HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/12/2025 Glenn Goldsmith, President QF SUUT Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ��� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples � �O - Fax(631) 765-6641
COUNTY��
y �.s N=•iy:�>..p l+� (`yam a
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAR 2 0 2025
Minutes
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
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: All right, good evening and welcome to our
Wednesday, February 12th, 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'll 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, . and we have
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted out in the hall and located
on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
Postponements in the agenda, on page four, under Wetland and Coastal,
numbers one and two, listed 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 'xl6' steps to a 41x4 '
platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 4'x4 ' platform to 41x16' steps to a
4 'x4' platform to 41x4 ' steps to a 41x4' platform to 4 'xl6' 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.
Board of Trustees 2 February 12, 2025
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 4'x4' lower platform with 31x6' retractable aluminum
steps to beach; all decking to be un-treated timber.
Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6.
On page eight, numbers 12 through 15:
Number 12, Christopher Dwyer on behalf of NORTH FORK COUNTRY
CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing 68, 694 .86sq.ft.
Pond 18" to provide an extra 730, 723.85 gallons of capacity as well
as filling in and regrading 1, 400sq.ft. of the northeast corner of
the pond with 430. 91 cubic yards of clean fill; existing pond liner
to be removed, suitable subbase to remain, and 45 Mill EPDM liner to
be installed; a 12, 000sq.ft. area of trees will be removed; a
45, 000sq.ft. Area of underbrush and small trees (less than 6" in
caliper) to be removed with existing large trees to be limbed up to
40' height to allow for the construction of 3,220sq.ft. storage
building with a concrete material storage area; a 9,580sq.ft.
bluestone gravel area will be installed for access to storage
building and materials; and a 11, 600sq.ft. area of phragmites to be
excavated to 3' to 6' depth of root removal with approx. 1, 300 cubic
yards of clean sand fill to be added and graded out.
Located: 26342 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3.
Number 13, BARBARA LASKIN REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o BARBARA LASKIN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ±4' 6" x ±11' addition onto
the southerly side of the existing permitted one-story dwelling.
Located: 480 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-8-8.5.
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.
Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WALTER CHADWICK & MARK
LOWENHEIM request a Wetland Permit to extend the existing permitted
4 'x79' fixed catwalk an additional 14' off seaward end using
Thru-Flow decking on extension for a 41xll3' fixed catwalk (including
4 'x20' landward fixed ramp from foot path to catwalk) ; relocate
existing permitted 32"x14 ' aluminum ramp and 61x20' floating dock off
Board of Trustees 3 February 12, 2025
seaward end in a new "T" configuration.
Located: 6565 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-25.
And on page 9, numbers 16 and 17:
Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SOTO J. & D.E. FAMILY
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing
4'x60' fixed dock in same location as existing; construct a 4'x10'
landward extension and a 4'x15' seaward extension for an overall size
of 4'x87 ' ; the entire new dock will have Thru-Flow decking.
Located: 190 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-9.
Number 17, William Goggins, Esq. on behalf of HULL CHEW requests
a Wetland Permit to install an 181x38' in-ground swimming pool, with
pool enclosure fencing, a designated 41X8' drywell for pool backwash,
and 3'X6' pool equipment area.
Located: 600 Inlet View East, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-100-3-10.10.
All of those are postponed for tonight.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) files were officially closed
seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result
in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time, I make a motion to have our
next field inspection Wednesday, March 12th, 2025, with a storm
date contingent upon the weather.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 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, March 19, 2025, at 5:30 PM 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, March 17th, 2025, at 5:00 PM, Town Hall annex,
second floor executive board room, and on Wednesday, March 19th,
2025, at 5:00 PM, in the Town Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IV, Minutes. I'll make a
Board of Trustees 4 February 12, 2025
motion to approve the Minutes of the January 15th, 2025 meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustee monthly report for January 2025.
A check for $51,533.59 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, Public Notices.
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s bulletin board for
review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman number VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, February 12, 2025 are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Gomb Beach, LLC SCTM# 1000-52-1-3
Founders Landing Boat Yard, LLC SCTM# 1000-64-3-10
Founders Landing Boat Yard, LLC SCTM# 1000-64-3-11
Pine West, LLC SCTM# 1000-128-1-5
Janet & Gregg Gunzburg SCTM# 1000-78-2-39
265 Arshamomaque, LLC SCTM# 1000-56-2-14
Michael & Erin Mangan SCTM# 1000-57-1-5
Neil & Amy McGoldrick SCTM# 1000-116-4-16.4
Scott & Patricia Paskewitz SCTM# 1000-78-7-20
Win Wunn, LLC SCTM# 1000-86-6-11
Jeffrey Victor & Lisa Hsia SCTM# 1000-53-3-6
Richard & Kathleen O'Toole & Erin Doherty SCTM# 1000-145-2-7
North Fork Country Club SCTM# 1000-109-4-8.3
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions,
Board of Trustees 5 February 12, 2025
Administrative Permits, I'll make a motion to approve
Number 1, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of WASSEP14M CROWN LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to replace existing deck and
stairs, remove the foot bridge and a 3' deck extension for a
9. 6'x21.2' deck with 3' wide steps to ground.
,Located: 60125 North Road, Sea Breeze Village Condominiums-Unit
1D, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44. 1-1-1
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, CURTIS & RITA WINKLER request an
Administrative Permit for the as-built 12'x 22 ' deck added to
back of dwelling.
Located: 380 Hickory Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-6-10
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection February loth,
2025, noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built deck was constructed without a
Board of Trustee review or permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and by granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 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.
In order to simplify our meeting, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature. Accordingly, I will make a motion to approve as a group
items 1 through 5 and 7 and 8, listed as follows:
Number 1, MARYANNE KELLEY & DIANE C. McKENNA request a One
(1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10326, as issued March 15,
2023.
Located: 1775 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-19
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of AMNON & KATHLEEN
BAR-TUR requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #10094, as issued March 16, 2022.
Located: 170 Bay Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-2-26. 4
Number 3, GAYLE MARRINER-SMITH & CHRISTOPHER SMITH request
a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10080, as
issued February 16, 2022, and Amended on July 13, 2022.
Located: 2555 Kirkup Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-3-8
Number 4, WILLIAM & MARIAM HALLOCK request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10574, as issued May
Board of Trustees 6 February 12, 2025
15, 2024, to reduce the size of approved in-ground swimming pool
to 16' x 28 ' with 1' coping and perimeter trench drain; remove
approved 660 sq.ft. Pool patio surround; swimming pool drains to
be a minimum of 100' from wetlands.
Located: 1230 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-9-56
Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER, LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9930, as
issued June 16, 2021, and Amended June 15, 2022, and again on
January 17, 2024, to construct approximately 84 linear feet of
3' high masonry retaining wall along easterly edge of proposed
driveway to maintain existing adjacent grade.
Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18.1
Number 7, Eugene Burger on behalf of 1050 WEST COVE ROAD,
LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9501, as issued July 17, 2019, and Amended September 18, 2019,
for the as-built pool width increased by 2 ' landward; as-built
retaining wall; as-built pool surround; as-built stone steps by
deck; as-built- patio entrance increased by 24 sq. ft.
Located: 1050 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-1
Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of ROCKY BLUFF LLC
requests and Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10622,
as issued August 14, 2024, to eliminate previously approved 408
sq.ft of one-story addition, and instead replace the existing
313 sq.ft screened porch with a 201 sq. ft one-story addition and
112 sq.ft. Of covered entry, which together with the existing
165 sq.ft. Covered entry will become a new 277 sq.ft. Covered
entry.
Located: 645 Rosenburg Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-1-26. 1
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC
RIVER, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10235, as issued October 19, 2022, to construct 36
linear feet of 4' wide paver stone access pathway in same
location as previously approved 4' cleared path.
Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18. 1
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection February 12th,
2025, noting that the access path should be permeable.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the access path to the bulkhead be permeable.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings, at
Board of Trustees 7 yFebruary 12, 2025
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into the 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.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Amendments, number 1, Young Associates on
behalf of GOMB BEACH, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10047 to construct a front entry structure (56sq.ft.
Stairways, 48sq.ft. Lower landings, 84sq.ft. Top landing &
16sq.ft. Planter) in lieu of front porch; construction of 75
linear feet of reinforced concrete retaining wall on the
westerly side ranging in height from 0.5 ' to 5.5' with a
24sq.ft. of concrete stairway between this wall and dwelling to
step up from the front to the side and rear yards; construct 115
linear feet of reinforced concrete retaining wall on the
easterly and southerly sides ranging in height from 0.5' to 7 .0'
with 12sq. ft. of concrete stairway between this wall and the
dwelling to step up from the front side and rear yards;
excavation and removal of approx. 1, 200 cubic yards of excess
soil materials and disposal at an approved off-site location to
facilitate construction of the proposed two-story dwelling,
garage and related site improvements.
Located: 54205 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-1-3
The Trustees most recently inspected the property on the
5th of February, noting that the new aspects of the project
include retaining walls, review heights, and needs for
elevations, review further at work session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noting
that the retaining walls are on property lines and will change
the drainage patterns of this and adjacent properties.
What does the note "high grade" mean on each retaining
wall.
What is the elevation change between the parcels.
Clarify the ground elevation in the compound will be 14
feet.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. Good evening, members of the Board and staff,
my name is Thomas Wolpert, civil engineer with Young Associates,
Board of Trustees 8 February 12, 2025
with offices in Riverhead.
Also present is Mike Polevis (sic) , and he is a member of
the Gomb Beach LLC.
This application is for an Administrative Amendment and
renewal of a Wetland Permit as originally issued December 15th,
2021.
The plan has been amended since 2021 to relocate the
proposed sewage disposal system. It is partially under a
driveway which required a covenant to be filed with the Suffolk
County Health Department. That has been completed. And because
the garage under requires excavation from the grade of the
adjacent road down to the garage level, forced us to construct,
or proposed to construct, two retaining walls. And those
retaining walls as described in your narrative, which was based
on our detailed description, they range in height from half a
foot to as much as seven feet. That' s on the easterly and
southerly side of the subject property. And the other wall
ranges -- where are we here -- from half-a-foot to about five
feet.
In reference to the comment made by the, was it the
Conservation Advisory Council --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The LWRP.
MR. WOLPERT: -- as to high grade/low grade. If you can
visualize looking at the property, you are going to drive down a
driveway to a garage at a lower level. And the retaining walls,
the high grade is on the neighboring side, the low grade is on
the subject property side. And the reason for that is not only
to construct a garage under, and to maintain a grade at the
seaward side of the house, maintain the existing grade, but also
to accommodate the sewage disposal system and drywells for a
driveway drainage.
Does anyone have any questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So one thing that we are concerned about is
retaining walls on property lines, however that is typically
because we don't want people building walls up and out of the
ground, interfacing with the neighbors.
MR. WOLPERT: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : On either side of this project, on the
subsequent properties, how much of the wall is actually -- how
much of the wall is above grade, if you are on the neighboring
property?
MR. WOLPERT: Probably less than six inches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On both sides?
MR. WOLPERT: On both sides.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the full length.
MR. WOLPERT: And there will be a rail constructed on top of
those retaining walls.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, yes. I saw that.
MR. WOLPERT: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the rail directly on top of or is it just
Board of Trustees 9 February 12, 2025
outside of?
MR. WOLPERT: Directly on top of, is what we would propose.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then the sanitary system is going in the
driveway subsurface of that excavated area?
MR. WOLPERT: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, and what is the pitch with regard to
that, what is essentially a parking area leading into a garage,
is that pitch towards the road or towards the house?
MR. WOLPERT: It' s toward the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. WOLPERT: But it slopes up slightly towards the garage, so,
in other words, everything drains to the low point, um --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the center?
MR. WOLPERT: Not in the center.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or roughly.
MR. WOLPERT: We like to put our leaching not in the center but
more towards the perimeter of the driveway.
If you look at, sorry, sheet one of two, we have a drainage
inlet with a grade on it in the southeasterly portion of the
driveway. You see that along that big curb there. And that leads
to two drywells.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup. And in that corner you also, the retaining
wall comes down and then 90s over, roughly, 90?
MR. WOLPERT: Roughly 90, yes. A little bit more.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the exposure, if you are standing on
the road looking at that portion?
MR. WOLPERT: Well, you night note that this property has a funny
angle on the front boundary line, and if you are standing in the
road, you are already 30 feet away from that wall. If you are
standing on the edge of the road. But the, if you are facing the
house, the left side of that retaining wall is only a half a
foot. And then at the angle it increases to about five feet.
But again, you are not going to see the wall because it' s
retaining the soil between the wall and the roadway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm sorry, what was that distance between
that and the 48?
MR. WOLPERT: Well this, from the edge of pavement?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. WOLPERT: Is probably 28 feet, something like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And it's five feet to the north side, but if
you are standing on the road, is it again only six inches of
exposure there?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. The five feet is on the property, on the side
that you don't see from the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
Does anyone else wish to speak regarding this application,
or are there any additional comments from the Members of the
Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close
Board of Trustees 10 February 12, 2025
the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the addition of one native hardwood tree planted on the
property following the construction of the project. With the
addition that following field inspection and review of the
plans, this thereby is consistent with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp. , on behalf of FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT
YARD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Maintenance Permit to dredge two areas within the boat basin;
area "A" of the boat basin (approx. 14, 498sq.ft. ) To be dredged
to 7 .0' below Mean Low Water Elevation 0.01 ; area "B" of the
boat basin (approx. 3,828sq.ft. ) To be dredged to 5 ' below Mean
Low Water Elevation 0.0' ; all dredge material to be removed off
site to an approved disposal site.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-10
The Trustees visited the site on the 5th of this month, and
notes from that read: Dredging is straightforward.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with turbidity
controls in place.
Anyone wish to speak regarding the application?
MS. COSTELLO: Jane Costello, as an owner of the boatyard.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Good evening, Jane.
MS. COSTELLO: I think the project is pretty straightforward as
stated. We are just looking for a maintenance dredge permit just
to keep the slips cleaned and travel-lift clean and things like
that.
I know I have this wonky mid-basin property line, I'm
talking, just in general on the two properties.
So, if you have any specific questions, I 'll be more than
happy to answer them, or anybody from the public.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Not at this time. Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: From the public?
(No response) .
Hearing no further wish to speak, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 11 February 12, 2025
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On
behalf of FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT YARD, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge two
areas within the boat basin; area "A" of the boat basin (approx.
21, 886sq.ft. ) To be dredged to 7 .0' below Mean Low Water
Elevation 0.01 ; area "B" of the boat basin (approx. 6, 696sq.ft. )
To be dredged to 5' below Mean Low Water Elevation 0. 0' ; all
dredge material to be removed off site to an approved disposal
site.
Located: 1000 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-11
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of
February, noting that the dredging is straightforward.
And the LWRP found it to be consistent with turbidity
controls in place.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: I'm still Jane Costello, the owner of the
boatyard. Any questions, I would be more than happy to answer
them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any questions from the public or
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 GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, Jeffrey Sands on behalf of PINE WEST,
LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a private driveway
from Great Peconic Bay Boulevard to proposed private residence
and detached garage by clearing the area for an approx. 12 ' wide
by ±200' long driveway with an estimated clearing area of
approx. 10, 100sq.ft. ; install water line and power line within
cleared areas; install a buffer boundary line using ±100 pound
stones spaced 3.5 ' max apart to limit site disturbance;
establish and maintain a 4' wide access naturally vegetated
access path to the wetlands/water; the ±4, 600 sq. ft. Disturbed
and cleared area within the buffer to be revegetated; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a Non-Disturbance Buffer
Board of Trustees 12 February 12, 2025
throughout the area seaward of the demarcation of stones placed
along the edge of wetlands line.
Located: 5445 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-128-1-5
The Trustees most recently visited the site on February
5th, 2025, and Trustee Goldsmith made the following notes:
Possibly shift the driveway west to save existing trees.
Revegetation plan for clearing within jurisdiction. Question
need for the four-foot access path.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent with
policies 4 and 6. Noting the following:
Number one, portions of the driveway are located within a
FEMA flood zones; the probability of the driveway flooding at
entrance is high over time; what is the driveway designed, the
lower seven foot and eight-foot elevations.
Number two, increase the driveway elevation by shifting it
east. Try to achieve a minimum elevation of 12 feet.
Number three, how wide is the driveway. Can it meet New
York state fire code.
Number four, design driveway pitch so that no runoff can
enter the wetland through the buffer.
Number 5, the use of RCA is not recommended.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regards to this
application?
MR. SCHILLING: Hi, my name is William Schilling. My architect is
the one who filed the permit. He couldn't be here tonight. He's
on vacation. So I wanted to come here and just, you know,
explain why, the situation.
As far as what you said about the driveway, we can raise
the grade of the driveway. The driveway will be about 14 to 16
feet wide, which would be more than sufficient for a fire truck
to get down the driveway.
As far as going to the east, the only reason why we didn't
go to the east more is because I don't know if you guys were at
the site, is the large trees that we are trying to keep, you
know, trying to keep it so it was secluded, that the house is
set in the back, and you have in the summertime it would be not
so noticeable. That' s the reason why we didn't shift it over
more that way.
Also, the house to the east encroaches, his patio
encroaches on to our property, if you look on the survey, which
we- kind of worked that out with the neighbor, but his porch
actually, his patio actually comes on to our property line. So
there was another reason why to keep it a little further off to
the side, not to go directly into the area.
As far as replanting the vegetation, I have no problem with
that. I apologize for the fact that we, I was following the DEC
wetland line. I didn't follow yours because I didn't realize,
once again, you know, I didn't follow the permit. My architect
never told me there was a Trustees permit for the DEC. I don't
Board of Trustees 13 February 12, 2025
usually work in this area that much so I'm not really familiar
with that. Now I am. So obviously we'll revegetate whatever area
we took down.
The area that we did clear really was not, um, much large
trees. It was pretty much like, just like low-lying- brush. But __ .
most of the large trees we cleared was where the house is going
to go. We had to clear enough to get the cesspool system in
obviously also.
So does anybody have any questions of me?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You addressed many of the concerns, so thank
you for explaining all of those.
The one is the, that you didn't touch on, is the four-foot
wide access path and the reason for that, the addition of that.
MR. SCHILLING: I imagine it was just, we filed this permit, and
we filed the same permit that another gentleman. We took the
property of another gentleman that had the prior permit, and
that was something he had, that was something he had on there.
And we just were looking to get the same thing he had. If it's
an issue, we don't have to have that. I'm not; really too
concerned about that walkway. That's down to the wetlands area,
I guess you would say.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right, right. I mean, this Board does allow and
the code allows for a four-foot wide access path, for access to
the water.
MR. SCHILLING: In this case it's just weeds.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I think that was where the question arose.
MR. SCHILLING: I have no problem with that. I think it was just
something on the original permit, and we just had to copy it
over to the next step.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. SCHILLING: One of the things he also mentioned was the RCA.
We can use some other, as far as the driveway goes, we can use
more of a pervious, you know, base for that, if that' s what you
like. So it's, you know, not a problem either.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you propose any more tree removal for the
driveway?
MR. SCHILLING: No. Everything that we have taken down right now
is all we were going to do. I had a company come in`; you know,
that's what they do, they just clear the trees down and, you
know, we wanted to stake out the house after the trees were
down. You know the property beforehand it was very dense, so
that' s why we cleared the trees out, so we could get a better
feel for the house stakeout.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak, or any other questions for comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application,
Board of Trustees 14 February 12, 2025
and in order to bring it into consistency with the LWRP, to add
the condition that the pitch of the driveway is such that no
runoff would enter the wetland buffer, and no use of RCA fill.
Additionally, subject to approval with the submission of a
planting plan that includes revegetation and planting of native
hardwoods with a two to three-inch caliper, at a minimum of
two-to-one replacement for the ones that were removed. And the
removal of the proposed access path.
And it's, this is subject to new plans depicting that.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
MR. SCHILLING: Thank you. Good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, AS PER REVISED PROJECT PLANS &
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 2/7/25 Patricia Moore, Esq. , on
behalf of JANET & GREGG GUNZBURG requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 16'x36' inground pool; step down to pool grade, a
7 'x4' landing to an 850sq.ft. Patio surround; install a 73' long
by 24" high stone retaining wall along seaward side of pool; a
±266 linear feet of pool enclosure fencing with gates; install a
drywell for pool backwash and a pool equipment area; cut down
three (3) trees and trim trees on property as needed; plant two
(2) trees on property; plant vegetation along seaward side of
retaining wall and pool fence; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 15 ' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the top crest of the bank.
Located: 2200 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-39
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 5th,
2025, noting to increase the buffer to 15 feet. Two trees were
okay to remove. One tree to be pruned. Retaining wall to be
lowered, no higher than two feet. Replace the two trees with
natives. Plant along the seaward edge of fence.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
We did receive new plans stamped received February 7th,
2025.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of the
clients. My clients are both here. Dave. I guess, had a cocktail
instead of coming over here. So he might show up.
One of the requests that were made was if we could lower
the retaining wall that is on the seaward side. And that was
done by stepping down to a landing and then bringing the grade
of the pool slightly so that it brought the level area to the
grade that would result in the wall being no higher than 24
inches.
So I think that was something that the Board also
Board of Trustees 15 February 12, 2025
requested, which the plans also include that information.
Aside from that, I think you've mentioned everything else.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the only question that we had was, we
talked about the tree replacement for the two on the plans. I
see the two that are to be removed and the one that is to be
pruned. But I don't necessarily see the ones that are to be
replaced. And I think it looks like the ones that are already
there are marked, the wild cherry and the oak.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But we don't see the new --
MS. MOORE: So Dave Chicanowitz I think felt that you are
familiar with his knowledge of landscaping, that he would in
fact plant the two trees. Ultimately where he decides that they
go I'm going to leave to him. I think we probably don't want to
plant them on the seaward side because it will just add more
shade, and I don't know that the existing trees that are there
create too much shade for another tree to grow healthy.
But, I will, I mean I can certainly ask him if he could
show it. But otherwise, if you leave it to his, to the owner' s
discretion, at your C of C will confirm that there are two new
trees have been planted. So that's all I can say. You know. He
didn't include it here. I know, because I asked, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received February 7th, 2025, with the
condition that two native hardwoods, two to three-inch caliper,
be planted within Trustee jurisdiction on this property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, 265 ARSHAMOMAQUE, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 161x32' inground swimming pool
with 12" wide coping; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing
with gates; install a drywell for pool backwash and install a
pool equipment area.
Located: 265 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-2-14
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of
February and noted that it's a new build and would be reviewed
further via the plans in work session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
Board of Trustees 16 February 12, 2025
application?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any additional comments from the
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make motion to approve this application with
the condition of a 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer from the
top of the bank landward, with non-turf buffer seaward of top of
bank, and new plans to depict this.
(Perusing) . Let me restate that then.
Condition to approve subject to new plans depicting a
25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer from top of bank landward,
with a non-disturbance buffer seaward of top of bank.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
MICHAEL & ERIN MANGAN request a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace existing timber bulkhead with ±104 ' long new vinyl
bulkhead in same location as existing with a proposed 10' long
easterly vinyl return; and to establish and perpetually maintain
the existing 15' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead.
Located: 350 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-5
The Trustees visited the site on the 5th of this month, and
the notes from that visit read: Not posted. And then an updated
notation on the 12th of this month reads: Visited site, plan
depicts westerly return should show easterly return to match
description and conditions in the field.
Something that we hope to clarify in our discussions this
evening.
And the LWRP. found the project to be consistent.
Welcome, Jeffrey Patanjo and members of the public to
speak regarding the application.
MR. PATANJO: Good morning. Our project was posted, turned in the
affidavit. I think that' s all clarified.
As far as the returns, I thought it was the easterly that
needed to be done. You are saying the westerly needs to be done?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So I'm looking at the survey, and the survey
depicts a return on the westerly side of this bulkhead. The
plans that you proposed depict a return on the easterly side.
And the project description reads that it' s a proposed easterly
return.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. Can we propose to do a return on both
easterly and westerly side, and I'll submit revised plans to
reflect that?
Board of Trustees 17 February 12, 2025
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It would not match the conditions in the
field. What exists now is just a return on one side, and it
seems to tie in nicely on the other side without the need for a
return.
MR. PATANJO: So it' s just going to be on the westerly side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right.
MR. PATANJO: So just the westerly side then. I'll give you
revised --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Now the survey depicts on the westerly side.
MR. PATANJO: It shows it on the westerly side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right.
MR. PATANJO: I haven't been to site, so I don't know. Tell me
which side to put it on and I'll submit revised plans to show
that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Your revised plans --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It exists in the field on the easterly side.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. And the survey shows it on the westerly side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Correct. I don't know why the survey is
incorrect.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, when did you post that, again?
MR. PATANJO: I posted it. I didn't go to the backyard.
MS. HULSE: Oh.
MR. PATANJO: I'm lazy.
(Participants laughing) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So that 350 Blue Marlin there, you can see on
what would appear to be the westerly side, a return where those
two bulkheads meet one another, right?
(PERUSING) . So the survey appears to be correct. The westerly
side --
MR. PATANJO: So we'll submit plans to show it on the westerly
side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does it need a return, though, on either side?
Isn't that bulkheaded on either side?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just to clarify, for the record, you're going
to submit new plans depicting a return on both the westerly side
where one currently exists, and the proposed one on the easterly
side.
MR. PATANJO: Correct, yes. I'm looking now at the photos that I
presented. It is, there is an existing bulkhead on the westerly
side, and there is not currently one on the easterly side, which
we want to add. So the plans are correct. But I will include on
the plans to remove and replace the ones on the westerly side as
well.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. Members of the Board have any issues?
MR. PATANJO: So it would be a ten-foot return on both the
easterly and the westerly sides.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So, we'll amend the project description, and
submit a new project description with the ten-foot return on --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Jeff, is this wall going up at all?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, he can say that on the record.
Board of Trustees 18 February 12, 2025
(Inaudible) .
MR. PATANJO: Yes, 12 inches above the existing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so that' s the reason for the return on
both sides. Okay, copy that.
MR. PATANJO: That' s indicated on the typical section.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with an updated project description depicting a replacement of
the bulkhead with a ten-foot long easterly vinyl turn and a
ten-foot long westerly vinyl return, and new plans depicting
both returns. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of
NEIL & AMY MCGOLDRICK requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in place existing bulkhead and 14' long norther return
with an overall combined length of ±2291 ; elevation of new
bulkheading to be raised 18" above existing top cap; bulkhead
and return to have vinyl sheathing with 10" diameter pilings 6'
on-center, 6"x6" whalers, vertical dead-men with horizontal
lay-logs or helix screws for backing system with a fiberglass
grated top cap along the entire length; perform reclamation
dredging limited to the existing boat basin to a maximum depth
of 4 ' ; approx. 15 cubic yards of dredge material to be placed
behind raised bulkhead; remove as-built wood dock, ramp and
floats install a 3'xl6' ramp to a 6'x20' floating dock situated
in a "I" configuration and secured by two (2) 8" diameter anchor
pilings; install water and electric to the dock; remove north
and south beach access stairs, reinstall southern 31x6' beach
access stairs using non-treated lumber; install 36" high fall
protection fencing; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward side of the entire
bulkhead.
Located: 1671 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-4-16.4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of
February, noting it was a straightforward project.
And the LWRP found it to be consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf
Board of Trustees 19 February 12, 2025
of the bee Hampton of the McGoldrick's. And as you folks
indicated on your notes, it's a fairly straightforward
application, so I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application or any other questions or
comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of
SCOTT & PATRICIA PASKEWITZ requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed catwalk consisting of a landward 4'x6' set of
stairs with two handrails to a 41x43' catwalk ramp constructed
with Thru-Flow decking and 4"x4" posts to a 4'x48 ' catwalk
constructed with Thru-Flow decking and 8" pilings for a combined
4 'x97' catwalk; install a 3'x28' kayak slide along the northerly
side of catwalk mounted to 8" diameter pilings; install a swim
ladder at end of catwalk; and the existing oversized path to be
reduced via natural growth to a width of 4 ' which is to be
maintained.
Located: 1475 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-20
The Trustees most recently visited the site on February
5th, 2025, and Trustee Peeples made the following notes:
Question the length of the dock, question of the need for kayak
access, question the height of the dock, and need to see the
pier line on the plans.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent with Policy
6, Protect and Restore the Quality and Function of the Town of
Southold ecosystems. 6.3, Protect and Restore Tidal and
Freshwater Wetlands.
The applicant has not demonstrated the following dock
standards pursuant to Chapter 275-11, construction and operation
standards have been met. The pier line is not shown, and the
plans are deficient. (D) , review an approval of dock
applications. Before issuing a permit for a dock structure, the
Trustees shall consider whether the dock will have any of the
following harmful effects: Unduly interfere with the public use
of waterways; whether the dock will cause degradation of surface
water quality and natural resources; whether the cumulative
impacts of residential and commercial dock will change the
waterway or the environment; and whether alternative design,
construction and location of the dock will minimize cumulative
Board of Trustees 20 February 12, 2025
impacts; whether adequate facilities are available to boat
owners and/or operators for fueling, discharge -- this
information has not been provided. And electrical service.
9.3, preserve the public interest in and use of lands and
waters held in public trust by the State and Town of Southold.
Limit grants, leases, easements, permits, et cetera, on the dock
structure will result in a net decrease in public access to
public underwater lands.
I'm also in receipt of a letter dated February 12th, 2025,
stamped and received on the same date, from a neighbor residing
at 1255 Waterview Drive, Southold, who does not support this
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. MCGOLDRICK: Yes. Michael McGoldrick. I'm from that house
directly west.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Please step up to the podium, if you would like
to make any comments. And if you could state your name again,
please.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: Yes Michael McGoldrick. No relation to the last
McGoldrick at all.
So we have owned the house next to the proposed dock build
for 15 years, and, you know, I was under the impression when we
bought our house that there were no new docks or bulkheads were
to be built. That' s what they told us. And we paid a premium
for that. And so I don't understand exactly why it' s even being
considered at this date.
But a piling dock, and, I'm sorry to repeat what you said,
and I love what you have to say about this. But a piling dock
will damage the wetlands, sea grasses, plants, fish, shellfish,
and the water quality of this property and connected Goose
Creek.
A 97-foot dock will be a navigation hazard for all current
Goose Creek homeowners and boaters, of which I count myself one.
Personal to us and based on past history of 1475 Waterview
Drive, we have filed complaints with the Southold Town Police.
Noise ordinances are violated. We are also it's not -- we are
very concerned about increased boat traffic. It' s kind of a frat
house thing that's going on there. For the last three years
since they've moved in, um, music, cranking all day long,
unsanctioned parties and gatherings of 20 to 30 youths
associated with the property.
Forgive me for a second. (perusing) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just briefly, you said you are to the west?
MR. MCGOLDRICK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're past the town road ending? Like
there is their property and then a town access point, then you
are the next one over?
MR. MCGOLDRICK: It's Waterview Drive, 1255 Waterview Drive.
There is a road runoff between state property next to their
Board of Trustees 21 February 12, 2025
house, road runoff and then our house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: So it's on the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: The last thing I would say is we believe the
Trustees approval of any new dock structures would significantly
increase future requests, a precedent would be set, all
waterfront property owners would be entitled to dock space,
which we are against.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak? Mr. Bergen?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, with Sol Searcher Consulting, on behalf
of the Paskewitz' , the applicants for this project.
This is an application for a catwalk. A catwalk and "T"
dock .was approved by the Trustees in 2022. Then unfortunately
the agent handling this, Mike Kimack, passed away, and it got
held up then for a while because of that. Then went to the DEC.
We have received approval from the DEC, but due to the
period of time from when the Trustees approved the permit in
2022 and now, that Trustee permit had expired by approximately a
month. So we re-applied.
And to answer some of the questions. The length as was
approved in the permit in 2022, was 42 feet from mean low water
out to the terminal end of the "T" dock. This structure is the
exact same from mean low water as 42 feet going out there. The
rest of it is, all over the wetlands landward, and that was
extended from what was previously approved by the Trustees by
with the DEC.
So the DEC asked for it to be extended a little further
landward. And that's why the length, when you ask about the
questioning of the length of the dock, because it comes with a
total length of 97, it is the exact same length out into the
water as what you had previously approved, that being 42 feet.
The DEC' s condition was there be no motorized vessels at
this facility, at this catwalk. Hence then it became a catwalk
and they suggested if you want kayaks, I had a discussion with
the analyst, and that is when the suggestion of a kayak ramp
came up.
So I know there was a question of why the kayak ramp.
Because this will only be used for kayak access or canoe, if
they happen on have one; rowboat, if they happen to have it; or
for swimming. There is no motorized vessels are going to be
allowed at this location. And obviously the applicant agreed to
that.
With regard to the pier line, I have for you folks. We
have, of course, what was submitted back when the original
application which was approved in '22, there was a pier line
submitted, and what we've done was we readjusted that pier line
because now it's a few years later. And you'll see on this, it
Board of Trustees 22 February 12, 2025
was a Google Map, the pier line was taken off of. The 42 feet
stays within the pier line. So we are definitely within the pier
line.
We can certainly have that placed on the set of plans. But
I wanted to show you that it' s definitely within the pier line. .
Regarding the height, again, it goes back to the DEC's
desire to support vegetated wetlands under structures. So in
addition to the flow-through decking that this entire structure
is going to have, they asked for that height as indicated on
what they had approved. So that is where the height comes from
where it starts off at five foot, decreases as it gets to mean
low water, or zero point zero on the survey, and then goes out
from there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Bergen, what was the very beginning part of
that explanation about the height? Because we are typically
familiar with the four-foot high requirement. from DEC. Could you
just restate that, please?
MR. BERGEN: Yup. The DEC approved, they wanted five-foot height
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And they didn't give any further explanation
with it?
MR. BERGEN: No, they gave no further explanation of it at all.
Other than to support the growth of wetlands. That was the,
that was --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But you do have a DEC permit for what you've
proposed, based on their feedback.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, we waited to get DEC first before we came back,
and, unfortunately, it was a month after the '22 permit that you
guys had given -- not you folks in particular, but this Board
had given -- and that had run out. So that's why we are here
before you today. We are basically, we've adjusted what you guys
proved in 122 to reflect no "T" at the end because there will be
no motorized vessels. And then the kayak slide.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And, excuse me. The DEC also required the
stipulation of no motorized vessels.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, yes. That is on the DEC permit, which I turned
in a copy to the office, so. Yup.
I think, so if there is one good thing out of the height
increase is it definitely will not impede public access to walk
the foreshore with this five-foot high going under it. And
obviously, you know, that should not be a problem at all.
I'm just trying to think of those issues that the LWRP
coordinator mentioned.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What is the height on the landward side of
that fixed catwalk over the existing vegetation.
MR. BERGEN: Like where the stairs are, that' s at five foot. And
then it drops down, as you can see, it drops down to
approximately four-foot as you go down. And as you approach
mean low water it' s at that point you can see it' s four foot --
I apologize -- it's 4 ' 611 . Not four-foot, but 416". And again,
that was DEC.
Board of Trustees 23 February 12, 2025
So I, you know, the pier line not being on the plans, I can
certainly submit, if you approve this tonight, if you want to
condition it upon receipt of plans with the pier line on the
plans themselves, or you've got what I 've submitted to you
tonight. Whichever your preference is.
The other thing that I just want to mention, because I'm
not sure if you folks noticed it, but the pathway going down to
the dock was much greater than four-foot wide. The DEC noted
.that and informed the property owner of that, and he understands
that, he's already stopped mowing, but unfortunately this time
of year nothing is growing. But he noticed that that can, that
is limited to four-foot wide.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. And this is something that came up in
2022, where they were maintaining it in a very similar fashion
and so it was an important part of our condition of that permit
that they stop over-mowing that pathway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which it had now three growing seasons on.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right.
MR. BERGEN: Oh, yeah, I'm saying that, obviously I 'm not making
any excuses for them. Obviously they were cutting it this summer
for that width. And when I gotten engaged in this project, I
told them you absolutely can't do that. And you are subjecting
yourselves to a possible violation.
So they are, when I mentioned that, they stopped making it
that wide. But again, I agree.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Did you have additional comments, sir?
MR. MCGOLDRICK: Yes. It's funny that you call it a catwalk. It's
a dock. That' s one.
Two, they have a boat there, it's been moored for three
years, a power engine, 23' boat. It' s shocking to me that they
are going to the expense that they are to build this and they
are not going to be able to use their boat. They'll just
continue to moor it off the dock? I don't know. They'll be
using the dock one way or the other.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You bring up a good point. I think that, you
know, while the DEC's comments prevent a motorized vessel from
being at this dock, what is the enforcement of that measure over
the long-term?
And if we are restricting the use of this dock to canoes,
kayaks, paddleboards and such, it does raise the question of
whether or not the dock needs to exceed as far seaward as it is
proposed. You know, it has been granted a permit in the past
that was not acted upon. But, you know, I for one wonder whether
or not the dock needs to go this far out as the pier line, if a
canoe draws only a matter of two or three inches of water.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: I have not seen any kayak usage out of that
house.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And I sympathize with the plight of your
neighborhood. Unfortunately, those are not part of our purview to
deal with, but, it stinks.
Board of Trustees 24 February 12, 2025
MR. BERGEN: And when I have been out at this property, there are
multiple kayaks have been down there, and multiple kayaks used
by this family.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So they ,are able to enjoy the kayaks without
this dock at this time?
MR. BERGEN: Well, they've had, let's just say there is a
challenge with, that has been pointed out to them with the DEC
with regard to placing kayaks down there on the wetlands. And
that was in writing from the DEC.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, Mr. Bergen, speaking of the kayaks, we have
noted there is a proposed kayak ramp that is in addition to this
dock.
MR. BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So essentially, with that proposed kayak ramp
and the dock, we are talking about something that is about seven
feet wide. And there is a maximum of four-foot wide dock access.
So in reality this becomes a seven-foot wide dock on a
residential lot. With your proposal.
And to address your previous comments, I was speaking with
legal counsel, so let me know if I'm repeating anything that was
discussed, but I understand that what is drawn here with the
seaward portion of the dock is the same 42-foot length that
relates to the previous permit that expired. And then the DEC
has added, what is it, about eight feet, I believe, on the
landward portion; is that correct?
MR. BERGEN: I don't have the old one in front of me.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so they, while the seaward portion is not
expanded upon, the landward portion, there is an increased
amount of structure here near the wetlands.
And also the increased height that is required by the DEC.
So, I mean, what we are talking about here is an incredible
amount of structure for kayak access. So I think, you know,
while I understand the 42-foot length, the kayak ramp is outside
of the allowable four-foot dock width. It would not be possible
to design your project, but it would be possible that the end of
that dock could be angled down to function as a ramp, and I
think it seems like there is a little bit more that needs to be
worked on here, from my perspective.
I would I would say that I do appreciate the oversized
walking path is proposed to be revegetated and reduced to the
four-foot wide dimension. And I do appreciate the comments from
the neighbor because that is, you know, I appreciate you coming
here to make those comments. So I just wanted to state those
concern.
MR. BERGEN: Thank you. All right, so what I am prepared then,
because trying to think in advance, is to remove this proposed
kayak launch. And here is a set of plans that has that removed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Fast printer there.
MR. BERGEN: And Trustee Peeples, I hear you loud and clear, and
obviously had a discussion with, that this might come up at this
Board of Trustees 25 February 12, 2025
hearing tonight, with the client, and so that is why we are
prepared to present this alternative plan to you, which does not
have that structure on it any longer. So it' s the same length
structure, but it would remove the kayak slide from the
proposal.
So I hope that would address your concerns about the
additional structure here over what was approved in 2022. Over
the water. It' s now identical. I shouldn't say that. It' s less
than what was approved in 2022 because it was a "T" on the end
before. We have now eliminated that "T", so if you take the
square footage, I guess, of that "T" and equate it to the extra
additional square footage of structure the DEC required landward
of the high tide mark, hopefully, we are within the same amount
of structure as was previously approved in 2022.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I appreciate that you put the water depth on
here, because that was a challenge with the previous submission
that we have.
MR. BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we are headed in the right
direction here. I think that with sort of the change of
permissible use of the structure it would just make sense, then
that you don't really have the need to get it out to 18, and I
think we could dial it back ten feet and still have quality
access with, you know, that's my two cents.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I concur with that, because looking at
the water depths here, initially was probably out that length to
get to that 18 inches, probably minimum for a motorized vessel,
but now with the condition that was imposed by the DEC for
non-motorized vessels, you don't necessarily need that 18-inches
water depth anymore. So in order to minimize the impact to the
environment; minimize the loss of public access, if we dial this
dock back a certain distance so that you get twelve inches of
water, which is still sufficient enough for a kayak, I think it
minimizes the impact and also increases public access around any
proposed structure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I agree. And it would also minimize the
temptation to use this for unpermitted uses.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: Can I ask a question?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Please.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: And I know this doesn't fall under your
jurisdiction, but again, it' s party after party. July 4th to
August 15th, when the kids go back to college and high school.
Five boys.
Is there a restriction on usage of dock after a certain
point in the evening. Because we are really afraid that the
party is going to extend out on the dock, or if we'll have to
see this off our back porch all day long and all night long.
MS. HULSE: There is no restriction as to use, the time of use.
There isn't. There is a noise regulation within the Town. That
is something that you can call if you feel it is being
Board of Trustees 26 February 12, 2025
excessively loud. If it's usually to the point where it's
annoyingly loud for a period of time, and if that is the case,
you can certainly call either the police or Code Enforcement to
address that.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: We have done that. We'll continue to do that.
MS. HULSE: That is really the recourse.
MR. BERGEN: And my only comment, thank you, Counsel, is that
there is nothing in 275 that would limit the use of the dock to
daytime hours versus evening hours. So, I would just encourage
the gentleman, if he has a problem, to call Code Enforcement or
law enforcement regarding those matters.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Frankly, the limiting factor in 275 would be
it's four-feet wide. So that's, you know, that is what would be
helping limit that.
MR. MCGOLDRICK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. BERGEN: Obviously with that condition, if that is what is
going to be approved tonight, of dialing it back ten feet, there
is absolutely no problem with a pier line here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is that something that would be amenable in
order to move forward?
MR. BERGEN: I know the client would prefer to have it at 42-foot
length, absolutely. But again, this is at Trustees' discretion.
