HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/16/2018 Michael J.Domino,President �of s®�r�® Town Hall Annex
�® _ 4, �® 54375 Route 25
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President '
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith ' s Southold,New York 11971
A. Nicholas Krupski
p _ "� 'r' Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams ®� Fax(631) 765-6641
COUN
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECE 1/ED
Minutes �c, ea
JUN 2 6 201l� @ 3:31 pry
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
5:30 PM Southold Town Clerk
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, June 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall.
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, June 18, 2018, at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting
Hall.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 5, 2018, and April 18, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our regularly scheduled May 16th,
2018, monthly meeting. At this time I would call the meeting to order and ask you to
stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
As is our custom, I would like to recognize the people the dais. To my left is
Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goldsmith, Trustee Krupski and Trustee Williams. To my
right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth
Cantrell. We also have with us tonight our court stenographer Wayne Galante, and the
Conservation Advisory Council member John Stein.
Agendas are located on the podiums if you would like, and also outside in the
lobby.
At this time I would like to announce the postponements. On page nine, we have
number two, Milone & MacBroom, Inc., on behalf of CROSS SOUND FERRY
SERVICES, INC., c/o RICHARD MACMURRAY requests a Wetland Permit and a
Board of Trustees 2 May 16, 2018
Coastal Erosion Permit to revitalize key components of the ferry service's terminal at
Orient Point consisting of along the existing ± 270 foot long bulkhead install ± 270' of
new bulkhead along the shoreline in front of the existing degrading bulkhead that is
currently used for ship docking which will permanently fill ±600sq.ft. of water area;
temporarily install docking dolphins to accommodate continued operations; remove
existing vehicle access ramps and stanchions which will be rehabilitated and replaced;
and any related support structures to be replaced.
Located: 41270 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-16.
And number three, SCOTT KAUFMAN requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing damaged stairway
and terrace retaining walls; construct along eroding 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
On page ten, we have number one, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 15'x24' bluestone patio on sand; stepping stone paths;
4'x6' steps; a 4'x158" fixed dock utilizing "Thru-Flow" decking; a 3'x12'
ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) piles.
Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
On pages 13 and 14, we have 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
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'
Board of Trustees 3 May 16, 2018
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
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
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
Those have all been postponed.
I would also like to announce at this time under Town Code
275-8(c), the files were officially closed seven days ago.
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, June 13th, 8:00 AM at the Town Annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, June 20th, 2018, at 5:30, at the main meeting
hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to hold the next work session at the Town
annex board room, second floor, on June 18th, 2018, at 4:30 PM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Following that, a work session at 5:00 PM,
Wednesday, June 20th, at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
Board of Trustees 4 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of April 5th, 2018 meeting and April 18th, 2018 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for April 2018. A check for
$7,512.08 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 16, 2018, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., c/o Richard MacMurray SCTM# 1000-15-9-16
John & Daniella Venetis SCTM# 1000-87-6-4
Gardiners Bay Estates Club, c/o Roy Olsen SCTM# 1000-37-4-17
Timothy Casamento & Kleo King SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2
Stuart & Joyce Newman SCTM# 1000-44-1-24
Domeluca, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.8
Treasure Island Cove, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.9
Domeluca 11, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10
Timothy & Georgia Quinn SCTM# 1000-40-1-14
George Katsamanis SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.40
Dimitrios & Irene Antoniadis SCTM# 1000-15-1-4
George & Debra Coritsidis SCTM# 1000-89-2-3 & 1000-89-2-5.1
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 16, 2018, are classified as
Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A
Long Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have
been completed by the Trustees for the following applications
and it is hereby determined that they will not have a
significant effect on the environment:
Board of Trustees 5 May 16, 2018
Bradley M. Anderson SCTM# 1000-86-3-1
David Krupnick SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
MR. HAGAN: Are you moving for the totality of those? You didn't
do a motion for the first one.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, in totality. On all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move for a motion on the totality of all
State Environmental Quality Reviews.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, Jay, if you would.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: J.M.O Environmental Consulting on behalf of BRADLEY
M. ANDERSON requests an Amendment to Wetland permit#5649 to install a 3'x16'
adjustable ramp and a 6'x20' floating dock secured by (4) piles to be situated in an "L"
configuration off of the side of the fixed dock.
Located: 1095 Emerson Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-86-3-1
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of BRADLEY M. ANDERSON to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Long Environmental Assessment Form
and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby
determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and;
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on
May 9, 2018 and having considered J.M.O. Environmental Consulting plans for this
project dated March 27, 2018 showing the proposed dock and water depths by Sea
Level Mapping, and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated March 27, 2018, and water depths it
has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps.
Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
areas where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seasonal end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond the existing dock and as such the perspective will not be
Board of Trustees 6 May 16, 2018
discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30
years with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
approve and authorizes the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project. And that's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Next,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf DAVID KRUPNICK
requests a Wetland Permit to install a 3'x12' hinged ramp and a
6'x20' floating dock situated in a "T" position, parallel to the
shoreline and secured by two (2) 8" diameter two-pile dolphins
off seaward end of existing 4' x±46" fixed timber catwalk (with
1.7'x11' bench) to remain; cut existing dilapidated ±17'
bulkhead and ±23' groin to grade; and connect water and
electricity to the dock.
Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13.
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees
found the application of DAVID KRUPNICK to be classified as an
Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations. A Long Environmental Assessment Form and a field
inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees, and it
is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and;
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project
having visited the site on September 12, 2017 and on May 9,
2018, and having considered En-Consultants plans for this
project dated April 13, 2018 and survey of John C. Ehlers dated
December 11, 2014, and last updated on February 14, 2018 showing
the proposed dock and water depths, and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated April 13, 2018 it
has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that
all potentially significant environmental concerns have been
addressed as noted herein:
• Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not
extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock
terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps. Of
Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York
State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed structure.
• Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on
neighboring properties in an area where docks historically are
Board of Trustees 7 May 16, 2018
used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers:
The plan allows a standard ramp to float design that will not
impede access for those seeking shellfish and crustacea in
season.
• Scope in relation to view shed: The seasonal end of the
proposed structure lies within the pier line of neighboring
docks and as such the perspective will not be discernibly
different.
THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town
Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a
Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the
aforementioned project.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are deemed minor or
similar in nature. Accordingly I make a motion to approve as a
group numbers one through three. They are listed as follows:
Number one, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an Administrative
Permit to construct a 6' wide covered walk to a 20'x13'
(260sq.ft.) ramadas with concrete footings and a slate roof.
Located: 2000 Horbart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-3.2
Number two, PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA request an
Administrative Permit to install up to a 6 '/z tall by 8' long
fence panel along the easterly side of the property line
approximately 20' landward from the top of the bluff connecting
to existing fencing; and to plant native Red Cedar trees along
existing fencing for additional screening.
Located: 695 Petty's Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-23
And number three, CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES request an
Administrative Permit to remove dead trees, dead branches an
debris from the non-turf buffer and wetlands; dead trees are
painted with a red X or Red marking; remove invasive species in
non-turf buffer, oriental bittersweet, English ivy, porcelain
berry, Japanese wisteria, winter creeper poison ivy, and kudzu;
prune remaining trees and vegetation in non-turf buffer to
facilitate new growth; and as further set forth in the project
plans provided.
Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
And we'll address four, five and six separately.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of GUNTHER
& CAROLE GEISS request an Administrative Permit for the existing
35" wide by 16.9' long wood embankment stairs to the water.
Located: 2155 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-7-7
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 9th and noted
that the project was straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the structure was built
without obtaining a Trustee permit.
I would note that by approving this, the Trustees will
address the inconsistency. Accordingly, I make a motion to
approve this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, Valerie Marvin, Esq., on behalf
of LOUIS PAGNUTTI requests an Administrative Permit to demolish
existing dwelling and foundation and fill in area to grade; move
fill from new foundation located upland to fill area of demised
foundation with any excess to be removed from property; to
conduct construction activity within 100' from landward edge of
wetlands for the construction of a single-family, two-story
dwelling with deck on seaward side; abandon existing and install
a new sanitary system landward of Trustee jurisdiction; install
gutters to leaders to drywells on the new dwelling; and to
install a new gravel driveway.
Located: 57475 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-5
This project has been removed from the group of approvals
because it was deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on May 9th, and
based on that inspection we requested a set of stamped, signed
plans, which have been entered into the file, and that a minimum
of ten-foot, excuse me, I guess we discussed 15-foot at
work session. A minimum of 15-foot non-turf buffer be maintained.
The inconsistency draws from the fact of not having
complied with the requirements for having a permit for activities on
the property.
