HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/21/2017 � S®Ujy
Michael J.Domino,President ®f Town Hall Annex�®� ®�®
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Charles J.Sanders Southold,New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith G
® a® Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupski COUNTY, ' Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES REC�����
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
32
Minutes JUL 2 1 201 x.3Qni
0. 71a
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 ScUthold Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist ,
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Monday, July 17, 2017, at 4:30 PM at the Main Meeting Hall and
on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May 17, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our regular monthly meeting. I'll
announce the people on the dais. To my left is Trustee and vice-president of the Board
John Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith; to my right is Assistant Town Attorney
Damon Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and also we have stenographer
Wayne Galante. Also with us tonight from the Conservation Advisory Council is Keith
McAney. And I would like to announce that the agendas are available at the podium and
also out in the hall.
At this time I'll notice we have a number of postponements. Postponements
range from people not being ready to incomplete mailings.
On page six, we have:
Number one, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of ELIZABETH A. E.
JOHNSON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove an
existing deck at bottom of bank; install approximately 110' of rock revetment along
eroded bank; remove remains of crib dock and remains of damaged timber dock, and
construct a 4'x70'fixed dock; a 4'x20' ramp with rails; and an 8'x12' floating dock
with 18" legs at each corner to prevent float from resting on bottom at low tide;
remove and replace existing embankment stairs to beach; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 2'wide buffer strip planted with shrub vegetation and
Board of Trustees 2 June 21, 2017
coastal seed mix along the landward edge of the top of the bank.
Located: 1990 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-11
And number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of AIDEN
STENSON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 49' of
existing bulkhead and construct 49' of new bulkhead in-place of existing;
remove existing 610 sq.ft. wood decking and reconstruct a 199 sq.ft. deck
once bulkhead construction is complete; and to remove existing 46' long jetty
and construct a new 46' long low profile jetty in-place of existing.
Located: 570 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-18-12
under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, are postponed.
On pages nine and ten, numbers 12 through 18 are postponed. They are listed as
follows:
Number 12, L. K. McLean Associates, P.C. on behalf of 100 PARK AVENUE
CORP., c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
4'x121.7' timber dock with a finished elevation of 4.50; construct a 4'x30' fixed lower
platform parallel to the seaward end of dock using four(4) 10" diameter piles with a
finished elevation of 2.50; and for two (2) additional 10" diameter mooring tie-off piles
installed 12' off the lower platform; and non-treated wood will be used in the construction
of the dock. Located: 100 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-3.
Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of RICHARD J. MAY
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing ±76.0' long timber jetty along the
southern shoreline by reducing the overall length to ±68.0' (to extend to the ALW);jetty
is not to exceed 2.5' above grade; the use of vinyl sheathing; 6"x6" timber walers; and 8"
10" diameter timber pilings staggered on either side. Located: 1340 Cedar Point Drive
East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-5
Number 14, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of BRUCE
GOLDSMITH request a Wetland Permit to remove 75' of existing bulkhead and 32' long
westerly return; construct 75' of new bulkhead and 32' long westerly return in-place,
using vinyl sheathing; and to perpetually maintain the 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 2550 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM#
1000-64-3-8
Number 15, Shore Marine Construction on behalf of FREDERICK BLANCHARD
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x350'fixed catwalk using CCA treated timber
super structure and Thru-Flow decking over a 1,400 sq.ft. area of the fixed catwalk; a
3'x20' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock secured in a "T" configuration with two
(2) 8" diameter CCA timber piles. Located: 5503 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.6
Number 16, ALAN A. CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
communal dock serving Lots 1.5. 1.7, 1.8 & 1.9 consisting of a 4'wide wooden ramp at
landward end connecting to a 4'x34'fixed wooden dock with a 4'x40' fixed "L"section;
two 3'x14' adjustable ramps off of either end of 40'fixed dock section; two 6'x20'floating
docks situated in an "I" configuration with two (2) 8" diameter float securing piles for
each float; two (2) 8" diameter tie-off piles centered between the two floating docks; and
two sets of two (2) 8" diameter tie-off piles situated approximately 13' away from each
floating dock. Located: 570 Private Road #28, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-1.5
Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PARADISE
POINT ASSOCIATION, c/o DOUGLAS CIAMPA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 42' long bulkhead extension comprised of vinyl sheathing, two (2)sets of
6"x6" timber walers, two (2) sets of 6"x6" timber clamps, 8" diameter timber pilings, 8"
diameter deadmen and tie-rods; backfill eroded area landward of proposed bulkhead
extension with ±40 cubic yards of clean sand obtained from an upland source to be
Board of Trustees 3 June 21, 2017
graded and groomed. Located: 225 Briar Lane; Inlet leading into the Boat Basin,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-16.10 & 16.11
And number 18, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND
DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to
raise the existing elevation of four areas on two separate fairways; two areas on the 14th
fairway and two areas on the 13th fairway; at the 14th fairway Section 1: To remove
existing sod, remove and stockpile topsoil, to place approximately 409 cubic yards of
sandy fill, replace the stockpiled topsoil, and seed and mulch the area (approximately
36,757 sq.ft); at the 14th fairway Section 2: To remove existing sod, remove and
stockpile topsoil, to place approximately 120 cubic yards of sandy fill, replace the
stockpiled topsoil, and seed and mulch the area (approximately 9,678 sq.ft.); at the 13th
fairway Section 3: To remove existing sod, remove and stockpile topsoil, to replace
approximately 134 cubic yards of sandy fill, replace the stockpiled topsoil, and seed and
mulch the area (approximately 9,726 sq.ft.); at the 13th fairway Section 4: To remove
existing sod, remove and stockpile topsoil, to place approximately 521 cubic yards of
sandy fill, replace the stockpiled topsoil, and seed and mulch the area (approximately
23,000 sq.ft.). Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-1-1-3.13
I would note also under Town Code Chapter 275, Section 8-c, files were closed
seven days ago. Submission of additional paperwork at this time may result in a delay of
the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have the next field inspection Tuesday, July
11th, 2017, at 8:00 AM at the town annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting July 19th, 2017, at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to entertain a motion to hold the next work session
here at the main meeting hall, July 17th, 2017, at 4:30 and at 5:00 PM on
July 19th, 2017, also at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of
May 17th, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for May 2017. A check for
Board of Trustees 4 June 21, 2017
$10,589.23 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 VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 21, 2017, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Bruce Goldsmith SCTM# 1000-64-3-8
Elizabeth A. E. Johnson SCTM# 1000-10-3-11
Patricia Gilchrist-Mancino SCTM# 1000-117-10-15
Richard J. May SCTM# 1000-92-1-5
Lauren W. McCall SCTM# 1000-116-1-6
Denise Spatny SCTM# 1000-27-2-2.4
Thomas Macari SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Rachel &John Cashwell SCTM# 1000-71-2-3
Areti Lavalle SCTM# 1000-15-3-7
John & Benedetta Fanneron SCTM# 1000-67-7-13
David Krupnick SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
David Schwartz SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. I move as a body under
Roman numeral III in the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been determined to be Type II Actions. I move a resolution
to approve those actions as Type II Actions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 21, 2017, are classified as
Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A
Long Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have
been completed by the Trustees for the following applications
and it is hereby determined that they will not have a
significant effect on the environment:
Frederick Blanchard SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.6
675 Hill Road, LLC, c/o Glenn Heidtmann SCTM# 1000-70-4-28
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
Board of Trustees 5 June 21, 2017
agenda dated Wednesday, June 21, 2017, are classified as
Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A
Long Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have
been completed by the Trustees for the following applications
and it is hereby determined that they will have a significant
effect on the environment:
100 Park Avenue Corp., c/o Paul Pawlowski SCTM# 1000-123-7-3
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to second both those
resolutions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, in order to simplify our
meetings, the Board of Trustees groups together actions that are
deemed minor in or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a
motion to approve as a group under Roman numeral IV, items one,
four and five. They are listed as follows:
Number one, LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)Year
Maintenance Permit to replenish eroded beach area with not more
than 49.99 cubic yards of clean sand of an equal grain size from
an approved upland source on an as needed basis. Located: 2360
Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-60
Number four, NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
requests an Administrative Permit to install park benches,
picnic tables and a kayak rack onto the property. Located: 75
Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-8-8.1
And number five, MARILYN & CHARLES SOUTHARD request an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12"
in height by hand, on an as needed basis along the shoreline.
Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-22
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. President, as a point of information, I
saw a great deal of consternation when we were doing the
environmental assessments and is it possible we could just go
off the agenda for a second while the clerk gets the files to
explain if anyone has a question about the assessments?
Is that possible?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Certainly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I saw great inquisitive looks when we were
doing environmental assessments. Does anyone have a quick
question about what environmental assessments mean? Particularly
the ones here? Go ahead. We are off the agenda.
Board of Trustees 6 June 21, 2017
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I have a question about the 675 Hill Road,
the dock, I believe. And the conclusion on that--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Okay. Under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, all actions that require the discretionary
decision of the Trustees, require us to determine whether it
will have a significant effect on the environment. So within
the, there is a long environmental assessment form we go
through. So an assessment is made as to its environmental
impact. Now, that would not deal with issues of navigation and
other issues surrounding a permit. And this is not instead of.
There is a public hearing coming up on this project, so you'll
have an opportunity to speak to the merits or your position for
or against that item at the public hearing.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): When is that public hearing?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That public hearing is tonight.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): The conclusion of that is that it does
have significant environmental impact on --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, the conclusion of that was that it does
not have a significant impact on the environment.
Yes?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I don't understand, Item Three is State
Environmental Quality Reviews are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and regulations are not subject to
further review.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, actions are classified in several classes. One is a
Type I action which comes from New York State list of projects
that are likely to potentially have an impact on the environment,
and also sometimes local agencies will develop their own Type I lists.
A Type II mandated by the State of New York as by definition not
having an impact on the environment. Typically, activities
surrounding single-family home construction, extension of
utilities to single-home construction, minor additions to a
house, those sorts of things are considered Type II Actions, and
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act there is no
further environmental review for those by state regulations.
It's sort of a circuit breaker, and there is no further review on
those for environmental purposes.
MR. HAGAN: It doesn't necessarily mean these SCTM's have been
approved yet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, in other words its a review of the
basic environmental attributes. In this case, the state
mandates that we couldn't impose an environmental impact
statement. But the Board still is obliged to a public hearing,
and all the jobs that we inspect in many cases we'll put
requirements on a permit that will be disclosed during a public
hearing process that actually are environmental. But as far as
the state environmental laws we, it ends the environmental
review there with respect to honoring the state law. We still
can go on. And if I said anything wrong, our assistant Town
Attorney will correct me.
Board of Trustees 7 June 21, 2017
MR. HAGAN: The matter is still on for the public hearing
portion, which I think is the concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The matter is still on for the public
hearing portion. We didn't close that out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Back on the agenda, under Roman numeral IV,
number two.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, LAPK, LLC, c/o LANA KAYE
requests an Administrative Permit to remove 5 dying trees; and
replace in-place existing +/-140' long fencing along the entire
width of the waterside yard. Located: 755 Long Creek Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-26
This was reviewed by Trustee President Domino, and based on
the field inspection, it was advised that the project be
approved. But that there would be a non-disturbance buffer
seaward of the entire length of the reinstalled fence.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application with
the stipulation that a non-disturbance buffer be for that area
seaward of the 140-foot fence.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, CAROL &JOSEPH KANE request an
Administrative Permit to relocate existing large rocks at the
bottom of the beach steps over to the west in order to gain
beach and water access. Located: 3100 Sound Drive, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-33-1-8
The Trustees at field inspection on the 13th, the notes
note it is okay to proceed once the beach access for a machine
has been clarified. In other words, under the condition that
there be no machine activity on the beach.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not visit this.
We have photographs in the file showing all the rocks
except x and y to be moved from the west.
Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the area Trustee will mark the boulders
that will be moved -- mark the boulders and meet with the
contractor in order to keep a minimum disturbance to what
appears to be a somewhat natural buffer. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion. And thereby bringing the project
into consistency with the Coastal policy so we will not be
disturbing the natural protective feature pursuant to, if that's
acceptable to add onto the resolution.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. We have to have a second to the amended motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll second on the amended motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now back to the application itself. Do we have a
motion to approve it with the amended?
Board of Trustees 8 June 21, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral five, again, in order to
simplify our meeting we'll group together items of similar
nature. Accordingly, if I could make a motion to approve as a
group items one through six and eight through eleven. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, KENNETH HEIDT requests a One-Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#8646, as issued on July 22, 2015. Located: 8530
Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-22
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI & BARSI,
LLC request the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8468,
as issued on July 23, 2014. Located: 18915 Soundview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-15
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI &
BARSI, LLC request the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8468, as issued on July 23, 2014. Located: 18915 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-15
Number three, GEORGE & STAVROULA PROTONENTIS request the
Last One-Year Extension to Administrative Permit#8462A, as
issued on July 23, 2014. Located: 215 Tarpon Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-53-5-3
Number four, GREG BYRNES, RICHARD & EMILIE LIPPMANN, AND
CRAIG & HOLLY HANDLEMAN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#2229 from Fred R. Bruch to Greg Byrnes, Richard & Emilie
Lippmann, and Craig & Holy Handleman, as issued on October 30,
1986. Located: 110 Beverly Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-16
Number five, MAUREEN MASSA&ALAN SCHWEITZER request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#2167 from Anthony& Cheryl Sclafani
to Maureen Massa &Alan Schweitzer, as issued on July 31, 1986.
Located: 790 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-29
Number six, JOHN & BENEDETTA FANNERON request a Transfer of
Administrative Permit#7558A from 1900 Mill Lane, LLC/Kenneth
Tedaldi to John & Benedetta Fanneron, as issued on May 18, 2011.
Located: 1900 Mill Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-67-7-13
Number eight, WILLIAM SCHWAMB requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#2103 from Ian Shand to Wiliam Schwamb, as issued
on January 23, 1986; Transfer Wetland Permit#257 from Ian Shand
to William Schwamb, as issued on October 2, 1986; and for an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#2103 and Wetland
Permit#257 for the as-built 4'x32'fixed dock with a 4'x8'
fixed "L" dock at seaward end replacing in-place the fixed dock,
ramp and two (2)floating docks. Located: 1460 North Oakwood
Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-11
Number nine, Joan Chambers on behalf of MICHAEL &ARGY
MANTIKAS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 9 June 21, 2017
#8824 to install a 20'0"x34'8" bluestone patio set in sand
against the seaward side of the dwelling with a 4'wide
bluestone walkway set in sand installed along the east side of
the dwelling leading to the driveway. Located: 80 South Lane,
East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-6-3.5
Number ten, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN
FISCHETTI & DEBORAH DEAVER request an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#8640 to construct a 264 sq.ft. pool house in
lieu of a 200 sq.ft. pool house in the same proposed location.