And if it' s dial it back ten feet or don't have any structure at
all, well then, that's still the client' s choice. In other words
if you approve it at ten foot less, he can decide well I'm not
going to build it now.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure.
MR. BERGEN: I would ask that it remains at 42 feet, again, just
for navigational purposes, even with a kayak or a rowboat or
whatever, because you need a foot under you once you climb in
the vessel and get your paddles in the water and get going. But
again, this is the call of the Trustees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just speaking of that, with the latest plans
that you've submitted, it does look like even if we did dial it
back ten feet or so, you have 12 inches plus of water depth. So
I think even if it does get dialed back it still is conducive to
utilizing a kayak off of it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the updated project description that reads as follows:
Sol Searcher Consulting on behalf of Scott & Patricia Paskewitz
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed catwalk
consisting of a landward 4'x6' set of stairs with two handrails
Board of Trustees 27 February 12, 2025
to a 41x43' catwalk ramp constructed with Thru-Flow decking and
4"x4" posts to a 4 'x38' catwalk constructed with Thru-Flow
decking and 8" pilings for a combined 41x87' catwalk; install a
swim ladder at the end of catwalk; and the existing oversized
path to be reduced via natural growth to a width of 4 ' which is
to be maintained. And subject to new plans depicting the new
project description.
And by increasing the public access and the addition of a
pier line on the submitted plans, will thereby bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you good night.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Bergen.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of WIN
WUNN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove
existing one-story dwelling and accessory garage, and construct
a new 1 & 2-story, 3, 251sq.ft. (Footprint) , single-family
dwelling and attached garage with 352sq.ft. Rear attached deck
with pergola and 14sq.ft. Outdoor BBQ area; and 53sq. ft. Front
roofed-over landing; construct a 340sq.ft. Raised (18")
uncovered masonry patio; 79 linear feet of 18" high stone
retaining wall; a 171x40' swimming pool (equipped with saltwater
filtration system) , and 841sq.ft. Grade-level masonry pool patio
with planters landward of pool patio; install window wells and
5.7'xl9.5' basement steps; install a 4' high utility enclosure;
install a generator, A/C units and pool equipment area; install
a 26sq.ft. Trash enclosure; remove and replace in-place
existing 213sq.ft. grade-level masonry patio and 3,1 wide steps
adjacent to bulkhead; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing;
remove existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS
sanitary system; install stormwater drainage system; remove
three (3) mature hardwood trees and replant three (3) native
hardwood trees.
Located: 1055 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-11
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 5th,
2025, noting the house is very large for the surrounding
neighborhood.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the proposed large structure is inconsistent with Policy Four
as it is located within FEMA flood zone with 0.2% annual chance
flood hazard. Structures constructed within these hazard areas
should be avoided or minimized.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Also Jonathan Paetzel from MPLA Landscape
Architecture is here as one of the members of the design team.
Board of Trustees 28 February 12, 2025
This is an application to demolish an existing house and
construct a new house located farther landward, with an attached
garage.
The wetlands setback to the existing habitable dwelling is
32 feet. You can see it there on your screen marked 1055 Wood
Lane. Based on aerial photos, the average setbacks of the six
closest dwelling structures, including the next three in both
directions, is less than 50 feet. The setback to the proposed
habitable dwelling would be 88 feet.
Only 228 square feet of the proposed habitable dwelling is
located within wetlands jurisdiction.
You mentioned in your field notes the proposed house is
very large for the neighborhood, but the footprint of the house
without the attached 456 square foot one-story garage is 2, 592
square feet, which is roughly 242 square feet more than the
house to the west, but approximately 253 square feet less than
the house two to the east. So about a hair less than the average
of those two.
The much smaller dwelling structure located immediately to
the east, which in addition to being located much closer to the
creek, is also an accessory or secondary dwelling structure. So
it is one of two houses that are present on the adjacent lot.
Based on surveys available in town records, the house to
the west is about 2,350 square feet and has a 520 square foot
detached garage. The house two to the east is about 2, 845 square
feet and it was expanded to that size in its current location
about 65 feet from wetlands pursuant to Trustee permits issued
in 2014 and, 2023. It also has a 404 square foot detached
garage.
We have asked the architect to prepare an aerial that I
think sort of graphically puts in perspective the proposed house
and garage relative to the nearby houses and garage structures.
And I would just like to hand that up for the record.
(Handing) .
As the Board knows, the Town recently adopted new code for
the specific purpose of limiting GFA to what has been determined
to be appropriate for a parcel of a given size, and the proposed
house complies with the new Town Code.
The proposed house does not need any variance relief with
respect to zoning at all.
It is also worth noting that only the west side of the
house is designed with two stories. So that the structure will
not have a substantial impact on the visual landscape,
particular from the water.
I also have a rendering that I wanted to hand up, as I
know sometimes when you just see the outline of a proposed house
on a survey or a site plan, it's hard to capture the
three-dimensional perspective of the proposal.
This is the rendering of the proposed house from the
farther side.
Board of Trustees 29 February 12, 2025
With respect to the LWRP report, Mark Terry's
recommendation that the house should be found inconsistent
because it' s located in a FEMA zone with a 0.2% chance of
flooding is factually inaccurate.
The existing house is located in that flood zone but the
new house is located outside the flood zone, as is clearly
depicted on the site plan and the survey.
The house depicted in the image attached to Mark's report
is not even on this property.
So I also have that, which you can see the outline of the
flood zone that matches the survey and the site plan.
So in summary while the existing house is located 32 feet
from the bulkhead, in a flood zone, and encroaches on a pier
line, the proposed house would be located farther landward,
outside the flood zone, and well behind the pier line. Almost
three times the distance of the existing house from the
bulkhead.
The swimming pool and patio are also proposed landward of
the pier line, and setback more than the code-required 50-feet
from wetlands. An IA sanitary system is proposed well outside
wetlands jurisdiction; storm water drainage system is proposed;
and a 15-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer has already been.
covenanted on the property in connection with the
previously-issued wetlands permit to replace the bulkhead, which
is as you saw during field inspections is happening right now.
We also noted during field inspections that there are three
jurisdictional trees that are depicted for removal, and we are
proposing to replace those three trees with native hardwoods on
a one-on-one basis. But as we discussed there is a fourth tree
that sits essentially right around the hundred-foot setback so
it would be part of the base of that tree extends into the
wetlands.
(Momentary noise disruption) .
MR. HERRMANN: So, on that note, as I'm getting yanked off the
stage, we did prepare a revised site plan that is the same as
the site plan you already have, just to show a fourth tree being
replanted, kind of just pushing that other tree into
jurisdiction.
I have three of those to hand up. Again, you don't, the
plan is, the design is the same, it' s just we wanted to reflect
what we had offered in the field, which this Board seemed
receptive to adding that fourth tree.
So we do think it is a good project. A lot of time has
been spent on the design. There was a lot of discussion prior
to the sale of this property of people trying to figure out how
they could expand and build up or out or whatever, on the
existing house, given the close proximity of all the other homes
along the shoreline. And this owner essentially purchased the
property with the knowledge and understanding that they would
not do that, that they would remove the existing structure and
Board of Trustees 30 February 12, 2025
build a new structure much farther landward. Again, almost
entirely outside jurisdiction, with the accessory pool, which is
the closest structure of the water, landward of the existing
house, and more than 50 feet from the bulkhead as required by
code.
That all said, if you have any questions or comments, John
and I can try and answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's it?
MR. HERRMANN: That's it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, Mr. Herrmann, I see that you have, on the,
what you just handed up, 2, 592 square feet for the dwelling. On
the other plans we were are looking at --
MR. HERRMANN: That doesn't include the garage.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so does that account for the 4, 136
square feet? Is that including both floors?
MR. HERRMANN: I think that' s GFA you are referencing. So the
lot coverage, if someone has a calculator up there, quickly, if
you add the two numbers shown on the aerial rendering, the 2, 592
and the 456, that would match the footprint of the house shown
under the lot coverage.
The other number you just mentioned, I think is for gross
floor area. That's also taking into account the second story on
the one side of the house. But again, it shows on that rendering
is only that one portion of the house is two stories.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for that clarification.
MR. HERRMANN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You definitely came prepared. This is very
helpful. We do like this aerial with the neighboring properties
and sizes that definitely addresses or clears up some of the
concerns expressed by this Board, as well as the LWRP.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
Yes, sir, please come up.
MR. LOFASO: My name is Anthony Lofaso, L-O-F-A-S-O. I live at
925 Wood Lane.
As you noted -- I'm the 925 Wood Lane. That's the house
that is adjacent to this. As you noted, the house is enormous
relative to the other homes in the area. And that's, you know,
if it' s legal then it' s legal. That' s not my issue.
My issue is access to the house. My property consists of
three lots, one of which is 86, 617. It's one of three lots that
have access from Indian Neck Lane to Wood Lane. So 86, 617 is my
driveway, effectively.
And the concern I have with a house of this size, and I can
see it now with all the dock work that is being done there, is
that people are using my driveway as a public road. So we have
had a continuous stream of, you know, trucks and things coming
down my driveway. And so my, and this, for a project of this
size, I'm looking at, that will take probably the better part of
a year to complete, if they continue to try and use my driveway
Board of Trustees 31 February 12, 2025
as access to the property, I can see months of like excavators,
cement mixers, trying to come down my driveway.
So my only concern is, if it' s legal, that's fine, to view
the house, but it has to be with the understanding that access
------------ ---to -the house is via Wood Lane. You know, my driveway is my — — ----- -- -
driveway.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Totally understand. We were in the field, and
in that particular neighborhood it's tough to get around. And
that wooded area, and, you know --
MR. LOFASO: Wood Lane is very confining. And that should be, you
know, in approving a house of this size, I think, I don't know
if that' s a consideration. You know, that's your purview, not
mine. There should be some consideration of what kind of access
you are going to have to the house, you know, and it can't be
oh, the access to the house is I'm just going to claim the
private property of the next-door neighbor.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think our legal counsel can address your
concerns.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what you are speaking of is outside of
this Board's purview. It' s definitely a civil matter. But it's
outside of what is in front of us tonight with regard to Chapter
275 and the proposed project.
But again, it' s a civil matter.
MS. HULSE: You just put the applicant on notice. So there is
that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm confident that Mr. Herrmann will
communicate with the applicant that, about being good neighbors.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't want to provide any more lengthy response
to it. But we joked in the field, the GPS can be generally
confusing to get out there. I've almost gone in the wrong way a
few different times.
So Jonathan Paetzel will be part of the construction
management and can definitely, I know it's outside the purview
of this permit, but can certainly put them on notice to use
signage, fencing, whatever legal means are practicable there.
Obviously it' s not going to be in anybody' s interest to be
trespassing on this gentleman' s property or using his driveway
or any other property. So that is something that we can
definitely pass along for sure. It' s a super-reasonable concern,
so I don't take any issue with that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. It's being a good neighbor is
always a good thing to put on record, so.
MR. HERRMANN: Exactly. And I've worked for the owners before,
and they are good people. They are not --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, can you just address, and I
believe what you submitted hopefully does, any tree replacement
for anything that is removed.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So the updated plan that I just handed to
you shows a total of four native hardwoods that have to be
removed from -- three are just behind the existing house. The
Board of Trustees 32 February 12, 2025
other is the one that is right at the hundred-foot setback. So
we would propose a one-for-one replacement of those four native
hardwoods as part of mitigation. And that' s noted on that plan
that I just handed to you. That little box in there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, 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, with the condition of a one-on-one native hardwood
tree replacement, two to three-inch caliper, and noting that the
proposed structure is going further landward than the existing
structure, maximizing the distance to the wetland and the flood
zone, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of JEFFREY
VICTOR & LISA HSIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story, single-family dwelling with attached first and second
floor porches, steps, hot tub, swimming pool, pool deck with
pool enclosure fencing, and outdoor shower piped to drywell;
install an I/A sanitary system; install stormwater drainage
system; install paver/masonry paths; maintain existing metal
storage rack; remove various existing wood
decks/platforms/walks; clear specified areas within Trustee
jurisdiction resulting in removal of 14 trees; to allow for
construction access, the installation of a pervious gravel
driveway, and filling/grading of approx. 134sq.ft. Area within
Trustee jurisdiction (using portion of 185 cubic yards of clean
fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source) ,
temporarily clear specified areas within Trustee jurisdiction to
be restored using native vegetation, including 14 native
hardwood trees (1: 1 replacement of trees to be removed) ; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 50 to 100 foot wide, 1.8
acre Non-Disturbance Buffer adjacent to the landward edge of the
tidal wetlands boundary.
Located: 1185 Kerwin Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-3-6
The Trustees were most recently there on the 5th of
October, noted that there were abundant natural features and
habitat that should be protected, which we did walk the
property, with the agent and discussed a rather large
non-disturbance buffer that we would review further at work
Board of Trustees 33 February 12, 2025
session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
clearing of natural vegetation is inconsistent with Policy 6.3,
Protect and Restore Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands. Wetlands and
their benefits are dependent upon the condition of adjacent
lands which provide buffers between wetlands and surrounding
areas.
Contain buffers to ensure that adverse effects of adjacent
or nearby development are avoided.
The expansion is inconsistent with Policy Four located
within a FEMA flood zone, with 0.2% annual chance flood hazard
and 0. 1% annual chance flood hazard. Structures connected
within these hazard areas should be minimized.
A board of Trustees permit was issued in 1986 for a more
modest structure.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak briefly regarding
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
I do find the LWRP recommendation kind of incredulous
because the, I mean we had designed this project to place all
construction physically outside the wetlands jurisdiction, and
are proposing a 50 to fully jurisdictional 100-foot wide in some
places non-disturbance buffer. So if that is inconsistent with
the LWRP, I would hate to see what every other project in front
of this Board looks like.
I will say that with respect to the flood zone, it is worth
noting that actually the project ends up almost getting a bit
over-designed for it, because it is only a corner of the pool
and the surrounding deck that pokes into in a flood zone. And
because it' s all basically attached to the principal dwelling
structure, the code then requires the entire building basically
to conform to the flood zone. So to the flood zone construction
requirements.
So the house is actually conforming to the flood zone
requirements. Let me say that again.
The house is conforming to the requirements of the flood
zone that it is not actually located in. And that's because of
the pool.
As we discussed on the site, there are a handful of areas,
there is limited clearing within your jurisdiction, and that is
really mostly around the area of the septic system and along the
driveway for access. I did have to get back to you on one thing
from field inspections.
There was one particular tree that we looked at. I
discussed that with the contractor, the homeowner, and the
landscape design person who prepared the site plan. The plan for
the constructions is to basically limb-up that tree and see if
they can get the house in. In fact they said is it a problem if
we show it to be removed and we don't remove it. I said
Board of Trustees 34 February 12, 2025
definitely not. But we need to at least show it to be removed
because realistically, again, it's going to be a modular
construction house. And it's just no way to get those pieces in
there without manipulating the trees so some degree.
I will say, obviously, for the clearing and many of those
trees, I think at least nine of the 14 trees, it' s the same
issue. It' s kind of on the side of the driveway, and they have
to be cleared for access.
We do show that 1, 638 square-foot area of vegetation along
the side of the driveway coming in from Kerwin Boulevard to be
cleared only temporarily, and then revegetated. And I did just
want to note that that area by the driveway that is labeled
2, 218 square-foot of vegetation be cleared. Which is this area
here that is closest, located closest to the wetland.
This area could also really be designated as a vegetated
non-turf buffer, because there's no plans like to put lawn or
anything. In fact both of these areas here --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, if you can just go closer to
the microphone, for Wayne's sanity.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So the two areas, these two orange-shaded
areas of clearing located closest to Kerwin Boulevard, these
two, you know, this lower section of clearing close to the road
would really just be returned to its natural state. This area up
by the driveway could really be landscaped with native
vegetation. So just, because I talked to the owner about this
ahead of time, because I did see the comment about the clearing.
So these, additionally, these orange-shaded areas, really
could also be designated as vegetated non-turf buffers, because
he's not really setting up a yard or anything like that between
the driveway and the wetland.
So you are really talking about pretty substantial
preservation, or at least restoration of vegetation, that is
going to be disturbed within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just one of the issues we ran into looking
over the plans. I shouldn't say issues, but a question we had.
In the description it says perpetually maintain a 50-100 foot
wide non-disturbance buffer. I could be missing it, but I don't
see a very clear line on the plans from where that begins and
ends.
_MR. HERRMANN: So, let me see if I can find the label for it. See
how long it takes me to find it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, it goes into nowhere.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, it' s not defined.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a label just above that existing
metal storage rack to remain. But it just kind of goes into
nowhere there. So we would need something a little bit more
concrete on that.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, so what they could do, because they, I know
they have, you know, in the drafting world, like a polygon
showing that buffer that they calculated to be 78,795 square
Board of Trustees 35 February 12, 2025
feet. So we could add some sort of a hatch to that, um, so it
would seem easy enough for, I mean basically the idea was to
keep everything that was not shown, in other words -- it' s hard
to do it from the microphone. Can I just approach for a second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Try to reserve comment until you get back, I
guess. Or you can repeat it.
