HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/15/2025 Glenn Goldsmith,President �®F S0(/r Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �OV� ��� 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 • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
�yCOUNT`1,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD R ,
FEB 13 2025
Minutes
Wednesday, January 15, 2025 Southold bWn-
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
January 15th, 2025 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. With us tonight is
Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from the Conservation
Advisory Council we have Carol Brown and Nancy May.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's
website and also located out in the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements in the agenda, on page four, under Wetland and
Coastal Erosion Permits, numbers 1 and 2, as follows:
Number 1, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NEOFITOS STEFANIDES
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of a 101x10' top
platform flush with surrounding grade to a 41x4' upper walk to
4 'x16' steps to a 4 'x4' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 41x4 '
platform to 41xl6' steps to a 41x4' platform to 41x4' steps to a
Board of Trustees 2 Janaury 15, 2025
4'x4' platform to 41xl6' steps to a 4'x6' platform and 4'x8 '
retractable aluminum stairs to beach.
Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
Number 2, 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 eight, under. Wetland Permits, numbers 13 and
14 . Those are all postponed for tonight.
Number 13, BARBARA LASKIN REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o BARBARA
LASKIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ±416" x ±11'
addition onto the southerly side of the existing permitted
one-story dwelling.
Located: 4.80 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-8-8.5
And Number 14, 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
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
At this time I'll make a motion on to have our next field
inspection on Wednesday, February 5th, 2025, with a storm date
of Thursday, February 6th, 2025, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make motion to hold our next Trustee
Board of Trustees 3 Janaury 15, 2025
meeting Wednesday, February 12th, 2025, at 5:30PM at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, February 10th, 2025 at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, February
12th, 2025 at 5:OOPM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the December 18th, 2024 Trustee. meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for December
2024. A check for $53,513.70 was forwarded to the Supervisor's
Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices are posted
on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 15, 2025 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA,
as written:
Linda Frankenbach SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
Joseph & Carolyn Ferrara SCTM# 1000-35-7-12
Credit Shelter Trust & The Millicent Tufano Family Trust, c/o
Emilia Tufano, Trustee SCTM# 1000-122-9-9. 6
Frank DiGregorio & Rosemary Mauri Knise SCTM# 1000-137-4-5.1
2440 Village Lane, LLC SCTM# 1000-26-1-17.1
Gerard & Bethanne Rieger SCTM# 1000-70-6-25
i
Board of Trustees 4 Januury 15, 2025
Patricia Mele & Cheryl Christiano SCTM# 1000-115-12-16
5415 Skunk Ln, LLC SCTM# 1000-138-2-16
David & Pamela Kenney SCTM# 1000-66-1-32
1420 Smith Drive, LLC SCTM# 1000-76-3-10. 1
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolutions - Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Numbers 1 and 4, as follows:
Number 1, COLIN R. RATSEY requests and Administrative
Permit to construct a ±95 linear foot concrete retaining wall
under 3' in height; extend existing concrete driveway; install
two (2) 4" deep storm drain pools and one (1) catch basin with
open grate.
Located: 690 Deer Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-10-5
Number 4, DOUGLAS & LESLIE HIRSCH request an Administrative
Permit to install a 15' wide gravel driveway; install four
drywells.
Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf
of ROSEMARIE RICCOBONI requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built wood stoop, outdoor shower with drywell, slate patio
extension, and deer fence; remove existing shed and above ground
pool; replace tree previously removed with a red cedar.
Located: 290 Old Cove Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-12.1
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection January 13th,
2025, noting need though add a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the as-built structure was constructed without a Board of
Trustee review or permit.
I will make a motion to approve this application, with the
condition of adding a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and by granting
it a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, S. Heaney Marine Construction Inc.
on behalf of JERRY & LINDA MATEJKA requests an Administrative
Permit to remove and replace in place existing timber bulkhead
with vinyl bulkhead (±101' of bulkhead face, ±8' of southern
Board of Trustees 5 Janaury 15, 2025
return, ±6' of northern return) ; remove and replace in place
stairs to beach;' if necessary remove and replace 41x4 ' section
of fixed dock for construction; establish and perpetually
maintain a 6' non-turf buffer behind bulkhead. Located: 1300
Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-27
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection January 5th,
2025, noting no trees to be removed during construction. No
Spartina to be disturbed, whole property slopes down. Should
have a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer with natives.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, and new plans
depicting the new buffer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE. GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Burger Construction on behalf of F1
ASCARI LLC c/o DENIS, O'LEARY requests an Administrative Permit
to demolish existing dwelling.
Located: 9180 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-118-6-5.1.
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection January 14th,
2025, note, seeing that all trees should remain.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I will make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that all existing trees are to remain.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
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, again, in order to
simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
numbers 1 and 4, as follows:
Number 1, ORIENT HARBOR RIVER, LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #9021, as issued May 17, 2017, from Stephen &
Charlotte Wagner to Orient Harbor River, LLC.
Located: 20 Harbor River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-1-11
Number 4, KARA & FRANK PALMERI request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #1602 to remove the name Jane Dey and add Kara &
Frank Palmeri; with the permit holders now being Anne
Argentieri, Paul Pawlowski, Michael & Susan Egan, Edgar & Evelyn
Jahn, and Kara & Frank Palmeri, as issued on May 3, 1983,
Amended on July 11, 1991, Amended again on September 17, 1992,
Amended again on September 23, 2009, and Amended again on April
21, 2010.
Located: Off End of ,Holbrook Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-113-6-5
Board of Trustees 6 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Finnegan Law on behalf of ANN
CASTAGNOLA requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #9193A,
as issued April 18, 2018 and Amended March 18, 2021, from Eric
Jadow to Ann Castagnola.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection on January
5th, 2025. Notes: Do not approve the transfer as a ten-foot
non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead was never installed;
dock is not in an "L" configuration; dock has not been
seasonally removed, and is in violation; the permit and plans do
not match what was approved.
Seeing how what is out there does not match the permit
and/or the approved plans, I will make a motion to deny this
transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Finnegan Law on behalf of ANN
CASTAGNOLA requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #9193A,
as issued April 18, 2018 and Amended March 18, 2021, from Eric
Jadow to Ann Castagnola.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
Trustee Krupski did field inspection January 5th, 2025,
Notes: Cannot approve as there is a bump-out on the deck that
is not permitted, and therefore does not match the plans. Since
this deck doesn't match what is permitted, and is larger, and
does not match the permit or the plans, I will make a motion to
deny this application as well.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, CHAMPLIN HOLDINGS LLC requests and
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10217, as issued
September 14, 2022, for the removal of four (4) trees to install
approved sanitary system, three (3) of which have already been
removed; remove additional trees to connect electrical and water
lines from street to house; previous removal of dead or damaged
trees; replace by planting five (5) 6" Ulmus American "Jefferson
Elms", shrubs, and other miscellaneous plants.
Located: 1175 Champlin Place, Greenport. SCTM# 34-4-15
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection January 8th,
2025, notes: Trees should not be cut; replace trees that have
been cut already. This is a violation where trees have already
been removed without a permit. Any further removal of more trees
will have a negative environmental impact.
Therefore, I'll make a motion to deny this application for
Board of Trustees 7 Janaury 15, 2025
a negative environmental impact.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, ANTHONY & KAREN DELORENZO request
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10384, as issued
May 17, 2023, to construct a 24" x 84" platform adjacent to
existing pool.
Located: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-21.1
Trustee Krupski conducted field inspection January 5th,
2025,. notes the pool is approximately 30 feet from the tidal
wetland boundary, an extremely low-lying area. Survey line is
not correct. Need to discuss with the Board further.
Seeing how this survey is incorrect, seeing how the
existing pool is in very close proximity to the wetland and
there is already too much structure close to the wetland, I will
make a motion to deny this application under Chapter 275-12 (a) ,
which adversely affects the wetlands of the Town; and (e)
increase the danger of flood and storm tide damage. That is my
motion to deny based on those conditions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of TODD FREED & EDITH WEBSTER-FREED requests an
Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #10541A, as
issued April 17, 2024, for an as-built 8' x 2" x 12" treated
wooden retainment and an as-built 42 ' x 2" x 16" treated wooden
retainment.
Located: 12400 New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk.
SCTM# 1000-116-6-12.1 & 12.2
The Trustees conducted as a group a field inspection,
January 8th, 2025, noting that the wood retaining wall was built
without a permit. The increase of the retaining wall can
increase the danger of flood and storm tide damage, as well as
weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the
vicinity.
Therefore, I'll make a motion to deny this application
based on those criteria.
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 public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 8 Janaury 15, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a pubic 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 Suffolk Times.
Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for
comments from the public. Please keep your comments organized
and brief, five minutes or less, if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits,
Number 1, LINDA FRANKENBACH requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1-1--� story dwelling with 323sq.ft. Attached garage
(±1,278sq. ft. Combined footprint) ; remove a portion of the roof
and construct an addition onto existing second story for a
542sq.ft. Second story with two dog-house dormers and a 71x20'
open deck within footprint of first story; and for the existing
7'5"x3'10" outdoor shower.
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 6th,
2025, noting should be a 15-foot non-turf buffer, as well as
three native hardwoods should be added.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the sanitary system is not shown on the
plans and should be required; where does the enclosed shower
drain to; no storm water controls are shown on the plans; the
structure is in a FEMA flood zone AE elevation 6; structures in
these locations are subject to damage and loss from flooding
associated with storms and sea level rise. And the as-built
single-family residence is 19.8 feet from marine wetland, where
100 feet is required, and was constructed without Board of
Trustee review or permits..
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
therefore, could not make a recommendation.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Yes, ma'am. Just step up to the podium and state your name.
MS. FRANKENBACH: I'm Linda Frankenbach, I'm the homeowner, and I
just would like some clarification on all of the issues you've
just raised because it's not clear to me what they are, or is
there a process whereby I sit down with somebody and go over all
of these plans.
I also noted upfront that the State Environmental Quality
Review said that my particular situation did not require further
review. I assume that the state review is different from the
town review. So -- okay got that.
But I really do need a lot of clarification on what has
just been outlined to me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So part of that was .an LWRP, Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program coordinator's comments.
Board of Trustees 9 Janaury 15, 2025
So number one, sanitary system. I'm assuming or can you
tell me, you are going to use your existing sanitary system?
MS. FRANKENBACH: We are not changing anything. Really this
whole project is just pulling up. There is no change in the
footprint. There is no change from anything pre-existing
regarding our distances from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have you gone to the Health Department on that?
Or you are not required a new sanitary?
MS. FRANKENBACH: No, we already went through that process. Not
required. Not adding another bedroom, no. It's really raising a
roof and staying within the footprint and just making the
bedrooms the same size as the footprint of the house. So there
is no other change.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The other comment was regarding, is there an
outdoor?
MS. FRANKENBACH: There is an outdoor shower, pre-existing, yes.
Within the footprint also of the house. The border of it is the
same distance from the back of the house.
.TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So this house is all staying in its existing
footprint, all you are doing is bumping up.
MS. FRANKENBACH: I'm going up. Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have drywells on the plan? Gutters to
leaders to drywells?
MS. FRANKENBACH: I'm sure they are all on that architectural
plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But at your house, the gutters do connect to a
drywell?
MS. FRANKENBACH: Let me see if I can answer that.
I can't answer that. I would have to look into it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, no problem.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the other part is, just roughly, how old
is this house?
MS. FRANKENBACH: Built in 1952.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so that predates Trustee permit.
MS. FRANKENBACH: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, one other thing. We did notice when we
were there that it seemed like a couple of trees had been
replaced or cut down recently.
MS. FRANKENBACH: They died. Unfortunately, there is a disease
that is spreading through those Oak trees. They died and we took
them down. And an arborist was with us on that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. FRANKENBACH: Unfortunately, there are others in the
neighborhood that have to come down, too.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. We're going to look to get some of
those replaced.
MS. FRANKENBACH: I don't know how you replace an 80-year-old Oak
tree.
Board of Trustees 10 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Exactly. You don't, but I appreciate that.
MS. FRANKENBACH: I mean, I would love to talk to you about it,
because, it was heart breaking for me to have to take these
trees down. There is one that remains, two that remain on the
property. My neighbor had to take hers down. I really didn't
any plans to replace them. There is no replacing something like
that. So I would really prefer not to replace them. I don't
think anybody in the neighborhood feels that I need to replace
these trees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, we're not necessarily talking --
obviously you can't replace an 80-year old tree, but we would
like something planted in its place.
MS. FRANKENBACH: Something planted, I got it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That 80 years from now --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for future reference, to remove any trees
within our jurisdiction you have to come before the Board,
otherwise it could be a violation. Just so you are aware.
MS. FRANKENBACH: I'm sorry about that. I didn't know that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But also alert your neighbors, too, if you
think --
MS. FRANKENBACH: I did. It' s in fact my neighbor, my arborist
talked to the next door -- it is a disease that spreads.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. But to alert them that permits are
required within 100 feet of the wetlands, from this Board.
MS. FRANKENBACH: Okay. Got it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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, the
planting of three native hardwoods, two to three-inch caliper.
MS. FRANKENBACH: I took down two.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With gutters to leaders to drywells
installed, if it' s not already on the plans. And subject to new
plans. And by granting this a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. FRANKENBACH: Excuse me on that. Will I get that in writing,
what you need?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing is closed, so you know, feel free
to stop by the office to get that in writing.
MS. FRANKENBACH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Have a good evening.
Board of Trustees 11 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On
behalf of JOSEPH & CAROLYN FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and dispose of existing dock structure and construct a
new 41x20' fixed catwalk, install a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp leading
to a 61x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and
secured with two anchor pilings; remove and dispose of 20' of
existing bulkhead and 3.5' long south return; construct 20' of
new bulkhead and 3.5' south return using vinyl sheathing in-kind
and in-place.
Located: Property Off Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM#
1000-35-7-12
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, for the
following: Policy 6 and 9, dock extends further into active
navigation channel. Future shoaling in the inlet could force the
navigation of the channel to move east and cause conflicts with
longer docks. What is the shoaling and dredge pattern in the
inlet.
Number two, the dock extends past the pier line of existing
docks.
Number three, the distance to other docks could be reduced
by larger vessels mooring on the proposed dock, due to their
location and angles.
