HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/18/2018 Michael J.Domino, President �'�®f S®�j�® Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ® � = _ �® 54375 Route 25
Glenn Goldsmith ss�� ; 4; __. P.O.Box 1179
`�=3' p' w Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupskis
" � ,' ;: .- ® Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams ® >r• = a Fax(631) 765-6641
Court
RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAY 1 8 2018
Minutes Southold Town Clerk
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, May 14, 2018 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor
Board Room, and on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the
Main Meeting Hall
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our April 18, 2018
monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call our meeting
to order and ask you to stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left, Trustee John
Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski and
Trustee Greg Williams. To my right is Assistant Town Attorney
Damon Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Liz Cantrell and also with us
tonight we have Court Stenographer Wayne Galante and
Conservation Advisory Council member Peter Meeker.
Agendas are located on the podium and also out in the hall.
Postponements. We have a number of postponements. On page six
in the agenda, number five, SCOTT KAUFMAN requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing damaged
stairway and terrace retaining walls; construct along eroding
Board of Trustees 2 April 18, 2018
toe of bluff approximately 210 linear feet of stone revetment,
including angled westerly return, all consisting of
approximately 3 to 5 ton stone placed over 50 to 100 pound core
stone and filter cloth; restore bluff face using terrace
retaining walls, approximately 600 cubic yards of sand
re-nourishment (including approximately 350 cubic yards to cover
proposed revetment), and native plantings; construct a ±3' wide
berm with ±50 cubic yards of sand/loam within 15' wide vegetated
non-turf buffer to be established adjacent to bluff crest to
control storm-water runoff; and construct a new 4'x±50' elevated
bluff stairway with landings and handrails consisting of 4' wide
x±3' long entry steps at top of bluff down to a 4'x8' upper
platform with bench to 4' x±8' steps to a 4'x8' middle landing
with bench to 4' x ±10' steps to a 4'x4' middle landing to 4' x
±8'steps to a 4'x6.7' lower landing to 4' x±14' stairs to
beach. Located: 2050 Dignans Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-83-2-7.3 has been postponed.
On page eleven, number 18, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on
behalf of BIM E. STRASBERG & ALEXANDRA M. LEWIS request a
Wetland Permit to construct a set of bluff stairs consisting of
a 4'x8' top landing to 4'x9' steps to a 4'x4' middle landing to
4'x8' stairs to a 4'x6' middle landing to 4'x8' stairs to a
4'x4' lower landing to 4'x8' stairs to beach. Located: 21225
Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-1, has been
postponed.
Number 19, Stacey Bishop on behalf of FORDHAM HOUSE LLC,
c/o DENIS BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a
±1,167sq.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 ±45' seaward; approximately 15'
seaward of proposed 28' long parallel retaining wall, install a
±3' high by ±45' long retaining wall situated approximately 1'
landward of established 50' wide non-disturbance buffer; and to
install a generator pad, generator, and buried gas tank for the
generator. Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion. SCTM#
1000-21-5-11, has been postponed.
And number 20, 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 11sq.ft. fire pit on sand; as-built 41sq.ft. open
Board of Trustees 3 April 18, 2018
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.
If you are here for those, you are free to go.
I would like to announce under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c),
the files were officially closed seven days ago and submission
of paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the
processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection Wednesday, May 9th, 2018, at 8:00 AM at the town
annex. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting, Wednesday, May 16th, 2018, at 5:30 PM here at the main
meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next
work session at the Town Annex board room on the second floor on
Monday, May 14th, 2018. That would be at 4:30 PM
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would like a motion to have a subsequent work session 5:00 PM,
May 16th, 2018, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March 2018. A check for
$11,803.52 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.
Board of Trustees 4 April 18, 2018
111. 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, April 18, 2018, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA.
John F. Betsch SCTM# 1000-54-4-24
Stephanie Neckles SCTM# 1000-38-2-32
Great Pond Restoration Committee, c/o Kenney's/McCabe's Beach Civic Association ,
SCTM#'s 1000-59-5-2.1; 1000-59-5-2.4; 1000-59-5-3; 1000-59-5-4; 1000-59-5-5;
1000-59-5-6; 1000-59-5-8.1; 1000-59-5-9; 1000-59-5-10; 1000-59-5-11; 1000-59-5-12;
1000-59-5-14.1; 1000-59-5-15; 1000-59-5-16; 1000-59-5-17; 1000-59-5-18;
1000-59-5-19; 1000-59-5-20; 1000-59-5-21; 1000-59-5-22; 1000-59-5-23; 1000-59-5-26;
1000-59-5-31; 1000-59-6-22; 1000-59-6-23; 1000-59-6-21; 1000-59-6-27.3;
1000-59-6-27.2; 1000-59-6-19.3; 1000-59-6-19.4; 1000-59-6-17; 1000-59-6-16;
1000-59-6-15; 1000-59-6-9; 1000-59-6-8; 1000-59-6-6; 1000-59-6-7; 1000-59-6-5.1;
1000-59-6-5.2; 1000-59-6-3; 1000-59-6-2; 1000-59-6-1; 1000-59-5-1.1; 1000-59-6-24;
1000-59-6-26; 1000-59-6-25.1
Robert& Donna Drummond SCTM# 1000-87-4-7
Adam & Sandra Shebitz SCTM# 1000-52-2-26
Pipes Cove Management Association, c/o Robert Wallace, President SCTM#
1000-49-1-25.8
Peter Psyllos SCTM# 1000-105-2-1
Daniel & Barbara Christianson SCTM# 1000-115-12-17
Stephen Walsh SCTM# 1000-117-5-30
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, administrative permits. In order to
simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together items that are
deemed minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion we approve as a group
items one and four. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Michael Kimack on behalf of QUIET MAN HOLDINGS, LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to demolish existing 484.11sq.ft. one-story cottage;
remove two existing 36sq.ft. steps; on existing one-story dwelling construct a 197sq.ft.
deck onto the westerly side; construct new 45sq.ft. roof over entry portico; construct
new roof; and install new siding, windows, and exterior doors. Located: 260 Huckleberry
Hill Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-16-5.
And number four, Dwyer Design Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JAMES &
KIMBERLY GAVIN request an Administrative Permit to remove existing concrete patio
and construct a seaward side 20'x39' wood deck. Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved to approve one and four.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item two, Karen A. Hoeg, Esq. on behalf of
500'SOUNDVIEW DRIVE; LLC, c/o HENRY MAZZONI requests an
Board of Trustees 5 April 18, 2018
Administrative Permit to install 8' high deer fencing along the
easterly property line beginning at the existing deer fence at
the top of the bluff and heading landward.
Located: 500 Soundview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.2
1 have been site twice, once with Trustee Williams and then
again this last week on the 13th. The plans show an extension
of an agricultural deer fence within an area set off for
agricultural purposes, however because there is pending
approvals for construction activities with the Planning Board, I
have been cautioned by Mark Terry on behalf of the Planning
Board that our approval should be conditioned on a return of the
Planning Board's, so that the Planning Board conditions are met.
Accordingly, I move to approve this application for a deer
fence noting that it is consistent with the Town's LWRP, but to
bring it into conformity with the Town Planning Department, that the
applicant, before receiving the copy of the permit and
conducting construction activity, must clear construction with
the Town Planning Department.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Thomas Trifaro on behalf of JOSEPH
MITCHELL & HA SHUM C. KWOK request an Administrative Permit to
add a 35sq.ft. front portico; a 448sq.ft. second-story waterside
deck; and 4'x20' (80sq.ft.) second story deck stairs off new
deck to ground. Located: 1380 Corey Creek Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-4-18.3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Trustees did a field inspection. The notes indicate
that it is subject to new plans; a non-disturbance line zone
seaward of the Trustee wetland line on the plans submitted
received April 16th, 2018; a split-rail fence to be erected
along that designated wetland line; and with a five-foot
non-turf buffer landward of the fence.
Accordingly, I make a motion we approve this application
with those conditions.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, WILLIAM MACOMBER requests an
Administrative Permit to abandon and fill in existing damaged
sanitary system, and install new septic tank with three new
cesspools in the rear yard. Located: 4040 Deep Hole Creek,
Mattituck. STM# 1000-115-17-4
This item has been deemed to be inconsistent under the
Town's LWRP out of concerns to protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetlands.
The Trustees reviewed the plan submission and discussed the
inspection of Trustee Goldsmith at our work session on Monday
Board of Trustees 6 April 18, 2018
evening, and our finding was that the leaching pools are being
moved further landward than the existing sanitary system which
will be abandoned, and will be providing an increased treatment
of the waste water on this property.
By virtue of moving this system landward of the existing
system we have addressed the concerns of the LWRP and would
bring it into consistency under the LWRP. Accordingly, I would
move to approve this application for an Administrative Permit to
properly abandon the sanitary system and to install a new septic
tank and new cesspools landward of the existing system, bringing
it into conformity with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second, all in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative amendments. Again, in order to move things along,
the Trustees tend to group things together that are minor in
nature or similar in nature. Consequently, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group items one, two, and four through six. They
are listed as follows:
Number one, NOREEN FISHER requests a One-Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#8766, as issued on April 20, 2016. Located:
2530 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-3
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of RYAN STORK requests
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6447 from Jack Farnsworth to Ryan
Stork, as issued on September 20, 2006. Located: 1140 Park
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-1
Number four, DAVID & STEPHANIE SACK request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9149 to relocate the
proposed 4' high pool fence to be installed along the landward
edge of the non-turf buffer. Located: 445 Glen Court,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-5
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of 18975 SOUNDVIEW
AVENUE, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit#8888A to remove the existing 1,315sq.ft.
Masonry patio in its entirety (leaving existing paver walls
landward of the proposed 10' wide non-turf buffer in place);
placement of approximately 80 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to
fill the patio void; elimination of the proposed patio drainage
system; and installation of 4' high pool enclosure fencing along
the westerly and easterly property lines, extending south from
the ends of the relocated plastic fencing. Located: 18975
Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-16
And number six, North Fork Woodworks on behalf of KEAN &
BRIDGET DRISCOLL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8878 to expand the proposed 4' high pool fencing around
the property, approximately 500 linear feet. Located: 905
Board of Trustees 7 April 18, 2018
Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-10-3
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, STEPHANIE NECKLES requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#4825 from John Edler to Stephanie
Neckles, as issued on November 21, 1997; and a Transfer of
Coastal Erosion Management Permit#5065 from John Edler to
Stephanie Neckles, as issued on September 22, 1999. Located:
130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-2-32
The Trustees reviewed this transfer inhouse on the two
wetland permits and found it to be a straightforward transfer,
although noting that it needs work, as we'll come to shortly.
I make a motion to approve the transfer of both permits
4825 and 5065.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI, mooring, stake and pulley systems. Again,
actions that are minor or very similar in nature, we group them together. Mooring
applications are straightforward and similar, accordingly I would make a motion to
approve numbers one through four as a group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, JOSEPH COOGAN requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for
a 31' sailboat, replacing Mooring #970. Access: Public
Number two, GINO MENCHINI requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 20'
Boston Whaler, replacing Mooring #16. Access: Private
Number three, GERALD O'NEILL requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a
23' sailboat, replacing Mooring #7. Access: Public
Number four, JOSEPH FINORA requests a Mooring Permit in Little Creek for a
19' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #991. Access: Public
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll take a motion to go off our
regular meeting agenda and enter into the public hearings.
Motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetland ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
Board of Trustees 8 April 18, 2018
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
relevant to the subject at hand and please keep them brief, five
minutes or less would be appreciated.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first application under Amendments,
number one, En-Consultants on behalf of MATTITUCK PROPERTY
FAMILY TRUST request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8996 to
construct a ±20 linear foot landward extension onto the recently
constructed low-profile vinyl groin. Located: 520 Park Avenue
Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-2-28.4
This application has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP largely with concerns with the potential it would interfere
with natural coastal process.
The Board of Trustees visited the site on March 14th and
also on February 7th of this year and we further discussed the
item at our Monday evening work session on the 16th of April.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants
on behalf of the applicant. It was two months ago that the
hearing was open and we had significant discussion about the
application, and after much discussion I think where we left
off, there was a suggestion, and I think it was Mike Domino who
was leading the discussion about the possibility that at the
landward end of the proposed extension, that we consider doing a
bit of beach nourishment to try to tie the beach area back into
what you can see is the small, eroded dune area on the landward
side of the seaward deck. So I had indicated I would go back to
the site and meet with the contractor and evaluate Mike's
recommendation. We did do that and just took a couple of rough
measurements and found that the area that we had been discussing
at the last hearing is probably about 28 feet wide between the
edge of the house and the property line. So if you can imagine
that in that photo coming from the house toward you, it's about
28 feet toward you to get to the property line. And the
distance between the proposed groin extension and the toe of the
escarpment that you can see there is about 18 feet. Roughly, we
calculate, it's probably about a five-hundred square foot area
that would require about 15-cubic yards of beach-compatible
sand. If there is, and we have not done an extensive topo on it,
but I met with Steve Pollack and he and I estimate it would
probably be about an 18-inch difference, or at least it was when
we there were. If the Board still wishes us to pursue that, the
applicant was amenable to it. The only concern he had was
whether this was just kind of putting sand in a bucket and
throwing it out the window, because it was right after we had
this discussion in February that we had that episode of
nor'easters, and you could see how much sand was being moved
Board of Trustees 9 April 18, 2018
around there.