MR. HERRMANN: I can repeat it. I 'll say what I just showed you.
But this fence line here is basically the interior limit of
that buffer area. And you can see for the most part, I mean,
this, everything inside the red line, inside here, is actually
more than 100 feet from wetlands.
This area is shaded here, because this is where there is
clearing that is shown up to 72 feet from the wetland boundary.
But it stops right on this fence. So this all remains natural.
This is area that is currently vegetated that would have to be
cleared, within your jurisdiction. We have not shaded anything
that is outside the hundred feet because it' s non-jurisdictional
and would just make this literally impossible to read.
So this fence line here, this disturbance limit is
effectively the limit of the buffer. But we can add some sort of
lightly-colored hatch or something to that, so that the permit
could reference that.
In other words, you could reference the 78,795 square foot
non-disturbance buffer, subject to submission of a revised plan
graphically highlighting that area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would the project description have to change
at all to reflect those changes on the plans?
MR. HERRMANN: No, it would just be a graphic representation on
the plans so you could see it more clearly. It's there, but I
understand what Nick is saying. It's, there's so many lines on
this map that it' s just hard to follow exactly where that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right, and that's, it's a really good
project, because of the amount of care that is being taken to
preserve that natural environment around it. So to, you know,
honor that work with some hatching would make sense.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I'm just trying to wrap my head around how
to proceed here, and not delay this. Because I, as Eric was
saying, it is ultimately a good project, and I think these
owners have the best idea of land stewardship in mind. Obviously
if something were to go south and they were to sell and move to
Canada, we would want to make sure there are clear plans.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure, I get it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what I'm thinking is if the Board does vote
to approve, which I'm not saying they will, you know, it would
be with the understanding that the lion's share of this within
our jurisdiction is going to be non-disturbance, the remainder
in our jurisdiction to be non-turf. And then, you know, if it
was a non-agreeable set of plans that was handed into the
office, we would not be able to sign it. So that' s.
MR. HERRMANN: I totally get it. And I had discussed that with
Board of Trustees 36 February 12, 2025
him, too, that basically the entire wetlands jurisdictional area
of the property, that is not non-disturbance or part of the
approved surface, like the driveway, would most likely remain
non-turf.
So there is a way to articulate that. And as I have been
going through with counsel recently, it's with the more complex
buffer requirements, it's getting a little trickier to write the
covenants. So it would be good to clarify that.
But basically we would, if you want us to stipulate in the,
somehow that the entire 100-foot wetlands jurisdictional area
would be non-turf, including 78, 795 square foot area that would
be additionally a non-disturbance buffer, and just hatch that.
Because your jurisdictional line is clear. I mean, we can
highlight that. So it would, basically everything between the
wetland line and that jurisdictional line would be non-turf, and
we would have a hatch calling out the non-disturbance part.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That sounds like a good solution.
MR. HERRMANN: The only question is are you comfortable, do you
trust that I'll properly execute that when I submit the revised
plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we have a failsafe on that because we
just don't have to execute the permit.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. Exactly.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And we do appreciate that the homeowner is
going to try to save that tree, so, we celebrate that.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, he had that, I think he was who put that
ribbon around the tree, and then it got into the discussion
about the practicability of that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We also appreciate that as a person handling
this permit, you have actually been to the site and gone into
the backyard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He was not here for that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application? Or any additional comments from
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I 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
subject to new plans depicting the majority of the property
within Trustee jurisdiction to remain and be labeled
"non-disturbance. " All other lands within Trustee jurisdiction
to remain and be labeled "non-turf, " thereby bringing this into
consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 37 February 12, 2025
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five-minute recess.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows) .
_— ___TRUS.TEE.._GOLDSMITH: All right, back on the record.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11 En-Consultants on behalf of
RICHARD & KATHLEEN O'TOOLE & ERIN DOHERTY request a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace in-place approx. 57 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead using helical
anchors to secure bulkhead in front of existing 7.5'xl4 .2 ' shed
with attached storage to remain; construct ±6' easterly return,
and backfill with approx. 10 cubic yards of clean sand to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and replace
in-place existing ±81x14 ' grade level deck, approx. 61sq.ft.
Brick patio, ±71x8' patio steps, ±3' wide wood walk landward of
bulkhead, and 3'x±6' beach steps; and to establish and '
perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf buffer area along the
landward side of the bulkhead.
Located: 760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-145-2-7
The Trustees visited the site on the 5th of this month.
Notes read no alterations to existing shed. Buffer to extend to
top of steps. Limit patio steps to four feet.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be inconsistent.
There is no record of the as-built shed labeled to remain in the
Town files.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, of En-Consultants; on behalf of
the applicant. Richard O'Toole is also here, who you met
briefly during field inspections.
Based on the comments that Eric just read, we did prepare a
revised plan that reduces the width of the proposed replacement
steps with a four-foot wide set of brick steps, that would still
be about eight-foot in length, which lead down to that existing
patio.
We showed the limit of the proposed non-turf buffer, had to
be extended back two feet, to become a 17 rather than 15-foot
non-turf buffer, to match -the top of the step, and there was one
other thing you just said, but I forget what it was already.
Oh, the shed. Right. The shed there is, there is no
proposed work to the shed. We understand the sensitivity with
the shed. In fact the plans show that there would be helical
anchors used by the marine contractor along the front of that
shed rather than excavating behind it.
There is a survey that we found in Town records that shows
the shed labeled as a bathhouse in 1966. Actually, let me
correct myself. We found a later version of the survey in Town
records and were able to find the original copy of. it from the
Board of Trustees 38 February 12, 2025
surveyor. So I'll hand that up just for your file. It' s the same
one I showed you at field inspections.
But again, we do understand that there is to be no work
done to the shed and that an any such work or replacement, et
cetera, would trigger additional permitting requirements. So the
project has been designed around that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you have new plans?
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, sorry, that would have been good to give you.
Just for the record, that plan is last dated February 12th.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Does anyone else wish to speak for the
application? Members of the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the story with the deck you were going
to look into, attached to the house?
MR. HERRMANN: Who up there remembered that? That's why I asked
Richard to come if necessary.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Guilty.
MR. HERRMANN: So the wood deck, it was repaired, partially
replaced. It seems that the hedge, which used to be sort of
with that arc in it that you see on the plan was squared.
So what I explained to Richard, and the Board may have
additional input, but he would have to submit, I think would
have to be a separate application to address the deck because I
don't believe that the configuration, just remembering what the
steps is exactly as it is here. So we would have, what we would
ask is to allow us to address that separately, understanding we
would have to do that pretty quickly. But we have to survey it
to make sure that we have the accurate footprint.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that' s fine.
(Board members talking amongst themselves) .
MS. HULSE: Rob, have you gotten anywhere with having that deck
surveyed? Do you have any plans set? How long would it take you
to make that application?
MR. HERRMANN: As you probably know, it depends on who did the
survey. Let me try to quickly remember that. It' s on my notes.
Typically we would need like 60 days because it might take 30
days just to get the surveyor.
MR. HULSE: Right. So they can't approve the deck here. I would
recommend that they remove that and then there is, by a date
certain that the application is submitted for the deck.
MR. HERRMANN: I didn't follow what you had. I'm sorry.
MS. HULSE: He has to basically give a, I don't know what the
Board is going to agree to, but a 60-day, 90-day window where he
has to make that application for the deck.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood.
MR. O'TOOLE: Richard O'Toole, the owner. Yes, thank you, we are
happy to undertake to do that.
If I'm reading this right, the deck isn't part of this
description whatsoever.
MR. HERRMANN: It's not.
MR. O'TOOLE: It's just depicted on the plans.
Board of Trustees 39 February 12, 2025
MR. HERRMANN: I 'm sorry, Lori. To make clear to Eric's point,
the deck that is in the description is small grade-level deck
that is attached to the bulkhead.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: The deck this Board is talking about is attached
to the water side of the house.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We can move forward with this application and
you can address that other piece.
MR. HERRMANN: Which we will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what we would be advising is to submit an
application within 60 days to avoid a visit from the Harbor
Master, so.
MR. HERRMANN: That's understood.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding the
application? Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I 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
with the new plans submitted on February 12th, 2025, with an
updated project description that included the additional two
feet of non-turf buffer, making a total of 17-foot wide non-turf
buffer, and shortening the width of the access path to four
feet. And the applicant would address the wood deck associated
with the primary structure, within 60 days, to account for what
is currently in the field, thereby bringing the project into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. And we appreciate your consideration on
that. We know you don't have to do that. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees