Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/19/2018 Michael J.Domino,President Ow`�QF SOUry�l Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President O 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith CA Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski �� Telephone (631) 765-1892 Greg Williams �jY`,oU Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECFIVED Minutes OCT �2I 2 ZOIC PM _Wednesda , September 19, 2018 So . elNO rtClerk 5:30 PM Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Greg Williams, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 5:30 PM at the Main Meeting Hall WORKSESSION: Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Board Room and on Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 15, 2018 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday, September 19th, 2018, monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you stand for the pledge. (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left is Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski and Trustee Greg Williams. To my right is Assistant Town attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. Also tonight we have with us court stenographer Wayne Galante. And the Conservation Advisory Council member is Peter Meeker. The agendas are located at the podium and also out in the hall. I would like to mention at this time we have a couple of postponements. If you Board of Trustees 2 September 19, 2018 look on page ten, number four, Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of SALLY COONAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' high by 15' long timber retaining wall with a 10' easterly return and a 12'westerly return; the top or filled area -- --- - -of the retaining wall to be vegetated with-native beach-grass-and-other-salt tolerant- coastal plant species; create a 6" earthen berm along the landward edge of the property scarp; add two (2) 4' wide by 6' deep dry wells to collect surface and roof runoff from dwelling and patio interconnected to a 4'x24' French Drain; add two (2) 8'x12' deep storm drains in the middle of the property to contain runoff emanating from adjacent properties; install 6" to 8" earthen berm within property lines and install three (3) 8'x12' interconnected storm drains with drains to be installed slightly below grade; and install a 2'x16' trench drain at the entry point of storm water coming from the road and surrounding properties. Located: 2662 Paradise Shores Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-1-4 has been postponed at the applicant's request. On pages 12 and, numbers 13, 14, 15 and 16 have been postponed. They are listed as follows: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GREGORY & NELLIE RAMSEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing storm damaged dock and replace with a proposed 4'x44' long fixed dock using un-treated decking and supported with 8" diameter piles; install a proposed 30"x14' aluminum ramp; and install a proposed 6'x20' floating dock using un-treated decking situated in an "L" configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles. Located: 1160 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-29 Number 14, J.M.O. 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 Number 15, PAUL & SUSAN WACHTER request a Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to trim the Phragmites and removal; and to install and perpetually maintain a 30' wide non-disturbance buffer along the landward edge of the beach. Located: 2295 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-15 And number 16, 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 1 would also like to announce under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago and the submission of paperwork after that date, including tonight, may result in a delay of the processing of the application. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection on Wednesday, October 10th, 2018. 8:00 AM, at the town annex. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Board of Trustees 3 September 19, 2018 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, October 17th, 2018, at 5:30 at the main meeting hall. ----TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So moved._ _ _ TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work session at the Town annex board room, second floor, October 15th, 2018, at 4:30, and at 5:00 PM on October 17th, 2018, at the main meeting hall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of August 15th, 2018, meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2018. A check for$10,246.58 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 IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 19, 2018, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: They are listed below: New Suffolk Waterfront,Fund SCTM# 1000-117-8-18 Kupari, LLC SCTM# 1000-21-1-30.3 Justin & Elizabeth Mirro SCTM# 1000-104-13-6 Sally Coonan SCTM# 1000-80-1-4 Brett O'Reilly SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 Alfred & Mary Knapp SCTM# 1000-68-1-13.4 Nitin P. Desai & C. Barsi, LLC SCTM# 1000-51-1-15 Matthew Mironov & Barbara Lichtenberg-Mironov SCTM# 1000-103-3-15 Board of Trustees 4 September 19, 2018 John & Margaret Hochstrasser SCTM# 1000-104-13-9 Stephanie Teicher SCTM# 1000-111-15-8.2 RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 19, 2018, are classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short 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: Mark & Helen Levine SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.7 Solution East, LLC; c/o Anne Marino & Bernard Telsey, Members SCTM# 1000-78-8-2 Patricia McCarthy SCTM# 1000-145-2-16 TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number IV, Environmental Declaration of Significance pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. NYCCR, part 617. Number one, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of MARK & HELEN LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 240' long rock revetment at the base of the bluff using '/2 to 3 ton rock and 12" to 16" diameter Coir-Logs; re-contour the 205' long top edge of bluff and build a new berm reusing material excavated for revetment construction; re-grade and re-vegetate area with native plantings; terrace eroded areas on the slope of bluff as needed using 12" to 16" diameter Coir-Logs as terracing boards; re-grade areas landward and re-vegetate slope using native plantings. Located: 2510 Grand View Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.7 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of MARK & HELEN LEVINE to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short 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 August 7, 2018 and again on September 12, 2018 and having considered Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Plans for this project last dated April 4, 2018 showing the proposed rock revetment at the toe of the bluff, coir-logs and terracing, and re-vegetation of the slope, and; WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated April 4, 2018, it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental Board of Trustees 5 September 19, 2018 concerns have been addressed as noted herein: No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the beach. The distance from the revetment to the Mean High Water is sufficient to allow public utilization of the beach. Access to the site for construction has been identified and agreed upon. Re-vegetation will be with native salt tolerant plants. Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the bluff erosion in this high energy environment and protection by use of hardened structure is necessary. 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 resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All'in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PATRICIA F. McCARTHY requests a Wetland Permit to construct 100 linear feet of rock revetment along the erosion line and landward of the Mean High Water line consisting of a lower course of 4-5 ton boulders and using 2-3 ton boulders for the upper courses placed in an interlocking manner; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the rock revetment. Located: 1434 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-16 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of PATRICIA McCARTHY to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short 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 16, 2018 and having considered Jeffrey Patanjo plans for this project last dated July 15, 2018 showing the proposed rock revetment landward of the line depicting the limits of storm erosion, and; WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated July 15, 2018, it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the beach. The distance from the revetment-to the Mean High Water is sufficient to allow public utilization of the beach. Access to the site for construction has been identified and agreed upon. A 10 foot wide non-turf buffer will be installed and perpetually maintained along the landward edge of the rock revetment. Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the bank erosion in this high energy environment and protection by use of hardened structure is Board of Trustees 6 September 19, 2018 necessary. 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 resolution. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number three, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of SOLUTION EAST, LLC; c/o ANNE MARINO & BERNARD TELSEY, MEMBERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x6' inclined ramp leading up to a 4'x44' fixed timber catwalk constructed with open-grate decking and elevated a minimum of 4 feet above tidal marsh, with 4'x6' stairs to grade at its seaward end. Located: 900 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-8-2 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of SOLUTION EAST, LLC; c/o ANNE MARINO & BERNARD TELSEY, MEMBERS to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short 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, 2018 and having considered En-Consultants plans for this project last dated July 16, 2018 showing the proposed fixed timber catwalk with stairs to grade at seaward end at their September 17, 2018 work session, and; WHEREAS, in reviewing the En-Consultants project plans dated July 16, 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 not longer than docks on neighboring properties. Toxicity: To protect the waters of Peconic Bay the dock's decking shall be constructed entirely of non-toxic materials. Scope in relation to the rights of small human powered water craft to navigate the waters adjacent to the proposed dock: At low tide a kayak might be able to paddle around most docks in this area. 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 Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That's my resolution. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 7 September 19, 2018 V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, Resolutions, administrative permits. In order to simplify the meeting, the Board regularly groups together actions that are deemed minor or -- similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a -- - - ------T group numbers one and two. They are listed as follows: Number one, Michael Kimack on behalf of CEDAR BEACH PARK ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing t8' long wood bulkhead; remove uprooted cedar tree; perform partial grubbing and reshaping of the bank for material placement; stabilize approximately 18' of eroded slope with approximately 10-12 cubic yards of soil and gravel covered with one layer of geo textile fabric and covered with approximately 6-8 yards of 6"-8" graded trap rock. Located: Cedar Point Drive East, part of an area along Pleasant Inlet. SCTM# 1000-90-3 Number two, RUSSELL McCALL requests an Administrative Permit to install a 3'-4' high by approximately 40' long split-rail fence along the beach. Located: 11600 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116.-6-7 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, MARTIN &JULIE REGINE request an Administrative Permit to clear the overgrown brush on the sound side; remove two (2) overgrown shrubs; trim up the brush along the property fence line; with no removal of trees on the sound; side of the fence line, only trimming and cleaning up. Located: 675 Hillcrest Drive North, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.19 After reviewing this file, the LWRP found this to have incomplete plans and therefore required more information. Due to this, I make a motion to table this application at the request of the LWRP to obtain the additional information. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, 2000 BROADWATERS, LLC, c/o SPIRO GEROULANOS, MEMBER requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built replacement of picket fencing with 8' high deer fencing extending beyond the property line of SCTM# 1000-104-9-12. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-12 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the construction of an eight-foot wide deer fence across a paper road; waterfront access to public waters does not meet this policy; public access will be eliminated or impeded. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on September 12th, we have submissions of a survey from John Ehlers, land surveyor, dated July 27th, 2018, and on this survey it shows Board of Trustees 8 September 19, 2018 that the proposed fence is to be placed on a road. Due to the fact that it is on a road, I make a motion to deny this application without prejudice. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, OLIVER FRANKEL requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-prune the vegetation located landward of the top of bluff; and to top-off trees by hand. Located: 975 Hillcrest Drive North, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.21 This project has been reviewed by myself on prior inspection and by Trustee Greg Williams on September 16th. Because the language in the proposal is not exacting enough to discern which vegetation is planned to be pruned, we are requesting that the trees that need to be planted and the scope of the project needs a plan that amplifies what is to be removed in the form of that plan. Accordingly, I move to table this application for the submission of trees planting and a better project plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI. Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I make to motion to group together items three through nine. They are listed as follows: Number three, MICHAEL McCARRICK REAL ESTATE, INC., requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9134 from Estate of Fred Adler to Michael McCarrick Real Estate Inc., as issued on December 13, 2017. Located: 415 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-13 Number four, West Creek Builders, LLC on behalf of LAUREN W. McCALL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9046 for the construction of a 16'x30' two-story addition on the north side of the dwelling in lieu of the previously approved 10'x30' screened porch and second floor deck. Located: 10643 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-1-9 Number five, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9161 and Coastal Erosion Permit #9161 C to install a proposed innovative/alternative wastewater treatment system in lieu of the originally proposed sanitary system. Located: 4200 Kenny's Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-3 Number six, Sam Fitzgerald, Architect on behalf of FBO ASSOCIATES, LLC, c/o ARNOLD FISHER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8673 for the as-built extension of existing seaward side porch; as-built 12'x40' swimming pool in lieu of proposed 20'x40' pool; and as-built 4' high retaining wall with 6'wide steps to ground extending seaward of dwelling and along seaward edge of pool. Located: 3300 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-7-1-2.1 Number seven, Sam Fitzgerald, Architect on behalf of ELIZABETH W. FURSE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8933 for the as-built 5' wide Board of Trustees 9 September 19, 2018 by 14.9' long deck extension in lieu of the previously proposed 175sq.ft. extension; and for the as-built removal and replacement of the existing set of stairs off deck to ground with associated middle landing in lieu of the proposed removal of the existing stairs and construction of new further landward along deck extension. Located: 2412 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-5 Number eight, VINCENT & DONNA DALEY request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9157 to increase the size of the proposed pool patio size to 625sq.ft. including the landing and steps in lieu of the approved 475sq.ft. pool patio. Located: 135 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-32 Number nine, James DeLucca, R.A. on behalf of DOUGLAS ROBALINO requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9249A to construct a proposed 14'x28' side yard deck in lieu of the previously approved 14'x18' side yard deck. Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21.1 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, ALLAN GOLDSMITH requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8730 from Goldsmith's Boat Shop, Inc. to Allan Goldsmith, as issued on January 20, 2016. Located: 2620 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-9 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the record, I'll recuse myself from this vote. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Noting that Trustee Goldsmith has recused himself, I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye, Trustee Williams, aye. Trustee Goldsmith, recused). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of LEAH ZARA & RICHARD KASNIA request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #221, as issued on August 28, 1985, and Amended on February 25, 2004. Located: 400 Windjammer Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-4-8 1 performed an inspection of the subject property on September 13th, and whereupon I found that the prior permit requirements for a ten-foot non-turf buffer had not been met. Accordingly, I would move to table this transfer until such time that the required ten-foot non-turf buffer is constructed and inspected by the Board of Trustees. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VII, moorings number one, JONATHAN BAKER requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 17' outboard motor boat, replacing mooring #59. Access: Public I make a motion to approve this application. Board of Trustees 10 September 19, 2018 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, PATRIZIA ZANABONI & KENT LAYTON request a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 23' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #69. Access: Private I would move to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, DAVID CANNIZZARO requests a Mooring Permit in Mud Creek for a 16' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #008. Access: Private It has been noted that this homeowner already has a dock, which by code states that that is all that is permitted, so therefore I make a motion to deny without prejudice this application. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VIII. RESOLUTIONS OTHER: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number VIII on the agenda, resolutions other. Number one, a Public Scoping Session will be held on Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at or about 5:30PM located at the Southold Town Hall Main Meeting Hall, 53095 Route 25, Southold, New York regarding the application of 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. This is for the purposes of the Board to investigate various environmental impacts associated with a dock in an area that does not have a dock. That's my resolution. Move to approve. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, public hearings. At this time I'll take a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter the public hearings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So moved. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the Board of Trustees 11 September 19, 2018 following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments brief and relevant to the docket _--_ --___at hand. Five minutes-or less,if possible. - -- -------- -- -------- WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of MARK & HELEN LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 240' long rock revetment at the base of the bluff using '/to 3 ton rock and 12" to 16" diameter Coir-Logs; re-contour the 205' long top edge of bluff and build a new berm reusing material excavated for revetment construction; re-grade and re-vegetate area with native plantings; terrace eroded areas on the slope of bluff as needed using 12"to 16" diameter Coir-Logs as terracing boards; re-grade areas landward and re-vegetate slope using native plantings. Located: 2510 Grand View Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.7. The Trustees did a field inspection, most recently on September 12th. All Trustees were in attendance, along with Mr. Costello. The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved unanimously to support this application on July 11, 2018. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, for the applicant, here to answer any questions that may arise on the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to re-affirm that the material will be barged in? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two, Young &Young on behalf of ROBINSON ELIODROMYTIS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with the first floor area to include 1,320sq.ft. of living, storage and mechanical space on a pile foundation; adjacent to the dwelling construct a raised swimming pool and pool deck for a combined 769sq.ft. footprint with associated seaward side 4'x3.5' cantilevered platform with 3.5'x12' steps to ground, and Board of Trustees 12 September 19, 2018 landward side 4'x3.5' cantilevered platform with 3.5'x15' steps to ground; install a sanitary system on the landward side of the dwelling within an approximately 450sq.ft. area; install a proposed 4x39.25' (157sq.ft.) timber stairway and walk from proposed house to driveway; install a driveway consisting of 19 cubic yards of crushed stone over an area of 1,034sq.ft.; install public water and electric; approximately 432 cubic yards of material will be excavated over an area of 1,978sq.ft. to facilitate the placement of 230 cubic yards of rock revetment over an area of 608sq.ft., and the placement of 89 cubic yards of rock armor over an area of 357sq.ft. to support the existing concrete seawall; approximately 199 cubic yards of clean sand backfill over an area of 972sq.ft. will be placed over the rock revetment to the finished grades shown on the plan; approximately 233 cubic yards of sand fill over an area of 1,254sq.ft. will be placed from the top of the rock revetment to the 5.50 contour; new native plants and rock will be placed to augment existing grasses and brush; the excavation and fill volumes are intended to be balanced and no excess material will leave the site. Located: 600 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-7 The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent and inconsistent, being that the original plans have construction in the coastal erosion hazard areas, that was the inconsistency. This was addressed at a previous public hearing. In addition, at a previous public hearing, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application, recommended a requirement of an engineering study on what effects this project could have on town resources immediately next door. The Trustees have visited the site on several occasions. Since the original application, the applicant has submitted new plans to remove this project from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. And at this point I would like to open the public hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to speak to this application? MR. DANOWSKI: My name is Pete Danowski, I do represent Mr. Eliodromytis, who is before you tonight. Also in attendance is a representative of Young &Young, our licensed geologist and engineer Douglas Adams is in attendance. I would say that we appreciated the meetings we have had at work session to discuss an alternative plan to what was originally proposed. To highlight that, we did forward by e-mail a further project description which reflects a new plan, this new plan, which you have commented on, Trustee Williams, has removed all building from the CEHA map area by the state. We paid careful attention to your comments, specifically the comments about installing an IA sanitary system as recently recommended by many towns and this specific Board and comments, and something favored by the Suffolk County Health Department. I was originally questioning whether we could fit that Board of Trustees 13 September 19, 2018 system into the new area, but we can, and we depicted that on the plan. We also had to be concerned with setbacks, and we have produced the plan as the alternative, which outside the mapped area shows less than 20% of the remaining area to show the improvements. We also located it within the setback requirements for side yards and the front yard from the street. We have also followed the recommendation of taking the improvement for the driveway inside the town right-of-way to meet Town Highway standards, to not have it anything other than the town-required asphalt. We also had to be cognizant of the ten contour, which is a topographical term, as far as distances behind the seawall, and that the entire improvement we propose is to the west of the lot entirely behind the existing seawall. We do feel that the DEC-permitted revetment and improvement to the wall system will further protect the new proposed location of the house, and we look for your support and look for your closure of the public hearing. I hand delivered the alternative maps, I also asked Young & Young to PDF them so they can be distributed in an easier form to the Board members, and I hand-delivered an attachment to the application that shows the amended description. In the simplest of terms, we have reduced the size of the house footprint. It is now indicated on the amended description and is less than that originally proposed. And there are some descriptive terms in the original notice that show a larger area than that is now proposed. So the first floor area, as an example, that is contained in the new description, is 850 square feet of living area as opposed to the 1,320. We have cantilevered over the top the second floor, but again, it's under 2,000 square feet of total area for the facility. So we think we followed your recommendations. And we appreciate those comments, the comments that you did make at the work session. And we have even taken the rocks out of the CEHA mapped area, even though in your earliest of reports said there was nothing inconsistent with them, and they were there as part of the landscape plan. So we've got native vegetation, we've got everything out of the CEHA mapped area. We have things we feel are consistent with the percentages and the setbacks, and await further comment from the public. But with that amended project description, I look forward to receiving a Trustees permit to allow this to move forward. Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Trustees, do we have any questions? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the project, it shows new steel sheathing. MR. DANOWSKI: Yes. I talked to Doug Adams about that, and sometimes don't even bother showing that on the plans. It's only there to protect the neighboring property owner, in this case Board of Trustees 14 September 19, 2018 the town, and so during installation and construction, the metal sheathing goes in so nothing spills over toward the town side. It gets removed after construction. And most times I ask Doug Adams that specific question, I said do we also always put this on the plans. He said no. In this particular case we did. It is not there to remain, believe me. The metal sheathing gets removed. It's just there to protect everyone around it during construction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's the only question I had with the new plans. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else have any questions? (Negative response). At this point I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to approve the application with revisions dated September 18th, 2018, in accordance with the new plans that have been submitted dated September 12th, 2018, and received September 12th, 2018, with the project description as follows: The project consists of constructing a new two-story frame house on a pile foundation with deck and pool together with the associated public water service connection; sewage disposal system; rock revetment; rock armor; beach sand fill; new native plants; stone driveway; timber steps and walk; new wood chip pedestrian beach access and landscaping; the first-floor area of house will include 850-square foot of living, storage and mechanical space. The second floor will include 1,206-square foot of living space; the deck and pool will occupy 640-square foot; the sanitary system will occupy approximately 450-square foot; approximately 432 cubic yards of material will be excavated over in the area of 1,978 square foot to facilitate the replacement of 230 cubic yards of rock revetment over an area of 608 square foot; and placement of 89 cubic yards of rock armor over an area of 357-square foot to support the existing concrete sea wall. Approximately 199 cubic yards of sand backfill over an area of 972 square foot will be placed over the rock revetment to the finished,grade shown on the plan; approximately 233 cubic yards of sand fill over an area of 1,254 square foot will be placed from the top of the rock revetment to 5.5 contour; new native plants will be placed for visual screening; the excavation and fill volumes are intended to be balanced, with no excess material to leave the site; the pervious driveway will consist of 13 cubic yards of crushed stone over an area of 723-square foot. The purpose of the project is to construct a single-family residence on existing vacant lot with pre-existing seawall. And the submission of new plans to address the inconsistency laid out in the LWRP's initial report, thereby bringing the project Board of Trustees 15 September 19, 2018 into consistency. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). - — -- - WETLAND PERMITS: - --— --- - ---- ---- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number one, NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing 352 linear foot long stone jetty which is a combination of existing large rocks and poured concrete that will remain in place; the wood molds on the poured concrete will be removed and large rocks will be places so as to hide as much of the concrete as possible, and to reinforce the structure; the parts of the jetty that are only large rocks will be repaired and one large rock up to 30" in height will be added to the top row of the 352 linear foot long stone jetty. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18 The LWRP found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees reviewed this application September 12th, noting that it was basically straightforward. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. MCINTYRE: Yes. Patricia McIntyre, New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, and John Hocker. John did all the work on the marina currently and has already consented to do this work also. MR. HOCKER: Any questions? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Seems pretty straightforward to us. MR. CASTALANO: I would like to say something. Frank Castalano. The thing I would like to say is, I don't know about the repairs and all that, but the waterfront, if they are going to build a bigger marina, there is a major problem with parking on First Street. Major. And if they put a lot more boats in there, I don't know where the rest of the cars are going to go. And every time we make, you give them permission to do something, we get slammed on First Street. I don't know if you are familiar with First Street. I mean I have a couple of pictures. Can I show them to you? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, the application here that we are reviewing is to repair the rock jetty, nothing about extra slips or expanding the marina. MR. CASTALANO: I understand that. What I'm afraid of, the waterfront was supposed to be a snack bar, initially. It became a full blown restaurant. If the marina becomes a full blown marina, where is the parking going to be for that? Aren't there allowances for parking for a marina? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's not part of this application. This is simply to repair the existing jetty. MR. CASTALANO: I would like to say because of all these permissions, New Suffolk is getting killed. And allowing all these things to go on. And now you have the oyster people over there taking over King Street, which is a town road, and it's Board of Trustees 16 September 19, 2018 getting used by everyone, boats, trailers, which, you know, because I mean, it's like the wild, wild west down there. And that's all I wanted to say. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Anyone else here wish to speak to this application? MR. SIMON: Bill Simon. I want to say, all of the changes have been approved by the Planning Board. And this has not changed any of the boundaries whatsoever. It just simply improves what is already legitimate. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Does anyone else wish to speak? MR. O'PETRI: My name is Danny O'Petri. I'm kind of nervous. really don't have a problem with fixing up the marina. Before you fix up the marina, they need a bathroom that's open all the time. A pumpout would be good. But you really need to fix the parking in New Suffolk because there is no room for the people now. You need to put the poles back like they were in the original site plan. And the parking lot should not say Case's Place only, because the people on the marina don't know where to park. I also hope that you are not just wasting my time because the e-mail that I got from the waterfront fund is this is already going, they are already doing this. It seems like it's already a done deal. I hope you are not wasting our time. Thank you. Congratulations on your new Town Hall. That was a really good thing for everybody. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to reiterate that this project, after the Board reviewed it, is strictly to repair the jetty, and it is in no way going to change anything else at the marina for now. There will be no more boat slips or anything like that. That's my understanding anyway. MS. MCINTYRE: Correct. This is only to repair the last of the Sandy storm damage that we had to do. We finally have the money to do it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 17 September 19, 2018 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, D.B. Bennett, P.E., P.C. on behalf of KUPARI, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 65' long by 4.5'wide timber staircase on existing bluff consisting of an 8'x4.5' top landing to 13.5'x4.5' steps to an 8'x4.5' middle landing to 13.5'x4.5' steps to an 8'x4.5' lower landing to 13.5'x4.5' steps to bottom of bluff; proposed bluff stairs to be supported with fourteen 6" diameter by 12' deep timber piles. Located: 4115 Rocky Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-1-30.3 The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees visited this site on the 12th of September and noted it looked pretty straightforward and okay as submitted. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. GILES: Steven Giles of DB Bennett Engineering, here to answer any questions the Board might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any questions about this application? (Negative response). Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing no one else, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JUSTIN & ELIZABETH MIRRO request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling, decks, detached garage, and abandon existing sanitary system; construct new two-story dwelling with attached four-car garage with a footprint of 4,227sq.ft. (Approx. 6,700 total sq.ft.); construct an attached 45sq.ft. covered porch, attached 135sq.ft. covered porch, and attached 525sq.ft. covered porch onto dwelling; construct 190sq.ft. of open decks with exterior stairs attached to dwelling; install a new sanitary system; construct a one-story, non-habitable 748sq.ft. pool house with a 713sq.ft. covered porch (included in terrace area); construct a 50'x22' gunite swimming pool with infinity edge totaling 1,443sq.ft.; construct an 8'x10' (80sq.ft.) spa; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; install 2,839sq.ft. of stone terracing at grade; maintain existing 175 linear feet of timber tie border between lawn and non-turf buffer, and increase the height by Board of Trustees 18 September 19, 2018 approximately 18" at filled areas; construct approximately 121 linear feet of new timber retaining wall at south edge of property; install approximately 3,635 cubic yards of clean fill; install new topsoil and landscaping, including an irrigation system; install a new gravel driveway; reconstruct existing 27sq.ft. cantilevered platform off bulkhead with 21sq.ft. stairs to beach in new location; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof/stormwater runoff; provide 15 closed-loop geothermal wells; install a line of silt fencing around construction area; and perpetually maintain the existing approximately 2,272 square foot area of non-turf buffer along the bluff face between timber border tie and bulkhead. Located: 2455 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-6 The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent. It is recommended that the structures are relocated to achieve a greater setbacks and to avoid FEMA flood zones to the greatest extent practicable to avoid future loss. It is also recommended that the non-turf buffer is vegetated with native, salt-tolerant vegetation. The Conservation Advisory Council did vote to support the application, with notes that retractable stairs at the base of the beach access stairs, and to encourage the applicant to consider the installation of an upgraded onsite waste water treatment system. The Trustees did visit the site on September 12th. All Trustees were present. The notes on the site visit: Would be an ideal spot for an alternative septic. We need to refer to town engineering for a drainage plan, and the pool house and structures cannot exceed the view line of the houses next door. At this point I would like to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels of Samuels & Steelman Architects. We are also joined by Patricia Moore to help out. And the owners are here, Justin and Elizabeth Mirro. I would like to start by saying that with regard to the flood situation there, it's probably the only property on Nassau Point Road on the west side where the line, the V zone actually does enter into the site, and so naturally we have avoided that zone because building in that zone is particularly difficult. Otherwise we are in an AE zone, which would require the first floor elevation to be somewhere in the neighborhood of, it's a little unusual with an AE zone, and Mike Verity took me all through it, but we should be around eleven feet above sea level. The existing grade of the site is five feet and six feet. And at the lowest it's five. So it's a low site, obviously. Therein lies the decision to apply for a permit including a fair amount of fill in order to make the house appear to sit on the ground as opposed to being raised up above the ground. The sanitary system we are proposing is the newer galley system, not the enhanced system as you described it. We are 200 feet more back from wetlands for that system. So we feel like Board of Trustees 19 September 19, 2018 it's the appropriate system for this site and that it will function from gravity and not require enhanced maintenance, which can be an issue at times. There is a geothermal system proposed, we tried to recapture some of the latent heat in the ground and use that for heating and cooling the house, thereby using less fossil fuel energy in order to condition the space. I would like to make a point about the so-called retaining wall on the south property line. This is really a curve. This property sits next to a 20-foot wide right-of-way which is used by the neighbors to access the beach. That right-of-way has also been utilized since the road system was built, as drainage system for the road. It's a low point of that road. So water coming from down Nassau Point Road from two directions runs down the right-of-way. That's fine. Of course it makes sense it would do that. We don't want that water running into our property. And because that house is still in a flood zone, we can't have a basement and we must have a grade access to the slab level of the crawl space. So essentially we have to let water run in and out. Flood water run in and out. Not water coming off Nassau Point Road. Water coming in off the bay. So it's been designed and the grading is all in place to allow water to come in as it has from the right-of-way, and then into the basement if the tide is high enough and out again. So all of the contours, and on the map you'll see a lot of drainage wells along that line, which are intended to pick up all the drainage. We cannot let any water that falls on the property go off the property, just by Town Code, and I think Jamie will find that it is at least well considered. He may have some input. I'm not sure what his input will be. But we have submitted many plans to him over the years and found that we basically understand the system of draining a site from, you know, from rainfall runoff. And it's been entirely designed for that purpose. As far as the alignment of the house, the house is quite a ways back and much behind the alignment between adjacent, we submitted documents showing the neighboring properties and how far they are and averaged that number and used that number as a way to try to establish what the setback for the pool house will be. Because the pool house is closer to the wetland that the main house is. And we have very carefully tried to maintain that setback for principal structures, even though this is an accessory structure. And even if we had averaged accessory structures, which we did and included that information as well, theoretically it could be closer. But we are not looking for it to be as close has the existing house which is about 23 feet back from the bluff where, not the bluff, I'm sorry. The bulkhead. You guys were there and saw that. We are going back I think 35 feet, I don't-- MS. MOORE: Yes. 35 feet. MR. SAMUELS: 35 feet back from the bulkhead for the accessory structure. So we feel like we are trying to maintain the spirit Board of Trustees 20 September 19, 2018 of this new code change which took the setback from bulkhead away from the zoning code and put it in into your guys' laps. And as best we understood it, it was averaging of adjacent properties. So we went 300 feet on either side, which is the standard used by the Building Department for determining front yard setbacks, and felt like that was at least in the spirit of what you guys were trying to achieve, which'is an alignment along this shoreline which predates most of the regulation that would have said 75 feet back from bulkhead. And so we are just trying to achieve a site plan which, if it does what we want, is to create a semi-private area around the swimming pool, which is on the water side, of course, and have an accessory structure to the north, to kind of support the pool and make sense out of the overall use of the site in the site plan. Otherwise I'm really just here to answer questions and refer any questions that I can, maybe to attorney, and to the owners. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point I would like to make a motion to table this application as we are awaiting the report from the town engineer. MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. If I could just speak. We have no objection to the table. We are not quite done. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I could withdraw that motion if you would like to speak. MS. MOORE: Just for a moment. We understand that it's going to the Town Engineer. We just want to try to get as much input as we could so that we don't come back next meeting and then learn there is additional information. So we are really just trying to be efficient in our response. I think Tom did a very nice job describing the situation here, which is really protecting the property from flooding, building in an accordance with FEMA. I did want to point out that we did go to the Zoning Board for approval setbacks from the footpath, which is that footpath that is to the south. As part of that application, you made some recommendations which we actually initiated in our plans with the Zoning Board. So we pushed the structures back. We also in accordance with, well, the LWRP made comments which we incorporated as well. So LWRP uses the two bite of the apple because they give you the comments of the Zoning Board, you adhere to and incorporate them, then uses the same comments with the Trustees. But the recommendations had been already incorporated into the final plan that the Zoning Board approved, and then has been submitted today. So I just wanted to repeat that. As far as the vegetated non-turf buffer, it's -- MR. SAMUELS: Right now, it"s sand. And if it comes back that you want grass of a certain sort there, then I'm sure we can. MS. MOORE: It's kind of a low property, so storms and so on, they tend to slash on that area, so we don't want to plant anything that would be burned by the salt. So it's been working out fine, but that is always an option. If you have any other comments, we'll listen to them. But as I said, we would like to Board of Trustees 21 September 19, 2018 get your input, as much input as possible today, so we can then come back to you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One concern I had was the setback with the pool house. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was the house to the east, I believe, it lined up with. But if you look at the house to the west, it was actually before. So if we drew a line between those two, in theory, in my opinion, I would like to see that pool house moved back ten, 15 feet or so. MS. MOORE: I'll just remind you we did push it back once. This is Mr. Mirro. He's the owner. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We had a motion -- MR. HAGAN: That motion was withdrawn prior to a second and a vote. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. MR. MIRRO: Hello. I'm Justin Mirro, the homeowner. The property just to the north and south, I personally sat down with both neighbors. The neighbor to the south, which is on the other side of the right-of-way, Phil Palmieri, I do have,a letter from him. He looked at all these plans. He's probably the most impacted because he has his patio right there on top of the right-of-way. He has agreed to these plans, he likes these plans. He's in 100% approval and I can provide you with that letter from him. The neighbor to the north, Ken Rathgar, I sat down with him as well as his wife and kids. They also reviewed the plans. They approved all the plans. He only had one, he approved exactly where the pool house is, which we actually moved the pool house almost 15 feet further west on the property, so further away from the water. Which he liked. The current house is actually a two-story house. You can't really see it, but I think you visited it. It does have a second story. The pool house is a one-story. So lower. Lower and further back from the water. My neighbor to the north had one concern and that is where the pool equipment goes. And we have agreed to put the pool equipment into an enclosed structure so that he does not hear anything. I don't want to hear it either, so. That was really the only feedback we got from both neighbors from the north and south. MR. SAMUELS: But I would like to address your point about the alignment of structures. And if that is the standard that you are going with, then that would be great to know. Up until now we are going on an average basis, 300 feet either side. So we counted up everybody on both sides and divided by, and came up with that number. That's what we have been going by so far. But if in fact your protocol is direct line between those two, that would be good to know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to the application? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to table this application pending receipt of Board of Trustees 22 September 19, 2018 the engineering report from the Town. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: If you do get it, you can forward it to Tom so if there has to be modifications of the plan by drainage, he can have it ready. Thank you, Liz. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BRETT O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead and construct new 164 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place; install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; remove and replace existing 4'x4' steps to beach in similar location as existing; remove and replace decking on existing 6'x33' fixed dock using un-treated decking material; extend existing fixed dock at seaward end by constructing a proposed 4'x30' fixed dock using un-treated decking material; remove existing adjustable ramp and floating dock, and install a proposed 30"x14' aluminum adjustable ramp and a 5'x24' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles; and install four (4) 10" diameter tie-off piles (two tie-off piles along each side) adjacent to proposed floating dock. Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 The Trustees did a field inspection on September 12th, all were present, and the notes are that it was noticed the applicant turned the float 90 degrees as per previous Trustee suggestion, and this more accurately respects or honors the pier line. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies mostly address the previous dock configuration, mentioning that the existing dock measures 58 feet in length and has mean low water of 2.13 to 2.26 feet. That no longer applies. Water depth at the dock tie-off piers will result in sufficient water depth. The pier line is not considered. A representative vessel is not shown. And construction method is not identified. The Conservation Advisory Council on July 11th, 2018, voted unanimously to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. You did see revised plans as mentioned, and we did scale back the scope of the work as recommended. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate the fact that you did that and it certainly makes for a better product. I would point out that there was a jet ski float there at the site and there is no permit for that. MR. PATANJO: The DEC actually responded with the same comment and it's since been removed, or will be removed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll give you 60 days to remove it. It's not relevant now. Board of Trustees 23 September 19, 2018 MR. PATANJO: Agreed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this _ ----------- -- --- ---hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application, noting by turning the float 90 degrees to make a "T" configuration, it honors the pier line and addresses all the inconsistencies brought forth by the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ALFRED & MARY KNAPP requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the two existing cottages and associated foundations; fill any voids with clean sand fill from upland sources; with all work to be landward of Mean High Water and existing bluff. Located: 3575 Soundview Avenue, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-1-13.4 The Board previously visited the site and reviewed the project plans on September 12th, and conducted an inhouse review. The LWRP coordinator finds this project to be consistent with the Town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The project is nothing more than removing two cottages and returning the land to its natural vegetative state. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions? (Negative response). Hearing none, does anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response) Hearing no one, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PATRICIA F. McCARTHY requests a Wetland Permit to construct 100 Board of Trustees 24 September 19, 2018 linear feet of rock revetment along the erosion line and landward of the Mean High Water line consisting of a lower course of 4-5 ton boulders and using 2-3 ton boulders for the upper courses placed in an interlocking manner; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the rock revetment. Located: 1434 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-16 The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided the existing vegetation is preserved to the greatest extent practicable; the ten-foot wide non-turf buffer is increased to 20 feet in width and vegetated as it exists currently; and the applicant understands the structure may result in the loss of beach over time. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application and conducted a field inspection on September 16th. We reviewed it inhouse, noting that this project is similar to a project that was just approved to the west and it's pretty straightforward. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. As mentioned, the project does co-exist with the neighboring properties, which would be the En Pron property and they'll be working with Perillo's and Laurelwood as well for fully stabilized rock revetment along the whole shoreline there. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So at some point will this tie in with -- MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. Yes, all the applications will tie in. They'll all line up with the same, following the existing toe of the existing erosion, as with this, all above the mean high water line, they'll follow that existing erosion line. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sort of like a domino effect. MR. PATANJO: Yes. I see what you did there. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll take a five minute break, please. (After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are back on the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of Board of Trustees 25 September 19, 2018 SOLUTION EAST, LLC; c/o ANNE MARINO & BERNARD TELSEY, MEMBERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x6' inclined ramp leading up to a 4'x44' fixed timber catwalk constructed with open-grate decking and elevated a minimum of 4 feet above tidal marsh, with 4'x6' stairs to grade at its seaward end. Located: 900 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-8-2 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent for the following reasons: The applicant has not demonstrated the follows dock standards pursuant to Chapter 275-11 construction operation standards, have been met; the proposed dock extension would extend into the public waters; the water depth in the vicinity of the proposed dock is extremely shallow; the channel is narrow; low water depth is eleven inches at the terminus of the dock; the area not conducive to permanent dock structures; private dock structures extended into public waters decrease public use of bottom lands; Goose Creek is a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Critical Environmental Area; water depths are extremely shallow in this area; all species of fish and wildlife are affected by water pollution such as chemical contamination; the private dock structure will extend into public waters resulting in a net decrease in public access to public underwater land in near shore area. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees visited this location on the 12th of September and the notes stated it was a straightforward application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. It is a pretty straightforward proposal. Just quickly in response to the LWRP comments, we did detail in our LWRP application that the project does meet the dock construction standards. I believe the Board SEQRA resolution, the negative declaration, further details the consistency with the Chapter 275 standards. One thing you didn't mention, Nick, which I do find interesting, is in the LWRP report it states that a mulch path to access public waters for a small watercraft is a less impactful option. And I did find that sort of incredible that the LWRP coordinator is suggesting filling tidal marsh with mulch is a less impactful option than an elevated catwalk with open-grated decking. So we believe the way this has been designed, creating a fixed point of elevated access with open grade decking to allow the homeowners to get over the marsh without damaging it, and preserving it, is by far a less impactful option and consistent with other structures that have been approved by the Trustees in this area. So that's all I have. If the Board has any other questions, I can answer them. The owners are also here TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What was the reason for not putting the dock at Board of Trustees 26 September 19, 2018 the end of the stairs? MR. HERRMANN: So when we were picking a location for the dock, we were trying to follow the best management practices and find a spot that had the least dense wetland vegetation. And the stairs are covered with kind of a pretty thick Baccharus, and that would require more trimming/clearing of wetland vegetation than where we chose. We chose that spot specifically because it was the path of least-dense wetland vegetation. So I realize, as you look at the plan quickly, it doesn't make a lot of sense because you'd think you would go right down the stairs. But the other point that is to keep, to maintain the elevation above the marsh, you would not really be able to go down the stairs to the catwalk anyway, so what would end happening is you would end up building the catwalk over the stairs. So this allows them to maintain a place they can walk down to the water through the stairs, but have a catwalk that is properly elevated above the marsh. So that's why we picked that spot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It seemed apparent to us when we were there, we noted the Baccharus, we just hope it doesn't develop into a warn out area dragging kayaks. MR. HERRMANN: Right. No, the idea is to provide this as the access point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: During our inspection it was determined that there is significant water so that we are not impacting the one-third rule and also significant water depth for this site. It is also in keeping with the neighborhood so to speak. Therefore, using the Trustee inspections and the comments at the public hearing, with regard to the LWRP coordinator, I find that that would bring it into consistency, so I make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI & C. BARSI, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x32' in-ground swimming pool; install a pool drywell; and install pool enclosure fencing along the landward limit of covenanted 15'wide non-turf adjacent to bluff crest. Located: 18915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-15 The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did review the Board of Trustees 27 September 19, 2018 application and they support the application. They do have a note about a 15-foot vegetated buffer which is already included in the plan. The Trustees visited the site on September 12th. All Trustees were present, with notes that the application was found to be straightforward. - Is there any anybody here that wishes to speak to the application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant. In brief, this is a project that the Trustees permitted previously pursuant to wetlands permit 8468 originally issued in July of 2014 and it was extended twice. A separate administrative wetland permit 8417-a was issued the same year for the reconstruction of the dwelling farther landward. Both those permits expired. Last month the Board issued a new Administrative Permit for the house relocation and reconstruction and now we are here before you this month basically for a new permit for the exact same plan for the swimming pool in the same location as previously permitted. And the 15-foot non-turf buffer has already been covenanted with Suffolk County, so that is in place legally on the property now. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak for the application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion on approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: En-Consultants on behalf of MATTHEW MIRONOV & BARBARA LICHTENBERG-MIRONOV requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and modifications to existing 1.5 story dwelling consisting of on seaward side of dwelling constructing a new 13.7'x15.3' sunroom in place of existing sunroom over and within footprint of existing deck to remain; replace decking on existing 84sq.ft. uncovered deck to remain; reconstruct ±2.8'x4' steps off deck; remove existing fence and install new 4' high pool enclosure fencing; remove 26sq.ft. portion of existing pool patio, and remove and replace in-place remaining 508sq.ft. on-grade masonry pool patio around existing 16'x32' pool (to remain); on south side of dwelling, construct 18'x20' addition to on-grade masonry pool patio; construct 3.4'x5' landing and steps, and install 4'x8' outdoor shower and new pool equipment area; on north side of dwelling, construct an 11'x24.2' Board of Trustees 28 September 19, 2018 second-floor dormer addition; on landward side of dwelling construct an 8'x14.5' one-story addition, a 4'x13.6' one-story addition in place of existing porch, and a new 4'x13.6' porch with steps; reconstruct and modify approximately 709sq.ft. of existing dwelling roof; install a drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells; install approximately 1,035sq.ft. portion of asphalt driveway with catch basins; abandon existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system beyond Trustee jurisdiction; and establish and perpetually maintain a 5'wide non-turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation in place of existing lawn adjacent to the top of bank. Located: 2900 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-15 The Trustees did a field inspection on September 12th. The comments noted the question with the drywell for the pool. A ten-foot non-turf buffer is typical for a project of this magnitude. The house renewal renovation is straightforward. And suggested an IA septic system. All Trustees were in attendance. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the following: Setback to the pool is not depicted; requests to clarify the setbacks. I'll make,a note that I did see a setback on the plans. It's 6.8 feet. Verify the pool de-watering drywell and drainage for the outdoor shower. Due to proximity of surface waters, consider innovative alternative sanitary system. And the fourth and last, require that onsite trees adjacent to the water body be maintained. The Conservation Advisory Council on September 12th, voted unanimously to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I'll try to quickly respond to each of the points Mike just went over. First, with respect to the LWRP, what I wish to point out is that the LWRP coordinator states that the pool, existing pool is inconsistent because according to Town records it does not have a Trustee permit. The pool was constructed pursuant to a building permit and authorized through a certificate of occupancy that was issued in 1975, which is 26641. CO26641, that was issued in August of'75. So, just for the record that's why the pool does not, the existing pool does not have a wetland permit. And just as a point of clarification, the site plan, because the pool is not proposed, did not show a wetlands setback relative to the pool. But for the record the shortest distance between the swimming pool and wetland is approximately 34 feet. There is 26 feet to the existing on-grade pool patio which is proposed to be removed and replaced in place. Again, there is no pool drywell proposed because it's an existing swimming pool. So normally, as with the prior application, we would propose a drywell for a proposed pool. In this case we didn't propose it because the pool is existing. The sanitary system is located outside Chapter 275 Board of Trustees 29 September 19, 2018 jurisdiction. And the applicants have no problem agreeing to the onsite trees remaining adjacent to the waterbody as there is no proposed tree clearing associated with the project. Really, the only footprint change associated with this plan is landward of existing structures, which is the expansion of the pool patio on the landward side of the existing pool patio, and some additions up in front of the house and roadside of the house. So for the Trustee' comments -- oh, the buffer. So the buffer, we had proposed a five-foot buffer here primarily just because there is not a whole lot of lawn area between the existing house and pool and the top of the bank. And there is of course a natural buffer existing on the slope. So in terms of the actual buffer to the wetland area, it's greater than five or ten feet. But in terms of the newly planted buffer that would replace a lawn area, landward of the top of the bank, we showed that to be five feet with a fence on the landward side of that that would permanently separate the maintained lawn from the planted buffer that would be adjacent to the top of the, to the slope. So we would love for the Board to consider allowing us to stick with that design. But otherwise that's all I have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, the LWRP coordinator, according to town records, the structures or possessions thereof were constructed without obtaining a Trustee review. It does not specifically refer to the pool. Is there anyone else wishing to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you say there is an existing drywell for the pool? MR. HERRMANN: No, what I said was we did not propose a drywell for the pool specifically because it's an existing pool. In terms of the outdoor shower there is a drywell proposed just to the south, and that is part, if you look at sight plan, if you look at the south side, the southerly property line, there is drainage calculations where drainage is provided for all the proposed surfaces. So it would be easy enough to have a drainage bed underneath the outdoor shower and pipe that drainage into that drywell. That drywell that is proposed right there is right next to the pool equipment, between the pool equipment and the pool. So it could also double as a pool drywell. But we didn't propose a second drywell because we were not proposing a swimming pool. The swimming pool has been there for over four decades. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My concern is if there is not a drywell for The pool, where do they backwash it to. MR. HERRMANN: Right. So, certainly if as a condition of the permit you wanted an additional drywell added to the drainage system, that would be dedicated for the pool backwash, I don't think that would be a problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By a simple engineering calculation based on Board of Trustees 30 September 19, 2018 the size of the pool and the size of the drywell for the shower, it may be able to serve one drywell for both. MR. HERRMANN: Right. I mean, that's what I'm saying. We need either-- TRUSTEE DOMINO: It may be, but it's not for us to determine. That's for the engineer to determine. MR. HERRMANN: But as I said, if there was a condition that a dedicated pool drywell be included somewhere on the property for pool back wash, I don't think the applicants would have any problem with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would also probably like to see a ten-foot buffer here. It's kind of a sensitive creek. I don't know if anyone else echoes that feeling. That's just my opinion. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I agree with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board, in the course of field inspection and the work session we felt the buffer is on the minimalist side and would like it to expand a little. MR. HERRMANN: I think for them they like pretty much feel every foot of space there on the lawn, it almost sounds silly, but even like a seven or eight-foot buffer,just give them a little bit, you know, more space on the lawn. It's a narrow strip. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's 245 feet deep, though. In terms of the property. MR. HERRMANN: Right, but the way this property is developed, it was developed prior to the existing laws and it's very close to the top of the slope. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What if there were to be non-disturbance, and planted it with native vegetation -- MR. HERRMANN: Well, the five feet is proposed to be planted, so it's not just non-turf. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about the native as opposed to non-turf. The elevation suggests maybe you could plant it with Baccharis or all natives and just let it go. MR. HERRMANN: It shows on the plan proposed five foot wide non- turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation. So taking into consideration the width, we were not proposing it just to be, you know, sand or gravel. The other consideration, Nick, would be, you know, if we had something wider than five feet, would it be okay to leave the five-foot planted buffer with the fence where it's proposed and then just have an unplanted additional five foot non-turf on the house side of the fence. Because then you would still have a ten foot non-turf buffer; half of it would be actively planted but half of it wouldn't, so you'd still have the open space feel but without the treated lawn. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That could work. But we'll need new plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Non-turf is non-turf. MR. HERRMANN: Right. TRUSTEE DOMINO: One other point, there is only 70.6 feet to water. So it's 7.6 feet to water. So this is a prime location for an alternative septic system. I notice you are going to Board of Trustees 31 September 19, 2018 abandon the old system and develop the new. It kind of fits in with the direction we are trying to move it. MR. HERRMANN: Right. We can note that but the septic system is outside the Board's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll move to table this application to provide an opportunity for the Board to review new plans which should reflect some of the points we brought out, and in particular a ten-foot non-turf buffer. A net 10 feet. Drywells showing connections for the drywell to the pool, drainage for the shower, and alternative septic system. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number eleven, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOHN & MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER requests a Wetland Permit to remove a portion of the roof and exterior walls along the southwest corner of existing 1,820.7sq.ft. two-story dwelling; construct a 443.2sq.ft. addition with attached 5'6"x8'0" exterior front porch onto dwelling; reframe areas of existing roof to accommodate new addition; raise the roof over portion of dwelling for a second-floor addition; for the existing 568.9sq.ft. seaward side wood deck with 2'x18' stairs to ground; existing 26.8sq.ft. seaward side wood entrance off family room; existing 18'x18' seaward side brick patio; and install one (1) additional drywell for roof runoff. Located: 2855 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-9 This application has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP as well as inconsistent for a history of no Trustee permits on a portion of the structure. The Conservation Advisory Council has moved to support this application. The Trustees performed an inspection on September 12th, with all members present, and noted that all activities are proposed landward of the existing structures and felt that accordingly it meets our construction standards for the wetland code and was straightforward in nature. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I'm last one here so we'll keep it really brief, to get everything out. I think you described it accurately, primarily, I think basically some of the other dimensions and because some of the deck and brick patio have not been part of the original permit, essentially, they are included in this. Everything is landward of the, right now, it's attaching to the landward side of the house. It's simply to increase an area Board of Trustees 32 September 19, 2018 for a kitchen and a new bathroom, essentially moving the interior around. I didn't go with you, the stakes I put in were fairly self evident. Even some of my log tapes around it to kind of show you where it went on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's self-evident. MR. KIMACK: Yes, it's really'the only place they can make some change to it. If there are any other questions of me? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have anything. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Seeing no one, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of STEPHANIE TEICHER requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing bluff stairs and construct a new 51'5" long set of bluff stairs beginning at proposed masonry pad consisting of a ' 1'10"x4' top step to a 4'x3' top landing to 11'7"x4' steps to a 4'x8' upper middle landing to 11'7"x4' steps to a 4'x8' lower middle landing to 11'7"x4' steps to a 4'x4' landing seaward of retaining wall with 8'4"x4' steps to area between bulkhead and retaining wall; and for the existing 8.33'x4' set of steps to beach off bulkhead to remain; remove 223sq.ft. of existing brick patio and replace with lawn; install a 7'x8' masonry pad for utilities; for the as-built t805sq.ft. seaward side deck, remove 40sq.ft. bump-out section of decking and construct new 68sq.ft. area of decking to southerly side of existing deck for a total of 833sq.ft. of seaward side decking, and to replace all of the existing decking; replace all decking on existing 40'x24.92' main deck; replace all decking on existing 6.5'x22.8' second-floor deck; replace decking on existing 6.5'x22.8' first floor deck and replace existing 1'x20.5' steps; replace existing 6'x6' access steps to main deck with new steps; for the existing three (3) 1.33'x4.5' benches at lower retaining wall to remain; existing 3.75' diameter concrete table at bulkhead to remain; relocate existing 19sq.ft. storage bin; existing lighting fixtures and hose bib to remain; remove 488sq.ft. of existing wood deck/boardwalk in between bulkhead and retaining wall, and revegetate 220sq.ft. with Cape American beach grass and 269sq.ft. of sand; construct a 99sq.ft. wood deck to connect to the new bluff stairs and to the steps to beach; reconfigure existing stepping stone path continuing along the waterside of the deck along the new planting area to the new platform comprised of 2'x4' stepping stones from northerly steps to connect to adjoining deck steps; and a proposed on-grade Board of Trustees 33 September 19, 2018 68sq.ft. masonry pad situated 5' from top of bluff which will be at level grade at beginning of down slope to tie into a two-step riser and small 12sq.ft. landing to maintain elevation. Located: 6825 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-8.2 The LWRP found this to'be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the as-built structures are located very close in proximity to the top of the bluff; doesn't not functionally require location on the coast and not water-dependent. According to the town records structures or portions thereof were constructed without obtaining Board of Trustees review and regulatory permit; and the applicant does not provide the setback to the top of bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on September 12th, noting, having concerns regarding the masonry pad at the top of the bluff steps. And everything else seemed to be okay. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We have been over this a few times. Originally you had gone out there prior to, as a request of the zoning before the ZBA, and you had made a recommendation to take off that little jut out section of the deck, primarily, in order to give a little bit more room between there and the top of the bluff. That had been approved as such by the Zoning Board and it has been put forth that way on the set of plans, primarily to cut that one jut section off. The addition of an additional set of stairs on the other side, on the south side was not, didn't raise any issue, along with that concrete path and the utilities at that point. The replacement of the set of stairs going down to the beach was pretty much in line. There were a few, I think the only thing was a change, there was a couple of platform changes, landing changes on the way down. And just to make sure, the bottom between the retaining wall and the bulkhead, all of that existing decking will be removed as per the DEC permit. Primarily because DEC only requires 100-square feet between the bulkhead and the decking. And the plan, if you take at it, it shows simply a decking to pick up at the bottom of the set of stairs to get over to the set of stairs going down to the beach to be 99-square feet. The rest of the decking is coming out. And I think at that lower area, the storage area is also being relocated. I think the thing that is in your concern was the six by eight concrete pad at the top. The concrete pad was put there for the primary reason, it's five feet back from the top of the bluff. Primarily, in order to anchor the set of stairs, to keep it away from the top of the bluff. It's even with the ground and actually falls within the setback of the non-turf buffer. And it really is very clever. It falls within that definition. You approved sand and you've approved stone. I mean it's concrete Board of Trustees 34 September 19, 2018 there, so it serves the purpose of anchoring the set of stairs going back. And there has been no definition, I mean, except for being turf, everything else is non-turf. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Nothing is going to grow on it. That's for sure. MR. KIMACK: Nothing will grow. But really the essential aspect of it was by the landscape architect to get it back five feet, to get a step up in order to stay away from the bluff in order to get stairs to go back down again, in order to have the height the DEC required from there to the underneath to make sure we have that three to four feet to the grade in order to have the clearance. That was one of the reasons. But we are basically, if you had noted on there, we are taking up a complete brick,patio, basically, and turning that back to turf. But that is outside the bounds of the ten foot setback. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern is now you are moving a concrete structure closer to the top of the bluff, which can create more erosion and wash out right where those stairs are going to be located. I don't think that we had a concern with the rest of the project for the most part, but that 68 square foot on-grade masonry pad at the top of the stairs, was a non-starter as far as we were concerned. MR. KIMACK: It was put there primarily to anchor the top of the stairs, to actually stabilize the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Couldn't we anchor it with another engineering capability like sono tubes, and cant it at an angle or bury it into the substrate, similarly even further distance from the bluff? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: From an engineering standpoint I'm a little confused. The wooden stairs are going to be somehow attached into that concrete pad. MR. KIMACK: They'll start from the concrete pad and go up -- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Are you saying they are going to start from or be an anchored by and attached to? MR. KIMACK: If you take a look at the profile on the set of stairs which is there basically, you'll see the 4x4's start pretty much at the top of the bluff there and it raises up and drops back down again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If the purpose is to be a step up and to anchor the stairs, would it be more appropriate if it was four foot wide to match the top of the steps? MR. KIMACK: Well, I think they wanted some lead into it, primarily. There is stone steps going to it, to the concrete steps from both sides of the right angles to the set of steps. One coming from the house and one coming alongside there, and then it goes to the concrete patio, and the concrete masonry pad. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We have difficulty approving a pad of that magnitude and considering that, I like your unique interpretation of the non-turf buffer, but it is going to be totally impervious. And that's the problem. We have approved some porous structures near the edge of the bluff but nothing Board of Trustees 35 September 19, 2018 like this, in my recollection. So this is quite an extensive 'description. Quite an extensive project. You have a lot of deck there. You don't need something of this, 68-square feet there to anchor that. Up and down this road there are stairs to beaches and none of them have anchoring at the top. So. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If I can add something, too. The merit of the non-turf buffer is to allow'an area for runoff from the turf and any chemicals in the turf, to run off and be absorbed by the soil. This is providing an expressway, a slide to bypass that soil area and go into the sensitive foot land areas. MR. KIMACK: If you remember the contours on that property, Greg, basically everything flows away from the top of the bluff. Actually if you look at where that concrete is, it all comes back this way and then goes that way. So nothing from the concrete, nothing goes over the top, if it was impervious. Are you, is your concern the magnitude of that or the fact it's concrete in and of itself? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just the point, the whole thing, yes. Everything about it. MR. KIMACK: You guys are tough. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: For my personal viewpoint, to put a concrete slab there you'll have to dig up and put forms. You have a sensitive top of bluff area. Now you are going to be digging that up to put forms there. Unless you are carrying it in as one piece, which there is not enough room to get equipment, concrete of that magnitude, there is no room to get a skid steer, unless they are going to crane it in. It just doesn't-- MR. KIMACK: You can mix it onsite. Look, I would be able to resolve this. Perhaps I can offer, I know my client is not here but, in a sense, basically what you told me is that you don't like the concrete and you would like to have some alternative to that. One of the alternatives could be primarily we probably could extend those stepping stones and we could put the stepping stones in place of the concrete pad with the four inches of RCA underneath or so and then put the stepping stones on top. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Still being 68 square feet? MR. KIMACK: That would be the question. I'm turning it over to stepping stone. I could cut it back to 6x6 if that would be okay with you guys. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think maybe you are missing one of the points we are trying to make. There is a lot of structure on this seaward of the house. And there is a lot of structure in this application, which we are not opposed to. But we don't see the need for an additional 68-feet of seating area or viewing area, whatever you want to call it. That's far bigger than what was previously permitted. MR. KIMACK: The staircase is four-foot wide. So whatever we do come up to, it would be at least four-foot wide. So what I would recommend is, I could recommend to the client and I'm sure she would accept it, four to six foot wide stone basically right there and basically come back for a little stepping area, maybe Board of Trustees 36 September 19, 2018 six-foot wide by about four-foot and then tie it back to the walkway. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Why do you need anything? Is my question. MR. KIMACK: Because if you are walking on it on a rainy day or sloppy day, you want to be able to stay dry. That's what the stepping stones are for the house over. You don't want to walk on turf to walk over there. She has stepping stones there now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are just talking about continuing the bluestone walkway to the steps. MR. KIMACK: To the steps, and making maybe a 4x6 or 6x6 of bluestone stepping stones right there in front of the steps as a place to get started. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would be comfortable with the -- if you want to approach. This here has these over, call them rectangle-shaped stepping stones. I would be comfortable with this just extending out and she can tie in here and that would go out. MR. KIMACK: So in a sense get rid of the concrete, get the stepping stones out and then go from there. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And if she wanted to go up to five foot wide stepping stones to approach the stairway, I personally don't have an issue with that. But nothing more than five foot is my opinion. MR. KIMACK: I think the stones right now is two by four now. I think that"s pretty close. I think that would be fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We need new plans to show that. MR. KIMACK: I knew you were going to say that. - TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding 2. this application? MR. KIMACK: Before we do that, basically, when you say new plans, I can get those to you in a day or two. Is that something that-- TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll defer to the Town attorney. MR. HAGAN: It was my understanding that the Board had expressed a desire to see completed plans prior to give them an opportunity to visualize the specifics of the project prior to them making a determination on the record. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That's a new-- MR. KIMACK: I know. Damon talked to me about that on the outside. When you walk in obviously you don't know whether or not you are going to have a change of this nature as you are going through the hearing. So obviously you are not submitting it ahead of time. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Table subject to receipt of new plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate the willingness to amend it because I think, although some of us may not be here, but the outcome if we approve concrete would mean a big chunk of concrete could end up in Peconic Bay or go down on the beach. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table this application so that the applicant can submit new Board of Trustees 37 September 19, 2018 plans and remove the concrete patio from the top of the stairs and replace it with bluestone. That's my motion. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion adjourn. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, e Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2018 Q, :51 Sor • old 9n-�Cle�r