submitted by, e Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees