HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/14/2016 Michael J.Domino,President ®%roWOI/' Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President h� '�� 54375 Route 25
Charles J. Sanders y P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,NY 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone(631)765-1892
Fax(631)765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i^I
et
Minutes *StholdTo
19 'Wednesday, December 14, 2016 wn Clerk
5:00 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell,,Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER "
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, January 10, 2017, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 18,"2017, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Tuesday, January 17, 2017, at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, January 18, 2017, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: Monday, January 9, 2017, at 5:30 PM at the Annex
Executive Board Room
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 16, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seasons greetings to all. We have a bunch of
regulars here. Just to let you know, often after the December
meeting we might go out for a cup of cheer, but this year we'll
have to let that go until after our January meeting, hopefully
the weather will cooperate, because a number of us have an
engagement tonight that we'll be leaving to immediately after
the meeting.
At this point, I would like to make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Tuesday, January 10th, at 8:00 AM.
Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 2 December 14, 2016
And I'll make a motion that we hold our next regular Trustee
meeting Monday January 18, at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that we move to have work sessions
January 17th, 4:30 PM at Downs Farms; and Wednesday, January
18th, 2017, at 5:00 PM in the main meeting hall. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I move to hold our annual organizational meeting on Monday,
January 9th, at 5:30 PM, at the annex executive boardroom.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve the Minutes of November
16, 2016.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for November, 2016. A check for
$7,776.24 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review
III. 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, December 14, 2016, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Rachel Cashwell - SCTM# 1000-71-2-3
Castelforte, LLC, c/o Maggie N. Sparagna - SCTM# 1000-78-2-38
William &Aida Hartung - SCTM# 1000-117-5-15
Jujax Partners, LLC - SCTM# 1000-94-1-11
1625 Indian Neck Holding corp. - SCTM# 1000-86-5-8.1
George & Debra Coritsidis - SCTM# 1000-89-2-3 & 5.1
Elizabeth W. Furse - SCTM# 1000-10-3-5
Joseph & Linda Scioto -SCTM# 1000-126-11-20
Marc & Deirdre Sokol - SCTM# 1000-123-7-7.3
Board of Trustees 3 December 14, 2016
Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport- SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
Sally Coonan -SCTM# 1000-80-1-4
This is under the SEQRA, they are all listed under Item III. I'll move
that resolution for Type II Actions.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would like to announce there
are a number of postponements. If you all need copies of
tonight's agenda, they are on the lecterns, but also, so you are
not waiting for an item that you might be hoping to hear or see,
the following items are postponed:
On page four, items three and four,
HAROLD J. BAER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#6170 to construct a 4'x40' seaward extension onto existing
4'x65' fixed dock for a total of a 4'x105'fixed dock; and to
relocate existing steps to grade to seaward end of new
extension. Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck,
SCTM# 1000-116-7-6, has been postponed.
Number four, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT
HOLDINGS, LLC request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8047 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#8047C for the existing collapsed steel
bulkhead behind concrete seawall and existing damaged concrete
seawall to remain; remove the collapsed bluff stairs and steel
sheet piling retaining wall from face of bluff; the originally
proposed bulkhead with 10' and 20' returns, proposed 47' vinyl
retaining wall with V and 10' returns, and proposed timber
terracing walls on face of bluff were not constructed; for the
as-built stabilizing of the concrete bulkhead by placing
approximately 1 ,000 tons of large stones in between the steel
bulkhead,and concrete bulkhead and top off with 4-6+ stones;
as-built gabion-return wall along the westerly adjoining
property line; cut collapsed steel bulkhead down below finish
grade; as-built six-tiered retaining wall system, completely
integrated, to stabilize slope and protect westerly property
line; redesigned bluff stairs to attach to retaining walls;
bluff stairs were constructed 4'wide and 45.2' long in lieu of
50'with a 23sq.ft. top landing and a 24.5sq.ft. bottom landing;
replaced collapsed brick patio with as-built 176sq.ft. natural
irregular shaped bluestone patio between dwelling and top
retaining wall; as-built 73sq.ft. lower tier bluestone patio;
as-built wire fencing along top retaining wall; added fill to
terraced areas; a ±450sq.ft. sandy beach area landward of stone
bulkhead; re-vegetated void areas with American beach grass and
rosa rugosa. Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold,
SCTM# 1000-51-4-8, has been postponed.
On page five, items one and two,
L.K. Mclean Associates on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
Board of Trustees 4 December 14, 2016
install a 25' wide by 40' long steel shade shelter supported by
six(6)foundation columns over a proposed 4" (25'x40') concrete
slab; and to install an approximately 12'x24' timber deck
fastened onto the existing concrete slab that is attached to the
existing lifeguard building. Located: 5155 Breakwater Road,
Breakwater Beach, Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-99-2-19.1, has been
postponed.
Number two, Docko, Inc. on behalf of BRIM FISHERS ISLAND
TRUST, c/o JOHN BRIM requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a 4'wide by+/-181 linear foot long
fixed wood pile and timber pier; a 3.5'x20' ramp; and floating
dock with four(4) restraint piles; install four(4)tie-off
piles; relocate boulders within the vicinity of the proposed
float and berthing areas under the new pier; and on top of
existing concrete foundation pier'located in beach area
construct a proposed +/-18'x28'wood platform. Located: 3206
Brooks Point Road, Fishers Island, SCTM# 1000-4-3-3, has been
postponed
On page seven, item ten and on page eight, all of the
items:
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests
a Wetland Permit for the existing ±22'x25.5' cantilevered upper
deck and to resurface the deck; extend existing 54' long
retaining wall an additional 12'to easterly property line;
extend existing 75' long retaining wall an additional ±35' to
easterly property line and add a 10' long return; extend an
existing 50' long retaining wall up to the existing deck; extend
existing lower retaining wall an additional 75'to easterly
property line; replace existing 75' long bottom retaining wall
in-place; remove damaged 1 1 'x75' wood deck between lower
retaining walls; replace only 19'x25' part of existing deck
located under upper wood deck, and replace existing outdoor
shower on lower deck; backfill area with 120 cubic yards of
clean sand and top with beach stones; replace 4'wide stairs to
beach off of bottom retaining wall; replace existing 4'x22'
stairs that extend from top deck to lower deck; replace/repair
existing 75' long bulkhead; install steps to beach off bulkhead;
revegetate disturbed areas with mulch and native vegetation.
Located: 7080 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel,
SCTM# 1000-126-1 1-7, has been postponed.
Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of GLORIA NIXON
request a Wetland Permit to replace existing timber bulkhead
in-place consisting of a 57' long bulkhead and a 6' return using
vinyl sheathing; and to replace existing "L" shaped fixed timber
dock in-place consisting of a 3'x10'fixed dock off of bulkhead
to a 4'x16'fixed dock. Located: 5170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue,
SCTM# 1000-138-2-13, has been postponed.
Number 12, Richard Boyd, R.A. on behalf of CHRISTINE HOWLEY
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story
dwelling; construct new two-story, single family 5,577.20sq.ft.
total footprint dwelling which includes a 680.4sq.ft. attached
Board of Trustees 5 December 14, 2016
garage, a 1 07sq.ft. front roofed-over porch, 1,299.9sq.ft. of
seaward side first floor decks, and 1,123.3sq.ft. seaward side
second-floor decks. Located: 320 Sailor's Needle Road,
Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3, has been postponed.
Number 13, Michael Kimack on behalf of GIOIA TURITTO &
NABIL EL-SHERIF request a Wetland Permit to re-install in-kind a
Bio-Log system with fill and native plantings within two (2)
separate areas along the southern shoreline of subject property
due to the storm damage of the existing systems.
Located: 40 Beachwood Lane, Southold,. SCTM# 1000-70-10-62.1,
has been postponed.
Number 14, GAYLE B. WALLACE requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing 3'x35' catwalk using Thru-Flow decking
and raised 18" above grade; a 3'x19'8" aluminum ramp; and a
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration with two
piles to secure the float. Located: 150 Briarwood Lane
(Dominant); 425 & 350 Briarwood Lane, at End of 20'Wide
Right-of-Way, Cutchogue (Servient). SCTM# 1000A36-1-3
(Dominant); 1000-136-1-1 & 1000-136-1-5 (Servient), has been
postponed.
Number 15, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL
JOEL COLODNER& SARA WINSOR COLODNER requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing two-story dwelling with attached garage,
existing storage building and outdoor shower along rear of
dwelling; demolish existing stone patio and construct a 25'x30'
upper patio with outdoor grill and counter top; construct a
lower 1,244sq.ft. patio around proposed 16'x36' in-ground
swimming pool; install a pool drywell; install an 8'x8' hot tub;
install pool enclosure fencing, and the installation of hay
bales and/or silt fencing to be installed prior to and during
construction. Located: 130 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck,
SCTM#1000-115-17-17.8, has been postponed.
Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FOR THE LOVE OF
FAMILY LLC, clo ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit for
a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to dredge 250 cubic yards of
course sand from existing inlet; dredged material to be spread
on a beach to a maximum depth of 12"; all work to be above the
mean high water line and avoiding disruption of existing
vegetated wetlands in the area; the maintenance permit would
include five (5)additional dredging events consisting of 50
cubic yards of sand for each event. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-104-3-16.1, has been postponed.
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to facilitate an orderly meeting
and to not dwell on items that,are administrative in nature, and
minor, that the Board has already discussed during field
inspection and at work session, we'll often group items together
to expedite their approval since they are not subject to a
public hearing. and accordingly, under Section IV of the agenda,
Board of Trustees 6 December 14, 2016
Resolutions for Administrative Permits, I would move that we
approve items one and two. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
DENNIS HICKEY requests an Administrative Permit for the existing
9'8"x11' (106sq.ft.)enclosed porch to be renovated and to
become interior space of dwelling. Located: 175 Clearwater Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-5-2.2
Number two, Shawn M. Barron, M.S. on behalf of CAMERON DOWE
requests an Administrative Permit to install a 4'wide by 78'
long wood walkway from the shed to the dock. 975 Cedar Point
Drive west, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-5
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For item three, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of
SUSAN HOLDEN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
9.5'x9.7' one-story bath addition; proposed 1.7'x5.2' expansion
and reconstruction of existing 5.1 'x5.2'front porch; construct
a 3.5'x4.5' in-fill to existing 3.5'x10.3' rear entry porch;
reconstruct and expand existing 12.1 'xl 0.3' on-grade hot tub
deck by expanding it by an additional 15'x12.3', raise the
elevation to meet existing seaward deck and center existing
7.3'x7.3' hot tub on deck; new deck to connect to existing 12.1'xI 5.8'
seaward deck to be reconstructed as necessary; and for
200 linear feet of garden fence. Located: 186 Willow Terrace
Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-4.1
1 performed the inspection as the Orient Trustee on behalf
of the Board and discussed it with the Board during work session.
We have no problem with this, it's a relatively minor action.
It would just be a stipulation that if the hot tub is to be a
permanently plumbed, permanent hot tub, we stipulate the hot tub
be plumbed to a drywell, and that plans depicting a drywell for
the hot tub.
Accordingly, I move we-approve number three subject to
needing a drywell for the hot tub and plans showing the same.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item four, Michael Kimack on,behalf of
WILLIAM MURPHY& KIMBERLY REECE requests an Administrative
Permit to replace the existing decking, treads on three (3) sets
of stairs, railing, railing posts, and bench structure with new
in-place on the existing 23.7'x14.5' raised deck attached to
dwelling. Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-118-1-4.1
The Board had no issue with the application as it stands
before us, but its noted there was new dock construction
potentially on this property, and so the Board in discussion at
the work session felt it would be best if we table this for Board
Board of Trustees 7 December 14, 2016
review, initial review, that there is no permit for the dock
that we may have seen but we want to take a look at it to make
sure we are looking at a dock that is actually associated with
this property to determine that it actually is the case.
So I move we table this application subject to field inspection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Again, with items that are administrative in
nature, under item, agenda Item V, I move we approve as a group
item number one, number three, four and five. They are listed as
follows:
William C. Goggins, Esq. on behalf of DONIELLE CARDINALE
McKiNNON requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1635 from Robert
J. Skinner to Donielle Cardinale McKinnon, as issued on July 8,
1983, and Amended on July 23, 2008. Located: 615
South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-22
Number three, David Jannuzzi, Esq. on behalf of PAUL KATZ&
LOUISE CHASEN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#409 from
Herbert Mandel to Paul Katz& Louise Chasen, as issued on June
25, 1987. Located: 100 West Mill Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-113-4-2
Number four, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of GINO MENCHINI
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8674 from William H.
Price, Jr., Esq. to Gino Menchini, as issued on September 16,
2015; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8674 for the existing 8'x8' hot tub integrated into the raised
deck area at elevation +1-1 1.75' MSL. Located: 100 Bay Road,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-10
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of CONSTANTINE &
PAMELA STAMIDIS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8880 to construct a landward expansion to the proposed
dwelling consisting of a 2'x12.5' extension of the dwelling
footprint; and a 4'x12.5' covered porch with 3.5'wide steps to
grade. Located: 1325 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-52-5-13
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For item two, William C. Goggins, Esq. on
behalf of DONIELLE CARDINALE McKINNON requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#382 from Robert J. Skinner to Donielle Cardinale
McKinnon, as issued on October 3, 1966, and Amended on March 23,
2000. Located: 615 South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-22
Based on the Board's decision at work session I would move
Board of Trustees 8 December 14, 2016
to approve item two, William Goggins on behalf of Donielle
Cardinale: I move to approve subject to any replacement float
must comply with the standard 6x20 float construction for a
dock. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item six, GEORGE CURIS requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8435 for the
as-built relocation of pool enclosure fencing located around the
pool in lieu of along the side yard lot lines and along the 18'
contour line on bluff; and to replace proposed pool patio
decking with the as-built 772sq.ft. concrete paver pool patio
area. Located: 3190 North Sea Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-1-5.