Number four, the dock extension is unwarranted further into
public waters. Water depth for motorized boats is sufficient at
seven feet. The current water depth at the terminus of the dock
is 3. 9 at mean low water. What type of boat is proposed to be
moored.
Number five, it is recommended that CCA-treated material be
minimized in all constructions, if approved.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, but noted it was beyond the pier line.
Trustees made an inspection on the 8th of January, 2025,
and noted that it needed a non-turf buffer, and to ensure
sufficient water depth.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, Conservation Advisory Council. Some of
the things that you've mentioned we also felt strongly about.
Does the dock exceed the pier line, and there should be a 15 to
20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. And we were concerned about
the angles and all boats being able to, the navigation on it.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So no one is here to represent the applicant,
but it is fairly simple, if the Board felt we could move forward
on it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you have a length that you would --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a length, but, I mean, the pier
line there is pretty set, so it's really just a matter of
conforming to that. I don't know if anybody wants to look at the
plans again. But, you know, if it's a 6x20 dock, it probably
has to be dialed back, you know, roughly ten feet. You know,
Board of Trustees 12 Janaury 15, 2025
give or take.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What would the water depth be at that shorter
length?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If they're going back ten, they would lose
their depth and have to go fixed, for a fixed pier.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The right thing to do in this entire area,
based on our inspections in the field, would be dredging, some
reclamation dredging to get the water depth back in there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And alternatively, I think moving towards
fixed piers is appropriate, given that we saw a lot of these
docks are on land currently, so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, sitting on the bottom.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Starting the trend of going fixed pier is
maybe warranted in this case.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would agree with that, heading in that
direction for this area, due to the fact that the docks are in
close proximity to each other and, you know, to gain appropriate
access, a fixed dock might be more appropriate.
Okay, hearing everyone's comments, is the Board comfortable
moving forward with this tonight?
(All Board members respond in the affirmative) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Given the comments of the LWRP coordinator, I
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
_ (ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the submission of new plans depicting a fixed dock
conforming to the current pier line with the immediately
adjacent docks, with thru-flow decking, and a ten-foot non-turf
buffer, thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: AS PER REVISED PLANS & WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
SUBMITTED 1/6/2025 AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHANIE PERL
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 2, 459.5sq.ft.
One-story dwelling with 23.5'xl9.2' seaward covered patio and
existing 8.2'x10.3' shed; remove existing seaward 14.1'xl8.4'
paver patio, asphalt driveway, masonry walkways and a portion of
front porch; ±56.86 cubic yards of earth to be excavated for
additions and removed off .site; construct an 18. 4 'x4 .5'
one-story front addition & gable extended; proposed one-story
15.9'x5. 8 ' front vestibule; proposed front two-story 17.21xl4 '
addition with garage; proposed 15. 9'x4 ' & 22.5'x5.8 ' front
covered porch; proposed 11.81x7.2' seaward two-story addition;
proposed 23.1'xl7.2' second-story addition above portion of
existing dwelling; modified 35.l'xl9.2 ' raised patio with bbq
(uncovered) , raised to meet the height of existing rear covered
patio along with new 35.11x19.2' steps; modified 25'xl7.5'
Board of Trustees 13 Janaury 15, 2025
asphalt driveway; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain stormwater runoff; install ±45 linear feet of fencing
between front and rear yard with gates; proposed 4 'x45' gravel
walk with pavers at front of dwelling; proposed 31x58 ' gravel
walk at side of dwelling; as-built 41x9. 1' outdoor shower;
relocate generator, existing A/C units; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of wetland vegetation.
Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-43
The Trustees made an inspection on the 8th of January, and
the notes from that inspection read: Increase non-turf buffer
to a minimum of '15 feet, add two to three trees.
On the prior plan, the LWRP coordinator reviewed the
application in July of 2024, and found the project to be
inconsistent. The as-built structures were constructed without a
wetland permit. And there is a FEMA flood zone location.
And similarly, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved
not to support it based on concerns with the water table
flooding and sea level rise, in July 10th of 2024.
The Trustees are in receipt of new plans stamped received
January 3rd, 2025.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Anthony Portillo.
So we did have a past hearing, I think the big question at
that time was the pool, and the elevated deck of the pool. We
have considered that and the pool has been removed from the
application.
There was a small addition to the application, on the house
at the rear, approximately 7.2 feet out from the rear towards
the seaward side, and 11.8 feet wide. It's inside of the
existing footprint in regards, it doesn't pass the furthest
point of the existing footprint. It was really just to allow,
we changed the orientation of the garage door, so it was to
allow the car to pull forward. And then we don't, we are not
changing the driveway any longer. In the original application
we had like this sort of circle driveway because the garage door
was on the side of the garage addition. So to avoid that and
just leave basically the existing driveway, we had to get a
little more square footage, and that was the way we decided to
do that.
So everything else pretty much is the same beside that. We
actually, due to removing the pool and the raised patio area
around the pool, we actually are not required a lot coverage
variance any longer. So even though we were granted that from
zoning originally, we don't need it. We are under 20%. So
that's also a benefit, I think.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think there are several changes to this
application that made it much easier to review and find some
positive aspects of it.
MR. PORTILLO: Appreciate that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anybody else wishing to speak regarding
Board of Trustees � 14 Janaury 15, 2025
application? Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no one further wishing to speak, I make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the condition of a total width of a 15-foot non-turf
buffer; new plans depicting that placement of two to three trees
of two-inch caliper on the property at the applicant's
discretion with the location. And granting this permit, we bring
the project into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board, have a good night.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of CREDIT
SHELTER TRUST & THE MILLICENT TUFANO FAMILY TRUST, c/o EMILIA
TUFANO, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place existing ±10' section of timber bulkhead return with
vinyl bulkhead return, and construct ±20' vinyl return extension
beneath existing 935sq. ft. Deck landward thereof (temporarily
open and re-close sections of deck surface to allow construction
access) ; install approx. 24 linear feet of 1.5' to 2.5' diameter
stone rip rap from extended bulkhead return to west property
line, along seaward edge of Rosa rugosa, to retain remaining
buffer vegetation being lost to erosion; backfill proposed
return extension, and restore ±8 ' wide area of washed-out grade
landward of existing return and bulkhead with approx. 35 cubic
yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved
upland source; install 5' wide, 25-to-75-pound stone splash pad
along landward edge of bulkhead; reset/replace (in-kind,
in-place) , existing 141x15' loose paver patio landward of
bulkhead; remove existing dilapidated walkway, and construct
4'x10' wood landing and 4 'x8' stair adjacent to return.
Located: 2482 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-9-9. 6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on January 8th,
noting a straightforward application.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
present so therefore could not make a formal recommendation to
this Board
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
We reviewed this during field inspections. I don't have
anything else to add to the application. It is a straightforward
erosion control project.
If the Board has any questions, I 'm happy to address them.
Board of Trustees 15 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I noted that on the plans there is an area
marked "naturally vegetated area. "
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we would like to formalize that.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s fine. The only issue is that they are
proposing that five-foot wide stone splash pad immediately
adjacent to the back of the bulkhead to try to keep the soil
material from getting washed out as it is now, but if we, you
know, if we were to formalize the limit of that naturally
vegetated area as an area to remain natural except allowing for
the splash pad, I don't think they would have any -- there is no
plans to change any of that, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. So it' s about, is it exactly five-feet
in width?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. We have a notation in the project plan. There
is that eight-foot-wide area that has to be backfilled to bring
that grade back up. All of that Rosa rugosa along the back of
the return would be replanted. And then there is that 25 to 75
pound stone splash pad within five feet of the most seaward
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: So that's splash pad not along the return. That is
all, that area, you can see the plantings there, in that aerial
photograph.
So you are talking about formalizing as that as like a
vegetated non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right.
MR. HERRMANN: I mean, that's what it is now.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. So -- okay.
MR. HERRMANN: The problem is I don't have a dimension to give
you on that. It would just be as depicted on this plan. I could
add, I mean, it's variable, so I would have to add them. It's up
to you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay so if we talked about a ten-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer with the exception of the area that is
labeled splash pad.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. And, I mean, effectively it would remain
wider than that. But yes, that works.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: All right, is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting a ten-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer along the bulkhead with the exception of the area
depicted "splash pad. "
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 16 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of FRANK
DIGREGORIO & ROSEMARY MAURI KNISE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed timber dock with water and electricity
consisting of a 4 'x44 ' fixed timber catwalk constructed with
open-grate decking, a 31x14' ramp, and a 51x12' floating dock
secured by two (2) 10" diameter pilings.
Located: 5765 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-5. 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on January 8th,
2025. Trustee Krupski noted looks acceptable.
The ,LWRP found this project to be inconsistent, with LWRP
Policies Six and Nine, due to the following:
Number one, will the dock impede navigation as per Southold
Town Code.
Number two, the function of the dock to the south could be
reduced by vessels mooring on the existing and proposed dock due
to the length, distance and angles of each.
Number three, the type of wood used for the pilings,
treated or untreated is not identified.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
present and did make the following note to recommend the dock be
shortened to keep within the pier line.
I'm also in receipt of one letter from the neighbor
Rochester Cahan (sic) , who is in support of the application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicants.
As the Board knows we've reviewed this site during a
pre-submission inspection during field inspections. It's a
challenging site.
The location and length of the dock, because it is at the
head of the creek, the end of the creek, is really dictated by
the area of riparian rights for the owner, which are dictated by
the standards specified in Chapter 275, which are depicted on
the plan, and also the pier line, there is obviously not a
linear configuration here, but basically of the adjacent docks
to the north and to the south, which we have also depicted on
the plans.
So the location of the dock structure itself, the permitted
structure does, and the floating dock structure, are located-
within the applicant's area of riparian rights, and the dock and
the proposed vessel, which would be moored on the north side of
the floating dock, are both within the pier line established by
those two adjacent docks, which are also depicted on the project
plan.
There was a, I think as Trustee Peeples just mentioned, an
e-mailed letter from the neighbors to the north, indicating that
they reviewed the plans and have no objections, and Elizabeth
Cantrell can confirm, but I believe you should also have
received an e-mail from the neighbor to the south, Parlini (sic)
Board of Trustees 17 Janaury 15, 2025
which I can give you a copy of, for the record, because when we
met during field inspections there was also some discussion
about any potential impact on the neighbor to the south, and
there was a suggestion to reach out to that neighbor as well,
which we did.
Mr. DiGregorio actually found them on vacation and they
were willing to review and get back to us.
So this is just a copy of the e-mail Mr. DiGregorio
forwarded to me from Mr. Parlini (sic) , which was forwarded, a
copy of his e-mail to Elizabeth.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Herrmann, is that to be stamped in for our
records?
MR. HERRMANN: It can be. You should have received the e-mail
directly, so unless Liz notices a typo in her address, hopefully
you'll find it if you have not seen it yet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have not seen a letter in here, so we'll add
that into the file. I do have the notice to adjacent property
owners that do mention the Parlini's. I do have that.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, they are the adjacent parcel to the south,
which is, this dock on the aerial. And then the letter that you
read at the beginning is the owner of that dock.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, and this e-mail from Rich Parlini, states
that they have no objection to the project.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There was one, when we were there, I noticed
while there is a permit for trimming the phragmites, that there
was some Baccharus and other vegetation that was also trimmed as
well. If you could just please advise your client that the hand
trimming is for phragmites only as a part of that maintenance
permit.
MR. HERRMANN: Noted. Mr. DiGregorio is here, so he' s nodding.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. '
And then we, noticing just kind of that gentle slope down
to the wetland, it seems that perhaps like a five-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer might appropriate there, just because there is
lawn that is landward of that area.
MR. HERRMANN: Adjacent to the wetland boundary?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct.
MR. HERRMANN: Frank, do you have any objection to that?
MR. DIGREGORIO: Just tell me what to do. We're trying to do the
right thing.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s fine.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here
who wishes to speak, or any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Seeing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a five-foot vegetated non-turf buffer, and
Board of Trustees 18 Janaury 15, 2025
subject to new plans depicting that, and due to the fact that
this project has no negative impact on navigability, and by
granting it a permit, thereby brings it into consistency with
the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of 2440
VILLAGE LANE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and
alter existing one & two story single family dwelling by
constructing a 7.71x6' extension of existing roofed over porch
in place of existing 91x6' portion of existing first floor to be
removed (1.3'x6' portion of existing dwelling footprint to be
permanently removed) ; a 9.11x15. 8' roof terrace over remaining
portion of existing first floor; and a 24. 4'x27.4' expansion of
an existing second floor in place of and within the same
footprint as existing storage attic over attached garage; remove
and replace existing septic system and install an I/A sanitary
system; and to install stormwater drainage system.
Located: 2440 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-1-17.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 8th,
2025, noting the project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
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. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant.
This is a straightforward renovation. It was approved by
the Historic Preservation Committee and the Zoning Board of
Appeals. It' s now up for your Board's review. I don't have
anything to add beyond what is in the application. But if you
have any questions, I'm happy to respond.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application.
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of GERARD &
BETHANNE RIEGER requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
Board of Trustees 19 Janaury 15, 2025
structures, including approx. 2, 116sq.ft. Grade-level masonry
block pool patio constructed in place of previously existing
brick patio (including irregularly shaped northwesterly
extension and masonry fire pit) ; approx. 506sq.ft. Grade-level
stone patio constructed in place of previously existing stone
patio (including irregularly shaped easterly extension) ;
as-built generator, two above ground liquid propane tanks, and
as-built structures in stone patio, i.e. , 7.5'x7. 6' hot tub,
3'x15' stone bench and 3.3'x7.8' stone bbq counter; replace
1'x56' seaward edge of block pool patio with gravel trench
drain; and install an 81x4' pool drywell.
Located: 3693 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-25
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent, noting that
the as-built single structures were constructed without Board of
Trustee review or permits. If the action is approved, a
vegetated non-turf buffer is recommended landward of the high
quality marine wetlands system, and an IA sanitary system
upgrade should be required.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
present.
On the 8th of January, the Trustees inspected the property,
noted there was a large amount of structure on the property.
Area with patio around pool equipment to be removed and changed
to pervious wood chips or similar.
We also discussed. the trench drain along the seaward side.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Mr. Rieger is here as well.