Therefore, by granting a permit for this project it will be
brought into consistency, and based on our inspection and field
inspection and work session, I would move to approve this
application with the maintenance of a minimum of a 15-foot
non-turf buffer adjacent to the bluff face and whereby granting
a permit will bring it into consistency. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six,
En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI & C. BARSI, LLC
request an Administrative Permit to demolish and remove existing
Board of Trustees 9 May 16, 2018
one-story, single-family dwelling, 1-story frame building and
shed, gazebo, concrete surface, and sanitary system; construct a
new two-story, single-family dwelling located ±100' from bluff
crest; install a drainage system of leaders to gutters to
drywells to collect roof runoff; and install a septic system,
detached garage, and driveway to be located outside Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 18915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-15
With respect to this particular application, the Board in performing
their field inspection on May 9th, noted that there was a large amount of
privet hedge that was on the bluff side, and the Board felt that to avoid
damage to the bluff where it might be lodged or blown over, and to
maintain it as a soil protective feature, that the Board would allow it to be
maintained at a height of three feet. In other words not less than three feet.
So based on our field inspection, and the fact that the
application has been deemed consistent with the LWRP, I would
approve with the stipulation that the privet will be allowed to
be cut no shorter than three feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, again, in order to simplify our meeting I
make a motion to approve as a group items one, two, four through 12 and 14 through
18. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of ALAN & SHARON EIDLER
request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8836, as issued on June 22, 2016,
and Amended on December 13, 2017.
Located: 1052 Canoe Path, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-12-3.1
Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEV. CORP., c/o
FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8798 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8798C, as issued on May 18, 2016, and Amended
on March 22, 2017.
Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
Number Four, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
EDWARD L. DALEY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8115 from
Andrea & Steven Kolyer to Edward L. Daley, as issued on March 20, 2013.
Located: 1350 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-23
Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of CLIFFSIDE RESORT
CONDOMINIUM requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5429
from Breezy Sound to Cliffside Resort Condominium, as issued on
October 26, 2001.
Located: 61475 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-1-2.2
(Formerly 1000-45-1-2.1)
Number six, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of CLIFFSIDE
RESORT CONDOMINIUM requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5866
from Breezy Sound Corp. To Cliffside Resort Condominium, as
issued on February 25, 2004.
Located: 61475 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-1-2.2
Board of Trustees 10 May 16, 2018
(Formerly 1000-45-1-2.1)
Number seven, DENIS & NANCY COLE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#7155 from James Maino to Denis & Nancy Cole, as
issued on August 19, 2009 and Amended on July 23, 2014.
Located: 655 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-17
Number eight, J &WENDY MOCCO request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#8944 from Vishnudat Seodat to J &Wendy Mocco, as issued
on January 18, 2017.
Located: 580 Lloyds Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.2
Number nine, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of LAWRENCE
KAPLAN & DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#6792 from John &Valerie Kramer to Lawrence Kaplan &
Denise Blesi-Kaplan, as issued on January 23, 2008.
Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
Number ten, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of LAWRENCE
KAPLAN & DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#2022 from Myrtle K. Hendrickson to Lawrence Kaplan &
Denise Blesi-Kaplan, as issued on August 2, 1985, and Amended on
February 28, 1988, and Amended again on November 17, 1988.
Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
Number eleven, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of LAWRENCE
KAPLAN & DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#7438 from John &Valerie Kramer to Lawrence Kaplan &
Denise Blesi-Kaplan, as issued on November 17, 2010.
Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
Number 12, STEIN SEA FARMS, LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#7568 from New Suffolk Fishing Station, Inc. To
Stein Sea Farms, LLC, as issued on June 22, 2011; and for an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7568 to install 12
davits atop the 10" pilings starting at the seaward-most 80 feet
of the 4' wide section of the fixed dock and extending out to
the end of the 6' wide section of the dock; the davits will be
used to lower and raise oyster cages into the water consisting
of wire mesh trays measuring 3'x4'x4' staked on top of one
another to a total height of 4' and bound together with chain
and/or rope bridles; install 5/8" polyester line parallel to the
6"x6" stringers on the existing fixed dock at the mean high
water mark on both sides beginning approximately 50 seaward of
the concrete structure and extend out towards Cutchogue Harbor
to the end of the dock along both rows of pilings in order to
suspend plastic mesh oyster grow-out bags that measure
18"x36"x3" with a float that will allow the grow-out bags to
rise and fall with the tides; and to install seagull control and
mitigation measures including but not limited to piling caps,
bird netting, and stainless steel bird spikes (primarily atop the davits).
Located: 900 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-17
Number 14, James Jackson on behalf of 1625 INDIAN NECK
HOLDING CORP. requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit#8231A for the existing 12.2'x12.2' wood
deck and 4.3'x4.3' enclosed outdoor shower.
Located: 1625 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-8.1
Board of Trustees 11 May 16, 2018
Number 15, Dana Locatell on behalf of NORTH FORK PROPERTY
VENTURES, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8990 to lower the proposed catwalk to enable the entire
structure to be 2.5' over Mean High Water.
Located: 5310 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
Number 16, PREVITE INVESTMENT TRUST requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9074 to add an
approximate 3'x8' wood bench in between two of the pilings at
the seaward end of the fixed dock.
Located: 1570 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-7
Number 17, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS A.
GEROWSKI, MICHELLE GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8922 to reduce the
size of the proposed swimming pool from 16'x32' to 14'x28';
relocate stairs off of pool patio and gates for pool fencing.
Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-29.2
And number 18, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf of
TIMOTHY CASAMENTO & KLEO KING requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9164 to approve the survey prepared
by Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC, last dated April 13,
2018 that depicts an updated wetland line delineation in lieu of
the originally approved survey prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk
Land Surveying, PLLC, last dated March 8, 2018.
Located: 2667 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, STELIOS & PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS
request the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8622, as
issued on June 17, 2015.
Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-13
The Trustees did field inspection on May 9th and met with
the owner at the site, and suggested that we modify this permit
to include a ten-foot non-turf buffer. That was not in the
previous. (Perusing).
All right. So I make a motion we approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 13, David Dubin, Esq. on behalf of INDIAN
NECK 1, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1578 from
Phil Marco to Indian Neck 1, LLC, as issued on February 8, 1983,
and Amended on May 9, 1983; and for an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#1578 for the as-built 14'x14' wood deck on
landward side of fixed dock leading to a 4'x12' landward fixed
wood ramp to the fixed dock; as-built 3.5'x11' metal ramp to
floating dock in lieu of the 4'x8' ramp; additional pilings; and
as-built electrical and plumbing connections to deck and dock.
Board of Trustees 12 May 16, 2018
Located: 4170 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-98-1-27.1
I'm going to make a motion to approve this application with
the stipulation that there be no rebuilds of the deck without a
permit, and that the applicant show an underwriters certificate
for the electrical work.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII moorings/stake and
pulley systems. We'll group these together and include them as a
group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, RUBEN SILVERMAN requests a Mooring Permit in
Corey Creek for a 19' sailboat, replacing Mooring #886.
Access: Public
And number two, PATRICK MANZO requests a Mooring Permit in
Deep Hole Creek for a 21' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring
#623. Access: Private
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VIII, this 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 the Suffolk Times. Pertinent
correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the
public.
I would remind you at this time to please keep your
comments organized and brief. I would also like to remind you at
this time that should an application be approved and you hire a
contractor to conduct the work, that contractor must have a
Southold Town Coastal license. This has been in effect since
January, under the contractor law.
I'll make a motion to go off our public hearing agenda and
go into the public hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, J.M.O
Environmental Consulting on behalf of BRADLEY M. ANDERSON
requests an Amendment to Wetland permit#5649 to install a
3'x16' adjustable ramp and a 6'x20' floating dock secured by (4)
piles to be situated in an "L" configuration off of the side of
Board of Trustees 13 May 16, 2018
the fixed dock.
Located: 1095 Emerson Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-86-3-1
On May 9th the Trustees did a field inspection and the
notes indicate that it's a straightforward application, not more
than one-third of the way across the channel, and there was no
pier line conflict.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
M TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Wetland &
Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, this is initially
advertised as DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of Marijo Adimey and
Veronica Lugris, now represented by Patricia Moore of counsel;
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 Trustees had previously opened the public hearing in
this matter. Subsequent to the public hearing, the Board has
received a letter of permission from neighbors Vasilakis --
Florence Vasilakis and Dimitris Vasilakis for access through
their property to conduct the activities with a hold-harmless
agreement for the Town.
The project description was modified on April 19th, and by
inclusion, I'll include this by reference into the project
description for tonight, there were minor changes, but it was
to, it was submitted and stamped in April 19th, the day after
Board of Trustees 14 May 16, 2018
our monthly meeting. And it indicates would be to reconstruct
the 84' linear feet of existing storm-damaged fiberglass
bulkhead to be replaced with steel sheath in accordance with
Chesterfield plans dated 3/23/18, raising the height of the bulkhead
by 18 inches, or as permitted by the DEC; install 20 feet of new
steel returns within the property lines, required on the west
side; but on the east side of the return shall be not necessary
if the continuous bulkhead permit, which will be pending, and
that's next month, and backfill the structures with 100 cubic
yards of clean fill with stone splash pad immediately landward
of the bulkhead; existing two 12x16' decks and stairs removed
temporarily and replaced on new support posts; replace the 4x6'
cantilevered platform with removable, aluminum beach access
steps; re-plant the area with Cape American beach grass,
two-inch plugs, 12-inches on center, along with native shrubs;
install French drain in accordance with the plans created by
Creative Environmental Design 3/21/18, with 12-inch diameter
coir logs, (2) two-foot by 12 foot ACQ treated wood; 2"x4"x5'
ACQ timber set at four-foot at center as stakes for the 2x12'
coir logs; erosion jute and Cape American beach grass, which is
for the slopes of the project leading down to the proposed
bulkhead; drainage of the house is to be redirected to the front
yard by a four-inch perforated ADS drainage pipe as French
drains. And raise the height of the steel bulkhead the maximum
permitted by DEC, up to 18 inches.
The project was deemed inconsistent under the LWRP for
which there are many, numerous items that we discussed at the
last hearing, and tonight we'll hopefully bring it into consistency.
And I believe we previously read into the record the
position of the Conservation Advisory Council, that they were
not particularly in favor of the project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. We do
have additional memos and correspondence in your file that was
presented before the last meeting regarding the history of the
existing deck and stairway. So given all of the correspondence
and documentation in your file, I would hope that this project
can be approved as it has been revised, amended, as of April
19th. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board again visited the project site on
May 9th. The Board still has, and discussed it again at our
Work session, the Board still has strong feelings concerning
that the lower deck should in fact be removed and be placed at
grade level with'a 30-year fastening for now or ticos. Because we,
with the wave force there that we noted, which included after
recent winter storms including water that went over the house
and killed shrubbery in the front of the house that was on
Soundview Avenue, that the Board feels strongly that under the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance that we should be tucking
the deck in behind the silhouette, if you will, of the,expanded
steel bulkhead. And since that is going higher, that would
Board of Trustees 15 May 16, 2018
afford a place so this structure would not likely become a
projectile in a storm. Seeing as the neighbors' decks were also,
you know, removed and essentially smashed and pushed landward
during storm events.
And the upper deck, the Board feels it should be, the
surface should be replaced with through-flow and, as I believe
there will be further discussion, but with the new project
description we were thinking possibly a French drain near the
top of the bluff and rerouting the drainage back. I don't know
if that's part of the initial discussion. And we would like to
have --so the French drains was a weak iteration.
MS. MOORE: If I could speak, when you are ready.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, go ahead.
MS. MOORE: As I pointed out previously, the 12x16 deck that
actually survived all the storms is an existing condition. It
has a long history of permitting. And my client feels very
strongly that when she purchased this property, a significant
reason she bought this property was the existence of that 12x16
deck. The property next door, when the deck was lost in the
storm, obviously at that point subject to your review for
reconstruction. At this point, the structures that remained are
the 12x16 lower deck and the 12x16 upper deck. So at this point
in time, we were suggesting since it could be lifted as an
entirety, just moved out of the way as I pointed out previously,
for safety and security of the contractors, it would make sense
to set it aside. And that was the method that it was replaced
when the McDonalds' owned the property there. There is actually
that, which was written into the permit. So my client is, as a
matter of law, it's a permitted structure. So if we left it just
where it is, it's a permitted structure. I think that it would
make sense that for the safety of the contractors to set it to
the side. But it means so much to my client. She will leave it
right where it is and Chesterfield is prepared to work around
it. It's not the best solution but if that's what you force us
to do, we are prepared to do it. I think that given the history,
the long history of the permits of this property you've got,
this being the third permit that recognizes that that deck may
remain. That's a very significant issue.
Also, the objections by the neighbor who was putting the
staircase on that right-of-way, really are irrelevant. That
right-of-way he gained later. My client purchased the property
with right-of-way issues that ultimately the title company had
to resolve. They had put in their stairs and they have chosen
not to listen and repair their bulkhead. But that's their
choice. So their decision making should not impact my client's
project. As it is, there is great cooperation occurring between
Vasilakis and my clients. Vasilakis' permit will be on next
month. It's the same contractor. It's a coordinated effort. And
so far, as I said, it's a very important part of this property,
and she has vested rights to this deck. It is something that as
a matter of law, as I said, it's a permitted structure.
Board of Trustees 16 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it possible because the underpinnings,
the supports were showing, you know, severe damage, the deck
itself was, not all the posts --
MS. MOORE: The posts were fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that it's functional. You
certainly could not access the beach via the deck and the steps.
MS. MOORE: Which steps are you talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The lower deck. We were just there. It's in
place but it's unusable. There is nothing underneath it. How is that--
MS. MOORE: Are you sure you are looking at the right one?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not the house. Because they'll have
to remove the deck. What if we were to get a supplementary plan
of larger posts to withstand --the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act
wants a 30-year maintenance.
MS. MOORE: If those posts have to be replaced with a wider, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm talking about scheduling larger posts to
meet the 30 --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just motioning to Liz to click one more.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words instead of it being on
dimensional lumber, which it is, go up to, in other words, you
have Chesterfield there, have them go with six to eight foot. And
all stainless steel Ticos and stainless steel fastenings. To tie
it all together
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If I can speak. We are talking about raising
the bulkhead 18 inches. The deck is currently roughly three feet
to five feet above that. We are not saying you can't have a
deck, we just, for public safety and common sense, to move the
deck down to shelter it behind the new steel bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: The new steel bulkhead is not going to be that high.
It's from grade, so it's a foot. The 18 inches, I have a photograph, so
if maybe --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You may approach, yes.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. So that's where the bulkhead is now.
That's the --that's,it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: This is it. This picture was taken quite some
time ago. There is no more dirt behind this.
MS. MOORE: No, the loss of dirt is on this side.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The stairs are hanging. I was just there. I
would not go on the stairs for fear they would fall and I would
get injured. This deck was shaky. It's not safe.
MS. MOORE: I don't know what to tell you as far as what it is
today because I was there two weeks ago, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I understand your client's desire, but from
moving forward, from a safety standpoint, in looking at the
storms that happened this past winter with the wave action
hitting that bulkhead, will jettison the water right into that
deck, and a loose plank will go right through her house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After these winter storms I don't even know why
this is even still a discussion. I mean, if you look at properties --
MS. MOORE: Because as a matter of law we are entitled to it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's functional.
Board of Trustees 17 May 16, 2018
MS. MOORE: If you need a letter saying it's functional, I'll get
you a letter saying it's functional. Our problem is we have to
replace the bulkhead. The bulkhead has --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to see a letter, then. Wasn't there a gate --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The gate was blocking off access.
MS. MOORE: The gate was at the top for the dogs.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The gate was at the top of the stairs.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Pat, during this storm season, I did not go on
this site but I went to the town beach and I looked at this
property. And then I drove on Soundview. The waves were crashing
and you can see the damage that they did, in going over the
house and spray was landing on the road, Soundview. There was
evidence of that because all the plants that were put in by your
client had saltwater damage. The point I'm trying to make is
that this is an extremely high-energy area, and that energy,
contrary to your point of view, made that deck and that
staircase non-functional. I would not go on it when we were
there last. So I very strongly want to see this area repaired,
that the lower deck should be put on grade simply to try to make
it, help it survive in the next event that occurs. Which
hopefully won't be in my lifetime.
MS. MOORE: Well, I understand your point. It's, as far as she
understands from the contractors, she can reuse a great deal of
the stairs and the deck and the entire structure. And the plan
was not to replace the entire thing. If we start replacing its
height and so on, then you are changing the length, the width,
the configuration of the stairs.
So this whole event has been very costly to my client and
she is trying to preserve as much as she can So, would she be
willing to place greater supports? Yes. I think that that makes
sense. But to.lower it, you are actually putting the whole deck
more into harm's way because you are putting it right, you have
the new bulkhead, you have the rock on top, and then you are
going to put the deck on top of that rock. You are actually
putting it more in harm's way than it is right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's an opinion.
MS. MOORE: But you are lowering it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I disagree with that opinion. We are not
saying you can't have a deck. We are just asking the deck be
dropped down slightly to be on-grade, to be protected by
the bulkhead. Inevitably, there will be more storms. And we are
just trying to help mitigate future work on the site, because if a
storm comes and damages the deck, there will be more post stub,
there will be, you know. Our concern is for'the property owner
to do it right, do it once, and keep it that way. We are not
.saying you can't have the deck. We simply want it in a safer
spot. We are not saying you can't have the upper deck. So, you
know, obviously there will be work there. Yes,they'll
reconfigure the stairs a little bit to go down to the lower
deck, then there won't be need for an auxiliary set of stairs to
go down further, that would be on-grade.
Board of Trustees 18 May 16, 2018
i
I
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out as Trustee Williams
pointed out before. You are going to raise the bulkhead, so
putting the lower deck on-grade is a matter of maybe one or two
steps needed to be added to the staircase. I don't think that
should be the breaking point for this decision. It's not going
to be tens of thousands of dollars.
