HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/13/2017 Michael J. Domino,President ��0� S0 - Town Hall Annex
John M. Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ,`O 01
0 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Charles J. Sanders Southold, New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith • Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas KrupskiyOUUNT`I,
O Fax(631) 765-6641
� ��
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
REC'E LVED
Minutes l° I'-03�r1
FEB 1 5018
Wednesday, December 13, 2017 �
5:30 PM Southold Town Clerk
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, 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, January 9, 2018 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 5:00
PM at the Main Meeting Hall
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 4:OOPM in the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Board Room
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 15, 2017.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our December 13th, 2017 monthly
meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order.
I would like to announce the people on the dais. To my immediate left, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith and Trustee Nick
Krupski. To my right is Assistant Town attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell. Also with us tonight we have our stenographer Wayne Galante, and
from the Conservation Advisory Council, John Stein.
I would like to announce the agendas are located on the podium and out in the
hallway. Postponements. Tonight we have two postponements:
Page eight, number 14, Stacey Bishop on behalf of FORDHAM HOUSE LLC,
Board of Trustees 2 December 13, 2017
c/o DENIS BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a t1,167sq.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 t45' seaward; approximately 15' seaward of proposed 28' long
parallel retaining wall, install a t3' 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 has been postponed.
And on page nine, number 15, AMP Architecture on behalf of WILLIAM GRELLA
& GARY OSBORNE request a Wetland Permit for the as-built 232sq.ft. Belgium block
parking area; as-built 121sq.ft. Belgium block walkway; as-built 517.3sq.ft. managed
lawn areas; as-built 240sq.ft. gardens; as-built 160.5sq.ft. crushed shell areas; as-built
22 3sq.ft. metal planter box; as-built 14.3sq.ft. metal waterfall; as-built 15sq.ft. rear
concrete stairs; as-built 713sq.ft. pavers on sand; as-built 95sq.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) 7.2sq.ft. concrete table bases; as-built 16sq.ft. front
concrete stairs; and for the proposed installation of a 46.4sq.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 27sq.ft. of pavers on sand. Located: 1200 First Street, New
Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-30 has been postponed.
I would like to announce at this time under Town Code 275-8(c), that files are
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 January 9th,
2018, at 8:00 AM, at the town annex here on the second floor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting on January 17th, 2018, at 5:30 PM, here at the main
meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next
Work session at the Town Hall Annex board room on the second
floor, on Friday, January 12th, 2018, at 4:30, and at 5:00 PM
January 17th, 2018, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll also mention that our annual organizational
meeting will be Thursday, January 4th, at 4:00 PM, at the Town
Board of Trustees 3 December 13, 2017
Annex on the second floor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of
the November 15, 2017 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for November 2017. A check for
$7,903.26 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 VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 13, 2017, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association SCTM# 1000-37-4-18
Southold Sunsets, LLC SCTM# 1000-54-4-3
P. M. V. Family, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-1-38.2
Robert & Rita Reis Wiezcorek SCTM# 1000-53-5-8
Joseph J. D'Angelo SCTM# 1000-115-11-20
Lucinda Barnes SCTM# 1000-40-1-21
Estate of Fred Adler SCTM# 1000-90-3-13
Richard &Amy Braunstein SCTM# 1000-114-1-7.2
Petrowski Living Trust, c/o Richard Petrowski SCTM# 1000-122-3-14
Dimitrios & Irene Antoniadis SCTM# 1000-15-1-4
Robert Rengifo & Sara Collins SCTM# 1000-53-4-14
Koehler Family Limited Partnership SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
Kathryn A. Campbell SCTM# 1000-66-2-12 (Dominant) & 1000-66-2-13 (Servient)
7325 Nassau Point Road, LLC, c/o Jeffrey Abrams SCTM# 1000-118-4-1
Robert & Patricia Elliott SCTM# 1000-110-7-11.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 4 December 13, 2017
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Roman numeral IV, resolutions for
administrative permits. Number one, 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; and to remove
three (3) dead trees located in the rear yard. Located: 280
Luptons Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-22
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP.
Whereas the Board performed a field inspection on December
5th of this year and discussed aspects with the owner that we
had concerns with, led to a field inspection report that it was
okay to remove the flagged trees which were largely dead or
scarred and/or invasive.
The Board felt that it was inappropriate to have sprinklers
seaward of the retaining wall because that would encourage
fertilizer to get into the creek. And there is an area of
disturbance near the water that indicates, where it is
indicators there was some minor fill placed on top of the native
soils, and the Board wants to see that area to be replanted with
native planting, allowing for a four-foot path to access the
creek. Deep Hole Creek.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application
subject to the stipulations that the Board developed as a result
of their field inspection.
Move to prove the removal of the trees, approve the
construction and removal of the fence as indicated in the permit
but that sprinklers shall be limited to landward of the
retaining wall and that native plantings such as high tide bush
or blueberries or eastern red cedars in an area of disturbance
adjacent to the water allowing for a four-foot wide path to Deep
Hole Creek. That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of ELSIE
TIETJEN LIVING REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative Permit
to construct a 10'x18' (180sq.ft.) second-floor open deck onto
the front of the dwelling. Located: 7625 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-104-4-27.2
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 5th and
noted that it was a simple add-on and it was straightforward.
Board of Trustees 5 December 13, 2017
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
program.
Therefore, I make a motion to prove this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of LINDA
ONG SAFINA requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
335sq.ft. wood deck and steps in place of existing 339sq.ft.
deck and steps in same location, and replace existing gravel
patio with planter at front of house; install pool equipment,
and construct 40sq.ft. of outdoor shower enclosure in place of
existing LP tank enclosure on east side of dwelling (gravel
shower drain to connect to dedicated drywell); construct 3'x12'
wood steps in place of existing 2'x12' wood steps at rear of
dwelling; reconstruct in place 66sq.ft. portion of existing
148sq.ft. Deck to be removed, remove existing pergola over deck,
and construct new 10' x 17' open lattice pergola over
reconstructed deck and existing gravel patio area to remain on
west side of house; and remove and install various stepping
stones located partially within Chapter 275 jurisdiction.
Located: 2855 Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-1
On 5 December 2017, all the Trustees inspected this
property. The notes are that the LWRP has resolved to -- has
found this consistent. The only note that we had was request
for drywells.
So I move to approve this application with the addition of
gutters to leaders to drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, ARTHUR W. HAHN IV & RUSSEL W.
HAHN request an Administrative Permit for the as-built seaward
side 12'x15' wooden deck. Located: 2295 Bay Shore Road,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-15
The Trustees conducted inspection on December 5th.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
was that the as-built structure was constructed without a
wetland permit.
So I make a motion to approve this application thereby
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
Board of Trustees 6 December 13, 2017
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER. Under Roman numeral V, Applications for
extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. Items one
and two refer to a prior request for transferring permits on the
same property, and I would ask that we deal with both as a group
since the field inspection covered both.
Number one is Joseph Frohnhoefer on behalf of MAMIE CHIANG
& GORDON LAU requests 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
Number two is Joseph Frohnhoefer on behalf of MAMIE CHIANG
& GORDON LAU requests 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
The Trustees performed a field inspection on the
5th of December, having been to the site on the prior month's
field inspections, and it was noted that the request to transfer
is not able to be processed because the structures do not exist
and there is no functionality in the structures.
We met with the applicant and discussed the need for
getting a wetland permit application in for the construction and
alteration that started without the benefit of a permit, and
provided some guidance for the possible submission of that permit.
Accordingly, I would move to deny application number one
Joseph Frohnhoefer on behalf of Mamie Chiang and Gordon Lau, and
number two, Joseph Frohnhoefer on behalf of Mamie Chiang and
Gordon Lau. Deny both applications without prejudice.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just have to recuse myself from these two votes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Request a roll call vote from the chairman.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roll call vote. Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Trustee Sanders, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Recused).
MR. HAGAN: Trustee Goldsmith is a recusal.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, in order to simplify
matters, the Trustees sometimes group together applications that
are deemed to be similar in nature or minor in nature.
Accordingly, I would make a motion to approve as a group number
three through eight and ten through 13. They are listed as
follows.
Number three, Docko, Inc. on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8723 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#8723C, as issued on January 20, 2016.
Located: Fox Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-9-3-1
Number four, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of AR
AN BHA', LLC request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8875 from Victor and
Board of Trustees 7 December 13, 2017
Mary Zupa to AR AN BHA', LLC, as issued on September 21, 2016.
Located: 4565 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-13.1
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of ANTONIOS
DAGOUNAKIS & MARIA SISKOS request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#279, as issued on April 24, 1986.
Located: 55585 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM# 1000-44-1-13
Number six,En-Consultants on behalf of ANTONIOS DAGOUNAKIS
& MARIA SISKOS request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6655 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#6655C, as issued on June 20, 2007, and
Amended on November 19, 2008, and Amended again on June 24,
2009. Located: 55585 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#
1000-44-1-13
Number seven, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelly Dubin &
Quartararo, LLP on behalf of GEORGE HOCHBRUECKNER request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#3956, as issued on October 18, 1991;
and Wetland Permit#1794, as issued on February 28, 1984 from
Bertram W. Walker to George Hochbrueckner. Located: 350
Macdonalds Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-14.1
Number eight, 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; and for an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#1161 for the existing 12'x12' landward deck with
railings and staircase down to the fixed dock. Located: 1130
West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
Number ten, D.K.R. Shores Inc. on behalf of RONALD SCHWALB
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7448 to
install a 15' long vinyl return extension to existing westerly
return. Located: 3105 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-6
Number eleven, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of ALAN &
SHARON EIDLER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8836 to allow for the fixed catwalk to be installed 4' above grade.
Located: 1052 Canoe Path, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-12-3.1
Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of BEXSTOREN, LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8960 for
the installation of pool enclosure fencing; a 712sq.ft. on-grade
masonry walkway in lieu of the approved 646sq.ft. on-grade
masonry walkway; 77 linear feet of 24" high stone in lieu of the
approved 40 linear feet of 18" high wall off the northeast
corner of the dwelling, the addition of 28 linear feet of 15"
high stone wall off the southeast corner of the dwelling; and a
177sq.ft. landward expansion of the previously approved
983sq.ft. lower deck, resulting in a proposed 1,160sq.ft. lower deck.
Located: 625 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-1
Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID SCHULTZ
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8752 to
raise the existing one-story, single-family dwelling 24 inches
to a proposed first floor elevation of 11.1; to construct a new
roof addition over the existing first story in lieu of the
previously approved second-story addition, which has been
eliminated; to construct a one-story rather than a two-story
Board of Trustees 8 December 13, 2017
addition in place of the existing deck to be removed; to
construct 5'x10' steps attached to the previously approved
6'x10' porch on south side of house; and to construct a
5.3'x4.5' porch with 3.5'x5' steps on east side of house.
Located: 2745 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-2-3
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
MR. HERRMANN: Mike, Would you repeat those numbers?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Three through eight and ten through 13.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, I would like to recuse myself from.
MR. HAGAN: Note for the record Trustee Krupski has recused
himself from number nine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, KRUPSKI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
c/o JOHN P. KRUPSKI, JR., KRUPSKI FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
c/o JOHN P. KRUPSKI, JR., requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7665 to add approximately 200 cubic yards of
clean fill and plant a 5' wide non-turf vegetated buffer area
along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 6025 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-13-7
Trustee Krupski has recused himself. Accordingly, I'll make
a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Sanders,
aye. Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, recused).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral seven, public hearings. At this
time I'll take a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into our public hearings. That's a motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter following
applications for permits under the Wetland 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 topic at hand, organized and brief, and five minutes or
less, if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7949 to remove ±100' of
Board of Trustees 9 December 13, 2017
remains of existing Cori-Log debris; and construct ±100 linear
feet of new rock and stone retainer in-place. Located: Fox
Island In Spring Pond, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-18
The Trustees are familiar with this location. We did an
inspection last month.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
LWRP.
The Town's Conservation Advisory Council on Wednesday,
December 6th, resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John A. Costello, and I'll try and
answer any questions the Board may have in regard to this
application. As you could probably see by the photographs that
were submitted, the attempt to secure this area and reduce the
energy on the island with coir logs did not succeed very well.
As a matter of fact we have been picking them up little by
little to try to keep them out of the water as a navigational
hazard. There are, all the stakes that were put in to secure
them in place and a lot of the tying, they were tied in place,
we tried to remove most of that, but there is still many of the
stakes that need to be removed so no one gets hurt, and we are
going to try to put in a small rock revetment in its place.
The rock revetment is going to be one larger rock at the
base. That will be 50% into the beach and it will be down,
probably, not quite to low water so that it does, should the
front of that erode, that rock will hold the remaining smaller
rocks. All the rocks that remain above that will be terraced on
filter cloth, field textile filter cloth, on a slope of about 30
to 35 degrees, so it doesn't bounce off there but it will absorb
the energy and just try to keep that shoreline stable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We noted on field inspection that if the storm
comes from the southeast, it has quite a fetch there and it's a
high energy area.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the whole structure is above the high water
and spring high water, but not storm tides, as evident.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 10 December 13, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Michael Kimack on
behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling,
decks and foundation; construct on a piling system to elevate
the finished floor to 16ft. elevation a proposed 957.77sgf.ft.
one-story, single-family dwelling with a combined 262.75sq.ft.
of seaward side porch area with 7.6' wide stairs to ground, and
side deck area with 4' wide stairs to ground. Located: 4200
Kenny's Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-3
The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council made an
inspection and they made no further comment from previous
reviews. They continue to be concerned about the preservation
of the primary dune.
I do not see that we have received an LWRP report for the
current iteration of this project.
The Trustees performed a review of this project on December
5th, and noted that the house construction met code requirements
but there was a question that we did not note a sanitary system
on the plans, which I wish to be corrected on if we missed
something. And also we have a letter to the file with concern
from a John and Catherine Katrimanos. They were requesting to
know that they received a copy of the new proposal for the new
dwelling. The new proposal on lot drawing indicates the home is
going to be a two-story house however on your notice of hearing
it indicates a one-story single-family dwelling with the first
floor at 16-feet above sea level. Please advise which document
is correct. I'm attaching a copy of the proposal I received as
well as a copy of the notice at the site. Very truly yours,
John and Catherine Katrimanos.
And in response to this, Trustee President Michael Domino
inquired of the Town Building Department what this meant. And
the Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity responded for
clarification, he explained that the new proposal is for a
one-story ranch-style house but by New York State law requires
that a structure elevated over six feet on pilings be described
as a two-story structure. It's a matter of the requirement of
the New York State building code. So to provide clarification
for anyone who is here who was concerned about an apparent
difference between what is submitted and in fact what is on the
plan, to clarify that.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? I was just
reading from the letter that Michael Domino had responded with
respect to the information from Principal Building Inspector to
Mr. And Mrs. Katrimanos and also for the benefit of anyone who
is here.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Let me
take you through this. The application had been before you on a
much larger, grander scale, and it had received a rejection
without prejudice and has set ground rules in terms of what
Board of Trustees 11 December 13, 2017
would be required in terms of a reintroduction back to the
Trustees of an application.
To that extent, I draw your attention to Mark Schwartz'
drawings, basically, I want to take you through this, to show
you that the proposed drawing does meet the resolution
expectations. If you look at A-1 on the drawing, on the main
sheet there, it shows the existing house and proposed house. To
make sure that we are not on violation of the 25%, the existing
house area of 886.64 was increased to 957.77, which is
seven-and-a-half per cent increase. So that was not an issue.
Having said that, though, if you take a look at the total square
footage of both, the original house is about 1,275. The new
proposal is about 1,220. So it's about 55-square foot less.
But more importantly, in order to assure the Board that it stays
within the confines of what is there when it's raised, if you
look at the dimensions of the existing house, front to back,
it's 31.8, front to back, and then 39.11 across. And the new
proposed house is exactly that. So there is no change, even
though what it is, it's less deck and a little bit more house.
It's about 55-square feet overall less. But primarily exactly
the same dimensions going around, including the decks all the
way around. So there is not, from that perspective, the house
is being designed, the new house is being designed pretty much
within the same footprint that exists at present and will be
raised accordingly. If I could refer you to the next sheet,
which is A-2 on this. You'll see on this one that the first
floor existing elevation is 11.4. Primarily. First-floor
elevation. And that the overall house from there is 15.1 high.
Skipping to A-3, with that information, the proposed house first
floor elevation is 16 foot proposed. The reason is that the VE
line is 13. In this particular case.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that louder?
MR. KIMACK: The VE line is 13 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The velocity of zone for, under FEMA
regulations.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, and we are going to 16. It requires a minimum
of two at least, and we wanted to clear the first floor. So 16
was chosen. But if you also look you'll see how the proposed
building is exactly the same 15.1, of the existing house. So
essentially, the house is being recreated, pretty much in the
same parameter like that, the same dimensions, but about
four-and-a-half-feet higher elevation going from 11.4 to 16 in
the same spot, raising it up.
As regard to the septic system, the plan does show the
location. I talked with Mark Terry today and I asked him
exactly what his concern was and apparently what Mark wanted us
to show on there was not so much the location but he wanted the
dimensions of the exterior in terms of finding out what was
there. Obviously I didn't have time to go up for the day and I
didn't want to be down by the water anyway. But what I did
propose is that I will next week or so get out there and we'll
Board of Trustees 12 December 13, 2017
determine the location, what we've got in the ground and how far
from the property line. That seemed to be Mark's major concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the record, 1 do have a communication
that we received from Mark Terry to Clerk Cantrell concerning
that, and that would have been precisely I think what this Board
would be looking for would be dimensions of the system in
relation to the existing dune and restoration of the dune over
and around the sanitary system which might have, the Health
Department may have a controlling feature in that depending on
whether they are going with infiltration galleries or
conventional five four or even innovative alternative systems,
if available, if they have concerns.
MR. KIMACK: When we had submitted the last one, we had
basically put the new proposed system into the primary dune.
Because it's the only way to go. The primary. On the back side
of it. We are not proposing a new system. Whether or not the
Building Department chooses to address that or so. Health
Department generally does not take that position as long as you
are not changing bedrooms. They don't have the form to indicate
you are getting a new one like that. Whether or not there is a
policy indicating if you do this you have to change it
regardless, that has not been imposed upon the project as such.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the Board would look for the dimensions
and Health approval of an existing system if you still want to
deal with that.
MR. KIMACK: I could tell you the existing system is behind the
house, not on the primary dune at all. So none of this is
primary dune, the existing system. I know essentially where it
is. I don't know exactly where it is, but I know the location.
And it's off the southeast corner of the house, primarily, near
the shed, but nowhere near-- not into the primary dune at all.
So we'll go out and stake it out and determine what its
parameter is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does the existing system include the very
basic septic tank?
MR. KIMACK: You know, I'm not sure if it's a septic tank or if
it's a cesspool.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems with a rebuild of a new house, I
don't want to speak for the Board out of turn here, we are still
in a hearing, but the basic standard for new construction with
the county is a septic tank and leaching pools. Anyhow, I just
want to mention that.
MR. KIMACK: I'm not quite sure what the trigger for that is.
Whether or not if you are doing a new house or--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll certainly want all information with
respect to the sanitary.
MR. KIMACK: Look, we recognize that the sanitary may become an
issue. We also recognize that as such we'll take the position
that until told otherwise, we are not changing the number of
bedrooms, the existing sanitary system is there. There isn't
anything in any application that you are modifying the system or
Board of Trustees 13 December 13, 2017
moving the system or extending the system, the Health Department
is certainly involved. But if you are not doing anything,
unless there a policy that the Building Department has or which
would be the only trigger that if you are doing a new house
completely, that in itself triggers a new septic system. That
would have to be advised. I don't know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I hate to do this, but as a point of
information, I started work with the Suffolk County Health
Department in 1975 inspecting homes that were required to put a
septic tank in and I find it unbelievable that you would offer
up that you'll try to build a house without even a new septic
tank. But that's just my individual --
MR. KIMACK: Well, I'm not quite sure what is there. We didn't do
the inspection. To be fair.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are far afield here, but it just seems to
me like this doesn't seem right. Okay.
MR. KIMACK: Did I give you enough information regarding the fact
that we stayed within the resolution structure?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In terms of the house?
MR. KIMACK: In terms of the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a public hearing but there seems to
be an understanding from the Board, absent additional comment,
that we missed something. It's fair to say there is an
understanding it seems to meet the tenor of the coastal erosion
hazard law and it obviously, it being essentially the same size
would not have a great impact to the wetland, but we have to
list a little more.
MR. KIMACK: I'll get you more information on the type of system
that is out there at that location.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And since we don't have an LWRP, we'll
continue with the comments for the hearing but since we have no
LWRP, you understand, absent the ability of Mark Terry to review
that and the Board to review that --
MR. KIMACK: Unfortunately, I didn't get that from Mark until
about three or four days ago.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one else approaching the podium, I'll make a motion to
table this application for additional information to be
submitted to the LWRP coordinator and the Trustees.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Request a five minute recess
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows.)
WETLAND PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 14 December 13, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number one under Wetland Permits,
En-Consultants on behalf of P. M. V. FAMILY, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and appurtenances,
construct a new two-story, single-family dwelling on a piling
foundation with attached covered deck and steps; install public
water service and a drainage system of leaders, gutters and
drywells; perpetually maintain a 10' wide natural vegetated
non-turf buffer seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
boundary; and install a new sanitary system (raised with
concrete retaining walls and approximately 150 cubic yards of
clean fill); and install a gravel driveway. Located: 450 Sound
Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-1-38.2
The Trustee notes state that this was a straightforward
application.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to
support this application.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Generally, this is a pretty straightforward
application. This was an application we had originally applied
for a letter of non-jurisdiction, we met with the Trustees and
the Trustees delineated a landward limit of a dune area which we
were asked to put on the survey. We had that added to the
survey and although we are pretty close to a few hundred feet
from the actual surface waters, we are within one-hundred feet
of the actual dune area which gives the Board jurisdiction.
But the plan is the same as initially presented. It is, I
think, somewhat similar to a project that was just approved next
door. We might want to take this chance, though, to just clear
up the buffer a little bit, because this is an application that
had gone through the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was a
recommendation by Mark Terry that under the LWRP, that the area
seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area line remain in a
natural condition.
Somehow it got written into the ZBA decision a ten-foot
wide buffer, adjacent, on the, within the coastal erosion area,
which I'm not sure makes a lot of sense, because it suggests
that the first ten feet seaward is non-turf and then anything
after that is not protected. But we show that on this plan
nonetheless because we made it to be consistent with the Zoning
Board decision.
So I would expect perhaps that the Board would clarify that
it's not just the ten-foot area but basically in simpler terms
it's just the area seaward of the coastal erosion line would
remain undisturbed unless there was some Trustee permit granted
to do something else.
We would ask if you impose that condition to that it would
Board of Trustees 15 December 13, 2017
allow for a four-foot pathway to get down to the beach. I mean
it's walkable now, we were all there. But that would be the
only thing I think you might want to clean up relative to the
ZBA determination. Because the ZBA condition it's just not
clear. I'm not sure whether it conveys what you want it to
convey. But you can let me know if my judgment on that is
correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That makes sense. In other words, no
disturbance from this line seaward of the coastal erosion area.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That would make it exactly with what you want
and make it appropriate.
MR. HERRMANN: And you don't need to include the water
"appurtenances" in there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Throwing in a Jay word.
So what I'm reading is, I'll back-read real quick to make
sure we are on the same page.
Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of this
particular application at this moment?
(Negative response).
Crickets. So I have anything seaward of the coastal erosion
will be natural, with a four-foot path to water.
MR. HERRMANN, To the beach
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, to the beach. I make a motion to close
the hearing
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the addition that the area seaward of the coastal erosion
line will be natural with a four-foot path to the beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of
ROBERT & RITA REIS WIECZOREK request a Wetland Permit to
construct a ±14' (max.) By t26' (max.) In-ground swimming pool,
raised t18" above grade with approximately 80 linear feet of
"Redi-Rock" retaining wall and approximately 25 cubic yards of
fill to be obtained from on-site excavation of swimming pool;
install pool equipment, pool enclosure fencing, and pool
drywell; replace approximately 285sq.ft. of existing impervious
driveway with pervious driveway surface; and maintain naturally
vegetated non-turf buffer areas within 10 feet of tidal and
freshwater wetland boundaries on the property. Located: 835
Tarpon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-53-5-8
The Trustees conducted field inspection on December 5th,
noting it was a straightforward application.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Board of Trustees 16 December 13, 2017
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Dave Chicanowicz from Creative Environment
Design is also here in case you have any questions.
Again, this is a reasonably straightforward application.
It is a swimming pool that meets the wetlands setbacks under
Chapter 275. It is difficult to find the right spot for a pool
here due to the wetlands on each side of the property. So to
mitigate for that we have not proposed any additional patio
areas, to stay above ground water, we have proposed that the
pool be elevated with fill and surrounded by Redi-rock retaining
wall system that Dave has designed, and we have proposed a
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer around both the tidal and fresh
water wetland boundaries that surround the west, north and east
sides of the property.
Most of those areas are already non-turf, but basically
that would sort of memorialize that condition for the property.
I think it was staked with multi-colors for the Board's
pleasure. So if you have any questions, Dave or I are here to
answer them. Otherwise that's all we have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does anyone else here wish to comment
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.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, Morano Expediting Service on
behalf of JOSEPH J. D'ANGELO requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1,946sq.ft. one-story dwelling; and to replace the
existing seaward side deck with a proposed 9'8"x16' (156sq.ft.)
sunroom for a total of 2,102sq.ft. Dwelling. Located: 490
Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-20
MS. LOSPISO: Good evening. Diana Lospiso.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me just run through the official stuff
first. Thank you.
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
And the Trustees visited this site on the 5th of December.
And the notes read they found this to be straightforward. And
then noted that there should be gutters and leaders to drywells
for the house.
Board of Trustees 17 December 13, 2017
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. LOSPISO: Diana Lospiso, Morano Expediting Services, 4
Hamilton Court, Coram. I'm here on behalf of the property owner
Joseph D'Angelo, and we are requesting permission for a proposed
sunroom addition on the rear of the existing dwelling which will
replace the existing deck. I know the Board did mention
regarding gutters and leaders and had wanted the plans to be
revised to reflect that. So I do have four copies of revised
pages of the plans, pages S-1 and R-1, that I will submit up to
the Board for their reference.
If the Board has any questions regarding the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, with that being said, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. LOSPISO: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, LUCINDA BARNES requests a Wetland
Permit to remove invasive/non-native vegetation and vines within
an approximate 9,OOOsq.ft. area landward of the top of bluff,
and re-vegetate area by planting native vegetation consisting of
low and high bush blueberries, beach grass, bayberry, and beach
plum; and to maintain the existing access path to the beach.
Located: 63875 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-21
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees did an inhouse review on December 5th and
noted that this application is, that we had previously visited
the site on October 23rd and the permit to conduct minor
clearing activities would benefit this property. We received a
letter from the Greenport Trustee Douglas Roberts. I won't read
the entire letter, but to characterize it, he's asking to be re-
assured that the plantings will be in accordance with standard
environmental practices to manage storm water runoff and protect
our waters. Accordingly, he filed a letter explaining that that
was in fact the case.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ZAHLER: Kenneth Zahler, I live next door to the property in
Board of Trustees 18 December 13, 2017
question. When I built the house next door to this, I contacted
the necessary parties, the Trustees, DEC, asked questions what
do I have to do to build stairs down to the beach. I was given
very specific requirements, the stairs had to be perforated so
that light and rain could penetrate to maintain the vegetation
to maintain the stability of the bluff. I was told it had to be
a certain number of inches above grade, et cetera. We did
exactly what we were told.
In this particular write up here it says and to maintain
existing access path to the beach. It was only existing for
about 18 months. It was just constructed by the present owner
and it did not follow any of the regulations that I did. It
was, it removed all the vegetation, it removed all the trees.
It created dirt terraces with no vegetative cover. And the
first time it was there was last winter. At the end of the
winter I was walking along the beach, and adjacent to the
property the entire beach is coated with a layer of silt as the
rain washed down over the dirt terraces.
My question is, is this particular area, constructing
stairs, I forgot who I applied to, is this within the purview of
the DEC or Southold Trustees?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Southold trustees.
MR. ZAHLER: Or both?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Essentially both.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially both have jurisdiction.
MR. ZAHLER: Okay. So having gone through what I went through and
looking next door and seeing that nothing of the sort was done,
and then seeing that this says maintain existing access path,
there is no way that the way it was constructed it can be
maintained to be geologically stable. And I would not care
except for the fact that about 50 feet away is my property. And
if erosion begins on this exposed dirt, and the typical spread,
if you look it up, it will arrive at my property. I'm
concerned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well put.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Did you get permit from DEC and from us for the
stairs that you built?
MR. ZAHLER: Yes, I did. And like I said, I followed all the
regulations.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Understanding that, you didn't notice any
postings or mailings on any of the steps that you had gone
through regarding the stairs that you --
MR. ZAHLER: There were none. The only posting was for what just
happened for this evening.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for that answer. You didn't call the
code enforcement officers or tell this Board that there was a
potential violation.
MR. ZAHLER: I stopped at the Building Department and I expressed
concern.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Was that recently? When that path was first
existing, I think you said 18 or 12 months ago --
Board of Trustees 19 December 13, 2017
MR. ZAHLER: Maybe a year ago, maybe last spring after the first
winter when I was alarmed at seeing the silt washing down across
the beach. And anticipating what would follow. Yes, I stopped
down and I expressed concern to the Building Department. And
then I let it ride. I went to the building department and I let
it ride. I didn't know what was going to come of it. Then I
got this in the mail, so I thought to come here and speak to you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Unfortunately, you went to the wrong department.
MR. ZAHLER- I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Unfortunately, you should have come to the
Trustees office.
Part of this application as it exists before us now is to
address the adjudication of this. There was a violation on the
property for the stairs that you are discussing, and again, part
of this application is to address that deficiency.
MR. ZAHLER: I don't see that written here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It wouldn't be.
MR. ZAHLER: I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It wouldn't be written here.
MR. HAGAN: There was a past code enforcement prosecution with
regard to this property. This re-vegetation plan that is being
presented is being done so pursuant to a plea bargain
arrangement that was made therein, and is focusing on the
replanting of native species in the area in order to maintain
and rebuild soil revitalization as pursuant to Trustees request.
MR. ZAHLER: Can you explain to me how that has any relevance to
the exposed raw dirt forming the terraces that allow someone to
walk down to the beach?
MR. HAGAN: That's a question for the Trustees.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm going to propose that we table this to give
the Trustees an opportunity to view this onsite again to see if
there is in fact your allegations are in fact need to be
addressed. Okay?
MR. ZAHLER: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments or questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of the ESTATE OF FRED ADLER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 24'x40' two-story, single family
dwelling with a 15'x20' attached deck on northwesterly side of
dwelling; install a gravel driveway, install a sanitary system
landward of dwelling; and connect to public water. Located: 415
Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-13
The project is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP.
The project has been inspected by the Conservation Advisory
Board of Trustees 20 December 13, 2017
Council with concerns of the alignment of the proposed footprint
and the impacts on the rear setback.
The LWRP coordinator is suggesting that a 25-foot
non-disturbance buffer, non-fertilization buffer is required for
this, a lot of this size and this building zone. And I believe
that is on the plans itself, a 25-foot wide non-disturbance
buffer, non-fertilization buffer is on the plans.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant, Estate of Fred Adler. This is exactly the
same plan that was previously approved by this Board
two-and-a-half years ago. We made no changes whatsoever. The
setbacks are the same. The wetland boundary is the same. So
all I would say is we would make that proceeding part of this
proceeding. We have been through all this and I'm here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
We viewed this as fairly straightforward on field inspection.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one coming forward, I'll make my motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve this application noting
the plans do depict a 25-foot non-disturbance, non-fertilization
buffer as required, and that the land use plan effectively
addresses concerns of the Conservation Advisory Council.
That's my motion
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
RICHARD & AMY BRAUNSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to install 90
linear feet of Coir Log stabilization with associated native
plantings; installation of 12 linear feet of interlocking
rip-rap along shoreline under existing fixed dock; installation
of four (4) 8" diameter CCA treated piles on landward end of
existing fixed dock; installation of 4'x4' stairs for beach
access off of dock; and to install one (1) additional 6'x20'
floating dock fastened onto the 6' wide northeasterly section of
existing 6'x20' floating dock and piles with existing outer
tie-off pile to be used as a float securing pile. Located: 1885
Home Pike, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-7.2
On the 5th of December, all Trustees were present when we
Board of Trustees 21 December 13, 2017
went to the inspection and the notes say no additional float.
The LWRP has deemed this to be consistent, but with the
reference of the one additional 6x20 float dock fastened onto
the six-foot wide northeasterly section. They find that to be
inconsistent. Protect and restore, under 6.3, protect and
restore tidal and fresh water wetlands.
Then under the Conservation Advisory Council, they have
resolved to support this.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. The
existing --well, let me back up. The request, it looks like
there are no comments or issues with the shoreline stabilization
or adding the piles or the stairs.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Correct.
MR. PATANJO: I guess the topic of conversation tonight is going
to be the additional 6x20 float. When Mr. and Mrs. Braunstein
purchased the property there was an additional float there,
which was permitted, under, looks like Jim Heath (sic) had a
permit#5162 for a previous approval of that float. He had
since submitted an application rescinding that float, however,
when Mr and Mrs. Braunstein bought the property, it was there,
they intended on putting a boat there of larger size, which is
more than adequate in that area. The way that they wanted to
point their boat, they needed a larger float to get in there.
So the DEC application, they already sent me, I don't have a
permit from them yet. They had asked for some additional
information on the coir logs, on the rip rap and on the float,
such as water depths, which we do meet the requirement of 30
inches of water at mean low tide. And there was no objection
from the DEC for the float. And I guess the primary basis of
this, the request for the additional float, would be for the
size of the boat that they would like to dock there. And in the
past we have made some consideration for the size of a float
based on the size of the boat and location.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Could one float be removed and the other one
put in that position to give the depth?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the concern is if there was a prior
dock on the property and property right associated with the
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is two piles on either side, right?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The piles that are still there can be used to
hook them up. We really don't need the bigger float.
MR. PATANJO: Well, the additional float is primarily to help
stabilize the boat as well as boarding and unboarding the boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It might be advisable to table the
application to perform a historical research on whether the
Board had prior restrictions that it was to be downsized upon
sale. There may be something, we may have something archived
with respect to past practice restriction of the Board.
TRUSTEE SANDERS- Can it be approved taking that out? Deny
Board of Trustees 22 December 13, 2017
without prejudice?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No. What he's suggesting is the right way to
go. Table it.
MR. PATANJO: I just spoke to Mr. Braunstein, who happens to be
here. He would like to, just to protect the shoreline, which is
eroding right now, he would like to get the project completed in
a timely manner. So what we would like to do is remove the 6x20
float, if it will be a situation for a tabling or postponement
of the application, and we'll come back to you. If that's
something that is amicable.
MR. HAGAN: Just so I understand. So you are asking to rescind
that second half of your application at this time, and you would
be looking to re-apply for--
MR. PATANJO: Re-apply for the 6x20. All other items remain as
is according to the application. Unless Elizabeth has something
else to add that we'll get approved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of this applicant?
(Negative response.)
Anymore thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response.)
All right, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve a portion of this
application while denying the section that has been rescinded by
the applicant with regard to the float.
MR. HAGAN: Just for the sake of technicality, you are not
denying the second section, you are just recognizing that there
has been a rescission of the second section. So the question is
not even before the Trustees now.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you need me to restate that?
MR. HAGAN: Yes
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. I rescind with regard to denying.
Rescind that. We are not going to be addressing the issue with
regard to the float because the applicant has rescinded with
regard to the float.
MR. HAGAN: That's your understanding, correct?
MR. PATANJO: Correct. And we'll submit revised drawings
indicating no float.
MR. HAGAN: So now you can move to approve the first half.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. So I make a motion to approve the
following: As written on the application, a request for a
wetland permit to install 90 linear feet of coir log
stabilization with associated native plantings; installation of
12 linear feet of interlocking rip-rap along shoreline under
existing fixed dock; installation of four (4) 8" diameter CCA
treated piles on landward end of existing fixed dock;
installation of 4'x4' stairs for beach access of dock. The rest,
the remaining has been rescinded That's my motion.
Board of Trustees 23 December 13, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you
MR. PATANJO, Thank you
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number seven, L. K. McLean Associates, P.C.
on behalf of PETROWSKI LIVING TRUST, c/o RICHARD PETROWSKI
requests a Wetland Permit to remove 92.4' of existing wood
bulkhead and install in-place a new vinyl bulkhead with dead-man
system; install and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; and to restore
any other disturbed areas using top soil and grass seed
Located: 235 East Legion Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-14
The Trustees have been to this site previously. We did an
inhouse and discussed it at our most recent work session.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the area delineated and labeled "existing area
to be excavated as needed for proposed work" on page four of the
plans, is larger than normal, and could impact wetlands and
wetlands vegetation on the western portion of the property.
In the event the action is approved, require erosion
control and turbidity controls in appropriate locations.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, however questioned the compliance of the additional
floating dock.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PETROWSKI: Richard Petrowski.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As far as the LWRP concerns with that
excavation area, is there any reason why it's such a large --
MR. PETROWSKI: Basically we are making it just as small as
possible, just enough to dig and that's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was an equipment issued -- ordinarily
construction would be with a small Bobcat or backhoe. Was it
the fact you only had access to a larger piece of equipment and
needed to --
MR. PETROWSKI- My plan was to use an excavator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's the concern of the LWRP
coordinator. It was a larger area, about twice the size we
ordinarily see for doing excavation for a retaining structure.
MR. PETROWSKI: Whatever gets removed will be put back in place.
I do landscaping for a business so I'll make it look nice.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the question on the additional floating
dock?
MR. PETROWSKI: The additional floating dock is basically like a
crabbing vessel, but there is no reason for that to stay there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 24 December 13, 2017
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we covered everything.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just make sure the disturbed area is minimal.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you want to put a limit on it, as far as
20 feet or something?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll 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
with the condition that the disturbance be limited to the
minimum distance possible, and also the removal of the second
floating dock. That would bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eight, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf
of DIMITRIOS & IRENE ANTONIADIS requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing 1,982.3 sq.ft. dwelling; to construct a 20.5'x25'
second floor addition over the existing west side 16'x24.2'
first floor section of the dwelling; construct a 4.5'x28.5'
covered porch onto west side of dwelling; and for the 985sq.ft.
of existing seaward side decking with steps to ground Located:
3300 North Sea Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-1-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
The Trustees visited this site on the 5th of December. The
notes are plans are okay as submitted. Need additional ten-foot
non-turf buffer addition. Needs gutters to leaders to drywells.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding that application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore here on behalf of the Antoniadis
family. They are here. I also have Brett Kehl who is the
design professional.
This is pretty straightforward as a second floor over the
existing house. The original house was built in the '70s and it
has been added to in the past, but that's why we put it into the
permit since when your regulations changed now the house is
within the permit jurisdiction. So we do have drywells and
gutters already, I think, yes. The house has gutters and leaders
to drywells. And we'll just add as needed for the addition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are they depicted on the plan at all? I think
I looked and didn't see them. But I could be wrong.
MS. MOORE: If it's not on the survey, we can have it added, or
hand drawn in, if that's acceptable. The location will depend,
I think on capacity of the other ones.
We thought maybe we had a site plan.
MR. ANTONIADIS: It should be right on the first page, the bottom.
MS. MOORE: We don't give you construction drawings so that's why
-- okay. Let me include here, I have the construction and the
Board of Trustees 25 December 13, 2017
drainage parameters
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI- Rather than do this, can you just submit a new
set?
MS. MOORE: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then in terms of the buffer.
MS. MOORE: My memory is that it already has a pretty well
vegetated buffer along the top of the bluff. It's low, as I
recall. Do you want additional there?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically we would like to require, before
the breakpoint in the bluff, we would like to have a, minimize
direct application of fertilizer. That can be a manner of
non-turf materials or can be a flower garden of natives.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I don't recall the measurement. Five feet?
Because we already have some -- it looks like --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI. I would be comfortable going to the break,
which would be probably even with the deck. Which is probably
about ten.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just in rough figures. I would say a straight
line in-line with the deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. We saw in field inspection we were
trying to discern what would be reasonable and seem to go with
the landform.
MS. MOORE: Right, it starts mounding down.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Right around that first step of the deck.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Not a problem. They are very accommodating.
MR. KEHL: Brett Kehl. And the drywell is one six-foot diameter
by four-foot deep, to accommodate the full roof system over the
whole addition, second floor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application, or any comment from the board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
with the following amendments- New plans depicting the new
buffer, which will bring it even with the deck, roughly ten
feet, and also included on said plans, gutters and leaders to drywells.
MS. MOORE: Additional drywell or all the ones that are there already?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we are doing a new build, so, it should
include the drywells for the house.
MS. MOORE: They are already there. Okay, we'll give you what we have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
ROBERT RENGIFO & SARA COLLINS request a Wetland Permit to
Board of Trustees 26 December 13, 2017
demolish existing dwelling, wood deck, and abandon/remove
existing sanitary system; construct new dwelling with attached
decks within a 38'x60' footprint; new 11'9"x14'2" pervious
staircase to ground using thru-flow decking, construct a
19'5"x27'6" pergola structure of roof of dwelling; install new
sanitary system landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders
to drywells, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town
Code-Stormwater Management; construct new permeable driveway
landward of dwelling; install subsurface water and electric
surfaces; and for the existing 75' wide Redi-Rock block
retaining wall. Located: 3300 North Sea Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-1-4
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 5th and
noted that the proposed house shown in blue on the survey
received October 16th, 2017, would be seaward of the neighboring
homes, and that in fact the existing home which is showing in
red on the same survey was in fact seaward of the mean line
between the neighboring properties. And therefore, it does not
meet 275, Chapter 275 requirements.
The LWRP coordinator found this inconsistent, however,
noticed that the building should have been moved to relocate the
structure further from the tidal wetlands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore. I also have Mr. Rengifo here.
This is the design that was chosen because it is a one-level
house. It has to be raised to meet flood elevations, so the
size is not particularly large, it's just a very tight property
because of the location of the existing retaining wall.
The property is bisected completely in half. They own all
the way, an additional, looks like they probably have about 70
more feet to the high water mark. But the area of construction
is all the way close to the street. So the homes here are all
very tight. And as far as placing them in line with the other
homes, that forces us to move closer to the wetlands and closer
to the road, and we have to -- pardon me, closer to the road.
And, we have to meet front yard setbacks So the zoning
dictates here where we can put the house. Most of the homes
that are on this block probably were built prior to zoning so
that the front yard setbacks of 35 feet didn't have to be met.
But now they do. So that is our predicament.
When the time comes that the other homes get renovated or
replaced, they too will have similar setbacks because they'll
want to be as far away from the retaining walls plus also
meeting the 35-foot front yard setback. So there is a tight
building envelope where everyone will, all the homes will start
building in line as they are renovated or replaced.
So it's a practical situation where we are dealing with
pre-existing nonconforming lots.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to you clarify something for me,
please, because shown in blue on the survey, as I referenced
Board of Trustees 27 December 13, 2017
before, is a 60'x38' structure. And the description of the
application, you are saying that it's staying within the same
footprint of the house, which to all intents and purposes is
much smaller. In fact when we --
MS. MOORE: No, the house is smaller but the deck, if you look at
the shadow of the decks that go around the house, that is
actually the same footprint as being applied, so. That's my
understanding of the design, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: But that's not how we calculate the footprint.
Footprint excludes decks.
MS. MOORE: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, the building code uses a footprint of all
impervious surfaces structures as the footprint. I don't know
how you guys, I'm not aware of you having a different definition.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's not the clarification I got from the
Building Department.
MS. MOORE: For 30 years, the footprint is the footprint, so. I
don't know. The Town attorney, have we ever heard of a
footprint being anything other than the existing footprint?
MR. HAGAN: A deck is not livable space.
MS. MOORE- It's not livable space but it's considered the
footprint.
MR. HAGAN: But you are using non-livable space to then expand
the walls of your proposed dwelling.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Absolutely, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Herein lies the problem that the Board has
because of the prohibition in Chapter 275 about homes being
located further seaward of the average setback of the neighbor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our hands are sort of tied in this situation
because we are bound by the code. It is what it is. I mean the
house as it lies, not including the deck, is directly in line
with the neighbor and slightly to the left and slightly ahead of
the neighbor to the right. So it's, I mean, we are sort of hands tied.
MS. MOORE: Well, but, I'm trying to look at, which, where, if
you look at the line of homes you can also see the one two
houses away is very close to the water So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct. The code says it's the mean
value of the adjacent properties. So you are limited to what is
east and west of you or north and south.
MS. MOORE: I understand. But you are penalizing the first one
to develop rather than the last one to develop. And the way I
read the code, it's not a prohibition, it's a guidance, let's
keep to the same line if you can. But I think it really depends
on the circumstances of the particular properties. Particularly
when you are dealing with pre-existing nonconforming. You are
trying to maintain a certain line, but these are seasonal
cottages that are now going to be the value of the properties,
they are going to become --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We also can't assume that the other neighbors
are going to build, obviously. So to say well this is the first
Board of Trustees 28 December 13, 2017
home that will build and everyone else will move forward, I
mean, we can't look into future projects, obviously, that are in
theory and space. We have to just stick to this application.
MS. MOORE: Well, I'm seeing a lot of different setbacks here so,
to the left --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was not my point, though.
MS. MOORE: No, I understand that. But if you are looking at
average, you have a whole bunch of different setbacks. So I
mean, we'll go back and re-evaluate. I don't want to get a
denial. I would rather just go back to the architect and see
what we can do and then work off the aerial to get an idea. But
I don't think you see any of these being real like in line. I
mean I could understand in line, but, you have kind of a zigzag
going along the entire groupings of, I don't think any one of
those are in line. To be honest with you. Sorry. I'm not
following your-- I mean if you are working in like a Mattituck
area where it's a relatively recent subdivision, you look to
your right and look to your left and everybody is pretty much
developed the same way. I don't see that here. Um, but I'll --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This would not be the first house in this
neighborhood that we have requested and people complied with our
request to move it further landward.
MS. MOORE: We can try. Actually, we have some flexibility
because we have a 40 foot front yard setback, and I see from the
architect he put a triangle there. So we may have to do some
re-working of this space.
Okay, why don't we, are we okay with postponing it rather
than, because most, I don't want to have to resubmit the entire
thing, if we have to adjust the building envelope.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Speaking for myself, that would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm okay with that.
MS. MOORE: All right, we'll look at building envelope and see
what we can do to move it more street direction. Okay, thank
you.
MR. HAGAN: That's postponed at the applicant's request.
MS. MOORE: Yes, postponed, at the applicant's request. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be tabled.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to table this application
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO- All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number ten, McCarthy
Management, Inc. on behalf of KOEHLER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
requests a Wetland Permit for an access easement along the
property line between Proposed Lots 2 and 3 consisting of
clearing a 10' wide access easement from the top of the bluff
Board of Trustees 29 December 13, 2017
down to a 20'x20' easement area against the edge of bank.
Located: 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
This project has been reviewed by the Conservation Advisory
Council and they resolved to support the application.
The LWRP coordinator is also involved in the land use
planning aspects of the project which is in a subdivision
application before the Planning Board, indicated that the
project is consistent under the LWRP, but specifically requested
that the Trustees would stipulate that no construction work
including clearing of vegetation can commence on the property
prior to the final plat plan approval unless the Planning Board
had specifically approved such activity in writing.
The Trustees have had, through the last several years, the
Chairs of the Trustees have had discussions amongst the Board
and with Planning Department representatives concerning a
right-size approach to providing access to Deep Hole Creek, and
this is a culmination of some of those discussions here.
The proposed right-of-way between lots two and three for
possible future vote of this Board would be to consider a dock
application that would be shared between those two lots. And the
right-of-way at the southerly end of the lot number three is to
provide for access to, individual path for, access by foot and
possibly for kayak.
The Board discussed at our field inspection and again at
our work session, after President Domino and myself conferenced
Mark Terry to acquire an understanding that there would be
specific restrictive covenants that could be put in to have a,
it stated explicitly that there would be no additional docks
other than the common dock right-of-way between two and three,
there would be no dock structure in the right-of-way in the
southern end of the proposed lot number three.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. MCCARTHY: Good evening. Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management
for the applicant. Thank you for the summary. I think that
goes over everything we looked to accomplish here. And the
purpose of that right-of-way is for a shared dock between two
and three. We are looking for the ten-foot wide access with a
four-foot wide foot path, and we'll come back to the Board for
perhaps steps going down the bluff to get access to a dock in
the future on the right-of-way between lots two and three. And
similarly on the right-of-way that is on the southerly side of
lot three, we are also looking for that ten-foot access with a
walking path, and will also look to propose stairs to transcend
the bluff to get down to the lower level. And that southerly
right-of-way is really anticipated for more of a passive use or
perhaps kayaks to come in and out of that location for the
non-waterfront property owners within the community.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very straightforward. Are there any
questions of the Board members?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be clear, it's a ten-foot right-of-way
Board of Trustees 30 December 13, 2017
but you are only going to clear a four-foot path?
MR. MCCARTHY: That's what we have proposed on the one between
lots two and three. That's what I believe is consistent with
the plan that was submitted to the Board. So we are looking for
ten foot. We are looking to keep the four feet open, but the
ten feet which would be burdened five feet on the northerly
parcel and five feet on the southerly parcel. And just for
clarity, we are not looking to clear the lower area of the bluff
that is 20x20. We are not looking to clear that, but we
understand we'll leave that easement area as the dock projects
out in order to cover it to either side of the property line so
that we are not impinging on either neighbor. And that's the
reason for the lower easement area. It's not meant to be cleared.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. CONNOR: I'm Constance Connor, I live on Deep Hole Creek, on
Deep Hole Drive. I can't begin to understand everything that is
going on, but I just happened to be out for a walk the other day
and happened to see the little sign on five acres of property.
And I'm sure most people thought it would be about the property
being divided and not so much the dockage for the creek. Now
where they are proposing to do this, it's rather high and it
makes for a very steep, wide entranceway. And then to clear
vegetation to be able to walk down with a kayak kind of disturbs
the natural, wildlife that we have on the creek, as well as
disruption of a very shallow area. It's not very deep there at all.
Deep Hole Creek is Deep Hole Creek in the center and pretty
much nowhere else. So I think that's something the Board should
look again at. I think the elevation is really high. Ten feet
is excessive, and a 20x20 foot dock on shallow ground.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's not a 20x20 foot dock. He's just
looking for a 20-foot easement with the dock application to
follow at some point in time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's to create a, the land plan sets aside
that in the future they would apply for a dock, but to, so that
the dock itself does not go beyond the property boundaries of
the two adjoining property owners in the future is to establish
that this is an area set aside for a dock, an application for
which would have to go through the rigorous review of the
Department of Environmental Conservation and the Trustees in the
future, where we take into consideration a host of things
including navigation, existing depths necessary to meet the
requirements for docks, which generally a depth requirement of
just shy of three feet; management of structures to make sure
the floats don't end up on the bottom because of shallowness at
a particular low tide. You know, and so that it's not a dock that size.
MS. CONNOR: Is there a grandfathered dock in here or is this a
brand new application for the easement?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a brand new application for an
easement that is a requirement of the Planning Board because
they understand that the Trustees do not want to have dock
Board of Trustees 31 December 13, 2017
densities on this creek any more than one per waterfront owner,
and to not, basically we would discourage the creation of a
marina where all upland owners would have access. But we
realize that access for passive use or by foot would be allowed
And that's why --
MS. CONNOR: On the easement steps.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The other easement on the south side is to
allow for more passive easement that would allow people to get
to the foreshore or possibly carry a kayak in. In all cases,
I'm not aware of any case where we have allowed paths wider than
four feet or docks wider than four feet. So they would have to
be engineered to take into account, in other words future
planning based on the Board's, our structural requirements in
the code, future plans could include paths no wider than,
foot-paths no wider than four feet, properly engineered to
account for slopes and steps and landings on stairs that would
go down the slopes there, would have to be incorporated so they
would be no wider than four feet.
MS. CONNOR: Including the steps going down, the ten feet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nothing wider than four feet. There is an
allowance for--we can't pre-plan. In other words it would be
a separate public hearing on the wetland permit applications as
they would come forward for any hard construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So just to clarify, these are easements,
there is no clearing that will take place. Any future
application for a dock or for those stairs would be limited to a
four-foot wide path.
MS. CONNOR: And how many lots are there proposed on that neck of
the woods?
MR. MCCARTHY: There's two lots. Lots two and three are two
waterfront lots.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you would like to approach the dais.
This has no frontage. These are the two lots in
discussion. This is the ten-foot.
MS. CONNOR: So now, pilings obviously have to go in to --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you could step back to the microphone so
we could record properly.
MS. CONNOR: Sure. So there are no pilings that would have to go into --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is no application for that.
MS. CONNOR: So what is it for, just to ask for an application?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you read the description, that's exactly what
it's for. It's for that and no more. 20x20' easement, ten-foot
wide access path. Between the two lots that I showed you.
That's it. The applicant --
MS. CONNOR: Okay, I appreciate that. I got it now It took me a
minute. But given that it's on the creek, do you notify any of
the creek, in other words people that actually look at that plot of land?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, at this point, this is part of an
approval relating to the planning process to create the land use
plan that will allow future structures. We don't actually have
an active application for a structure which you would be able to
Board of Trustees 32 December 13, 2017
comment on. The neighbors will all get notice in the future.
This is to help in the planning process. It becomes a chicken
and egg thing.
MS. CONNOR: Once this is approved is there any way to reverse it
If the Deep Hole Creek community --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All neighbors under requirements of the
wetland ordinance will have to receive written notification and
it will have to be published, a public hearing notice again.
MS. CONNOR: Only because I just ran into a couple of neighbors
and they have no idea what is going on, so.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Did you say you are on the waterfront?
MS. CONNOR: I'm at 830 Deep Hole Drive, I'm literally --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You are a waterfront resident like they are.
MS. CONNOR: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you have a dock?
MS. CONNOR: Yes. And we followed all the proper bells and
whistles, 17, 18 years ago. So, I can appreciate why they want
access to the water, absolutely, but it happens to be a
beautiful part of the creek, and it does have a tremendous
amount of wildlife over there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You said you have gone for an application for a
dock 18 years ago?
MS. CONNOR: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you.
MS. CONNOR: Thank you, for clarifying that. I appreciate it.
MR. MCCARTHY: Just in furtherance of that. And I appreciate
Connie's comments. Our plan in front of the Planning Board has
had multiple iterations, where the initial one had four
waterfront lots and had the proposal for multiple docks. And in
working with Planning Board we reduced to three and then to two
for two waterfront properties, and instead of multiple docks, to
one dock structure so it will be a shared structure in order to
mitigate impact on the environment. And also the original
proposal that we were looking at had access for the upland
property owners, and we took that off and just decided to go to
the south side of lot number three for passive recreation for a
path down there. It's not possible without disturbing the lot
owners of two and three really to bring the non-waterfront
owners between those properties without sacrificing their
privacy on the waterfront side, which is why we located the
passive easement, if you will, on the south side of lot three
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to
this application?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Speaking for myself, I appreciate your efforts
to give us a good product and not pushing for unreasonable density.
MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS. Good evening, distinguished members, Town
Trustees, my name is Tom Williams, I live at 5175 New Suffolk
Avenue in Mattituck, New York. I've resided there for the past
45 years with my wife and family. We have many, many times
sailed a 40-foot boat up into Deep Hole Creek to both pick up
Board of Trustees 33 December 13, 2017
and disembark passengers. We always found the water to be quite
satisfactory. I have seen the plans for what the Koehler family
intends to do with this property. I think it's a marvelous
thing, I think it would enhance the neighborhood. It would make
all our property values worth a little more money, I'm quite
sure. I have known of Mr. Koehler for some time. He is quite
an avid fisherman, environmentalist, he would not be interested
in doing anything that would hurt the environment. And I
believe it would be asset to the town and I would ask this Board
to seriously consider approving this application. Thank you,
very much, for your time
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one else approaching the lecterns, I'll make
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as
submitted with the stipulation that the requirement of the LWRP
coordinator that no construction work including clearing of
vegetation can commence on the property prior to final plat
approval unless the Planning Board specifically approves such
activity in writing. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCCARTHY. Thank you, for consideration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Eileen Powers on behalf of
KATHRYN A. CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to rehabilitate
and upgrade an existing driveway located within an easement by
installing a ±85 linear foot long by 2' high (maximum) retaining
wall with a top of wall elevation at 5.20 along the seaward edge
of driveway; along landward edge of driveway install 50 linear
feet of 8" diameter perforated corrugated polyethylene pipe with
an area drain at westerly end, 25 linear feet of 8" diameter
perforated corrugated polyethylene pipe with an area drain at
easterly end, and an area drain installed in between the two
pipes in order to contain storm water runoff along the driveway;
and fill and resurface driveway in-kind while providing a
minimum 10' drive width throughout using clean gravel; and to
install and maintain a line of hay bales and/or silt fencing
along the limits of disturbance area during construction.
Located: 570 Hippodrome Drive & 500 Hippodrome Drive 10' wide
Right of Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-12 (Dominant) &
1000-66-2-13 (Servient)
The Trustees did a field inspection on this site on
December 5th, and noted that it needed a greater review of the
plans in a work session.
Board of Trustees 34 December 13, 2017
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
recommendation that a written determination -- there is no
recommendation. It's consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council did not
support the application due to a concern with lack of a detailed
plan. The Conservation Advisory Council requested a specific
plan for driveway installation including grading, tree removal
and types of materials.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. LAINO: Yes. My name is Angelo Laino, I'm with VHB
Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and on behalf
of Eileen who could not be here tonight.
Good evening, members of the Board. I just want to run
through a few items that we wanted to get on record. Access to
the subject property is through a legal deeded easement across
the neighboring property to the southeast of the subject
property. The easement and access driveway run parallel to the
shoreline of the adjacent creek located along the western
boundary. Presently the shoreline is eroding and the scope of
this project is to merely provide stabilization to the existing
driveway, to ensure the safety of residents accessing their
property.
As mentioned in the outline of the project, it proposes to
install an 85-foot concrete segmental block retaining wall along
the edge of the access driveway providing a minimum access width
of ten feet with a stabilized edge. The wall is designed to be
exposed two feet and have soil sloping from the base of the wall
to the wetland.
I just want to note that a New York State DEC permit was
obtained on May 29th, 2015, for the proposed work and the
submitted plans. In accordance with the permit, the project
proposed to preserve the wetlands vegetation along the driveway
embankment to the greatest extent practicable, and any
disturbance would be corrected and the area would be
supplemented with native wetland plantings in accordance with
New York State DEC approved plant list in order to establish a
vegetated shoreline to protect against future erosion.
Additionally, this project proposes to install an
appropriate drain pipe and some small area drains to minimize
runoff from the driveway during moderate rain events. It is
noted that the driveway is currently gravel and will remain so
after construction. I'm not proposing to pave or provide any
additional impervious surface to the property.
I just wanted to note that as we submitted to the DEC and
to the Town it is our opinion that the concrete wall as designed
along with the vegetation and slope stabilization would
adequately support the driveway in the distant future. However
it has been brought to our attention that some of the Board
members were out on the site were not satisfied with that design
and they were concerned with long-term effects of erosion causing
Board of Trustees 35 December 13, 2017
failure to the proposed wall. They recommended that another
means of stabilization such as vinyl sheathing be constructed in
lieu of the proposed concrete segmented block wall.
In light of the Board's recommendation, the applicant has
indicated that they would like to amend the site plan to
incorporate another means of stabilization such as the vinyl
sheathing, et cetera, whatever vinyl design we would then propose.
Therefore, we are respectfully requesting that the Board
vote for conditional approval for the subject project providing
that an amended site plan is submitted and approved by the Board.
In addition, we would be also subject to approval by the
New York State DEC to amend the permit that we currently have
and already obtained. That concludes my presentation. I would
be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO. Any questions or comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the understanding would be that
based on numerous discussions that the Board had, that the Board
would like to see the new proposed vinyl wall that would be no
further seaward than the proposed concrete structure.
In other words it would be essentially an in-place
construction within the additional possible changes to an
extension construction of the vinyl, but it would not go seaward.
MR. LAINO: Correct. It would be the intent of the project to
adhere to the current plan as much as possible. And any final
design elements would be designed and presented to the Board.
But no, it's not our intent to go seaward. I don't think the
DEC would approve going seaward either.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did, because of the initial field
inspection and the subsequent one by the Chairman and
Vice-President, there was much more debris that was visible and
we had a fairly high tide and east wind, that if we could
request removal of a number of logs, old split shale and
materials such as that to facilitate revegetation.
MR. LAINO: Yes, I believe the scope of the project does call for
restoration of the shoreline. We would remove any debris. And
with that there are several plantings there that are invasive
and non-native and frankly not appealing. So any vegetation
that is removed would be replaced with native wetland plantings
and the shoreline would be restored.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The invasive, you are talking about the
multi-flora rose, the black locust, and the mulberry, amongst others.
MR. LAINO: Yes. Unfortunately I'm not a landscape architect or
arborist, so I don't want to testify as to --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I want to clarify that, only because at the
intertidal zone it was all native Spartina and Baccharis. So we
obviously want to leave the Spartina and Baccharis alone.
MR. LAINO: Understood.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Reference again the drainage. What were you
going to do with regard to the drainage?
MR LAINO: So essentially, the driveway is designed to have a
backpitch away from the proposed wall, and we'll install three
Board of Trustees 36 December 13, 2017
small area drains, they are a foot in diameter, and it's just
essentially a PVC or plastic catch basin and it will be
connected with an eight-inch perforated PVC pipe that will serve
to hold a small amount of water during heavier rain events, then
the water will leach through the pipes and down into the ground
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, and this gentleman has
asked for a little bit of advice on, you know, whether the vinyl
or whatnot. And I went to the site a couple of times. There is
staking for that, basically to maintain that ten-foot
right-of-way, which they are trying to maintain. Some of the
sheathing would be in the edge of the roadway. It would be 100%
into the ground. You would almost have, in order to get it in
there and put a timber on it, you would almost have to trench it
in. And you would have to drive the sheathing in. You would
never get backing in. You would never get support because you
leave the roadway untouched because it does have a permeable
surface now, and you would want that to remain, because it seems
to be working except for whatever overrun is occurring.
The erosion, and you can see over the years, the many, many
attempts that the residents have made to stabilize that roadway,
old logs, timbers, stakes, steel. Everything is in there. And
it's all deteriorated, and most of it is ended up into the edge
of the waterway. I mean it should be removed and I'm glad to
see that they intend to remove that anyway, because that would
certainly help the grass and vegetation to re-occur on that.
But the bluff, in putting that ten-foot right-of-way, may be a
degree of a problem. They may have to reduce the scope of the
80-foot and 50-foot because it is sections that will not need a
vinyl driven into the ground. Because it's beat down. The only
thing you would be seeing is the top timber. It would be a
curb. And, but unless the sheathing is put in sufficiently.
Then it drives the cost up. So I mean, the healthier compromise
by the engineer to try to put, sell the project to the owner and the
Trustees to minimize the obstructions and disturbance to the wetlands
There is a lot of erosion there But you are not going to
stop it with a ten foot, maintaining the ten-foot right-of-way.
And you can maintain the ten-foot right-of-way. So hopefully
they come up with a proper design that would be approvable by
the Trustees.
TRUSTEE DOMINO. Mr. Costello, it's my understanding that you are
contemplating or suggesting the use of ten-foot vinyl sheathing?
MR. COSTELLO: Well, you should use a vinyl sheath that goes down
to basically low water, touches the point of it. But there is
not heavy erosion there. You are getting more of a slumping of
the cliff. So you could probably reduce it. But if you reduced
it to six-foot long or seven-foot long in certain areas, there
is one area that would need probably eight-foot long sheathing.
But you want to reduce it to try to keep the costs bearable and
keep the ten-foot right-of-way intact. There will be some
Board of Trustees 37 December 13, 2017
minor degree of recycled concrete or something near where you
work. Might be a yard or two. But to say there would be none,
you are creating a problem saying the word "none". Because you
might need a yard or two just to have the curbing seen and
maintain that ten-foot right-of-way. It's just a suggestion to
the engineer and I see where the Trustees are a little more
favorable of something more substantial to hold the erosion
back. And cleaning up the erosion that is there now, it's a step
in the right direction. And they seem to be willing to do that.
MR. LAINO: Thank you, John. I appreciate the testimony. At this
point we've only had a few days since the meeting, so I don't
want to commit to any design elements right now. I do know that
our goal is to make a submission in the near future that
everybody in on the Board will be happy with. I can say we we'll
most likely reach out again to either John's office or another
marine contractor engineer in the area to help assist with the
construction and the design.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees are not going to approve something,
give you a blank check. So we are going to have, to be moving
something forward, have some design specifics in here. There is
always some understanding that there can be some slight
deviation, but we just can't approve on general terms.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would suggest we table, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's my sense. For new plans. Come up with
a design.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Can I just ask the Board just one question. 1
believe it's the engineer's intention and the Board's intention
to try to maintain that-- if the ten-foot is the number you
want to try to keep, they may be able to reduce some of the
footage numbers. That's all. I mean and that will reduce
costs. You know, and I'm sure that all those elements -- and
less work that would be.
But some of the key things are if the idea is to maintain
that ten-foot right-of-way and the drainage, whatever is
necessary, and revegetation and the removal, I think that
portion is certainly, I don't believe anybody on the Board would
deny any portion of that. Hopefully. Thank you
MR. LAINO: I think the scope of the project will not change
moving forward. And as I said, you know, it's just been a few
days, so we have not had a chance to digest the change in
design, the general scope of providing shore stabilization,
cleaning it up, revegetating, to the extent that it will prevent
erosion in the future.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we have some re-assurance that the vinyl
sheathing as suggested by Mr. Costello will be in the same
general area as the concrete blocks shown on the plans that you
submitted November 1 st, 2017, same general area, and that the
grading will be away from that retaining wall, it has greater
likelihood going forward tonight.
MR. LAINO: Okay. I can say, yes, in the same general area, we
Board of Trustees 38 December 13, 2017
would look to install a wall that is approvable by the Board.
As Mr. Costello said, if there is an opportunity to shorten it,
to make it, and still make it work in the long-term, then we
would like to consider. We will not push the wall seaward from
where it's located currently on the plans. We also don't want
to pitch toward the water and create runoff across the driveway
toward the water. We want it to back pitch. So all those
design elements will remain the same. I just didn't want to
commit to length of piles or anything like that until we had a
chance to design the structure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If I may, I'm fine with the merits of this
project but the lack of specificity with it, and the plans and
what goes what and how deep and everything, I'm a little
hesitant on approving it tonight without having a set plan and
set design in place prior to an approval. That is just my
thoughts on it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I concur.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. It's too much of a vague description
at this time. And it is a great project, I think you are heading
in a great direction, from my personal opinion, but I think we
need something more concrete before I can move forward.
MR. LAINO: Okay, we'll shoot to --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For clarification, he's saying he will not do
more than what is shown on the plans. He might do less, at the
suggestion --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He's a licensed engineer. At this point we
convinced him to go with more stable vinyl. I guess my thoughts
run to the fact that the depth of material going in is a
conversation that the licensed engineer would have with the
prospective dock builder and we would honor that. So I guess
I'm happy with the notion of the plans depicting vinyl structure
going no further seaward and possibly less in length and
allowing the dialogue. Because we understand there may be two
slightly different versions between dock builders, and the
applicant, the owner, has not had a chance to converse that
aspect. We don't usually -- and the plans depicting what is
best engineering practice, now that we have the vinyl, I don't
have a problem with the vinyl. That's my thought.
In other words we have a licensed engineer, we have vinyl,
we are not going through the sand. The other thing is we have to
make sure there is no other people who wish to speak to this
application though. I don't know if there is anyone else here
to speak to this application.
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No one else wishes to speak. Upon hearing no
further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
described but with the following amendments: That vinyl
Board of Trustees 39 December 13, 2017
sheathing be used in the same general area as the blocks shown
on plans received November 1st, 2017; and the driveway be graded
so it slopes away from the bulkhead. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm a nay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm a nay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm a nay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. The motion fails.
MR. LAINO: Excuse me, for one moment. Does that mean we can
resubmit and come back next time? Or the hearing was closed?
Just so I understand.
MR. HAGAN: We just closed the hearing and denied the
application. That's what happened. Your hearing has been
closed. So there is no tabling.
You have a modified motion. The motion failed 3-2. The hearing
is closed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's without prejudice.
MR. HAGAN: You'll have to re-apply.
MR. LAINO: So we have to resubmit a new application? So I
understand this correctly.
MR. HAGAN: Yes
MR. LAINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 12, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of 7325 NASSAU POINT ROAD, LLC, c/o JEFFREY ABRAMS
requests a Wetland Permit to stabilize the bluff by creating
less of a grade pitch on the slope in order to allow for better
erosion control; install three (3) to four(4) rows of staked
Coir Logs along each of the northerly and southerly sides of
bluff; place 60 cubic yards of sandy loam throughout the slope;
install jute matting and vegetate disturbed areas using Cape
American beach grass planted 6/8" on center. Located: 7325
Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-1
On the 5th of December, all Trustees inspected the
property. The notes stipulate minimal straightforward project.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent; note that there
is surface erosion damage and structural loss due to Tropical
Storm Sandy.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to not
support the application of 7325 Nassau Point Road; to stabilize
the existing bluff by creating a less grade pitch on slope to
allow for better erosion control; installation of staked coir
logs as per plan.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application and requests a plan with more details including the
actual final grade.
Would anyone like speak on behalf of this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Board of Trustees 40 December 13, 2017
Design, representing Jeffrey Abrams. As I have submitted the
plan and we met at the site last week, I did show you the area
of disturbance and/or erosion. It's basically a simple thing of
reducing the grade pitch on the bluff as it is. It was obvious
to see the severity of the slope from the top of the bluff down
in certain areas. We are just looking to simply reduce that
grade slope with vegetation and coir logs would accomplish that.
I thought that was pretty obvious to all the Trustees that saw
it with myself. And I thought it was a pretty straightforward application.
If there are any other questions you have for me.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How do we deal with the Conservation Advisory
Council?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can try to incorporate by reference.
It's an advisory opinion, so you can take it under advisement.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I could offer up, if it makes it easier, to
give you actual grade pitch elevation changes to existing and
approved. Maybe that would be a condition of the application,
makes it easier. But it seems to be pretty simple.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right. Does anyone else want to speak on behalf
of the application? Anything from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seems like a pretty straightforward, natural
project.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anything else?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems reasonable, in keeping what we
usually look at, coir logs, as an alternative to hard terraced
staking. And if it takes. Some areas in Nassau Point have done
well and naturally stabilized and withstood recent storms and
others of course have not done so well. This looks like an
area, at least the native soils there have a good helping of
stabilized grasses and vegetation already, so it seems logical.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: And it does have a bulkhead at the base. It's
approximately, I think 12 to 15 feet seaward of the base of the
slope. So it's not like it's at the base of the tidal wetlands,
I mean any storm surge or direct storm surge. Hurricane Sandy,
a different story, but.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anyone else like to speak?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Al in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the caveat to provide grade pitch calculations before proceeding.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of ROBERT & PATRICIA ELLIOT, requests a Wetland Permit to
stabilize the bluff by creating less of a grade pitch on the
Board of Trustees 41 December 13, 2017
slope in order to allow for better erosion control; add
approximately 20 cubic yards of sandy loam fill along bluff;
install three (3) to four (4) rows of staked coir logs across
the width of the property; and to remove non-native plants and
replace with native vegetation. Located: 275 West Road, Cutchogue.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December 5th,
noting it's straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, and noting that this
property suffered erosion damage during Tropical Storm Sandy.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design, representing the owners. As per the submitted plan, it
is again a pretty straightforward application
The vegetation that I recognized on it is not the proper
plantings for this slope or on beach setting. Past owners were
responsible for the vegetation there. I would like to improve
it. That was my recommendations to the owners, to improve the
integrity of the slope, of the vegetation, so there will not be
additional erosion. And obviously, it will obviously occur as
the plants that are there grow to a much higher height, the
winds will blow them over, the roots will come out and it will
destroy the bluff. So my intention is to keep it with native
beach grass plantings all acceptable by the Trustees.
I was contacted, as I'm talking, by the adjacent owner, the
Pequash Club, and their concerns for any disturbance to their
property where it adjoins. I spoke to Gail Wickham this
morning, and I spoke to Eric Bressler and Walter Krupski, who
are all part of the Pequash Club earlier. I reached out to the
owner to make sure that they were fine with taking full
responsibility for any damage or disturbance to the Pequash Club
property. Thus I did get an e-mail back from them, which I have
a copy for the Trustees, if you would allow me to read.
Basically what I had was to my client. I was contacted by
officers of the Pequash Club and their concerns about potential
work being done on the renovation of your bluff. I said to them
the bluff would not be effected at all by any work that we would
be doing. That being said, would like noted in the Trustees
notes that if any damage done to the bluff would be taken care
of by owners of work being performed. Their response is, yes,
please go ahead and have them note that about the Pequash Club
bluff And I have a copy for the Trustees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. BRESSLER: Eric J. Bressler, Wickham Bressler& Geasa,
Mattituck, New York, on behalf of the Pequash Club.
I have had discussions with Dave about this matter. He has
addressed the concerns that the club has about this.
The first concern was the one that he last addressed in the
hand-up to the Board concerning taking responsibility for any
Board of Trustees 42 December 13, 2017
erosion or damage that may occur as a result of the project.
The second concern I addressed with him was what
precautions would be taken to assure that that type of loss or
damage would not occur. And he advised that on, at least on the
Pequash Club side, that he would be either be putting up some
sort of cloth grading or logs or something greater if necessary
in order to prevent erosion during the project itself.
I further inquired as to the 20-yards of fill. The plan
did not appear to show the location, the depth, et cetera, of
where that was going and what the resultant slope would look
like. He advised me that what he was planning to do was put in
several logs down there near the base, as I'm sure the Board is
aware. Simple geometry dictates that if you are going to change
the grade of the slope to a shallower grade then you have to do
something such as placing some of these logs at the bottom so
that you can fill in, get greater heights so that the difference
between the bottom of the slope and the top is diminished,
thereby decreasing the angle of the slope He advised that's
what he intended to do.
We discussed the location of the property and the fact that
that would probably would be resistant to any sort of storm
tides, and we are satisfied for the time being, if the Board is,
that that is not going to create an additional problem. And as
the bluff vegetates, the risk of doing that would diminish over time.
I further asked him whether or not there would be any
portion of his client's property adjacent to our property which
by virtue of added fill would create a higher level from his
property versus ours, such as there could be potential runoff by
changing the slope and channeling of water onto the club's
property, and he assured me there would not be.
So that having been said, I believe he addressed the
concerns and we would like the permit to address those concerns
and be so conditioned. And if those conditions are imposed,
then the club has no objection, and we think overall if it goes
the way he plans, and he's pretty good at this stuff, depending
on Mother Nature, that it will be an enhancement to the area. Thank you.
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'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application contingent upon adhering to the concerns of the
Pequash Club and what was stated in the e-mail, that the
property owner would be responsible for any damage caused to the
neighboring property through this construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER* You might add that the steps concur with the
Board of Trustees 43 December 13, 2017
construction that add stabilization as needed. That maybe, and
assurances that the grade elevations will not drastically change
between the properties.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH. What he said.
MR. HAGAN: So that we are clear for the sake of the record.
There is a request to amend the current motion?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: So then are you withdrawing your previous motion and
you wish to amend?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. I'm withdrawing my previous motion and
wish to amend. So I make a motion to approve this application
contingent upon that the slope between this property and the
neighboring property is all taken into consideration and that
you adhere to the e-mail for any damage caused to the Pequash
Club would be the responsibility of the property owner.
MR. HAGAN: Is there a second for the amended motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second for the amended motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER- Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
e
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
f y l to C U MPIV\
+ohd Town Clerk