Located: 2615 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-1.2
Number eleven, CLAIRE MATHER requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#653 to modify the non-turf buffer
area along the landward edge of the western bulkhead to consist
of 5' wide wood decking, and a 3'6"wide non-turf buffer area
against the decking for a combined total of an 8'6"wide
non-turf buffer. Located: 805 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-35-6-25
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item seven, Vincent Candurra, Esq., on
behalf of MARY O'CONNOR requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#1112, as issued on October 6, 1975; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#1112 for the as-built dock
consisting of a 10'x10' landward mahogany deck; a 4'x20'
mahogany walkway with attached 3'2"x7'8" mahogany dock-box; a
3'x11'7" mahogany ramp; and a 5'x20' pressure treated wood
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration.
Located: 105 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-33
Trustee Sanders performed a field inspection as the area
Trustee, he found no problem with a transfer of the permit, but
since the dock construction predates the requirement to use
through-flow decking on docks and it was noted there was a
well-growing marsh fringe, Trustee Sanders recommended that we
approve this application subject to future deck replacement over
the marsh area use a through-flow type of decking material.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this transfer of the
Wetland permit as submitted with the stipulation that future
deck repairs include a through-flow type of decking. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Stake & Pulley Systems,
as per normal procedure we'll group together things of similar
nature. At this time I'll make a motion to approve items one
through six in this section of the agenda. They are listed
Board of Trustees 10 June 21, 2017
as follows:
Number one, ALEX GOROD requests a Mooring Permit in Gull
Pond for a 14' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #13.
Access: Public
Number two, WILLIAM VAN TREUREN requests a Mooring Permit
in Richmond Creek for an 18' outboard motorboat, replacing
Mooring #9. Access: Public
Number three, DAVID ESSEKS & KATHY STOKES request a Mooring
Permit in Town Creek for a 35' sailboat, replacing Mooring #970.
Access: Private
Number four, GARY STANZONI requests a Mooring Permit in
Gull Pond for a 17' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #20.
Access: Public
Number five, ANDREA ESPOSITO requests a Mooring Permit in
Jockey Creek for a 23' inboard motorboat, replacing Mooring
#890. Access: Public
Number six, PAUL MAUS requests a Mooring Permit in East
Creek for a 15' sailboat, replacing Mooring#90-EC. Access:
Public
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, Resolutions,
Number one, RESOLVED, that the Town of Southold Board of Trustees RESCINDS
Resolution Adopted May 17, 2017 regarding the property located at 20795 Soundview
Avenue, Southold; SCTM# 1000-51-4-13; and AMENDS to read as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Southold Board of Trustees APPROVES the request of
STELIOS & PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS for a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8622, as issued on June 17, 2015. Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-51-4-13
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll make a motion to go off our
meeting agenda and enter the public hearing section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications
for permits under the Wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. I ask you to please keep your comments
organized, brief and relevant to the application at hand. Five minutes or less if possible.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made, I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 11 June 21, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item one, under Amendments, Victor
Prusinowski on behalf of DAVID SCHWARTZ requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8876 to modify the proposed pool and decking by
constructing a proposed 544.7 sq.ft. 2nd floor deck extension
with stairs to pool deck onto the existing 447.1 sq.ft. 2nd floor
deck; construct a 20'x28' infinity pool with a shallow water
collection area and 12" pool border, and pool deck raised 6'
above grade with associated steps to grade for a combined total
of 1,516.2 sq.ft.; install a proposed 7'4"x6'8" hot tub onto pool
deck; and for a proposed 48.6 sq.ft. raised equipment pad for
pool equipment and generator. Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive
North, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1
The project has been determined to be inconsistent under
the Town's LWRP. The newly proposed raised deck and pool generator
equipment are located within flood zone elevation AE-6 and does
not meet flood zone policy. This is a matter we'll have to
discuss with respect to potential permitting.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
if it employs best management practices.
And the Trustees performed their field inspection and the
Trustees are concerned to limit tree cutting on the site,
possibly considering having an area Trustee meet with the
contractor, and there is to be only one not larger than
four-foot wide access path to the water.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Victor Prusinowski, 533 Elton Street,
Riverhead, New York. I represent Dr. Schwartz, David Schwartz.
Originally, last year, you approved two applications. One was
for the pool to be located on the side of the house, and the hot
tub that we are moving to --and the hot tub on the existing
deck, the hot tub was installed with a building permit. We have
a building permit, we had inspections and we have a CO, and you
had given permission and approval to do that.
So we are here today to put in an amendment to move the
location of the pool to the front of the house. But the plan
that I see, I don't know what you are talking about as tree
clearing because there is no tree clearing there, I don't think.
mean I'm very familiar with the property. So maybe you can
inform me on that.
As far as the concern that it's inconsistent policy, we'll
be happy to meet whatever requirements, you have to explain that
to me. Also, in the original application and approval you gave
us for the original pool location to the side, we added the new
Town Code where we have to collect the water off the, the rain
water off the roof, put it into a catch basin. That's all been
designed into the current plan, which was approved previously
for the previous location. So the applicant, Dr. Schwartz, he
wants to move the pool to the front. They want to do a vaulted
pool, meets all the safety requirements of the fencing, and we
are within the no disturb line.
Board of Trustees 12 June 21, 2017
So I'm here to answer any questions and get guidance from
you. The clearing from the land, though, that threw me for a
loop because I don't see that anywhere on the plans. Because I
know exactly where the deck is going to go. So unless --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could I see the current plan that you have?
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Unless I'm not reading this properly. Because
I know we have to be within the no disturb line. And the pool
that, the hot tub that is on the proposed amendment is, we are
just moving the hot tub from where you approved it originally
down to the spot. So it's not a second hot tub. We are just
moving the location down to the new deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not seeing the revised plan here in my
file. I only have the approved.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: I have plenty of them here. If you want, I'll
give you one that doesn't have my pencil marks on it. I think
this is the one, March 13th, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is the approved plan from last year.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Right. And this is the new amendment. I have
more copies if you want more copies. We were going from the side
of the house -- here is the house. We were going to put the
pool here and just move this there. This is the new.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern was the trees that were located
seaward of the pool and the deck. So there was a couple there we
didn't know if they would survive the construction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Did we check this out?
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: You did. Because we applied before you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was no issue with the pool itself.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: The architect said we were not going to disturb
any trees or anything, so I can have him double check it for you
and that can be a condition.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We reviewed the site and that was our concern.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Okay. Because my concern in doing these things,
don't like doing things like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we keep that copy?
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
with respect to this application?
(Negative response).
The Board had no issue with the proposed pool location upon
inspection. Thank you, for that additional copy for our file.
For some reason -- here it is. It got dissembled. So we have it
here. With respect to bringing it into consistency with the
flood plane, we would only ask that we can condition our permit
discussion on compliance with FEMA. That really is not an item
that this Board enforces. It goes to the requirements of the
Building Department. So that would be something you have to
honor, when you go through your building permit, you have to
honor the requirements of the Building inspector.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Okay, so do you know, sorry, do you know the
details of that?Are we off on the elevation or something?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can provide you a copy of the LWRP
Board of Trustees 13 June 21, 2017
coordinator's report, but he did say the newly proposed raised
deck and pool generator equipment location is within the FEMA
flood zone AE-6 and doesn't meet policy. Which means maybe base
elevation.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: So we would have to move that equipment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or go to base elevation.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: We can do that. That's not a problem. I'm
familiar with the FEMA regulations. I do this all the time. So
I think that's doable, and we certainly, if you want to put that
in, I think we have to meet the FEMA regulations, so even so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional questions or comments
from the Trustees?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just taking the vegetation down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. Okay, hearing no further comments and
no further interest, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as
submitted with three stipulations: One, that the project, to
bring it into consistency with the LWRP will have to meet flood
plain requirements and upon review by the Building Department.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there is allowed only one, not more than
one four-foot wide access path to the water. And that the project be
undertaken with minimal or no cutting of the additional trees on
the property. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND &COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, as
previously stated, numbers one and two on page six have been
postponed.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one,
En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICIA GILCHRIST MANCINO requests
a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place existing +/-8'x53'
roofed-over porch; +/-5'x6.5'wood landing; and 4.5'x10.5' wood
steps; and install a drainage system of gutters to leaders to
drywells off the new porch. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New
Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-10-15
On June 14th the Trustees, this Trustee did a field
inspection, and noted that reconstruction is okay, it's
recommended drainage to drywells and noted there was an outside
shower that should either be amended or removed from the
application.
Board of Trustees 14 June 21, 2017
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt.
And the Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support it with the condition to do the capping on the bulkhead
and ten-foot non-turf buffer is only eight-foot and therefore
should be increased by two foot. Additional steps for lateral
pedestrian access, and definition of drywells depicted on the
updated survey.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This application is basically an unfortunate
re-do of a permit that was granted by the Board in 2014. At that
time Wetlands Permit#8392 was issued to replace a then-existing
6x44 porch with an 8x53 roofed-offer porch with landing and
steps, and drywells which exist today. There is a ten-foot
non-turf buffer in place adjacent to the bulkhead.
The work received a certificate of Wetland compliance in
July, 2014, and then was granted a certificate of compliance by
the Building Department. However, now less than three years
later, the owner had found that the materials associated with
the porch were failing and didn't seem right, and Joe Fischetti,
Professional Engineer--Joe was supposed to be here with me
tonight, but I don't see him --went and did an inspection and
found there to be various serious flaws in the construction of
the porch. Indoor materials that were used outdoor, and
basically felt that the, as a professional, that the entire
structure that was built and signed off on really needed to be
reconstructed again. So we had originally discussed the
possibility of proposing this as a repair, but as Joe looked at
it further and spoke with me about it, he felt he could not as a
professional state with certainty that they would not need to
completely replace the structure.
So we are proposing tonight to remove and replace in-kind,
well, not in in-kind, I guess, but in-place the structure that is
there with the same landing and steps and drywells. We actually
were not sure if the drywells had been installed, but the
leaders and gutters at a minimum would have to be redone with
the new roofed-over porch anyway. So we would continue with the
same proposal to have those drywells installed.
In terms of the outdoor shower, Mike, is that, I actually
didn't notice it. Did it show, does it show on the survey?
(Perusing). It does. Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I found it on the survey received May 19th. It's
labeled wood frame outside shower and step.
MR. HERRMANN: When you were out there, do you remember seeing
it?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, I did.
MR. HERRMANN: It is there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: So unless the Trustees would object to it, we
would ask for our application project description to be amended
to include that wood frame outside shower and step as shown on
Board of Trustees 15 June 21, 2017
the survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin land surveyor, last
dated May 17th, 2017. It's always something, isn't it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the amendment that we include the outside wood frame, outside
shower and steps as depicted on the survey by Nate Corwin survey
received May 19, 2017.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. And Mike I want to thank you also
because I know you responded very quickly to this and met Joe at
the site, and that was very much appreciated. So thank you, guys.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
on behalf of CAROLYN AMEEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the existing fixed dock, ramp, floating dock and piles; and
construct a 4'x88' fixed dock with the first 25' of the landward
end to be constructed using Thru-Flow decking; a 2.5'x12'
adjustable ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock in an "L"
configuration secured with two float piles. Located: 755 Lupton
Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-4.1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
were that the permit for the dock proposed to be replaced could
not be found, and that the proposed dock structure will extend
further into public trust waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on June 13th,
2017, noting the need to dial the length of the dock back, and
the dock should be moved further to the east. Subsequently we
received new plans dated June 20th, 2017, that depict a shorter
dock and had been moved slightly. We also have a letter in the
file from an Edward Hannis who supports the application for the
dock.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting, if there are any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No questions. The revised plans detail a
somewhat shortened dock that allows for navigation approach, it
would appear, that seems to address concerns of the neighbors
Board of Trustees 16 June 21, 2017
who have a longstanding dock that several users use. This I
think aptly meets, seems to meet the intent of the LWRP and
bringing it into consistency where we are minimizing the
structure over town waters as well as protecting navigation. So
we minimize impacts on the environment as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to the new plans submitted June 20th, 2017, that depict
a 4x50' fixed dock utilizing through-flow decking; a 3x14' ramp
and 6x20 float. The seaward end of the proposed float shall be
located ten feel landward of the seaward end of the existing
float dock assembly located adjacent to the project site. And by
granting this permit would bring it into consistency with the
LWRP. And also by shortening the length of the dock also brings
it into consistency with the LWRP. That's,my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number three, Robert Spatny on behalf of
DENISE SPATNY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story, single-family dwelling with a 1,612 sq.ft. footprint;
install a sanitary system; install a driveway; and construct a
1,050 sq.ft. Barn/garage. Located: 4045 Narrow River Road,
Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-2-2.4
This job was inspected by myself when I was the area
Trustee. I'm quite familiar with the lands involved. My time in
Orient predates the large dug pond on the property and was a
place I used to frequent pheasant hunting back in the day.
The Board has reviewed the file and we discussed the plans.
In the return from the LWRP coordinator there were specific
concerns outlined that I want to disclose that we want to
discuss in relation to the project.
The project was determined to be inconsistent with Town
policy largely because of questions that were raised in the
report. The questions concern the limits of wetland on the
survey. The surveyor depicted a generic term "marshlands"
reference with no limits on the western section of the property.
The setbacks are incomplete and not defined to the wetlands,
marshlands/wetlands and therefore it is unclear what the
applicant is applying for. And there is a question why was the
test hole conducted so far from the building envelope. The
Board of Trustees 17 June 21, 2017
building is located outside of the FEMA flood zone but I guess
there is a concern about other areas on the property that are
within the flood zone. We'll return to discuss that momentarily.
just want to also indicate that the Conservation Advisory
Council supported the application but had concerns with the test
hole data referencing ground and clay water silt and a high
water table.
Okay, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. SPATNY: Yes. My name is Robert Spatny. I'm representing my
wife Denise Spatny in this matter.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board in discussing the plans, since I
have very much familiarity with the site, I've known it since a
child of 14 or 15, I've been in Orient since then, except for a
stint in college. The wetlands that have been depicted on the
plans as marshlands are, is somewhat of a reversion and there is
no clearcut wetland line. And I understand why a surveyor may
have defaulted using that term. But it would be a fairly
extensive job for the Board to re-flag this, and the question
arose during our work session, would you be willing to limit fill
and clearing at this time to the proposed building envelope?
MR. SPATNY: Yes, of course I would. And if I may add something
to that. The property really does not, is not in any fresh water
wetland area per the DEC. It is, a portion of the property and
only the access driveway is within a hundred feet of the
freshwater wetland that exists on the north side of the
extension.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is correct. On the eastern/north side
of the Platt Road Extension which is currently a private road,
is a somewhat altered fresh/tidal. It has had a history of
alternating back and forth because of the flow control structure
which goes under Narrow River Road into the basin of the Narrow
River marina. The primary concerns of the Trustees in our
jurisdiction of this matter which we discussed would be the 100
feet along that pond, because since it's not a public, if it was
a public road and had not a private road it would, the house
would have been non-jurisdictional. In this instance, the
hundred-foot wetlands setback is appropriate and it's the best,
our jurisdiction is largely along that section of the Platt Road
Extension.
To address the concerns of the LWRP and bringing the
project into consistency without having to do extensive wetland
flagging in the other portion of the lot because your building
envelope is essentially out of jurisdiction. So we can
discuss other aspects of permitting to protect the wetland.
Also your licensed land surveyor Mr. Barylski on his survey
of December 12, 2016, he does include a 50-foot right-of-way for
possible future highway dedication on the plan. Have you
discussed that at all with the Highway Department or is this
just for sound planning purposes?
MR. SPATNY: No, we have not discussed it. I think that probably
Board of Trustees 18 June 21, 2017
came off the original site plan that was filed for the
subdivision. But as far as I know there is no intention of
making that a public road, although we would certainly like it
to be at some point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a different process and not with this
Board. The Board in reviewing the project plans in trying to
discuss how we can bring it into consistency, felt that the by
limiting construction to the building envelope and establishing
what we would call the non-disturbance buffer, landward of the
line, in other words 50-foot right-of-way line, so that there
would be essentially approximately 40-foot of a non-disturbance
area along that road was talked about. But before we can go
further to discuss that, I want to provide the opportunity for
anyone else who wishes to speak on this application.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak here with respect
to the application?
MR. BOSTIC: My name is Henry Bostic, we own the property across
the street at 5305 Narrow River Road on which the ponds,
wetlands are located. So I just became aware of the project when
I saw the posting a couple weeks ago. And I have not seen the
plans. I guess I tried to go on the Town website to see what
was actually being planned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Plans are not put into the website until
after the process is over, but you would have access to come in
any time up until this morning, basically, to look at the plans.
MR. BOSTIC: I didn't know what was actually being planned and I
didn't know if there was, if there had been an actual DEC review
or how much of that property actually fell under wetlands
control either by the state or locally. So I notice where the
driveway is, is right next to where the pond is, there is
already sort of a drainage issue on the private road there, so I
just wanted to make sure we were taking into account how flow
from the property might wind up in the pond or wetland. I don't
have a well-formed comment here because I was-not well informed
about the project. I just saw the posting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a note in the file concerning they
had started to do the review under the Town Storm Water
Management Program and that there is a preliminary approval of
the Town engineer, and that includes the keeping all the storm
waters on the site so the project on approval of a storm water
management plan from the Town engineer there would be no
discharge of storm water to the road. In other words no change
from the current status other than what rainfall goes on the
road itself.
What the Board had discussed in work session was that to
honor the proposed possible future roadway, 50-foot roadway
right-of-way that we established a 15-foot non-disturbance
buffer landward of that. That particular roadway when it's
mapped is around 15 or 20 feet from the current pavement edge.
So there would be, up until the time the road will be taken
over, condemned, or otherwise, easement sold or whatever the
Board of Trustees 19 June 21, 2017
road process is, there would be at least a 40-foot natural
buffer. And the Board has tried keep natural buffers along
Narrow River Road because of it being a scenic corridor and that
would also provide protection for the pond natural filtering
for, I mean the low lying area, if there is very heavy rainfall,
even site containment of rainfall through the driveway and the
house construction, the area as you know can be totally
inundated. As a matter of fact after Tropical Storm Sandy,
picked up four large mouth bass and a large catfish, which is
probably the first freshwater fish roadkill ever picked up in an
area. So I'm well versed with that. So flooding will occur from
upland. So, any additional questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
Any additional questions or concerns from the Trustees?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application subject
to three stipulations. One, that the engineer review for the
storm water plan be concluded. That the application limit the
construction to the survey and mapped building envelope; and
that a 15-foot non-disturbance buffer be incorporated into the
land, landward of the 50-foot proposed right-of-way, 50-foot
proposed road right-of-way as depicted on the December 12th,
2016 survey of Paul Barylski survey. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Those terms bring the project into
compliance with the LWRP. Since we are essentially out of the
wetland and provided a generous buffer zone.
MR. SPATNY: I thank the Board very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, DAVID KRUPNICK requests a Wetland
Permit for the as-built 9'6" long by 15'wide deck extension to
the front porch; as-built section of 35' long by 10'4"wide deck
extension on the seaward side of dwelling; as-built replacement
of a 10'wide garage door with a wall for added living space;
and for the as-built existing 20'.8"x10'10" screened-in porch
replaced with walls for added living space onto existing
2,304.6 sq.ft. one-story dwelling. Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
The Board of Trustees did a field inspection on June 13th,
and there are extensive notes dealing mostly with the dock, but
noting that the property should have a non-turf buffer on the
second step of the dock, and that also needs gutters to leaders
to drywells on the house.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
Board of Trustees 20 June 21, 2017
inconsistency arises from the fact that the structures were
built without a Wetland permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved on June 14th,
voted unanimously, to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KRUPNICK: David Krupnick, owner of the house.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does the Board have any questions for David?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are you amenable to a ten-foot non-turf buffer?
MR. KRUPNICK: You have to explain that to me a little further,
but yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A non-turf buffer means no grass planted. The
purpose is to avoid insecticides and fertilizers from going into
the creek. So it can be native, can be made of gravel or
anything other than --
MR. KRUPNICK: So where the steps start is where you are talking
about. Just like a gravel skirt, sort of.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct.
MR. KRUPNICK: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And gutters and leaders to drywells.
MR. KRUPNICK: That is going to happen when we replace the roof.
I haven't spent a whole lot of money on gutters yet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: But it will happen.
MR. KRUPNICK: Yes. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition there be a ten-foot non-turf buffer on the
steps backwards. And gutters to leaders to drywells, noting that
that will bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, ARETI LAVALLE requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish existing one-family dwelling; construct a
2,700 sq.ft. two-story dwelling with attached garage further
landward than existing with a proposed 378 sq.ft. first story
porch, 42 sq.ft. first story deck, and 307 sq.ft. second story
deck; construct a 396 sq.ft. on grade paver patio against the
seaward side of the dwelling; abandon existing and install new
sanitary system further landward; and install a new water well.
Located: 555 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-7
The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided, require a
vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bluff.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
Board of Trustees 21 June 21, 2017
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 13th,
also noting the need for a 15-foot non-turf buffer from the top
of the bluff.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. LAVALLE: I am Areti Lavalle. I have no comments unless there
are any questions at this point. We are looking to put a
permanent one-family house, the structure that is there doesn't
really serve our needs and we feel the house we are planning is
more consistent in protecting the environment and more conducive
with the existing houses in our neighborhood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer from the top of
the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, JOHN &
BENEDETTA FANNERON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
±2' high by 48 linear foot long wooden bulkhead and the as-built
repairs made using like materials; as-built replacement of
existing 5'x5'wood stairs off bulkhead to beach; for the d
replenishment of existing 340 sq.ft. beach stone splash pad
landward of bulkhead, and as-built installation of a 90 sq.ft.
beach stone splash pad along the seaward side of bulkhead.
Located: 1900 Mill Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-67-7-13
The project is determined to be inconsistent with the LWRP
since the structure was constructed without a Wetland permit.
believe based on the field inspection that the Trustees
completed on the 13th, that the structure was probably built
prior to the Trustees having the responsibilities under the
Wetland code.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
however the scope of general repairs is vague and there are
questions concerning the actual location of the splash pad.
I believe that we can address that based on the Trustees
field inspection.
The Trustees in performing the field inspection wanted to
iterate that the work proposed, that no toxic materials be used
and that the splash pad which could be viewed as both being the
Board of Trustees 22 June 21, 2017
non-turf gravel area behind the bulkhead and a small area of
stone seaward of the bulkhead, is what is in fact the splash pad.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. FANNERON: John Fanneron, to field any questions. We just
purchased the home in September.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We felt it was fairly straightforward based
on the field inspection. We didn't want to see any more gravel
placed below the bulkhead on the seaward side where apparently
it was used as a kayak landing previously, because that is
native marsh and it's emerging marsh and we felt that would
probably be best to allow to naturalize.
There was some discussion on the field inspection and at
the work session that you could come in and apply to control the
phragmites, the common reed that is there, under a separate
permit, under maintenance permits, because we want to encourage
beneficial vegetation as opposed to phragmites'and thereby you
would still be able to use the front of the property, and it
would enhance other plant species that are more beneficial. So
a combination of no more gravel and allowing for beneficial
species. But that could be handled under a second separate
permit application.
MR. FANNERON: We submitted, it was approved in the first
section, the transfer of that permit from --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The transfer section, okay, was for prior
removal.
MR. FANNERON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry. (Perusing). I don't see a separate --
I stand corrected. Okay. There also is the transfer. I'll make
sure that we move the transfer as well.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, is there any additional questions from the
Trustees?
(Negative response).
MR. FANNERON: Can I ask a question? We are looking to paint the
cottage. Do I have to come in for a permit to paint the exterior?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. Replacing of windows, siding, painting,
activities that don't entail putting a second story or
additional construction or construction out over the property,
in other words work within the existing footprint for ordinary
maintenance, those activities that would not require a building
permit, typically we don't regulate.
I think we covered everything. I would make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the transfer of the
permit to John and Benedetta and I would move to approve
application number six from my agenda -- I'm sorry.
Board of Trustees 23 June 21, 2017
Number six, okay, I want to make sure, because there was a
numbering issue. I would move to approve item number six,
bringing the application into consistency with the LWRP by
virtue of considering this permit, and that a stipulation that
no additional stone material be put on the portion of the splash
pad that is seaward of the bulkhead. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FANNERON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven. Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
THOMAS MACARI requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
6'x22'fixed dock and associated piles; construct new 4'x18'
fixed dock using Thru-Flow decking and supported by four(4) 10"
diameter CCA piles with a 30"x14' aluminum ramp and a 6'x20'
floating dock supported by two (2) 10"diameter CCA piles
situated in an "L" configuration parallel to the bulkhead.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-111-14-19
The Board of Trustees did a field inspection on June 13th,
and the form was filled out by Trustee Nick Krupski who is away
on his honeymoon. At that time it was straightforward and
requested to vegetate as soon as possible.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that no permit for the
existing dock was found in Town records; requests to verify the
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer in place along the retaining wall.
We'll come back to that.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application. Again, with a ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer.
The CAC questions that the applicant has plans for water and
electricity.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. A ten-foot
non-turf buffer is going to be installed. As you see we got the
permit for the bulkhead and low sill bulkhead last year, I
believe. It's just not done yet. It will be installed. And the
existing dock is going to be removed. So I think that clears up
that issue.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What about the question of water and electricity
in the future?
MR. PATANJO: As of this point I don't know. If you need an
amendment, we can do an amendment if he wants to install it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Or you can come back and do that some,other
time.
MR. PATANJO: I would rather do it now if we can get the water
and electric on the dock now.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. Contingent on an Underwriters
inspection for water and electrical safety around the water
Board of Trustees 24 June 21, 2017
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about plantings behind the low sill
bulkhead?
MR. PATANJO: As you see in the photo, and you were there, I
guess at mid-tide. It is starting to revegetate naturally. I
don't think he would be 100% opposed to doing some plantings
there. I just don't want to go crazy, you know, plant wise; do you
want to use patens or I guess Jay would be the one --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You have patens there already. If you just
did a row of one foot on center along the edge, you could
probably get some divisions from the existing stand and separate
them out. And the project would look awesome.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, it came out nice. Do you need revised plans or
do you want to make it a condition of the permit to plant one
foot on center?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's re-vegetating naturally.
MR. PATANJO: That was all never there so it's working it's way
already. That's one season.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It will be a good project. Anyone else wish to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, I make
a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to this approve this application with an
amendment that we include water and electricity and noting that
by approving that application will bring it into consistency
with the LWRP coordinator's concerns.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
RACHEL &JOHN CASHWELL requests a Wetland Permit to install a
4'x6' cantilevered platform off bulkhead with a 30"x16' aluminum
ramp, and a 6'x20'floating dock situated parallel to the
bulkhead. Located: 515 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM#
1000-71-2-3
The LWRP found this to be consistent provided that the dock
standards in 275-11 are met.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the condition no treated lumber is used.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 13th
noting that the dock should be moved left, to the west as much
as possible to better access to boats further east.
So is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of applicant. And we have
no problem moving it a little to the west,just to give it some
Board of Trustees 25 June 21, 2017
more access. And we would like to amend the application to
include water and electric.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we were thinking on that, was if you
move that dock as far to the west so that the end is 15 feet
away from --
MR. PATANJO: You want revised plans?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure, please.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition the dock be moved to the west so the end of
the float is 15-feet away from the neighbor to the west. And
water and electric subject to an Underwriters certificate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of LAUREN W. MIcCALL requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 30'x38' two-story dwelling with a 10'x30' attached
deck with 4'x14' stairs on the seaward side of dwelling; install
new septic system and water line; approximately 300 cubic yards
of fill from basement excavation to be deposited on site for
septic system; construct a 16'x32' swimming pool with
surrounding 40'x97' irregularly shaped at grade patio totaling
1,973sq.ft.; install a pool equipment area; install 142 linear
feet of pool enclosure fencing; and install a gravel driveway;
and for the existing 24'x34' (796 sq.ft.)frame garage with
adjacent at grade 8'x34' (306 sq.ft.) irregularly shaped concrete
slab. Located: 10643 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-116.-1-6
The Trustees did a field inspection on the 13th, and noted
that limit of clearing as mapped on the plan should be the
starting point of the ten-foot non-turf buffer, I'll explain
that further later. A non-disturbance area seaward of the
six-foot contour line.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
suggested a 50-foot wide non-disturbance buffer from the wetland
line.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 26 June 21, 2017
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. As a paperwork exercise, please be advised
that we are also before the DEC in that application. We have
encircled the site with a series of hay bales and a silt fence,
and we have also established a limit of clearing and
non-disturbance along that line. The hay bales would be setback
approximately, at its closest point, 65 feet from the wetland
boundary. So all of the vegetation seaward of the hay bale line
will be preserved.
I'm not sure which survey, I have a more updated survey
that you may want to take a look at. But, well, it's labeled. So
essentially 80, 90% of the property is preserved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Here is the six-foot contour line. Okay, we'll
get to that. We like that project.
MR. ANDERSON: You should also know, and I included in my papers,
that a variance was granted for allowing for the structure to be
44 feet from front lot line, which enabled a greater setback
than otherwise would have been possible. And that was put in
our paperwork, too.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, we noted that. Just so we are clear, we
were suggesting a non-disturbance seaward of the six-foot
contour line, which will give you the buffer that the LWRP
coordinator is calling for.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't see a six-foot contour line. I see five
and seven.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially, in other words, the distance
between the five and seven.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure that is perfectly acceptable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And we would like a non-turf buffer ten-foot
landward of the limit of clearing line.
MR. ANDERSON: That will not be possible because there is only
two or three feet between the clearing line and the, if you use
the six-foot contour, that's fine. But we only have a couple
feet between the hay bale line, which is cleared, and the patio.
In other words if you were to site that from the six, it would
cause no problem for us.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's acceptable. That's good.
Is there anyone else wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with
the condition that there be a non-disturbance zone seaward of
the six-foot contour line as depicted on the survey received May
8th, 2017, and a non-turf buffer ten-foot landward of the same
six-foot contour line.
MR. ANDERSON: To be clear I'll provide you with another survey
showing that.
Board of Trustees 27 June 21, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As depicted on another survey.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of 675 HILL ROAD, LLC, c/o GLENN HEIDTMANN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock consisting of a
4'x6' entry ramp secured by two (2) 6'x6" posts; 4'x7' steps
secured by four(4) 6"W' posts; 4'x15' elevated catwalk
supported by four(4) 6'x6" posts; a 3'x15' hinged ramp; and a
6'x20'floating dock secured by four(4) 8"x8" pilings.
Located: 675 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-28
The application was deemed to be inconsistent with the
LWRP. The LWRP concerns exist over minimizing the extent out to
and over the underwater lands of the Town. And the dock measures
the maximum of the extension of the one-third of the way across
the waterway, raising concerns with respect to general
navigation.
The Conservation Advisory Council made a recommendation to
support the application noting that they did recommend that the
structure have an open-grate through-flow type of decking and a
non-skid platform and railings.
The Board on field inspection and subsequent discussion
felt that the catwalk section of the dock at 4x15' consideration
should be given some shortening to 4x10' whereby bringing the
dock back a few feet, and the underwater contours appear to
approximately still maintain two-and-a-half to three feet,
thereby the vessel at the dock doesn't allow for particularly
for room for fenders and/or a beamier boat. So there were
concerns of the Board that we thought might be met through
modification based on our inspection and our work session.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. ABOYOUN: I do. My name is Jane Aboyoun, I live at 575 Hill
Road, which is just to the east of this property. So the concern
is not so much with the dock but more about the erosion that is
actually happening. There is significant erosion on the edge of
that property. If you look at Google Maps, you can see where
it's eroded. And the plan has no provisions to protect or secure
that area. There is no, you know, low sill bulkhead. There is
not anything in the plan that will take care of that, and the
concern is that the erosion is now flowing further to our
property, which is east of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did notice that on prior
inspection and this month's field inspection. Ordinarily the
process, and in this case it's a natural process and it has not
in fact been caused by the application or activities that are
Board of Trustees 28 June 21, 2017
undertaken, but where there is a new hole we could ask the
applicant if they could entertain, typically in a fairly quiet
creek such as this, we would try to encourage and the CAC would
encourage non-structural methods such as replanting or use of
what they call coir logs, because it is ill advised to start a
bulkhead line, even a low sill bulkhead where it's avoidable.
But your concerns are noted.
MS. ABOYOUN: Yes, it's really about the erosion and spread of
the erosion to really try to prevent that from happening.
Whatever the solution is, we would certainly be in favor of
anything that is natural, and we figured since it may make sense
to seek, if they are putting a dock in, it may make sense to
sequence remediating this or supporting this before doing a
dock. So, it's a suggestion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe -- I don't know, Bruce, maybe you
can clarify this but I believe we put a non-disturbance buffer
when we approved the application for the house to begin with.
I'm not too sure.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe you did.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words we were there for the
original house plan and we did see the slopes --
MS. ABOYOUN: No, there was no house, it was an empty lot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: --When we went there for the proposed house
construction to approve that permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There was a distance of vegetation they could
not be disturbed aside from a path.
MS. ABOYOUN: So it won't be cleared out completely; is that
right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
MS. ABOYOUN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else to speak to this
application?
MR. ADELL: My name is Matthew Adell, we are at 2405 Wells
Avenue, which is across the creek. Up the creek. My questions
are how far is the dock going to come out? Because it is a
rather narrow creek and I'm just concerned about the safety
issues, navigation issues and safety issues, because I know
directly across they are not allowed to build a, I believe, I
was told, they are not allowed to build a dock there. Because
it's too shallow.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you like to approach the dais.
This is what they are proposing. This is the creek. This
red line is --
MR. ADELL: I might be here. I'm not sure. I think this is
directly across. And they don't have a dock there. They have a
catwalk and can't build a dock. I don't want to speak out of
turn but I was always under the impression and told by them they
can't build a dock there because of the shallowness.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not familiar with that permit. You may be
right.
MR. ADELL: On this, I'm only concerned on this, how much
Board of Trustees 29 June 21, 2017
space -- .
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's an item for discussion which we
addressed to be announced during the beginning of the public
hearing. So we'll continue it.
MR. ADELL: So right now there is a pole in the water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you just go back to the podium and if you
want to continue a discussion with the Board.
MR. ADELL: So that was the question, primarily how far does the
dock go out, will it be enough navigable width from where the
dock is and the boat is to where the other shorelines and docks
are. And how much vegetation has to be removed for this catwalk?
If any. Are there any trees or anything being removed for the
ramp?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As we said earlier, the Board in discussing
the project at the work session because we were concerned about
the issue of navigation because it is a narrow creek, but
because it is marginally on the acceptable side with projecting
one-third of the way across the creek, it is the standard that
the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the DEC and this
Board will typically allow to go. But out of abundance of
caution our work session discussions establishing has been to
shorten the dock by approximately five feet. They did properly
show a vessel at the dock but we want to allow for the fact you
might have fenders and bumpers to hold the boat out. So we
don't want the boat going into the navigation channel.
With respect to your question concerning construction of
docks, there is no need to alter any vegetation other than
the very limited area for installation of the pile. The approved float
on typical docks, the docks can be 6x20'we actually even might
recommend they have a narrower float in the situation where space is
tight. So it is still a matter for concern for the Board as
outlined in our field inspection and at our work session, and we
want to continue that discussion with the applicant.
MR. ADELL: Okay, I understand what you are saying. I think
that's a very reasonable approach. I don't know, is it 60 feet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The applicant has provided us a set standard
marine sounding for which the Board did review during inspection
and the way the dock is projected, and within the proposed
shortening, we discussed, the dock typically has more than the
two-and-a-half feet that the regulatory agencies require based
on the soundings. It has 2.8 and it goes to 4.2 feet. It may
well be your familiarity with the creek, it shows that it's
shallower over a slightly larger area as you go to the other
side. So there may have been an historic channel closer to this
side, but based on the soundings we have and based on our field
inspection, there was no reason to question the soundings. They
look reasonable for when we were there. So there is an adequate
depth for storage, for boat docking as depicted on the plan.
MR. ADELL: So the pole that is in the water right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The pole that was in the water is required
on field inspection, it depicts the proposed seaward most
Board of Trustees 30 June 21, 2017
extension of the structure.
MR. ADELL: So seaward meaning the outside?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The outside of the structure.
MS. ADELL: Allison Adell. Sometimes that pole is on dry land and
it is very shallow there, and we are beyond that space.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board can't speak to that. We can only
go by what we saw on our field inspection.
MS. ADELL: We live there, so I mean you are hearing neighbors
saying it's there. It's not that we object.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what a public hearing is for, we are
listening, you are helping us make a record and we are listening.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. When we undertook this we realized the creek
is narrow there. You'll see the channel does tend to favor, call
it the north side, because directly across the creek you have a
fixed catwalk with steps, and if you look there is about a half
inch of water at a normal low tide. So these steps were done by
a licensed surveyor as were the measurements of the total creek
width. We thought that it would be better to put the dock kind
of centrally located so that it would not interfere with the
dock opposite and to the east, which is depicted by a dock and
float on your diagram there, because directly across from that
it appears the water is slightly deeper there and closer to the
shoreline. But we did that for navigational reasons. In other
words I didn't want to put the two docks directly across from
each other. I wanted to stagger them. So that was the thought
process there. Now, we have been before the DEC and the DEC has
come back and asked us to reduce the width of the float from six
feet to five feet. We have plans for that. The strange thing
about all this is that the DEC would generally require you to
have two-and-a-half feet around the total of the dock. If you
look at this plan, it shows that the landward side of the dock
is at 1.9 feet, according to the survey, during normal low tide.
Okay, so it's not at two-and-a-half feet. It's about seven
inches more shallow than what we would normally lay out.
Now, that may mean that we can maybe move it another three or four
feet in. My preference however would be to check with the
applicant so we can see if that's acceptable. I think it
probably will be and we can go back to the DEC,so I'm not
running afoul of two agencies. This is designed, today, to
comply with your regulations. But I understand the caution you
are exercising and I don't disagree with your concern or the
concerns of the neighbor. So maybe what should happen here is we
can table this, let us file with the DEC, and during that time,
take the time, take an opportunity to look at the erosion, which
is really not part of our application, but if we can do
something within this application to address that concern maybe
that would be best for all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be good because while a crew is
going in there for the minimal disturbance for a dock that
creates they could also do planting.
Board of Trustees 31 June 21, 2017
MR. ANDERSON: I was not focusing on this at all when I was
laying out the dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. But it's a public hearing, so
we welcome hearing concerns about erosion obviously particularly
to head it off early before homeowners in there it's to
everyone's benefit. Just so I iterate on the record the concerns
of the Trustees, what we felt that we would like to see the
catwalk shortened. We bandied about like a four to six foot
amount. We definitely thought along the same lines as the DEC.
We were talking about a four or five foot wide float. Which
also, because the allowance is for 120 square feet, you could
have, what is it, 5x24 to meet, in other words you, for stability
and safety on the water, to go narrower and slightly longer. Did
the DEC indicate the possibility they would require chocking?
In other words, if we have to go a little bit landward to still
catch two-and-a-half feet and still be outside of the dock, there
would also be chocking as an option for the float.
MR. ANDERSON: We could do that and we can certainly integrate
that into the plan. I think that might solve it. But if we could
reduce this four or five feet length, is what I'm hearing, you
know, perhaps chock it so it's not sitting on the bottom like
the float across the creek would be, I'm sure, at very low tide.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying
you would like to table this with further discussion with the
DEC so we don't end up with --
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's best. And it gives us a chance to
look at the erosion issue. Because maybe there is such things
we can to there that would be helpful.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Also on our numerous field inspections we have
seen there are certain docks that are being constructed now use
less wood and only draw about five to six inches of water. So
some of them have aluminum deck and others have through-flow,
and still they were only drawing about six inches of water. So
that would be something you might consider here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A pontoon type of construction floating dock.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know that I would want to do a float that
is four feet wide. I have a feeling it might be unstable. I
don't know that, but--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We saw a couple that were 4x20' and asked the
owner about stability issues, and the pontoons make it quite stable.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll certainly look into it. The other thing, if
you go to, let's say Port of Egypt marina and you see, the Port
of Egypt in particular, you'll see these fingers going out and
they are two-and-a-half, three-feet wide floating docks. And
that's because the ramp is resting, in other words they are done
in parallel. But if you take a float and turn it 90 degrees and
have a weight bearing down from the ramp causes it to pitch.
And I think that might be the difference. You know, that would
be my only concern. I want to make sure if we are, we construct
something that is fully functional and safe. That's all.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You make a good point.
Board of Trustees 32 June 21, 2017
MS. ABOYOUN: I would like to say thank you for addressing taking
a look at the erosion. It's a huge concern. But also in
considering how far the dock juts out really look at the water
levels at all times during the day because it is, I mean it's a
narrow creek to begin with and when it's low tide, there is not
much room at all. It really is narrow. And it seems to be
getting narrower every year. So it doesn't, it's not going to be
conducive to a very large boat. Al all
MR. ANDERSON: No, I agree with you there. And I must say that's
true. And the other thing too is years ago we used to be able to
dredge that creek because we had a spoil site out where the
jetties were, and the DEC back in the day would not let us
maintain the spoil site. So I don't know how we are going to
get in there to do an acceptable job dredging that creek, which
is badly needed because I don't know where to put the material.
MS. ADELL: Are you proposing to dredge the creek?
MR. ANDERSON: No, we are not.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think your concerns are reasonable
concerns. Upon the applicant's request to table I'm going to
move a motion that we table the application and that we also put
the application on for next month for field inspection to take
another look at the site.
MS. ADELL: I think at different times of day the tide is a real
concern. I just want to add they are building a dock and putting
a boat, even if you push the dock back toward the property and
you put the dock, how would a boat at the end of the creek
navigate around a boat that is docked?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The plans have accommodated the requirement
of the standard marine construction and are already starting
this dialogue when they are going back to the DEC. The
applicant has acknowledged that they are going to try to shorten
the dock. Straight up the application as submitted could have
been given deference by the Board but we are basically saying to
the applicant and they already said we'll work on it further
with the DEC and bring it back to us. We have to wait to see
what they do now.
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's the smart way to go.
MR. HAGAN: Pending motion, waiting for a second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ADELL: Are we able to get a copy of that proposal?
MR. HAGAN: All copies are kept on file in the Trustees office.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eleven, 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 25x30' upper patio with outdoor grill and counter
top; construct a lower 1,244 sq.ft. patio around proposed 16'x36'
Board of Trustees 33 June 21, 2017
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
The LWRP found this inconsistent and consistent. The
as-built structures do not comply with past permits, are
inconsistent. Proposed new actions that are recommended, are
consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 13th
noting that the pool had been moved to the side yard. We also
have in the file ZBA granting a variance to locate the pool on
the side yard.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: On behalf of Michael and Sara Colodner. I remember
when this house was built, the code was 75 feet from the
wetland, so the house didn't need a permit. Now because it's
100, 1 actually included the house so it could be repaired,
renovated whatever, it's all under an existing permit so you can
repair a house or repair steps or whatever on the house, since
it now would be a permitted structure. So when we sought the
application, I have it as an existing two-story dwelling with
garage and storage, existing outdoor shower, all the rest as
described. Because now it's all within a hundred feet.
And yes, you are certainly familiar with this application.
We relocated the pool to the side yard at the Trustees'
suggestion so that we would be able to be far enough away from
the buffer and not have to deal with the buffer that is in
place. I did send you on my way west today, I took some
pictures, I put them in the file for you, because on, you can't
really tell from the photographs where they are taken, but they
are all along the side of the property, and barely within your
jurisdiction. Some of the trees look like Scotch pines, if I
remember correctly, so causing a lot of shade, and will be in
the way. So I just wanted to be sure it was part of your file
so that when they are removing the trees it will be noted in your file.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we have those.
MS. MOORE: Aside from that, I'll answer any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
comment regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. We appreciate the pool being moved and
I think its nice that the trees that have to be cut are
essentially non-native now as opposed to the oaks and beneficial
trees that were in the prior application would have had to
succumb to the project.
MS. MOORE: No, that's good to work together, if possible. So,
Board of Trustees 34 June 21, 2017
thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new project description which reads: Existing
two-story dwelling with garage and storage; existing outdoor
shower along rear of house; existing stone patio to be
demolished and new 25x30' upper patio with outdoor grill and
counter top; upper patio with counter top, 667-square feet;
lower patio around proposed 16x36' inground pool; total of patio
around pool 1,666 square feet; low retaining wall along east
side of pool; drywell; 8x8' hot tub; 4' pool fence; hay bales
and silt fence during construction. All in accordance with
Zoning Board approval #7043 which would also bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
At this time I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
1
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
-V'<« 0. 3
JUL 2 1Ol�y�
So thold Town Clerk