HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/15/2017 Michael J.Domino,President ��®f S® �® Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President �® �® 54375 Route 25
o P.O.Box 1179
Charles J.Sanders Southold,New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith G
Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupski ® a Fax(631) 765-6641
COU II
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
Minutes
DEC 1 8 2017 x-10 .�;�prw►
Wednesday, November 15, 2017 ��
5:30 PM
"Stlh�ld OQC e
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President = -
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee --
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM at the
Town Hall Main Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex
Board Room, 2nd floor, and on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at
5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 18, 2017.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our November 15th,
2017, monthly meeting.
First I would like to announce the people on the dais. To
my left is Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Charles Sanders and
Trustee Nick Krupski. To my right is Assistant Town Attorney
Damon Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and also
with us tonight is Stenographer Wayne Galante. And from the
Conservation Advisory Council, Peter Meeker.
Agendas are located at the podium and also out in the hall
if you need one.
I would like to announce postponements at this time.
Postponements occur for many different reasons, typically
incomplete applications or lack of an LWRP determination.
Postponements tonight are, on pages eight and nine:
Board of Trustees 2 November 15, 2017
Number 13, Stacey Bishop on behalf of FORDHAM HOUSE LLC,
c/o DENIS BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a
±1,167 sq.ft. on-grade paver patio along the seaward side of the
dwelling; extend existing westerly 15' long by 10' high by 12"
thick concrete and stone veneer retaining wall an additional 35'
seaward for a total length of 50' beginning at the left rear
corner of existing dwelling; at seaward end of westerly
retaining wall, install a 28' long, varying height concrete and
stone veneer retaining wall parallel with the dwelling; along
easterly side of property, extend existing 3' high natural stone
retaining wall an additional ±45' seaward; approximately 15'
seaward of proposed 28' long parallel retaining wall, install a
±3' high by±45' long retaining wall situated approximately 1'
landward of established 50' wide non-disturbance buffer; and to
'install a generator pad, generator, and buried gas tank for the
generator. Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion. SCTM#
1000-21-5-11
Number 14, Michael Kimack on behalf of DEMETRIOS & MARIA
PAPAGIANNAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing
bluff stairs with new in-place consisting of a proposed new
10'x10' top landing using trex (or equivalent) decking; replace
two (2) ±10' long side retaining walls and 4"x4" posts along
upper 43"x10' staircase with new pressure-treated boards and
additional 4"x4" posts as needed; replace upper 43"x10'
staircase; replace 5'5"x10"1" upper middle landing; replace ±6'
long retaining wall and 4"x4" posts along the 5'5"x101" upper
middle landing using pressure treated boards and additional
4"x4" posts as needed; replace 43"x11'8" staircase and
5'3"x10'1" middle landing; replace 43"x12'9" staircase to a
5'2"x10'2" lower middle landing; replace 43"x12'4" staircase; an
existing 6'x6'3" shed near toe of bluff to remain; and replace
6'3"x20'4" bottom deck seaward of shed with a 22"x3'2" end seat
and steps to beach; on the four (4) staircases replace
stringers, treads, and 4"x4" posts as necessary using pressure
treated treds and stringers, and cedar(or equivalent) railings;
on the three (3) landings and bottom deck replace decking,
framing and railings using cedar(or equivalent) railings and
trex (or equivalent) decking. Located: 2100 Sound Drive,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-17
And number 15, AMP Architecture on behalf of WILLIAM GRELLA
& GARY OSBORNE request a Wetland Permit for the as-built 232
sq.ft. Belgium block parking area; as-built 121 sq.ft. Belgium
block walkway; as-built 517.3 sq.ft. managed lawn areas;
as-built 240 sq.ft. Gardens; as-built 160.5 sq.ft. crushed shell
areas; as-built 22.3 sq.ft. metal planter box; as-built 14.3
sq.ft. metal waterfall; as-built 15 sq.ft. rear concrete stairs;
as-built 713 sq.ft. pavers on sand; as-built 95 sq.ft. gravel on
sand; as-built 11 sq.ft. fire pit on sand; as-built 41 sq.ft.
open shower with Belgium block on sand base; as-built two (2)
7.2 sq.ft. concrete table bases; as-built 16 sq.ft. front
concrete stairs; and for the proposed installation of a 46.4
Board of Trustees 3 November 15, 2017
sq.ft. set of second-story wood stairs consisting of a 4'x4.3'
upper platform with 4'x7.4' stairs to seaward side patio area;
proposed installation of 27 sq.ft. of pavers on sand. Located:
1200 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-30
So if you are here for those, I think you can exit right now.
I would also like to announce under Town Code Chapter
275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago and
submission of paperwork after that date may result in a delay of
the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection on Tuesday, December 5th, 2017, 8:00 AM at the Town
Board annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, December 13th, 2017, at 5:30 PM, here at the
main meeting hall. Is there a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to motion to hold the next
work session at the town annex board room on the second floor on
Monday, December 11th, 2017, at 4:30 PM, and at 5:00 PM,
Wednesday, December 13th, 2017, at the main meeting hall.
Is there a motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of October 18, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for October 2017. A check for$4,563.15
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:
I
Board of Trustees 4 November 15, 2017
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, November 15, 2017, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
Mark D. King SCTM# 1000-106-4-5
Kathryn M. Parsons SCTM# 1000-10-5-2.2
John Katona SCTM# 1000-43-5-5
P A D Family, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-1-12.1
Ann T. Krom SCTM# 1000-145-2-19
Kimogenor Point Company, c/o Daniel Bingham, President SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1
8100 Indian Neck, LLC, c/o Jan Nicholson SCTM# 1000-86-7-9
Sean & Leslie Olsen SCTM# 1000-70-4-25
Elizabeth Van Bourgondien SCTM# 1000-70-4-26
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meeting, the
Board of Trustees groups together actions that are deemed minor
in nature. Accordingly I'll make a motion to approve as a group
items one and three. They are listed as follows:
Number one, MARY BETH HENSON requests an Administrative
Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to cut choke cherry
trees on the bluff down to 2'-3' in height, leaving the trunk
and roots intact; remove invasive species and poison ivy
(leaving the roots, cutting back and painting the stems); and to
plant native plantings such as seaside goldenrod, bayberry, and
Montauk daisy. Located: 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-33-1-6
Number three, ALBERT G. WOOD requests an Administrative
Permit to install 4' high split-rail fencing around the
perimeter of the property adjoining First Street and King
Street, and property line along north side next to vacant lot.
Located: 1000 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-32
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Complete actions, dealing with number two,
MICHAEL & ELIZABETH SWEENEY request an Administrative Permit to
remove and reconstruct in-place existing 69"x17.5" front entry
steps; remove and reconstruct in-place existing 124"x24" seaward
side platform with one step to ground off screened porch; remove
and replace in-place existing 189"x24" seaward side platform
with steps to ground and handrails at sliding glass door;
install an 8'x10' shed in rear yard; remove 4' high chain-link
fencing and install a 15'x28' paver patio within location of
chain-link fence; install a sprinkler system onto the property;
Board of Trustees 5 November 15, 2017
and to remove three (3) dead trees located in the rear yard.
Located: 280 Luptons Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-115-11-22
I'll make a motion to table this so the area Trustee can
meet with the applicants to review the stabilization of
revegetation in an area that appeared to us to be a blowout, and
also discuss no sprinkler system. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, CLIFFORD
& KAREN CID requests an Administrative Permit for the removal of
non-native plants and fencing in the 30' Non-Disturbance Buffer
area; re-vegetate with native plantings and install a split-rail
fence; create a softer grade along north side of dwelling by
adding 3'x22' tumbled bluestone steps; install a 315 sq.ft.
bluestone patio at seaward side of dwelling; install a 4'x44'
bluestone path to pond; install a 3'x22' bluestone walkway along
seaward southerly side of dwelling; remove 17'6"x4' balcony and
stair to grade and construct new 14'x22' elevated second-floor
deck and stair to grade. Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-115-5-7
The Trustees performed an inspection of this property
going back to June 13th, where we indicated what may be
appropriate for construction on the property. The Trustees have
also subsequently reviewed a set of restrictive covenants that
run to this parcel that were developed by the former Board of
Trustees for which this member sat on. And the Town's LWRP
coordinator indicated that, in his assessment, the proposal on
this project violates those restrictive covenants with respect to
activities that are continued, proposed to be within an area that
is restricted and that for which the former Board had required that filing.
It was deemed that the split-rail fence may be in compliance.
Accordingly because there is an issue with the former
restrictive covenants, it would be unwise for this Board to
summarily approve an Administrative Permit for this job without
a very serious review of each individual item that may be in
violation of the C&R and to afford the applicant an opportunity
to amend their application.
Accordingly I would move to deny this application without
prejudice, and we would encourage the applicant to meet with the
Board and to come back and to try to have an application that
conforms with the existing restrictive covenants that runs with
the land. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
Board of Trustees 6 November 15, 2017
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, again, in order to
simplify our meetings, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
items four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten. They are
listed as follows:
Number four, Francis J. Yakaboski, Esq. on behalf of GCG
BAYBERRY, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8858 from
Roger Praetorius to GCG Bayberry, LLC, as issued on August 17,
2016. Located: 975 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-139-1-4.2
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of NORTH FORK
PROPERTY VENTURES, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8990 from loannis Zoumas to North Fork Property Ventures, LLC,
as issued on April 19, 2017; and for an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#8990 to construct a 4'x12' "T" shaped section
of fixed open-grate catwalk in lieu of the most seaward 4'x4'
section of catwalk and 4'x6' steps at the seaward end of the
dock; and to install two (2) 8" diameter tie-off pilings
approximately 2 feet off north and south ends of the fixed "T".
Located: 5310 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of MELANIE BELKIN
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8516 to
install approximately 228 sq.ft. of masonry patio within existing lawn
area adjacent to swimming pool; and install approximately 34 sq.ft.
of masonry steps in-place of existing landscape steps to patio.
Located: 1700 Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-89-2-4
Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of SOUTHOLD, LLC
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #6749 to
extend the existing 4'x10' fixed open-grate catwalk and
additional ±18' landward, resulting in a 4' x±28' fixed
open-grate catwalk elevated a minimum of 18" above grade and
high water. Located: 2350 Clearview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-10-28.3
Number eight, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
JOSEPH & LAURA MAZZA request an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9075 to abandon and fill existing sanitary
system and install a new septic system landward of dwelling, and
relocate an existing drywell to accommodate new system.
Located: 280 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-19
Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOSEPH
SBARRA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8921 to construct a 20'x40' in-ground swimming pool in lieu of
the proposed 20'x33.5' swimming pool; and to install a grass
pool patio in lieu of the 1,525 sq.ft. on-grade stone patio.
Located: 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-5
Number ten, CHARLES & MARILYN SOUTHARD requests an
Administrative Amendment for the as-built docking facility
consisting of three (3) 4' wide by 12" deep landward risers up
to a 4'x7' section of fixed catwalk using Thru-Flow decking, to
one (1) 4'x12" deep riser down to a 4'x14' section of fixed
Board of Trustees 7 November 15, 2017
catwalk using Thru-Flow decking; 8" diameter wood pilings for
the fixed catwalk; a 2'x10' adjustable aluminum and plywood ramp
with railings on both sides; and a 5'x12' floating dock using
Timber-Tek decking secured by two (2) 4" steel pilings.
Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-22
That's four through ten. That's my motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Joseph Frohnhoefer on behalf of
MAMIE CHIANG & GORDON LAU request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#985 from Cheryl Pagnozzi to Mamie Ciang & Gordon Lau, as issued
on August 6, 1973. Located: 1450 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-5-17
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 8th, and
the field notes indicate that the current construction does not
match the permit.
Accordingly, I'll make a motion to table this application
until such time as we can have a pre-submission meeting with the
applicant's agent in order to move this forward.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Joseph Frohnhoefer on behalf of
MAMIE CHIANG & GORDON LAU request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#1542 from Agnes Pagnozzi to Mamie Chiang & Gordon Lau, as
issued on June 9, 1982. Located: 1450 Jockey Creek Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-17
Again, the Trustees made a field inspection on November
8th, and noted that what was physically present on the site was
not constructed per plans, therefore no transfer was possible.
And again, I would like to table this in order to meet with the
applicant's agent. I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, WEST CREEK AVENUE TRUST, c/o
PETER M. TODEBUSH requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1161 from
Minnie Todebush to West Creek Avenue Trust, c/o Peter M.
Todebush, as issued on July 12, 1976. Located: 1130 West Creek
Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
The Trustees did a field inspection on 11/9/17. Field notes
indicate that -- more correctly the area Trustee Nick Krupski
did an inspection on the 9th --the 11 x11 deck on top of the
stairs, without a permit; approximately 50-foot fixed dock with
no float; need to amend the plans to reflect what actually is there.
Accordingly, I'll make a motion to table this pending new
Board of Trustees 8 November 15, 2017
plans to reflect what exists and also with the notion this
cannot be rebuilt except to code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll take a motion to go off our
regular meeting agenda and enter into our public hearings. Is
there a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
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. Please keep your
comments relevant to the application at hand and as brief as
possible. Five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of MARK D.
KING requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#687 and Wetland
Permit#993 to remove existing one-story building at dock not to
be replaced; remove existing 24.4'x20.3' two-story accessory
building at bulkhead, and replace with a 24.4'x20.3' one-story
accessory building to be located 12' landward of existing
building; and to install a 2'x10' drywell to contain roof
runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town
Code-Stormwater Management. Located: 200 East Mill Road,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-4-5
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 8th, and
the field notes indicate that the application is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator did a review and found this to be
consistent with the LWRP policy.
The Conservation Advisory Council on November 8th resolved
to support this application, with no conditions.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
Board of Trustees 9 November 15, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under wetland permits, number one,
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of KATHRYN M. PARSONS requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 633 sq.ft. Detached garage (uninsulated and unheated),
which will be constructed on a concrete slab at grade with a perimeter foundation to a
depth of 3'6" to 4'0" below grade; install roof leaders to a proposed 100 sq.ft. X 1.5' deep
rain garden; remove existing ±413 sq.ft. entry porch and step attached to dwelling and
construct new±103 sq.ft. covered entry porch and step on piers in same location;
remove ±835 sq.ft. of grass and loam and install compressed gravel base and gravel
driveway, and grade to a proposed 300 sq.ft. X 1.5' deep rain garden for drainage; for
the existing 222 sq.ft. shed constructed on piers; install a construction entrance and
concrete wash-out pit; and to install a continuous line of staked silt fencing which is to be
maintained throughout construction. Located: 1946 Brickyard Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-5-2.2
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the Town's LWRP.
The Board of Trustees has inspected this site and the Conservation Advisory
Council did not make a recommendation, not having been able to visit the site.
And the Board of Trustees was there on I guess it was 8/11, August 11th of this
year.
And opening this up, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if there are any questions
from the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe there are any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's fairly straightforward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
with respect to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted, noting it is consistent with the
Town's LWRP. And I performed an inspection of the site.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Good evening.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number two under Wetlands permits, Robert
Barratt on behalf of JOHN KATONA requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing dwelling, abandon existing sanitary and
construct new two-story, single-family 2,600 sq.ft, dwelling
with 770 sq.ft. attached garage for a 3,370 sq.ft. total
footprint; install new septic system landward of dwelling inside
Board of Trustees 10 November 15, 2017
retaining wall which will maintain a grade elevation to meet
S.C. Health Dept. Standards; install a driveway; install gutters
to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance
with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Runoff; install and
perpetually maintain a 20' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the wetlands; and to install a line of staked
hay bales prior to and during construction. Located: 160 Inlet
Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-5
On the 8th of November, all Trustees were able to inspect
this property. The notes say we are looking for a 20-foot
non-turf, need retaining wall dimensions and need patio walk on
plans. Looks like those have been provided for us.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent. They do have a note that says due
to proximity of line to ground and surface waters, note that the surface water
body showed evidence of high eel grass loading due to amount of loading
vegetation due to poor flushing. It is recommended that the Board consider
requiring the following conditions on the partial. And 30 foot non-turf
landscape buffer is what they are supporting.
The CAC has resolved to support this.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant?
(No response).
Would you like to speak at all on behalf of the applicant on your file?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application as
written.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, 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 waters; and 8" 10"
diameter timber pilings staggered on either side.
Located: 1340 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-5
The LWRP resolved to support this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council also resolved to
support the application.
The Trustees originally visited this site in June on the
12th, and the notes were to potentially wait for DEC approval,
which at this point DEC approval has been received, in which
case they have taken into account the total coastal area as a
Board of Trustees 11 November 15, 2017
whole rather than just a case by case basis.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. We don't have anything to add. The holdup has
been waiting for the DEC permit. It was lowered, it was
shortened. I believe it complies with your statute as best can.
And I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any comments from the Board or anyone
else that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Okay, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
written.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Chris Rivera on behalf of P A D
FAMILY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story,
single family dwelling (1,200 sq.ft. footprint) on concrete
foundation with flow-through vents; construct a 250 sq.ft. deck
with steps to ground attached to seaward side of dwelling; and
construct a 66 sq.ft. front entry deck with steps to ground.
Located: 530 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-1-12.1
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 8th, at
2:30 in the afternoon, and at that time thought that the house
should be moved rearward.
The CAC voted unanimously to support this application with
the condition that there be no disturbance seaward of the CEHA
coastal hazard line, with the exception of four-foot hand-cleared
path to access the water.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here to speak to 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: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve thi's application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number five, Patricia C.
Board of Trustees 12 November 15, 2017
Moore, Esq. on behalf of MAUREEN & JOHN HURLEY request a Wetland
Permit to construct an 18'x73.4' addition (including 12'x15'
seaward side screened porch) to existing 27.5'x73.4' one-story
dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town
Code-Stormwater Runoff. Located: 1535 Westview Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
The project has been determined to be inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP by the coordinator. The septic tank in this instance
is proposed to be or is located less than 100 feet from the
wetland boundary, a matter which the Board has already
considered last month.
And the CAC voted unanimously to approve the project.
The Trustees were there last month on October 10th. Also
it should be noted that this is the first site of an innovative
alternative nitrogen removal sanitary system in the town and one
of the few in the county, and that the requirement for the
hundred-foot setback was waived essentially because the higher
degree of treatment of the waste water effluent and the fact
that the location of the septic tank and sanitary system
anywhere else on the property would have been too close to the
drinking water supplies of the neighbors.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore, I have Mr. Hurley here.
I think you pretty much outlined all the issues and we are here
to answer any questions. It's pretty straightforward at this point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. The only question was there was a bit
of confusion on field inspection because we thought we addressed
most issues at last month's meeting. There was a noticing issue.
There was a bit of confusion.
MS. MOORE: No, this project, the timing of your meeting did not
allow this project to occur last time. The sanitary was done
maybe two or three months ago.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. This is the house construction, okay.
MS. MOORE: Right, right. So just timing. The sanitary was actually
planned long ago. But everything takes longer than anticipated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that addresses the requirement, if you
will, the report of the LWRP coordinator for review of the
additional proposed building construction in addition to the sanitary.
All right, it was a bit of field confusion. It was late in
the day, we had 40 jobs.
MS. MOORE: And I know you have been there several times, so I
didn't see an issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments or questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 13 November 15, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, noting that the LWRP requirement of
inconsistent will be met through waiving the hundred-foot
separation as previously discussed, and that this new
application meets the LWRP requirement per meeting the current
requirements of the Trustees for the change in the addition to
the building. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six, 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
The Trustees have inspected this a few times, but on the
13th, 6/13/17 at four, all Trustees were present and the current
notes say light wind with white caps and large fetch doesn't
seem like a good location for a dock.
Then the LWRP has an 18-page inconsistency which has been
covered in the last hearing.
And the CAC has resolved to support this, however--the
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however
the height of the dock and provisions for lateral access were
not depicted on the plans. But I think that has been dealt with
since then.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy 455 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead. I'm
here on behalf Mr. Pawlowski. He could not be here tonight. And
Mr. Terchunian and I will make some comments. But at the end of
our comments I would hope you can keep it open so he could make
a final statement at your next meeting.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would you like to us table this after your
comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So he can come present to the Board?
MR. CUDDY: When you say table it, I would like you to have at
least an opening for him next time we meet so he can at least
speak at the next meeting.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So tabling is really the only option.
MR. CUDDY: All right. In any event I'm happy to hear you refer
to the 18-page LWRP report. In looking at this application, it's
difficult to find any discernible difference between the DeVito
application, which we mentioned before, and this application with
Board of Trustees 14 November 15, 2017
the exception that the Devito LWRP was five pages. This is 18
pages. So we hope that that does not pre-ordain a denial. It's
unusual to have identical application virtually have three times
the length of a LWRP for the second one.
Again, the main points of the LWRP that have been prepared
by your consultant are completely, I think, countered by Mr.
Terchunian, who is here with me tonight, in his First Coastal report.
I also would like to go back to, I think what is a
recurrent negative theme. Everybody seems to talk about
something called high energy. And I'm not sure what that means.
I don't see any standard for high energy. I don't see any
substance for high energy. I just hear a term called "high
energy." It doesn't make any sense if you look at this area and
think about how it's been developed.
A few hundred feet away from this site is the airport. The
airport is one for'small planes, single-engine planes. It's been
developed over a 50-year period. Planes come in and out of that
place all year long. If it was such a dangerous high-energy
place, that would be a terrible place for the airport, not just
to be constructed but to be developed over a period of time.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can I make one point on that? The planes are
not landing in the water, though.
MR. CUDDY: They are landing 200 feet of the water. And I know it
quite well.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I just wanted to make that point.
MR. CUDDY: If you go a little to the west of this site,
actually, three-quarters of a mile away is the Mattituck Park
District. Mattituck Park District has built buildings probably
within 50 feet of the water. They developed the whole site. If
it's a high energy, bad area, that was a stupid thing to do. And
I don't think it was stupid.
I also would point out up to right next to that area is
where children learn sunfishing. And they keep boats right at
the edge of the water. This is seven, eight and nine-year olds.
If it's such a high energy, bad area, that would have been a bad
thing to do also.
I have grave doubts as to what "high energy" means, but it's
certainly not something that should stop this dock.
One other comment I would like to make is it appears to me
that the Board is on the verge of making a policy decision, and
that is no docks along this area. I don't think the Board can do
that. It's not in the code. I think if you make policy it has
to be adopted by the Town Board. I don't think you can have a
policy that says we have no docks in this area.
I would like for Mr. Terchunian to make some comments.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you, sir.
MR. TERCHUNIAN: Thank you, to the Board. My name is Aram
Terchunian, I'm a coastal geologist and environmental scientist
with First Coastal Corporation of Westhampton Beach, New York. I
submitted previously to this Board a report produced by my
office which evaluated the proposed dock against the Town Code
Board of Trustees 15 November 15, 2017
and included an analysis of this dock with previous docks
approved by the Board as well as an evaluation of the LWRP report.
So without going into it, a reiteration, rehashing of my
report, I'm wondering if the Board has any questions they would
like to ask me about it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Not at this time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any questions on this report?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No questions. At least from this member.
MR. TERCHUNIAN: So I would like to therefore highlight a couple
of points that I believe are pertinent to this Board's
discussion and review of the application.
The primary objection that I understand from the LWRP is
that this is going to be, this structure is going to suffer
frequent structural damage and loss. Quote unquote. That's
right out of that memo. And I would submit to the Board that is
just pure speculation on behalf of the author. There is no
empirical analysis as to why that is going to occur. There is no
standard in the code or produced in the report that explains how
this is going to happen. The dock is designed by a New York
State licensed professional engineer. It meets all the criteria
necessary for structural safety. And in fact there is
irrefutable evidence to the contrary of this statement in that
in close proximity to the proposed dock is a dock that has been
there for over 50 years. And through proper construction and
maintenance --
MS. CANTRELL: Just give us a second to restart the machine. We
have been having some problems.
(After a brief recess, this hearing continues as follows).
MS. CANTRELL: Okay.
MR. TERCHUNIAN: I would also point out to the Board that we
provided historical aerial photos of the subject property and
surrounding vicinity, pointing out there are shore perpendicular
structures, by my count 70, that extend from the shoreline into
the Peconic, that have been there for 50 years plus or minus.
Those structures are functional and in place today, and they
also provide evidence to the Board, documentary evidence to the
Board, that shoreline structures that are properly designed,
constructed and maintained are appropriate on the shoreline.
In my report I referenced three other docks that have been
approved by this Board over on Paradise Point. We did an
analysis of the FEMA flood insurance rate maps comparing both
the subject site as well as Paradise Point and you'll find in my
report the wave energy and surge energy predicted by the
National Flood Insurance Program and Federal Emergency
Management Agency is substantially higher in the Paradise Point
area, and this Board found fit to issue those docks. I don't see
why this area would be considered more energetic when in fact
it's defined by the federal government as less.
In my report I have done what I believe to be a thorough
analysis of the town's specific standards in the code, as well
as review of the LWRP sections. I was struck by the length of
Board of Trustees 16 November 15, 2017
the LWRP recommendation but then I realized that fully half of
the report is a reiteration of significant habitat narratives
that cover the entirety of the Peconic bays from Riverhead to
Orient Point. And that without saying it, the implication is
that somehow this single dock on this stretch of shoreline is
going to somehow undo the north fork beach complex that extends
over 27 kilometers. I don't think that is a reasonable
conclusion and the fact that there is a lot of pages in there I
don't think is something the Board should take into
consideration. Rather they should look at the specific facts of
this case and the code as it is written.
The other issue that I noticed in the LWRP, that I take
issue with is the statement that the proposed dock will quote,
impede navigation of small manual powered vessels along the
shoreline, unquote. I find that to be incorrect. And I think if
the Board examines it they'll agree with my opinion on that. And
it's simply because if you look at the schematic that we
provided in my report that shows the geographic location of the
proposed dock in relation to existing timber groin structures,
you'll find that this dock is in close proximity to that groin
structure. Moreover there are, as I pointed out over 70 groins
extending out into the bay here. So it's unreasonable to
consider that the proposed dock will have any significant
interference on any type of navigation. And in point of fact,
the proposed dock will serve as a harbor of refuge for those
boaters or manual powered vessels that find themselves in danger
on the Peconics. And those of us who have found themselves in
that situation, having a friendly dock is often a very welcome thing.
I think also the conclusion of the LWRP is that the
alternative here is either a mooring directly offshore or mooring
your boat in a marina. Those are the two alternatives proposed
by the LWRP, and I find both of them to be unreasonable.
First of all, the concept of a mooring seems to be
completely at odds with the author's description of the wave
energy environment that this is involved in. How are you
supposed to get from the shoreline to the mooring? Are you
supposed to walk out across this quote, high wave energy
environment? Are you supposed to hand pull a boat out there?
What happens if your boat is out on a mooring and it gets caught
in a storm and you cannot get to it? That really doesn't make a
lot of sense to me, that that is a reasonable recommendation. In
fact I think it's a dangerous recommendation.
And the other alternative of a marina, I find likewise
unreasonable. This is a property owner that has a riparian right
of access to the water, it's being proposed to access navigable
waters in a way that is consistent with the Town code that is
consistent with the LWRP, that is consistent with this Board's
previous decisions, and is reasonable and customary throughout
the Town of Southold.
So I thank you for your indulgence listening to me and
making those particular points. If I raised questions you would
Board of Trustees 17 November 15, 2017
like me to answer, I'm here to do so.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you, sir. Anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of the applicant or with regard to this application?
MS. MUTKOSKI: My name is Patty Mutkoski and I have live and
boated out here for 50 years. And I have to take issue with the
gentleman's remarks about the location there. We always go the
south side of Robbins Island. It's a very difficult passage
through there. And the groins, you don't even see them or
notice them. They are down. We fish a lot. I'm familiar with
the area. I think the report was on target. I think it really
described the area well. I don't like the comparisons to
Paradise Point. One, this location really faces sideways, kind
of slanty-wise, the very strong prevailing southwest winds in
the afternoon, of any afternoon in Southold on the bay. And
Paradise Point really faces east. Now, I can imagine that the
flood insurance data is as this gentleman says, but it's
probably because of the water that is eastern, that comes
through the Paradise Point peninsula and Jessups, you know, it's
a completely different sort of situation. And I know that
everybody down there would remove their boats. But this is like
a constant high-wind situation. Adding to the problem, to me, is
this lower dock piece which to me is just getting this all
broken up and crazy from the wind action that goes amongst the
pillars of the dock. So I think it's actually an extreme
disadvantage to the application to have that lower level on it.
Everybody I know who has a dock on the bay, you know, we have
floating docks in our creeks -- I live on Goose Creek -- and
they work well in there, and it would be ideal out here. But
you could never even consider one out here in these conditions.
But everybody I know and these are people actually who are all
north facing, the boating in the summer is therefore protected
from the southwest wind. But we climb out on ladders and go up
on the dock. And I think that that additional piece of docking
is an additional danger. But it's also true that Paradise Point
has a big road that goes past, and I'm familiar with it because
I live down there. And this area, I went today to try and look
at it. It's a very secluded kind of-- I don't know how to
describe it. It doesn't bear any relationship except that there
is high-end real estate on it. And I don't find the comparisons
except for the dock construction to be valid points.
Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I just have a couple of notes I want to make.
There is over 20 letters against this dock. And I also want to
address the logic of the mooring. If you have bad weather, and
one has a mooring, you can determine not to go out to your boat
because you understand there is bad weather. So the logic of
having a mooring is consistent with, it's logical to have a
mooring versus a dock. In that respect. If that makes sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, the standards which the Board is to
determine the issuance of a permit very specifically dictate
policy and they go through a number of issues including whether
Board of Trustees 18 November 15, 2017
the dock will impair navigation; whether the dock will unduly
interfere with the public use of waterways; whether the dock
will unduly interfere with transit along the shore; whether the
dock will significantly impair the use or the value of
waterfront; whether the dock will cause degradation of surface
water quality; whether the dock will cause habitat fragmentation;
whether the dock will result in a destructive/ beneficial vegetated
wetlands including eel grass; whether the dock will unduly restrict
tidal flow; and probably most specifically, item number nine under
275-2(d)(9), which is policy, in the code, whether the dock will be safe
when constructed. And the experience of this Board doing four-hundred
to five-hundred inspections a year, myself with about 20,000 to
25,000 hours on the water as a marine researcher with the Health
Department; member Nick Krupski who is a former researcher with
Cornell Cooperative Extension; Mr. President of the Board, Mike
Domino, is a boat owner; and who is not present this evening,
Glenn Goldsmith who works for Sea Tow International, which is an
international marine rescue group, the Board understands whether
a dock will be safe when constructed. So that is a policy
standard of the Town Board given to us in our capacity to do
this code. And also whether the dock will adversely affect views
or viewsheds, whether cumulative impact of the residential and
commercial dock will change the waterway, and whether adequate
facilities are available for boat owners and operators for
fueling and discharge.
I think that Trustees Sanders did outline the Board's
experience when the winds were probably running at about maybe
ten to 12 knots, that the waters here do pile up. I think most
of us, we don't have to go at length in the discussion, but our
experience tells us that a mile-and-a-half between the Bayview
and Devito dock and the opposing shore of Shelter Island, even
though there is somewhat of a southerly fetch, is protected by
Cedar Beach Point, and in this case, as already noted at the
public hearing, the prevailing winds come from a point in excess
of six miles across Peconic Bay. I think the good Lord or
whatever you want to attribute it to, did not paint this part of
the world after two glaciers to be appropriate for docks in all
locations.
And I don't think we are going to do back and forth
tonight. The Board has reviewed all the written material that
has been submitted. We have --
MR. TERCHUNIAN: I just want to point out each and every point
that you raised has been addressed in our report and
substantiated. There is no eel grass to kill. There are no
nesting shore birds. There is public access, unfettered along
the beach. So, I mean, we have exhaustively gone through the
code to address those specific things. And the experience of
the Board is highly valuable and greatly respected. But you
have a licensed professional engineer who is putting his career
on the line to certify this dock, and I believe that that has
weight as well.
Board of Trustees 19 November 15, 2017
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Well, we have given ample sometime discuss this
over the last few months. Would anyone else like to make a comment?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We previously responded to the 18-page LWRP
coordinator report with our--we addressed that. We are not
going to further address that tonight.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to close this hearing.
MR. CUDDY: I asked you to table the hearing so Mr. Pawlowski
could comment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are not compelled to table it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We would consider it, but it does not mean we
would do it.
MR. CUDDY: He was not able to come. He has a family situation.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Like I said, sir, we have given ample time with
this.
MR. CUDDY: I understand that. I don't think I'm asking something
out of turn. It's been going on for a while. If it goes on for
a while longer, no one is hurt by it. We are in the middle of
November. It would surprise me if the Board would not be open to
saying yes, for the applicant appear one time. I'm not coming back
with him to talk. Neither is Mr. Terchunian. He asked if we could.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board tends to be very reasonable
and allows for ample discussion. The question I have is with
professional engineers, several engineering reports, and
professionals and yourself, what could Mr. Pawlowski add to this
that we have not already heard?
MR. CUDDY: I think he thought he had some additional items that
he could bring to your attention and I was not privy to them.
But he asked if I would come here and speak on his behalf
and ask if he could come back. We are not going to talk again.
He wanted to talk, that's all. Certainly that's not an unusual
request to make.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Pawlowski has written several letters to
this Board which are also in this file. I believe at this time
the Board is ready to vote.
MR. CUDDY: I hope you would not. I think that's unfair to him.
He's the applicant. And he certainly, I think, has a right to
come before you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: My motion has been made. What would you like to
do now?
(Inaudible).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll ask counsel to state that for the record
MR. HAGAN: With all due deference to the President of the Board.
Mr. Cuddy, you are here on behalf of the applicant, Mr.
Pawlowski. He's also sent a professional licensed engineer on
his behalf. There has been numerous documentation that has been
submitted. At this point he's appeared here either by person or
by proxy. It's not that he has not had an opportunity to speak.
He certainly has and has sent two representatives here this
evening to deal with this application. If the Board wishes to
entertain the motion to close the hearing, the Board of Trustees
is permitted to do so.
Board of Trustees 20 November 15, 2017
MR. CUDDY: The reason I'm asking for it is that he is the
applicant and there is no harm. The problem I have with you just
saying close the hearing is here is an applicant that says I
would like one more time to address this Board. If he can't next
time, we understand that. But he can't come tonight. He would
have been here. He had a family problem. He couldn't come. So
I'm asking you to allow him to at least make that last address.
That's all. We don't get hurt by it. No one gets hurt by it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion. Out of deference to
the Chair and I believe the issues have been laid out
appropriately by counsel and every opportunity has been granted
for the applicant and the people that have come before this
Board representing him.
MR. CUDDY: I would ask if you could defer your decision.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion is made. Sorry, sir.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to have discussion. I would
like to deny the, request to amend to deny the application
without prejudice.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would agree with that. So what's the
procedure?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second to agree with that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I rescind the original motion and I say deny
without prejudice. Restate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second to deny without prejudice.
MR. HAGAN: So I'm clear for the sake of the record, there has
been -- does the second of the previous motion also agree to
rescind their second for motion to close?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: So we have a rescission of the previous motion and
rescission of the second. We then have application to make an
amended motion to deny it and to amend without prejudice, and
that has been seconded by Trustee Bredemeyer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Affirmative.
MR. CUDDY: So he may resubmit an application; is that the idea?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That is correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CUDDY: Is that my understanding?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, Todd O'Connell, AIA on behalf of
LOUIS & MARY ANN PAGNUTTI request a Wetland Permit to construct
additions to the existing 896.0 sq.ft. one-story dwelling with
Board of Trustees 21 November 15, 2017
attached garage consisting of constructing a 282.5 sq.ft.
second-story addition over existing dwelling; proposed
second-story addition over existing 448.4 sq.ft. garage;
existing one-story breezeway to be reconstructed into a
two-story 88.2 sq.ft breezeway; proposed 63.5 sq.ft. front
portico; construct a 101.0 sq.ft rear west covered deck with
balcony above; construct a 513.0 sq.ft. rear east covered deck
with balcony above; and to install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance to Chapter
236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management.
Located: 57475 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees originally visited this site 10/10/17. All
were present. The notes originally state that it was not staked.
Needs plans depicting setback to neighboring properties. Needs
to see new septic and for non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. O'CONNELL: Yes. Todd O'Connell, architect. This particular,
I believe we submitted to the Board all the requests they were
looking for. Since that time that was requested. This
application is, the majority is vertical expansion on the house.
It's currently a one-story cottage which we are putting a second
floor on. It's before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a minor
variance, which was approved. The only area that we are
expanding outside of the footprint is for the covered deck and
patio. Penetration into the ground will only be for seven piers.
Not a full foundation, just a pier foundation. And that will be
the only thing outside of the footprint of the existing home.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
I would not mind seeing a ten-foot non-turf buffer being put in
place behind the concrete seawall, seeing as we are, have some
minor expansion that might warrant a little extra protection there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a bit of a buffer there already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There mostly is, it's probably -- is that
something you would be open to?
MR. O'CONNELL: I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, any other comments on that?
(Negative response).
Okay, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
with the amendment of new plans depicting a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
Board of Trustees 22 November 15, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. O'CONNELL: Thank you, have a great evening.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Chris Mohr on behalf of ANN T.
KROM requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing ±98 foot
long cement bulkhead with ±30 foot long westerly cement return
as needed in-kind and in-place; install a 39' long by 4' wide
vinyl return along the easterly property line; backfill void
areas with approximately 80 cubic yards of clean sand; and plant
approximately 300 plugs of Cape American beach grass in
disturbed and void areas. Located: 1296 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-19
The Trustees did its most recent field inspection on
November 8th. Field notes indicate that you could not measure
the length of the existing wall because, due to high tide, it
was under water. Or in the water. Surrounded by water.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with
policy standards.
The Conservation Advisory Council on November 8th resolved
not to support the application. The comments are the
Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application,
questions the feasibility of the plan. The plan appears to be
inadequate for proper protection of the shoreline. Motion
carried all unanimously.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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 DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to DEC approval and with the condition that there be no
further work seaward of the existing wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll take a five-minute break at this time.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number nine,
En-Consultants on behalf of KIMOGENOR POINT COMPANY, c/o DANIEL
BINGHAM, PRESIDENT requests a Wetland Permit to repair existing
clubhouse foundation, i.e. install new foundation pilings,
replace porch decking, replace and/or sister existing foundation
framework components (e.g. girders), and install new materials
to stabilize and secure the building (e.g. hurricane straps);
Board of Trustees 23 November 15, 2017
construct approximately 133 linear feet of mid-sill vinyl
bulkhead (EL. ±4.73') around three sides of existing clubhouse
and install ±34" untreated cap to cover bulkhead and gap between
bulkhead and existing porch; install ±4' extension of existing
bulkhead return (stepped down to EL. ±3.6') to connect to
proposed mid-sill bulkhead; backfill extended return with
approximately 4 cubic yards clean sandy fill and plant with
Spartina patens (18" o.c.) to establish approximately 64 sq.ft.
area of high marsh; replace two sets of existing steps with two
sets of±4'x7' wood platforms (over mid-sill bulkhead) and
±2'x7' steps; remove and replace in-kind/in-place ±4'x5' section
of existing dock catwalk to allow for installation of mid-sill
bulkhead; place approximately 46 cubic yards clean sandy fill
beneath clubhouse to raise grade to EL. ±3.6'; and remove and
replace in-place 5'x86' timber footbridge using open-grate decking.
Located: 50 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1
This application has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP.
And the Trustees have been to the site at least two times
with respect to reviewing it.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has supported the
application and requests some more definition in the restoration
plan for the disturbed areas.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants on behalf of
Kimogenor Point Company. I'm going to keep my presentation very
brief because we do have a very detailed narrative in the
application, have met with the Board on a pre-application basis
a couple of times.
The gist of it, as the Board knows, is to install a protective retaining
wall around the perimeter, three sides, perimeter of the building, the
historic clubhouse, and make structural repairs to the clubhouse itself.
With respect to the restoration, there is one area of created high marsh
behind the return which was actually originally a Board suggestion to tie in
one of the existing bulkhead returns to the proposed retaining wall, and
there will be a small area behind that which will be a created marsh, which
is actually right there. In that corner. And in terms of the restoration, the
Board knows most of that area in front of the clubhouse is either intertidal
marsh or high marsh. So in short, any of those areas that are disturbed or
lost due to construction activities will be replaced in place so when the
project is complete, the marsh is ultimately in the same condition as before
the construction started.
It's not a complicated site in terms of the wetland, so
it's something very easy for the Board from a compliance end of
things. Also the timber foot bridge will be replaced in place,
which is part of the application as well. And Bob Fox, who is
here tonight, wanted me to convey to the Board those couple of
platforms that were out on the gray leveled area have been
removed since the Board's inspection.
If you have any questions I'm happy to answer them,
otherwise we are happy for you to approve the project, hopefully.
Board of Trustees 24 November 15, 2017
MR. MEEKER: Peter Meeker, CAC. Can we get the definition of a
"mid-sill bulkhead"?
MR. HERRMANN: In the engineering design, basically you have the
elevation of the bulkhead that goes around the entire perimeter.
The retaining wall or quote unquote mid-sill bulkhead that is
being constructed here, is not constructed at the same elevation
as that wall. It's constructed around the perimeter of the
building to keep the high water from flooding underneath the
building and rotting away the structure.
So it's not a structure designed to raise the entire level
of the property to the elevation of the existing bulkhead but to
a lower elevation. It's different than a low sill bulkhead,
which is designed to actually be below the high water level.
Which here would not accomplish the purpose it's designed to
accomplish.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For a point of clarification, that is
encompassing essentially a building foundation element.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's not effecting the wetland and not
requiring fill outside of it that will cover the wetland.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. There is no fill outside of it. In fact
there is almost no backfill underneath it. There is backfill
underneath it on the one side, same side as the dock is, just
because some of that area is sloped underneath the foundation so
they are going to try and raise that up a little bit again just
to prevent flood waters from sitting, once they get in there,
from sitting and rotting away the wood.
MR. MEEKER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the application as
submitted with the stipulation that any native Spartina Alterna
flora or Spartina patens during the construction in the adjacent
areas outside the mid-level bulkhead be restored with plants
that match the adjoining elevations of patens to patens, Alterna
flora to Alterna flora for disturbed areas.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of 8100
INDIAN NECK, LLC, c/o JAN NICHOLSON requests a Wetland Permit to
temporarily raise and construct new foundation walls beneath
±16'x16', ±19'x23', and ±25'x26' portions of existing one-story,
single-family dwelling to remain; construct 208 sq.ft. "L"
shaped one-story addition and 45 sq.ft. overhang within
footprint of existing 330 sq.ft. Portion of dwelling and 294
Board of Trustees 25 November 15, 2017
sq.ft. northerly deck to be demolished; repair and/or replace
in-place as needed existing southerly±8'x26' attached deck;
construct new basement access stairs; install drainage system of
leaders, gutters, and drywells to contain roof runoff, and in
accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater
Management; establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
landscaped buffer along the landward edge of the top crest of
bank; and install new sanitary system installed landward of
Chapter 275 jurisdiction. 8100 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
SCTM# 1000-86-7-9
On the 8th of November all the Trustees inspected this
property and the notes just say straightforward.
The LWRP has found this to be exempt.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to
support this application.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. We actually thought the Board would be happy to see
this application. You all probably remember a couple years ago
when the property was owned by Barbara Adams, there had a been
bit of a controversial proposal to build a new house very close
to the wall and ultimately through this permit process it got
moved back. So that permit had been issued and expired,
actually, earlier in the year.
The property is now owned care of Jan Nicholson and the
proposal is a much simpler one which you raise, renovate and
alter basically the dwelling mostly in the footprint of where
the existing structure is. So that the three cornerstone
sections of the house will be raised, but remain in place with
some alterations in the middle of it, with reconstruction of the
deck. The same 15-foot buffer is proposed that was required by
the prior permit and required by the ZBA. We did secure a de
minimis letter from the ZBA confirming that their prior decision
still holds for the modified proposal.
So this kind of brings us all,the way full circle back to
what the Board was hoping we might do when you first saw the
application. And now that is what they are proposing to do.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you for the use of the word de minimis.
MR. HERRMANN: It's a ZBA term.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any thoughts from anyone from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN
Board of Trustees 26 November 15, 2017
& LESLIE OLSEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 85 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; incidentally dredge 5' wide area
adjacent to bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4 MLW and use
approximately 10 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil as backfill;
reconstruct in-place existing 4.5'x7' seaward platform attached
to bulkhead and reattach existing 2.5'x9' ramp and 5'x16'
floating dock to remain; construct an 8'x20' on-grade,
open-grate deck landward of bulkhead; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer along newly
constructed bulkhead. Located: 975 West Hill Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-4-25
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and only
found the proposal to re-attach the ramp and floating dock
inconsistent whereas no permits were found for the structures in
Town records.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application indicating they would like to see a ten-foot
non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The Trustees visited this site on November 8th and noted
that there is a severe need for drywells as the gutters were
draining directly onto a steeply sloped lawn and toward the
creek. And to install a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicants.
With respect to the non-turf buffer, we had proposed a
five-foot non-turf buffer only because of the narrowness of the
lawn between the house and the bulkhead, and sometimes in the
past the Board had some flexibility with that. It's less than 40 feet,
well from the patio to the bulkhead, but a little bit,just over 40 feet
from the deck to the bulkhead. So that was why we had proposed that.
With respect to the drywells, generally it has been, unless
there was drainage going through the bulkhead, generally it has
not been the Board's practice to request dwelling modifications
in connection with the bulkhead. But that's certainly, you know,
the Board's, up to the Board how you want handle that.
It was one other item. Oh, the LWRP, with respect to the
dock, I could find the presence of some sort of dock there in a
bunch of aerial photos but couldn't find really any record of a
permit. It's a simple platform with a ramp and float so to deal
with that inconsistency that was the point for us asking for a
permit for the ramp and float now. Because the ramp and float
will have to be dismantled and reconstructed as part of the
bulkhead,construction anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair enough. In many cases we are willing to
work on the size of the buffer. In this case, though, I think
the Board felt that the slope was just a little too steep where
it would be appropriate to reduce it that much. And the
difference between if it's 43 and some-odd-feet, you know, going
Board of Trustees 27 November 15, 2017
to 33, will not really make or break some of the lawn whereas as
a filter it will be extremely beneficial.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Similarly for drywells.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is probably true for drywells in this
case. I mean, we are dealing with such a narrow sloped piece.
It's kind of, we are bordering on where it really should be done
because we are just going to dump it right over the top of the bulkhead.
MR. HERRMANN: Will having a wider ten-foot buffer obviate the
need for doing the drywells now until some sort of actual
residential modification or--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right now it's almost like directly into the water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a reasonable question. I don't know if
the answer is reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a reasonable question.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I guess depending on how the
bulkhead is reconfigured or constructed you may or may not have
a backhoe on site that could easily pop the drywell in. If it's
going to be strictly marine-side operation, you know, the
drywell becomes a small accessory if it's going to, some of the
work is going to be done excavating getting the old dead-men and
ties out with a backhoe. I just--the question is reasonable.
I'll defer. Nick has the file. I'll defer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's rare that I would feel the need to ask for
it. In this case, I really think it's just such a small slope
that is one of the rare cases. And normally we do work with you
on that because it's normally bulkhead construction we deal with
the buffer, home construction will deal with the drywell. I just
think every application is different. I just think this is a rare application
where I would prefer if you would do it on this particular application.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would agree with that, too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any comments?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does that work for you, in this case?
MR. HERRMANN: I mean, my conversation with my client, I have a
feeling may come up with the same thing for Mr. Van Bourgondien,
who is the property next door. I know that their indication is
that they did not want to have to bear the additional expense in
dealing with the drywells because that starts to create a whole
sort of second project, and I don't know if that then requires
them to start dealing with the Engineering Department and all of that.
But, his suggestion, Mr. Olsen's suggestion to me was well
if we accede to the wider buffer, does that not resolve some of
the concerns about the runoff. But ultimately, you know, it's
your decision. We are not going to ask, you know, you to deny
the permit over drywells, but.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And normally I would agree with you. But for
this particular house, and I can't speak for the other
application, and honestly I don't have the notes in front of me
and can't remember, but this particular house had those typical
old-school gutters just running straight toward the creek. So
Board of Trustees 28 November 15, 2017
in this case I would like to stick with the drywells on this one. So.
Is there anyone else here to speak to this application or
do you have any other comments?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
with plans depicting a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer and a
drywell for the gutters which are approaching the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of ELIZABETH
VAN BOURGONDIEN request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 91 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; incidentally dredge 5' wide area
adjacent to bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4 MLW and use
approximately 10 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil as backfill; and
to establish and perpetually maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer
along newly constructed bulkhead. Located: 875 Hill Road,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-26
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 8th, and
the notes indicate a ten-foot non-turf buffer and drywells for
the gutters to leaders to those drywells.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC on November 8th voted to support the application with
the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
Looking at the plans it appears there is a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
MR. HERRMANN: No, it's five. We show approximate backfill limit
of ten feet with a non-turf buffer of five feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: My error.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
applicant, Mr. Van Bourgondien who is also here.
This property is adjacent to the property that was the subject of
the prior hearing, a little simpler. There is no deck proposed, no dock;
just the in-place replacement of the bulkhead. And here again-we
propose a five-foot non-turf buffer just generally because of the
narrowness of the lawn between the house and the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is this one the same things with the gutters
and drywell?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't remember. I remember the house but I
don't remember the gutters.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't remember the gutters either. But
certainly have drywells with the slopes.
Board of Trustees 29 November 15, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think it's pretty much the same physical
conditions that exist here as next door. And for the sake of
uniformity we would like ten-foot non-turf buffer and the drywells.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not going to spend time arguing it because I
don't think you'll render an inconsistent decision.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Very good. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application with the
condition that the there be a ten-foot non-turf buffer and
drywells with gutters to leaders to those drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Respectfully submitted by,
o
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
:os�A�.
DEC 1 8 2017 U M
Y�
uthold Town Clerk