Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#8011 AMENDED Smith 9-26-2025TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL s• X5207 DATE: February 24, 202 ° NI DO AMENDED: March 4, 2025 AMENDED: March 13, 2025 AMENDED: September 24, 2025 TO: Thomas Smith 3121 Oaklawn Avenue Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated February 3, 2024 in conjunction with BP# 51210: For permit: to legalize an "as built' demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of an existing single- family dwelling complying with FEMA regulations to construct a second story addition to the existing accessory garage an accessory pergola, outdoor shower and accessory hot tub at: Location of property: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 —Section 70 Block 6 Lot 10 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The "as built' and proposed construction on this nonconforming 6,953.31 sq. ft. lot in the R -40 District, is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII Section 280 -124 which states lots measuring less than 20 000 square feet in total size require a rear yard setback of 35 feet and maximum lot coverage of 20 %. The single - family dwelling has a rear yard setback of 11.8 feet and lot coverage at 23.17 %. Additionally, the proposed second story addition to the accessory garage hot tub, outdoor shower and per gola are not pe rmit ted pursuant to Article II T Section 280-15, which h stat es accessory buildings an structures shall be located in the required rearward. The accessory buildings /structures will be located in the side yard. This Notice of Disapproval has been amended to reflect the revisions shown on the (2) site plans received on 9/3/25. J 04, Authorized Signature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL �9 II 2025 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: February 24, 2025 AMENDED: March 4, 2025 AMENDED: March 13, 2025 AMENDED: September 24, 2025 TO: Thomas Smith 3121 Oaklawn Avenue Southold, NY 11971 Please take notice that your application dated February 3, 2024 in conjunction with BP# 51210: For permit: to legalize an "as built' demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of an existing single- family dwelling complying with FEMA regulations, to construct a second story addition to the existing accessory aara2e, an accessory pergola and accessory hot tub at: Location of property: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue Southold NY County Tax Map No. 1000 —Section 70 Block 6 Lot 10 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The "as built' and proposed construction on this nonconforming 6,953.31 sq. ft. lot in the R -40 District, is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII Section 280 -124 which states lots measuring less than 20,000 square feet in total size require a rear yard setback of 35 feet and maximum lot coverage of 20 %. The single - family dwelling has a rear yard setback of 11.8 feet and lot coverage at 23.17% Additionally, the proposed second story addition to the accessory garage, hoftub and pergola are not permitted pursuant to Art cle TTT Sec tion 280-15, which states accesso y buildings and airuciures s :a ll n e located in the required rear yard. The accessory buildings /structures will be located in the sideyard. This Notice of Disapproval has been amended to reflect the revisions shown on the (2) site plans received on 913125. Authorizedr,943,ature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. Glenn Goldsmith, Pres Kent �p�OS �COGy t Town Hall Annex A. Nicholas Krupski, Vice President 54375 Route 25 Eric Sepenoski W nx, P.O. Box 1179 Liz Gillooly �4, 0� `1•�p�� Tese hone 631 765 1892 Elizabeth Peeples p ( ) Fax (631) 765 -6641 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field Inspection Report Date/Time:A yAncA (0._2025 Completed infield by: l :u�" peep THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH request a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one - story dwelling and construct a new one -story dwelling in -place consisting of raising the existing foundation ±16 inches to meet FEMA compliance, and backfill inside entire foundation with compacted clean fill; construct a 1,203sq.ft. one -story dwelling with two 19.5sq.ft. stoops and one 15sq.ft. stoop; remove /abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system with 42.29 cubic yards of clean fill and a retaining wall enclosure of a 0.7'H x 20.51 x 8 "W section, a 1.1'H x 4.4 x 8 "W section, a 1.5'H x 22.11 x 8 "W section; relocate 20 L.F. of Belgian curb; existing brick walks and patios to be removed and replaced with concrete pavers and permeable stones; install a stormwater drainage system for the dwelling and garage; for the existing 12.5'x24.5' garage and to construct a second -story addition with a Y2 bath, a 3.6'x6' second -story balcony and a 13.2'x3.6' exterior landing with stairs to grade; install a 4'x6' outdoor shower off garage; construct a 10'x10' pergola; install a 6.8'x7.9' jacuzzi on an elevated berm that sits 33 inches above current grade; remove existing retaining wall behind garage and construct a 26'L x 33 "H x 8 "W retaining wall; install underground water and electric; and to establish and perpetually maintain the entirety of the property except for a 380sqft area be a non -turf buffer area. Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000- 70 -6 -10 Type of area to be impacted: Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland Sound Bay Part of Town Code proposed work falls under: _),/Chapt. 275 Chapt. 111 other Typo of Application: Wetland Coastal Erosion Amendment Administrative Emergency Pre - Submission Violation Notice of Hearing card posted on property: lies No Not Applicable Info needed /Modifications /Conditions /Etc.: . Present Were: V/G. oldsmith V/-N. Kruski ZE. Sepenoski y L. Gillooly %/'E. Peeples Board of Trustees 39 August 13, 2025 IN (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the following stipulations: New plans showing a reduction of the pool to pull it roughly five feet further from the wetland line, for a total of 50 feet as per code; condition of a salt water pool only; new plans depicting a 15 -foot vegetated non -turf buffer along the wetland lines surrounding property; gutters to leaders to drywells; and by reducing the scope of this project and the distance to the wetland and flood zones, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. (ALL AYES). MR. MANNO: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH request a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one -story dwelling and construct a new one -story dwelling in -place consisting of raising the existing foundation ±16 inches to meet FEMA compliance, and backfill inside entire foundation with compacted clean fill; construct a 1,203sq.ft. One -story dwelling with two 19.5sq.ft. Stoops and one 15sq.ft. Stoop; remove /abandon existing septic system and install an I/A OWTS sanitary system with 42.29 cubic yards of clean fill and a retaining wall enclosure of a 0.7'H x 20.5'L x 8 "W section, a 1.11H x 4.3'L x 8 "W section, a 1.5'H x 22.1'L x 8 "W section; relocate 20 L.F. of Belgian curb; existing brick walks and patios to be removed and replaced with concrete pavers and permeable stones; install a stormwater drainage system for the dwelling and garage; for the existing 12.5'x24.5' garage and to construct a second -story addition with a 'z bath, a 3.6'x6' second -story balcony and a 13.2'x3.6' exterior landing with stairs to grade; install a 4'x6' outdoor shower off garage; construct a 10'x10' pergola; install a 6.8'x7.9' Jacuzzi on an elevated berm that sits 33 inches above current grade; remove existing retaininq wall behind garaqe and construct a 26'L x 33 "H x 8 "W retaining wall; install underground water and electric; and to establish and perpetually maintain the entirety of the property except for a 380sq.ft. Area be a non -turf buffer area. Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000- 70 -6 -10 The Trustee visited the site at our field inspection on August 6th. Notes read: Proposed project includes an incredible amount of structure for the parcel. IA system should be moved landward. Question excess of programming for such a constrained parcel. The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. Number one, the proposed structure is located in the FEMA AE and Velocity Hazard VE flood hazard zones. And, number two, structures in FEMA flood zones should be avoided, relocated or minimized to prevent loss. We also have received letters. The first is from Patricia Burkel. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concern and objection to the Smith renovations. The home I reside in has been in Board of Trustees 40 August 13, 2025 my family since 1950. I've witnessed storm surges from hurricanes and nor'easters which flooded their small home and driveway. Despite their home being raised higher in the past, the pattern and trend reveals our water level rising, not just in Jockey Creek but globally as well. I recall the beach on our shore along with safe, clean water to swim, fish and clam from my childhood. They no longer exist. I have grave concerns to the contributions to an already contaminated creek. I object to an outdoor shower, Jacuzzi tub and a bathroom in a storage unit. Chemicals in the jacuzzi consist of chlorine, bromine, clarifier and alkalinity increaser. Chlorine is hazardous. It's a chemical second to arsenic. Bromine is a skin irritant. Leakage would not be welcome by our fish, wildlife, and would be further detrimental to our creek. The letter continues to say that the Smith'.s knew the size of their property when purchased. Their proposals are not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Tom Smith reports he does not want to overbuild. His intentions are to the contrary. If Southold Town approves their proposal of additions, a precedent will be established. This could encourage other property owners to follow suit on Southold's creeks and waterfront. Furthermore, approval of this proposal could make Southold town subject to liability if property damage is incurred as a result of flooding. I'm hopeful that Southold town will approve the demolition and rebuilding of the Smith residence and deny the proposals that endanger the health of our creek. Thank you, for your time and attention. Again, Patricia Burkel. We also have a letter in the file from Marjorie Moffet Stevens, located 335 Private Road #3, Southold. I have no objection to the Smith's replacing their current house, as I realize that after more than 100 years of nor'easter hurricanes flooding, the house and garage must be in very poor condition. My parents bought my house in 1942 and I have a vested interest in Jockey Creek. I remember how it was and see how it is now. The creek already has enough problems. In my childhood we caught and ate clams and blue craw crabs right in front of my house all summer long. It's now closed to shellfishing by April each year because of pollution. I fee a hot tub full of chemicals has no business being so close to the water. Echoing the Trustees notes from our field inspection, the Smith's, Moffett's, Stevens are right, the Smith's have applied for an amazing amount of construction on a very small lot, including a second -story addition to the garage, which will include balconies and a stair case outside the original footprint of the garage. Pergola, outdoor shower and the aforementioned hot tub. By my calculations, this is about an additional 250 square feet of space. I question whether the garage is even in a good enough condition to support a second -story safely. Board of Trustees 41 August 13, 2025 The house and lot size has not changed since the Smith's bought the property. If they wanted a bigger lot with more amenities, they bought the wrong house, and Jockey Creek should not have to pay the price. I hope the Trustees will consider making the new septic system the first thing that must be installed, especially if they intend to have a second bathroom on the property. Thank you, for your attention to this matter. Those are the two letters in the file. Is there anyone wishing to speak regarding the application. MR. SMITH: Yes. I'm Tom Smith, the owner. I'm here with my wife Jennifer. Maybe I can just provide a quick five - minute overview of the project. A year ago we came before the Trustees and we're doing a major renovation, so just under that 50% threshold. So I think it's a year ago tomorrow we received a permit to do that. So when we started the construction, we opened up the house -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Smith, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Would you just bring the microphone a little closer, it may be better for the people in the audience to hear you. MR. SMITH: Okay. So we quickly realized that beyond 50% had to be done, okay. So it was pretty clear. So-here we are today, I just want to emphasize that there is no change to the plans that were submitted a year ago. So as far as the house size, the setbacks, the coverage, number, of bedrooms, number of the baths, it's still one story. It's the same plans that were submitted a year ago. But now technically we are over that 50% threshold. So now it falls into the category of a demo and a rebuild rather than a major renovation. So the plans that were approved are the same plans, but now that since we've fallen into the demo /rebuild, there are some great things we have to do environmentally. So one is we have to lift the house per FEMA, okay, and that's part of the plans. So the house has to be lifted about 16 to 18 inches. That's in my application. A new IA system has to be added, okay. And a storm water runoff system is being installed as well. So those are three of the significant environmental improvements that are being done. But I want to again highlight that the plans are the same plans that were approved before, it's just that the house was in such poor condition when we opened up, we realized more work had to be done, okay. As far as phase two, yes, we are adding a second -story to the garage. We talked to the ZBA about that. We are doing the other things that are mentioned. In total, those represent only 190 square feet. So quite small. Now, the challenge with our property is it adds a fair amount to lot coverage just based on the fact that I have the smallest parcel on Jockey Creek. It's 6,953 square feet. The largest parcel, my neighbor's if you go to the left and right, about four lots, it's about 11,500 square feet. Board of Trustees 42 August 13, 2025 So it's just a little bit more pressure from a lot coverage standpoint because of the denominator in that equation is much smaller for me since my parcel is smaller. One of the other things I want to really mention is with the LWRP, and I realize this week, when my file was sent to them, it was sent on March 3rd, okay. At that point there was no reference to an IA system being put in. That was added about three or four weeks later. So there was no awareness by the LWRP that that was being added. There was also a document, and I can share that with you, I can also share letters showing the dates that they didn't have the information on that IA stem. It just highlighted six, to me, very positive environmental changes that we are making to the property. So, if you look back a year ago, okay, and I think pictures were shown in the application, it's the same size house, it's 1,200 square feet. It doesn't get much smaller. Two bedrooms, bedrooms, two baths, one closet in the house. No change to that is planned, right. It's basically reproducing what was there. So if you look back a year ago, that was the condition of the house, and we had a 50 -year old cesspool, only 20 -25 feet from the creek. Obviously not what we want to see from an environmental standpoint. So now hopefully I look forward nine months from now, as far as what we're improving. Again, same house, same size, elevated a little bit. We are adding an IA system. We are removing the old cesspool. We're lifting the house so it's now technically protected to a five - hundred year storm. We are adding a storm drainage system. We are putting underground electric, which I'm going to coordinate with my neighbor doing that. We have a 95% non -turf buffer. And we are actually replacing the walkways and the patios with a system that is more permeable. So I really struggle with how from a Trustee or environmental standpoint we are not in a tremendously better position than we were a year ago. A dilapidated house that honestly was not livable, with a 50 -year old cesspool. If there is anything else people want me to do, let's add it to the list. I think we are complying with every law and regulation that we are aware of. If I'm missing something, please let me know. But, again when I look at the before and after scenario, I just struggle to see why this is not better for the neighborhood, for the community, for the Trustees. Obviously for us. Everything we've done is very much in character with the neighborhood. I could have built a two -story house. I chose not to. It's the same house, it just has to be 16 inches higher per FEMA. (UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER). (INAUDIBLE). MS. HULSE: Ma'am, you can't address the Board unless you step up to the mic and be recognized by the Board. MR. SMITH: So, hopefully -- I know it's been a year since you saw my application and I thought it's important just to highlight what was Board of Trustees 43 August 13, 2025 approved then, how little it was really changing and all the really positive things I think we're doing to, you know, improve, again, the community, the neighborhood, the environment. So I welcome any questions that you may have. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding the application? MS. SIMONS: Carol Simons I have a packet of letters. This is a packet of letters that have been sent to the Trustees, in addition to what I'm going to read now. And some past documents. Do you want me to give them to you now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can give them to the clerk there. MS. SIMONS: (Handing). Okay, I'm basically going to present a letter that you have in your packet, but overview it, that Lucy Harris, who would like very much to have been here but could not be, and I wrote, and signed by other community members summarizing our real concerns about this project. These concerns center on the proposed alterations likely impact on Jockey Creek and adjacent or nearby properties. Jockey Creek was once a beautiful waterway, but now, especially in spring and summer, it's seriously polluted by runoff from construction and landscaping work on surrounding properties. The proposed alterations and the work they will entail will further damage this fragile waterway. And it's important to note, again, that the Board of Trustees has, pardon me, the Zoning Board of Appeals, has already turned down the proposal three times. And the Board of Trustees has issued a stop -work order on alterations at the site when the work exceeded what the Trustees had approved and deemed permissible. Our objections are as follows: The hot tub will be situated on an earthen berm. The weight of the requested tup is 4,000 -5,000 pounds. What will happen to the berm when carrying this weight. Moreover, hot tubs need chemical which must be stored and used. Chemicals should not be allowed near Jockey Creek because of possible flooding, leakage or accidents. Plus, the hot tub will be on the property line. Town Code does not allow construction directly on property lines. The outdoor shower will also be located on the earthen berm. The water will erode the dirt underneath. And where will the water drain? In the creek? The added storage of the garage raises several issues. Since the garage has been continuously flooded over the decades, its foundation, like that of the house must be eroded. The garage will likely need to be demolished and rebuilt, but this action is not in the proposal. The proposed renovations include a tiny 306 square foot apartment, with a 13 -foot landing for the staircase. It will also have a six -foot balcony. And the outdoor staircase will be on the property line. Again, Town Code does not allow construction directly on property lines. Board of Trustees 44 August 13, 2025 The added coverage of the property will include the staircase, the landing, the hot tub, the outdoor shower, and a pergola 10x10 feet. Legal coverage of the property is already exceeded, and legal setbacks are not being adhered to. The proposal says the house will be raised plus or minus 16.5 inches. That leaves wide open the exact height of the new raised house. It also says that the original size of the house will not be changed. We propose that the height of the roof be lowered as much as the house is raised to be in keeping with the size and scale of the neighborhood. The house has a vaulted ceiling, so lowering it by 16.5 inches should be okay. The demolition and rebuilding from scratch of this property will require heavy machinery, pile drivers, backhoes, bulldozers, cement mixers, dumpsters. How will the dirt and debris generated in this project affect the health of the already compromised creek. How will the construction traffic impact the dirt roads leading to the house? This road is always underwater when it rains because the water table is so close to the surface. And how will the vibrations, noise, dust and dirt affect our small community, its people, its animals and its plants. In the Private Road #3 community, most of the homes are longtime, permanent, year -round residences. Any adverse impacts of the proposed Smith project will be felt all year. Moreover, the proposed garage renovations and taller house, will severely obstruct the views from at least three properties. Aren't these homeowners entitled to the enjoyment of their domiciles? The Smith's bought the property knowingly. They were aware of its size and limitations. Why must the creek and those who live on it suffer because the Smith's want more than they originally bought. Is the damage to be done to the fragile creek and wetlands worth the gain of a higher house and garage, 306 square feet of extra space, and a hot tub and outdoor shower? In short, this plan compromises the living community surrounding it, human, animal and vegetable, by paving it over with concrete and adding structures. Why would the Town approve such desecration? Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: At this point in the hearing, if anyone wishes to take to the lectern and offer their comments, by all means. And Mr. Smith, you can respond. But make sure you respond to the Board. MR. SMITH: Sure. Happy to. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Does anyone else wish to speak before Mr. Smith responds? (No response). MR. SMITH: There's a lot to respond to, but I'll do my best. But I do appreciate the fact that my neighbors are here. We love Jockey Creek. I've owned this property for 20 years. And honestly, everything we Board of Trustees 45 August 13, 2025 are doing is with a vision of staying with the, within the character, the character of the neighborhood and doing what is right environmentally. So just a couple of things I'll touch on. You know, the hot tub as far as the chemicals, I just don't see how that is ever an issue.. That's all contained within the system. It's the furthest point away from the creek itself, so it does meet the setback requirements, it's been discussed with the ZBA. So it does meet the setback requirements on that side yard. The shower would have a drywell, which they always do, it's going to be a modest, probably four -foot drywell, so the water would be contained. The garage has been looked at by my engineer and my builder. Structurally it's all very sound, and he'll be building from what is there existing. So just to address that comment. No apartment is planned. This is, our house, I have three daughters and a wife. This is a 1,200 square foot house. We have one closet. So it's an unfinished area above the garage that is planned. And that's in my write -up. Will we consider an apartment in the future, perhaps, but right now our plan is to use that as just a storage, unfurnished storage area. It mentions that the staircase, that is not, none of this is on the property line. That's five feet off the property line. The pergola is 10x10. It's just there, it's open air, it's there,just to be esthetically pleasing as far as connecting the house. I'm happy to consider doing something smaller there if it's, you know, maybe do a 5'x10' as opposed to a 101x10'. Let's see. I'm raising the house because I have to raise the house. A year ago it was not my plan. Nor was it my plan to do an IA system or any of this. So I have to do these things, and I'm happy to do it. And it's probably costing me another $100,000. So FEMA is telling me I have to lift the house. I'm not going to reduce my cathedral. I'm allowed to put a two -story house here. So I think people should be pleased with the fact that we are not doing that, and there would be no views for anybody. So I really think we are being fair there as well. I think that's really it. Again, all along we've been very mindful of the community, staying in character with what is there. It's the same house. I've submitted pictures before and after. It's the same house, same size. Essentially new. So, I don't know if I missed anything, Jennifer MS. SMITH: Hi, I'm Jen Smith. I don't want to say much because I get emotional. But I just, as Tom said, I just feel like with letters, I mean, I could work through people that come support, right, but I think with letters it makes it sound like we're building the Taj Mahal here. It's the exact same blueprint. I mean, we didn't change one thing. It's just a house we need to be able to live in. And it was not livable. And I think some people would just like it to not change Board of Trustees 46 August 13, 2025 at all. And that happens in the world, right, you've been somewhere for a while and you don't like change. But to say, I think the last time, the last time I heard that we were ruining Jockey Creek, and I think what is ruining Jockey Creek is if we don't pick up the system that's there. I think what we're doing is helping Jockey Creek. We are good people. We want to give back to the environment. We'll do whatever we're told. But I don't think we are asking too much to keep the exact same house and keep the exact same blueprint. So I just don't want there to be a misrepresentation, because it sounds like we are building something that we are not really building. Even when we need a pergola, it's, I mean do we even put this, like an open -air thing. I'm like, that's on there? It's almost like something we can take out. All right, not much to add but. MR. SMITH: I just want to add one other comment. We started this process a year ago. We have been homeless for eight months. We are really looking to move forward. So if there is anything we need to do modify or table something, we are open to that. We are really looking to move on with our lives. We think we are being very fair. So, we are hope to your thoughts. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you currently have a Suffolk County Health Department permit for the IA system? MR. SMITH: That's a great question. So I'm working with Clear River and Island Wide Engineering, that submitted three applications already. And it's just pending. Everything looks very positive, and we are right there at the door step. But it says they will not approve until I get Trustee and ZBA. So it's right there on the doorstep. It needs a variance because I think it's a setback issue, when you look at the retaining wall and infiltrators, I think it's five feet, needs to be ten. So that's one minor variance. But we have had endless discussions with them. Everything seems to be very positive. But I'm being told you just have to wait until, and I'm happy to share documentation and letters from the Health Department. It's been a good discussion going back and forth on that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I apologize, I've been trying to look up the Suffolk County Health Department, and from what Z found for leaching structures, from surface water, is 100 feet. And I believe you have it proposed at five feet. MR. SMITH: From surface water or from the -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Surface water. So you have it proposed right at the edge of that bulkhead on the northwest side of the property. I believe the retaining wall is literally at the bulkhead, and the leaching pool is five feet off of that. MR. SMITH: That's correct. I mean, again, when you look at the parcel, and even when they came out and looked at this. They said this was one of the more challenging ones we've seen. They know I'll get approved, it's just a matter of what's the best they can do. So, yes, you are correct. Board of Trustees 47 August 13, 2025 When you go in, that retaining wall hugs the bulkhead and then the furthest point, I think juts out like 21 feet across the front lawn. But every indication is they are supportive of that. They said it will be, it's been done before, it will be waterproof, etc. I was hoping they would join me today to speak, if necessary, but they've had, like I said, endless discussions, three submissions. And I'm happy to share the documentation I have to that point. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because from our perspective from an environmental standpoint, have the leaching field five feet away from a creek is not the most environmentally friendly option there is. You know, especially when you have other locations on this property. If I'm not mistaken, I think the test hole data showed two feet to groundwater? MR. SMITH: I think it's two -and -a -half, but, okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And normally the bottom of the leaching pool needs to be a minimum of two feet above groundwater. So if you are two - and -a -half to groundwater currently, and you're going to put a three foot trench, or whatever it is, it looks like we're going to need to raise the grade four, five feet, to accommodate that septic system, literally on the edge of the bulkhead on the creek. MR. SMITH: Yes, again, that's all in the plans I submitted from the IA system. It looks like they built it based on groundwater being as low as like 1.43. So they are factoring that in. It's going to be a pump system. I have some information here I could read you about it. It's a Fuji Sen 5 with pump, and a low - profile infiltration system. Retaining walls, as you mentioned, Glenn, as far as where they are located, is true. That's why I required a variance. They looked at the property. There is nowhere else, in their opinion, to put this. So I'm here for a variance, so. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I understand that challenge but from our perspective our challenge is to protect that creek, protect that surface water, to protect the wetlands. So five feet for a septic system, when by Town Code it's 75 feet, for me that's in environmental impact, an adverse environmental impact, which should definitely be looked at to relocate, you know, as far back from that wetland as you can get. You know, that might be having to re -do your design a little bit, putting it under the driveway, putting it under the pergola. Doing something. But I, in my experience on the Board have never seen a septic system literally on a bulkhead. And I don't think that is necessarily the best. MR. SMITH: The retaining wall is on the bulkhead, not the filtration -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yeah, five feet off, so. MR. SMITH: As I said, there is limited -- first of all we had a 50 -year old, cement block system, that was probably leaching into Jockey Creek for the last 50 years. So that's a starting point. They spent endless time looking at this lot. It's just, I mean it's 7,000 square feet. We need a system. And this they said is the best they could find. And that's why it requires a variance. And Suffolk Board of Trustees 48 August 13, 2025 County, and I'm happy to submit something after the fact, the letter has not pushed back on that. And I know we had endless discussions about it, and I mentioned how the driveway wouldn't work because you have the utility lines coming through, you have the right --of -way, you know, the electric, the water. Even the water is being diverted. The waterline around the garage, to accommodate and not be too close to -- you know, the water itself is going around the garage into the house, just to be further enough away from this system. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Smith, you were at our work session, I believe, on Monday evening. There was a presentation from Peconic Estuary Partnership which kind of led us in the direction of our LWRP. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. And certainly one of the things that this Board must accommodate, must address, are the LWRP's comments, which are the proposed structures located in the FEMA zone. I know you spoke to that, raising the house and gaining some clearance from those waters. But the second one I really think is the crux of the matter here this evening. Which is number two. Structures in FEMA flood zones should be avoided, relocated or minimized to prevent loss. And I think it's at this point in our dealings with this, it's really what Glenn mentions, it's the septic, albeit a much improved system, less nitrogen leaching than the old block systems that you referenced. I think it's really in your court to say how you will address those concerns, how you could position those retaining walls or that septic system in such a way that you would satisfy those LWRP comments. I understand your house is not changing, it's going up, it's not getting a second floor. I respect that. You have gone through great lengths to soften, make permeable, the area around the house so that those waters don't rush off into the creek. I think the environmental benefits you spoke of are real and should be applauded by your neighbors and by the township in general. It's just that those comments and concerns from the LWRP, which I think is dated August 11th, 2025, here on our. So the question really is how would you avoid, relocate or minimize structures in the FEMA flood zones to prevent loss. MR. SMITH: So I didn't receive a copy of that. I have the original letter from the LWRP dated, I think the 22nd of April. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And this is August 11th. MR. SMITH: Was that sent to me? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That could have been a separate review done for the ZBA by the LWRP. This is a specific review done for the Board of Trustees. MR. SMITH: I don't think that was sent to me. MS. HULSE: It's not required to. It's just to make part of the file. It's accessible to you, though, if you would like to have a copy. MR. SMITH: Sure. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In some cases the Trustees and the ZBA, they share sort of overlapping jurisdiction, but have separate sections of the code to which they must answer, to which they must adhere. Board of Trustees 49 August 13, 2025 So I understand that some of the structures and heights, and all of those things, those are not the Trustees purview, really. It's just about minimizing really loss and safety of structures in the tidal zone, and preventing pollution and erosion. So we want to keep our review of this application really focused on the LWRP comments. Again, just avoiding, relocating or minimizing. MS. HULSE: And the LWRP report was just handed to the applicant. MR. SMITH: Again, I'm seeing this for the first time and hearing this for the first time. So what would be recommended as far as, I'm struggling as to, I know the system isn't perfect. What we had before is horrific. I'm happy to do whatever it takes to get to that point. I'm relying on the expertise of an engineering firm, and Clear River, and this is what they do. And they came out and looked at the parcel and said this is the answer. Suffolk County Health Department is onboard, from everything I see. I'm struggling -- I welcome some guidance on what I do. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the height on the retaining walls; the fact that is exposed from the ground level up. MR. SMITH: So from grade level what you'll see of the retaining wall? So when you first come in and you make that left along the bulkhead, it's one - and -a -half feet. Then where there is a minor, little pivot to the bulkhead, it goes down to 1.1 feet. And then across the lawn, I know this because I spent some time looking at it today, it's like 0.7. Seven inches. So it's not very meaningful. It's a very, the system itself is meant to be a shallow system that taking into account the groundwater may be rising over time. So it's built for that. There is a pump involved. So they call it a low - profile system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just think for us -- MR. SMITH: I mean you have to have a driveway, and the house, I just don't know, because I had the same question with them. What are the options. There is no other options. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We've reviewed applications before where you walk in the backyard and it's spongy, it's the wetland. In this case it's not soft ground, but I understand the constraints. And the Board has faced similar challenges in designs before. Of course, you can't leave the car parked on the street. You have to have a driveway. The Health Department, they have their regs. And again, ours is how do we address those concerns to minimizing relocation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just so you know, we have put them in driveways before and we have seen them put behind houses, so. MR. SMITH: And I asked both those questions. And they said -- again, I'm not the expert, I'm the owner. And I wish they were here, they couldn't make it. But they said neither was feasible, maybe because it was all the utility lines. I don't know. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have had this discussion with other applicants a number of times regarding IA systems and the feasibility, and most of the time they can come back and make one work. Whether it is Board of Trustees 50 August 13, 2025 relocating it, weather it's putting it in the driveway. But they always start off with we can't do it, this is the best we can do for this property. They go back to the engineer, and somehow, someway, they design a better system that will work. So I think if someone goes back to the drawing board with this one, there would be better options than five -feet off the bulkhead. MR. SMITH: That's something Suffolk County would have recommended when they got, because I know they went back and forth, they wouldn't have recommended a better approach? I know they had discussions. MS. HULSE: This Board can't opine on that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I know you mentioned that you went to the ZBA, and all of the dimensions that we see here on this plan are related to ZBA setbacks, so it's sort of the front yard setback, the location off the property line. What is the dimension of the proposed hot tub and the proposed shower off of the bulkhead? Because that is something this Board is interested in seeing. I believe there is a note about the five feet of the proposed IA system, off the bulkhead, but those are the dimensions that we would like to see, off of the wetland line or the bulkhead line. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, my mind was wondering there a bit. Say again. The dimensions of the shower and the Jacuzzi? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So you provided a lot of dimensions on here, but those pertain to the ZBA requirements. And what this Board is interested in understanding is the dimension of the house, the proposed IA system, the proposed outdoor shower, the proposed hot tub. Those dimensions from the wetland. Or in this case the bulkhead. But just so that we can understand those dimensions. That's important for the review. MR. SMITH: Are the dimension not included as far as on the plans themselves. The Jacuzzi was like 8.5x7.5. The shower was I think 6x4, as far as their dimensions. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, excuse me. Those are the dimensions of the actual piece itself. We are looking for the dimension from the nearest corner of the hot tub to the bulkhead. So the distance to the proposed hot tub, to the proposed outdoor shower, the proposed IA. It would be nice to also have the house and the garage, just to have an understanding of location on the property. MR. SMITH: So all of those relative to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be helpful because, you know, we are talking about revisiting some of the designs here. So that would be helpful to include as well. Thank you. MR. SMITH: Okay, sure. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And I just wanted to note that I appreciate everything that you are saying, and I think that this proposal is modest in the scale of some things that we see as a Board, given the constraints of this property. I also understand the neighbors coming and voicing their concerns with the project as well. Board of Trustees 51 August 13, 2025 I just wanted to note the reason why there is additional scrutiny, even though it this was previously presented to the Board of Trustees, is that it has become a demolition. So when it becomes a demolition we have to look at it with new eyes because this would be the moment for us to say perhaps you need to pull the structure back. When people are investing that much money and demolishing, even to you it doesn't feel like a demolition, it's technically a demolition, and that's when the Trustees have to perform an additional review and look at it as new construction. So, that's just for your information on why this is viewed differently than the application that you previously presented to, which was for minor alterations to the existing structure. And so with that said, I as one Trustee would say if there is ability, even if it meant loss of structure in the rear yard, to pull the structure landward from the bulkhead, it would be of environmental benefit. So I just want would ask that you look at that as a possibility. MR. SMITH: Yes, I understand that. I mean, it's an existing foundation, it's a pre - existing house, and it was the first house on Jockey Creek, goes back 50 years. So, and I'm not sure gaining two feet in the house, what are you gaining. Right now the distance between the house and the bulkhead is 13 feet. So if I'm moving it and getting 15, what am I gaining? I'm already lifting it, meeting FEMA, I'm putting in an IA system. There is no crawl space. So I understand, and I was thinking through this at well. And what are we environmentally gaining when we are already gaining so much from where we were originally. So I appreciate the comments, and we did think about that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I just want to say, I understand that your position is difficult here, and what you two are trying to achieve. I recognize that. We're trying to work through this, too, because our hands are tied, with the LWRP and the code, and our setbacks and our parameters. So, for me, because the house has been here so long, I understand where you are coming from where, with that. I would just like to see that septic pulled as far back as possible. And to echo what Trustee Goldsmith said, in doing this for a decade, we've heard so many times form so many engineers, you can't move that, you can't move that, you can't lower the wall. And in the end they always figure out a way to do it.' But it always starts with those same comments. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Smith, are you using the existing foundation or -- MR. SMITH: It's existing. All we are doing is adding another block or two. It seems to be structurally sound. As I said, I'm only lifting the house 16 inches. I would rather not lift the house, but I'm told I have to per FEMA, and I have to get to an eight -foot finished floor. And to do that it's somewhere around only 16 inches. The current foundation is there. It's structurally sound. It's inspected. Board of Trustees 52 August 13, 2025 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you receive ZBA approval yet? MR. SMITH: Which approval? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: ZBA. MR. SMITH: No, we were in front of them three or four months ago. They tabled it to wait to hear from your group. So that's where we stand. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I think if they are waiting for us, I think we put enough concerns and everything on the record at this point that that could go back to the ZBA with all our concerns that we expressed, and get a ruling from them, and then return to us with that ruling. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The only additional thing I would add is perhaps the removal of some of the brick patios surrounding the house would be appropriate for more vegetation. If you could limit the walkways and add vegetation in, I think that would be a better option for us. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So, Mr. Smith, I think, as Glenn said, you got a pretty full record now of comments from the Trustees. I think they are really -- and letters from the public, really focused on the location of the IA system, and satisfying the LWRP comments. And I appreciate, again the difficult position that you are in. And the Board has certainly looked at this objectively, and trying to balance that private and public interest. MS. SMITH: I just want to make it clear, I'm assuming you guys have been there. But you know the house is built, right, so to move it, I mean we are paying rent for all of the kitchen and the floor. I mean, it was bare. We're done. So we pay monthly rent for everything. Because it's built. I want to make sure. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate the stress that might cause, but I also hear the comments from the Board focusing on relocating the house from that location. MR. SMITH: So you are saying there is no consideration to having move the house from the existing foundation? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's a possibility, but. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the fact that the Building Department deemed this a demolition is why you are back here. MR. SMITH: No, I understand that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So when something is deemed a demolition, then we need to bring it up to code, or as close to, you know, as we can possibly get. Obviously you are constrained on this. We can no way move you back 100 feet, because it doesn't exist. So, we need to minimize the impact of any project. So whether that's moving, shrinking, relocating, things like that is what we need to do now that, in essence we are starting with a blank slate, since it's a demolition. So previously you were just raising the roof. It was deemed a demolition. So we kind of start over, basically. MR. SMITH: So I'll be honest. It's overwhelming, and I'm a little bit confused as to what my next steps are. So the IA, I know we want to move back, right. Try to find a better place. That seems to be the number one priority, Glenn. At least the way you seemed quite concerned about the IA system. So is Board of Trustees 53 August 13, 2025 that -- I'm just trying to understand. We talked about so many different things. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have a number of concerns that we expressed on the record. But for me, the fact that the ZBA tabled it to hear our concerns, I think, again, we made our concerns very apparent here on the record. So I think you go back to the ZBA with what we've outlined here. Address -- see what you can address with them, as well as Suffolk County Health Department for that septic system. What the ZBA does or doesn't do is not a purview of this Board. So based on that, then we'll reopen it at a later date and see what potential solutions you came up with to address those concerns that we expressed tonight. MR. SMITH: Is the process expedited in any way? I had to wait four months to get to the ZBA, I had to wait four months to see you, and now I'm going back to the ZBA, and I'm going to come back to you. Is the process any different? MS. HULSE: Some of this was caused because you were building and there was a stop order, and there was a whole process there that created delay as well. So some of that was self -- imposed. MR. SMITH: I.understand that completely. MS. HULSE: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And once you get through ZBA you get right back on our agenda. You are already on here, the hearings, so if we were to table it, it would just be tabled, so you get right back on the agenda. MR. SMITH: Can I get a copy of the Minutes. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the members of the public or members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SMITH: Thank you. MS. HULSE: Just to clarify, Mr. Smith, the Board Minutes have to be approved and then you can receive a copy once it's been approved by the Board, which would be next month. MR. SMITH: Oh, it's a month from now? MS. HULSE: The approved Minutes will be next month. MR. SMITH: Is there anything prior to that? BOARD CLERK: No. (The stenographer notes this hearing is closed). TRUSTEE \TERRONO GILLOOLY: N ber 11, Sol Searcher Consulting on behalfN,of ANDREW L RE CABLE TRUST - 2011 requests`, Wetland Per'lmit to modify tting pe mitted dock sisting of removing the existing able ram and 6'x16' fleating dock; ir°� all handrai`, onto lan' wide sta rs to catwalk,: extend the cat�alk 16' seaward otal of a 4 76' catwalk; install flow - though decking *, \1 \111. RECEIVE Background Note to ZBA: SFP 4 2025 9/23/25 This is my second time meeting with the ZBA. At themNseQARPIQFaW ng on May 1 st, you asked that I meet with the Board of Trustees. You felt it would be helpful to get some insight into what issues were of greatest importance to them before granting ZBA approval. The meeting with the Trustees took place on August 13th. The Board of Trustee discussion largely focused on the location of the IA septic system. Most notably, the fact that the IA system retaining wall ran along the bulkhead. They also highlighted LWRP comments whereby they requested that we reduce or mitigate the impact to "lot coverage ". In our "revised" application, we have reconfigured the layout of the IA septic system. A feasibility study concluded that the only area that can accommodate the system is the front yard. There is no other option due to the uniquely small nature of the parcel and limited amount of accessible, open space. The good news is that by reconfiguring the layout, we were able to place the system further from the bulkhead and eliminate the retaining walls. We also significantly reduced the request for additional "lot coverage ". The increase to lot coverage is now very minor at only 89 square feet. See submission material for more details and insight. Thank you for your time and consideration. Tom and Jen Smith Updated Response to ZBA LWRP Letter Dated April 21 20 NOTE: Per the ZBA office, the LWRP received my file on March 3rd. This means they likely had no information on the IA Septic system which was submitted on April 22nd. They also likely had limited knowledge of the environmental improvements being made. A list of those improvements was added to my file on April 24th. The list is captured below. LWRP Comment: The structure is located within a 1 % Annual Chance of Flood Elevation. Owner Response: The main house is an existing structure that has always been in FEMA AE6. Per FEMA and Southold guidelines the house will be lifted, so the house has a BFE of at least 8. The house will be protected from a flood event that is 2 feet higher than a 1 in 100 -year event. Such an event has never happened on Jockey Creek. The probability of such an event happening per FEMA is 1 in 500 years. LWRP Comment: Increase in Lot Coverage of 24.6% within this area should be avoided. Owner Response: There are 4 improvements contributing to the increase in Lot Coverage — pergola, outdoor shower, jacuzzi and garage overhang. Per LWRP's recommendation, the owner has decided to "relocate and minimize" the scope of work associated with the pergola, outdoor shower, jacuzzi, and garage stairs overhang. The pergola has been reduced from 100 square feet to 50 square feet (which is identical to the trellis that has been in that same location for 20+ years). The outdoor shower is now smaller and based on its new location will not contribute to lot coverage. The jacuzzi is now a very small, saltwater system that utilizes only 280 gallons of water. The exterior garage stairs over -hang has been eliminated. Please refer to the Exhibit "Reducing Lot Coverage Per LWRP ", which shows details of our initial request and our revised request. The additional "lot coverage" associated with these modest improvements is now only 89 square feet. Half of the 89 square feet are outside FEMA Flood Zone AE. The same exhibit also provides details associated with each of these changes LWRP Comment: Groundwater elevation is expected to rise over time in this hazard area. Owner Response: We have never noticed groundwater in our 4 -foot sand foundation in the 20 years we have owned the property. The project will meet FEMA, Southold Trustee, DEC, and Suffolk County Health department guidelines and laws. The IA septic system design reflects the fact that groundwater may rise over time. The house will no longer have a crawl space and will have a base floor elevation(BFE) of at least 8 feet. Additional Considerations: Modest relief is being requested that amounts to only 89 square feet. Major improvements are being made to the house, neighborhood and environment. They include: -New state of the art IA Septic System - Removal of 50- year -old concrete block cesspool only 20 feet from Jockey Creek -New storm drainage system t - Lifting house to comply with FEMA guidelines o" RECEIVED - Putting electric service from Oaklawn Ave underground -95% of property will be non -turf SEP 2 � 2025 RECEIVED 5EP 2 4 2025 August 2025 , LWRP Finding: "The action is inconsistent with Policies 4 and 6 of the LWRP" LWRP Comment #1. "The proposed structure is located in FEMA AE and Velocity Hazard VE flood hazard ". Owner Response: To the best of my knowledge, my pre - existing home was always in the same flood zone. My family is very happy to be making many environmental improvements to the property. The environmental improvements include: 1- Lifting house so the first finished floor meets 8 -foot guideline 2- Removing 50- year -old concrete block cesspool that was 20 feet from Jockey Creek 3- Adding state of the art new IA septic system 4- Adding storm drainage system 5- Placing 300 feet of electric underground 6 -Non -turf buffer of 95% A comprehensive environmental impact study would clearly find that the Jockey Creek community and neighborhood greatly benefit from our project and the improvements we are making. LWRP Comment #2. "Structures in FEMA flood zones should be avoided, relocated or minimized to prevent loss ". Owners Response: 90% of my property is in FEMA Flood Zone AE and the balance is in FEMA Flood Zone X. With respect to my house and garage, there is no avoiding FEMA Flood Zone AE. We are largely mitigating the potential loss impact associated with a flood event by lifting the house per FEMA guidelines, replacing the concrete block cesspool system with an IA septic system, and adding a storm drainage system. These are all significant improvements to what was there previously. Per LWRP's recommendation, we are "relocating and minimizing" the scope of work associated with the pergola, outdoor shower, jacuzzi, and garage stairs overhang. The pergola has been reduced from 100 square feet to only 50 square feet (which is identical to the trellis that has been in that same location for 20+ years). The outdoor shower is now smaller and based on its new location will not contribute to lot coverage. The jacuzzi is now a very small, saltwater system that utilizes only 280 gallons of water. The exterior garage stairs over -hang has been eliminated. Please refer to the exhibit "Reducing Lot Coverage Per LWRP ", which shows details of our initial request and our revised request. The additional "lot coverage" associated with these improvements is now only 89 square feet. Half of the 89 square feet are outside of FEMA Flood Zone AE. The same exhibit also provides details associated with each of these changes. J 1NG IBOPSO ®F APP�p,� 5 t Y/ N N G7 U) ..J W Q. a. LL 0 C) _z z I.L li W a W Q W !O V O J P_z V w cc J � Q N ii Q Ca N i N W W LU tn L w Ln w w w W N O.' H Q CG N t; N W cr W J Q H Z 0 z W LU N ~ � W 0 W OC U a U-) ® CiJ ru- C05 Pte. U-i (Y) Y/ N N G7 U) ..J W Q. a. LL 0 C) _z z I.L li W a W Q W !O V O J P_z V w cc J � Q N ii Q Ca N i N W W LU tn L w Ln w w w W N O.' H Q CG N t; N W cr W J Q H Z 0 z W LU N ~ � W 0 W OC U a