1 performed the field inspection as the Orient Trustee.
This was a return for a failed compliance inspection after a
permit was issued, couldn't issue a certificate of compliance
because there was no ten-foot non-turf buffer.
In doing the inspection, I noted that the non-turf buffer
has now been planted with American beach grass, but there was
very little soil around the plugs, and it went in so late and the
plugs were installed in a lawn area, so there was no soil
preparation. I think there is a real big question as to
survivability. And basic plant science tells me there is a
question whether this stuff will grow.
I would move to approve the administrative amendment but
subject to a survivability inspection some time during the
period of May through June of 2017. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll make a motion to go into
the public hearing section of the agenda.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RACHEL
CASHWELL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8899 to
relocate the proposed dwelling further seaward with an attached
868sq.ft. seaward side deck in lieu of a 912sq.ft. deck; for a
proposed 18'x40' pool to be installed 50' landward of the
bulkhead in lieu of 73.3'; and to install an outdoor shower
against the dwelling. Located: 515 Harbor Lights Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that it does not meet policy
Board of Trustees 9 December 14, 2016
number one which states that the development pattern should
enhance the community character, preserve open space and make
efficient use of infrastructure.
In addition, it suggests that the dewatering drywell for
the pool be located outside of the FEMA zone.
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 6th and
noted that the new house will be essentially within the
footprint of the older house, and had minimal impact. This is a
straightforward application.
The CAC supports the application with the condition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CASHWELL: I'm Jeff Patanjo's wife Rachel Cashwell. The
ten-foot non-turf buffer would be where?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically they are located adjacent to the
bulkhead, so it could either be shell material, pebbles or
landscape vegetation. Its intent is to not have fertilized lawn
area immediately adjacent to the waterway.
MS. CASHWELL: We completely plan to do that. I don't have a
landscape plan at this point, but that's no problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, if you agree, the Board would
stipulate it during the course of granting a permit, and we
usually allow it up to the homeowner to put in or you can submit
a planting plan as part, subject to the issuance of a permit.
It's up to you. But we would probably hold you to having a
non-turf buffer as part of a permit condition.
MS. CASHWELL: That's fine. I consent to that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What about the drywells, could they be moved?
,MS. CASHWELL: Yes, there is a lot of area in the front lawn. I'm
happy to have them be as far back--where did you want them?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The recommendation of the LWRP coordinator is
that they be moved. The Board did not discuss that at all.
MS. CASHWELL: We are open to putting them anywhere.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Beyond the FEMA flood zone line. That's right
Here (indicating). So anywhere alongside the house might work.
MS. CASHWELL: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now I ask the help of the Board president in
addressing the inconsistency. As you note from the photograph,
that if this new plan puts the house basically in the same
footprint, and the houses to the east both have pools seaward of
the house, I don't see this application as a major change to the
character of the neighborhood.
MS. CASHWELL: There is even one more house that has a pool in
the same.location, if you went further down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say by virtue of the house siting
being as or further landward than the existing, and certainly as
or further landward than an average of all the neighbors, that
that automatically brings it into consistency. So we can deem
this consistent with the LWRP by virtue of the land use that is
evidenced in the aerial photographs.
MS. CASHWELL: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 10 December 14, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As usual, our secretary saves us. Okay, after
speaking with the Town Engineer regarding this application, a
condition needs to be added to this permit that the Town
Engineers will be fully involved in the construction of the
proposed pool due to the location abutting the ten-foot wide
easement alongside the property.
MS. CASHWELL: Correct. That's understood.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, hearing no other concerns or
comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the following conditions: Number one, that the
Town Engineer will be fully involved in the construction, due to
the location of the ten-foot wide easement; and that there be a
ten-foot non-turf buffer; and that the drywells will be located
alongside the house, the dewatering drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: With updated plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the submission of updated plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MS. CASHWELL: I believe they have been.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the non-turf buffer and the drywells on
the plans:
So the stipulations, if there is agreement, are subject to
a new set of plans. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two,
En-Consultants on behalf of CASTELFORTE, LLC, clo MAGGIE N.
SPARAGNA requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1807 from Robert
Wilson to Castelforte, LLC, c/o Maggie N. Sparagna, as issued on
April 30, 1984; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit#1807 to
remove existing 6'x20'floating dock and two (2) pilings, and
construct-a fixed "L" shaped timber dock consisting of a 4'x34'
catwalk (included +/-3' steps to grade at landward end) leading
to a 6'x12'fixed "L" shaped platform at seaward end. Located:
2100 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-38
The application was viewed by the CAC, which supported the
application subject to a request for a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The project is consistent with the LWRP.
The Trustees had been to the site on a pre-submission basis
and again on December 6th for field inspection, and feel it's
Board of Trustees 11 December 14, 2016
straightforward and an improvement over the pre-existing failed
dock, in that the new structure will not be carving out the
bottom and damaging the marsh fringe, which has been evident
from not only soils building up around it but also working the
bottom.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. This was an application that was originally
submitted by the owners for transfer and the Board had requested
modification to reflect the current design.
My only thought which was just triggered by the LWRP memo
that related to the original 1984 language of the dock not
exceeding ten feet from the bank. I didn't know if the Board
wanted to include some sort of language in this approval that
would address that. Obviously, there is no way to compare the
bank from 1984 to now. The important factors as far as I think
the Board is concerned is that we meet the width of the waterway
limitations, which we do, and get adequate water depth and stay
in line with the adjoining docks. All of which we do. So I just
wanted to point that out, that the original language of the 1984
permit that stipulated that those floats that would be ten feet
from the top of the bank, that is not actually really what the
permit says. It just says ten feet from the bank. But-ten feet
from the bank now would be probably about where Mike is standing
in the sand there. So that language would no longer be able to
apply. So I don't know if you need to address it other than to
just say that the permit would now be moved pursuant to this
design.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pursuant to this design and the plan that
will reference your dated plans, which we may not always do,
we'll reference it to the plan date.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. And that was it. Otherwise it is
straightforward. The design simulates the dock that was
approved one up the creek on the adjacent property and is
consistent with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The CAC requested a ten-foot non-turf
buffer, which is a bit unusual for a dock application. Would you
think we might be able to ask the owner for that?
MR. HERRMANN: I would object to that only based on the idea it
has not been the Board's practice; typically the non-turf
buffers are supposed to provide mitigation between wetlands and
upland construction, which is not the case with docks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we did not see any evidence of any land
clearing or heavy fertilizer use immediately adjacent to the
area. I would say the Board -- I think it's true to say the
Board's policy has been to discuss the non-turf areas where it
is dealing with the construction or reconstruction of a
bulkhead, and that this might be something we could recommend,
we would always recommend, but I think maybe we would stick with
our precedent of not involving non-turf buffers unless they are
called for because the soils are being disturbed during construction.
Board of Trustees 12 December 14, 2016
(Trustees!'affirmatively respond).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would move to approve this application as submitted in
accordance with a set of plans dated November 9th, 2016, as
received in the Trustee office on November 14th, 2016, which
represent the true and current conditions of the wetland fringe
for this property. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number one under Wetland Permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of WILLIAM &AIDA HARTUNG request a Wetland
Permit to remove existing deteriorated dock and construct a
4'x16'fixed dock; a 30"x14' ramp; and a floating dock supported
by two (2) 8" diameter piles; dredge approximately 22 cubic
yards of clean sand from the area surrounding floating dock to a
depth of 30" below mean low water; and that the dredged material
to be trucked off to an approved upland location. Located: 1200
Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-15
The LWRP has found this consistent. It is recommended
turbidity controls are required during dock construction and
dredging operations to further Policy Six. It is further
recommended that the Board verify the one-third rule.
The CAC has resolved to support this. A little note, the
CAC supports the application with the condition of an updated
survey. We have an updated survey dated July 29, 2016. So that's in
compliance.
And on 12/6/16, Jay Bredemeyer, Mike Domino, Glenn
Goldsmith and Nick Krupski inspected this and their notes state
no problems as of the date of the inspection.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And the
applicant is here, as you know, if you have any questions. And
we do have a confirmation, not an actual permit in hand but a
confirmation from the DEC that it's been approved by them, and
we have confirmation by the New York State Department of State
it has been approved by them as well.
MS. CANTRELL: Do you want to submit that for the record?
MR. PATANJO: I don't have copies of it. But I can send you a
Board of Trustees 13 December 14, 2016
copy for the record.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application,
and deem it consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of JUJAX
PARTNERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to clear an approximately
9,650sq.ft. area located between 50' and 100'from the top of
bluff for the purposes of constructing a dwelling, in-ground
swimming pool and appurtenances which will be located more than
100'from the top of bluff. Located: 1975 Soundview Avenue,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-11
The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided that the
Board establish a 50-foot wide non-turf buffer landward of the top
of the bluff line; and that the buffer be shown on the survey.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December 6th
and just noted an approximate 30-foot non-turf buffer from the
top of the bluff. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This is a property for which the Trustees issued
a non jurisdiction letter back in August of 2015, actually to
the prior owner, for construction activities to occur more than
100 feet from the top of the bluff. And there is a freshwater
wetland on the old Krupski farm across the street that is
non-jurisdictional because of the roadway. But all proposed
site clearing is still actually proposed more than 100 feet from
that wetland because it's regulated by the state.
With respect to the buffer, I'm not exactly sure how to
handle that. In this case, we are only proposing to clear up to
the 50-foot setback. We would have to come in for additional
permission to clear to the 30-foot setback. So I don't know how
you would want to-- I don't have any opposition to the buffer,
I would expect there to be a buffer, but I'm just not sure how to
handle the language logistically-- I guess the goal would be to
establish the buffer by covenant but also have it noted you are
not necessarily permitting clearing up to 30 feet now unless you
want to just amend the plan to show the clearing to 30 feet and
then have the buffer established after that. And then the
question would be would that be a 30-foot non-turf buffer or is
Board of Trustees 14 December 14, 2016
that really a 30-foot non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good question.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we simply approve a straight-up permit
clearing to 50-foot and articulate in the condition that the
permittee would have to return to this office for any work
seaward of it, then discuss it at that time. Maybe it would be
the easiest to not impose conditions now if they only planning
to go 50 feet, would be the best of both worlds, maybe somebody
might actually want to keep their woodland.
MR. HERRMANN: Maybe the permit could have very explicit language
that any clearing beyond this point is strictly prohibited,
regardless of whether there is a buffer or not. because again,
we would have to get additional permission to clear closer. One
of the issues we are dancing with the property is keeping
the clearing below a mathematical acre, which would then trigger
the state SWIF and SPDES permit, so the clearing
limitations here are really designed to allow some gradual
clearing to occur so, before getting to that.
So ultimately the clearing may be reconfigured to sort of
narrow and push a little closer to the bluff. But right now we
are just trying to get approval for this. For one thing we have
so get a test well drilled up by the road, so there has to be some
immediate clearing for that. So, whatever your pleasure. Again,
this is logistically just a little bit--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation of no clearing within 50-feet
of the top of the bluff, pursuant to this permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of 1625
INDIAN NECK HOLDING CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 4'x74'fixed timber catwalk and construct in its place
a proposed elevated fixed "L" shaped timber dock using open
grate decking consisting of a 4'x123' elevated catwalk leading
to a 6'x16'fixed platform at its seaward end. Located: 1625
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-8.1
The LWRP coordinator found this.to be inconsistent, citing
the purpose of a 55-foot dock extension has not been identified;
and the proposed dock would extend into public waters.
Board of Trustees 15 December 14, 2016
Alternatives such as'a seasonal mooring be established in
areas with adequate water depth may be a better option.
The CAC resolved to support this application and recommends
there be a non-turf buffer landward of the high water mark.
The Trustees inspected this property on the 6th. We made
comments about a four-foot minimum elevation above vegetated
wetlands, and also discussed a non-disturbance area.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This is a proposed replacement of a previously
existing dock, which I think may actually have been a floating
dock, which you can see the remnants of. I can't see in that
picture but you probably saw when you were out on field
inspection. And basically because of somewhat limited water
depths, which is typical in Richmond Creek, we limited the
design on the extension to a fixed "L" as opposed to floaters.
And consistent with previous Trustee permits that were issued to
both of the adjoining properties, including the permit that was
approved for Vincent Fischetti to the north, although this dock
is designed to be smaller with respect to the outside "L," at 16
feet rather than 20 feet as was approved for Fischetti.
Interesting question, we did talk a little bit on —there's
a flattering photo --we talked at the site on this one,
actually, about a non-turf buffer because the Board was not sure
if and what you had done when the Administrative Permit for the
house was granted. I'm not sure how to handle this one either.
Technically, this, if this was densely vegetated between the
construction area of the house and here, we would have to
propose a path through the vegetation. But there really is an
existing walking path to this dock so I don't know if the Board
wanted to visit the idea of the non-turf buffer, whether it
makes sense to have the house permit modified to include that or
whether you would want to somehow address it as part of the dock
permit. Again, I would like to try to stay away from a non-turf
buffer because I don't think there is any nexus in terms of
mitigation between a non-turf buffer and a dock. But this sort
of relates to the house as well, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It does. And I guess, because we have not
been back to the property since we did the inspection, it would
be a question of whether the non jurisdiction determination was
abided by as far as the limits of clearing.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think it was a non jurisdiction
determination. It was actually an Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. I meant Administrative Permit. If
the Board had no objection I would think we would maybe go back
and check the specifics of the Administrative Permit and then
link the non-turf buffer to the home construction where it would
typically be done. Would you be the one who would probably
represent the homeowner on that matter?
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not sure. I believe the homeowner was recently
Board of Trustees 16 December 14, 2016
talking to Liz. I don't want to pull this into a conversation
she doesn't necessarily want.to get into. Has the owner, he was
talking to you about the extension and so forth in the prior
permit and I'm not 100% sure where that stood, other than he
seems to think the permit as being or was extended through June
of next year. Do I have that right, or partially right?
MS. CANTRELL: No. It is expired but he claims the Trustees saw
the house and the house was so completed that when it comes to
interior work, we have no jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, that is probably true at this point.
MS. CANTRELL: But he never sent us the permit so I told him to
request the transfer for January.
MR. HERRMANN: So, it will be coming before you in January for the
transfer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it would typically be, we would send it
out to an area Trustee for the Board to look at it to, if you
will, to,consider whether we would transfer or not, that it was
in compliance.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, or have it be transferred, if it's otherwise
compliant,"conditioned upon established --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does that make sense to'everyone? We'll
pick it up on the transfer new.
MS. CANTRELL: There were no conditions on the Administrative
Permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand. We'll review the whole thing
and see what we have.
MR. HERRMANN: And basically keep the house, which needs the CO
and all that separate from the dock. It makes sense tome.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, a question, on the catwalk, I believe we
discussed in the field that it would be on 44.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. The way we have the plan design, Mike, was the
same as Fischetti. And you can see the cross-section on the
bottom of sheet two, we have 44 supports proposed across from
the beginning, the landward end of the catwalk through the
extent of the marsh, and then increasing to six-inch over open water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The reason I wanted to clarify that is because I
think it can be shown that a mooring with a chain on the bottom
might actually disturb more bottom than your proposal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In terms of the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To deal with the inconsistency, a properly
constructed dock with limited piling size.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And open-grate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And open-grate decking versus a mooring
which will typically have a length of chain as well as a rope
row that swings on all the breeze of the wind is constantly
damaging bottom.
MR. HERRMANN: I've tried to-- I mean, it's almost becoming
stock response on these consistency recommendations, I have been
trying to address these for every one of these applications, I
have submitted pretty thorough LWRP forms, and I think the
Board of Trustees 17 December 14, 2016
difference with some of these things with requests from what is
the need for a dock and a vessel has not been identified, I
mean, these are things that are not actually required in your
code. And so it seems like there is a presumption that what you
have standards set forth your code, is somehow a non-permissible
use, whereas your code explicitly describes it as a permissible
use, as long as it meets certain standards for permit issuance.
And we try to review those in every application, which I think
are basically just ignored. And generally there is a response
that almost every dock is somehow inconsistent with the LWRP.
So, I mean, since it was adopted, there has been an
inconsistency between the LWRP reviews and the Trustees code and
don't-- it's a lot longer conversation than these couple
minutes to see how these jibe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very well understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify, you'll be four feet above
vegetated wetlands for the full length?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. So from the landward end of the catwalk
to the seaward edge of the marsh, the edge of the intertidal
marsh, it's four-foot elevation above grade to the bottom of the
decking and 4x4s. Then seaward that is six-inch piles, and
there obviously the elevation really relates more to high water.
And at that point you can't follow the grade elevation because
you are going underwater. But from where the vegetated wetlands
are, which is what all the agency standards are, is four feet
above. And again, as we discussed in the field, we have been
trying for some time to bring those heights down, partially for
esthetic reasons, but Southold and Southampton have sort of been
pushing us in that direction. But the Army Corps through Marine
Fisheries is pushing back the other way and they are getting
more indignant about it and unyielding about it. In fact some of
the reviews are coming back asking for four-and-a-half feet
above the marsh. But we have found if we propose four they
accept four. If we propose less than four they start jacking
the height higher. So now we are just going back to the
traditional four feet on all these. So between the elevation and
open-grate, they are really, from what I can see from the those
open-grate docks that have been built, are no longer any impacts
on marsh survivability after the vegetation is allowed to
reestablish after it's constructed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, I have one more comment, I almost forgot. I
don't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but the
owner had asked me if we could also include at least a provision
for water and electricity for the dock, which I had not included
in the application. Understanding that they could not get the C
of C if they put electricity in unless they get an underwriters
certificate from the Building Department.
Board of Trustees 18 December 14, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: He has a right to come back for that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He can come back for that, too, as well. I
don't think that's a problem.
MR. HERRMANN: If you can condition the approval, I would just
give you revised plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, subject to revised plans showing water
and electric. And underwriters before the C of C, which would be
routed through the Building Department. Just a helpful
suggestion --
MR. HERRMANN: Understood. Obviously we can't submit to the
underwriters before we get the permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a helpful suggestion for Trustee
Krupski, if you want to consider the inconsistency, you might
perform an iteration of all the good stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
recognizing that there is an established pier line on either
side of this dock so boaters will already be out in that general
area; there is an eight-foot space between pilings so that small
crafts can navigate underneath, such as kayaks; there is a
four-foot minimum height along the shoreline allowing the public
to navigate along the shoreline; and also subject to new plans
or revised plans showing the water and electric and an
underwriters certificate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whereby the conditions, bringing it into
consistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thereby bringing it into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, and Merry Christmas.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of GEORGE & DEBRA CORITSIDIS requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing one-story±73.8'x30.2' dwelling with walk out
basement and attached 23,8'x32' two-car garage with deck above;
construct a 16sq.ft. one-story addition; a 70sq.ft. covered
porch; relocate existing 64sq.ft. open wood deck; and to
construct a 31 9sq.ft. one-story addition to dwelling. Located:
1800 Cedar Beach Road & 265 Orchard Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-89-2-3 & 5.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and
consistent. The inconsistency arises out of the fact the
structure was built without Trustee permit. The consistency
provided that the Board requires a non-turf vegetated buffer
established landward of the tidal wetlands.
Board of Trustees 19 December 14, 2016
And the CAC resolved to support this application, again,
with the appropriate non-turf buffer suggested.
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 6th and
noted this was a straightforward application, that it was
almost, the house is almost non jurisdictional, very close to it.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just of JMO Consulting,
representing the owner. If there are any questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess the first question, would you be
amenable'to a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the line on the
plans received November 3rd, 2016, that shows the tidal wetlands?
MR. JUST: We would be in agreement with that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no questions or comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the flagged
wetlands line, which will bring this into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Merry Christmas.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You, too. The next application, number five,
Samuel W. Fitzgerald, AIA on behalf of ELIZABETH W. FURSE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed one story
360sq.ft. addition onto existing 24'x27'two-story dwelling; on
seaward side of new addition, construct a 175sq.ft. open deck
extension with stairs to natural grade to be connected to
existing 12'x32' seaward deck. Located: 2412 Peninsula Road,
Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-5
The project has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak with respect to
this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: My name is Sam Fitzgerald, I'm appearing on
behalf of the applicant. I'm happy to take questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board performed an in-house review of the
application during our work session. I believe we felt it was
all very straightforward. And at this time of year I don't
believe we have the CAC able to get over there. The Board feels
this is a very minimal impact on the environment and that we
appreciate the fact that a,rain garden is proposed.
The rain garden would be subject to the design
specifications being reviewed by the town Engineering
Department, in the course of the approval. That's the only real
condition we would have on the project such as this because of
Board of Trustees 20 December 14, 2016
them having, concerning the size and soils and such.
Are there any questions from the Board members?
Is there anyone else here?
Did you come all the way from Fishers or Connecticut today?
MR. FITZGERALD: Connecticut. Its good down time in the car.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you drive around or take the ferry?
MR. FITZGERALD: Its always sort of, you know, you have to time
the ferry versus driving, time of day, it's all --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, nice to see you. We do get occasional
applications from you. They are nice. They are very crisp, and
your rendition with the overlay, made it very clear for us to see.
Anyhow, is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I make a motion to close the hearing
in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as
submitted subject to the Engineering Department review of the
rain garden.
I moved it before closing the hearing. Sorry. I move to
close the hearing. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve this application as
submitted;with the stipulation that the rain garden shall meet
the Engineering Department approval.. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six under Wetland Permits, Michael
Kimack on behalf of JOSEPH & LINDA SCIOTTO request a Wetland
Permit to remove existing deck& patio attached to dwelling and
construct a proposed 16'x32' inground swimming pool; a
1,056sq.ft. pool patio at grade;'a 4'x8' pool equipment
enclosure; install a 2'x8' backwash leaching pool; install
+/-125' of 4' high glass pool fencing with two gates; remove
existing deck between bulkhead and retaining wall and construct
a proposed 1 1.4'x17 5 (1 99.5sq.ft.) Raised deck with ±3.5'
wide steps from retaining wall to deck, ±3.5'wide steps from
deck to grade landward of bulkhead, and a 4'x8' cantilevered
platform leading off of the deck and over the bulkhead with
±3.5'wide steps to beach which are to be installed parallel to
bulkhead.,Located: 8380 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-126-11-20
Now, the LWRP has found this inconsistent and they
reference Policy 4.1, which is the minimum loss of human life
Board of Trustees 21 December 14, 2016
and structure from flooding and erosion hazards. Tropical storm
Sandy damaged the property between the bulkhead and retaining
wall where the proposed deck is to be replaced. The applicant
received a Hurricane Sandy emergency permit from the Board of
Trustees in 2013 to repair the damage. The probability of a
storm surge capable of damaging and/or resulting in loss of the
proposed deck structure in the future is high due to inadequate
setbacks necessary to mitigate wave damage. They also reference
Policy 6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
The CAC has resolved to support this. The CAC supports the
application and recognizes the 42-foot setback from the bulkhead.
On December 6, 2016, Jay Bredemeyer, Mike Domino, Glenn
Goldsmith and Nick Krupski inspected this. Their notes indicate
the,possible American beach grass plantings by seaward deck.
Straightforward pool and patio. Lower decks at adjacent properties.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. It's true
the deck is located between the bulkhead and retaining wall.
It's elevated up, the bulkhead, basically is at about eight-foot
elevation. The plan does not show where the VE line or the AE
line is on that particular one, Charlie, but typically through
this area is only about six to eight feet. So elevating the
deck up three feet, basically it should remove it from the
hazard line of any VE rating push, because the front bulkhead is
approximately at the eight-foot line.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You said its elevated approximately how much?
MR. KIMACK: Well, if you look at the drawing, the deck is
elevated above the bulkhead by approximately 30 inches or so.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: One thing we did discuss is the possibility of
using stainless steel Ticos, things of that nature, for the deck itself.
MR. KIMACK: I don't think they would be objectionable to that. I
think that would make sense. You want to be constructed as
durable as you can. I'm not quite sure of the other deck that
was damaged, but I suspect it was probably not up on the kind of
codes we have nowadays, to meet this kind of construction.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: I do have a query. You have the ZBA application
approval, and they did put in there that they want us to put a
non-turf buffer from the retaining wall back. And it's a little
inconsistent because normally you want the non-turf buffer to be
able to control the erosion. But we already have a 12 to 13
foot non-turf sand buffer between the bulkhead and upper
retaining wall. It's difficult only because it's hard to explain
sometimes, my clients, where if you already have the sand
basically is working for non-turf, why would you also need a
buffer on top of the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We are giving it to ZBA. I don't think we can
speak to that requirement.
MR. KIMACK: I know you can't but I was not quite sure if you
were also going to follow through with the same things they are.
Board of Trustees 22 December 14, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: No, the only thing we were suggesting is
American beach grass.
MR. KIMACK: Because I didn't go back but I plan to go back and
ask for them to reconsider that aspect. Only because you have
done it in the past. Certainly we can see the non-turf buffer
when it's on the bulkhead, but we've had circumstances before
where we've had this kind of arrangement where we use that sand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, we couldn't address it now but we
will on occasion get a return from the ZBA. So it doesn't hurt
you to ask, you can request of the ZBA that they--
MR. KIMACK: I'll go back. I have my time limit to reconsider
that aspect. We already have a non-turf component in place and
it will remain a sand situation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Point of information, an additional purpose of
the non-turf buffer is to reduce fertilizer into the bay. So it
serves a purpose in this instance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one thing Charles had also addressed is
possibly putting American beach grass in next to the proposed
platform. As you see, the neighbors have it there. And that's
another layer of erosion control if we get another super storm
MR. KIMACK: Well, there is about ten feet, you can see the stake
there, toward the neighbor there, that could easily be planted
with beach grass. But they do use the sand going this way as
pretty much a beach area. We could put grass in that lawn area,
that's not a problem. That does meet the ten-foot setback
requirement in that particular.
TRUSTEE SANDERS? So to be clear, you are willing to do American
beach grass at approximately ten foot from the --
MR. KIMACK: From the property line to the deck. The proposed
deck location. And you realize the deck is back two feet from
the bulkhead. This happens to be-- I'll explain. That happens
to be the property line. Which was very difficult, even for the
ZBA, basically, but whenever they replaced the bulkhead, I'm not
quite sure what happened, but they put the bulkhead seaward of
the property line by approximately two feet. So the deck
basically approved by the ZBA was zero on the property line.
Just to make sure you have all the facts.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anything else from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anybody else would like to speak behalf of the applicant?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following noted. It's impossible to predict or ensure
100% protection against life or property. So in order to address
the inconsistency regarding the minimum loss of life, the
construction of deck is to use Ticos, stainless steel Ticos,
and the deck is three feet above the bulkhead, therefore it
Board of Trustees 23 December 14, 2016
addresses the inconsistency. And also the planting of American
beach grass from the line, from the property line to the deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made, is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Michael Kimack on
behalf of MARC & DEIRDRE SOKOL requests a Wetland Permit for the
as-built 1,714sq.ft. wood deck attached to seaward side of
dwelling; as-built 61.9sq.ft. hot tub on a 345.8sq.ft. patio,
and 3'wide stone walkway from deck to bulkhead; install a proposed
6'x32' in-ground swimming pool; install a proposed 1,454.5sq.ft.
bluestone patio with 21 5sq.ft. pergola; install approximately 730 linear
feet of 8' high deer fencing and 252 linear feet of 4' high wood picket
fencing with gate; and for a proposed bluestone fire-pit area landward of
top of bluff. Located: 308 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-7.3
This has been deemed to be inconsistent under the LWRP for
not complying with Trustee regulations and permits as certain
structures were built without Trustee permit. Also a specific
notation that the prior permit for the property had a
requirement for a 15-foot wide non-turf buffer that would
request that the Board would address with respect to a pending
landscape plan which is in the file.
The CAC noted that they are in support of the project but
they did not note a drywell on the project plan. I didn't see it ether.
And the Board performed the inspection on December 6th. The
Board was looking toward having a non-turf buffer in the
vicinity on'the top of the bank or slightly landward and down to
the bulkhead. That would be in excess of the 15 feet the LWRP
coordinator had requested we consider.
And subsequent to field inspection on December 13th, we
have a plan submitted by the landscape group, which was drafted
by Derek Bossen, which indicated that a ten-foot non-turf buffer
that was in the vicinity of the top of the bluff, or the bank in
this case, but the plan was not to scale. And based on the
field observations of the Trustees that the fire pit, which this
view includes, is actually at the bluff, at the vicinity of the
top of the bank or bluff. It was felt we'll need a better
'rendition of a scaled plan and that the Board discussed this
during the course of our monthly work session, we felt to
facilitate this we would have a representative, whether it's the
area Trustee or a Trustee that is available to put one of the,
flag the Trustee line, if you will, where the commencement of
the non-turf area. At least I don't know if he was authorized
to speak on behalf of the owner but Derek Bossen seemed to think
that was okay, he stopped in the office
MR. KIMACK: That's fine. Is Derek aware of what you would like
to do in terms of you would like to flag --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Generically, yes, but of course it was not a
determination until we actually have our hearing to do it. Which
Board of Trustees 24 December 14, 2016
we just happened to be in the office when he came and expressed
that the Board would want to flag it and have a better plan.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Yes,
talking about other aspects of this, the proposed pool and the
proposed'pergola would not obviously be constructed along this
patio that was staked out. The hot tub became, went from
proposed to as-built, as did the fire pit that was there.
Focusing primarily on the slope and the top of the slope,
primarily there, in order to protect it, we have had the
discussion where what you are looking for is you would like to
see this scaled off a little bit more with some dimension on
here, basically. And you are going to have someone go out there
and flag the top of that so that he can basically pick that up
and put it on the drawing. And then --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess we need a drywell for the pool on
the drawing. It would be a question whether you would want to
put the limit of the flagged, non-turf area either on the
landscape plan or on the survey copy or both. But we need it on
one. You might want to have just one plan with it consistent.
MR. KIMACK: There is and I'll get, there is a plan for the
drywell for the pools. I apologize if it was not part of your
overall. But that was submitted to the Building Department as
part of the ZBA. That's in there. I'll get you a copy of that
and four copies of the drywell for the pool. Do you need the
specifics also for the plan for the pool?Would you like to take
a look at that, too?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, typically as far as this Board is
concerned is usually just a top down of the pool with showing a
drywell on the plan.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. That's not a problem. I'll get that and also
I'll coordinate with Derek basically-- although perhaps the way
to do this, a little easier, we have Nathan Corwin's survey
showing the top of the bank. Perhaps Derek can use that as a
reference point, then use that and put his landscaping plan in
conjunction with that, because the scale is already there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Top of slope is shown on the survey.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure.
MR. KIMACK: And rather than have this that doesn't relate to the
survey, basically, have Derek relate his landscape plan to Nathan's
survey to the top of the bank. I think that might be a little clear.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be acceptable. It would bring it
into scale. His rendition, which is not to scale, as far as the
plant species is straightforward natural plants, I think would
meet the requirement of addressing the inconsistency. In other
words we know the 15 feet will be met, the LWRP coordinator also
want functional, native plants and northern bayberry and Cape
American beach grass. Removing the miscanthus --
MR. KIMACK: We discussed on site. And I believe he has that as
an indication on there. So to be sure, he's showing a ten-foot
Board of Trustees 25 December 14, 2016
non-turf buffer but you are asking for 15.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually everything seaward of the top of
the bank there is no reason why that would be non-turf because
it's all native. If that's a -- is that acceptable to the applicant?
MR. KIMACK: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's sort of creating an odd zone there,
ten-foot non-turf buffer, but all the stone there --
MR. KIMACK: The whole slope is non-turf. So this is gone and I
think the non-turf buffer we talked about not having the Rose
Rugosa, which is not there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be included with the miscanthus,
I guess.
MR. KIMACK: So I'll inform the landscaper to use as his basis
of design the survey and basically blow that up using the contours
on the survey and setbacks to the top of the slope and superimpose.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we want to make sure, because the fire
pit is a structure that, in other words, the landscaping plans
should include the fire pit to scale in relation to that top of the bank.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, in relation to where the top of the bank is as
opposed to perhaps being more judgmental right now it may not
necessarily be situated on the landscape plan as it actually
exists on the side. I'm looking at it the same way you are.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Absolutely. Are there any additional
questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve this application
subject to the following stipulations: That a representative of
the Trustees will flag the top of the bank; that the new plan be
drawn up showing the fire pit and the top of bank that will be a
scaled drawing making use of the existing survey material; that
the non-native plants be, being miscanthus and Rugosa rose be
removed and that the plant so listed in the non-scale planting plan of
Derek Bossen received in the Trustee office December 13th, that plant
list serve as the basis for the plants in the non-turf buffer. And that the
plans show the drywell for the swimming pool.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And this planting will be seaward --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That the plantings of the native vegetation
that will be seaward of the top of bank or bluff will be, will
in fact be one and the same as the non-turf buffer, that whole
area that is seaward of the top of the bank.
MR. KIMACK: It will be a continuum of vegetation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, continuum of native vegetation as will
be the non-turf buffer. And that will therefore bring it into
consistency by being more than the 15-feet of non-turf buffer in
the original permit. That's my motion.
Board of Trustees 26 December 14, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Nicely done. Thank you, very much. Merry Christmas,
everybody.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, High Point Engineering on
behalf of BREWER YACHT YARD AT GREENPORT requests a Wetland
Permit for the removal of+/-507 linear feet of existing
dilapidated timber bulkhead and replacement with +/-507 linear
feet of new vinyl sheathing bulkhead in-place, along with
raising of bulkhead by 2', and ordinary maintenance involving
back dredging to facilitate the installation of the new vinyl
bulkhead with the dredged material to be replaced on-site;
removal of existing fixed and floating docks and installation of
new floating docks in new configuration constructed of IPE
decking with CCA treated wood framing and HDPE floatation boxes;
dimensions of floating docks as follows: (2) @ 6'wide x 35'
long, (2) @ 6'wide x 40' long, (1) @ 6'wide x 48' long, (3) @
6'wide x 50' long, (1) @ 6'wide x 52' long and (2) @ 6'wide x
60' long; total floating dock area of 3,120 SF; installation of
(13) new +/-3'wide by+/-13' long aluminum gangways with
aluminum handrails and associated +/-3'wide IPE wood ramps
leading from gangways to existing asphalt paved parking area;
removal of existing dilapidated timber piles and installation of
new 10" diameter x 20' deep CCA treated fender piles along new
bulkhead at 6'on center, as well as (2) new 12" diameter by 20'
deep CCA treated piles per floating dock for anchoring purposes,
construction of new +1-4'wide by+/-75' long (+/300 SF)section
of IPE wood walkway starting at border of Town of
SoutholdNillage of Greenport and proceeding north along
bulkhead with +/-6' to +/-20'wide by +/-13' long (+/-132sq.ft.) IPE
wood stairs at northern end leading to existing asphalt parking area;
and for a varying width gravel area between the landward side of the
new bulkhead and the existing asphalt parking area running the entire
length of the replaced bulkhead.
Located: 1410 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
The LWRP found this inconsistent and consistent. The
inconsistency was that the structures were constructed without a
Trustee permit.
The CAC resolved to support this application, however they
question the need to raise the bulkhead two feet. And they also
requested a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on December 6th,
noting a non-turf buffer to the limits of the existing fence to
save as many of those trees as possible. And to possibly use a
low fertilizer grass mix seaward of the fence.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. STUART: Andrew Stuart of High Point Engineering on behalf
of the applicant.
As far as the non-turf buffer goes, David Doody is here as
Board of Trustees 27 December 14, 2016
well from the applicant. I don't know if, did you have a chance
to speak with them about that at the site inspection?
MR. DOODY: David Doody, Brewer Yacht Yard. We agreed with that
non-turf buffer and it actually is there on the existing dock today.
MR. STUART: So that's accepted and --sorry, I apologize, what was
the other inconsistency with the LWRP?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: They were built without Trustee permits.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They predate Trustee jurisdiction in some of
these.
MR. STUART: So they are replacing the bulkhead through a state
of the art, the vinyl sheathing in place, and replacing the
docks, and there is a number of fixed floating docks, fixed
docks and floating docks being replaced with floating, and they
are just reducing the number of docks within the Town of
Southold by one, therefore overall reducing the area. Any other
questions or issues?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
on this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it was very straightforward, it looks
like mostly non-toxic material, so it's a net improvement, slight
reduction in size maybe to account for slightly larger vessels
is understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to address the CAC's concern, the
two-foot rise to match the other section of dock.
MR. STUART: Yes, and also in consistency with DEC requirements
as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with non-turf buffer up to the limit of the fence and that the
issuance of the permits will address the LWRP inconsistency.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, Cole Environmental Services, Inc.
on behalf of SALLY COONAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 4'x5' platform and construct a new 8'x20'timber platform
landward of the bulkhead; construct a new 2' high by 20' long retaining
wall into the bluff along the landward edge of the proposed deck; and for
the existing bluff stairs leading to deck.
Located: 2662 Paradise Shores Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-1-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, citing
that it does not comply with Policy Four, minimize loss of life,
structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion. The
Board of Trustees 28 December 14, 2016
proposed deck is located within the FEMA VE flood zone and
velocity zone is waived. Past damage/erosion to the property
from storms is evident in the records. Further, the proposed
action does not meet Policy Six, protect and restore the quality
and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem. New and expanded
deck would remove beneficial vegetation stabilizing the bank.
The CAC resolved to support this application with the
condition materials used on the platform are consistent with
best management practices. And that the slope is stabilized.
The CAC also questions the size of the 8x20 timber platform.
Okay, the Trustees visited the site on December 6th and
noted that there is a brand new patio on-grade that is not on the
survey and is built without permits or consultation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is a stone patio.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. COLE: Yes. Dennis Cole, Cole Environmental Services. I
noticed that patio as well. I was just out there today. I'm
unaware that was going to occur. We have a DEC letter of
non jurisdiction because the bulkhead has been present since
prior to 1962. The purpose of this expansion of the small
decking is to allow the owner to basically utilize that space
without harming the vegetation that is planted behind the
bulkhead. He wants to bring a chair down there on Sundays,
essentially. We suggested the installation of the small wall
behind that so as you come into the bank it contains any erosion
that would further be disturbed. I don't really see any other
environmental impacts associated with the proposal. I did hear
the LWRO said it was inconsistent, but.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just an offer, a possible suggestion, with
this notion of decks and docks are typically built within the VE
zones that are small scale like we did before with the Ticos
and are non-toxic materials, we reduce toxicity as well as
provide stability to the structure. Otherwise if we take
inconsistencies on face value and just ban decks, we are also
looking to banning docks in velocity zones. In other words, we
are upgrading, when we ask someone to use stainless Ticos we
are essentially asking to be upgraded to say marine construction
associated with docks, where they are usually using very heavy
galvanized bolts and fittings.
MR. COLE: We are certainly more than willing to abide by that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other thoughts or comments from
the Board? Or anyone else that wishes to speak?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can we include the two drywells on the plan?
MR. COLE: You want the plans amended to show the two drywells
that are there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the patio. I don't think we thought it
was -- it's not exactly a pervious construction. It's small
enough I don't think we viewed it as a major problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The drywells are on the survey, not on the plans.
MR. COLE: Do you want them on the plot plans as well?
Board of Trustees 29 December 14, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If they are on the survey, that's fine.
MR. COLE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, hearing no other comments, I'll make
a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation of new plans depicting the on-grade
stone patio, and also with the requirement that the proposed deck is
built with stainless Ticos to withstand storm surge.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And non-toxic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And non-toxic materials, thereby bringing it
into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. AI_I in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COLE: Thank you, have a Merry Christmas.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
AveJ
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVE[
JAN 1 9 2017 a:so Pw1
nn '
So hold Town Clerk