MS. MOORE: It looks more to me like five steps. Maybe when the
grade is raised and the bulkhead is raised. I'm trying to
visualize what it's going to be today. So.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Due to the absence of dirt at the last site
inspection we were not able to measure and get accurate
measurements. But again, it appeared to be roughly four feet
above what was grade there.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's about four feet above grade.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So if you raise the bulkhead a foot, you drop
the deck three feet. We are not saying you can't have the deck.
We just want to drop it three feet. Because the other side, if
it is rebuilt to higher standards, it's going to cost more than
just dropping it and putting the two steps in.
MS. MOORE: What is your suggestion? It sounds like you are
thinking --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thinking out loud now. Because functionality
is a question, and the Board has brought it into question. We
are discussing at this point that you get a letter from a
licensed design professional that would affirm or attest to the
functionality of it, and/or in the alternative that the new
project plans be brought in with respect to locating it on-grade
with beefed-up fastenings and stainless steel, and that those
fastenings also might be included in the, if you get a letter
from the licensed design professional, their design
recommendation as far as beefing up the existing structure that
it is deemed to be structurally sound. So your options --
provide an option that would include license design
professionals.
MS. MOORE: So to keep the deck as it is high, you want a letter
that the deck is still functional in its current state.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And licensed design professional will
provide very specific details on strengthening it. Because it's
coming out and will be replaced, and that will be the time to
strengthen the underpinnings.
MS. MOORE: So the first option, as it is now, height, we have to
verify through a professional that it's functional as it is
today. In lieu of that, if we can't find somebody or you are
correct that it's not functional, then we get, it will be brought
down to grade but with, you want some additional structural upgrade.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically to the 30 year standard, which
will include, in other words stainless steel Ticos; in other
words the fastenings probably found in my experience in Rabbit
Lane after the hurricane, Tropical Storm Sandy, was fastenings
blew apart and decks came out and went through people's living
rooms.
Board of Trustees 19 May 16, 2018
MR. HAGAN: That has to be done in a motion with a vote of the
Board.
MS. MOORE: He's just explaining it to me, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that's acceptable
MS. MOORE: That's fine. One way or another, she can have it, you
just need documentation one way or the other. Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Counsel has advised me that I have marched
the Board down a blind alley.
In an attempt, on advice of counsel, we should really get
the letter concerning the design professional's review that the
structure is functional and that the Board would review that
document before we would then render a determination on the
matter, if it's not functional. So we would really have to
table and wait for that document unless --
MS. MOORE: Because I have a Chesterfield that is scheduled for
the beginning of June. So is it possible, Damon, to do it as a
condition of the permit so I can get you the document?
MR. HAGAN: No, you can't, because you had essentially three
options that have been presented to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not comfortable with that regardless of the
Condition.
MS. MOORE: We'll, you are going to vote no.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not necessarily. But conditioning, I'm not
comfortable with that regardless.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Isn't Chesterfield doing the other permit
next month?
MS. MOORE: He is. So, we'll, what we were going to do is just
deal with the Vasilakis ten feet to be able to work on this area
because by the time the June permit is issued, the Vasilakis rest of
the project will continue. We have been waiting to work on this
because obviously the house is the most important thing to
protect, and because of the monthly schedule, we thought it was
going to be approved last month, and the landscape plan I guess
somehow or other, it got to you, but I don't know when it got to
you. It was -- I was not in charge. Dave Chicanowicz delivered
it, and for some reason you didn't get it, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reiterate my concerns about the
deck being on-grade. I cannot overstate or express my regard to
the energy that I saw during that storm. And if this, if the
neighbor's deck disappeared, I'm trying to avoid that. By
putting it down lower, in back of the bulkhead, there is less
opportunity for waves to get underneath and flip it. Which it
has demonstrated next door that it can do. So I'm strongly,
unless this is modified, I'm inclined to vote no on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
Any additional comments from Board members?
(Negative response).
I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
MS. MOORE: I thought we were tabling it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, if we are going to table at the
Board of Trustees 20 May 16, 2018
request of the applicant, if you are going to get us a letter.
MR. HAGAN: With the understanding that the letter is not
binding. You are looking for a letter that potentially would
be reviewed by the Board to aid in their decision.
MS. MOORE: Right. So it doesn't make sense to close it..
MS. MOORE: I don't want to end up with a no because that would
damage the property, if that's where we are. So I know your
preferences, I know my job, which is it's a permitted structure,
and, you know, you should leave it up to the applicant when it's
a permitted structure or whether, do they leave it where it is
or do they lower it. I understand your recommendations, but, you
know, there is a certain legal right that people have to
permitted structures. Otherwise why would we all come to you to
permit structures. So if we have to adjourn it, you know, I know
this was very important to her. I thought this was all worked
out based on our previous work session, based on our previous
meetings. This is all kind of a surprise to me we are at this
point, three months later. So she couldn't be here. If she was
here, what I could do, could we put this in, give me a chance to
call her and I'll put it back so at least I can consult with
her, if she says all right, let's bring it down, at least we can
move this along. If I can't reach her, I can't reach her.
MR. HAGAN: The Board is empowered to be able to call another
matter out of order and return to this prior to the conclusion
of this meeting.
MS. MOORE: If I may, please, request just a short adjournment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If that's all right with the Board.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to suspend this hearing at
this point to be discussed at a later point in this meeting.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: This application is currently suspended, to be
recalled at a later time tonight.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number two, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES
CLUB, c/o ROY OLSEN requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a
25'x300' channel to EL. -4.0' below mean water.
Located: Spring Pond, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-17
The LWRP has found this to be consistent, noting all
intertidal construction and excavation requires the installation
of a silt boom.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on May 9th,
recommending that the spoil be used to fill behind the low sill
bulkhead and replant edge by that Fox Island. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 21 May 16, 2018
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this 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 a silt boom be used during
construction and a recommendation that the spoils be used to
re-grade behind the low sill bulkhead.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, Michael Kimack on behalf of 860
BAYVIEW DRIVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1
& '/z story dwelling with attached garage (2,314.7sq.ft. footprint);
construct a 190.8sq.ft. addition to existing dwelling; construct a
254.4sq.ft. pavilion attached to addition; construct a 900sq.ft.
swimming pool; construct a 1,766sq.ft. pool patio and outdoor kitchen
area; install approximately 55' of French drain connected to three (3)
8'x13' drywells; construct approximately 88' of retaining wall surrounding
the pool, pool patio, and new addition which is to be of varying
height with 5' being the highest.
Located: 860 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-10.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
this application due to setbacks. Not meeting required setbacks
is the note there.
The Trustees last visited this site on March 14th, and
noted that it was straightforward. Most recently it was
discussed at work session, and I believe the only issue was that
the Trustees saw it was a pipe which had been discussed last
meeting.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Thank
you. There were actually two issues that you had brought up. One
was the pipe. I didn't remember but I had gotten a letter from
Zoning which you now have in your portfolio.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: It's a community pipe that drains Bayview Drive
through a couple of catch basins. When I wrote the letter that
time, I think there was an expectation that was they were
working with the Town. I did note in that letter that he didn't
hook into that, he has his own drywell system. So he's not part
of it. It simply runs through the property and drains off.
The other thing you requested to me was to provide a
revised survey showing a ten-foot buffer, which has been
Board of Trustees 22 May 16, 2018
delivered. It's also in your portfolio. Those are the two issues.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else
here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response). .
Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
MR. HAGAN: In light of past discussions, Mr. President, I think
it's best we continue to take matters out of order and go to
number seven under Wetland Permits, in light of four, five and
six.
We can call them out of order if you are still on the phone.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I'm still on the phone. Thank you.
MR. HAGAN: Mr. President, in light of what we just have been
informed by Counsel Moore, perhaps you would like to continue to
call matters out of order.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Absolutely. Number seven, McCarthy
Management, Inc., is the next application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Under Wetland Permits, number seven, McCarthy
Management, Inc., on behalf of TIMOTHY CASAMENTO & KLEO KING
request a Wetland Permit to construct an 85'10" x 60'3"
one-story, single family dwelling with a 1,370sq.ft. wrap-around
covered porch; a new sanitary system; and a new 12'x12' shed.
Located: 2667 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2
The Trustees visited this site on May 9th, 2018. The field
notes indicate Trustees present were Mr. Bredemeyer, Mr.
Goldsmith, Mr. Domino, Mr. Krupski and myself. Field notes, okay
as per plans.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council moved to support this project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
MS. NORTON: My name is Angela Norton, I am an adjoining
landowner and have recorded covenants and restrictions with
Suffolk County, not with the Town of Southold, and the design on
this house is not what was required in my C&Rs, so I do have
some concerns over this project. Um, can I approach?
Do you have this survey?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that the mapping survey of this?
Board of Trustees 23 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You can bring it up. Is it a survey of the
house?
MS. NORTON: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What's the date of the survey (Perusing). Yes,
we do have this.
MS. NORTON: Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What are your concerns?
MS. NORTON: Is that in the covenants and restrictions, once
again recorded with Suffolk, one of the C&Rs is that there
should be no direct, the driveway should not directly enter into
the garage. And on this, it appears that this is a separate
garage from the house.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It appears that way, yes.
MS. NORTON: That's my concern.
MR. HAGAN: I believe that the comments, if you are asking for an
interpretation of C&Rs that are filed with Suffolk County of
this Board, they are not empowered to make such an interpretation,
which has been verified by recent cases, specifically the Perry case.
MS. NORTON: Okay, I understand. I just wanted to --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Concerns regarding, again, as the Board of
Trustees we are here to oversee the wetlands. Are there any
concerns regarding the wetlands or is it--
MS. NORTON: No, that was my land. I sold it to the Casamentos.
Anyway, I just wanted to come forward to meet most of you
gentlemen because I don't know you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Now you do.
MS. NORTON: Thank you, so much, on this rainy day, and have a
lovely evening.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You as well. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
At this point, I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
written.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eight, Robert Brown Architects on behalf
of STUART & JOYCE NEWMAN requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1,357.2sq.ft. Single-family dwelling with existing
decks totaling 621.0sq.ft.; construct a 515sq.ft. landward
addition with a 177.5sq.ft. covered porch; construct a 396sq.ft.
second-floor addition with an attached 94sq.ft. deck; and to
remove the existing non-conforming 125sq.ft. deck located on the
easterly side yard.
Located: 56425 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-24
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt.
Board of Trustees 24 May 16, 2018
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
this application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the project as applied for, recommending that they move
the cesspools.
The Trustees visited this site on the 9th and noted that
there would have to be a minimum of a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
And aside from that, no other comments.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, architect for the applicant. First I
would like to point out in terms of the cesspools we do have an
application with the Health Department to move the cesspool and
septic system to the front of the house. Which I believe is also
indicated on the site plan that you have. Also, that all of the
work proposed here is landward of the existing structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make the comment that this
particular property many years ago in conjunction with
neighbors, built a long revetment. It seemed to work beautifully
in that area. And in back of that, the vegetation that is
there, we are asking for a 15-foot non-turf buffer. I would not
like to see that vegetation disturbed because it's doing its job
beautifully right now.
MR. BROWN: My clients have no interest in disturbing anything
that they don't have to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Excellent. Good thought there.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
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 with the stipulation
of a 15-foot non-turf buffer as existing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BROWN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Robert Wilson on behalf of JOHN &
DANIELLA VENETIS request a Wetland Permit to replace existing
72' long wood bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in-place.
Located: 2600 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-6-4
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 9th, and the notes
say it might be advisable to schedule a pre-submission to
discuss with the agent or the client the bulkhead alternatives.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt.
Board of Trustees 25 May 16, 2018
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. WILSON: Robert Wilson on behalf of John and Daniella
Venetis.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Robert, could you speak to the suggestion that
there might be other--we are assuming that you are not
questioning the functionality of the bulkhead that is there,
that you want to replace it. So it's obviously not functional or
working or it's recently near the end of its lifespan.
MR. WILSON: It's near the end of its lifespan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As you can see from the photograph, it's
extensive erosion. There is no vegetation at all in front of
this, whereas there is on the property adjacent to it. And in
fact there are no other bulkheads in the vicinity. So it was,
there are several different thoughts on the Board, but some of
us thought that perhaps removing the bulkhead is a good idea,
but not putting it back would be an improvement.
MR. BROWN: I understand and I would be interested to know what
the alternatives the Board of Trustees is suggesting. If we have
to, the client is willing to schedule or probably will schedule
the work session to meet with the Trustees and discuss it, but,
um, everyone is very anxious to get this project moving, so we
thought we would come here tonight and see what the Trustees'
ideas were.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The stated purpose of a pre-submission is to
have a dialogue and to discuss alternatives, and it's a freer
environment than the one we are working in right now.
MR. WILSON: I understand, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So if in fact you do, and as you stated, wanted
to discuss alternatives, that would be a better venue for you
than right now.
MR. WILSON: Okay. If we were to go ahead and request a decision
tonight, is the Board inclined to vote no?
Can I ask that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can't answer that question.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It may be advisable for you to request us to
table the application and then request an onsite discussion.
MR. BROWN: I know that's exactly what the client is trying to avoid.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's an option. Or you can ask that we render
a decision this evening. That's up to you.
MR. BROWN: I think we are going to lose the month anyway. I
think we'll go ahead and take our chances with your decision
tonight, and if we have to, if the Trustees deny the
application, we can resubmit an application and then have the
work session and, yes, okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When it's voted down, you have to start
anew. There'is no forgiveness on the application fees, there is
a whole new, just so you understand.
MR. WILSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
Board of Trustees 26 May 16, 2018
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, 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 deny this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that denied without prejudice?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, sir.
MR. HAGAN: Can we have the motion reiterated, for the record?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to deny without prejudice, the
application as submitted.
MR. HAGAN: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: Mr. President, with your permission, I think we should
go back to the previous matter that was essentially
second-called, which is number one under Wetland and Coastal
Erosion Permits, DKR Shores on behalf of Marijo Adimey and
Veronica Lugris who are now being represented by Patricia Moore.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Okay, I had a long conversation with my
client. She is quite upset, obviously because, to begin with,
the deck that is there is fully functional. It is very sturdy.
The problem here was that the bluff went out, not that that
structure, that the bulkhead that is there is what was damaged.
And the photograph you keep showing is the neighbor's property.
My client's property had a tear in the bulkhead and the sand
began to leave. So you can see that that is actually on the
west side of the property. That is not where the deck is
either.
So the deck is still there. The structure is still there.
It's fully functional and it is, in particular, one of the
things she wanted me to point out is that this restoration is,
if the deck is brought down, what happens is that the waves are
going to crash on top of the deck and damage it more than when
the deck is elevated. The deck as an elevated structure was
staying out of the area of the storm activity and it was more
protected. So she feels contrary, based on her living there and
having lived through these storms, that it is actually more
protected.
Secondly, the fact is that the neighbors got an access
point that they would never have gotten had the right-of-way
remained as it is. So now you have all of Clark Beach hanging
out, and essentially when it's all on the same level, if she is
not there, you have Clark property owners that are going to end
up using her property as their private beach area. So the fact
that it's elevated gives it some privacy as far as how they use
the property.
Board of Trustees 27 May 16, 2018
And more importantly, just, you know, when a person buys a
property, they are very careful to make sure the structures are
permitted. And there is a very strong reason for that, which is,
if it's a permitted structure, it has protection. That is how
she bought this property. With a permitted structure. In
particular, with the three permits that have been previously
issued with identical circumstances where the bulkhead, with
storm damage, the bulkhead had to be replaced, and the deck
withstood all those storm damage. So it's very important to
her. If it was something that could be acquiesced to, believe
me, she would acquiesce. But it is extremely important and
really the beauty of this property.
So if the Board wants her to add supports or add a 30-year
construction standard, we think it's already there because the
posts, when they were replaced ten years ago, are extremely
sturdy. They are wider and thicker than most of the support
structures that you see for the decks. But if you want
additional supports, by all means, she is willing to do that.
Chesterfield is ready to start. The property needs to be
restored. It's very important. We don't want to delay it another
month. So if you are going to vote, vote as you have to. As a
matter of law, we have a permitted structure and are hoping you
will honor that the way the code describes it, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Patricia, we recognize it was permitted, and
that's why we are willing to let it stay. We want it lowered
for safety. The deck is there. The ground underneath it is not.
This is not functional. That's the extent of my comments
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I just, is this a good project. I hate
to, the discussion is over three feet. That is really what we
are talking about here.
MS. MOORE: I understand. As I said, do what you are going to do.
I don't want to see it, I mean the other option is we hold off,
that we remove the deck from this permit. It has a permit. We
remove it from this project, we'll come back in and address just
the deck. And I'll come back with an engineering letter that
shows you that the functional is not the ground below it, it's
the structure. So I would respectively disagree. Functional is
the structure itself. Not when the ground, because of the bluff
erosion goes out. It's the structure itself. So, you know, we
are keeping it functional.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have an application before us that has
already gone through modification. I don't think we can do
that. I think I would like to draw this to a close.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(Negative response).
Not seeing any, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 28 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that the lower deck be located
on-grade behind the new proposed steel bulkhead. Repeating the
concerns of the chairman that safety requirements of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area ordinance to try to minimize damage to
lateral lands from ejecting and noting that we have not denied
decks for this property. We are providing an opportunity to
maintain it on the site. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
MR. HAGAN: At this time, Mr. President, I recommend possibly
going on break and with the understanding that Trustee Williams
will not be returning after the break, based on a previous
commitment that he has. And we'll still have a quorum.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time we'll take a five-minute recess.
(After a recess these proceedings continue as follows).
(Trustee Domino, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goldsmith and Trustee
Krupski are present. Trustee Williams is not present).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back on the record, noting for the
record Trustee Williams has left for the evening.
And we are back returning to agenda item number four under
Wetland permits, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of ORIENT
ACRES, LLC, c/o EVA MALLIS, LLC MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing 3,456sq.ft. two-story dwelling with a 304sq.ft.
front entry patio area, a 146sq.ft. garage roof extension, a
143sq.ft. master bedroom deck area, and a 198sq.ft. second floor
deck; propose to construct a 285sq.ft. east side addition;
construct a 146sq.ft. landward side addition; construct a
148sq.ft. front covered entry patio area; construct a 146sq.ft.
garage front roof extension; construct a 235sq.ft. screened
porch on north side of dwelling; existing 1,248sq.ft. seaward
side deck area to be reduced in size to be an 858sq.ft. deck
area (to be resurfaced) in order to accommodate additions; and
construct a 328sq.ft. roof over seaward side deck area.
Located: 32625 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-25
This application has been deemed to be consistent under the
LWRP.
Trustees performed a field inspection last month. I believe
we were in the process of holding for plans for the deck.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Orient Acres.
The deck and the stairs were built prior to Trustees
jurisdiction. I'm trying to get the, to scale of those of the
deck and stairs, but unfortunately Young &Young couldn't
provide that for me. I checked with Mark Schwartz who was doing
Board of Trustees 29 May 16, 2018
the renovation of the house. So what I would suggest is I'll
come back and amend the permit just for the deck and stairs to
make sure it gets a permit. But then I can get somebody to draw
it for me with the dimensions. I mean, it's existing. Um, and
one month won't make a difference or two months won't make a
difference for an existing structure.
The house is being renovated, so they would like to get
started on that renovation sooner than later.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did not have any problems with
this at both field inspection discussions. It's just a matter of
trying to carry forward and updating the property so those
structures would be included.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer of native plantings.
It has a native buffer there. We request to maintain a 15-foot
non-turf buffer, if that's not a problem for that location.
MS. MOORE: The vegetation that is there is already a certain
width.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is already a vegetation there. It is
non-turf and it's already 15 feet. It would be a matter of
maintaining what is there.
MS. MOORE: Maintaining what is there, okay, fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was straightforward on field inspection.
Are there any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Does anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, 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
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 9th, suggested
that stairs might be a possibility but it should follow the new
bulkhead, which accordingly was taken care of.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved unanimously to not support the application
because the project was not staked and is inconsistent with LWRP
policy standard 4.1(a)(2), minimize loss of human life and
Board of Trustees 30 May 16, 2018
structures from flooding and erosion.
MS. MOORE: Are we sure we are at the right property? Because it
was staked, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Patricia. I'm reading it. That was dated March
14th. Perhaps --
MS. MOORE: It may not have been by then.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps it was staked after that.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Bim Strasberg and
Alexandra Lewis. This is a situation where the seller, the prior
owner sold to Bim and --to the two new owners. We agreed that
we would undertake an application for stairs. We prepared that
application and, unfortunately for the new owners, the storms
damaged the bulkhead after closing. So I have informed them that
they have damage to their bulkhead. They are in the process of
investigating contractors and how to get access. So they
certainly do not want to spend money on stairs until it is
protected with a bulkhead. But my obligation as the seller's
attorney was to complete this process. So I would ask that we
get this permit, the owners agree wholeheartedly that they'll
repair or replace the bulkhead. They are just trying to
coordinate that, and part of the problem is access here between
the rock on the shoreline that gives limited access by barge to
Costello or another company, and the access from the top, which
you need permission from neighbors. And one of the neighbors is
MIA until the summer. So there is a delay there. They're working
on it. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(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.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of DIMITRIOS & IRENE ANTONIADIS requests a Wetland Permit to
expand the existing sanitary system's leaching pools with new
chamber and an expansion pool, and new septic tank.
Located: 3300 North Sea Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-1-4
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency,
minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding and
erosion hazards. The closest leaching pool to the coastal
erosion hazard line is 19 feet, and is approximately 50 feet
from the top of the bluff.
Board of Trustees 31 May 16, 2018
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application.
Trustee Williams conducted a field inspection on May 13th,
noting that it looked straightforward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore behalf of the Antoniadis family.
This was previously approved for an addition to the house, and
during, when they were ready to submit, they realized that the
existing sanitary needed an additional leaching pool.
The Health Department regulations required a certain
distance sanitary to wells, and in this area of Orient, sanitary
has to be in one location, wells are on another. So this was
the only alternative for the expanded leaching pool. So it's
just to make the existing sanitary system conform to current
Health Department regulations.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. KEHL: Brett Kehl. I note on there there is two pre-existing
cesspools and we'll actually take off the dome covers, replace
two-foot covers on top, add another cesspool leaching ring and
then we have to go and put a septic tank in. But as Pat said,
we can't put it anywhere else on the property. We've tried
everything.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And looking at these plans, it looks like the
new ones are going further landward that the existing.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's further landward.
MR. KEHL: That's the septic tank that is going landward, but the
one all the way to the west is the new one we have to put in
because we have to stay away from the property line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's still further away from the bluff.
MR. KEHL: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the note that they are constricted with where they can
place the new septic system, and it's going further landward
than the existing, and thereby bringing it into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number ten, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of GEORGE & DEBRA CORITSIDIS
Board of Trustees 32 May 16, 2018
request a Wetland Permit to implement a stormwater management
plan consisting of the installation of two (2) 8'x3' drywells at
the southwestern and northeastern corners of the existing
dwelling; re-grade the as-built driveway and install a 250'x3'
gravel French drain; remove,existing boulders installed along
the wetland boundary; re-grade an approximate 1,750sq.ft. area
and plant with Marsh Elder (Iva frutescens) adjacent to wetland
boundary and American Beach grass (Ammophila brevigulata).
Located: 1800 Cedar Beach Road & 265 Orchard Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-89-2-3 & 1000-89-2-5.1
This application has been deemed to be consistent under the
LWRP.
The Board has made numerous site inspections. The Town's
Engineering Department has reviewed the drainage plans for the
site, for the as-built driveway, and the Board met with the
Suffolk Environmental Consulting, the principal, Bruce Anderson,
on May 9th, to discuss the restoration of the removal of the
boulders and the area of native plantings.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. I really don't have anything to add. This has
gone through a lot, so in the interest of brevity I'll answer
any other questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
It was a good plan. Field inspection revealed a good project
plan for remediating a site that had problems.
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one stepping forth, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Donald Wilson on behalf of
DOMELUCA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for bluff vegetation
restoration along the irregularly shaped sections of the bluff
and property, specifically the 113'x68' (7,294sq.ft.) eastern
area, a 65'x75' (6,372sq.ft.) area closest to the pool, and a
41'x190' (4,741 sq.ft.) area closest to the water where existing
privet (Lingustrum vulgare) is to be removed and re-vegetated
using native plant species such as Northern Bayberry, Beach
Plum, Groundsel Bush, Switchgrass, Little Bluestem Grass,
Sweetfern, and Shadbush; and the existing intact Eastern Red
Board of Trustees 33 May 16, 2018
Cedars will be retained.
Located: 14909 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.8
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 9th and noted it
was important to save all the cedars and cherry, black cherry in
the area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The LWRP coordinator wrote an extensive review on this
particular project, in fact the neighboring two projects to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that, and
I'll just summarize this. I won't read the whole thing.
Recommends the Board clarify the total acreage where vegetation
will be removed; if the work will be staged, during what season
removal of vegetation would begin; significant impacts to Dam
Pond wildlife, water quality and shellfishing can result due
removal of vegetation resulting in increase of erosion and
turbidity; it goes on to discuss doing it this season would also
include the, would probably include watering issues,
survivability issues; and says existing trees and shrubs should
not be disturbed; to facilitate views of the water the limbing
up of trees could be allowed; the introduction of indigenous
vegetation is supported; discuss the removal of privet, several
paragraphs on that; and in general, this is a very long LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Which, if I might add, we only received
yesterday. Our work session was Monday night, so this was late in
coming. The Board didn't have an opportunity to review or
communicate with you. We only received the LWRP report, it was
drafted yesterday and so it's new to us when we came here this
evening
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We await your comments. But the point is that
it might be advisable to table to give you adequate time to look
at the LWRP report and address all the issues. Because they are
substantial and important. So you might, I want to throw that
out there for you.
MR. WALKER: Jim Walker from Inter-Science, here with Donald
Wilson for the three properties. Would you like to see them on
the easel or should I discuss the project?
Simply tabling it is fine, but the LWRP saying that we should
save the native trees and whatnot is always fine. The area is
privet. It's a pure stand of privet. It's a ring around the
three properties. It's the most privet I have ever seen on one
piece of property. And the project will be staged. There are
four priority items. They are on the maps. The four priorities
are part of the early part of the project. There they are.
This is priority one. This is priority two. This is
priority three. This is priority four. We are staging the
project so that erosion doesn't happen, is a logical thing. We
are intending to open up the entire shoreline anyway.
In most places, the privet is ten or 20 or 30 feet wide.
But it's continuous all the way around. And we have an
application in front New York State DEC, they are going to make
Board of Trustees 34 May 16, 2018
us put a silt fence and silt sediment traps on the bottom of
project and on the top of the project to prevent erosion. We are
going to be told temporary irrigation will be allowed, and it
would be required for the first year or two of the project,
especially July and August so the plants don't burn. But we are
calling out for all native plants to go back, including on this
plan, oak trees. We are calling for the use of light maple, we
like to use for street trees, they are used all along the streets of Long
Island. The reason being they are quick to take hold and become
established, so they provide cover. This is a project that saves
all the wetlands, takes the privet away, restores the shoreline
and will be a huge benefit to wildlife and native environment of
the pond.
The pond is in great shape. The wetlands are in great
shape. How the privet got there, [-don't have the vaguest idea.
But the plantings that we are calling out for will be a big
asset to the wildlife in the area.
The project is pretty gentle, sediment traps, silt fencing.
I'm sure the Board is familiar with. This is not a huge area. We
have four priorities, if you are willing to issue an approval
that is staged and each time Donald Wilson comes back and speaks
to the contact person for that particular area on the Board of
Town Trustees and to make sure that everything is done as carefully
as possible.
It's a big project. It is ambitious, but it's also the
right project for the pond and the three parcels. I believe this
property was six properties originally, now it's three. They are
going to take the old barn down that is blowing into the water,
and two sheds, one masonry, one framed, and replace those areas
with native shrubs and trees as well. Other than that--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Two quick questions. That map is similar to what
is in here?
MR. WALKER: That tells you what is on the different sections of
the property. That was done early on in the project and then we
refined the existing plans jointly between my office and
Whitemore's landscape architect did the work, and then we at the
end provided the planting plan to plant back. That is a lot of
native plant material. I have five copies if-- do you want =-
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's what we looked out in the field.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is what we looked at in the field. This is
the same as what is on that.
MR. WILSON: We have more copies if anybody needs it.
MR. WALKER: Yes. The design there is intended to break it down
by area. The planting plan is what is going to be planted back.
The existing conditions plan, which I did jointly with the landscape
architect, tells you what is there. And there are some black
cherry trees there, and some of them are in miserable shape and
should simply be removed.
Some of the black cherry trees, especially younger trees,
would do very well and enhance the planting that is going to go
in there. So. When the black cherry is dead, 'it's pretty
Board of Trustees 35 May 16, 2018
obvious. Dead and diseased.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's your belief the cedars reached the end of
their life cycle?
MR. WALKER: The cedars up here, the landscape architect intended
to preserve all those. And the cedar trees here that are very
high with no limbs, and those probably need to go. But, we will
be glad to speak with the Board of Trustees' representative and
deal with any cedar trees on an individual basis when the work
is underway. Some trees are worth saving, some trees are not.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to be clear, you are going to pass on my
suggestion that we table this so you have an opportunity to look
at the LWRP?
MR. WALKER: I didn't say that. I'll let Don --
MR. WILSON: We'll take the Board's advice on what is most
pragmatic. We feel it's a sound plan and the client's intent is
to bring everything back to natural vegetation. We thought we
were doing basically what the Board approved of. We were
surprised by the comments. But everything you commented to was
not our design intent anyway. We planned to stage the work and
are more than happy to take their recommendation on how to stage
the work.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this point I only summarized it. You have not
had the opportunity to look at each and every point.
MR. WILSON: True.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So we are trying to avail you of that opportunity.
MR. WILSON: After watching the last experience we just saw on a
couple applications before, I'm going to err on the side of
caution. Let me ask, if we table this for just the one month, we
can come back after having read it next month as opposed to
starting the whole application again.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Certainly.
MR. WILSON: I'll take your advice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Again, your approach is very comprehensive,
as is our LWRP coordinator. So we have the benefit of seeing your
work product, and it's very substantial. I have been at the
site a number of times. And coordinating it with the LWRP report
should not be difficult for your group based on the quality of
the work being done, and it would be a matter of maybe detailing
specific points of time staging, possibly the size of equipment and
possibly using a skid steer, what kind of equipment is used.
There again, I can't even go into so much detail, I only saw this
literally five minutes before we came in tonight.
MR. WALKER: I thought the farmers would talk about how to remove
the trees. You wrap a chain around it, put it around the
tractor, the tow bar, pull it up hill and hold on to the end of the chain --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the way Nick does it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's how you remove shrubs from a field you
want to plant. Very similar.
MR. WALKER: I'm only trying to make you laugh. If you are
intending to allow us to come back, you should tell us when a
work session would be.
Board of Trustees 36 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's what I was going to point out. The next
meeting would be June 20th at 5:30, here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want them to come to a work session or
just to have a chance to review the LWRP coordinator's review?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As Jay pointed out, we need to have an
opportunity review this ourselves. We just literally got this
this evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you don't necessarily need them to come to
the work session, just the next hearing.
MR. WILSON: We would be allowed to come before you for the next
work session so you can see it to coordinate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the important point.
MR. WILSON: What we usually do is review and make a
point-by-point replay. If we are provided with LWRP report, we
will be back to you with whatever is needed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be helpful because if we did not feel
that it adequately addresses the LWRP, we are constrained in
what we can do.
MR. WALKER: We have done a lot of bluff projects. I'm confident
we can do this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to point out, I looked at the LWRP, is
exactly the same in all three properties. So if you choose to do
it, table it for review, you should take all three.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Monday evening, June 18th work session,
would be the likely work session we would go to reviewing it. But
if you would like, it would probably be advisable to get in
prior to the next field inspection so the Board would have an
opportunity to take first look at it at the work session in the
morning of the field inspection, if they felt they wanted to go
back out. So it would be June 13th is the next field
inspection. But certainly by June 18th, the evening
work session.
MR. WALKER: That's fine.
MR. WILSON: Do we make a motion to repeal the application or--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can adjourn it at the applicant's request. So
if you want, I'll make that motion.
MR. WILSON: We request you make a motion to table at our
request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to table at the applicant's
request. All three.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: For the sake of the record, we are tabling at the
applicant's request, items eleven, 12 and 13.
MR. WALKER: We'll be in touch with the Trustees office to get a
copy of the report.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Back on the record. The next application,
number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of TIMOTHY & GEORGIA QUINN
Board of Trustees 37 May 16, 2018
request a Wetland Permit to renovate existing one-story,
single-family dwelling with partial second floor as follows:
Remove 51 sq.ft. of existing second floor deck on east side of
dwelling; construct new roof over existing 24'x35' partial
second floor to remain; remove existing 165sq.ft. second floor
deck on north side of dwelling and construct new 192sq.ft.
second floor deck (over existing first floor deck to remain);
construct 7'x15' second floor addition (with flat roof) and
21.5'x30' second floor addition over existing first story to
remain; extend existing chimney above new roof; construct a
9'x32' pergola addition over existing pool deck to remain;
construct new flat roofs on the landward south side of the
dwelling over existing 45sq.ft. and 86sq.ft. covered porches and
over 24sq.ft. and 91 sq.ft. portions of existing first floor, all
to remain; and install a drainage system of gutters to leaders
to drywells to contain roof runoff; and in accordance with
Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management.
Located: 63165 North Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-14
The project has been deemed to be exempt under the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
however there was no access to the property as the gate was
locked. And the site does not depict adequate draining for the
site and pool backwash.
The Board did not see that as deficient.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
This is a project that is located within 100 feet of the
top of the bluff, so it requires a Chapter275 permit, which is
why we are here before you. And also setback relief from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, which we have already obtained through
appeal number 7151.
As you saw, it is an extensive project description and an
extensive site plan but it all describes a lot of work that is
in fact occurring all within the existing footprint of the
existing structures, which have prior Trustee approvals and
prior Zoning Board approval as well.
So unless the Board has any specific questions, I would
keep my presentation pretty short to that extent that, again, we
are, it's really all construction that is occurring within the
existing structural footprint.
Oh, and on your one point there is, we do have drainage
calculations and a drainage system of leaders, gutters and
drywells proposed, and that was included on the site plan
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just opened the site plan up. It is
included on the site plan. Thank you
MR. HERRMANN: I always try to include'that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And detailed line drawings of the drains
themselves. Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 38 May 16, 2018
Our field notes indicated it was substantially -- and was okay
submitted based on the field inspection, with respect to our
standards.
Hearing no comments, is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(NO RESPONSE).
Seeing no one, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of
DAVID KRUPNICK requests a Wetland Permit to install a 3'x12'
hinged ramp and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in a "T" position,
parallel to the shoreline and secured by two (2) 8" diameter
two-pile dolphins off seaward end of existing 4' x±46" fixed
timber catwalk (with 1.7'x11' bench) to remain; cut existing
dilapidated ±17' bulkhead and ±23' groin to grade; and connect
water and electricity to the dock.
Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-13
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies were according to town records the as-built dock
structure was constructed without obtaining Board of Trustees
review regulatory permit; proposed vessel to be moored at the
dock has not been identified; proof that the proposed dock
structure meets the one-third rule has not been provided; and
the incremental and segmented,extension of permanent private
dock structures into public trust waters does not meet this
policy.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on May 9th and
questioned the need to leave the outermost piling, noting that
the dock seemed to be within the pier line. And also noting that
there was pruning of wetland bushes. And also noting limited to
one floating dock, no jet ski floats allowed. Also note there is
a letter in the file from Rob Herrmann addressing some of the
LWRP's concerns, specifically the proposed floating dock would
remain within the pier line established by adjoining dock
structures and would extend approximately 25 feet seaward, i.e.
22% of the 119 foot width of the,waterway. Because the
maximum one-third intrusion would equal 39 feet, a boat with a
beam of ten feet could be comfortably docked on the outside of
the float with a few feet to spare before reaching that
limitation.
Board of Trustees 39 May 16, 2018
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. There is one thing, Glenn, I think that's 26
feet. Either you read it wrong or I have a typo.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I probably read it wrong. It's 26 feet.
MR. HERRMANN: So the Board knows there is some history with this
site. This goes back to a violation of I think from 2017 when
there was a bunch of plastic jet ski floats and things that were
tied up to the end of the fixed catwalk. But those floats have
been out of the water for about six months. So just the other
thing I noted in that, that memo to the Board, is just that the
LWRP comments about the existing dock structure not being
permitted is just out of date, because I think those comments
referred to the unpermitted floating docks that were since
removed. And the fixed dock that you are standing on, that photo
dates back to Wetlands permit 1708 that was originally issued to
John Kosloski and transferred later to Osler and then
subsequently transferred to Krupnick.
So we did meet at the site with the Board when we were
originally contemplating this proposal, and basically the
direction was if we could get a ramp and float installed in a
'T' configuration and stayed within the pier line, stayed within
the one-third rule, that it would be a reasonable application.
Which is what we have done.
Originally there had been a requirement on a prior Board
approval, and it may have been when the transfer was done, I
can't remember now, but that dilapidated bulkhead and groin
section, be either cut to grade or removed. So based on those
conversations and directions from the Board, we included that.
The one thing that did come up since then was, which was not in
my original application, but Mr. Krupnick had asked and I can
point to it, I think you know where it is, but there is a piling
here at the end of this groin section. It looks like it's been
lifted up a little bit during the winter. But he had asked if he
could maintain that pile basically as a storm tie. When we
originally discussed the application, we talked about putting in
some sort of tie off piling and I said I was not really sure if
the Board would be too keen on:adding new pilings to that area.
And he said well what about when we remove the groin, if we
could just maintain that one pile because then the boat will be
docked parallel, the bow would be facing left from the view of
that photo, and then he would have something to tie the boat
back to during the storm. And that pile is actually inboard of
where the end of the dock would be, so it would actually be
closer to the shoreline.
So that would be just something we would ask if we could
include with our application, assuming there was no objection to
it. But otherwise it's mostly whatlyou expected. I did ask him
about the pruning, he said yes, that I think once a year in the
spring his wife will go out and sort of top some of the
Board of rustees 40 May 16, 2018
Baccharus to keep it coming out fuller at the base, because
that's how she treats everything,,you know, all the other shrubs
on the property. So there was no harm intended there. Obviously
if thIe Board would like to see them discontinue that pruning, we
can certainly pass that along. But as soon as I brought it up
the�r knew exactly what you were referring to and said, yes, they
hac` done that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: On that piling, do we have assurances the piling
will be used to tie off for storm purposes and not for additional floats?
MR. HERRMANN: Become like a second -- oh, yes, of course. I mean
that, it would be, he would be in violation again if he adds
another float there, so. Which I know is not always persuasive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No one ever does that.
M�. HERRMANN: Given the history here, all I can really represent
on my end is we'll remind him of that, that there can't be any
additional floats, jet ski floats, or anything else tied off in
twater aside from the one 6x20 floating dock we are seeking.
STEE DOMINO: I just mention that because I didn't see a for
sale sign on the plastic floats.
MRI'. HERRMANN: Well, I don't know if he is actually trying to
create the 6x20 float out of one of or more of those floats. I
don't know. But I have mentioned it to them. Again, it's, I'm
not sure it could be much clearer at this point that he can only
install what he has a permit for. But we both see it all every
day, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much, for your comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: While we are piling on, the Baccharus
pruning didn't look so terrible. It's when you prune the babies.
If you are encouraging new Baccharus growth, culturally, that would be
in t�e exempt category when we talk about judicious, so I don't
think-- but we didn't notice any of the stuff on the bottom that
was cut up.
MR. HERRMANN: As long as that description of what I was told
matches what you saw, that sounds like that was generally what
was happening.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Leave the babies.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
not'ng that the non-permitted plastic jet ski floats have been
removed, noting that proof has been submitted that the dock will
not exceed the one-third rule, and that the outermost piling may
Board of Trustees 41 May 16, 2018
re ain as a tie-off pile only, thereby bringing 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 KRUPSKI: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of GEORGE
KATSAMANIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately
131 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall with +8' and +12'
returns along top of embankment, and backfill where necessary
with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; construct
approximately 130 linear feet of low-sill vinyl bulkhead with
+8' and +12' returns; dredge 10' wide, approximately 1,200sq.ft.
area seaward of proposed low-sill bulkhead to a maximum depth of
-24�' Mean Low Low Water, and create approximately 1,400sq.ft. of
intertidal marsh by backfilling area landward of proposed
lowh sill bulkhead with approximately 45 cubic yards of dredged
spoil to be planted with Spartina alterniflora (12" O.C.);
restore disturbed portions of existing naturally vegetated slope
located between proposed retaining wall and tidal wetlands
boundary with native vegetation; and establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide, approximately 1,350 square foot non-turf
buffer area landward of the proposed retaining wall.
Located: 1025 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.40
he LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent, although it did note all intertidal construction and
excavation requires a silt boom.
�fhe Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees last visited this site on the 9th -- I believe
inhouse, actually. Yes, it was an inhouse field visit there,
and noted that this was a straightforward application.
Is there anyone hear that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the' applicant. Mostly I just want to thank the Board for the
amount of time that you have spent with me on this property and
talking about this project.
As you all know, it was before you, um, I think at least a
year ago, and we have put a lot of time and thought and effort
into coming up with a proposal here that would benefit the
applicant in terms of erosion control.
He is in a tough spot. He's on a canal that is nearly 100%
bulkheaded, including on both sides, and this is a shoreline
that is naturally eroding, and we understand the Board typically
is tying to keep what is left. And I think the proposal we
have put in front of you is a good one. I think the low sill
bulkhead down along the shoreline, first of all, it's going to
create the intertidal marsh area that is being proposed. It will
allow to recover some of the depth immediately on the seaward
Board of Trustees 42 May 16, 2018
side of that as that material will be dredged and then
redeposited behind the low sill bulkhead as the substrate for
the marsh. And then the retaining wall, rather than having a
wet toe, will be upright at the top of the embankment, and I
think overall you'll end up with a situation where you have a
low sill bulkhead on the bottom, it will be flat, it will run
back with the marsh and then you'll basically have sort of a
reconstructed natural embankment there leading up to the
retaining wall. And in theory, that retaining wall would only
become exposed if that entire natural shoreline eroded away,
which obviously we hope won't happen. But if it did, it
basically serves as an insurance policy.
So again, we appreciate the time that you spent with us on
it. Hopefully you found the proposal to be consistent with our
discussion and what you expected.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to address the LWRP note there about the
silt boom. Do you have a silt boom on the project?
MR. HERRMANN: I don't know if we put that in the notes, but that
would be typical for the dredging if nothing else, so
conditioned upon use of a silt boom. We think we know what
contractor is going to be working there, and he typically has a
silt boom for these kinds of projects now, so that should not be
a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to take a little time to thank you. Most
typically your applications include ten or 15-foot wide non-turf
buffer. You obviously understand the intent of the buffer is to
mitigate applications of pesticides or whatever on the property
that we all love our waters here and we want to keep them that
way. And I'm thanking you for that. Keep it going forward.
MR. HERRMANN: Not a problem. Thanks, Mike
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Anyone else that wishes to speak?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's a well-designed project. You did really
well with this one.
MR HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing nothing else, I make a motion to close
are hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that a silt boom is used during construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
Board of Trustees 43 May 16, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
' JUN 2 6 2018
Southold Town Clerk