As we discussed in the field, a little bit of an unusual
application because this patio was present during a prior
Trustee's review when a permit was issued for the retaining
wall. Aerials were included in the permit file showing that the
prior brick patio around the pool had been replaced with this
patio, but for some reason that the patio, permitting the patio
was not addressed at that time.
So this permit would correct that. It would in fact show
the outer 56 square-foot strip of the patio being replaced with
the trench drain.
Trustee Peeples had mentioned during the site inspection
there was some additional patio area that is, I'm not sure if --
well, actually, it is. It is shown on the survey as loose
brick, slate and patio block, that that area of loose brick,
slate and patio would all be removed as a condition of, or
potentially as a condition of any. approval. And I discussed that
with Mr. Rieger. There is no objection to that. That' s fine.
It would be replaced with mulch, maybe some additional
landscape plantings or something in that area, just maintaining
access to the 'pool equipment.
Um, otherwise that was really it. I 'm not sure I have
anything to add beyond that, only that I had had, I was not sure
if that area that you were describing is shows, but it is, so
Board of Trustees 20 Janaury 15, 2025
that plan can be easily modified to show that area to be
removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing I didn't see, and that just about
covers everything. Um, where is the drywell proposed for the
trench drain?
MR. HERRMANN: It' s up landward, just to the east of the, east
end of the driveway. It' s like between the shed and the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that' s the drywell you are tying into?
MR. HERRMANN: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, Conservation Advisory Council.
First of all, that patio, as-built patio, without a permit,
is over 2000 square-feet. With the size of the house and the
impervious asphalt driveway this property probably has between
50 and 75% lot coverage. This property, when we went into the
backyard, Nancy May and I did the inspection, we noted that this
property is higher than the properties on either side. So it is
always going to be, in a rain situation, what is happening, the
French drain along the front is not going to mitigate the
stormwaters that are going to come on the side.
So we feel really strongly that this should not be
approved, and that it should be removed. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, there was a brick patio prior,
correct?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. Yes'. So the pool which was long ago
permitted by the Building Department, there was a brick patio
originally there. That is why I was mentioning, it's
interesting, in your prior permit file for the retaining wall,
there are actually comparative aerials showing the prior brick
patio and the patio that is there now. That's in the Trustees
file.
But, as I said, when that retaining wall was approved, for
whatever reason, the patio, replacement patio, was not
addressed.
In other words, if you look at your photos from 2017, or
whatever it is, the same patio we looked at the other day is
there, with the exception of that landward extension up by the
house where the hot tub is.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And also noting the aerials from 2001 that the
patio is there. It' s brick.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And part of that seaward section of the
existing patio is being removed.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So there is a one-foot wide by 56-foot
long strip along the entire seaward edge of that patio that is
shown on the survey site plan up until where there is a planter,
which is already pervious. But that would be replaced with a
gravel trench drain. So any water that would be moving seaward
in that area, it would be absorbed into that area off the edge.
Board of Trustees 21 Janaury 15, 2025
I mean, it's a grade-level patio, and the water is going in
that direction one way or the other.
And just to note for the record, the Town of Southold does
not define grade-level masonry patios or asphalt driveways as
lot coverage. So the statement that there is 50% to 70% lot
coverage on this lot is just incorrect, based on the Town's
definition of lot coverage.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, Mr. Herrmann, when Trustee Gillooly
referenced the brick patio, and also Trustee Goldsmith, that
this is a replacement for that. So the brick patio had, I guess
semi-pervious because it had, kind of, but didn't have grout? Is
that the case? And now this is more of a solid surface?
MR. HERRMANN: I don't know what the condition of the prior patio
was. I was not involved with that application, so I couldn't
speak to that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: When we were onsite, we noted this is more of a
solid surface. There is no penetrable .gaps on this.
MR. HERRMANN: It is, yes. It is a masonry patio, for sure. And
that was the idea of adding the trench drain, was to try to
basically mitigate for that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Now, do you think that that trench drain on the
seaward side is sufficient for that runoff of that fairly large
patio?
MR. HERRMANN: I mean, not being a professional engineer, I can't
give you an answer to that question. It was just what was
discussed and proposed as mitigation for the patio.
I mean that is something that the Trustees had required in
prior situations. There is not really, to my knowledge, we've
spoken to a couple of different people about this, there is not
really a good way of engineering the drainage for that patio,
other than to put gravel drainage around it.
MR. RIEGER: Jerry Rieger, I'm the owner.
When we put in the new patio, the patio is inclined toward
the house slightly, and, we put in a drain adjacent to the house
which empties out into a drywell which we created at that time.
So there is additional drainage in addition to what we are
proposing now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's helpful. Thank you, for explaining.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So it looks like, the plan that we have shows
cutting back one foot in order to put in that trench drain.
Perhaps five feet back would be more appropriate, and some
plantings before the drain itself.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s acceptable.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And there were some pavers in the side yard?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, that we showed that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Those are being removed and replaced with
essentially non-turf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I guess in the field, um, it' s very obvious to
me that the area seaward of the top of bank/wood wall there, is
a non-turf buffer. It's not called out on the plans. If we are
already writing up new plans, it probably just makes sense.
Because when you look at plans, it's not as obvious, until you
Board of Trustees 22 Janaury 15, 2025
start counting steps that is what that is. But just for best
practice, it might make sense to add that. I know you're going
to ask, and I'm open.
MR. HERRMANN: You're talking about the naturally vegetated area
seaward of this wall here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. We can just re-label that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And also there is a sand level as well, right?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, that's the covenanted non-turf buffer that
was associated with retaining wall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so that was noted on the plan then?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, with the covenant page.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Actually, I mean, I'm aware of having,
we dealt with that application, but I don't see it on the plans.
Did I miss it? (Perusing) . Oh, I'm on the survey. Thank you.
All right, is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from the Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to submission of new plans to show pulling the patio
back five feet, including a trench drain and some native
plantings, leading to a drywell. I think the area on the east
side of the property currently labeled "loose brick, slate and
patio block, " a mulch non-turf buffer area; delineate the area
seaward of the wood wall non-turf buffer area, and by issuing
this permit this will be thereby bringing it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE. SEPENOSKI: Number 8, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf
of PATRICIA HELE & CHERYL CHRISTIANO requests a Wetland Permit
to remove and replace in place ±50' long wood bulkhead; add a
12' northern return; remove and replace 16' southern return;
raise the elevation of the bulkhead and two returns 12 inches
higher than existing elevation; bulkhead and returns to be
constructed using vinyl sheathing with 10" diameter pilings 6'
on-center, 6"x6" whalers, and tie-rods leading to a backing
system consisting of helix screws and a fiberglass grated cap;
remove existing permitted fixed catwalk and construct new 191x4'
catwalk using Thru-Flow decking supported by 10" diameter
pilings; re-install existing permitted ramp to 61x20' floating
dock; as-built 13'x13' stone and brick patio; and to establish
and perpetually maintain the existing 14 ' wide non-turf buffer
located along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 23 Janaury 15, 2025
Located: 1140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-16
The Trustees visited the site on the 8th of this month and
noted the dock to go no further seaward than existing.
The LWRP found this project to be both consistent and
inconsistent. The dock structure is consistent. The as-built
13x13 foot stone and brick patio is recommended inconsistent
because it' s built without a permit. And there should be an
effort made to maximize vegetated buffers landward from the
wetland system.
The Conservation. Advisory Council did not have a quorum but
made recommendations in the spirit of the LWRP comments.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf
of the applicants.
With regard to the concern that the dock not extend any
further, it is not going to. You'll notice oft the survey, the
present catwalk is 4x19, and we are asking to replace it 4xl9.
So the dock, ramp and dock will remain in the very same
location.
Beside that, it should be a straightforward application,
and I do want to note that we are removing as part of this
project what is a groin essentially on the southern end of that,
presently what is there in the southern end of the bulkhead. So
we are removing structure. And hopefully this will help
normalize the shoreline and promote vegetation in that area.
If there are any other questions from the Board, I'm happy
to answer them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, I just noticed on the plans bulkhead,
pea gravel, and that's, what is the distance on that, that
buffer?
MR. BERGEN: That is --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think 14-foot wide.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 14 feet.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, that checks out in the field. The one
thing we noticed is there is a lot of really large bluestone
flagstones in that pea gravel area.
MR. BERGEN: In the buffer area, yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. Is the plan to keep that bluestone
situation there, and --
MR. BERGEN: They would like to keep that, but if that's an
issue, then it' s certainly something that is easily removable.
It' s your discretion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. I think we were comfortable with
the project overall. Obviously the dock was not even a problem.
But with the pea gravel, to be consistent with the plans, it
would just be returned to pea gravel as the buffer.
MR. BERGEN: When you used the word "returns" I got a little
confused there with structural returns.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just make the plans match what is in the
field, the field match what's in the plans, whatever.
MR. BERGEN: Sure. All right.
Board of Trustees 24 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments from the public or Members
of the Board wishing to speak?
(No response) .
Seeing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that bluestone in the 14-foot
wide buffer be removed, and that area be entirely pea gravel.
With that buffer in place, it would address the LWRP' s concerns
and bring the project into consistency with its wishes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 9, Timothy Cloughen on behalf of 5415
SKUNK LN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
fixed dock consisting of landward steps up to a 4 ' X 60' 9" fixed
dock with a 4' X 17 ' 6" fixed "T" section off seaward end.
Located: 5380 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-16
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 8th of
January, noting the landward side of the dock must be off the
town right-of-way; six-inch piles should be used; and reduce
seaward side of dock a minimum of four feet.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
present.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CLOUGHEN: Yes. Hi. My name is Timothy Cloughen, representing
the owners. The owners wish to ask the Board of Trustees if they
can make a request for a floating dock, which would be the "T"
part of it at the end of the dock. He had spoken to the owner,
who I believe is, I guess would be east, sorry, would be north
of him. He said that the fixed "T" was kind of treacherous to
get onto a boat, so he recommended to the owner, Mr. Joe Didone
(sic) , to ask and see if we can propose in lieu of a fixed "T".
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So just looking at the water depth here,
unfortunately at the current location you would not have the
water depth sufficient for a floating dock, and with our field
notes of wanting to dial the dock back by at least four feet,
there definitely would not be enough water depth for a floating
dock.
MR. CLOUGHEN: I see. So do you want to bring the dock further
toward the land?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MR. CLOUGHEN: Is that my understanding? Like four feet? Right
now we had it lined up with other two docks that are there. So
Board of Trustees 25 Janaury 15, 2025
we were told to kind of draw an imaginary line, so we put the
imaginary line and we made sure that our dock was within that
imaginary line. It' s on the survey. I think you guys have it.
So you are asking us to reduce it down more landward and
not have it by four feet?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. So as the land curves inward, we do see
that you noted the pier line here and it is within the pier
line, and we appreciate that practice here. But in this case,
the land comes in and it seems appropriate to come in at least
four feet, to be a little bit more consistent with the docks,
especially the docks to the south.
MR. CLOUGHEN: Okay, so you want us just to move it more. Okay.
And then what was the other, if you could just repeat some of
the other things you had.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So we were looking to see six-inch pilings.
MR. CLOUGHEN: Did I not depict that on the drawings? I thought
I did six-inch with the decking that is perforated.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The thru-flow decking. I do see the thru-flow
decking noted. Let me check.
MR. CLOUGHEN: It should be on one of the sections. Because I'm
pretty sure I put six inch.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Perusing) . I'm seeing eight-inch CCA piles.
So I think what we wanted to do is reduce that to six inch.
MR. CLOUGHEN: Okay, I'll reduce that. I thought I had it down to
six. I'll reduce it to six. It's not a problem. I thought I had
it at six.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No problem. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application, or any other comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just make one, for your design,
potentially. We have done step-downs for that "T" so if you want
that at a lower level than the fixed catwalk, we have done that.
MR. CLOUGHEN: How much can you step it down, if we do fixed --
is it, figure it' s a typical step is seven inches, can we go two
steps down and then go onto it? Because as I said, my client is
kind of, he's older., he has a leg problem, so he' s worried about
getting in and out. And he likes to go kayaking, so it would be
a little easier for him, as long as -- I can update the drawings
and show that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. CLOUGHEN: Okay, great.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just keep it off the road, right?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE 'KRUPSKI: I guess the comment on the general nature of
the kayaking, having grown up on this street. It' s at lot easier
and safer to just drag the kayak into the water.
MR. CLOUGHEN: The way it is, there is so much, there' s a lot of
seaweed and a lot of I guess, what are those, grass, he can't
walk across it. That' s why he wants the deck to be able to get
across it because it is kind of treacherous to get through it.
And he also, of course, would like a little boat, too, as well,
SO.
Board of Trustees 26 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Any other comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this project
subject to new plans depicting use of six-inch piles to be used
for construction; the seaward protrusion of the dock must be
dialed back by at least four feet to account for the curve of
the land; and the landward edge of the dock must be out of the
town right-of-way. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number. 10, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DAVID &
PAMELA KENNEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
150 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead in same location as existing; install a proposed 15
linear foot long bulkhead return on north side; remove and
replace existing 4' wide by 54' total length steps to beach in
same location as existing using un-treated timber decking;
revegetate disturbed bluff after bulkhead installation with Cape
American beach grass plugs at 24" on-center for entire disrupted
area.
Located: 190 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold; SCTM# 1000-66-1-32
The Trustees most recently visited the site January 8th,
2025 and Trustee Sepenoski noted straightforward, plant 18
inches on center for success.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent, and
recommended that the Board require multi-year survivability
warrantee for all planted vegetation.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have a quorum
present.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
No problem with the 18-inch plantings. Any other
questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve the application with
the condition that the American beach grass plugs are 18 inches
on center for survivability, and subject to new plans depicting
same. And noting the survivability thereby bringing it into
Board of Trustees 27 Janaury 15, 2025
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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 4'x10
ramp to grade landward of low-sill bulkhead to a 41x56' catwalk
with Thru-Flow type decking, a 31x14 ' aluminum ramp, and a
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "T" configuration; a rope
handrail to be installed on one side of the catwalk; revegetate
disturbed area landward of low-sill bulkhead with Spartina
patens, Baccaris halimifolia, and Iva frutescens; and to trim
the phragmites to not less than 12" by hand on an as-needed
basis.
Located: 800 Koke Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-7
The Trustees conducted a field inspection, January 8th,
2025, noting the dock seems too long, exceeds the pier line.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the further encroachment into public waters is not supported
by Policy 9.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. We do have a letter here in the file stamped
received January 8th, 2025, from Cole Environmental discussing
the dock to the north.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Yes. Chris Cole, Cole Environmental.
First, we were here in December and the Board mentioned
there is significant runoff from the rainstorm that we were all
out and getting soaked in, and the homeowner, contractor and
architect have all addressed that they put hay bales, they
filled in some of the areas. So they've taken the Board' s
considerations and addressed those. So that piece of it should
be resolved.
Second, the dock to the, call it northwest, 700 Koke Drove,
previously in the last hearing was noted that that was an
illegal configuration. Upon further research that dock has been
looked at and it is an approved configuration by the Board.
We've submitted plans that were stamped by the Board and
subsequent modifications that make that configuration a legal
configuration.
I wanted to note that there has been a ramp and float at
this location, our client's location, since 1972. There is no
technical pier line per the adjacent, immediately adjacent
structures. You know, dock to dock, because there is no dock on
the other side.
Board of Trustees 28 Janaury 15, 2025
If we were to take into consideration the bulkhead at the
other property, we are within the pier line. Going from the
neighbor' s dock at 700 Koke to the bulkhead, we stay within
that. We've reached two-and-a-half feet at low tide with our
configuration, and we are comparable in length to the neighbor's..
floating dock. We are 15 feet from both sides of the property,
and we won't interfere with any of the navigation or potentially
new docks in the area from the other two properties.
And I have an approximate pier line if we would like to
view the other bulkhead as the drawing of where the pier line
is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The original dock that was there, what was
its length?
MR. COLE: The original dock for our application?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. COLE: I don't have the exact measurement, but it' s
approximately 40 feet or so, and that float would, you know,
isn't in sufficient water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe it was just a ramp to that float. I
don't think there was a fixed section.
MR. COLE: Yes, it was a weird, old configuration, but. So our
new dock is bringing everything up into compliance, using
through-flow decking, having the appropriate height above the
intertidal marsh. I also do want to mention there was an
application done for the house. There was a 40-foot buffer
placed on that'. We are reducing the height of the low sill
bulkhead that is there, to encourage more wetland growth and to
have a seamless transition into the upland. Just keeping the low
sill there to hold in the bank.
So this dock is comparable to and smaller than the
neighbor's dock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So part of our concern was the original dock,
looking at the plans, seems to end around 18 inches of water.
And this new dock, roughly twice the length of what was there
previously just to get out to the 30 inches of water for a
float.
I'm still not 100% convinced that that dock on the
northwest side is what was permitted. In says something about a
17-foot ramp, but I believe in our measurements it was longer
than that. So I don't know if that dock in its current
configuration is as was permitted.
And then to, you know, this is a tough spot with the pier
line, because we only have one. So on the other side we have
zero. So if we did draw a line from the permitted dock to the
northwest, to the other side, you know, this current dock would
have to be dialed back quite a bit.
You know, what we are looking to do is to minimize the
amount of extra dock that is going to protrude into public
waters. So, you know, when you had a previous dock that went
anywhere from three inches to 18 inches of water depth, if we
did something shorter than what was proposed, say at a 50-foot
fixed, you would end up in about 27 inches of water depth, which
Board of Trustees 29 Janaury 15, 2025
minimizes the impact of the proposed new structure, however,
it' s an improvement over what was there, and also increased
water depth, which could accommodate a larger vessel.
So that was the thought process with the Trustees.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Would the Board be open to a fixed pier with a
platform and steps down closer to mean high water? So 56-foot
fixed platform with -- a 56-foot pier leading to a fixed
platform.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we talked about was a 50-foot fixed. So
basically, looking at your plans, take off one section of
pilings so the terminus, seaward terminus, would be about 24 to
27 inches of water depth there. You know, if you want to make
that into a "T" as opposed to a straight fixed catwalk, I don't
think we would have any objection to that. And if you want to
make it step down, as was done on a previous application, I
don't believe we would have any objection to that as well.
Our concerns were the overall length of the dock in
relation to the other docks and in relation to the pier line and
in relation to water depth.
MR. COLE: So I do have approved plans, and they match up with
the aerial that I just provided you. There is a piling that goes
past that float, and then if you draw that pier line out we are
roughly six feet in from where the pier line is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Again, the pier line here is from whatever
the dock is next door to zero.
MR. COLE: So in that case the pier line won't apply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I guess we would be, you know, granting
you room if we allow you to go past that. Otherwise it would be
a 25-foot dock.
MR. COLE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The right to wharf out, as it reads in the
code, does not mean the right to a float. And it certainly
doesn't mean the right to extend until you reach the depth for a
larger boat. It just means access to the water.
So minimizing structure in an environmentally critical
habitat is what we are trying to do here.
There are two options. We could, you know, go with that,
the pier line as it reads, or what we have done in the past is
sort of a general pier line study of the creek and in an
appropriate sized dock in this creek, you know, looking aside
from the outlier there, would be about a 50-foot fixed dock.
MR. COLE: So, just for clarity, because I think at the last
hearing we had discussed, Trustee Sepenoski discussed a 56-foot
long fixed pier is that what the Board is open to? Or --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I like the compromise of a stepdown or the
other constraints that you are under with water depth and the
limitations we are seeing with how far to go out with it. I
think that' s a good approach to this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just say I would like to see 50-foot
total, but I don't know about the rest of the Board, so.
Board of Trustees 30 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think 50-foot total makes sense, when you
look at the other conforming docks that are built according to
the approved in that neighborhood, they are all ranging around
50 feet. So I think that is what is appropriate for this area,
personally.
MR. COLE: Would the Board be open to a 50-foot, and then the
four-foot-wide platform, 4x20 at the end?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think what we are saying is 50-foot for the
overall length. So if you want to do a 4x20 "T" at the end,
then it would be a, you know, 46-foot fixed, dropping down to a
4x20 "T" that way the overall length seaward projection of the
dock is no longer than 50 feet. And again, that would bring you
into two to 27 inches, either 24 inches to 27 inches of water as
opposed to the three to 18 that you currently have with the
existing dock.
MR. COLE: Okay. We would like to propose the 4x20, with a
maximum length of 50 feet. And I 'm not sure if the Board can
condition that on new plans, we would be willing to submit
those.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Before we proceed any further, I just wanted to
note we are talking about this 50 feet seaward, the seaward
projection of the dock. You have a note on here that it's a
4x10 foot ramp on the landward side.
MR. COLE: Yes, the distance we would be talking about is from
the low sill bulkhead out.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct. Yes. The seaward projection. But that
just seems a little long, a little excessive. I'm assuming that
is in order to access over the marsh area.
MR. COLE: Yes, that is to go up and over, because the wetlands
kind of go in landward at that point. And as we go further to
the east, the wetland line comes in a little bit.
So it' s, that is to get up and over the wetlands. The Army
Corps and DEC, everyone wants us to be four feet above that
wetlands, so we have to transition up and over.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board.
(No response) .
Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of a four-foot by 46-foot fixed
catwalk with thru-flow decking, to a four-foot by 20-foot fixed
"T" with thru-flow decking, subject to new plans, and by dialing
the dock back it will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 31 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, Cole Environmental Consulting on
behalf of 1420 SMITH DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing two-story dwelling with attached garage
(3, 443.7sq. ft. Footprint) ; existing enclosed seaward porch to be
reduced to 10. 9'x27 .6' with proposed 20. 6'x65.5' seaward patio;
proposed 32.2'x6. 6' second story rear deck; existing outdoor
shower enclosure, wood deck, root cellar, and shed to be
removed; existing garage to be reconfigured and converted to
living space with 283.5sq.ft. Of garage to remain and a with a
5.7'xl9.8 ' first floor rear extension; proposed 16.0'x31.3'
first floor landward extension; existing 59. 8sq.ft. Front porch
to be enclosed for living space; proposed new 5.7'x27 .8' front
porch; proposed 38.5'x8.84' second floor addition within
existing footprint; existing A/C units; and install gutters to
leaders to drywells to_ contain roof runoff; abandon existing
septic system and install an I/A OWTS system landward of
dwelling; remove existing bulkhead on easterly side to be
replaced using vinyl sheathing and raised to elevation 6. 0' to
match adjacent easterly neighbor; construct ±84 linear feet of
new section of bulkhead (upper bulkhead) to continue west along
length of property, landward of existing wetland line with ±11'
vinyl return; install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-turf buffer for full width of property, landward of upper
bulkhead and planted with Cape American beach grass with a 4'
wide access path to dock; existing ±85 linear foot low-sill
bulkhead to be replaced with new vinyl low-sill bulkhead with
±15' vinyl return; plywood bulkhead extensions, existing boat
ramp and adjacent return to be removed; approximately 30 cubic
yards of clean fill to be used for backfill; establish and
perpetually maintain a 16' wide non-disturbance buffer in
between low-sill and upper bulkhead, to be planted with Spartina
patens; existing concrete wall and wood wall to be removed from
upland; construct a proposed 41x16' fixed catwalk with railing
using Thru-Flow decking, a 31x12' aluminum ramp, and a 61x20'
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured by
two (2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 1420 Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-3-10. 1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
recommended that the existing trees and vegetation be integrated
into vegetated buffers to protect marine wetlands.
I do not see a report from the Conservation Advisory
Council in here.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on January
8th, 2025. In the notes noted to confirm dock length meets 25%
rule. Shift retaining wall landward and add buffer, non-turf
vegetated. Save existing trees, and if patio is not pervious,
install trench drain connected to drywells.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 32 Janaury 15, 2025
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the
client. I also have the homeowner here as well.
We discussed the concerns that the Board mentioned. We'll
be putting a trench drain on the seaward side of the patio to
address that runoff. Additionally, we'll be moving the proposed
retaining wall to the existing concrete wall. And then we just
would like to extend, just to reflect the plans that are
currently proposed, extend the return up to meet the retaining
wall. And then I know the Board noted onsite about the
additional buffer, so we can propose a five-foot additional
buffer landward of that retaining wall for the length of the
retaining wall.
And I just want to clarify, because I know the description
says replacing the low sill, but the low sill will remain in
place. There is just a small section where there is a timber
ramp where there is no low sills. So we like to include, just to
propose that section.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you speak to the dock?
MR. RUMMEL: I know there were concerns or questions regarding
the dock. It is 15 feet of the waterway. So it is in the deepest
part. But the primary goal for the client is, the primary
concern, is the rest of the project.
So if there are additional concerns from the Board, I would
like to just get them on the record and then perhaps remove it
from the project and address at a later date.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think our concerns were simply with the 25%
extension, with inclusion of the vessel.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And one of the other things that we had
discussed, I know you are talking about replacing the bulkhead.
So there is usually some reclamation dredging that can accompany
that.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if you replace the bulkhead and you get
the water depth, perhaps you can then re-situate the dock closer
to that bulkhead because you'll have sufficient water depth for
a float, tuck it up closer, then it wouldn't be a question with
the 25% at that point.
MS. RUMMEL: Right, so we would like to remove the dock from this
application and then we can address it at a later date. So,
unless the Board would be open to including reclamation dredging
without additional review.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is the bulkhead on the east side being
raised? Replaced?
MR. SALICE: Gary Salice.
So the existing bulkhead is a PVC bulkhead. We are just
raising the existing bulkhead with additional PVC to meet the
adjoining property at level six. It' s not being removed. It's
relatively new.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I would just double check with the DEC
permit, if you are doing work to that bulkhead, they may allow
Board of Trustees 33 Janaury 15, 2025
you. I know you are to not replacing it.
MR. SALICE: Yes, we already got DEC approval and Army Corps of
Engineering.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: ' So they have some reclamation dredging as
part of that. Just check that. And I 'm sure there is a history
of dredging in this section of the creek anyway.
. MR. SALICE: There is, yes..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So where you may not currently have water
depth for a float right now, depending on which way you go with
the permit, you could have water depth going forward, which may
give you the ability to relocate that dock somewhere else going
forward.
MR. SALICE: Right. Okay. So I'm not sure where that leaves us.
But, quite frankly, the dock is the least of my concern. I need
a place to live, so I already sold my other house, so that's my
main concern is to start the renovation so I can move.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. BROWN: Carol Brown, Conservation Advisory Council.
The Conservation Advisory Council did comment on this about
five, six, seven months ago when it first came out. And those
plans, we absolutely were not supportive of.
These new plans are so much bigger and take into
consideration the land and the neighbors, et cetera, and the
water.
Living a few houses away from there, I know how much this
land gets flooded in any rain, so I feel very strongly that the
bulkhead needs to be repaired so that it will protect the rest
of the land and all the work that is going to be done on the
house.
And since we are not dealing with the dock anymore, we
don't have to deal with that. About seven years ago, that
whole, that whole channel was dredged, but it needs to be done
on a regular basis anyway. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MS. RUMMEL: We can submit revised plans showing the new location
of the retaining wall, removing the proposed dock, including the
trench drain and the additional five-foot buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, I mean, just to be clear, and I certainly
can appreciate wanting to get in the home. You know, I think the
site is a very appropriate site for the dock. I mean, if you
wanted to keep it on the table for a month and come back with
new plans, I think it's a no-brainer. But it doesn't sound like
you want to do that. So it would just need another application
for that in the future.
MS. RUMMEL: Correct
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Are there any additional comments
from the Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, I make a
motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 34 Janaury 15, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the submission of new plans to include the retaining wall
being moved landward; with native vegetation and non-turf buffer
in between the retaining wall and the wetlands; landward of 'said
retaining wall to be a five-foot vegetated non-turf buffer;
trench drain along the patio tied into a drywell to avoid
runoff; save all existing native trees; new plans to show no
dock existing on plans; and with the new description striking
"dock" from the application.
(A conversation is held off the record) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. I'm still on this motion. I
apologize.
MS. RUMMEL: That' s okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To clarify, striking from the current
description, "construct a proposed 41x16' fixed catwalk with
railing using Thru-Flow decking, a 31x12' aluminum ramp, and a
61x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and
secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings. "
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:
MS. RUMMEL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, everybody.
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Golds th, President
Board of Trustees