The beach elevation around the groin is actually much
higher now, so the exposure of the groin is much less. I don't
know if you saw that when you were there in March or remembered
what it had looked like in February, but it did strike me that
the overall elevation of the groin above the beach was now lower
due to some of the sand that had built up against the groin
during the storms. So the long story short is, ideally, the
applicant would like to avoid the investment in the sand there
just for fear that it won't last, but if the Board feels
strongly about it and wants that to be an additional
component of the project work, he's willing to undertake that,
if that is what is necessary to get the permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Also, I want to point out for the
record, the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application to amend the permit. Seemingly they felt it
contradicted the original permit. The existing groin is
underwater at both tidal cycles and a landward aggression to
connect is environmentally detrimental to the subject properties
and surrounding properties and will impact the littoral drift of
sand. This item was also discussed by the Board at our
work session in the context of the possibility of adding sand and
revegetation to try to stabilize the property. I just wanted to
point that out.
MR. HERRMANN: And I think we discussed that at the last hearing,
and I had pointed out that the landward extension is actually,
it really extends landward of the intertidal zone, so it would
not impact the littoral drift within the intertidal area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the seaward extension had been discussed
as well. Seemingly, if we are going to be marching further
landward, because we are involved in coastal retreat, the Board
discussed it briefly, but the seaward extension is no further
seaward than the adjoining bulkheads. And a lot of the damage was
deemed to be coming largely from the easterly where the groins
had not been maintained on other properties.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. I forget what the distance was now but in
the original permit, I don't remember if it was eight feet or
something like that, but we actually did permanently remove that
section that was out that was determined to be non-functional.
So the overall seaward encroachment of the groin will remain
shorter and consistent with the original permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Exactly. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one else, hearing no one else coming forward to speak,
I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to the stipulation that additional small
amount of sand fill be brought in so that the groin is
Board of Trustees 10 April 18, 2018
pre-filled, and that material would reach the same beach grade
as the Board had visited on February 7th, that that would be
inline with the height of the bottom set of steps, which is not
quite so visible here, but that would, the Board determined that
was essentially at a level that would pre-fill and would allow
for beach access along the foreshore.
MR. HERRMANN: Is that similar to the elevation of the dune
escarpment that is there now?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe fractionally less.
MR. HERRMANN: It's a little lower, so it slopes back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. And with the placement of fill I think
the Board would like to see some revegetation on the fringe of
the dune where it has been lost through these successive
nor-easters. But we are just going to request to revegetate without
specification. We felt that would be up to the contractor or
construction crew to determine.
MR. HERRMANN: It would make sense to revegetate it landward of the
spring high water line so it's beach grass, it's out of the
typical tidal area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So with those two stipulations, the sand
Fill to the lower steps and revegetation. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOHN
AND KORI ESTRADA request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4096 from
David B. Tuthill to John and Kori Estrada as issued on December
10, 1992, and Amended on June 1, 1993; and for an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#4096 to construct a 4'x8' fixed dock extension
using Thru-Flow decking and two (2) 8" diameter dock pilings
onto the seaward end of existing fixed dock for a new total
length of 58'; reconfigure existing floating dock to an "L" shape
configuration; relocate the existing two sets of floating dock
securing two-batter pilings; and install one 8"-10"tie-off piling
approximately 15' to the west from the new floating dock location.
Located: 2350 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-7
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency rises from the fact that on the original
application the applicant did not correctly demonstrate the dock
meets the one-third rule and did not show the dimensions of the
vessels included on the plans, and discussed the impacts of
vessel to the navigation.
Additionally, the inconsistency developed from the fact
that the applicant currently enjoys access to public waters by
the existing dock.
The Trustees did field inspections on this location on
March 14th, 2018, and most recently on April 11th. April 11th,
I'll say that, note that the dock is not going out any further
than the existing dock.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
Board of Trustees 11 April 18, 2018
application at the meeting March 14, 2018.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. You
should have in your file, I did a Google map with a low water
and it indicated that it was about 200 feet across, something like that.
You should have a plan that the dock with the, turning it that way
with the boat, basically, takes up about 25% of the overall from
one low shore to the other. I will point out after our meeting
because DEC required it when they looked back on their permit,
because we are going through them also, they recognized they didn't
have enough data on the soundings. So I went out there last
Friday and redid the high water and low water soundings. And I
know that Mike had pointed out, basically, that the original ones
showed that if we put the boat in that position, the keel would
touch bottom. But the new soundings indicate that the center
point of the proposed boat location, the water at low water is
five feet. So 30 inches plus about an extra 30 inches
underneath it. It just happened to be deepened out there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Let the record reflect that on March 20th, 2018,
the new plans showing the vessel and photographs on March 23rd,
were received and are entered into the file.
MR. KIMACK: I also have a corrected survey with all the
soundings on it, et cetera, that I would like to deliver to the office
tomorrow, the four copies of that, with the corrected cross files showing
the more accurate sounding, showing the depth underneath where the
keel of the boat is going to go. And I'll just bring those four copies in and
drop them off tomorrow.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted noting that the inconsistencies would be addressed or
have been addressed by submission of the plans noted and that
even with an eight-foot beam, would not be further out than the
present dock and would not come near the one-third across the
waterway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one,
JOHN F. BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to add
Board of Trustees 12 April 18, 2018
additional rows of 500-1,000 pound toe stone armor and core stone base in order to
fortify existing stone armoring; bury stone in approximately 40 cubic yards of clean sand
to create a vegetated dune; and re-vegetate disturbed areas with Cape American beach
grass. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-24
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 11th
noting it was straightforward, especially in light of the recent nor'easters.
Is there anyone here wish to speak regarding this application?
MR. BETSCH: John Betsch, here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BETSCH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
STEPHANIE NECKLES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and replace
with 86 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in same location as
existing; install new 16 linear foot long bulkhead return on
west side; remove and replace existing 3.5'x3.5' cantilevered
platform off bulkhead with 3.5'xT stairs to beach in-place; and
to install and perpetually maintain an 8' wide gravel non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-2-32
The Trustees visited the site on April 11th, all were
present and said it would be appropriate to either match the
neighbor's buffer or put in a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The LWRP coordinator found the bulkhead replacement to be
consistent but found the bulkhead platform and stairs to the
beach to be inconsistent, as they were as-built.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
It should also be noted that the LWRP coordinator said to
require a non-turf buffer planted with native salt-tolerant
vegetation.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
We do have a New York State DEC permit for the application
as proposed on the attached drawings that you have and we have
no objection to a ten-foot wide, non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 13 April 18, 2018
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, that being said, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following amendment: A ten-foot, non-turf buffer, and
also by permitting the steps to the beach it will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Wetland & Coastal Erosion
Permits, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARTHA E.
TORRANCE & LUCIE T. TURRENTINE requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 4'x50' fixed dock; a
4'x20' ramp with railings; and an 8'x16' floating dock.
Located: 468 Sterling Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-5.1
This project was deemed inconsistent by the LWRP.
In addition, the Conservation Advisory Council did not make
an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Since the original application was made, Glenn Just from
JMO had submitted revised plans that would make the project
consistent under the LWRP, and the new plans reduce the size of
the dock to 48 feet, the size of the fixed dock.
The Trustees did not visit this. We did an inhouse on 3114.
And at this point is there anybody here that wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just for the applicant. At the
last public hearing we had for this we discussed reducing the
size of the fixed dock to conform with Coastal Hazard Erosion
and also the LWRP concerns, and I think we are consistent with
both of those policies now.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Do any of the Trustees have any questions?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing on this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point I make a motion to approve the
application with the new plans bringing the project into
consistency. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 14 April 18, 2018
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: One point, Glenn. You have another matter on the
agenda, that there were some e-mails. Are you going to have that
public hearing or are you looking to table that one?
MR. JUST: We would like to table that.
MR. HAGAN: Mr. President, with your permission, can we call that
matter out of order, just for clarification.
Under Wetland Permits, number five, which is on page seven,
JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES
Requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15x24' bluestone patio on sand;
stepping stone paths; 4x6' steps; a 4x148' fixed dock utilizing "Thru-Flo" decking;
a 3x12' ramp; and a 6x20' float secured by two (2) piles.
Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
It's my understanding there was a representation made
to the Trustees earlier today that the applicant wishes to table
this to the May meeting. Mr. Just, is that accurate?
MR. JUST: Yes, it is.
MR. HAGAN: You don't have to open that hearing. It's tabled at
the applicant's request.
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you, for clarifying that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, DKR
Shores, Inc. on behalf of MARIJO C. ADIMEY &VERONICA M. LUGRIS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove
and replace in-place 84' of existing vinyl bulkhead with new
steel sheet piling bulkhead; install two (2) 20' long returns;
backfill disturbed area with 45 cubic yards of clean fill from
an upland source; re-vegetate disturbed areas with Cape American
beach grass and native species of shrubs; temporarily remove and
replace in-place existing bluff stairs with two (2) 12'x16'
decks; reconstruct existing 4'x5' cantilevered platform and
aluminum beach access stairs; and install French drains at top
of bluff to reduce rain runoff on the bluff face.
Located: 21515 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-5
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
LWRP, stemming from the fact that one of the deck sections does
not have a permit, from my understanding. The project-- letters
to the record have been read at the previous public hearing when
we tabled this application.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support this
application given the fact that the rear setback, 16-feet from
the bank is inadequate, and the CAC recommends a new design plan
due to history of erosion in the area.
The Trustees have discussed this project on at least two
field inspections and two work sessions, including this last
Monday evening, the 16th of April.
The project, from my understanding, and for clarification
to the record, that DKR Shores is no longer representing Marijo
Adimey and Veronica M. Lugris. I see Patricia Moore who has made
Board of Trustees 15 April 18, 2018
a representation she is representing them now.
For the record, is that true?
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's true. I included DKR only because it's
her plans and we may, depending on redrawing them, I asked her
to stay, I don't want to say representing the applicant, but to
continue with us. But if we can't, we can't. It's fine. Either
she can revise the drawings or I have another person that can
draw them. But I'm the applicant's agent. I have the applicant
here. Marijo Adimey is here, so we will proceed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on
behalf of the applicant?
MS. MOORE: Yes. So this is really a continuation of a
hearing. I happened to be here at the other hearing, so I was
able to hear a lot of the conversation and reading some letters
from the record and so on.
One thing, I want to, I have given you two documents. The
first document is more of a written outline, and the written
outline refers to the coastal erosion law to try to follow what
the law is. One of the recommendations LWRP had was to
eliminate, reduce an existing deck that is a permitted
structure. That certainly is something that the client objected
to. I got involved, I pulled out the coastal erosion law, and
for clarification sake, the coastal erosion law does recognize
one pre-existing structure. And McDonald brothers owned this
property since for at least, their family owned it I believe in
the 70's, 80s. The coastal erosion law was adopted in 1991 and
this was an existing structure in 1991. They thereafter got a
permit to rebuild it in 1995, and also in -- let me make sure I
have the right date, pardon me. So '95, excuse me, '94 it was
given a full permit. In '95 they ended up with an emergency
permit because the bulkheads here are constantly failing. And
thereafter in 2011, it was, it received another permit. So this
has been a continuously-permitted structure. Ms. Adimey --the
owners, Adimey and Lugris, both received a transfer of the
permit and all these structures are permitted structures. So I
want to make very clear, I think the LWRP coordinator may have
misstated in his recommendation, he believing there was a structure
that was not permitted. All the structures here have permits.
So we are just starting with a clear record that all the
structures here are permitted.
What they came in for was to replace the bulkhead, the
permitted bulkhead, that was a vinyl bulkhead, in January after
the first storm where the bulkhead was damaged. Thereafter two
more storms hit and the bank, as you know, had continued to
erode. So in that time, we retained the services of Creative
Environmental. Dave Chicanowicz is here. And we provided
several things, to begin with, we started off by having a
contractor that will be involved here, I gave you a
cross-section at an earlier meeting of the Chesterfield
Associates cross-section of the steel plan. We also have the
Creative Environmental that prepared a drainage plan for you,
Board of Trustees 16 April 18, 2018
and cross-section. And all those documents are made part of your
record.
The second set of documents I gave you was my effort at
making kind of a clear description of what permits are existing,
what permits have been amended. Because it was getting a little
confusing because we had DKR's original submission, that's on
the left-hand"side, I made this a two-column document. It's - -
real simple. On the left-hand side is DKR. On the right-hand
side is any amendments we may have made to it. So the request
has pretty much stayed the same. At the work session I gave you
the cross-section by Chesterfield Associates. When it comes to
the two 20-foot new steel returns, because Vasilakis, the
neighbor, had a terrible destruction of their bluff, they are
coming in with a permit, a permit has been filed, it won't be
heard until the June meeting. But in the event that Vasilakis
does complete the work and they also have hired Chesterfield.
So the plan is to have all the work done at the same time and
coordinated. Then the second return between the Vasilakis and
Adimey property is not required. So I left it in the
description but I would say the second return is not needed. We
can leave it to be determined, you know, at a later date. But
right now I don't believe we are going to need it. Only if the
Vasilakis permit in June is not issued or they don't do the work.
Which is very, very, very, unlikely. It is definitely work that
has to be done, as is evidenced by the storm damage that you've
witnessed. The stone splash is still the same. The two decks
that, and stairs. The proposal was similar to the proposal that
was done when McDonald replaced the bulkhead. They asked, for
purposes of the safety of the crew, to remove the decking,just
set it to the side so it would allow the fill and the grading to
be restored, and the bulkhead work to be repaired without
interference of the deck. So it would be certainly the same
approach, if possible.
Chesterfield says, well, if we must, we'll keep it there
but I think that the Board, based on the, certainly your effort
to have everybody work safely and not be put in any jeopardy,
it's best to have it moved over to the side. But again, it's
very important these decks be considered permitted structures
that are to remain.
The cantilevered platform with removable aluminum beach
access steps, again, that is remaining as well. That was a
permitted structure previously, it's just when the bulkhead is
replaced, it will be a new structure. And again, as I pointed
out, the terracing is new because that, at the time the DKR
application was filed in January, two additional storms were,
you know, hit. So there is additional remediation and
restoration required. And the best course is to create tiered
timber-- I don't want to call them retaining walls, but I guess
they are considered retaining walls. Wood retaining walls. And
that's it. The application is not much different than what you
hear on a regular basis.
Board of Trustees 17 April 18, 2018
1 think there was some misunderstanding at the January
hearing with respect to the decks, and we know that the permits
that were issued for McDonald, at the end of each of the permits
it says well, you are going to rebuild the decks, we want you to
come back in. They don't need to rebuild the decks. In fact it's
probably, the only thing that withstood these storms were these
decks. So, surprisingly, the bank needs restoration and
bulkhead needs a complete replacement. But the decks are still
in place and the posts that were placed on the property are
still very strong and still in place. That picture doesn't show
it. I don't--that is to the east. That is showing the
Vasilakis property to the east. That is what you are seeing, the
big cave in, is Vasilakis.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a cave-in on the easterly side.
MS. MOORE: Yes, the easterly side, that's Vasilakis. You are not
actually looking at--the Adimey property is only showing maybe
the furthest easterly feet.
That's, to the west of the deck, that is a structure that no
one is proposing to remove or replace. It's there and we are
just going to fill around it. So. Do you have an extra picture
there? You have one side and the other. I have pictures of the
deck in your file. So that's the bulkhead. No, that's the, on
the landward side of the existing bulkhead, that the staircase
and the kayak fell in when the, when all the sand left.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That's clearly showing the bulkhead being
pierced right under the tip of the kayak. I took the picture. You can
see the hole in the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: Yes. At the time you made the inspection, no one had
seen the piercing, and even though my client had said, every
contractor said we have some damage to the bulkhead, you
obviously didn't see it, and it's not surprising, because it was
just not so evident. It's clearly there, you have been there and
you know the condition, so, no doubt.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The project plan that I have before me dated
January 19th, that was created by DKR Shores, dated in the
Trustee office January 19th. Seems to be that which you are
speaking of here.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I had it stamped on the plans I got from DKR
that shows January 25th. So I just used the Trustees stamp. I
didn't have a date on the document. -
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's why I'm saying it was received in the
Southold Trustee office January 19th. For point of clarity, I
don't see in the file a planting vegetation plan that you spoke of.
MS. MOORE: This one? It should be a large plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have not seen that in this file.
MS. MOORE: You made prints?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I thought I did.
MS. MOORE: I know we talked about it. I know he reviewed it with
you guys but if you don't have it, I'll give you mine and we'll
get you more prints, that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That creates an administrative problem. We
Board of Trustees 18 April 18, 2018
can't conclude the final action on this until we have an
opportunity to review it. There is no other file that I'm aware of.
MS. MOORE: Not a problem.
MS. CANTRELL: I never saw those.
MS. MOORE: I thought it was reviewed at work session. That's why
I did it the way I did. Because when I was reviewing it today, I
was like, wow, let me try to make sense of this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you understand, the Board would have to
intake plans and table the application and put the -- because
the plans are part of a whole. We can't segment this project out.
MS. MOORE: Well, no, we do want it treated all at the same time.
I think that plan reflects that was discussed at the work session
for sure, because the work session was where that plan was, let's
say, crafted. So what Dave Chicanowicz did is put it in paper
what was discussed as the means of drainage.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. So the Board has a seven-day
rule and we have to check conformity of it and then there are other
issues that you clarified concerning permitting on decks can be
taken into consideration. Because the Board had some slightly
different thoughts with respect to that.
As far as the inconsistency, it appears to be addressed by
virtue of your permit search and my understanding from the Board
during the work session is that would be sufficient.
There is still this question about the lower deck as far as
trying to honor the requirements of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act.
With respect to the concerns of the Conservation Advisory
Council, we now have this additional iteration concerning
stabilization of the property through the plans that we
discussed at the work session. So I just wanted to try to bring
it-- and it's my understanding there are no new letters to the
file here that we have read at the previous meeting.
Before I ask for additional concerns or questions from
those here, are there any additional concerns or questions from
the Board?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't think so. Pat was very thorough.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
MS. MOORE: No, but Dave Chicanowicz is here, if you have any
questions specifically about that, I would hate to make him come
next meeting, but, he has nothing better to do, right Dave?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think at this time --we really will
have to review those plans.
Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no other person, at this time I would make a motion to
table this application to provide the Board an opportunity to
review the bank.stabilization planting plan of Mr. Chicanowicz
in totality of the application.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. It will be on for the May--
Board of Trustees 19 April 18, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Group for the
East End on behalf of GREAT POND RESTORATION COMMITTEE, c/o
KENNEY'S/McCABE'S BEACH CIVIC ASSOC. request a Wetland Permit to
remove an invasive species, Phragmites australis, through
physical and mechanical methods using a hydro-rake and floating
barge to remove aquatic infestation, and mowing/cutting to
remove the terrestrial infestations; once the terrestrial
sections are cut, black construction plastic will be placed with
a layer of mulch to solarize the remaining rhizomes and seeds;
erosion control measures in the form of straw wattles will be
deployed to prevent sediment from entering the pond; in the case
of the aquatic vegetation removed, it will be dewatered before
combining with the land-based vegetation and both will be
removed off site to a NYS DEC certified disposal facility; once
the Phragmites are removed from the project site, native
vegetation will be planted to promote diversity, increase
wildlife habitat, and improve water quality; and long-term
monitoring will occur to document any future infestations of
Phragmites. Located: Great Pond and all of the following
properties abutting Great Pond located along Lake Drive,
Soundview Avenue and Kenney's Road, Southold. SCTM's#
1000-59-5-2.1; 1000-59-5-2.4; 1000-59-5-3; 1000-59-5-4;
1000-59-5-5; 1000-59-5-6; 1000-59-5-8.1; 1000-59-5-9;
1000-59-5-10; 1000-59-5-11; 1000-59-5-12; 1000-59-5-14.1;
1000-59-5-15,; 1000-59-5-16; 1000-59-5-17; 1000-59-5-18;
1000-59-5-19; 1000-59-5-20; 1000-59-5-21; 1000-59-5-22;
1000-59-5-23; 1000-59-5-26; 1000-59-5-31; 1000-59-6-22;
1000-59-6-23; 1000-59-6-21; 1000-59-6-27.3; 1000-59-6-27.2;
1000-59-6-19.3; 1000-59-6-19.4; 1000-59-6-17; 1000-59-6-16;
1000-59-6-15; 1000-59-6-9; 1000-59-6-8; 1000-59-6-6;
1000-59-6-7; 1000-59-6-5.1; 1000-59-6-5.2; 1000-59-6-3;
1000-59-6-2; 1000-59-6-1; 1000-59-5-1.1; 1000-59-6-24;
1000-59-6-26; 1000-59-6-25.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on April 11th resolved to
support the application.
The Trustees have done a number of field inspections on
this site, the most recent inhouse discussion of April 11 th
2018. And the notes indicate that it is important to remember
that only phragmites will be cut, take care to avoid damaging
other plant species.
Is there anyone here speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 20 April 18, 2018
MR. VIRGIN: I am. My name is Aaron Virgin, Vice-President of Group
For The East End, here to answer any questions from the Board of
Trustees or the public.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It was a thorough presentation, we looked at it
several times. Any Board members have any questions?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Everything seems straightforward.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MR. MANOS: Hi. My name is Charles Manos. I have property on the
lake so I'm an interested stakeholder. By way of history, I spent
pretty much every summer--time every summer since the late
1960s on that lake and I think this is ill-advised.
The phragmites, yes, it's very unsightly, and yes, it's grown
dramatically in recent years. Other things that have
happened in recent years is the lake has been closed
for swimming because of E-coli. And what is less obvious, but to
be me personally I know of, is when I was 10-years old I used to
swim across that lake every morning. Now if you go out in the
middle of that lake in August, it's, there is vegetation growing
from the bottom to about a foot below the surface. So the
phragmites, the E-coli, the extreme vegetative bloom so to speak
that is occurring, are symptoms of some other problem.
The other problem is, and it's well-known, is the explosion
in geese over that period of time. One adult goose produces
about three pounds of poop a day. Or another way to look at it,
fertilizer. It's got nitrogen, it's got phosphorus, it's got
potassium. So the phragmites, yes, it's unsightly, and yes, the
growth rate is exploding, but it's actually cleaning out the
lake. Now, the proposal is to replace the phragmites with some
native species. I did some research, here I have a study readily
available online, if anyone wants, I have a copy here, from the
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. They are very
involved in researching phragmites in the Chesapeake Bay and
water basin. And they did a study where they compared phragmites
to native plants with respect to carbon and nitrogen uptake. And
what they find is that phragmites absorbs a lot more carbon,
which if you are concerned about global warming would be a good
thing. But a more local concern, particularly in Great Pond, is
it absorbs more nitrogen and phosphate than native species.
So if we pull out all the phragmites and replace it with a
native plant, there will be more fertilizer in the lake, is
basically what this comes down to.
But I think it actually gets worse, because geese are not
well adapted to phragmites. Phragmites, although it's labeled an
invasive species, it's been in this country for over two
centuries. So the invasion has already happened, it's here,
it's part of the ecology we have today. The reason phragmites is
growing better than these other plants is because it's just better
equipped to absorb nutrients. And, as I said, the geese are not
adapted to phragmites, but they are adapted to eating native
species, which are lower in height, have more of a ground level
growth, which is where the geese eat. So by getting rid of the
5
Board of Trustees , 21 April 18, 2018
phragmites, we are increasing the nitrogen, (a), because the
replacement plant is less efficient in absorbing plant food out
of the lake. And, (b) we are creating more habitat for geese.
Geese return to the same spot every year. So the number of
geese is going to increase, which is more phosphate and
nitrogen. So the question is what can we project from the basis
of this. And as I said, I find phragmites unsightly, and have I have
a great view of the lake. But I'm concerned that the alternative
is much worse.
So, for example, in the 70's Route 58 was lined with duck
farms. And the county saw fit to shut them down because of the
algae blooms that were occurring in Peconic Bay. And they all,
the county also saw fit to ban soaps and detergents that had
phosphates in them in the 70's for the same reason.
So I think the county is already on position saying
elevating phosphate is not a good thing, and I think what we are
doing if we do rip out phragmites and replace it with native
plants, is we are creating the pre-conditions for an algae bloom
in that lake. It's actually indisputable. There will be a year
where there will just be an algae bloom. Fish will pop up on
the water dead, there will be the scummy slime. That's what we are
creating. So that is my first concern.
My second concern is -- and I should add, there are several
houses that have large lawns on that lake. And the lawns are a
magnet for geese because (a), they eat grass and (b), they are
not a solitary animal. They descend in a flock. So if they are in an
open area such as a lawn or golf course they have a 360-degree
line of vision and they can't be ambushed by a predator. And I
can see one of these lawns from my house every day, and there is
regularly 20 or 30 geese on it. And again, it's plant food. The
geese are producing plant food. The phragmites is responding to
elevated plant food. You get rid of the phragmites there will
just be, those nutrients are going to go into some other
botanical process. It's very well likely going to be algae.
The other concern and objection I have is most of the lake
is pretty flat, right, but my property is basically an embankment.
And the phragmites holding that embankment in place. So
according to the plan, the phragmites are going to get ripped
out, there will be nothing there for some time, and I am
suffering the risk of an erosion problem.
Should I wait for a response or is it a debate?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, you just speak to the Board. Address all
your comments to the Board.
Would you like to respond?
MR. VIRGIN I would like to, thank you. Mr. Manos, you bring up
three excellent points. I'll group them together. The first one
the Smithsonian study, is not the only study that has proven
phragmites actually do a lot of beneficial things. That being
said, in a marine ecosystem, which we know has your freshwater
ecosystem is what we are talking about, you can contain them,
you can remove them and you can replace them and you can replace
Board of Trustees 22 April 18, 2018
them with plants that are more efficient in the uptake of
nitrogen. I don't want to deal carbon because that's not really the
issue here, but also phosphorus. Phosphorus is the thing that
will speed up algal blooms in the freshwater systems. Not so much
nitrogen. The hydro-raking system, you talk about depth, the
hydro-raking system will help remove a lot of the growth of the
phragmites that we don't see, the rhizomes. These are single
plant structures with a lot of complex growth system under the
water and under the land. The hydro-raking will remove that, and
in doing so will indirectly dredge and decrease the depth of the
pond. And that will increase the oxygenation, increase the
dissolved oxygen and do exactly what you fear, that is promote,
maybe overheating you didn't say, but what is happening now in
the pond is it is becoming nitrified or it is decreasing its
depth, and that is why we have had blue-green algae, we've had
algal-blooms, we've had them two of the last three years, that's
why the camp was shutdown to swimming. These can be toxic, these
can be, there is a similar outbreak in Georgica Pond, a dog drank
the water from the pond and died. It was linked to that toxic
blue-green algae. So I think what you don't want to see happen
is already kind of happening in a small scale. And I agree with
you, if left unchecked -- I guess I disagree with you here, if left
unchecked, it will actually exacerbate the problem.
The phragmites is actually encroaching, it has been slowly
over the past three decades, and in doing so, the depth of the
pond has gone anywhere from nine to ten feet to probably maybe
four or five feet. Right now I think if you go to the pond
you'll see it's the deepest you'll see it at this time of year,
during the year, I should say, with all the rains we have had.
And the third part, you brought up the green lawns. The
plan would be, in phase two, would be to get the 41 property
owners together and agree to restore the phragmites that have
been removed with the native plants. To try to remove the areas
you talked about with the lawn with something that would detract
or encourage more native wildlife, but detract things like geese.
My inclination is the geese are there because it's a
secluded spot. You take the phragmites away, put in more native
vegetation, they don't have the seclusion, I think you are going
to see a decrease in geese. I can't guarantee that. But quite
frankly what do we have to lose? I think the geese are there
right now in the situation we have. And the geese are not the
only problem. The geese are not producing blue-green algae. I
think that is the real problem here. Again, getting back to the
hydro-raking and getting some of that depth out, getting some of
the muck out, will increase the flow, and will increase --
return the system back to what it was going back several decades
ago when we didn't have these blue-green algae.
Your erosion, point three, the last point. Your erosion is
a legitimate concern. And I heard about this recently. We are
working with a consultant on lake management, on the restoration
plan, to have something that would stabilize your area. I think you do
Board of Trustees 23 April 18, 2018
have the most severe incline into the pond. You and maybe the
property to the east of you, and I think there is another
neighbor too. Very steep areas. And we would definitely want
to work with you on a habitat restoration that would promote
stability and something that all parties would agree on.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you direct your remarks to the Board.
MR. VIRGIN: I'm sorry. 1 100% agree that the stabilization of the
shoreline is a concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know Lake Court from having fished there
when I was a child of about 12-years old. That's more like five
decades ago, and phragmites were fairly rare at that time. And
I think I know your dad, Jim, or late dad. Everything you all said about
the water quality is pretty true. I was previously associated with
the County health department, beach and bathing control unit, and
actually closed the beach there, and I'm quite familiar with it. But I
wanted to point out that the goose problem, the town has started
to address it. We have hired a part-time wildlife control
person. And, you know, I guess the question is, you know, cart
before the horse. I don't want to really get into the middle of
it, but I think the town is trying to make efforts in reduction
of the nutrient loading, which I would have to say both of you
provided a very good description of what is going on. Of course
it is a fresh water environment, but the Trustees' office has
already been questioning whether sport hunting would be
appropriate here for the geese, but it's not; so we'll have to
rely on different control methods. But I wanted to let you know
the town is concerned, questions have been raised and we have a
wildlife control officer who has been hired part-time and will
be able to assist in these matters.
MR. MANOS: The DEC is all for remediation of geese, and the life
cycle is such that they always come back to the same spot. But--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Please, sir, address the Board.
MR. MANOS: (Continuing) But with respect to the first point he
said, he actually made an argument, his first two points, he argued
persuasively for dredging, but actually was moot on the point of
whether there should be removal.
See, if the nutrient load goes down, they'll shrink the
phragmites. But what you said is actually argued for dredging
the vegetative deposits in the middle of the lake.
MR. VIRGIN: I didn't say anything about the middle of the lake.
I talked about the removal of the rhizomes. And in doing so --
if you look at the lake, the phragmites are on the perimeter.
MR. MANOS: Yes, I understand.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll ask you again not to have a cross dialogue.
MR. VIRGIN: I mean, that's where the removal would be and that's
where you would be removing a lot of the underwater vegetation.
And with that, some of the substrate of the pond would be removed
as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this?
Board of Trustees 24 April 18, 2018
MS. AGNESINI: Good evening, I'm Amy Agnesini. I have property
on the lake for three decades now. I have seen tremendous
growth, as you mentioned before. And I will keep this very brief
and just say there are a number of us here that would, that we
are looking forward to the day we can get our lake back. Thank
you. ------
TRUSTEE
----TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let him go first.
MR. BETSCH: John Betsch, on Kenny's Beach. Just for point of
record, we have worked in the past, talking about geese, we have
worked with Cornell Cooperative and the Peconic Dunes Camp, who
actually brought in who they call is a Suffolk County goose
expert, who tried to explain to us all the issues with the
geese, and we tried to solve the problems of the geese. They
call something, they called it city geese and country geese.
And they have different issues, how have come back and forth.
We tried all different ways to help the camp, if anybody sees the
Camp, the docks, what they look like. That's a significant
problem. But that's just a point of record. It has nothing to do
with the phragmites. I want to just go on the record with that.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to agree that the geese are in some
way a separate problem, but the phragmites does offer some area
for them to hide in, they can shelter, so you can't as easily
chase them away from your,property. They can nest in the
phragmites. So it's a little intertwined. But removing it would
essentially get rid of some of the habitat for them to hide out in.
MR. MANOS: It's not a goose, it's a phragmites feeding machine.
Three pounds a day. In eight months, one goose, that's several
hundred pounds of plant food deposited into the lake. Remediate
the geese, the plant food goes down. It would improve the
habitat for geese, which is what native plants would do, would
constitute, the geese population goes up. The phragmites will be
back in the blink of an eye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would disagree.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anecdotal evidence. 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
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ROBERT & DONNA DRUMMOND request a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace existing bulkhead with 65 linear feet of new vinyl
bulkhead in same location as existing; install an 8 linear foot
long bulkhead return onto southerly side; remove and replace
Board of Trustees 25 April 18, 2018
existing 4'x4' steps to beach off bulkhead; install and
perpetually maintain a 6' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead; and to install an 8'x8' hot tub
adjacent to the dwelling, connecting to an existing drywell.
Located: 675 Windy Point Lane/A.K.A. 675 Private Road #12,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-4-7 _
The LWRP found this to be consistent, noting increase the-
non-turf buffer width from six foot to a minimum of ten feet;
require that the impacts to the existing salt marsh vegetation
seaward of the bulkhead be minimized during construction, and
clarified as to how the hot tub will be drained.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports application with
a ten-foot vegetative buffer.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 11th,
noting if the construction could be landward of the existing to
cut the existing; bulkhead flush and leave as is.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. The
landward buffer, we submitted a six-foot wide to match what was
previously approved right next door, due to the fact there is
zero yard space in these properties.
Susan Getty, I think it was 625 Windy Point Lane, maybe a
year, year-and-a-half ago was approved on the same basis.
I just received in the mail today a DEC permit for in-place
In-kind. I know that this is a functional bulkhead. DEC allows
it to be removed and replaced in-place/in-kind. We can remove it
with migratory means, the existing sheets to avoid any
disruption to the existing vegetation. I know we had the same
situation on the neighboring property, however that bulkhead was
in such poor condition it was not even functional at that point.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak?
MS. BURST: Yes, I'm the neighbor to the west, Karlene Burst. And
We had occasion to speak with one another this past weekend
reference this. We just received the paperwork in the mail come
Tuesday of this past week, and didn't have the opportunity to look
at the drawings as it were and efforts to just see what was
intended to be. If we could view that at this point in time,
that would be great.
MR. HAGAN: You can open up the plan and show the public.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can approach.
MR. PATANJO: Do you want me to explain anything?
MS. BURST: That would be cool.
MR. PATANJO: Nice to meet you. We spoke on the phone. How are you.
MS. BURST: Nice to meet you.
MR. PATANJO: So all we are doing here, wherever the bulkhead is,
we are tying into Susan Getty's. This is their new bulkhead,
remove and replace in-place, replace the stairs that were lost
during the storm and do a return.
MS. BURST: Okay. Where is --this is the existing dock right here
Board of Trustees 26 April 18, 2018
MR. PATANJO:We are not touching the dock.
MS. BURST: So this is being shored up and --
MR. PATANJO: It will help you because it will protect your property.
MS. BURST: I'm good, I just wanted to see a picture of it. Thank
you. I just needed a moment. I appreciate your time.
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. DRUMMOND: I'm Rob Drummond, the owner of 675 Windy Point
Lane. I just wanted to thank the Board for your consideration.
We are just trying to improve the property. I'm suffering from
some loss of my turf because of holes at the bottom of the
bulkhead. I had to make a repair last year to try and shore up
the property but the condition continues to be a situation that
requires this work. So I do appreciate your consideration in
this application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to be
heard?
MR. BURST: I'm Charles Burst, Robert's next door neighbor. And I
think it's a good idea, what he's doing. I'm happy about that.
The only thing I'm concerned with is the dock is right on the
property line. It may even be on his. The previous owner, Herb
Linvite granted my family permission to always have access to
the dock. And that's my biggest concern.
MR. HAGAN: That's not an issue before the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's a civil issue. It's not an issue before
this Board.
MR. BURST: It's a written agreement, Herb Linvite had requested.
MR. HAGAN: The Board is only empowered to hear matters before
it that it has the ability to give any sort of opinion on.
Questions over the right of usage or right-of-way for another
dock is not something the Board is empowered by New York State
law to be able to address.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So to clarify, essentially, nothing would
change, it has nothing to do with this, basically. It's the
rebuilding of a bulkhead.
MR. HAGAN: The question before the Board is whether or not to
permit an in-kind replacement for what is already there. The
question over who has the right to use it or whether it's been,
whether there is a written agreement or something like that, is
not something the Trustees would address. Nor could they.
MR. BURST: The bulkheading is an excellent idea. It just goes
right up to the property line, and that's the, what happens with
the dock when the bulkhead gets replaced?
MR. HAGAN: Your question for the Board was whether--you are
asking questions as to right of usage of a dock, which is not
something the Trustees can address. It's not something --we don't
have the ability to deal with a right of usage question. It's --
MR. BURST: So it's not any of my concern, it--
MR.-HAGAN: It's a civil matter between you and the property
owner and not one the Board of Trustees can address. Nor should
Board of Trustees 27 April 18, 2018
they.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be clear, the dock is not part of the
application. So they have not applied to make any modifications
to the dock. So that's --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Patanjo, can you shed some light on that?
MR. PATANJ_O: Correct. The application is only for removal and
replacement of the existing bulkhead. The dock will remain in
place as it is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Clarification for the LWRP, how is the hot tub going to be drained?
MR. PATANJO: It's going to be piped to an existing storm drain
in the front of the property. I thought I had that on the plans. It will
be piped around the south side of the building and pumped south.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Any feelings in regard to the ten-foot as opposed to the six-foot?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a small amount of property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's where we granted the neighbor six.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, hearing no further comments, 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
with a six-foot non-turf buffer
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
KAREN & CAREY FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing fixed dock and steps to beach, and replace with a
proposed 4'x68' fixed dock supported with 10" diameter CCA
piles, install a seasonal 30"x16' aluminum ramp; install a
6'x20' seasonal floating dock with un-treated timber decking
situated in an "I" configuration and supported by two (2) 10"
diameter CCA piles. Located: 1077 Bay Home Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-56-5-39
The Trustees visited the site on March 14th and noted there
is no existing dock currently. Catwalk to stone steps create
existing -- oh, pre-existing nonconforming dock to west does not
influence this application. And the fetch exceeds the 10,000
foot guideline.
The LWRP coordinator submitted a lengthy review of this
project. Research from the property is not a fixed dock but
rather an access stairs to the water body, therefore it is not a
replacement of an existing fixed dock as described above. The
dock structure to the west of the property received a wetland
Board of Trustees 28 April 18, 2018
permit in 1995 and pre-dates the Chapter 275 Wetlands and
Shorelines Code provisions and adoption of the LWRP, both
occurring in 2004.
The LWRP coordinator therefore found this to be
inconsistent. Just to skim through a few parts of this lengthy
review here. The proposed structure is for prior recreational use
and will not preserve the public open space.
Policy three, in terms of enhancing visual quality, the
action does not meet this policy. Conversely, the applicant
proposes 104-foot long, 36-foot seasonal dock structure and
unspecified vessel that could further affect the scenic quality of
the area.
Policy six, protect and restore the quality and function of
the Town of Southold ecosystems.
CCA-treated material as proposed for the piling and other
features of the dock violate accumulation of the pesticides
Within marine animals shown to occur. Treated wood will
introduce harmful contaminants into the water body.
The proposed action is located within a New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation critical environmental
area and Peconic Estuary Program critical habitat.
The applicant does not discuss the potential impacts of
natural resources and water quality, and construction methods
have not been identified.
Policy 6.3, the applicant has not demonstrated the following
dock standards pursuant to 275-11 construction and operation
standards have been met.
It goes on further to discuss whether the dock will impair
navigation
The proposed dock is 104 feet in length. Chapter 275 requires
the determination of the length of the dock must include the
dimensions of a vessel. The dimensions of a vessel are not
specified. The applicant has not demonstrated that the dock
meets the one-third rule and is consistent with the pier line of
the waterbody.
A discussion on the potential impact if any, to navigation
of all vessels has not been provided.
The applicant does not discuss the potential impediments/impacts
regarding public access. There is furthermore on public access here,
turbidity, erosion of the shoreline.
The construction of a dock structure in public water removes or
hinders public use of water bottom land where the dock structure
is located.
He also wanted to stress that a mooring could be
established off this location. Moorings can be designated to
mitigate harmful impacts and are temporary.
The proposed dock structure in this location would extend
into public waters resulting in a net decrease of public access
to the public underwater land.
Private dock structures extending into public trust lands
and waters obstruct public use of navigable waters and other public
Board of Trustees 29 April 18, 2018
use in the area where the dock is located and does not meet this
policy. Two road ends at Willow Point Road and Bay Home Road
provide access to public waters.
The traditional the use of the waters include free and
unobstructed access to the nearshore for commercial uses and
recreation by the public.
Piers, docking facilities and catwalks must not result in
an unnecessary interference with public trust lands.
Alternatives to long piers or docks includes use of dinghies to
reach moored boats and moorings in nearby marinas. Potential
impacts to natural resources have not been thoroughly discussed.
The property is flanked by two public water access points
close to the subject property that would provide access to the
Peconic Estuary/Southold Bay. Alternatives to permitted private
dock structures in the Peconic Estuary/Southold Bay also include
using public access points throughout the town, mooring of boats
at safe areas and docking of vessels at nearby marinas.
Okay, the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved to support it.
That being said, is there anyone here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I
should have written down more of those. A couple of things that
I remember, wrote down, were to help with the LWRP review would
be the pilings. We can go with a Greenheart piling which would,
Greenheart timber, making the entire structure out of untreated
timbers entirely, which would satisfy that.
As far as the public access, on either side of this
proposed dock there are jetties built out of rock. You really
can't walk very graciously along the beach past this proposed
dock. If it would be something that needs to be added, we could
add stairs on either side to allow for access up and over the
dock. That's not an issue.
The comment regarding the distance to the nearest canal, I
think that was already addressed. You said it was 10,000 feet.
So I think we pretty well meet the one-third waterway rule width
here, being it's 110-feet or whatever it may be.
The dock is proposed as a seasonal dock.
As far as the ramp and float, the client has no problem. As
I understand, one of the issues is debris floating along the
waterway and damaging this existing dock. I believe the dock
next door, if I remember correctly, was done in 1995, predating
Chapter 275 code, approximately, give or take. That dock is
still standing. And that dock is significantly further out into
the bay as we have it proposed for our dock.
Seasonally, during the major storm periods this proposed
dock is in-line with the existing stone jetties, so it won't
extend out past the jetties. So anything that does float along in
an east to west fashion will be stopped by those stone jetties
and hopefully the dock next door.
So one of the other things that could happen would be, if
Board of Trustees 30 April 18, 2018
it's amendable to the Town, would be to increase the size of the
piles on the jetty. Greenheart timbers come fairly large. We can
get them with a 14-inch diameter. We can get large timbers,
which would stop any possible damage. The boat to be docked here
is nothing more -- it's not a large vessel. And it's a
transient-type period for the homeowner's use only.
The primary docking facility, as mentioned in one of the
comments from the LWRP, would be docking it in a marina around
the corner. I don't know the name offhand. So this is more or
less an overnight. It would be if they want to go to lunch, if
they want to use the boat for the day. Something like that. So
they could gain access to the rear of the property. I think
that's all I remember.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was a good summary.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to add that on page 16 and 17 of
the April 5th Minutes, the Board of Trustees Minutes, is a
written SEQRA positive declaration of environmental
significance, which was completed by this Board of Trustees on
March 19th. And I'm not going to read all the points, but I want
to emphasize that it is a positive declaration of environmental
significance.
MR. PATANJO: Would that positive declaration be influenced by way
of untreated timbers?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I remember it was not one of the factors.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The positive declaration means we probably
have to systematically go through the LWRP item by item and
possibly have a scoping session that would lead to the creation
of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a little beyond the Board to discuss individual
items when we have a compendium of issues from the LWRP
coordinator. And we have some of our own concerns.
MR. PATANJO: Sure. I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to repeat something else, that there is
no existing dock there nor steps to the beach. There are
some boulders you can step out on, but that is not a dock.
MR. PATANJO: I think that was brought up during the April 5th,
that it's not actually a dock, that it's a platform with stairs to
the beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we should table it and follow up with
further review and possibly call a scoping session. Under SEQRA we
have to do scoping, I think. So I think we have to table it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So after all that, do you wish to have the
application tabled for further environmental review and to call
a scoping session at our next work session?
MR. PATANJO: Unless you are going to approve it today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't make that judgment call.
MR. PATANJO: Then sure, let's table it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishes to speak
Regarding this application tonight?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 31 April 18, 2018
That being said, I make a motion to table this application for
further environmental review and for a scoping session at our future .
work session.
MR. HAGAN: Just for point of clarification, for the record, that
request to table is being done at the applicant's request?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: Okay, you can second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number four under Wetland Permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of ADAM & SANDRA SHEBITZ request a Wetland
Permit to install two tiers of coir logs for a length of 51
linear feet along the toe of the existing bank; provide 25 cubic
yards of clean sand fill from an upland source for bank
re-nourishment and install native plantings on re-established
bank; all work to be completed landward of the mean high water
line and any existing wetlands.
Located: 630 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-26
On April 11th, the Trustees visited the site. Notes we
have, there was noticeable pruning of the vegetation on the
bluff. We would recommend that stop. Maintenance pruning is
okay, but there was some bigger branches pruned back.
The LWRP has found this application to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application
and they support the application, and they noted they would like
to see a ten-foot vegetated buffer.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Pruning,
the client just bought the property, so that was from a
pre-existing owner. And I will mention to them to not do any
pruning other than specific maintenance pruning as outlined in
the comments.
The ten-foot non-turf buffer would be an issue because we
have the entire bluff to act as our non-turf buffer. As with
other applications in the past, the Board did not specifically
require a ten-foot non-turf buffer for loss of land because the
bluff itself with all its natural vegetation acts as part of the
buffer area.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I wish to make a motion to close the public hearing portion of
this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
Board of Trustees 32 April 18, 2018
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE_ DOMINO: I would like to take a five-minute recess at
this time. - •------ - ---- ---------------- -- -- --
(After a recess these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back on the record. The next item,
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of EDWARD AND DIANE DALEY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations
to the existing dwelling consisting of squaring off seaward side
of dwelling and constructing second-story additions to create a
2 'h story, 76.8'x40.8' footprint dwelling; construct an 8'x75.5'
seaward side porch; construct a 8'x52.10' landward side porch;
construct a 13.7'x18.1' breezeway leading to a proposed 26'x30'
attached garage on landward side of dwelling; reconfigure
existing driveway approximately 15'-20' to the south to
accommodate new garage; construct a 40'x24' swimming pool with
9'x9' hot tub; install a 60'x63' pool patio with 20sq.ft. patio
connecting pool patio and garage; and install a 6' wide concrete
walkway from pool patio to dwelling.
Located: 1350 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-23
This hearing is a continuation from last month wherein we'
tabled this application in order to meet in the field and to
research the status of prior permits.
The project has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP.
And the project has been supported by the Conservation
Advisory Council.
The Trustees met on April 16th during field inspections and
discussed aspects of the project. Separate from the application
before us is the need to transfer the bulkhead permit of the
prior owner, which would be pending.
The Board had an opportunity to review the, in addition to
the plans that were dated March 14th of 2018, we reviewed the
revised survey which addressed concerns of the Board as to the
location of the existing sanitary and the proposed sanitary
system in the revised survey dated April 9th.
The Board's review of the prior permit and onsite visit on
the 16th found there were no deficiencies from the prior permit.
So the permit is capable of, the prior permit is capable of
receiving compliance inspection and transfer.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, I did. But you set forth the facts pretty
admirably. So, thank you. Mr. Daley is here and Mr. Nastasi the
architect is here, too. And if there are any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board felt it's fairly
straightforward. Are there any questions?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 33 April 18, 2018
1 don't hear any questions. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing or seeing no one else to speak to this application, I
make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
- - - - --- - ------ - --- - - ------ --- -- - - - -
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as
submitted according to the plans dated March 14th in the Trustee
office, and in conformity with the revised survey dated April
9th, 2018.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of PIPES
COVE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, c/o ROBERT WALLACE, PRESIDENT
requests a Wetland Permit to construct±23 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead within 18" of(and up to 2.1' higher than) existing
timber bulkhead to remain (Section G); remove and replace
existing brick walk with pervious crushed bluestone; install
3'x20' gangway to existing floating dock (located partially in
Town jurisdiction) in-place of existing gangway to be removed;
construct±415 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead within 18" of(and
up to 2.0' higher than) existing timber bulkhead to remain
(Sections H1, H2, H3 & H4); fill voids between new and existing
bulkheads with crushed stone, and backfill new bulkheading with
approximately 215 cubic yards of excavated upland and dredged
spoil material obtained from portion of property located within
the Village of Greenport; construct new±50' vinyl bulkhead
return; remove and replace existing fence landward of return as
needed; protect and repair in-kind/in-place as needed
approximately ±430 linear feet of existing concrete retaining
wall landward of bulkhead; and remove and replace pervious
crushed bluestone in area to remain as a non-turf buffer between
bulkheading and landward retaining walls. Located: Pipes Cove
Condominiums, 6th Street, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-49-1-25.8
The LWRP found inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from
the fact the structures was not built with a Board of Trustees
review or permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council on April 11th,
unanimously resolved to support the application.
The Trustees did a pre-submission inspection with
district engineers and most recent inspection was April 11th and
April 12th. The notes say that it appears to conform with the
pre-submission discussions and that it's a straightforward
application.
I would like to stipulate the rip rap that is removed from
the northwest corner be replaced after the completion of the
Board of Trustees 34 April 18, 2018
project. Assuming it's approved.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the condominium.
This is a site that we had looked at together prior to making
the application. It's a little bit of an unusual project because
the property boundary between the Village of Greenport and Town
of Southold cuts right through the property. So while the non-
local agencies are getting a full project description for this
whole place, you guys are just getting a description for what is
within your jurisdiction. So that one section that describes 23
feet of bulkhead is obviously part of a much longer section of
bulkhead. But that's the part within your jurisdiction.
Greenport would have to review the rest. As we had discussed
onsite, the conditions here really necessitate a seaward push
out of the bulkhead, meaning the new bulkhead will be
constructed seaward of the existing, maintaining the existing in
place. And we had talked about what kind of mitigation we could
come up with. Actually the Board had come up with an interesting
idea, even though ironically mitigation would not occur within
your jurisdiction, but it would occur on the site, which is the
creation of approximately 832 square feet of vegetated tidal
marsh on this spit of land that extends off the Village of
Greenport, which you can see just on, just to the right of where
your little cursor is going in there.
We are going to lower the height of that section of
bulkhead and establish a low sill bulkhead there. Exactly, right
there. And get a tidal marsh established there.
The area Mike was just mentioning in the northwest corner,
in the Trustees'jurisdiction, up really in the inner most bay side,
there is really a bunch of rip rap and broken concrete and bricks and
other stuff that is piled up there now. Along the eroding
embankment is the proposal is to construct a return there kind
of generally along the top, and then landward of that
embankment. So I would just, looking for a little
clarification, Mike, of what you mean by replacing the rip rap.
In other words, once the return is built would you want that
material placed back?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the suggestion of the Board.
MR. HERRMANN: As opposed to getting rid of it. Okay. I don't see
any reason we couldn't agree with that unless the DEC or another
agency asks it be removed. Sometimes if it's -- I don't remember
all the material that's there, but if there is, sometimes if there
is broken concrete or something, they actually want it to be
moved away.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a mix of old bricks and small
concrete pieces. The concern is of course that with a southwest
wind and boat traffic transiting through the Greenport channel,
that it would continue to push wave energy up onto the adjoining
property. It's a long fetch and quite a long bulkhead face.
MR. HERRMANN: I see. Yes. And there is not a contractor yet that
Board of Trustees 35 April 18, 2018
is assigned, so there is not one here tonight, but I would think
in terms of trying to pound that return in, they probably will
want to disturb on the seaward part of that as little as
possible anyway. So if they don't have to undo all that, that's fine. If
they ran into a problem during construction or anticipated a
problem with that, we would just have to come back and address
it with you. But I don't see any reason why we couldn't accept
that. That's fine.
Otherwise, I mean, it is basically a maintenance project, a
straightforward project, especially the part that is in the
Town's jurisdiction. So that's all I have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. SCOTT: My name is Alan Scott, the owner of the property
adjacent to the project. We have quite a few concerns, actually.
Number one is why is the bulkhead being moved out 18 inches from
the existing bulkhead. When it originally was done it was
approved to raise the bulkheading to where it is at this
particular juncture. So we don't understand, number one, why
it's being moved out further to create more land access for
them. Secondly, it's, esthetically it is going to look more
horrible than it already does.
The other point is why is it being raised two feet. Again,
esthetically, it will make for a horrible-looking dock or
bulkheading. Again, if you were out there and looked at it, you
can see the beach erosion that has occurred from that, from them
putting the bulkheading in there when they did the condominiums has
created nothing but a disaster on our beach.
They have the properties listed incorrectly on their survey.
And the other thing, is we only got this on Saturday. This
is the first time we are hearing about this, that we received
any notification of this. So we have not had anybody been able to
look at it and determine encroachment on the properties, how the
water has been draining into the properties because they raised
the property approximately two-and-a-half to three feet when
they put the condominiums up.
The debris and everything else that is there was put
there by the condominium. And it's encroached on to our beach, on to
our property. We had complained years ago about it, no one has ever
done anything about it. So there are major concerns about it.
Esthetically, it will look horrible. Again, we feel they
are encroaching improperly onto our beach.
We don't know what the environmental impact will be on the
shoreline and on the beach, so and on so forth. Also how will they directly
contact or do any of this work. Are they coming in the condominium
side?Are they coming in from our property side? No one is
addressing whether they'll do any repairs to whatever they
damage or do to the properties.
At this point, like I said, we have had this thing since
Saturday and, in all honesty, I mean I know I'm old, but looking
at a map of this thing, it's, you know, that size, how can
Board of Trustees 36 April 18, 2018
anybody make a determination? We have not been able to give it
to anybody to look at to make their points on it or anything
else. I just don't understand how this can come before us and
expect us to be happy with a decision on this thing.
MR. HERRMANN: I can respond to some of that.
So, first of all, just in terms of some housekeeping, I
assume this is the Cove Circle Association that is located to
the west of this site?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: They were noticed pursuant to Town code, it was
sent care of Sandra Avitello, at 10 South View Court. Damon,
you have to look. I don't know if I got a green card back. But
I did get a call from someone and now, I had not planned on
needing to remember his name, but it was someone who had called,
I think his name was Jim, and he said he was calling on behalf
of the association. And had asked me several questions that
seemed mostly concerned about when the work was going to be
done; was it going to be done during the summer; would there be
any interference with boating or summer activities. And I
assured him, much to my client's dismay we would not be anywhere
close to done with permits before the summer and the work would
probably not be done until sometime in the fall.
In terms of the encroachment, that is an easy one to
resolve, because as I just mentioned, the proposed return that
is being put adjacent to that property would be wholly within
the limits of this property. And notwithstanding the Board's
request a few minutes ago that we leave that material there, we
can certainly remove it as well. And that would eliminate any
issue of encroachment of that material on the association beach,
if they don't want it there. Once the return is in, there is no
advantage to the condominium of having it there. So if that is a
concern from a neighboring property owner, they can certainly
remove that.
The access to the site would come through the condominium
property directly and also by barge. There is no conceivable
encroachment that I could think of in terms of equipment or work
being done on the association property. They couldn't work on
the association property without the association's permission.
That return would be driven in from the landward side from the
condominium property.
In terms of the elevation, there are different elevations
that, different heights that the bulkhead would be raised
throughout the condominium property. The bulkheads are varying,
heights now, and so the maximum it would be raised I think is 2.1
feet or whatever is described. And in other places it would be
raised a lower height. Again, I'm not sure environmentally how
that would impact the adjacent property or create encroachment
on the adjacent property. But that's the way it has been
engineered. And it has been engineered that way, we had
discussed this at length in the beginning, because if you look
at what the published rates of anticipated sea level rise are on
Board of Trustees 37 April 18, 2018
the DEC website, I'm sure you guys have seen this, there is a
broad range of low risk to medium risk to medium high risk and so
forth and so on. And so there is a certain elevation prediction
for medium to high risk in terms of sea level rise over the next
30 to 50 years. And 30 years is the engineering standard for
the lifespan of a bulkhead.-
-- - - --- - - - -
So basically the engineer is designing in accordance with
those anticipated sea level rise elevations for no other reason
than that.
In terms of the seaward movement of the bulkhead, those are
for all the reasons we discussed at the site that you run the
risk, and I think Mike had pointed this out at the site before I
even got to try to convince him of it, is if you start trying to
remove those sections of bulkhead and that concrete retaining
wall and all the silt comes down behind it, you'll have a pretty
big mess in the bay there.
But understanding that there is an encroachment, that again
is why we came up with the mitigation. We had originally
proposed to increase the surface water area. You guys didn't
think that was substantial enough and you asked us to carry
through with the marsh creation, which is what we have done.
So it actually has been a pretty smartly-designed project, I think
it's a good project, and there is no, again, the only concern
for that encroachment would be that rip rap and other material.
So if you would like us to remove it, we can remove it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll say, our suggestion about the rip rap was
made with the hopes we could protect some of that property, and
if the owner to the northwest is opposed to that, we can
withdraw that suggestion.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Our concern, again, is when they put this bulkheading
In, when they gave the permits to build the condominiums and
raised everything and extended the properties, that is what
caused the beach erosion. So again, we are concerned about beach
erosion, we are concerned about not having anybody be able to
look at this. As I said, we got this on Saturday. It was my
sister that received it. She is the head of the association. So,
I don't see how you can grant them a permit when, first off, as
I said, esthetically it won't fit in with the bay. It won't fit
in with anything along the shoreline. There is nothing that is
two-and-a-half feet higher than what is already there. That's
way above what everything else is. You know, again, when the
property, right now, the property is draining off the property
back into our piece of property, which is 80 Cove Circle. They
have this listed, the beach, as 150 Cove Circle, which it isn't.
150 Cove Circle is further up where the house is up there.
So their drawing is incorrect to begin with. And again --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you approach the dais and show me
that on this please, sir?
MR. SCOTT: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is this the property?
Board of Trustees 38 April 18, 2018
MR. SCOTT: 150 Cove Circle is not that piece of property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is your piece of property. '
MR. SCOTT: That's owned by the Pipes Cove Association. It's not
owned by a Walter Burton and it's not 150 Cove Circle. We own
this piece of property here. 80. And the beach association owns
that piece of property there. -
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: In other words, I can show you on here. This is owned
by the association. This property, that's 150 Cove Circle. So
there is --
MR. HERRMANN: That's the licensed land survey of the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is this owned by Shirkin? Elizabeth Shirkin?
MR. SCOTT: No.
MR. HERRMANN: That's out of date, Mike. When the surveyors list
the adjacent owners, they put the NOF, now or formerly.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now or formerly, this is Elizabeth Shirkin.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. Which is shown on the plan as Sandra
Avitella, who is one of the listed adjacent owners.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, thank you, sir.
MR. HERRMANN: That's tax map number is 1000-49-1-19.2. So I think
that is what is shown as Shirkin on the survey, but that's not--
MR. SCOTT: There are five owners on 80. 150 is, again, is owned by
us. And it's not the beach. But again, the association and the
people concerned are worried about the esthetics, they are
worried about the beach erosion again. Moving it further out
into the water is just going to create further beach erosion.
And raising it two-plus feet makes absolutely no sense to us.
MR. HERRMANN: Just for the record, Mike, I want to just clarify
what I was mentioning before. Just reading from a note I
received from the engineer. The proposed top of bulkhead
elevations represents an increase that accounts for rising sea
levels with a "high medium protection."Which is referencing DEC
6 New York CRR Part 490, protections for sea level rising in the
Long Island region. See figure below. Then there is a figure,
and I can submit a copy of this to you. It basically shows for a
high medium projection, sea level rise of 21 inches by the
2050s. High projection is 30 inches, medium projection is 16
inches. So again, what we are finding as we get better and better
educated about the risk of sea level rise, that when the engineers
now are designing these walls, they are really being trained and
guided by the state to increase the elevations of these walls,
because these are expected --the standard engineering timeframe
is 30 years. So that is why, close to 2020, what the engineer is
doing is looking at time interval to the 2050s and going with
not the most drastic projection but with a more, slightly more
than conservative projections. So the design makes complete
sense.
MR. SCOTT: 26 inches is more than 16 inches.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 39 April 18, 2018
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the one thing to discuss is you are
concerned about encroachment of the materials that were possibly
put there from the original construction. The Board,just to
clarify, felt that we wanted them to put them back, basically to
protect your property. So just to prevent the water from
wrapping around the side of the condos and going after that
little bank face right there.
MR. SCOTT: You were out and saw that, correct? And you saw that
is already undercutting the bank of their property?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not his property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: His property is landlocked.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: His property is interior landlocked. It's not
his property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: It's the beach property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The beach—there is an association there. You belong
to the association?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, we do. We own the beach also.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the rip rap would really be at their discretion. If
they want it put back or not.
MR. SCOTT: I mean, again, the beach erosion is going to be as
you can see even from this winter, has been horrible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't disagree with that, but what we are
dealing with here is a pre-existing structure that is just
being replaced.
MR. SCOTT: I know, but they are extending it further out into the
waterway, they are extending it higher.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just like to point out, the extension
higher is standard operating procedures these days. This is not
a unique situation. Most of the bulkhead applications that we
get now do include raising it to deal with the higher sea
levels. So it's not just this particular application. It's
across the board.
MR. SCOTT: I understand that. But again, it's something that
esthetically will be a detriment to the owners of the
properties. I mean, they already raised it probably three feet
from the original application. I don't have the applications in
front of me and the permits. You are projecting 50 and 60 years
out.
MR. HERRMANN: 30.
MR. SCOTT: 30 years out. I mean, at 30 years --the bulkheading is 30
years old now and it has not raised above the bulkheading. So
where is the sea levels going up as high as they are claiming?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other thing I just want to point out and
reiterate is that in moving the wall slightly seaward, they did
comply with what the Trustees wanted, which was creating a
wetland in their tidal area. So environmentally it's a sound
project. It's a good move. In my opinion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It seems one of your concerns is esthetics. If
we were to balance the gains to the environment versus
Board of Trustees 40 April 18, 2018
esthetics, then it comes out in favor of the applicant.
MR. SCOTT: Again, all I can do is present it to you. I mean, If you
lived there, you would be doing the same thing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate your comments.
MR. SCOTT: I disagree with it. The association disagrees with
it. So you guys have to make your decision.
MR. HERRMANN: I think it sounds like we ought to plan to remove
the rip rap.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would leave that up to this gentleman. Our
suggestion was made in light of our attempts to protect that
property. But if there is objection to it.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not sure there is anyone here from, who is
formally, legally, representing the association's position.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, the point made is that the gentleman is
not a registered agent for the association, therefore cannot
make a representation for them regarding rip rap.
MR. SCOTT: I am an association member. Let it be noted that I am
An association member.
-TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's why we listened to you.
MR. SCOTT: You are saying I have no representation, but I do. I
own it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: By representation meaning in the file we have
a signed statement that you are the agent for the association.
As a land owner, as a property owner, you have the right to
speak and you have been given that right.
MR. SCOTT: And you think four to five days notification is
enough to get us to get everything together?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not going to discuss that.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment or questions, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you for hearing us.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of
DONNA BLANCHARD request a Wetland Permit to remove existing 15
sq.ft. fixed platform, 3'x10' ramp, and 6'x12' floating dock;
and install new 3'x14' ramp off existing bulkhead, and 5'x14'
floating dock secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings; dock to be
equipped with water and electricity.
Located: 50 Budds Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-21
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The applicant must
demonstrate the following dock standards pursuant to chapter
Board of Trustees 41 April 18, 2018
275-11 construction and operation standards have been met.
A representative vessel is not shown on the plans and the
potential conflicts with the adjacent docked vessels to the
north and south of the property could occur.
He says in the event the application is approved it is
recommended the application be amended to meet the following
275 regulations. Which is the construction standards, erosion
control, deploy silt boom during construction of the dock
structure, and minimize use of CCA treated wood in marine
waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition the lighting is Dark Sky compliant.
The Trustees conducted field inspections on a number of
occasions, most recently April 11th, and noting the new
configuration appears to work if the vessel conforms to
covenants and restrictions regarding the length by the
homeowners association.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: I thought this was going to be the hard one.
Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant.
I know Donna Blanchard is here. So this is going to take us
back to 2002 when we had originally made application for a dock
that would have extended over the, extended out from the then
existing bulkhead. And the neighbor to the north, which was then
Frederick Krug, had objected to the application based on the
inconsistency of the proposal with the C&Rs that were just
referenced in that description. And so as a potential
alternative, Mrs. Blanchard relocated a section of her bulkhead
landward into the property and set a ramp and float within the
confines of the relocated bulkheading. Basically created the
little slip that is there today that. That has not worked out
very well. So, in an attempt to take another shot at this, now
that there is also a new, and I believe Trustees-permitted dock
to the south, that's the Southard property, we took another shot
at seeing if we could fit a ramp and float running perpendicular
off the inside of the slip, which I think was also the Trustees'
original suggestion to Mrs. Blanchard when they visited the site
prior to this application. So I had explained to Donna that we
would again have to take a look at these C&Rs and we have come
up with a design or would have to come up with a design that,
(a) was consistent with the C&Rs, and (b), would also be put out
in a way that doesn't interfere with the adjoining docks and
watercraft and would be acceptable to both of those adjoining
property owners.
So just to give you some quick context, the C&Rs which were
originally adopted to 1967, and I can submit a copy of this to
you if you don't already have it, basically has two critical
parts to this. One, it states that no bulkheading, pilings,
docks or other structures or facilities shall extend more than
ten feet into the canal from the original shoreline at mean low
Board of Trustees 42 April 18, 2018
water, which is basically the shoreline of the filed map. And then no
part of any boat when moored shall extend more than 15 feet into
the canal from the original shoreline at mean low water.
It also says except as otherwise agreed between adjoining
property owners, no bulkheading, pilings, docks or other
structures or facilities shall cross the extension of any
property line to the center of the canal. No bulkheading,
pilings, docks or other structures or facilities shall be
constructed or maintained and no boat shall be moored in such a
manner as would hinder a property owner from access to his
normal use of the canal. Which is where the cooperation from the
neighbors comes in.
So we had originally submitted for the meeting that was
cancelled due to weather, a slightly different plan from this.
And I'm just going to hand up to you, it's going to be hard for
you to tell the difference between each of these. But there was
an original plan that set the ramp and float out perpendicular
from the bulkhead. And then we have, we are were contacted by
Mr. Weber, who is Mr. Krug's successor, and he pointed out that
doing so was going to create some potential conflict with his
existing floating dock. In fact, he actually was kind enough
to create a drawing for me, which I'll just show you quickly.
That under the original plan you can see there might be, you
know, a conflict if he had a boat docked all the way up to the
edge. But if we change the degree that the ramp and float would
extend from a pure perpendicular extension about five degrees,
it actually creates room to dock a boat. And so we changed it
ever so slightly, and this actually shows the original
configuration versus the one that runs parallel with the
property line.
So we used the cancelled meeting as an opportunity after
speaking with Mr. Weber to change the orientation ever so
slightly, um, to make it work. I had since met with Mr. Weber
out there and I also obtained a letter from him giving his
written approval of this. I should probably give you the
original. Yes. So we believe, I think Mr. Weber is here
tonight. So we believe he was happy with the change in the
design. And we had also, Mrs. Blanchard had also contacted Mr.
Southard, who is on the other side. I don't know if Mr. Southard
is here tonight -- he is. So what Mrs. Blanchard had reported to
me is that Mr. Southard was, and he'll of course correct me if
I'm wrong, is he was okay with the design as long as the design
was conditioned on the fact that the Blanchard's boat would only
be docked to the north side, in other words, between the float
and Mr. Weber's property. Which is really the only place it can
be docked. Because if we have the float running out parallel
with the southerly property line, that's the only way it works.
And actually for a tight space, we think, I'm hoping to hear good
news from Mr. Southard tonight, we think it works because
basically Mr. Weber's float and the proposed Blanchard float
creates a slip essentially between them for the Blanchard boat.
Board of Trustees 43 April 18, 2018
And the Blanchard float, which is positioned closer to the
Southard property and Mr. Southard's dock, creates really the
docking space for him.
So we think it works. Now, back to the C&Rs, you can see
that I have included on this plan the filed map line, and you
can see the dock extends a maximum ten feet seaward of the filed
map line. And in terms of the boat that would be docked, that
would mean that the bow or stern of the boat could only extend
five feet seaward of the end the float in order to be
consistent, as Glenn read at the outset, with the C&Rs.
So with the consent of the two adjoining property owners
and with the compliance with the C&Rs, we would be able to
successfully have a ramp and float here as the Trustees had
suggested originally, the configuration that the Trustees had
suggested to Mrs. Blanchard in a way that would keep them and
both neighbors around them happy.
That is all I have. I'm hoping Mr. Southard is about to get up
and say he's happy with it. Because that will determine the rest
of the hearing here. That's all I have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. SOUTHARD: My name is Charles Southard, I'm the property
owner to the south, and I'm approving of this design. I did make
the stipulation the boat would only be kept on the north side of
this dock. Otherwise as always, this dock is running parallel to
the property line, it's fine. I approve of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak regarding this application.
MR. WEBER: Hi, I'm John Weber, I'm the north property owner, and
the modifications that he made to keep the boat parallel with
the property lines are good and I approve the new drawing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Anyone else here who wishes
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Nice to see people get along.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's nice to see neighbors get along.
MR. HERRMANN: It's only been 16 years. We just needed new
neighbors.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the dock construction
standards of Chapter 275-11 are followed; silt boom is used
during construction; and noting that the C&R's restrict the boat
from going no further seaward than five-foot from the end of the
dock, which will address the LWRP's concerns. And the boat will
be berthed on the north side of the proposed dock.
That's my motion.
Board of Trustees 44 April 18, 2018
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of OLIVER
- FRANKEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'x±142'
- ---------------- - --
elevated timber bluff stairway with railings inclusive of a
6'x8' top entry landing, four(4) 4'x4' landings, and two (2)
4'x6' landings with benches; and to restore/revegetate areas
adjacent to stairway disturbed during construction using native
vegetation.
Located: 975 Hillcrest Drive North, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.21
The Trustees visited the site on the 14th of March. On the
notes were, okay, maintain all natural stabilizing vegetation on
the bluff face.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Although
he would strongly suggest a vegetated non-turf buffer.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support this application due to the fact that the bluff is
currently heavily vegetated and they don't want to see erosion
caused.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. Mostly I'll just take any questions or concerns the
Board has. It's a fairly standard beach access application.
The stairway design has been prepared by Young &Young, and
obviously without the stairway, the homeowners can't get down to
the beach.
It has actually been proposed in a spot where there is
almost sort of a natural place for it. So we did take the
vegetated condition of the bluff into account. And hopefully
have it designed in the one place where it would make the most
sense on the bluff slope to do it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How do you feel about the LWRP suggestion about
a non-turf buffer maybe in the area around the stairs, just to
help alleviate any runoff concerns?
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. You know, there is a little bit of a
meandering of the bluff there. There is, I don't know if it
makes sense to show it, but there is almost a little bit of an
indentation around where the platform would be. So it might
make sense to fill that area in with some native plantings where
the slope dips out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you quantify the size of that area?
MR. HERRMANN: I could come pretty close. If I could figure out
what the scale is.
At its maximum it's probably about 30 foot long. And it's
maybe eight feet deep in the center. So if you want to call it a
triangle, one half base times height, what did I say 30 by
four, it's about 120-square feet, I guess. Roughly. We can
actually calculate it and give you a real number. But I would
Board of Trustees 45 April 18, 2018
say--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. 120. 1 want to make sure I was doing my
--math right. --- -- -- -- - - --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following amendment: To include new plans depicting a
120-square foot non-turf buffer surrounding the top of the stairs.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of OLIVER
FRANKEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'x±142'
elevated timber bluff stairway with railings inclusive of a
6'x8' top entry landing, four (4) 4'x4' landings, and two (2)
4'x6' landings with benches; and to restore/revegetate areas
adjacent to stairway disturbed during construction using native
vegetation.
Located: 975 Hillcrest Drive North, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.21
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent with policy standards.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and they resolved to support the application.
The Trustees did a field inspection several times, most
recently being April 10th of 2018. We found the project to be
straightforward, and the project is also located behind the
native swale.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is a constrained site, it's the second one
tonight, that started back in 2002 when the Trustees approved
the original construction of the dwelling. And there is a
65-foot wide area to remain natural and undisturbed that was
imposed on the site adjacent to freshwater wetlands that are
ultimately associated with Lilly Pond by the State DEC. So
really the only place to put the deck addition is where it is
shown.
We have an approval from the ZBA for the deck. This is a
bit of an unusual application because although you would not
know it from being out there, that, I don't know if that's Jay,
but to his left is a road, a paper road, which created a second
front yard. So even though it looks and feels and seems like a
Board of Trustees 46 April 18, 2018
side yard, we had to get a front yard setback variance from the
ZBA. That's also a property that I was involved with the prior owner
getting that property sold to the town with Community
Preservation Fund money. So that is not a property that will
ever, presumably, be developed.
And then there is a small hot tub that is proposed on the
water side of the deck with some stepping stones leading out to
it. Again, all outside the area that is to remain as non-disturbance buffer.
So this one is actually pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing of this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of
RYAN STORK requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place
approximately 168 linear feet of storm-damaged concrete seawall
and 68' westerly concrete return with vinyl bulkhead and return;
construct new±7' easterly vinyl return; remove and replace
3'x6' metal stairs to beach; remove and replace in-kind/in-place
approximately 51 linear feet of storm-damaged timber retaining
wall (±77' timber retaining wall to remain); backfill new
bulkhead and re-nourish storm-eroded embankment with
approximately 240 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; revegetate re-nourished and
disturbed areas of embankment with native vegetation; remove
existing storm-damaged concrete stairs and construct a timber
stairway consisting of an upper 3'x6' steps, a 3.5'x4.5'
landing, 4.5'x11' steps, a 4.5'x6.5' landing, and 3'x11' lower
steps to grade; remove 566 square feet of storm-damaged deck
behind bulkhead; construct a 3'x39' on-grade wood walkway with
open-grate decking from proposed steps to existing gazebo; and
repair storm damage to existing gazebo (e.g., replace damaged
exterior siding and interior sheet rock and flooring, as needed).
Located: 1140 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-1
The Trustees, the most recent field inspection on March 14th,
has some concerns about the gazebo. Notes say to check the status
of the, permanent status of the gazebo.
There is a letter in the file here from April 12th, 2018,
from a Robert Sheehan in support of the application. He's the
neighbor two properties removed to the east.
Board of Trustees 47 April 18, 2018
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application as this project will only repeat its failure. The
Conservation Advisory Council recommends replacement with
erosion controlled structures, revegetation of the disturbed
areas, however all unnecessary structures, gazebo, decks, stairs
should not be constructed.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, and also Jeff
Butler is here, he's the design engineer for the project.
Just quickly responding, Mike,-on the gazebo, there is a
Trustee permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I failed to mention, we did do the research and
we found it.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, that dates back to 2006, a certificate of compliance
issued in 2007, and you just actuality transferred that permit to the
current owners tonight. There had also been a prior permit for
the seawall which was transferred to the current owners prior
to tonight.
Otherwise, this is a pretty routine storm damage
application. There is a pretty hideous concrete seawall that is
there now. It was badly damaged, I think in this year's
nor'easters, right? And all that concrete is to be removed and
replaced with the proposed vinyl bulkhead.
I had gotten a call from the neighbor on the other side of
Marratooka Road who asked me if the project would ultimately
look like hers does, and I told her yes, and it will.
Behind the seawall there is a retaining wall that was partially
damaged, and we are proposing to replace only that portion that
was damaged. There is some stairs that are proposed that,
again, existing stairs that were damaged coming down that little
slope. And also I think a set of metal steps that are proposed
back on the seaward side of the bulkhead. And I think those are
to be removable steps, which is something the Board has asked
for in similar environments.
The gazebo really is structurally sound, I think, there is
just a lot of mess inside of it that would be cleaned up under
this project.
There is one item that Jeff can speak to if you wish, but
I'll just hand you up a photo. There is a tree that is located
between the end of Marratooka Road and the gazebo which Jeff has
looked at since the plans were originally prepared and
submitted, and is thinking there is no way that tree is going to
be preserved. So unless the Board would object, we would like to
ask if we could include that tree removal in the application.
Jeff, would you be able, if requested, would you be able to
locate that tree on the plan?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: So if you wanted to go by something more than that
photo, we could locate the tree on the plan. Otherwise if you
want to go by the photo. That would be great. So that's really
Board of Trustees 48 April 18, 2018
it. Again, there is the nourishment component in terms of the
slope which would then also be re-vegetated with native
vegetation, that is included in the application.
Jeff, you don't have anything to add?
MR. BUTLER: Nope.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: With all these nice posters around, it really
trouble's- -les me to t----- -hink about removal-of-a--he. - ----- --- - ------------ -- -- --- -
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
MR. HERRMANN: I just got what you are saying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Bad timing.
MR. HERRMANN: Very bad timing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would your client be open to replanting a new
tree? And I understand that tree is in close proximity to the
retaining wall.
MR. HERRMANN: Not in the same location, probably, but.
MR. BUTTER: Jeff Butler. Yes. Absolutely. I think they would
be open to that idea, the suggestion of putting a tree back.
They were not happy about it having to come out when we met
there with the contractor, said there is really no way to get this wall
in without the tree coming out, so, the new tree would be fine.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And obviously, it would be concerns that as
the tree matures, the root system would, it would be placing
that tree in a more desirable spot in close proximity to its
current location.
MR. BUTLER: If you look at the picture you can see how that tree
did cause another failure on that wall, which is evident in
the, so, another location would be a better idea.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Great.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not so sure you can put one tree in close
proximity. There appears to be a tree that might prevent that.
So replacing it somewhere is okay.
MR. HERRMANN: See how quickly that turned positive. That's
great.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the addition of removal of the tree that has
compromised the western wall and replanting of a tree somewhere
to be determined in the future.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The next application, number 12, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PETER & ELAINE
PSYLLOS request a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x40'
Board of Trustees 49 April 18, 2018
(800sq.ft.) pool with surrounding 1,370sq.ft. at grade patio;
install a 55' foot long retaining wall along the landward side
of the pool patio; install 196 linear feet of pool enclosure
fencing; install a pool drywell and pool equipment area;
relocate existing gazebo; and relocate existing lawn steps in
order to accommodate the pool.
Located: 2886 Ruth Road Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-105-2-1
This project has been supported by the Conservation
Advisory Council in a prior review.
It has been deemed to be consistent with the Town's LWRP.
The Trustees visited the site on April 11th, sorry, yes,
and at the time the Board reviewed the plans in the field and
discussed it at work session on April 16th, and found that the
project appears to meet our standards and is straightforward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant, Peter and Elaine Psyllos. I don't have
anything to add other than originally it was laid out in a
north/south location, and an application was filed with the
Zoning Board it was too close to the bluff. Your record also
contains that determination. And in the course of that
proceeding we basically turned the pool 90 degrees and increased
the setback. So that's the only thing I would add. And I'm here
to any answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of DANIEL & BARBARA CHRISTIANSON requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing 2,300sq.ft. dwelling; renovate the existing
7'9"x20'1" enclosed wood porch with 4' wide steps to grade to
create a family room; construct a handicap access ramp
consisting of an 11'2"x8' landing to a 6'x34' ramp to a
4'x8'x4'x4'2" landing to a 26'8"x6'2" ramp.
Located: 1220 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-17
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 11th noting it
was straightforward, and that the only new constructions is a
Board of Trustees 50 April 18, 2018
handicap access ramp.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Pat Moore. I'm here, my clients are here
and it's late and not much to say. Thank you.
- -TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here who wishes to speak -
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very simple project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
STEPHEN WALSH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story
12'x28' addition onto the southerly side of existing dwelling.
Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-30
The Trustees visited this site on the 11th of April and
noted it was a small addition and a straightforward project.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the ZBA granted a variance on this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. I have Mr. Walsh here. And
again, we hope this is a straightforward application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 15, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of JOHN &JESSICA LUPOVICI requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing structures on the property that include three (3)
Board of Trustees 51 April 18, 2018
existing cottages consisting of an existing 247"x207"
southerly one-story cottage with attached 10'x20' wood deck that
is to be removed; install a new roof, new siding, and to replace
existing windows with new enlarged windows and French doors; an
existing 22'3"x32'6" one and one-half story northerly cottage
with 8'x22'3" attached enclosed storage area; install a new
roof, and perform repairs and maintenance to cottage; a
10'x40'6" concrete patio with 3'x36 linear foot long walkways
against northerly cottage leading to an existing 8'4"x32'
one-story 2nd northerly cottage with 10'x20' concrete patio,
install a new roof, and perform repairs and maintenance to the
cottage; existing stone wall located seaward of existing
8'4"x32' cottage; existing dirt/stone driveway; existing
9'2"x9'3" pump house; and to clear vegetation/trees within an
approximate 19,OOOsq.ft. building envelope area.
Located: 1625 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-18
From the LWRP coordinator, a portion of this project was
exempt from LWRP review. The portion that is not exempt was
found to be consistent. To clear vegetation trees from
approximately 19,000-square foot building envelope. Note, due
to 20% slopes or greater in the area proposed to be cleared it's
recommended that storm water erosion controls are in place to
prevent potential non-point pollution to waterbodies as long as
the slope remains exposed and unvegetated.
The Conservation Advisory Council inspected this property
and resolved to support the application.
On 3/14 of'18, Glenn Goldsmith completed a field
inspection noting he would like to see gutters and leaders to
drywells on the structures.
At this point I would like to open the public hearing up
for this application.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of John and Jessica
Lupovici. They purchased the property maybe, I would say a year
or two ago. The property was in terrible condition, dilapidated.
The structures are, well, they are functioning, there were
people actually living in all these cottages, believe it or not.
They, some had to be evicted, some were squatters. The property
had dilapidated boats, trailers, on the property that had to be
removed. So what you are seeing now is what are the pre-existing
structures and the property having been cleaned up significantly.
My client wants to fix the little cottages up, make
ordinary repairs to the cottages so that they are esthetically
better looking, and then possibly, well, have permission to
clear a building envelope so that, phase two, should somebody want
to put a house up on the hill, these cottages would be to a
certain extent downgraded to accessory buildings. So you might
have a cottage for the pool that would be turned into a pool
house. So these cottages for now are going to remain as
pre-existing dwelling units, but the next phase might be that
they might be turned into something that the code allows, so be
Board of Trustees 52 April 18, 2018
it a pool house or something like that.
So right now it's just keeping the properties in good condition.
Do you have any questions?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Do you think your client would be open to
installing gutters to leaders to drywells on these structures?
MS. MOORE: Getting gutters and leaders are not usually a
problem, but the drywells are very expensive, large structures.
So right now they have been, the work being done is very
minimal. Roofs are more, it's not structural roofs, it's
re-shingling, most of it is cosmetic rather than large,
structural things. But I would have to talk to them about
putting in gutters and leaders.
There is no, the property is quite large and all these
structures are pretty far from the adjacent properties, so we
should not have any kind of drainage occurring offsite.
So the answer to that is if we are forced to, I'll tell
them I was forced to, but I don't want to start building
drywells because these are, the drywells are much more
disruptive of the property than just gutters and leaders.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe the Town code requires gutters.
MS. MOORE: Well, it depends on the work you are doing. If you
are just re-shingling, most of this work, any work that requires
a building permit, if it's interior work it does not require it.
If you are re-shingling, you don't usually require it. It's
required when you are doing a substantial improvement to the
property, like an addition. The Town engineer does not require --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You don't think this is a substantial improvement?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are sort of talking around the fact that
these buildings are in rough shape.
MS. MOORE: They are in rough shape but they actually have
plumbing, heating and electrical in all of them, and all the
electrical is working and upgraded. So, they are ugly, I think
that the fact is that they are kind of ugly, little cottages.
But they were occupied and now they are trying to esthetically
be made better. And I don't have my glasses on, so I don't know
which one it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This house is the one closest to the water, and
I think that's the one that is most appropriate to do a drywell
on, I would think, at least. That's just one opinion, but.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I think if we limit it to the one, because the
cottage closest to the water, the one we actually have to take
the deck off because the deck was built at some point by prior
owners, but it didn't seem to have a building permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you don't mind me butting in. Or an
engineered French drain or trench drain, because of depth to ground
water, the engineering department, but they certainly could
incorporate some form of drainage.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Drainage control. Yes. Okay. That ultimately
in the overall plan is probably the one that is going to be
improved the best. The other ones are very small, probably
five-hundred square feet, more or less, so.
Board of Trustees 53 April 18, 2018
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You speak of the possibility of a bigger
house coming and possibly one of these cottages turning into a
pool house. The picture I'm seeing there, I'm assuming unless
-- I'm assuming they are going to want to esthetically brush up
what I'm looking at.
MS. MOORE:-Oh,_gosh, yes.
-- - - - - -- --- - ------------------- ---- - - --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So I don't think gutters is an unreasonable
request.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Were you talking about gutters on all of
the little cottages?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to see gutters on all of the
cottages. On the cottage closest to the water, the one that is
35 feet away, I would like to see gutters with a drywell on
that one.
MS. MOORE: Or other suitable. Not drywells per se, but some kind
of drainage structures. I think that was a good point raised.
Because of the groundwater, we may have trouble. Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sure. Okay, is there anybody else here to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. CANTRELL: You had requested that you wanted a public
hearing to formally change a name?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Apparently my
clients had put it into an LLC. Which I have the file here. Did
I give you the name of the LLC?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Peconic Road, LLC. 2 Peconic Road, LLC. The
number"2", Peconic Road, LLC
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing is closed. Can we modify a title
name?
MR. HAGAN: It's a minimal change of which the members of the LLC
are the same applicants that are herein listed. It's a
clarification so this way it goes forward. It's okay. We are not
addressing the contents of the application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, I closed the hearing. Any other
discussion before I make my motion?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
addition of gutters and leaders on the closest cottage to the
water, the one that is approximately 35 feet away, with an
approved drainage plan for that roof runoff. That is my motion.
MR. HAGAN: And that motion is going to be made under, for
issuance of a permit to the new LLC, correct?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That motion will be made to the new LLC, 2
Board of Trustees 54 April 18, 2018
Peconic Road, LLC.
MR. HAGAN: Now you can second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second,
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Just a quick question, procedurally, the drainage
plan, roof runoff, do you need that or is that just to the
Building Department?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We would like to see a copy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's usually the Town engineer.
MS. MOORE: Yes, you would have to give it to the Town engineer.
So you don't need it as part of your file, as long as it's a
condition?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, as long as we --
MR. HAGAN: You need a copy. The Board has conditioned it, so a
copy of it should be in the file.
MS. MOORE: Okay
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 16, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
2 PECONIC ROAD, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to cut back
135 linear feet of dilapidated bulkhead to ±6" above grade and
plant area with Alterna flora 18" o.c. to restore area of
intertidal marsh (approximately 2,400sq.ft.); reconstruct 51'
and 41' (92 linear feet) of existing functional bulkhead
in-place and 2' higher than existing using c-lock vinyl
sheathing, and construct a new 18' vinyl return on west side
using thru-flow safety cap; install 140 linear feet of rock
revetment landward of scarp and Spring High Water (SHW);
backfill disturbed areas as needed with ±75 cubic yards of
material from stone excavation; existing remains of 5'x128
linear foot long catwalk to be removed; off east side of new
bulkhead, construct a new 4'x24' fixed catwalk; a 3'x18'
seasonal ramp; and a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by
(2) new 8" diameter piles.
Located: 1625 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-18
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 14th and noted
here at 4:10 in the afternoon. Noted that most of the bulkhead
is non-functional. Most of the area had not been staked.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support the application, with no conditions.
There is a note in here from Patricia Moore's office to save a
tree. It says right here. Save a tree. Is there anyone here to
speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicants.
MR. HAGAN: One second, Mr. President, with your permission, for
the sake of clarification for the record. The initial
application is John and Jessica Lupovici, number 16 on the
agenda. Just so I'm clear, it's the same name as number 15. So
is the applicant requesting this application be heard under the
new LLC name as well?
Board of Trustees 55 April 18, 2018
MS. MOORE: Yes, please. Thank you
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for that clarification.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. I think I mentioned that. This
description is actually what the DEC had recommended as part of
our restoration plan, so many of these items come from a
review by the DEC, they have an application pending with them.
But in the meantime, they did review it and they did come back
with their recommendation. So that's been incorporated into
this project description.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a non-turf buffer on the landward
side of this project? I need a memory refresher on that.
MS. MOORE: Part of it is a beach area. I'm not sure. You are
talking landward of the new bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which are you calling the beach area?
MS. MOORE: Well, from the survey, there is an area the DEC did
not want us --we originally proposed, see where the remains the
bulkhead are there, we had originally proposed to continue the
bulkhead there. They said, no,, they would not allow us to replace
it, and that's staying natural now. So it's the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Rip rap behind it, right? So based off that
picture, there would be rip rap behind it?
MS. MOORE: I don't think there is --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Here is the wall that exists now. This is the
rip rap.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Looks like the rip rap kind of follows this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So landward of the stone armor as in this
survey. And then following around to the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: That makes sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may actually be their beach if they
don't have any armoring there and they pull the dock away.
What if we put in a requirement that no, in other words,
non-disturbance four-foot path. In other words, let this
revegetate seaward of the driveway we may leave a
non-disturbance area. I'm just thinking non-disturbance here,
this area seaward of the drywell, to put, pull the dock out.
We don't want to put turf in there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And non-turf over here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And non-turf over there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Pat, this is the dock that's coming out. Here
is the driveway. So the suggestion is you make this area
non-disturbance so it's, it doesn't become lawn and then put a
ten-foot non-turf buffer to follow the rip rap and the bulkhead
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With a four-foot wide path so we don't get
people full of ticks.
MS. MOORE: That's a good idea. Is there a way of hand drawing
it on one of yours so I could come in and copy it tomorrow?
Unless you can remember it? Mine is too small.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 15-foot non-turf buffer, because that
would incorporate area of non-disturbance from the construction.
Board of Trustees 56 April 18, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Non-disturbance, (indicating). This is
to be, this would be 15-foot non-turf buffer.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll read it into the description.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, [mike motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion we approve this application,
Under the name of the new owner, 2 Peconic Road, LLC, with the
condition that there be a non-disturbance zone seaward of
the driveway on the northerly section of the property,
and a 15-foot non-turf buffer to follow the rip rap, the bulkhead
and the return on the easterly section of the property. As
with a four-foot wide path through the non-disturbance to the
beach. And as depicted on hand drawn plans. And this is
conditioned with submission of new plans.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 17, Patricia Moore on
behalf of ORIENT ACRES, LLC, c/o EVA MALLIS, LLC MEMBER requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 3,456 sq.ft. two-story dwelling with a 304 sq.ft. front entry
patio area, a 146 sq.ft. garage roof extension, a 143 sq.ft. master bedroom deck
area, and a 198 sq.ft second floor deck; propose to construct a 285 sq. ft. east side
addition; construct a 146 sq.ft. landward side addition; construct a 148 sq.ft. front
covered entry patio area; construct a 146 sq.ft. garage front roof extension; construct a
235 sq.ft. screened porch on north side of dwelling; existing 1,248 sq.ft. seaward side
deck area to be reduced in size to be an 858 sq.ft. deck area (to be resurfaced) in order
to accommodate additions; and construct a 328 sq.ft. roof over seaward side deck area.
Located: 32625 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-25
The project is deemed to be consistent with the under LWRP, with the LWRP
coordinator Mark Terry requesting that the drywells be reviewed
for their sufficiency to make certain that the one proposed would
be sufficient.
And he recommends a non-turf buffer landward of the top of bluff.
And the Conservation Advisory Council had voted to support the
application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
The Board of Trustees visited the site on March 14th. As far as the
Items that I just read in the description, the Board felt that was
straightforward but we did notice that there was a deck
which shows on the Young & Young survey dated March 1st, 2016,
last prepared, that there is a set of stairs and likely a pre-existing
nonconforming deck at the top of the bluff that the Board felt
should be included with a set of plans and incorporated into
the project description for consideration. Those are the
Board of Trustees 57 April 18, 2018
facts particular to our inspection, the LWRP and Conservation
Advisory Council. But there is a specific e-mail communication
that the Board received from Mark Terry in his capacity as the
assistant director of planning that was received in the Trustee
office after we performed our field inspection, and it made, it
indicated that above and beyond the LWRP consistency
review, he wanted to note that the Planning Board has an active
application on the property and that the landowners must seek
approval to proceed with the addition and renovation of
the structure.
So that seems to preclude us moving forward. Particularly, we
also want to incorporate a set of plans for the deck and
description of it. And there may be in question, which is
a matter not for this office to follow-up on, but apparently it's
been brought to the attention of the Town representatives that a
Morton building on site may not be fully approved. I don't
know, that's not really --
MS. MOORE: Yes, well, actually, the Morton building is an, he's the
property owner. The land that is all of the, it's been cleared
for farming, it's got a building permit for farming purposes. It's
just as ag building, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I only raised it so it was not a matter
you were wondering what took place, for point of information.
MS. MOORE: For point of information, it has a building permit
and so on. Mr. Terry, it's funny he sent that note because I
actually, before coming to you, I sent a letter by fax to
the Planning Board and said, for your information, my client has,
is making an application for all of this. And pursuant to your
rules on —
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe that's a function of the dating of
the communications, because we did have the snow days. So we
inspected it on March 14th. His communication was March 20tH
so it's quite a while back.
MS. MOORE: So it might have been consistent with my notice to
them. In any case, these are renovations to the existing house,
and I actually notified the Planning Board on that. It
doesn't impact in any way the subdivision. The subdivision is
for, the proposed subdivision is for this house and then to
two other lots. But really the house is existing and this is the
renovation to the existing house. But as you said, you want plans --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would seem if the Board would
consider tabling, you could send us confirming, updated
communications for the file so we were not holding this matter
up for another determination to wait for the Planning Board.
MS. MOORE: Do you want a copy of the letter I sent to Planning or?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we want a determination either to
permit communication back to you from Mark Terry or his outright
determination that it's not, that we should be holding this for Planning
Board approval as well.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I'll get something from Planning because
they should have sent me something back then that was, you know,
Board of Trustees 58 April 18, 2018
yes, we acknowledge that you are doing this, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the deck if we could get a
set of plans on the deck and the stairway, I think it's minimally
nonconforming as far as size but it's pre-existing, it's been there
a long time. But I think the Board, based on the field inspection,
would like to bring it into the permit and --
MS. MOORE: At least make it a permitted structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To permit it in and with the possibility still
to take another look at it and determine whether it's what we
need to ask for modification.
MS. MOORE: Well, we'll have a discussion about that, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll have a subsequent discussion. We
don't have a set of plans so we couldn't go further with that.
MS. MOORE: All right. And I'll do the history on the deck. I know
it was, it's been there a long time, so. The property has been
owned by the family for this is now like the second generation,
so; okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for
the submission of plans concerning the existing deck at the bluff
and bluff stairs, and confirmation from the assistant director of
planning that this application made, may proceed without additional
Planning Board review. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
e
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees