Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/22/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIV.:D ,. j.&c1 /;2/oc,-.,om MINUTES C4~/Jft~~ Soulhvid Tc,v;n Clerk Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Holzapfel, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE BERGEN Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve minutes of December, 2005. TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. (ALL AYES except Trustee Holzapfel abstained) I. MONTHLY REPORT: For February, 2006. A check for $5,436.64 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Board of Trustees 2 March 22, 2006 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TRUSTEE KING: Welcome to our March meeting, 2006. I'd like to introduce the Board first, Dave Bergen down on the far left; Peggy Dickerson; Jill Doherty, myself, Lauren Standish, our office manager; John Holzapfel; Brownell Johnston, our legal advisor, and Heather, our environmental technician. Just a few things I'd like to say, I know a lot of you are regulars here and you've heard this before, I don't want to sound like a broken record. We're making some changes to our code. We drafted changes to Chapter 97, which is our wetland code, held public hearings, and enacted it in 2004, made some minor revisions to it in 2005. Right now we're drafting changes, it seems to be there was a rumor floating around that we were going to make a lot of changes to Chapter 97. If we are, it's news to me. There have been no changes made, and I don't think there were any planned changes to be made to Chapter 97. It might have been Chapter 77 which we do have draft changes coming on that, the shellfish code. I think there might have been some confusion between 77 and 97. There's no plans to make draft changes to 97. The previous Board, we worked very hard on this, probably tuned it up a little bit but nothing serious. We're drafting a new mooring code that's going to be taking some time, and that's mostly it. Dave has been very active trying to get some dredging projects done on the bay. Dave, maybe you can tell them a little bit about that because I think it's important. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been working very closely with the county. For those who aren't familiar with it, the county has one dredging rig for the county, the hydraulic dredge, certain creeks and estuaries that have been approved -- the mouths of creeks and estuaries, not the entire creeks but the inlets. We have been working very hard with them since November, and they're currently on Little Creek. Little Creek is the fourth creek they have done for the town of Southold, which is pretty amazing if you think that that rig has to take care of other towns also. We've gotten four done with Little Creek. We are hoping because of our limitations of April 1 st for the piping plovers which is coming up rapidly, we're hoping to get another creek done. We've made a lot of progress with that. We're also going before the dredge screening committee to look at putting into the system a couple other creeks that aren't currently 2 , Board of Trustees 3 March 22, 2006 in the county system as creeks eligible for them to dredge. It's got to go through the dredge screening committee first at the county, and if the county approves that then the county can good go forward and look at getting permits to do those creeks. The Army Corps permit can take up to two years to get an Army Corps permit. So it's not something if we get permission today you're going to see a dredge over there tomorrow, it could be a couple of years out. But we need to plan for the future and serve the residents of Southold with their needs of having the creeks open. TRUSTEE KING: Thanks, Dave. Another issue that we have been trying to address is road runoff projects, that's one of the main sources of shellfish closures. Right now we have two DEC permits in place, one project in Mattituck and one in Cutchogue. We're pursuing that. And also have been looking into the possibility of pump-out boat. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want me to talk about that? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We've also proposed to the Town Board the possibility of getting a pump-out boat for the Town. Dave and I have been working on getting some of the facts and figures for that. Dave has done a lot of work looking into specific types of boats and also matching grants. And when we went to the Board two, three weeks ago they were extremely supportive but wanted us to get more facts and details. So that's what we're in the process of doing so, we will continue to pursue that very actively with the hopes of getting a Southold Town pump-out boat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are very fortunate we have a couple local marinas that are willing to help us with some of the costs involved in that. So this is truly going to be a partnership we feel between the community and the Town getting this pump-out boat into operation. TRUSTEE KING: Two other items, if you go on the North Road Mattituck on Route 48, you notice a large project going on at the head of the creek, it's a county project; that is the worst site of pollution for Mattituck Creek. It's finally getting fixed, it's been 10 years in the making, but it's going to be a nice project getting done. Also in Mattituck, Peterson's Marina has been bought by the DEC. It's going eventually to be a public ramp there, park land, some observation-type things for students and kids, that whole area is being cleaned up. I think we're making progress and I think we're starting to pay attention to water quality and try to clean it up. I think we're gaining. With that we'll start our 3 Board of Trustees 4 March 22, 2006 meeting. Thank you. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Basilio Esposito SCTM#53-4-7 Nancy Bradley & Jeanine Murphy SCTM#103-13-5.4 James Orioli & Susan Magg Orioli SCTM#116-7-4 Mary DiGregorio SCTM#136-1-36 Manzi Homes SCTM#121-4-24 Emanuel Arturi SCTM#126-11-13 Nancy Carroll SCTM#90-1-21 John Xikis SCTM#44-1-13 A. Shelly Tupper SCTM#87-3-41 Belvedere Property Management, LLC SCTM#117 -8-19 David Bergen SCTM#119-1-2 Love Lane Acquisition Corp. SCTM#117-8-18 Shirley Kram SCTM#90-1-2 Richard DeMott SCTM#138-2-16 Susan & Louis Valente SCTM#126-11-4 Susan & Dennis Donlin SCTM#104-3-12 Estate of Eileen O. Goldner SCTM#56-5-22 Rosemary & Sebastian Avolese SCTM#111-14-24 John Corbley SCTM#104-7-3 Evan Akselrad SCTM#47-2-27 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. ERNEST SCHNEIDER requests an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites to 1', as necessary, and light pruning for a 3' to 4' path to the water. Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive North, Southold. SCTM#90-4-5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went and looked at this, the phragmites were not an issue, the pruning of a path to the water was for a proposed dock that was going to be staked out, but upon review it had not been staked out yet. So my suggestion is that the applicant when he applies for the dock, at the same time applies for the pathway to the dock and that we consider them both together because there was nothing there to show when we were down there where this path was going to be. The only other thing the applicant asked me was with regard to pruning, dead vines on the trees, which I had no problem with; and he asked if it was okay to remove the hay bales and silt screen that was put up for the construction of the house, which that construction was finished a while ago; that was not an issue. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was the path going to go to the dock or to the back? 4 Board of Trustees 5 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The path was going to go to the dock. What he explained to me, he wanted a path from his driveway to his dock, but he didn't know the location of the dock at that point in time, so he didn't know where the path was going to go. He was going to talk to his contractor to find out where the best location was for that dock because he didn't know where the deepest water was, where the best location was. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this the one we discussed about the dock, the path going -- I'm questioning whether the path be on this permit or -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, I recommend removal of that from this permit so this permit is limited to cutting the phragmites as necessary to within one foot. TRUSTEE KING: Is that a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry. I make a motion to approve this with the change that's limited to cutting the phragmites to one foot as necessary. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. FRANK SCAVONE requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12" as necessary. Located: 430 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We all looked at this. I don't think we had a problem with the trimming, but I believe there's a planting plan that has to be put in first. So we'll condition it on the replanting being done first. TRUSTEE KING: The buffer area is planted up and restored. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. There's a buffer area that had been quite a bit of cutting done. Is there anyone here to speak to this? Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the request for an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12" with the condition that -- is there a planting plan? This is just the file for the cutting. This just has where he's going to cut. TRUSTEE KING: There was a little set of plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we do have it? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll condition it to the planting plan that has already been submitted and approved. The planting must be done before the trimming of the phragmites. MR. JOHNSTON: I'm unclear what the resolution is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit on the condition that the planting be planted per the planting plan prior to the phragmites being 5 Board of Trustees 6 March 22, 2006 cut. MR. JOHNSTON: So you won't give the Administrative Permit to the applicant for trimming the phragmites until you've seen that they have done the planting, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. LILLIAN BALL requests an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites around Great Pond and maintenance trim around the deck. Located: 2045 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-5-4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The maintenance trim would be the bushes she has right in front of the deck leading down into the pond. We looked at this, and I'm not sure what direction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was approved; this was not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had no problem with trimming the phragmites to 12" on the south -- towards the south of the property but not to the east, there's two pieces. So I make a motion that we grant the Administrative Permit to cut phragmites on the south side of the property and maintenance trim the bushes in front of the deck. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. CUSACK: Jill, would you just mark it on the survey for us? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would add that we inspect it in a year. MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, did you want to do that on the second one in your motion, have something similar? TRUSTEE KING: We should go out. MR. JOHNSTON: David, did you want something similar to that on the first one you did? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We should add that on to be consistent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If we do that, are we adding it to our inspections or are we adding it to -- TRUSTEE KING: What is going to be the process of how we do it. MR. JOHNSTON: It's an Administrative Permit so -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but if we do it and be consistent, is it going to add to our inspection days or add to Heather's workload or what is it going to add to? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we're going to have to do is put a notation on the calendar for one year out to look at that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying, is it for the Board, is it administrative? 6 Board of Trustees 7 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it should be administrative myself, that's myself feeling. I don't know that we need the full Board to go out there and look at every one of these properties. We can handle that within our own geographical jurisdictions that we've talked about. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this something we're going to do consistently? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a good idea to check it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying it's not, I'm just looking at the logistics of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's in the Chapter 97 with our permits. We can add it under the compliance section of Chapter 97 because that's basically in there already, and then when it comes up on the calendar -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It can also be added on the section on the phragmites. MR. JOHNSTON: You're going to put that in the permit, some inspection, right? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: Then you're going to reopen number 1 to do that, right? TRUSTEE KING: Go back to the number 1. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We finished with number 3. Let's make sure we finished with 3. I'll make a motion to reopen Number 1, Ernest Schneider, request for Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd like to amend that slightly to say that we wish to come back in one year to review the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All the in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to reopen Frank Scavone's request for Administrative Permit to trim phragmites to 12 inches and amend it to a one-year inspection be required. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. SANDRA KRAC & JUDITH PEREZ request an Administrative Permit to install an 8' by 12' prefabricated shed. Located: 490 Northfield Lane, Southold. SCTM#79-3-4.2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this. There was no posting of notice of this hearing. There were also no stakes. So it wasn't staked out at all. There was nobody home that I could consult with. So I make a motion that this be postponed -- tabled, I'm sorry. Make a motion it 7 Board of Trustees 8 March 22, 2006 be tabled. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Ellen Roche on behalf of JAMES O'AOOARIO requests an Administrative Permit to construct a new kitchen addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 8960 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-5-6 TRUSTEE KING: Jill and I both looked at this, didn't have a problem with this. I recommend approval. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Charles Farrell on behalf of PAUL KATZ requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 4'6" by 10' foyer on the east side of the existing dwelling. Located: 100 Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM#113-4-2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm familiar with this house and the east side in the landward side, the road side, and the whole house is in front of all this. So it's a small, like I say a foyer addition. I see no problem with this, there's plenty of planting in this area. I move to approve this Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENOMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. PETER & GRACE GORMAN request an Amendment to Permit #6110 to rotate the lower portion of the stairs so that the foot of the stair is within 3' of the toe of the bluff. Located: 440 Windward Road, Orient. SCTM#14-2-30.6 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? This was just a change, I think it was required by the DEC to the stairway. I don't think it's a problem at all. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. LORETTA HINOERLlNG requests an Amendment to Permit 5778 to include the existing 9.3' plus/minus by 19.8' plus/minus deck and to install a deck landward of the bulkhead as a nonturf buffer. Located: 1325 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM# 76-2-2.5 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this in the office and spoke to 8 Board of Trustees 9 March 22, 2006 the applicant. The bulkhead was kind of a different shape and she didn't have a nonturf buffer behind it like she was supposed to, and I told her how to do it, and then she wanted to know if she could have a deck over the nonturf buffer, and I said, yes. So I would recommend approval. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. DEBRA LACHANCE requests an Amendment to Permit 5845 to include the renovation of the first floor with a 5' by 16' extension onto the existing house, and as per plans last revised February 23, 2006. Located: 630 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-26 TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at that too, Dave, it was fairly small, it was really necessary to do. I didn't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I went out there and agree. I'll make a motion to approve it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you want gutters on there? TRUSTEE KING: It was a second story that we approved, and they found so much rot and termite damage. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. DAVID BERGEN requests an Amendment to Permit 4176 to repair the existing bulkhead and stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I inspected this and it clearly is bowed out, and is in need of repair before it totally blows out. So I make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? MR. JOHNSTON: Can we do a roll call? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I've recuse myself from the beginning. I already filed the necessary paperwork at Town Hall. 5. Docko, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA HOCH requests an Amendment to Permit #5973 to include the partial reconstruction of the seawall and then to re-face the seawall with a concrete cap and steel sheet pile toe. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-7-14 TRUSTEE KING: We've been out there a couple times looking at that, I don't know if you remember, Peg. We stood on the dock and looked at it, the cement wall deteriorating, well, 9 Board of Trustees 10 March 22, 2006 they found more, and there's a little more work they have to do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. The only thing I remember is trying to keep a little of that marsh area. TRUSTEE KING: Right. I think that is to the left of that. I didn't have a problem with that and I'll recommend approval. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to make a note that all the ones that we have approved so far have either been exempt or consistent with LWRP. 6. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD requests an Amendment to Permit 5904 to include regrading and creation of a nonturf buffer area 25' by 100' at seaward edge of property to be contained by the installation of a 6" high concrete retaining wall and metal landscape edging; plantings as illustrated on plan. Located: 1355 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM#47-2-27 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would recommend that we approve this. And also add just to the general public that personally I think it's a well done plan of how it should be done. And it might be used as other people to look at how you can build up a nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's also a letter, I'm told from a neighbor, I have been asked by my parents -- this is to be read into the record. "I have been asked by my parents Joseph and Barbara Dai, located at 1465 Shore Drive, and my aunt and uncle John and Marie Shack, located at 1265 Shore Drive, to send a letter to your office to address some concerns we have regarding the property my family sold to the petitioners and that we are adjacent to in Greenport. "We have both received letters showing the sketch of the intention of the property owner to cut back the land and level it off approximately 25 feet from the existing bulkhead location toward the new house. Our concerns are these: The drawings and letter make a reference to a 6" retaining wall. As we read the drawings, it is uncertain where this wall will be located. The slope to the bulkhead over 25 feet would seem to be significantly more than 6 inches. Additionally, we could not determine what if anything had been planned to accommodate a potentially significant change in water flow when the grass has been 10 Board of Trustees 11 March 22, 2006 removed. "We would ask that the Board of Trustees insure that the permit require adequate retaining walls at both sides of the subject property to retain the integrity of our property. "Finally, we're concerned that any significant change in the existing slopes of the land would cause runoff that could find its way to an area behind our bulkheads at the corners of our property. We bring this to your attention because in the 40 years we have lived on these lots drainage has always been a concern and has impacted the strength and longevity of the very expensive bulkheads. "We request that the Trustees insure the leveling of the property show where the runoff is going, and that it does not drain to the corners of our property. This may require installations of drains through the petitioner's bulkhead to prevent the runoff from damaging our bulkhead. "We would like to thank the Board of Trustees for their time with this matter." TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, I just wanted to note that with regard to the 6" high concrete, we had asked about that in the field and the concrete wall will be approximately three feet high but only sticking out of the ground six inches. Just to clarify that. MS. MESIANO: I have the sections that you asked for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When did that letter come into the office that was just read? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It says March 21st. MR. JOHNSTON: It was faxed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yesterday. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It says March 21st, 1:13 p.m. I think we discussed this and answered most of the concerns of this letter. For the public, we have discussed this and most of the concerns that this person has brought up are things we brought up and we seemed to have thought we had very good answers. So I recommend that we approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, there's something I have forgot. There's been a number of postponements. Number 4, Nelson has been postponed; 5, Julie Tsai has been postponed; 13, Jayamaha has been postponed; 14, John Corbley has been postponed; 17, Esposito has been postponed; 18, has been postponed; 19,20,21 have been postponed. 7. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MARY S. ZUPA 11 Board of Trustees 12 March 22, 2006 requests an Amendment to Permit 5636 to revegetate the 12' non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, and to install access stairs to the beach. Located: 580 Basin Road. SCTM#81-1-16.7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the original permit we requested gravel as a nonturf buffer, however DEC would rather see plantings, and Miss Mesiano gave us the proper plans showing the plantings on the survey, the planting plan; and the access stairs are from the top of the property down to the beach on the landward side of the bulkhead with a small access steps down to the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Has Heather approved the planting plan? MS. CUSACK: Yes, I did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe she has. It seems to be all in order and I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MARY DIGREGORIO requests an Amendment to Permit 6120 to construct a 4' by 64' fixed timber dock, 3' by 14' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-36 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only comment is that you discussed the inconsistency of LWRP, and I wasn't there for that. So is there anything I need to know? TRUSTEE KING: This is one we spent a lot of time last time, last go around. We're going to keep the pier line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. We wanted to keep the pier line, but as far as the LWRP inconsistency, what did you discuss on Monday? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was inconsistent as I recall, I don't have it in front of me. One of the inconsistencies was exactly that, that this dock would exceed the other docks within the pier line. MS. MOORE: If I could, before everybody makes a decision -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just trying to review it because I remember prior to -- MS. MOORE: Yes. We were here before and we submitted the dock permit that you granted. The DEC rejected it and said that it will not be approved because it doesn't go out to two and a half feet of water. Our original application was to three, three and a half feet of water. You brought us back, but I have an aerial that my client provided through Google Earth, and you can see that it actually is consistent with the line. That's the proposed dock right here, you had 12 Board of Trustees 13 March 22, 2006 us trying to be in line with the closest two docks, but you can see that there's a cove. These are all the docks that are in existence, and if you take the once equidistant, which is really about the same protrusion out, that's where we're well under the third into the creek. So we're not protruding into the navigable waters of the creek, but we have from one end to the other, we draw a straight line and it is actually consistent with the balance -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I can interrupt you, we noticed that and we basically felt that we made it consistent with the changes and the review that we have done. MS. MOORE: Which means? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're just bringing Peggy up to speed, she threw her back out and wasn't at the meeting and so -- TRUSTEE KING: Wait a minute, that's a misconception here. The line is drawn between the two adjacent docks, that's called the pier line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, on the LWRP it says the 84 foot total length proposed dock ramp float extends beyond the existing dock line. TRUSTEE KING: Do you see what I'm saying, Peg? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know, but what she's going to say is that aerial indicate that the adjacent dock structures along the western shoreline range from 67 to 71. I'm saying he's agreeing with what you're saying. TRUSTEE KING: My argument is the pier line is between the two neighboring, not one down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I'm agreeing with you. MS. MOORE: If you're on a cove, it's not actually accurate. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But Mark Terry's also agreeing with our observations, that the 84 feet total length extends beyond the existing dock line or limit of dock protrusion within the water body. Aerial photographs indicate that the adjacent dock structures along the western shoreline range from 67 to 71 feet, 84 feet total length is beyond that pier line. TRUSTEE KING: I think we're all in agreement except the applicant. MS. MOORE: Well, you're granting something the DEC will not allow. That's not an appropriate permit. TRUSTEE KING: What have now, Pat? MS. MOORE: They don't have anything. TRUSTEE KING: If they have a dock that stays inside their pier line, doesn't that give them a lot more than they have now? 13 Board of Trustees 14 March 22, 2006 MS. MOORE: No, they have to be able to have their boat come in. TRUSTEE KING: They have a dock they can bring a boat to. MR. DIGREGORIO: The DEC won't grant that permit. TRUSTEE KING: I find that hard to believe. MS. MOORE: I can give you a copy of that letter. They say if the dock doesn't go to two and a half feet, it will not be approved. It's as simple as that. MR. DIGREGORIO: The agreement we had come to the last meeting -- TRUSTEE KING: Is it the dock or the float that's not going to be approved? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The float won't be approved, the dock is fine. MS. MOORE: It says here the dock must be lengthened and/or relocated to reach a minimum low water depth of two and a half feet at the float mooring area. TRUSTEE KING: At the float. You can tie a boat to a dock. You don't have to have a float; that's what the DEC is saying. They will not issue a permit for the float because it's less than two and a half feet to the water. They're not saying they won't give you the dock. MS. MOORE: They're saying here the dock must be lengthened. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: To accommodate a float. MS. MOORE: Are you going to give us a dock that's going to go out to two and a half feet of water? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The float hits the bottom and causes the problem. So they're saying you can't have a float in less than two and a half feet. We're saying you can have a dock out to that length. MS. MOORE: To two and a half feet? TRUSTEE KING: We gave you the dock and the float to the pier line. MS. MOORE: But the pier line you're creating is based on the cove, you're not comparing apples to apples. TRUSTEE KING: We're comparing docks to docks. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. We're looking at the two adjacent docks and so is our -- MS. MOORE: I understand that but -- the two adjacent because there's a whole line of docks and how they have been created or developed in that cove and it all goes in line of the -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have a different opinion. MS. MOORE: I'm giving you an aerial that shows it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If the cove was this big you could have a 200 foot dock according to your theory. You can tie the 14 Board of Trustees 15 March 22, 2006 boat at the end of the dock. MS. MOORE: Would you agree to a fixed dock to the pier line? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's exactly what we're trying to say. I believe that I would as long as nothing protrudes out to that. Jim, would we agree to a fixed dock to the pier line? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's exactly what we're trying to say. MS. MOORE: Will that get you into the water? We'll see if the DEC accepts that. I don't know that's what they're going to accept. TRUSTEE KING: I know we have fought -- MS. MOORE: I know you have, but they're not cooperating. TRUSTEE KING: They always insisted on four feet to a float. We got them down to two and a half feet. You can have a seasonal float. That's the stand they took. I think we did a pretty good job of compromising with them. MS. MOORE: You did a great job. Why they're not approving this one, we're doing exactly what -- TRUSTEE KING: You have to understand our position. We established this lines, and if we let one go out, the next guy's going to come up. MS. MOORE: Don't penalize the one guy. TRUSTEE KING: He's not being penalized, he's being permitted a dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our plan that we gave them is to the pier line. MS. MOORE: We'll keep going back to the DEC and see if they will go along with that. It took a year to get a response. TRUSTEE KING: On this amendment, we should make the amendment read that the ramp and float is to be removed from the application and the dock extended, the fixed portion extended to the pier line. MS. MOORE: Right. Then I'll have Bob Fox draw it to the pier line. The pier line between the two adjacent docks. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to approve the amendment to Permit 6120 on behalf of Mary DiGregorio to remove the amendment for a ramp and float and instead to have the fixed dock go out to the pier line, and that is the pier line of the adjacent docks, to neighboring docks. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, seeing that he's not the applicant, as the agent for Mary, are you agreeing? MS. MOORE: Yes, we're asking for the amendment. TRUSTEE KING: That makes it consistent with the LWRP 15 Board of Trustees 16 March 22, 2006 line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're going to be more specific on the pier line, that they are the docks to the south and north. MS. MOORE: You guys write it and I have to have it drawn. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have a second from John. All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THE ESTATE OF EILEEN O. GOLDNER requests an Amendment to Permit 6160 to construct a 12' by 25' deck and two sets of 6' by 9' steps no less than 75 from the wetlands. Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this and I did not have an issue with this. There is already a natural buffer at the bulkhead and that's going to be maintained, plus a 50 foot nondisturbance. So I make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROSEMARY & SEBASTIAN AVOLESE requests an Amendment to Permit 5829 to reconfigure and relocate approved, upgraded sanitary system from 68' to 80' from wetlands. Remove and replace in-place approximately 87 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace and raise by 18" in-place existing 8' by 17' step-down platform; backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and revegetate disturbed buffer area with native grasses and shrubs. Located: 4150 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I looked at this, it was found consistent with LWRP. If there's a representative from En-Consultants here, I did have one question for you regarding this new bulkheaded area, if there's going to be a nonturf buffer in there because I didn't seem to see that, and this property does slope down to the water there specifically so the installation of a bulkhead you were going to have drainage issues. MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Avolese. Dave -- and Jim, I'm going to rely on your and Peggy's recollection here -- this was a property for which we obtained approvals for additions and a new septic system, and as part of that permit, there was a nondisturbance/nonfertilization buffer along the entire waterfront imposed and that was on the site plan originally approved. That work has not yet been undertaken, so the 16 Board of Trustees 17 March 22, 2006 buffer has not yet been established. So to try to account for that in this bulkhead plan, we're basically indicating that the disturbed area, which is really a cleared area now, but the area that is disturbed back there that is supposed to be maintained as a buffer will be vegetated and established as the buffer. So there is a proposed buffer there that was proposed as part of the upland renovation. So one way or the other when this project is finished at least that portion of the buffer will be established and the balance of it will be established when they do the renovation. So it's a long way to say yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Then I make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, can I group the next in order for a little speed here? TRUSTEE KING: Let's try it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What I'm going to do is take the next four and do them all at once, if anybody has particular points, but I don't think there will be. 11. En-Consultant, Inc. of behalf of BROADBLUE, LLC requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #5752, as issued on April 30, 2003. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-25 12. STEPHEN BURNHAM requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5900, as issued on April 21,2004. Located: Madeline Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#6-7-12 13. John Bertani Builder, Inc. on behalf of W. BRUCE BOLLMAN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5901, as issued on April 21,2004 and amended on December 21, 2005. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM#31-13-4 14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of RENE PONCET FITZPATRICK requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5919, as issued on May 26,2004. Located: 360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-4-28.3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I offer those four up for approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 17 Board of Trustees 18 March 22, 2006 15. DOUGLAS & KELLY MYERS request a Transfer of Permit #1739 from Marjorie L. Hegeman to Douglas & Kelly Myers, as issued on October 11, 1983. Located: 1730 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-23.2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looked at that. I reviewed the file and all the structures are still there, and there are pictures. It still exists. TRUSTEE KING: Everything looks all right. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 16. JOHN P. DUMBLlS requests a Transfer of Permit #1918 from Stanley Chase to John P. Dumblis as issued on November 26,1984. Located: 1475 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck. SCTM#114-1-5.2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the Transfer. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: I'm going to once again group the next three in trying to expedite a little bit. 17. Paul A. Caminiti, Esq. on behalf of PHILIP & LORRAINE SABALJA requests a Transfer of Permit #1650 from Anchor Lane, LLC to Philip and Lorraine Sabalja, as issued on July 22,1983 and amended on January 19, 2005. Located: 1615 Anchor Lane, Southold. SCTM# 79-4-6.1 18. Rudolph Bruer, Esq. on behalf ofTHE ESTATE OF JOHN SIMEONI requests a Transfer of Permit #523 from John Simeoni to IVANKA ANDONOV, as issued on March 17, 1969. Located: 550 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM#70-5-10 19. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOSEPH DISALVO requests a Transfer of Permit #6136 from Aspsia Israfil & Vivian Lindermayer to Joseph DiSalvo, as issued on May 18, 2005. Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#51-1-14 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion to approve all three. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to open Number 19 for one moment for a correction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 18 Board of Trustees 19 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In terms of Joseph DiSalvo, the name should read Leo Borio Realty, LLC care of Joseph DiSalvo; I make a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. RESOLUTIONS -- OTHER 1. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CARLA STARCIC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. SCTM# 70-6-9 TRUSTEE KING: This is a very extensive file, we closed the hearing last month on it. There was a lot of controversy over this in the neighborhood. It's like the last lot and I guess most of the neighbors don't want to see it developed. We did our best to try and come up with a solution. It was deemed inconsistent with the LWRP because of the setback. We handled some of that. The applicant removed the proposed deck from the house. He removed access on the north side of the property from the application; I think we've done everything we can to mitigate any problems with this. I think we need to put in a no disturbance area as close to the house as we can get it. This is 75 feet. By today's standards it's not a big house, it's 27' by 31'. All that structure's been taken off. It's a fairly steep hill going down to where that right of way is, so there should be no disturbance on that hill at all. I think 25 feet off the house, seaward of the 25 foot mark would be a nondisturbance area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And have a staked hay bale line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there should be enough room for the equipment. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend approval of this application; there's to be gutters and leaders on the house to dry wells to contain the roof runoff; there will be a no disturbance area seaward of the eight foot contour; the deck has been removed from the application; the lower driveway has been removed from the application. We could permit a four foot walkway down the hill to the dock . TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's reasonable. MS. STANDISH: Walkway or path? TRUSTEE KING: Four foot path. I think that's the best we could do for this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the hay bales and silt fence on the 19 Board of Trustees 20 March 22, 2006 eight foot contour line. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, during construction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, for that path that might need to be naturally terraced with steps because it's very steep and with just a path -- TRUSTEE KING: Yes, either that or we leave that off and they can come in and apply after the house is done, if they want to apply for a set of stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't want to dictate to the owners whether they want steps or -- TRUSTEE KING: Just leave it off. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It makes sense to leave it out. They can amend. TRUSTEE KING: They can apply for something down to the nondisturbance area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This has what we need. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application. The deck has been removed, the access to the north has been removed, with the underground garage; there will be a line of staked hay bales and silt fence on the eight foot contour, and from the eight foot contour seaward there's to be a no disturbance area. And there is to be dry wells and gutters and leaders to contain the roof runoff, and all this will be on a new set of plans indicating all these changes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: You want me to group these, 2, 3 and 4, which are moorings? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 2. ROBERT PETERS requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 20' boat, replacing Mooring #873. Access: Private. 3. EDMUND WHITE requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow River for a 22 boat, replacing Mooring #25. Access: Public. 4. FRANK BENANTE requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Creek for a 19' boat replacing Mooring #959. Access: Public. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve all three. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES 20 Board of Trustees 21 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE KING: We're trying to move things along faster than we used to. If you have any comments, try and keep them concise. 1. JOHN XIKIS requests a Coastal Erosion Permit and a Wetland Permit to place rocks seaward of the existing bulkhead and construct a vinyl bulkhead and two rock groins. Located: 55585 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#44-1-13. TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP found this inconsistent. I don't see anything from CAC. We went and looked at this one. This was one where there was three or four properties there that were damaged in a storm, about a month ago a nor'easter. And they're requesting to repair the bulkhead using vinyl bulkhead. And CAC noted disapproval of this. And the CAC's issue was with the construction of two rock groins, and I believe that was also one of the issues with the LWRP. We also felt that we did not want to approve the rock groins. We were in favor of the bulkhead work and putting rocks armoring right in front of the bulkhead. Is there anybody to speak in favor of this application? MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. One thing I'd like to ask you is how did you come to the decision to say no to the groins before the public hearing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm sorry, I correct myself then. We have an issue with the groins as the CAC did and the LWRP did. MR. CORWIN: Thank you. Again, my name is David Corwin. I am the owner of record together with et al of the parcel known as 55835 County Road 48, Tax Map Number 1000-44-1-16. 21 Board of Trustees 22 March 22, 2006 Lot 16 is three lots east of Xikis. Lot 16 has been in my family since the 1930s. The beach in that area has been eroding at the rate of about one and a half to two feet per year for about the last 35 years. What I recall is moderate erosion was accelerated in the late 1960s when Irving Latham rebuilt the groin at Mulford's Point in the area of Lots 1 and 2, west of the Xikis property. I have profiles of the beach going back to around 1978 if they are of any interest. Of course, it doesn't take a coastal engineer or an aerial photo interpreter to see that there is severe erosion in the area. The first question I'd like to raise is whether valid permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Southold Town Trustees were ever issued for the groins at Mulford's Point, and if the groins at Mulford's Point were constructed as per permit, assuming they were issued. I believe the groins constructed at Mulford's Point accelerate erosion to the east along Arshamomaque Beach. I would like to state at this point that I am not opposed to the Xikis groins in principle. I would also like to be on record that Mr. Tuthill contacted me for the use of my property for access to the proposed project. I consented with the understanding that it was for a backhoe to move rock toe armor back against the existing bulkhead. The scope of the project has increased. I am sure I can come to an agreement with Xikis for the use of any access route. Let me address the mechanism of littoral sand transport in the area of Arshamomaque Beach. While the average erosion rate along this beach is around 1.5 to two feet per year, the erosion tends to come in catastrophic events as a result of storms with an adverse set of conditions that happen on an average of once every 10 years. The sum total of sand transport along the beach is clearly east to west. There is a tendency on the part of people, even people with some knowledge of coastal engineering -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can you just rephrase the direction you're saying -- I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. MR. CORWIN: West to east, thank you. I have heard there is a tendency on the part of people, even people with some knowledge of coastal engineering, to equate the mechanics of sand transport in this area with sand transport on ocean beaches. This is not a correct comparison. I have heard more than one person with backgrounds of engineering or marine construction say the sand comes back in the summer as if the beach will build up by its own devices. This is not 22 Board of Trustees 23 March 22, 2006 the case. While a storm with favorable conditions will bring some material back to the beach it never amounts to more than 10 percent of the loss experienced in a storm like the February 2006 storm. A good deal of the sand is being pulled offshore and staying offshore. The only way to stabilize the beach in this area is with a properly constructed groin field and fill. Preferably the fill would be pumped from the sound bottom some distance off the existing beach where the majority of the beach material has gone. Former Trustee Krupski advocated pumping sand from offshore in situations like this, and when he made that statement there was no descent on the part of the Town Trustees. I'm going to assume you all advocate pumping sand until I hear otherwise. One concern I have with the proposed groins is that they be properly constructed to be both semi-permanent and be of a design that allows sand transport over the top and around the end of the groins. Properly constructed groins can both stabilize the beach and allow material transport downstream. To properly construct a groin, they must be low profile so that they fill and hold material while allowing the normal stream of materials to flow downstream. I don't see elevations on the drawing that I can follow. If the proposed groins are constructed, the Detriech groin will have to be dismantled to allow access along the beach. One stipulation of any permit should be that the Detriech groin be reconstructed so that it is effective again. At present, the Detriech groin has little effect. The Atwood groin is an example of a groin that appears to be working properly. I believe the Detriech groin was constructed sometime in the early '70s and the Atwood groin in the early '80s. I have not studied these two groins enough to form an opinion as to why one works and one does not. The Detriech groin is older and does have smaller rocks. Both groins were constructed by Latham. I think one problem is the shifting nature of the beach. Low profile rock groins in this area, in an area such as this need periodic maintenance. The proposed Xikis groin should be pre-filled to some extent. I am not prepared to say what extent at this time because I do not understand the elevations of the Xikis groin, and I have not had time to study the question thoroughly. To help stabilize this beach, a fifth groin should be authorized at some point assuming the property owners are willing to bear the burden of cost. A fifth groin should be constructed in the vicinity of the Laskos property. 23 Board of Trustees 24 March 22, 2006 I want to emphasize that these groins should not be looked at as permanent structures with no alterations. They should be maintained and expanded or contracted as conditions warrant. How should the cost of these structures be born? I am not big on public monies going to protect private property owners on the water. I don't think anyone is except for property owners on the water and contractors. When the cause of the problem is the tacit permission to construct a structure or allowing a structure to be constructed without thorough investigation of the consequences, then I think the permitting agencies must bear some of the cost. Clearly the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Southold Town Trustees helped to cause this problem, either by issuing permits or standing by while a barrier was constructed or by not insisting that an improper construction be removed. Without serious work now, the overdue hurricane -- and I'm referring to March 26, 2006 Newsday, there was an article if you read it -- the overdue hurricane will come along and clean the beach out and the structures perched along it. I watched the water come almost to the road during Hurricane Carol, that was in the 1950s, and that was when there was another 75 feet of beach as a barrier. Suffolk County will eventually have to do something to protect County Road 48. I wrote to them about 10 years ago when a similar storm caused similar damage. There was no response. There probably will not be until it is a crisis situation. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you very much. MR. CORWIN: Can I make one additional comment? TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Corwin, in the future when you have an extended narrative like this, could you please submit it in advance in writing? MR. CORWIN: I took too much time? MR. JOHNSTON: It's easier if we can read it so we understand it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak regarding this application? If you could identify yourself, and everybody, please limit your comments to no more than five minutes. MR. TUTHill: I'm Larry Tuthill, a professional engineer and the one who more or less designed this bulkhead. Essentially we want two permits, one an emergency permit to put the rocks in front of the existing bulkhead until such time as we would have the ability to get the other portions of the permit done, and we would also like to use the rocks, the quarry rocks that were on the property now in front of 24 Board of Trustees 25 March 22, 2006 the bulkhead, to move those and to protect the existing bulkhead. I don't think, I mean the Trustees have explained their thoughts that they should remain there, but the problem with that is since they have been put there by Mr. Xikis many years ago and that they were excess rocks just put out in front, I don't think the Town would want to be responsible for their rocks. If anything should happen. So, if they were back in Mr. Xikis's ownership, he could put move them in front of his bulkhead. The second thing is after the emergency repairs are done get a contractor to come in and build a vinyl bulkhead about seven feet in front of this or lower. The reasons for this is that one, it would help break up the waves. The vinyl as such would not take the stress without being protected. And if we went the same height as the initial bulkhead now, the amount of rock would be an immense amount of rocks to place in front of this bulkhead. If we put it out seven feet in front and then drop it, we accomplish two or three things. One of them is to allow the public to walk in front of the areas, in front of the bulkhead, if we end up with a real steep bulkhead right in front or so, the backwash or so will continue to erode the land further. If we put something in front of that we will allow now to a place frontal waves to dissipate. A second thing with that or so the fishermen who quite often in the middle of the night walk along that area would be able to have access to go across the beach the full length of it. The second one is the proposal for two groins. Although there's a lot of information that that beach is a very dynamic area and that the beach moves quite readily, but throughout the Long Island -- I mean, Southold Town, there are an immense amounts of groins, and for a policy to be taken up saying, hey, no groins, that is not within the Local Waterfront Revitalization item, in that the first item is meant for those protection is the word "groins" and we have to allow the groins to protect our area. We cannot allow as a policy not to have groins. We have used them and just recently I've gotten a permit to put groins in. And to all of a sudden to complain that we're stopping to not allow groins should not be a policy. The length may be critical to affect some areas, but we should have something in there that groins should be allowed. What we design for is not for what normally happens; it's designed for events throughout. The state has built groins in the various areas in Southold town. There are three 25 Board of Trustees 26 March 22, 2006 groins to protect on the sound to protect Dan Pond, they're buried now, but you can't see them but in the hurricane of '38 it was afraid that it would break through Dan Pond in Orient to Plum Island so there are three groins built there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, if we could limit the comments to the application. If you could please limit the comments to this application rather than talking about other groins in other areas of South old town. We've already exceeded the five minutes by a lot. So let's concentrate on this application. MR. TUTHILL: Two more groins by South old Soundview restau rant. But the reason for it is to protect against the easterly storms. You have easterly storms, when they do the most amount of damage the wind is in a critical area from the east, and this will stop that flow from the east during these easterly storms. This is where this happened just recently is an easterly storm came in there and took out the beach. And with groins there they will come in and protect that flow of water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment on this application? MS. DIETRICH: Nicole Dietrich. These are pictures of the properties to the east of Mr. Xikis. This is actually Dave Corwin's property. That is the road right there. This is the four foot drop. You have about say about 10 feet between the road and where the erosion took place. This is Dave Corwin's shack. There's about four feet from the bottom of his shack to where the sand is now. If Mr. Xikis puts up these groins, the sand is just going to keep going. This is a hill. There was five extra feet to that hill, now it's a good eight foot drop. This is the corner of my house. My property against Dave Corwin's. That's not even high tide and it's five feet past my bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which direction is this located? MS. DIETRICH: That house is Mr. Xikis. I'm two houses east of Mr. Xikis. These rocks are my groin that Dave Corwin said you had to go over to get to Xikis. This is the Laskos, east of Dave Corwin. That line right there that's how much sand we have lost this winter alone, and we continue to lose every year, about a foot and a half. That's not -- this shows you Xikis's bulkhead right here. That's not even high tide, and if he puts that extending thing, not the groin, the extra bulkhead, where are people going to walk? High tide or low tide because low 26 Board of Trustees 27 March 22, 2006 tide is only five feet from there. This is the house six houses down. They have no basement. Their living room is literally, when the high tide comes up, water is underneath their living room. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm going to read this letter for the record to the Board of Trustees, it's dated March 22nd. "As the owner of the property two houses east of Mr. Xikis it's my concern that the work he proposes will endanger the property to the east. Structures such as Mr. Xikis propose threaten the eastern shoreline of this fragile cove. The Town of Southold should be concerned with protecting the entire shoreline not allowing work to commence which will prove disastrous to others. Very truly Virginia Detriech." (Discussion.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak? MS. GOUVEIA: My name is Joanne Gouveia, 55408 Route 48 in Southold, and I live two houses away from Mr. Xikis, but I live on the west side. I can understand and I appreciate the situation on the other side, but we on the other hand have a major, major situation, and I know that you as Trustees have been out to our location. I am actually here because Maria Katsageorgis and myself got slammed with this storm. Maria Katsageorgis has no bulkhead left and we have a tooth there that's very, very dangerous to my property, and I can't tell you, I was there for the storm, we live there full time. I was never so scared in my life as to see what had happened when that storm took that wall, and I understand why Mr. Xikis wants to help protect his own property, but that groin will also help protect the other properties to the west of him, and I almost think they need another groin to help protect them. We need to protect that cove there, that cove is in really bad condition. We have lost huge amounts of beach, and it's really scary. Thirteen years ago, the property to the west of Mr. Cavalucci's property at the time, you were all there or whoever was a Trustee at the time, the water went back to the foundation and cracked my bulkhead as well. Cost us many thousands of dollars to repair the bulkhead. We had only lived there for a month and a half when it happened. It was absolutely heartbreaking. Now we're on round two, 12, 13 years later, and we've got a very similar situation. We have a tragedy next door to us that is just horrible. These people have lost their entire bulkhead. They have lost all their fill. The water is back. I thank 27 Board of Trustees 28 March 22, 2006 you for allowing us to put the rock in front of the bulkhead, the toe to hold everything, but we need some serious concentration on groin activity or some kind of activity to make all of us a little safer in that cove, including the young lady that just spoke, east of her and somewhere in between myself and Mr. Xikis's property, and to help her further up. It's horrible and it's very scary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. GOUVEIA: Thank you also for allowing me to speak and I'm speaking also on behalf of the Katsigeorgises who are in traffic and are 100 miles away trying to get here so they can speak also. MS. GRlllOS: My name is Debbie Grillos. We own the property just east of Mr. Xikis. So again, I understand what everyone is saying about protecting themselves, but we're afraid that these rock groins are going to make it more difficult on us and make the beach erosion worse. I mean, we're in between Mr. Xikis and the Detriechs. Like she's saying, the beach is disappearing. When there's high tide there's no place to walk at all. We're concerned that the erosion is going to get worse with the groins. If the interest is in protecting the cove, then you're pushing it off on the people further east -- not you, but it's like pushing the problem further down. Oh, we'll let those people worry about it. Since we're right next to it, we're afraid we're going to get the worst of it. There was a letter we sent last week that should be there. Basically says it a little better than what I said just now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a letter here, and I'll be glad to read it into the record. "Dear Mr. King, we are the owners of 55705 North Road, Southold, which is adjacent to the property requesting the permit under the above-referenced number. We are writing in protest to the proposed 50 foot rock groin which is being proposed perpendicular to the bulkhead adjacent to our property. "We have owned our property since 1976 and have been witness to other similar groins being installed along the beach. The result is always the same: The beach on one side of the groin is preserved at the expense of the beach on the other side. While the erosion of the beach on one side of the groin is retarded, the erosion on the other side of the groin is accelerated. "We have no objection to the building of the bulkhead along the beach as proposed, but the groin would result in a rapid erosion of beach behind our own house. There are better ways to decrease the effects of severe 28 Board of Trustees 29 March 22, 2006 storm on this north-facing beach that's going to be placed. An underwater berm parallel to the beach approximately 75 feet from the shoreline. "Please take our protests under consideration before approving the above-mentioned groin. Please inform us of any decision made in this regard. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact us. Yours Truly, Lenny Grillos and Debbie Grillos." Yes, sir? MR. CHARNUS: Hi, my name is Clem Charnus, and I'm here with Mr. Xikis. I guess you've been down there and saw the situation? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been down there several times. MR. CHARNUS: I went down there the other day. I work for John from time to time. I see more poles are breaking off and that thing is bulging out more and more. There's going to be all kinds of debate going on but something's got to be fixed there pretty fast. I don't know if there's a slow track and a fast track or what's going to happen here, but something's got to be done soon or that bulkhead is going to fall in. I don't know how it could be approached, but I'm just worried another storm's going to come, and there are going to be big problems there, real big for everybody. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We do have an emergency permit process, and as a matter of fact, that was used with the property I believe two or three doors up from this one, I think it was last month or two months ago. Came before us. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Last month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Last month. So we do have an emergency permitting process here. MR. CHARNUS: If this is going to get tough we have to stabilize there. That property goes, the other one goes too. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any other comments? MR. SCHLECT: My name is Tom Schlect. My folks live about a thousand feet east of there, and I'm not here to say do it or not do it, but take a look at Agawam's jetty. Last year there was no jetty there, completely covered with sand, and it's not an exacting science as you folks know. So whatever you do, just take care of everybody, that's really what I'm here for. Because like Dave said, I've been there since '64 and that beach there was 50, 60 feet deep when T eeves owned it, and it was just a sliver then before they built a home there. Then you put those baskets there with the rocks instead of rocks, if they put rocks there 29 Board of Trustees 30 March 22, 2006 initially probably the sand would go in and out instead of just hitting the bulkhead and heading directly out and probably building some form of sand bar there. I fish there. There's no rock there anymore on the bottom; it's all covered with sand. So the sand on that beach is all out on a bar there. So that's it. Good luck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Comments from the Board about this project? TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to look at the whole area there rather than just one little -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Want to get a consultant in to look at the overall area with all the problems they're talking about? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I do think there's a practical issue of doing something for the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, do an immediate, an emergency -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My sense is that the bulkhead is fine with rocks in front of it, and I mean, if you want to take that right now and use that as a practical thing, and then the rest can be segmented off or not approved at this time and it can be amended. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what I would like to propose here is we agree that this is a drastic situation and that we consider approval of the repair of that bulkhead in-place with vinyl, and the armoring of that bulkhead with rocks and that we would approve at this time. And then have discussions with -- there's a consultant from the state, New York coming down meeting with us this Friday morning on several issues and we could address the other issues with him then. That way the immediate relief granted with the bulkhead situation and the armoring of the rocks. If there are no other comments -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The applicant might not accept. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know but I also saw a hand coming up in the back, I don't want to leave anybody out here. What I would like to hear from the applicant, if the applicant wishes to amend his permit as we have discussed, to be able to as an emergency permit right now address the bulkhead and the rocks, the armoring, with bringing in rock -- not removing the rocks that are out in the water. MR. CHARNUS: Are we looking to stabilize the existing bulkhead and get some rocks? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stabilize the existing bulkhead immediately and bring in rocks to armor that, not to move the rocks that are offshore now in, but to bring in new rocks. MR. CHARNUS: Then after we get past that first step -- 30 Board of Trustees 31 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. With access being right there on the property to do that. MR. XIKIS: I would like to repair the existing bulkheads plus put stones to save it now because ready to go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have a problem with that. MR. XIKIS: Cost me hundreds dollars and hundreds dollars, I can't make it. Existing bulkhead to fix plus put stones. That is I think save for a while? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could identify yourself your name. MR. XIKIS: John Xikis. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The gentleman. MR. GRlllOS: My name is Andrew Grillos, I'm the father of this. We bought the property 1974 next to Mr. Xikis. I have no objection to fix the existing bulkhead. I like to know the rocks that he's going to bring, how many feet into the water? How much it's going to extend over my property? Because if he extends over like two, three feet over, then he protect his property and destroy ours. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It can't be in front of your property. He can only act in front of his property. MR. GRlllOS: The waves go east, I'm east of him. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They call them terminal end. TRUSTEE GRlllOS: The waves go always east. I might not speak clear English, but I know how the ocean goes and the water always work east. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: John, there's a name for that where you turn the ends in and curve them? MR. COSTEllO: Returns. But he's not going to have distance. You can't get an adequate return in. He's going to butt up against the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can it be angled? MR. COSTEllO: He can bevel, reduce the angle. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You had a comment? MS. DIETRICH: I think I was understanding that the gentleman's coming out on Friday to meet with you from the state; does that mean that you're really going to take a serious look at this cove? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're looking for -- MS. DIETRICH: These are all my neighbors. Everybody's got a whole situation going on there, and we just need to get something going there where we need to get a little bit corrected, and if somebody can give us the professional advice we need, that's what we're looking for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to start researching this and take a hard look at this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're going to ask the state to give a 31 Board of Trustees 32 March 22, 2006 recommendation for someone like a coastal engineer that can look at this professionally and has more expertise than we do to give us a recommendation or direction. So we're going to take the maps we have and share that with them on Friday. MS. DIETRICH: Would you bring them out there and show them the damage that's been done? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They're quite familiar with the area. They have been down here for 20 years, and they're familiar with the whole coast. MS. DIETRICH: I know, but I don't think they're familiar with the wreck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have quite an agenda. MR. GRlllOS: Can I add something? The only thing to save the cove only a parallel wall, not in groin. You won't save it by put in groin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I have heard is the applicant has agreed to us issuing a permit to repair the bulkhead in-kind/in-place with vinyl sheathing, armor the front of that bulkhead, and if necessary, bevel the rocks in on either end. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the rock to be brought in from an upland source. We do not want to see the rock removed from out in the sound brought into the property. MR. COSTEllO: Can I make one comment? You know there are services that are available to this Board, and Peggy made a comment, you need the experts in this field. Mr. Hamilton is not an expert in all coastal erosion matters. Albany has many coastal erosion -- MR. JOHNSTON: That's who is coming down. Steve Resler of the DOS and the coastal erosion guys are coming down. MR. COSTEllO: Corps of Engineers have several that will meet with a public entity. They won't meet with a private entity, but they certainly would meet with a public entity to help solve some of these problems. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's who we're meeting with. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point I'd like to close the public hearing. MR. CORWIN: Friday, what time? Is it an open meeting? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Doesn't mean you can talk. It's not a public hearing. But obviously -- MR. CORWIN: I understand that but if I want to listen, what time and where? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 8:00 a.m. Town Hall Annex. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to close the public hearing. 32 Board of Trustees 33 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make the motion that we grant a regular permit to repair the bulkhead with vinyl sheathing in-kind/in-place to allow the armoring of that bulkhead with rocks brought in from an upland source beveled at the corners of the property, and the access for this is from Mr. Xikis's property -- take out in-kind, that the vinyl sheathing is going in-place on the bulkheading. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN & SUSAN FERREL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the damaged bluff by placing 1,600 cubic yards of bank run sand on the face of the bluff. Stabilization of the restored area will be implemented by terracing and planting with approved beach grasses. Located: 130 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. At the last hearing there was a number of concerns about the number of issues involved. I think we have rectified the first issue in that the homeowner's association has granted its approval of the Ferrels conducting this activity on the property owned by the homeowner's association. So we've taken care of that. There was concern expressed by some of the neighbors with the extent of the work to be done. We have spent a lot of time with Mr. Ferrel's consultant and the professionals who will be conducting the activity. We have heard what the neighbors have had to say, and we have tried to take a very conservative approach and cut back the extent to which we are going to attempt to try to stabilize that bluff. So at this point we are amending our request and asking for the Board to give us an approval to use approximately 500 cubic yards of fill, and we're going to try to concentrate on the easterly corner of the failed section of the bluff, that's been identified as the area that was most be impacted by the slide. There's a smaller section over towards the westerly side that we believe can be stabilized by placing some fill with a jute matting with a particular type of seed mixture that's been used successfully to stabilize these types of areas. 33 Board of Trustees 34 March 22, 2006 I have a list that gives the specifications and the quantities and so on for the Trustees so that can you use these numbers, I just have to make one revision, so you can use these numbers because we're hoping that you will take action on this this evening. We understand that one of the neighbors has requested a postponement, but we don't know for what purpose, what postponing would serve. We have identified that there is a problem. We're offering a plan to the Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does your plan include the terracing? MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the amendment is still including that terracing? MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we have no diagram of it, just a narrative. MS. MESIANO: We have given the Board a typical cross-section of the terracing. It's a simple structure, it's not a railroad type of retaining wall. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My question is how your new amendment is different from the last is basically the cubic yards of fill? MS. MESIANO: The area we're going to attempt to restore is being reduced. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're doing this same plan in a smaller area? MS. MESIANO: The area if you were standing at the property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is it on a survey? MS. MESIANO: We haven't committed to that yet because we're still trying to discuss with the Board to come to a solution. So what I'm trying to offer you is that -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the easterly corner there's no quantifiable -- MS. MESIANO: Basically this section in here is the worst of it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the only part that's going to be terraced? MS. MESIANO: This is where when the land slid, that's where it settled. So we're looking to give some fortification under that. Conduct the activity below it in order to fortify this area, and then build up the area above it, and that would be limited to basically this area. The surveyor, I had him work it out, if we limit it to this general area, it's a roughly 30' by 80' area with an average depth of approximately three feet. There's a small section 34 Board of Trustees 35 March 22, 2006 over here that I mentioned that we'd like to try to stabilize with some fill, the jute mat and the seed mix that's on there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The border here between the property, what's there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or what's going to be there? MS. MESIANO: We're going to have to -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I can understand terracing this way, but what about the border with the neighbor? MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry, I'm not intending to show that that's terracing, the terracing itself will be parallel to the bluff. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Understood. But if you fill all this in, this is going to be much higher than the neighbor's property, and what's holding it that way? MR. FERREL: I'm Kevin Ferrel, I'm the owner. The assumption is when they do pour some fill to build up this area here, there will be some that will go over to our neighbor's property. Their condition is far, far worse than ours. The benefit to our neighbor is that when there's collapse again -- they've already admitted it collapsed four times -- when it collapses again, it's going to be drastic. Having a little sand down there and a little base is going to help them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But when it goes again, don't you think it's going to take from here? MR. FERREL: Hopefully not because if we don't do anything, when there's collapse again it's going to take this. One of the other things Cathy was saying is that we're going to concentrate here and in this area. There will probably still be terracing again to a certain extent. This portion here, we're hoping to get away with a little fill or maybe just using the jute with the mixture. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Ferrel, did you get this letter? MR. FERREL: Yes, I did and I've had correspondence with him. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So did you consider what our Board and this recommendation was to hold this back and do more of a grade? MR. FERREL: First of all in answer to Mr. Connell's letter, he had proposed leaving it just not using terracing. It's been proven that terracing can work. He also proposed cutting back 4' to 6'. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He disagrees with that; is that what you're saying, disagrees with terracing? MR. FERREL: He disagrees with terracing. I've submitted 35 Board of Trustees 36 March 22, 2006 letters, exchanged his questions, I've asked him different proposals which he has responded to but in a rather vague way. He suggested cutting back 4' to 6'. If we were to cut back 4' to 6' feet on the western portion of our property, I don't know that would really be a problem, and if that's all it was, that's probably what we would do. Cutting back 4' to 6' on the eastern portion of the property is like a drop in the Pacific ocean, it's not going to help. To help create a more stable angle, we would have to cut back 15 to 20 feet in order to (inaudible). I would also like to comment that your own CAC endorsed our original proposal which we have amended now. TRUSTEE KING: There's two properties to the west. They're both terraced and they're both failed. MR. FERREL: Let's talk about the reason they failed, which I am told was incorrectly constructed. The other one I understand was some other circumstances that helped add to their blow-out. There are other terraces along the beach that are working magnificently. We're not talking about terracing all the way down to the bulkhead, we're talking 15 feet out from the edge of my property, the worst case, maybe 20 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to do anything with the lip? MR. FERREL: Excuse me? TRUSTEE KING: Are you trying to pull that back, regrade a little bit? MR. FERREL: When you say pull it back, I'm sorry. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It drops very quickly. TRUSTEE KING: What Mr. Connell suggested as far as pulling that back and regrading that. MR. FERREL: It will be regraded some. But once we push it down, go with 4' to 6', we'll never get it back. So the idea is to try to do this on a least invasive way to see if it works, see how the sand settles, see how we can build up the angle of repose, where can we just go with jute matting, where do we have to go with terracing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm a little confused. The area's the same, what is the preference between the terracing and the jute matting? MR. FERREL: The area is not the same. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's more severe? MR. FERREL: On the west side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're saying this is terraced because of its severity? MR. FERREL: You need to add fill, more stabilized so the roots will grow. On the western side maybe there will be a 36 Board of Trustees 37 March 22, 2006 little terracing going across it, maybe staggered based on where it ends because it's not natural as drastic. The hope is maybe in some of those areas on the west side we could just go with jute and with the remediation mix, and we can get away with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could you do both terracing and jute? MR. FERREL: We were told if you're going to go with fill, the jute does not work properly, you need terracing. If you're going to go with a minimal amount of fill but mostly with virgin soil, the jute will help. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Who said that? MR. FERREL: The consultants we talked to regarding proposals to build the bulkhead, build the terracing, do the jute work, we've got four or five different proposals. Unfortunately -- MR. JOHNSTON: Could you give us a proposal? MR. FERREL: Peter Sterling, Gatz Landscaping, Peter Sterling of Plantings by the Sea, as well as Gatz Landscaping. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, also, this is a new plan. It's a whole new ball game here. MS. MESIANO: It's a reduced proposal from what we came with. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That and they have cut this project down to about a 10th. That's fine, but I don't know what it is. You draw a line on a piece of paper, to me that doesn't say anything to me. I'd like to go out and look at it. And if that's the proposal you're putting in front of the Board now -- I mean, this is tonight that could have been a week ago. MS. MESIANO: If I could have gotten it to you a week ago, I would have, but I'm dealing with other people, and it's outside of my -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the same thing with us. We don't want to make judgments in one minute. MR. FERREL: The only change from when we made the original proposal, which was last month, is that we reduced the volume of sand trying to be conservative, and also based upon our hopes that we can do this minimal work and succeed. The bottom line to it all is I'm dealing with the planting season as well. We need to get this going as soon as we can. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Say we approve this and it fails. MR. FERREL: I spent money and lost it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then what are you going to do, come back to us for what? 37 Board of Trustees 38 March 22, 2006 MR. FERREL: I don't know if there's any other recourse. MS. MESIANO: I don't know how we can answer that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would like to see the neighbor's line again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see it again. Do you have a problem if we look at it in April? MR. FERREL: Just that we are delayed. The proposal and the best time they told us was in April into May. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our next meeting is the middle of April. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see exactly where the terracing is going to go. MR. FERREL: And we should have the contractors and everything lined up to start within a few days after the next meeting? It just doesn't happen that way. The contractor's Peter Sterling of Plantings by the Sea as well as Gatz have all said they would have to judge where they put the terracing based upon how the sand has settled and then decide whether they take it a little further or not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you dump the sand in and let it settle, and then -- MS. MESIANO: You put some sand, let it settle down, then contain it at a lower level, and work your way up. It's not an exact science. We're not looking to infringe on the Capolino's property. We're trying to preserve this corner to the extent -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you start at the top with that process? MS. MESIANO: The sand would be dumped over the side with the smallest piece of equipment you can use to transport it. That's another consideration, the Ferrels just had a new pool put in last year, and we want to minimize any vibrations for damage to the pool, the foundation. So the smallest equipment possible to transport the dirt into the back and the dirt is then dumped over the edge and -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the first terrace? TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: At the bottom. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's what I'm asking, thank you. MS. MESIANO: Because the angle of repose, as you know, is ideally 45 degrees -- TRUSTEE KING: I think we should table this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should too. I just want to ask if there's anyone else here tonight who wishes to speak, because I think there are people who came to speak. MR. MCGREEVEY: My name is Ron McGreevey. I'm Mr. Ferrel's neighbor to the west. With the exception of a 20 foot 38 Board of Trustees 39 March 22, 2006 gully, which is common land between our properties, I'm concerned about erosion. Mr. Ferrel, I'm glad he reduced it to 500 from 1,600 because that was a tremendous amount of dirt. He could have buried my house. It's still in the plans, terracing 6' to 8' high. There's two pieces of property on our association, which only has six sound front properties, five are bulkheaded, one is not, and that application I think is going to be coming in. I want to show you a couple of pictures (handing). This is the two projects Jim was talking about. One was done with top soil and the other was done with bank run sand. This is what you get. These two and a quarter inch pipes bend like wet spaghetti and it pours all over the place. Now you would recommend that Mr. Ferrel go to the Department of Agriculture, which he did. And they don't recommend any of his proposals. The matting they said doesn't work; none of it works. I was a member of the Southold Town Erosion Task Force a few years back. One thing we learned there, once the bluffs are gone, they're gone. You can put all the dirt you want on top of them you want, it doesn't bind. It's glacial fill, and it only exists on three places on the face of the Earth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. McGreevey, do you have anything from that Task Force that is documented? MR. MCGREEVEY: I have books all over. TRUSTEE KING: Can you identify which property is which and when these photos were taken? MR. MCGREEVEY: This was taken a few months ago, this was taken a year ago. TRUSTEE KING: That's Mahalios? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. This was Fox. This was put in, Gatz put it in. They dumped tons of topsoil and they hydroseeded it. MR. JOHNSTON: Would you mind writing that so we'll put it in the record? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. I have to go home and I can call the Trustees. Mr. Ferrel says he's trying to make a 45 degree slope; the slope he has is 45 degrees. It goes down a short distance, 45 degrees, and then it goes to 33, then to 30. That's a perfectly natural slope. Mr. Ferrel asked me to what to do, and he asked a neighbor Virginia Meyer a couple doors down, the same thing plant. You put Rosa Rugosa, you put bayberry, all the appropriate things, not seed. Seed doesn't work. And that plan was from Chuck Hamilton. He 39 Board of Trustees 40 March 22, 2006 told me to do that 20 years ago, and I did it, perfect. don't think -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was our suggestion. MR. MCGREEVEY: And I don't think any of this is required. When you look at this, look at it from up on the top and from the bottom, big difference when you look at both angles. You get a bigger picture of what's going on. Everything is vague, 6' to 8'. This is terracing 4' and this is 6'. They're proposing 6' to 8', no indication of where it's going to be. They got approval from my association, but each member was told, Mr. Ferrel went around door to door, that he was only putting it 12 inches high, that's it. Big difference 12 inches to 8 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else that hasn't spoken yet? MR. HYNES: Good evening Members of the Board, my name is Doug Hynes, H-Y-N-E-S, I'm with a company called Design Development. We are architects and site engineers and construction managers, and we were asked to appear tonight by Dr. and Mrs. Cappolino, the property owners immediately to the east. They have owned that property since '81, it's now their principal residence. From some of the discussion that I have heard tonight I think one of the two things I had hoped to accomplish here tonight may be in the process of being accomplished. The Cappolinos very much wanted an opportunity to return to New York, they're coming back in 10 days to have a firsthand look at the situation, and to get some additional professional input as to what, if anything, they should be doing vis-a-vis this application which is changing as we speak. And what they might be constrained to do with respect to their own property. I know you're aware of the Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Council recommendations; the Cappolinos tend to agree with what they're reading there, but they would like an opportunity with a professional and some contractors to take a closer look at it. As far as I know, the DEC is going to be brought into this process. I don't know how quickly they can move; they have never done anything for our firm before two to four months. But I believe there is time in this process to get a little more involved with Catherine's firm and with the neighbors. I did reach out to Catherine about a week or 10 days ago, and then again yesterday, and finally had a chance to talk to her about the 1,600 foot cubic yard proposal. It's changed somewhat. I believe I understand 40 Board of Trustees 41 March 22, 2006 what the changes are, but I think in fairness we should have an opportunity to review that in greater detail with the professionals, in the hope that maybe there is a joint solution here that we could come back to the Board for your decision. So the other request that we had is simply to hold the hearing record open to your next meeting so the Cappolinos could get a little more involved. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Next? MS. MCGREEVEY: Hi, Doris McGreevey, and I'm the neighbor to the west. Between Mr. Ferrel's property and my property there's a walkway, and I don't think anybody really addressed that, but it's sort of like a right of way or walkway for the community residents to access the beach. And I understand that Mr. Ferrel said that he is still intending to put cribbing or terracing on the westerly side in some fashion with jute. My concern is the pitch, in other words, the return of all this because if that collapses or slides because of it being built up and being pitched, we have a community then who can't use our stairs and our access way to the beach. So if in all the plan, I hope that you would consider some way when all this gets resolved, that we could have an assurance that we still will be able to get to the beach and everyone is having the benefit of the beach, and what they have -- all community persons have as a right. So I request that when you review it, to remember that maybe perhaps returns or some kind of assurance so we can enjoy it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Certainly. I'd like to recommend that since I think it is the feeling of the Board for this to be tabled, and we want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity when we go out for inspection April 12th, be there, make any comments. Do we want to see if the DEC wants to meet us there? Would Chuck want to add it to the list? TRUSTEE KING: I'll be talking to him, I'll add it to the agenda. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And since we are going to be out there again, do you still want to respond? MR. FERREL: Yes, I would like to. First of all, I appreciate what Mrs. McGreevey has said. And in conversations with her son, who is the secretary of our association, he and I discussed it along with the president, and it was pointed out -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's the treasurer. 41 Board of Trustees 42 March 22, 2006 MR. FERREL: Excuse me, did you vote with the association? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could limit your comments to the Board, please. MR. FERREL: Excuse me, I'm sorry. The level of work will be probably 15, 20, 30 feet from the end of my property, which is leading down to the area Mrs. McGreevey is talking about. No work is going to go in that area. It doesn't need it. Regarding Mr. Hynes, thank you for coming, I appreciate it. But the fact of the matter is to address concerns and plans that we are trying to implement seems a little ironic considering that the Cappolinos have already admitted in a letter to you that they have had four collapses. They have done nothing. This last collapse brought down some of mine. It's a fact; it's in records. Last but not least, the Cappolinos, who are so concerned about the condition of the bluff it's been bad for many, many years, all I've heard they have done is rolled up newspaper and thrown it over the cliff. That doesn't do anything. So when I tried to do something all of a sudden they're very concerned. If they were concerned, they should have done something sooner. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Again, I thank you. I think the feeling of the Board is to table this application to be looked at April 12th. We're going to see if we can get a new perspective on the new plans. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Seriously, have a plan so we have something to look at so we know what we're inspecting. MR. FERREL: It's the same plan that we just concentrated on. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This plan is a typical -- it says typical it doesn't say plan. It doesn't say what levels you're going to put anything at. None of that is specific. it's a typical plan. I'd like to know where it's going to be. Are there lines going back along the sides tying this in? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, you want this information on a diagram. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But also, that plan is no longer what they're going to do. So just put a plan together, you want to do, where you're going to put the things. It will make our job and your job easier. MS. MESIANO: I would just like to reiterate if I may, that there needs to be a little latitude because you can't say with all certainty that an exact point is where the first retaining -- 42 Board of Trustees 43 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But is there one retaining wall or is there seven? MS. MESIANO: There will be a series of terracing working up the face of the bluff. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked and you drew one line on it saying this is where it's going to be. MS. MESIANO: I was trying to delineate it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand, that's why we want a plan. MS. MESIANO: I understand that. It was just for illustration purposes, but my point is we can give you as close an approximation and try to be as specific as we can, but the point I'm trying to make is in situations like this you can't be 100 percent specific because you're dealing with the site conditions as the project progresses. I just you're asking for -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. We're very flexible when we have something to work with. I just don't feel comfortable. MR. HYNES: In the interest of trying to come up with a solution, if we could get a copy of whatever the professionals or the contractors or the Ferrels come up with a couple of days or a week or so before the 12th, if that's your inspection date, that would be helpful for us to look at. We had a conversation yesterday with these folks, they were talking 1,600 cubic yards, and that's what I came here to talk about. I understand there's been a change, but it probably would be helpful if we had that information on hand since the neighbor being charged with some contribution to the problem, trying to see where things about the lay of the land to try and keep the water off the Ferrel property onto ours and perhaps could be addressed as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Call the office and find out when the plan is and you're more than welcome to look at it. There is still a motion on the floor. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. MCGREEVEY: I just wanted to say I've been on this beach since 1950 observing this stretch of beach. Anything that goes on on that beach I have known about through the years. Mr. Ferrel has a very small problem; you plant on it, it's gone. All those bluffs there had nothing after the storms of the early '90s. There wasn't a blade of grass, there was nothing, and they've all come back pretty well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Before we go on, Jim, I'm going to have to excuse myself. I slipped a disk the other day and I've been on my back for two days. I apologize, but I'm going to 43 Board of Trustees 44 March 22, 2006 head out. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do we need three votes for Gardiner's Bay? Only because I think we have two people who are not voting on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I think it's just me. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Dave, are you voting on Gardiner's Bay? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I went out with you, I saw it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All right, fine, I'm sorry. Feel better. (Whereupon, Trustee Dickerson left the hearing room at 9:00 p.m.) 3. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CAROLYN & JOSEPH FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4' by 12' inclined ramp; 4' by 84' fixed timber catwalk; 3' by 14' hinged ramp; and 6' by 20' float secured by two 8" diameter pilings. Dock is to be constructed of untreated lumber and ram and float shall be removed and reinstalled seasonally. Located: 2170 Maple Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-8-1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Ferraras. As the Board knows, this hearing was opened last month. It was tabled as I recall for the purpose of obtaining the consistency determination for the Planning Board for the LWRP. So unless the Board has any further questions about any elements of the application, we don't have anything to add. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anyone to speak against this application? We looked at this, the Board has really discouraged people with docks on the bay since I've been on the Board, that's 10 years now. This is kind of an exceptional location. It's right next door to a docking facility that dwarfs this. I think it's modest myself. It was deemed to be inconsistent with the LWRP, I know that. Rob, one of the concerns I think was public access. MR. HERMANN: This was an issue I actually raised at the last hearing. TRUSTEE KING: With a set of stairs on either side? MR. HERMANN: Yes. And we've done that before. Originally when we had shown this, we tried to limit the structure just assuming pedestrians could access around the dock, but I think it would force them to do that through a beach grass area, which would be less desirable. So what we would propose is to add to the structure stairs perpendicular to 44 Board of Trustees 45 March 22, 2006 the landward side of the catwalk that would provide access up and over the dock if it wasn't accessed around the landward end of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you like to add a fencing so people don't walk out on to the docks; are they just going over and not go over; would that be necessary? MR. HERMANN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was thinking you were inviting them to go on the dock. TRUSTEE KING: They know what the stairs are there for. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you worried about that? MR. HERMANN: I don't think so. As we discussed at the hearing, these people know it's a private dock. TRUSTEE KING: One of the concerns was an additional dock for private use was going to impact the visual quality of the area. Like I say, there's three very large structures just to the east of it. I can't see how this is going to impact the visual looks of the area. It's not a pristine undeveloped beach area. MR. HERMANN: That was our presentation in the LWRP application. And it was interesting because I looked at Mark's report and his assessment basically said that the addition of a dock will impair visual access of the area and therefore render it inconsistent with the L WRP. If the Board actually extends that philosophy, then any dock at any location anywhere in the Town will always be inconsistent with the LWRP. In other words, there has to be some ability on the Planning Board's part to discriminate between a dock that is being proposed in a virgin shoreline that really would impact it. And this Board has seen and objected to similar docks where you're proposing a structure where no other structures exist. And there I think an argument could be made that it would impact the visual aesthetic. I think here we submitted an aerial for the record that shows that this would be a very small dock relative to a series of genuinely humongous dock facilities that are designed for multiple moorings. So I don't think the Planning Board could make a tenable argument here that this dock would impair visual access, and we stated that in our application for the record. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we have strongly discouraged docks in the bay. I think it's an exception. MR. HERMANN: Which is why we put it to you. TRUSTEE KING: On the seasonality of it -- MR. HERMANN: The ramp and float would come out and you talked about a time frame on that. 45 Board of Trustees 46 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: April 1st put it in, take it out in November 1st. MR. HERMANN: We discussed that was acceptable. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think we covered it last month. MR. JOHNSTON: How would you monitor that, taking out? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The way all the rest of the applications are monitored. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bay constables. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Those conditions are on hundreds of applications. TRUSTEE KING: And the float would be stored in the upland area. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation it's seasonal in the water April 1 st, out of the water November 1 st, and it would be a set of stairs on either side for public access. And I think it's in here it's nontreated material. It's been shown there's no submerged aquatic vegetation in that area. So that's not a concern. MR. HERMANN: And we would give you a revised plan to reflect the stairs and the seasonality of the dock. We would add it to the plan itself so it would be on the plan and in the permit so you can enforce it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: With that being said, do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All if in favor? ALL AYES. WETLAND PERMITS 1. RICHARD DEMOTT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 44' fixed open walkway, 4' by 16' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' floating dock, and two 2-pile dolphins to secure to the floating dock. Located: 5380 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#128-2-16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. DEMOTT: I'm Richard Demott, 5275 Skunk Lane. I don't hear and don't talk well, could I have my daughter talk? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. Make your comments very brief. 46 Board of Trustees 47 March 22, 2006 MS. DUSSAULT: Patricia Dussault, D-U-S-S-A-U-L-T, daughter of Richard Demott. We had a tough couple of years, we'll be honest with you. We applied for a permit which we forwarded to you, which was approved to go through. The company that we hired to get this done for us requested the final payment saying it was approved at a Town meeting. And that was all that we heard after paying the money. We never got the permit from the company, no work was ever done. In the meantime, my mother has passed on. My grandfather has passed on. My father has moved next door and the land is up for sale right now, and we're looking to reput in this permit to put this floating dock back in with this catwalk that's already been prior approved. It has expired tremendously. So we resubmitted to you the same proposal that we had. There's been no changes to the property itself. We did get a call today, and we understand that we can't make it out of CCA, so we will make it out of whatever is requested of it for the wood that is needed. We were told that CCA is not needed. As far as will it hinder the look of the area, no. We took digital photos also if you need to see them of the surrounding area and the proposed area that we're talking about, and it's miniscule compared to some of the catwalks and docks that are out there. So we just ask that the permit that we previously had is all that we're asking for again. We have DEC which expires April of 2007, and to avoid having to go through all those permits again. We're asking that you grant us at least a year to get this done or at least just this season. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The last time you put it in front of the Board of Trustees, did they vote on it? MS. DUSSAULT: Yes. It was in the packet. We got the approval, we got the notice, we paid the $696. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And it just ran out before you did it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: January 6, 2000. And we have a copy of the DEC permit in here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? The CAC, Conservation Advisory Council voted for approval of this as long as no treated lumber is used. The problem -- the challenge we have is the LWRP was incomplete that was submitted, so there was not able to be an appropriate or complete LWRP assessment. It says here all the questions were not answered on the application. So, I'm afraid until we get a determination from the LWRP, we have to table this, it's a technicality. 47 Board of Trustees 48 March 22, 2006 MS. DUSSAULT: We came down today on the call of Heather, and my father revisited and filled out the proper information that he had to fill out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And it has to go now to Mr. Terry of the Planning Board, and he has to do the assessment of that. The Trustees don't do an assessment of the LWRP. So with that in mind, I would first off recommend we close the public hearing because I think we're going to have to table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Just table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I recommend that we table this application until we have the assessment from the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't look to me to be problematic. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is just a technicality. The Board didn't have any issues with this when they looked at it at all. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANDREW WILLS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of steps onto a 4' by 36' fixed dock ending with a 32" by 18' seasonal dock secured by two seasonal 2.5' galvanized pipe piles. Located: 1675 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#52-5-8.1 TRUSTEE KING: We're reopening this hearing that we had last month because the plans were changed a little bit. Do you want to explain, John, what you did? MR. COSTELLO: It was the recommendation of Mr. Bergen that we reduce the dock, we reduced it 20 feet, and it was his recommendation that we reduce it an additional 10'. The overall length of the fixed dock is reduced an additional 10', and the owner of the property asked me if it would be possible to revegetate some of the wetlands area around the barren area near the dock. I said, if you're going to do that I would recommend that you elevate the dock slightly; don't put it down near the beach level because it would be difficult at that stage. So we combined the 16 foot ramp area with the 20 foot dock, and made it a 36 foot length. But the overall length is reduced to 10 feet that the Board approved last week. The dock was also last time, it was reconfigured an "L" configuration instead of straight out, which the Board approved. In order to get the ramp in the center of the dock, I tried to lengthen the dock of the ramp by two feet because it's going to be on one end of the dock for flotation purposes; that's not a problem either. What I did tonight before coming to this meeting, I reduced 48 Board of Trustees 49 March 22, 2006 the ramp if necessary, in order to obtain the final approval, I reduced it and hooked it to the side of the float and added additional flotation to the dock. So there is a 16 foot ramp. I changed the description, and I have a modified plan, and I put a two degree angle on the inshore 16 foot length. If the Board wishes that -- two degrees -- then I renamed it as a ramp. If the Board wants those drawings, I have copies here. It will be the same approved description that was approved two weeks ago contingent upon getting a drawing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: John, just as a question, how did you get the stability of putting that on one edge? MR. COSTEllO: You have to add additional floatation anyway on the float. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Does it stay level with the additional? MR. COSTEllO: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you just build deeper down. Because that's come up last month or something, someone was saying they couldn't put the ramp off center because of floatation. TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent with the lWRP. Conservation Advisory Council approved it. I think there are other docks in the area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's no vegetation where he's putting the dock. To be stored upland, not on the grasses. TRUSTEE KING: And the visual quality, that area is fairly developed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay, I don't have a problem with it. just thought we had to cover it. Go on, skip it. TRUSTEE KING: So it's basically the same thing just a little minor changes. Any other comments? Anybody opposed to this? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? All AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application with the new plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? All AYES. TRUSTEE KING: It's all seasonal, John, all the other conditions are the same. 3. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing floats from Dock "A" and relocate as part of new Dock "B". Install 6' by 30' floating dock and reuse two (2) existing pilings. Dock "B" construct a 4' by 30" fixed dock with a 42" by 12' ramp onto 49 Board of Trustees 50 March 22, 2006 relocated floats from Dock "A" continuing onto new 5' by 28' floating dock, ending with 2-4' by 20' floats perpendicular, and install four (4) new pilings. located: Fox Island, Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-18 TRUSTEE KING: That's the old description. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the old description. Do we have new? MS. STANDISH: Did we get any new plans though? MR. COSTEllO: You've had new. TRUSTEE KING: That's the old description. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I recuse myself and the proper paperwork has been submitted. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to reread, what I read before was inaccurate. Basically it's relocating float configuration four 3' by 20' floats, one 15' by 18' float, two existing pilings, and it will canter out about 30 degree angle from the fixed portion. We have our own comments. John, our comments it's a public -- let me mention it to you first, so then we can talk about the whole thing. Our comments was simply the shaded area that you have for the new part, we would like that part to mirror the other two fingers. Instead of being a bigger structure, it would just continue the exact same structure, one more bay, I guess you would say, of the dock; that was our consideration. I just throw that out to you before everybody speaks about it. MR. COSTEllO: First of all, the association is totally opposed to that for one reason. It doesn't meet any of their needs, absolutely eliminates their needs. The purpose of this whole addition to the dock is to provide basically two new slips so that they could eliminate two moorings that they manage in that creek. This was designed with the help of Mr. Hamilton from the DEC. He wanted the dinghies that were ruining some of the wetland areas to be accommodated, not on the wetlands or the island but on the eight foot wide dock. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: On the dock itself? MR. COSTEllO: On the dock itself. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you're using it as a platform? MR. COSTEllO: For dinghies. He wants it out of the wetlands, and to revegetate as shown on the plans, there's an area of no vegetation there because they access all the dinghies through it. Our original proposal asks for two docks, building one in the unvegetated area. Again, the DEC said that there is no way that they're going to allow two docks on Fox Island, which is privately owned, the bottom is privately owned. 50 Board of Trustees 51 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our impression of it was that the dinghies were going in the water. That wasn't clear, that's why there was some confusion as to the issue. MR. COSTEllO: If the Board went to the site they probably saw dinghies in that direct area right now. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We're saying here is that 8' by 20' is not a normal permitted function that the Trustees generally give out. MR. COSTEllO: I know. But certainly the Trustees is the Board of Appeals where exceptions can be made. The other reasons is to try to revegetate that intertidal marsh area. TRUSTEE KING: Why can't the dinghies be kept in the water tied to the floats? MR. COSTEllO: They store them there most of the year. This dock is not a seasonable dock, this is staying. They invert them and they tie them on the dock. They're tied to the trees; did you see them there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We saw there were several dinghies up on the beach. MR. COSTEllO: Basically they service the moorings, they reduced the mooring areas because of the navigational concerns. They reduced it to 13 over a period of time, and now they're trying to accommodate inside these fingers two additional slips, and they also have a rule that they have their own in-house rules in this Gardiner's Bay, that no boat can be over 25 feet. And they're trying to accommodate a good number of members. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling as to what we wanted to see would be sufficient. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I feel a little different in that I've seen that function in other places and it works, and it gets them out of the water, and it works. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean the function of an eight foot? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, I'm thinking of Orient. They have a platform that's 10 or 12 foot wide and they keep all the boats up on it and it's a yacht club so it's functioning in a different way, but this is a community. So I'm -- TRUSTEE KING: Downsize it to 6' by 20'. MR. COSTELLO: If you put a dinghy long ways on the dock, that's going to leave you maybe if you're lucky, 18 inches to walk by it. Certainly wouldn't be my recommendation. I was just afraid to draw it as 10, which was the recommendation of the DEC. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there comments from anybody else in the audience pro or con? 51 Board of Trustees 52 March 22, 2006 MR. COSTEllO: There is no eel grass to speak of in this immediate area. I'm sure the Board noticed that. It's a lot of siltation. There is spartina alterna flora along the shoreline on this island. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is very unusual. It's kind of like some other unusual applications that we have had. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Have you gone before DEC yet and gotten their permit? MR. COSTEllO: I told them it was going to have some difficulties getting it approved here. Mr. Hamilton went into the field with me and assisted designing it. But-- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So he's aware of this design. MR. COSTEllO: Yes, I could probably get it very easily because half of it is his sketch. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What John has brought up tonight to me puts a different light on it from what it was before for myself. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? All AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to make a motion to approve the dock, proposed revegetation, two new pilings, 8' by 20' floats as in the most recent plan. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That doesn't carry. There's only three members here, and I don't think it's a majority. I think it has to be a majority of the total Board. MR. COSTEllO: I'll let them come and make their own applications before you. There's 140 members in that association. TRUSTEE KING: If they could shorten that connector and have two 6 by 20s I wouldn't have a problem. MR. COSTEllO: I respect your opinion, but it's not going to please the association. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not here just to please, I'm sorry. MR. COSTEllO: Environmentally, if you tell me one thing environmentally, what is it doing? TRUSTEE KING: It's really just it's larger than what we have been approving right along, for starters. MR. COSTEllO: So it's precedent? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The only place we've ever approved an 8' by 20' float is Fisher's Island. Nothing here that I can remember in the bay. MR. COSTEllO: I can remember others but that was before 52 Board of Trustees 53 March 22, 2006 your time. If it's the precedent setting issue. TRUSTEE KING: That's one of them for me, and I know the previous Board was strongly against any addition there, so I think that's a big consideration. Also because I worked with those people for two terms. It's also in the code. There's no floats allowed bigger than 6' by 20'. 6. Young and Young on behalf of NANCY CARROL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a front porch, one-car garage and second floor over existing dwelling, and renovate and alter existing first floor within existing footprint. Located: 350 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-1-21. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the application? MR. TAST: My name is Robert Tast, I'm with Young and Young, 400 Ostrander Avenue in Riverhead. I'm here on behalf of Nancy Carroll. Nancy plans to or would like to put a second floor addition on her existing house, add a front porch and a garage, and a rear deck. All of these items have been previously submitted on applications and there's been a continuing application and permit from the Trustees, #5481, last amended in February of last year. Basically we understand time has run out on that, and it's been continued once before, so we're here again and there's been basically no change since our last February 16, 2005 permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak? I do not see any recommendations from the CAC here. The LWRP found this inconsistent. The reasons for their inconsistency one is because it doesn't set the minimum setback of 100 feet. They had an issue regarding a nonturf buffer and request of a nonturf buffer, and request if the relocated driveway could be constructed of a pervious material. We looked at it and were also wondering about the nonturf buffer as well as dry wells and down spouts that have to be added to this. So would you be willing to add dry wells down spouts to the house? MR. TAST: Yes, we will. And I believe the latest site plan that you have shows that, if not, I have copies here, 10 foot nonturf buffer and dry wells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do see dry wells here, you're absolutely right. You do have the buffer on here, and the driveway, would you be willing to make that pervious material? MR. TAST: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments? If not I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 53 Board of Trustees 54 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve the application of Young and Young on behalf of Nancy Carroll as written with the addition of as per the plans showing the dry wells and buffer, nonturf buffer, and the addition here of a pervious driveway. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. CUSACK: Dave, how big is that nonturf buffer? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ten foot. 7. Fairweather-Brown Design on behalf of NANCY BRADLEY & JEANINE MURPHY requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and renovations to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 550 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-5.4 MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of Fairweather-Brown Design, 205 Bay Avenue, Greenport on behalf of Nancy Bradley and Jeanine Murphy. To keep it short, we're basically asking -- we're doing a proposed additions and renovations for the house. The house is currently nonconforming at 65 feet from the nearest point of the wetlands, although I'm not sure if that's phragmites or actual wetlands. And the proposal is after the additions and renovations would bring us 57.5 feet from that same line. The first addition has a footprint that is kept within the 22 foot deck that is currently there, and there is a second addition behind that of an 11' by 11' adjoining on the west side. Then there is a wraparound deck and a hot tub on the west side. And all other alterations are within the current footprint of the second story addition. The property where the additions are proposed is currently covered either by deck or is a lawn area as created by the previous owners. There is no clearing involved. Natural plantings if required will be added. All roof runoff now is not directed towards dry wells, and anything new that we will make sure that the whole structure would go to -- roof runoff would go to dry wells by either French drains or gutters, and everything would be above the 28 foot contour. We have applied to the Health Department and the DEC on this matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you relocating the septic? MS. MARTIN: Yes. The septic is now partially in their lawn and partially in Debra Doty, the neighbor's lawn. 54 Board of Trustees 55 March 22, 2006 Debra would like the one on her property to be removed: the other we might use as possibly as one of the dry wells as the down slope part of the French drains off the deck. The proposed new septic system is on the street side of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Out of our jurisdiction MS. MARTIN: And being there's public water in the area there are no problems. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. The only other thing we noticed is we measured and we come up with 50 feet from the deck to the wetlands, which is still in an acceptable range. I just wanted to note that. the Local Waterfront Revitalization, LWRP found it inconsistent of course because it's within 100 feet. And they would like to see hay bales, silt fence during construction, and the buffer area that's existing to stay as is. They're looking for a more draught tolerant landscaping to minimize irrigation and fertilizer applications, and the gutters, the down spouts. So we feel that's all been mitigated in here and answered. MS. MARTIN: They basically have no interest in changing the plantings unless it's required. Everything will stay as is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure it's a nice, vegetated area there. MS. MARTIN: Low key, low maintenance, very natural. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MS. DOTY: I'm Debra Doty, I live to the south of this property. I think you all know me from prior experiences. This house -- their house has been here since the mid '30s. There's a photograph of it in the '30s. So they are restricted by that location. They're very close to the wetlands. The land cuts back and I really have no objection to what they're doing. I am delighted they're relocating the septic. My only request is, and there's another neighbor in the room, and we both feel that we would like to have any lighting restricted to the land and the house itself and not into the wetlands because some people have been installing lights in buffer zones. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if that falls under-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, is there anything in the plans for lighting in the wetland area? MS. DOTY: My understanding in Chapter 97 there are only two forms of lighting that's allowed. One on a bulkhead and one on a dock. In water or on a bulkhead area, and they're only allowed to be on in active use. And Nancy knows me well enough to know I'm just expressing some concern and concern of the neighbors that the lights somehow get where they're not supposed to be. 55 Board of Trustees 56 March 22, 2006 MS. MARTIN: The property owner has just informed me they have no interest in putting lights anywhere that would be offensive. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's be specific, you're not going to put any lights in the buffer zone? MS. MARTIN: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment? MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, my name is Abigail Wickham, and I also live nearby. I have absolutely no objection to them renovating the house. But it is a very dark creek and I would like to reiterate, if the Trustees could condition any approval on lighting, not just out on the bulkhead or in the buffer area, but lighting from the house shining into the wetlands. I think it's something that you do need to address on a more regular basis, and I would appreciate that you do that, but I do think it's an issue that you need to address. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. The only thing we have is what we added in Chapter 97, Lighting: Any and all lights associated with docks, floats or poles must be directed on the subject structure and not out into the adjacent wetlands, waterway or property. Lights shall not be on unless the dock is in active use. That is Chapter 97. MS. DOTY: There's 12 and 2, then there's one in retaining walls. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's what you say, I believe you. Any other comments? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application for Nancy Bradley and Jeanine Murphy for a Wetland Permit to construct additions and renovations to the existing single-family dwelling with during construction a row of hay bales at the 22 foot contour line and also subject to new surveys showing dry wells, and gutters and leaders and show where you will put the French drains on the drawing, and if you know where the septic is at that point you can show that; we know it's out of our jurisdiction, but we'd like it on the plans. And as per plan by Fairweather-Brown dated January 18, 2006. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Alpha Consulting on behalf of A. SHELLEY TUPPER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 6' access ramp leading to a 4' by 27' catwalk with a 3' by 15' 56 Board of Trustees 57 March 22, 2006 hinged ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock secured by three float piles. Located: 3050 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#87 -3-41 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made by them. think it's been found inconsistent with the LWRP. I think one of the concerns there were no neighboring docks, but there are neighboring docks, I think the review is based on an old aerial photo I believe it was prior to other docks being constructed here because there are docks in the area. This is really a modest proposal for this area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Did they have a question about material? TRUSTEE KING: No, but we can make sure it's untreated. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And isn't this the one we recommended the grating? TRUSTEE KING: We recommended the grating too, because the next door neighbor has that grated dock, it's really nice. The length will not impede navigation, there's plenty of room. It's not an obstruction to navigation. As far as preserving open space, the area is already developed. I think this is a little misleading. Are there any comments at all? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application for this dock. It's to be constructed of untreated material, the decking, and we would suggest that the new grated system, but it doesn't have to be that it's up to the owner, as long as it's untreated decking material. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install a sanitary system, plus/minus 141' of concrete retaining wall, truck in plus/minus 25' of clean sand for the sanitary system, and to connect to public water main. Located: First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-19. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just with J. M. O. Consulting. I'm here to answer any questions the Board or public might have, and I have also placed a letter in the file earlier today that I have Mr. Martin Reeve, who is a 57 Board of Trustees 58 March 22, 2006 project engineer from Barrett, Bonacci and Banwheel, in case there's any technical questions. Would you like me to give a little background on this project? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Glen, did you get any feedback? MR. JUST: I'll give you a little of the background. In the year 2000 we applied for an application to build a private ferry terminal, that's what the property's zoned as. That's the small building that you see there. The building was supposed to be 48' by 28'; it ended up being 38' by 28', a little smaller, and to redo the bulkheading and the docks at the site. We have done one-third of the bulkheading. We have just received an approval to do the second two-thirds, that permit had expired; they're going to start that in the next couple of weeks. And the only reason that the sanitary system was never installed at the office building at the time it was approved in 2000 was that we couldn't obtain Suffolk County Health Department approval because there's no potable water in the area. Since that time Suffolk County Water Authority has brought water down to the site, and now we can hook up to it. Again, that's the reason we're here now. We couldn't get approval before. We now have an application pending with the Health Department for that sanitary system. The system has changed slightly since our original approval. I have copies of the revised plans. The system consists of four pools and a septic tank. The pools actually leach, as you know, a septic tank is a sealed unit. What the Health Department had Mr. Reeve do is to realign -- just note that the changes the tank now has been realigned 97 or 87 feet away from the high tide line. That's the only part of the system that doesn't leach. Basically what the Health Department had us do was flip around, before a leaching pool had been in that location and the leaching pools are all located more than 100 feet away from -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So all of them are out of our jurisdiction? MR. JUST: I'm not trying to point that out, but they are. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So it's only the holding tank that's there. MR. JUST: Only the holding tank would be within the 100 foot setback. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question we had and the point we wanted to talk about was there's a drainpipe that's on the public road that's very close, and this is elevated above that. MR. JUST: I don't recall seeing a drainpipe there, John, in 58 Board of Trustees 59 March 22, 2006 2000. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not a pipe. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not a drainpipe it's a -- MR. JUST: Catch basin. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not a drainpipe, a catch basin, I misspoke. MR. REEVE: Good evening, I'm Martin Reeve with Barratt, Bonacci. There is a drain in the street right in front of where the retaining wall will be. The work will be limited to the property, it won't affect the drain at all. I know there was some concern about flooding. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Because you'll get a foot and a half or two feet of water down there sometimes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the drain doesn't take care of the problem. MR. REEVE: We looked at that problem back in 2000 and there's really no where on the street to install a drainage structure because groundwater is so high, there's just so much capacity. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But do we have a problem with that water infiltrating up into the cesspools? MR. REEVE: No. Because the cesspools would be more than two feet above expected high water. TRUSTEE KING: Could it go the other way; could it go from the cesspools into that road drain? MR. REEVE: The retaining wall will force drainage to be vertical to stay within the property and go straight down. TRUSTEE KING: One of the concerns that was brought up is if that drain in the road gets contaminated, what usually happens when that road gets flooded, the Town comes down and pumps it into the bay. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Will that create a negative pressure? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're not in favor of what the Town is doing, let's make that very clear. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is on our priority list for storm water ru noff. MR. REEVE: I don't think it will affect it. There's enough separation. There will be about 20 feet between the leaching pool and the drain, if not more. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How far down does that wall go? MR. REEVE: Wall, probably about 18 inches to two feet below grade. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's all. Then the cesspools are two feet above that? MR. REEVE: The bottom of the cesspools will be two feet above high water that's at a minimum. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The flooding there is fairly 59 Board of Trustees 60 March 22, 2006 substantial. TRUSTEE KING: That's a problem. MR. REEVE: But the flooding is not caused by the property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, no, no, but it's there and it's not Going to saturate the soil. MR. JUST: We had addressed the flooding in 2000 whereas there was going to be drainage going down just on the west side of the boat ramp there, but we were turned down by the DEe because of direct discharge. There wasn't enough places to put separation tanks. MR. REEVE: And that retaining wall, it's a waterproof retaining wall on the property side of the wall. It's waterproof on the inside, on the property side of the wall. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's open to the bottom so if there's water pressure -- MR. REEVE: I think water would tend to migrate up and down, not to side to side, I think the wall would stop that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't know enough about that, but if you have a wall here and five feet of water on this side of the wall, and there's nothing underneath it, there's a positive pressure pushing down, and it's going to release on it on the other side. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to seek its own level. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's going to seek its own level. So if you put a wall here and there's four feet of water on one side and nothing on the other, we're just afraid it might come back up in there, and that's a real concern. And it's still out of our jurisdiction. You understand what we're trying to say, we can't tell you what to do. But we felt there was a real problem with this. The one suggestion we had and we just threw it out, would you go for a container, a pump-out? MR. REEVE: The Health Department doesn't allow that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: At all? MR. REEVE: They don't allow alternative systems. MR. JUST: We've looked into the dry system. The Health Department wears blinders. It's a criteria that's in their guide books, they won't even entertain it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That has been approved. There's one in South Harbor Road, brand new -- 10 years ago -- house, she put it in there and fought the county. There has been this precedent for it happening. MR. JUST: We did look into that. And the other thing to note too is how often the bathroom would be used. The building itself is used if guests happen to be coming out to the island, if they're waiting for a boat, it's inclement 60 Board of Trustees 61 March 22, 2006 weather, they'll run inside the office, if they have to use the john as they have driven in from out of town. If there are boat captains that are on duty couple of days a week, so it's a place for them to go, but otherwise the building would be barely used except for storage, you know, what it is right now. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The bottom line is, we don't have jurisdiction over it. MR. JUST: I think Legends is getting tired of seeing people walking down the road and using his bathroom. TRUSTEE KING: Could the road drain be moved? MR. JUST: We saw something in the Suffolk Times a couple of weeks ago, Jim, where if I'm not mistaken they're saying a lot of problems are caused by people with sump pumps on 24 hours a day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We've stopped that since then. It's a complicated problem. We're trying to work on it and figure out different systems; there's going to have to have drainage up. TRUSTEE KING: It's a horrible situation. MR. JUST: That was a big issue when we went to the Planning Board for a private terminal at the ZBA. We've mentioned this time and time and time again. TRUSTEE KING: It's north further too. I remember when I first got on the Board I went down there on a rainy day, and here's the Town pumping out another one. MR. REEVE: You need to raise the road. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a matter of water coming from above down to that location from up Jackson Street, up New Suffolk Avenue and coming down there. That's the problem, and the problem exists along Second Avenue also. I know there's a lot of residents in New Suffolk still sitting here, you've made it through the evening here, believe me, we are very concerned about that, but that is not the fault of this stru ctu re. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's going to have to be a series of catch basins and drains throughout the whole thing. Hopefully through the Storm Water Runoff Committee we accomplish. MR. REEVE: So something that they did in the Village of Patchogue, they raised Smith Street. I think they raised the entire road up and installed drainage and it works. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's one theory, but in that corner of water where does it all go? It's not all going to go in the drain. It's a complicated mess that hopefully we can work out. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It isn't environmentally a problem for 61 Board of Trustees 62 March 22, 2006 us. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on the new plans that moves the system out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. J.M.O. Environmental consulting, Inc. on behalf of EMANUEL ARTURI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place approximately 178' of timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and to backfill the structure with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland site. Located: 7600 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-11-13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP is it consistent. Glen, we had a question, we saw up above the rocks they have a clearing; we saw three properties in the same area, maybe I'm confusing MR. JUST: I don't think there's any rocks. The water's right up to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Stone retaining walls up on the wall. MR. JUST: There's a wooden retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a split-rail fence. So it's on the landward side of the split-rail fence. TRUSTEE KING: No, this is the other one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: These two properties were pretty much the same, same driveway, same house. CAC did not make an inspection. Glen, is there any way during construction, there's very little remains of groins, can they be taken out during construction? MR. JUST: I know exactly what you're talking about. Put it on the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Just the remnants of a groin, while they're there they might as well take them out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from anybody? From the Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Emanuel Arturi as applied for with the condition that during construction they remove the remnants of the old groin that is hardly there. TRUSTEE KING: Second. 62 Board of Trustees 63 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 11. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LOVE LANE ACQUISITION CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to replace 305 feet (A-B-C) and 139 feet (C-D-E-F) of bulkhead with new bulkhead in-place, provide clean fill between existing bulkhead and new bulkhead, repair/replace 747' of walkways, construct 218' of new walkways along bulkhead, repair/replace 218' of decks, raise bulkhead A-B on north side 1 foot, remove approximately 800 cubic yards of clean fill and store on site during construction, remove unclean fill and replace with clean fill and place 160 cubic yards of clean fill between new and old bulkhead: Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-18. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MS. MOORE: Hello, we're all here. You've been at the site many times I know with respect to this project, you've seen it once. We've revised it some to satisfy some historic problems over there, in particular the bulkhead over by Captain Marty's side, and then you were out there on the site with Michael. So rather than stay later tonight, I'll defer to any questions you might have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question regarding the wood bulkhead on the south side of the rock revetment? MS. MOORE: Handwritten? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MS. MOORE: There was an old wood bulkhead there. It's still functioning and what we were trying to do is show everything that's on site on the property TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't believe that's a functioning bulkhead at this time. MR. RAYNOR: Michael Raynor. Actually it is. If you go out there at low tide it drops down four feet, and it's holding back the rocks and whatever concrete is left. I can take photos of it if you want. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any plans of doing anything with that now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MS. MOORE: No. But we wanted to show everything that was on there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm thinking down the road if they want to do something, if you can't see it and it's low, you may want to replace that with a low sill bulkhead rather than a full bulkhead. 63 Board of Trustees 64 March 22, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But that's something you would have to come back to us anyway. MS. MOORE: If he has any money left. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's a lot of metal and stuff in there, when you're cleaning up the area getting ready to repair the other bulkhead, is there any way you can take some of that -- MR. RAYNOR: That will all be removed and put back with clean fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the south side of the rock. MS. MOORE: Where it says wood bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, in those rocks there's metal pieces and stuff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the launching ramp and the bulkhead we were just describing. MR. RAYNOR: When it comes time to do work there, yes, I'd be willing to do that, but as of right now -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're going to leave it alone. MR. RAYNOR: It's fragile to say the least. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just figured I'd ask. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The bulkhead, as we understand it, is going to be subject to new surveys, but you're saying it's going to be in-place? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that makes it exempt from the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why that's important to note that. Were there any other comments from anybody? MR. BAKER: My name is Jim Baker. I live in New Suffolk. Tonight I represent the New Suffolk Waterfront Committee, and this letter is to the Board of Trustees from that committee regarding this application. "We have reviewed the application submitted by Love Lane Acquisition Corporation, the applicant, for the referenced work. We have also taken into account the applicant's previous application to the Trustees and the Planning Board for approval to construct permanent boat storage racks and other related site improvements at their shipyard. The primary reason we're addressing you today involves the relationship between these two projects. "While it is true the original site plans submitted for the boat racks project did not specifically include the maintenance and repair work described in the Trustee application before you now, this work must certainly be included in the larger scope of that application. "As lead agent for the environmental review of the permanent boat storage rack project the Town Planning Board hired an environmental consultant. The consultant 64 Board of Trustees 65 March 22, 2006 identified deficiencies in the information presented in the application and the environmental assessment form. This report was transmitted to the applicant on July 22, 2005 for their review and response. As of Tuesday exactly eight months later, the Planning Board has neither received the applicant's response to this study nor has gotten a reasonable explanation for their delay. "Our position is the Trustees must have the environmental information requested by the Planning Board for the overall proposal to develop the site before determining whether to approve the applicant's request to conduct maintenance repair and new construction on the site. "Although the referenced work is described as being primarily maintenance, repair, to the bulkheads and associated decking, there is some new construction described, namely 218 square feet of walkways to be added along the bulkhead and bulkhead A-B on the north side of the property to be raised one foot. While it's fairly clear from the drawing where the bulkhead raising is to be located, it's not clear at all where the new walkways will be added. The drawings must be revised to explicitly show location of the proposed construction superimposed over preexisting conditions. "Further, the purpose of the new construction, raised bulkheading and additional walkways should be stated on the revised drawing. Although the applicant claims this work is being driven by damage from this winter's storms, firsthand observations over the past few years suggest the primary reason these bulkheads and walkways need attention is due to chronic lack of repair and maintenance since the applicant assumed ownership in 1994. This calls into the question the urgency the applicant is claiming. We feel adequate time should be allowed to integrate the assessment of this environmentally sensitive maintenance repair work in the context of the larger storage rack project. "Although this project is being presented as a routine maintenance and repair project, the historical and industrial uses of this site indicate the potential of heavy metals and other soil contaminants to leach into the water during this bulkhead work. If not properly managed, this project also carries with it a high risk of allowing sediments entry into Cutchogue Harbor due to the extreme sensitivity of the Peconic Estuary and in particular this specific land-water interface the potentially adverse impacts of this proposal must be evaluated and mitigated. "We are aware that the Trustees and the Planning 65 Board of Trustees 66 March 22, 2006 Board have required environmental mitigation measures such as the construction of boat wash down areas as part of the request for marinas for approvals for site improvements. We are concerned that this proposal for replacement in-kind and new construction, however minor, is an attempt to segment environmental and permit reviews for the larger site development proposal. "In light of the above, the New Suffolk Waterfront Committee respectfully suggests that the Trustees do the following: (A) Provide a written justification as to why this project should be exempted from the environmental review process of the larger boat rack storage project and related improvements to the site. (B) Ask the applicant for revised drawings that more clearly show the proposed actions superimposed on preexisting site conditions, such revisions to include but not limited to: (1) Showing from where on the site the 800 cubic yards of fill will be removed; (2) Defining where this fill would be stored during construction until it is either reused or removed from the site; and (3) Indicating how the fill would be protected from storm water runoff in order to prevent contaminants within the fill from seeping into the surface waters of the bay. (4) Describing the purpose of raising the bulkhead on the north side of the property and the purpose of the additional walkways. (5) Providing details of how storm water runoff will be retained on the site during all phases of construction and in accordance with New York State Storm Water Management regulations. And (6) Showing the locations of proposed walkways and bulkhead reconstruction superimposed on the preexisting conditions. And finally, determine if any of this work requires coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers. "In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the public review of this permit process, and we hope the Trustees will address our concerns in a fair and timely manner. Accordingly, we ask that the public hearing for this project be held open for the above-noted information has been submitted for public review and comment. Sincerely, Diana Schwacker, President." And copies went to Town Supervisor and Members of the Board, Town Attorney, Acting Director Planning Office, Chair of the Planning Board, and Environmental Permit Review New York State, and Coastal Resources Division, New York State. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to address? MS. ROBBINS: Joan Robbins, 16995 Main Street, New 66 Board of Trustees 67 March 22, 2006 Suffolk. I'm going to read a letter that I helped prepare stating concerns from a group of New Suffolk residents. "We reviewed the application submitted by Love Lane Acquisition Corporation for the matter under review here. We have taken into account the applicant's previous application to the Trustees and the Planning Board for approval to construct boat storage racks at their shipyard. "The primary reason we are addressing you today involves the relationship of these two projects. It appears to us that by submitting the referenced project, the applicants are breaking their larger project, the boat racks into smaller pieces and attempting to gain approval for their larger project in a piecemeal fashion. We believe this approach is illegal. "Although the work is primarily maintenance and repair of existing bulkheads and associated decking, there is some construction involved, namely 218 square feet of walkways to be added along bulkhead. This new work as well as some maintenance and repair is directly related to the boat racks project, which could not proceed with the bulkheads and the decking in their current state of disrepair. "Although the applicants claim this work is driven by damage from this winter's storms, we know from our firsthand observations, the primary reason these bulkheads and decks now need attention is due to the applicant's chronic lack of repair and maintenance over the past several years. "Managing the interface between land and sea especially where there is development such as marinas is key to natural resource protection" -- which is your province -- "The great number of laws and regulations protecting this interface is evidence of its importance. Correctly designed bulkheads and associated structures provide barriers that protect the sea, in this case the estuary, from impacts due to runoff of storm drainage, silt and soil and hazardous materials. "The applicant's failure to maintain this barrier over the past 11 plus years of ownership and demonstrates that they have not accepted their stewardship responsibilities over the natural resources they're charged with protecting. The applicant's proposal to use their land for three-tier boat rack storage further demonstrates their lack of consideration for the intent and the letter for the town's LWRP. "The applicant's past performance must be a 67 Board of Trustees 68 March 22, 2006 consideration when considering the current application. We concur that this current maintenance and repair project is necessary, except for the 218 square feet of new walkways to protect the environment. However, we do not consider this to be in any way furthering the cause and justification of the boat racks project as currently presented to the Town for approval. In fact, we consider the need for the project and your review to represent in itself one of the main reasons why the larger boat rack storage project should not be approved." I have a very brief letter of my own, which I will hand in. "Board of Trustees, I have questions concerning the ownership of the property under review. It was acquired by public auction/foreclosure, August 15,1994 by Love Lane Acquisition Corporation an entity incorporated June 16, 1994. The present application before the Trustees is in name of this entity. However, the application for a boat rack proposal, still pending with the Planning Board, for the same property was submitted December 22, 2004 in the name of Matt-a-Mar by the Bay, LLC, an entity incorporated September 24, 2004. The application for the same proposal to the Building Department, December 17, 2004, was in the name of Love Lane Acquisition Corp. Although the notice of disapproval, January 4, 2005, was addressed to Matt-a-Mar By the Bay. I would like to know, and I believe we in the community should be informed, one, which corporation owns the property; two, what is the nature of the relationship between the two corporations; and three, the identity of the principals of both corporations. I would like to add that I am in full concurrence addressed to you by the New Suffolk Waterfront Committee. Thank you for your time and your patience." TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Could I ask you to repeat the sentence about what you said was illegal? When you were reading your first letter. MS. ROBBINS: "It appears to us that by submitting the referenced project, the one you have before you, the applicants are breaking their larger project of the boat racks into smaller pieces or segments in attempting to gain approval for their larger project in a piecemeal fashion." And that's what we believe is illegal. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir. MR. SIMON: Michael Simon, 17130 Main Street, New Suffolk. I will try not to repeat points that have been 68 Board of Trustees 69 March 22, 2006 made. I am in concurrence with virtually alii have heard from people in the back row, and I just would review a few points. There is a concern, as we have heard, a historical concern since my family and I came to New Suffolk 17, 18 years ago, the waterfront, the future of the waterfront was an issue. It has sadly needed attention. That has been acknowledged. In the LWRP report, it was an activity that was spawned by the 1992 to 1994 Task Force, U.S.-U.K. Stewardship Task Force and then further elaborated during the Hamlet Stakeholders meetings during the last couple of years, and there's been a consistency in this. There have been drawings, provisions, drawings by Thomas C. Samuels. So people have been concerned. And the interest of the community has been, as long as I have been here, not to leave things the way it were, but to develop it in ways which are consistent with the history, with the 1839 grant from the state of New York, and for the continual use of this as waterfront activity. And we have more recently, after a series of observations of plans, a marina, there's a condominium plan years ago there was an attempt to expand the marina, and then beginning of the end of 2004, the plan for the boat racks. Since then, some of us have been monitoring the process pretty closely, the application, the question, which would be the lead agency, which is the Planning Board and the efforts and commissioning NPV as consultants, the eight month delay that has been pointed out with regard to the response to that proposal having to do with whether there had to be a positive dec or not involving more elaborate SEQRA evaluations. So this has been going on and waiting. When some of us saw the legal notice in the paper a few weeks ago, I think some of us responded -- I at least -- this is kind of constructive. This is good news because everybody knows that those bulkheads need to be improved and over the years there's been deterioration. It's rather ironic that there is this sense of urgency that suddenly the damage of this past winter, which was, after all, a rather mild winter, has led to this, but why not. It's a good idea, it certainly improves the whole project. But then, of course, we realized the question of segmentation, which we referred to did come up and there are a broader set of issues. There are a broader set of issues and that this is part of a larger project. And whatever happens to that waterfront has got to include the kind of proposal that 69 Board of Trustees 70 March 22, 2006 is made. And none of us oppose the kinds of changes that are proposed under this condition. But the call for a keeping open for the hearing to respond to study some of the questions raised in the letter read by Jim Baker seem to be extremely important. Is there going to be any possibility -- this is a point made by one of our neighbors, also another member of the stakeholder's committee, Jerry Schultheis, that whether the investment that this project will take will perhaps help to provide some kind of momentum, perhaps an argument for economic hardship given the investment to provide forward momentum to the development of a larger project, which is still fairly controversial, and which I realize is not in the domain of the Trustees, but there are overlap issues. What example, I believe it says in I think it's Article -- it's Chapter 97 that has to do with split-rail fences along waterfront property. Well the split-rail fence along this property happens to be more than 100 feet from the waterfront. However, if you go and look at First Street where those split-rail fences would presumably occur what exists are among the ugliest pieces of concrete blocks that you could imagine in any place, especially in a scenic, historic, waterfront village. So this is one large project, which is certainly of interest to all of us including the applicants. So, I pray that the Trustees will think long and hard before deciding whether to close the hearing and to approve these, by themselves, excellent changes. So again, I ask that the hearing be kept open. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to comment? Yes. MS. WICKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham of Wickham, Bressler. At the risk of keeping you awake this evening, I am appearing tonight on behalf of the New Suffolk Waterfront Committee, who has asked me to summarize their position, and I think they have stated it quite clearly. We do believe that before the Trustees can act on the application a careful consideration of a number of points is required, and quite frankly, I don't know that you have the information necessary at this point to make a determination tonight. The first question, as you have heard, is segmentation, that's been pretty fully explored. But it is not something that is permitted under SEQRA nor the Town code, and it very well may be affect the LWRP assessment. The project involves not only restoration but also 70 Board of Trustees 71 March 22, 2006 new construction and that construction specifically is addition of additional decking and walkways and the raising of the bulkhead level. Those items directly pertain to the upland area where the larger project before the Town is contemplated. Since there is an outstanding SEQRA process underway, we think the additional work contemplated tonight should be incorporated into that study. The Trustees worked very closely with the Planning Board at the inception of the boat rack application, and we would expect that that would continue. The second question is the scope of the permit requested and I think that's where we're having some confusion. It's not clear what additional fill will be required as a result of raising the bulkhead and how the grade of the property will be changed. We are not aware that elevations drawings have been submitted on this aspect of the project, and when you start talking about some of the things they're considering, this could be a major, major aspect of this application. We would also like to call your attention to certain historical questions regarding the existence of some of the dock structures shown on the plan. We have an original Young and Young survey dated September of 1987, and a Van Tuyl survey dated March of 1986, and we note several variations between those surveys and the current plan, most notably the floating dock off the end of the restaurant, which was formerly a fixed dock in a different location and configuration, a different and smaller deck area around the restaurant, and different docks extending from the marina bulkhead. Regarding the replacement of the bulkhead, the plan calls for a new bulkhead to be located one and a half feet seaward of the existing bulkhead. Is this sufficient to exempt it from the LWRP if it's not exactly in the same place? Will this increase in the area of a foot and a half over the entire length be able to be used by the applicant as additional square footage on its site plan application? And will that increase the building area? That would directly affect the SEQRA process and we think that should be looked into. On the specifics of the map as was mentioned before, it's unclear where the additional repair is to be done, where the additional walkways are to be located, where the fill is exactly going to be placed and how it's going to be placed. By some reference by Heather today about the deck area being for drainage, and if it's drainage I think that needs to be explored, maybe I just misunderstood her. And if 71 Board of Trustees 72 March 22, 2006 the contractor is removing fill, that doesn't meet Department of Environmental Conservation standards, we do have concerns about how that would impact the overall the environmental concerns as well as the scope of the project could be dramatically expanded if they find fill that's contaminated. So again, we ask that you look at this very carefully and make sure all the questions are answered before you do, as Mr. Simon indicated, address this much needed application. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? MS. MOORE: Briefly, the Board has had this application since it was submitted in February of this year, but prior to that we had submitted the plan, and you had an opportunity to look at it. We did revise it based on your recommendations. With regard to where exactly the structures are versus what the plans show, you actually went on site. The drawings reflect what's there, and then it's obvious what is going to be replaced. You took a great deal of time at the site inspection, at least two site inspections, because I do recall from conversations with Jill and I know that Michael did relate to me the time you spent with him going over the application, so it's very clear what is existing and how it's going to be repaired or replaced. With regard to the additional 218 square feet, that's the size of about a shed, and the wood walkway is merely going what is on top of the area landward of the bulkhead, which is with rock, so as to provide additional drainage and better dealing environmental concerns that this Board had expressed during one of the site inspections. So the new walkways, as you know, is really covering over what is some mitigation for some historic drainage problems in that area, which you guys were dealing Belvedere just moments ago. It's interesting the comments I'm hearing, they complain and complain and make record after record how deplorable condition of this property is. Michael Raynor and Love Lane Acquisition Corp., the owner of the property, they're taking the major investment in making sure that this property is protected, that the structures are maintained, and now there's complaint that we're doing it. It's very obvious we will never make this community happy. We are doing what we need to do to preserve the value and protect the property. 72 Board of Trustees 73 March 22, 2006 With respect to environmental issues that you consider all throughout, we are replacing permitted bulkhead, either grandfathered because there are multiple permits in your files, grandfathered permits that go way back. The historic use of this shipyard is well documented as well. We are replacing in-place -- in-kind in that we're taking the wood that you do not like to see there, that is not environmentally appropriate, and we're replacing it with vinyl. So with respect to the location, Michael tells me we actually have to remove the old bulkhead and put in the new bulkhead. So it is going in place, it's not wrapping it, it's replacing it. This project stands alone. It is a maintenance. It is a replacement and repair of existing, permitted structures, grandfathered structures. The boat storage racks were considered site plan issues. I don't recall if they considered it an expansion, but certainly there's been storage on the site, that's clear. But that is a different application with extensive review that we anticipate will be here before this Board. We have to maintain the property, and there has been additional deterioration due to the storms, the 40 days and 40 nights of rain that we had. You know from the applications you've had that this particular winter, while it was a mild one, did experience extreme amounts of water and rain problems. So the Board is very familiar with this application. The opposition is doing what the opposition always wants to do, which is delay and interfere with the preservation of this property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'll try to address some of the questions or issues and then I have a couple questions. Before I do that, first off, the CAC did consider this and they approved the project with the condition no treated lumber is used, and we're using vinyl. The LWRP did do a review of the removal and backfill of the bulkhead, and they found that it was consistent. They have a couple of recommendations, one I'll get to in a second. The opportunity to use a turbidity screen out in the harbor to prevent anything from floating out into Peconic Bay, that was one. The other one, which is connected to a question I have is you don't have on the map where the temporary spoil site is going to be. And I was wondering where that was going to be located if it's on site here, if you were planning on taking it off site because I believe -- MS. MOORE: The property's large enough, it can be anywhere on this property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's over 100 feet, it's out of our 73 Board of Trustees 74 March 22, 2006 jurisdiction. They noted on the LWRP if it was within 100 feet to make sure there's hay bales around it to contain. There was a question, I've heard about the new walkway, and I think this is part of which you connected with a conversation earlier with Heather, that's an area that we had looked at for a nonturf buffer, and the request was if a walkway could go over that and still serve as the buffer area; as a matter of fact, we approved that earlier tonight with another application, so that is something that people have seen we already approved that tonight. There was a question that I heard about raising the bulkhead one foot over on the north side, that was requested actually by the Trustees, and just so the people that are here that spoke that live in New Suffolk, the Trustees were concerned to see if Love Lane Corporation was willing to incorporate into this raising the bulkhead a foot to possibly mitigate the flooding issues that occur in the First Street area when you have those severe nor'easters and the water breaches up over there between Captain Marty's and what's now a one-story frame garage on that side. I think people live down in New Suffolk now that water and severe nor'easters does breach that area, so we were the ones who recommended that that be raised by a foot to help mitigate the possibility of flooding to New Suffolk. We have a request of the applicant if they would be willing to put a dry well to the west of the concrete path that's adjacent to the boat launching area to help collect storm water there, so it doesn't go on down the concrete ramp and into the water. It's to help eliminate or reduce the amount of water. MR. RAYNOR: Which concrete path? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concrete path adjacent to the launching ramp area where the travel pit is, on the plan here it shows a concrete slab there. We're saying just to the west of there, if you would like to come up and look at the plans. MS. MOORE: In between the concrete pad and the revetment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the issues I've heard in the comments is the connections between the projects, I'm referring to as projects, one being the boat ramp is one project and this being a separate project -- those are my words, not yours -- we have discussed it with a couple Board Members, unless, please somebody, speak up if you disagree, they are two separate projects. The boat ramp issue, that's another project that's being reviewed right now, that is not connected to this particular project that we have before us tonight. 74 Board of Trustees 75 March 22, 2006 The other thing I do want to disclose is that I, myself do rent a boat slip but not on the property here being decided or being considered tonight, I do rent a boat slip from the corporation. So I want to disclose that publicly so nobody comes back at me afterwards about not disclosing that, that's all. Were there any other issues that anybody up here on the Board had or anything I forgot to address with comments we heard tonight? TRUSTEE KING: Some of the rubbish material behind the bulkhead, that's going to be disposed of and taken off site? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, and that's where the clean fill was going back in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We took a careful look at the survey, we looked at aerial maps and actually counted each piling on the aerial map and each piling on the survey to make sure the survey was accurate, and we didn't find any discrepancies. MS. WICKHAM: I want to clarify, I don't know if Mrs. Moore misunderstood, but I do not believe there are any complaints on behalf of New Suffolk Waterfront Committee. We are asking for specificity and in that regard, am I to understand that there will not be a raising of the grade on the property, just raising of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Along that one wall on that side. I just want to make that clear, it's just the one area where the bulkhead is being raised. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was explained to us is the amount of cubic yards they might not need that much to refill. We want them to take out all that debris that's in there and put clean up fill in. They might not need that much clean fill. MS. WICKHAM: Talking about an area behind the existing bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MS. WICKHAM: Is that area specified anywhere? There's nothing on the map that says how deep they can go landward or just how big an area. That's why I said, we don't understand where the scope of this project could be, where the new decking is going to be. You've been out there you've seen it. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to point it out? MS. WICKHAM: No, I think it should be noted on the map. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is the decking on there now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I was just about to ask about that. MS. WICKHAM: Those were questions. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: With the fill, we asked, I think 75 Board of Trustees 76 March 22, 2006 I even asked the question at the time, they wanted to take out the bad fill, and they don't know how much is really there. I understand the indeterminacy there, but part of it deals with the fact they don't know how much tar and asphalt. MS. WICKHAM: If they dig up 10 feet, and it's still there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But they're limited by how much fill they can put in, so that much fill is not a lot. It's already washed out a considerable amount. So I think your fears are a little -- MS. WICKHAM: Is it an 800 cubic yard limitation? I'm not clear on what the limitation is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 800. MS. WICKHAM: If it were more they had have to come back? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do want some clarification from the applicant here, in the area that's marked from C to 0 on the plan, this is where the new walkway is going on the buffer area you have stairs going down, that's going to remain at the level it has been at; you're not raising that up to what I would call parking lot level? MR. RAYNOR: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we could draw in there on the plan that is going to be the decking you're requesting. Why don't you come up here while I draw it on here. Is this where you're talking about putting a new walkway? MR. RAYNOR: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In your final plans make sure you indicate that. MS. MOORE: We're not raising the height of the bulkhead, that's the only way you would be able to bring the bulkhead and the property to the same level. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was one of the things I was trying to determine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments? MR. BAKER: Jim Baker again, New Suffolk. One comment, I'm a civil engineer and environmental engineer, I'm not licensed in the state. As Gail said, we're just concerned, this is supposed to be an engineering drawing, it's supposed to describe how the applicant is going to execute your requirements in the state and county and town, whatever requirements they are to protect the environment. Very, very wishy-washy, there was little or no substance in my mind to explain to me as an engineer how this is going to be done, and also, importantly, once construction begins, for 76 Board of Trustees 77 March 22, 2006 example, what tools are there to go back and assure that the applicant is doing the right thing unless you have a set of plans and specs. Like putting that pile of material they take out. Okay, it's going to be behind the 100 feet so it's out of your jurisdiction, but I'm very concerned, as you mentioned, with the flooding we have in New Suffolk, suppose we have that pile there, the hay bales are between there and sea, but we get a storm and the runoff starts going the other way down to Lake New Suffolk, and then it gets pumped into the sea. These are the kind of issues we have with this proposal. I mean, granted, I will be as an engineer admit, these bulkheads need to be maintained and repaired, I won't argue with that. It's just a damn poor job of describing what they're going to do and don't provide the tools to follow up to make sure you're getting the kind of job you want when you're projecting the environment. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. RAYNOR: If it helps, I'll be more than happy to talk it over for any rain runoff for any soil. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Love Lane Acquisition as described with the conditions that a dry well is installed as we showed on the plans and you'll submit new plans, obviously, showing these, but the dry well, the new walkway is shown in the area that we specified, and that the spoil is going to be moved and stored outside of our jurisdiction no more than 100 feet away from any waterway or wetland area, and contaminated material moved offsite and also would you consider using a silt screen at the entrance of the harbor area to help prevent any debris going out into Peconic Bay in the bulkheading part of this. All subject to new plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 12. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SHIRLEY KRAM requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway 4' by 50', and float 6' by 15' parallel to the fixed dock; install two piles or metal pipes to secure float, construct wood launching ramp 6' by 23' with a 6' by 4' platform at landward end. Construct 10' by 12' gazebo or storage shed; 77 Board of Trustees 78 March 22, 2006 clear upland vegetation as necessary for access to structures for off-street parking. Located: 1275 West Cedar Point Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-1-2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The description I read is a little different than on the agenda, it's been updated. We all were at the site. The CAC did not inspect, so therefore, no comments. And LWRP found it inconsistent, which we talked about in the field and made some changes. The setbacks were one of the things. MR. FITZGERALD: The gazebo or shed 25 feet back from the end of the dock and the parking area, 20' by 20', is shown. The 25 feet is the figure you gave me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there's one comment here from LWRP that I don't understand, it says swimming pool and related structures. Because he has that highlighted, but -- MS. CUSACK: He took it out of the code, it says swimming pool and related structures have to be 50 feet -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it's in bold, so I didn't know, right. We talked about the ramp next to it and how we felt we didn't need to have that size ramp there. I see that's still -- MR. FITZGERALD: The discussion was about the width as I recall, and I asked the applicant's son to measure the dolly they use for the Sunfish, and the outside dimension of the wheels is 4'4". TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, what are you proposing that be? MR. FITZGERALD: Six feet, which seems reasonable given the width of the boat, which is somewhat more than that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What were you proposing material for that ramp, to build that? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. I would presume that marine plywood be -- TRUSTEE KING: If we allow that, it should be the new grated system, kept low and the stuff will grow up toward -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me ask you this, would it work, would it suffice if instead of installing a ramp, you just clear the area like you said about 6', she said about 4'4", so next to the dock about 6' of extra clearing so they could just wheel it down there; is there any need for the ramp? MR. FITZGERALD: That would be the best way of doing it, but the bank at that point is at least 18 inches high. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe we could use the new material that's out that you could put down and the growth could still grow through it. MR. FITZGERALD: That's a good idea. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a hard surface, but yet you still 78 Board of Trustees 79 March 22, 2006 have the growth. It's not going to get out of control because you're going to be using it. I think we would rather see something like that. MR. FITZGERALD: I think I would too, it seems more practical. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here are hand-drawn new plans in red. MR. FITZGERALD: I wasn't able to get the real map done by the map guy in time, so I did that and unless you have some changes, if you could act on it contingent upon the new map being that way in black instead of red? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: What was the proposed height of this ramp? MR. FITZGERALD: You mean height above grade? It would be at grade. The flat part up top just four feet would be at grade and it would go down, straight down from there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking DEC, I'd like to see it up off the ground a foot. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. But there's got to be a way to get the wheels up. TRUSTEE KING: Just have a little ramp up to it out of that grated material, and that would allow some vegetation to grow under it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to use that material. Are there any other comments from the Board? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion approve the application of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Shirley Kram for a fixed open walkway 4' by 30'; hinged ramp 3' by 14'; floating dock 6' by 20'; install two piles or metal pipes to secure float; construct a launching ramp approximately one foot high made of a fiberglass or some other or aluminum grating system that the vegetation could grow through, and that would be approximately a 6' by 14' ramp with a 6' by 4' platform at landward end, and to construct a 10' by 12' gazebo 25 feet back from the landward edge of the dock, and a 20' by 20' area for off-street parking all subject to revised plans showing all that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SUSAN & LOUIS VALENTE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 114 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland 79 Board of Trustees 80 March 22, 2006 source; and remove and replace in-place existing plus/minus 3' by plus/minus 28' set of platforms and steps. Located: 6800 (aka 6730) Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-11-4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I had, Rob, is why is it such an odd-ball shaped structure? MR. HERMANN: I don't know. I have from 1976 it's exactly the same. It's always been this way, and I don't know why. But to try and straighten it, you'd have to fill some of that bay front. It looks like on the tax map too. But to try to straighten it, you'd have to try to fill some of that bay front, which -- TRUSTEE KING: I know, Jill and I talked about it, I said wouldn't it be nice if we could go from this corner to that corner, and then we said, no way will they let him fill that intertidal zone. We didn't have any problem with it. It's a straightforward replacement. It's consistent with the policies of LWRP. It's addressing the backfilling with 50 cubic yards of sand that's consistent. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as presented. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SUSAN & DENNIS DONLIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock and construct in same location a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4' by 12' inclined ramp, 4' by 20' fixed catwalk, 3' by 14' hinged ramp, and 6' by 20' "T" float secured by two 6" diameter pilings. Located: 8417 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-12 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had no problem with it, I believe. It was exempt from the LWRP and the CAC had no comment because they did not get a chance to inspect it. Is there any comment from anybody? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of the applicants. Lauren, I think we included in the application the dock existing has Permit #1659. It was a grandfathered permit issued to Mr. Kron, K-R-O-N, and it was assigned a 80 Board of Trustees 81 March 22, 2006 dock number. I don't know if there's some continuity between that and the new dock, if there's something that needs to be done with that number. I just wanted to make it part of the record in case that was relevant to the Board. MS. STANDISH: It gets a new number. MR. HERMANN: My only question as I need to make it worth having at stayed this long, the applicant contacted me yesterday and asked whether the Board would have any objection to slightly offsetting the "T" float in one direction or in order to make it more of an "L" shaped? TRUSTEE KING: Oh, no, it would be better if it went to the left, facing the water, it would be better if it went to the left, because there's another dock on the right that looks like it might be close. MR. HERMANN: Is that something you would actually want me to show on a plan or if he just offsets it, do you care? I think he wants to put a kayak or something on the inside of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were also concerned his property line extends down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were kind of thinking the same thing too. MR. HERMANN: If we were going to do it and show it to the north -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERMANN: Don't make any changes now, approve it as is. If he wants to pursue it we'd have to come back to you and the DEC to come back. I just wanted to make sure if we wanted to come back, if you said no way, I wouldn't bother. So leave it as is for now, and just know that we may come back for a very minor shift. You can approve the plan, but you can have the condition that if the applicant chooses to create an "L" dock to the north, the approval will be conditioned upon submission of revised plans. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That way you don't need an amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion of En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Dennis and Susan Donlin for the Wetland Permit as written and with the option that if the applicant feels the float should be moved to the north into an "L" shape that it would be subject to new plans in the file to the office. 81 Board of Trustees 82 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? MS. STANDISH: It's the north you said? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES (Time ended: 11 :10 p.m.) March 22, 2006 RECEIVED 4- rf<-4'd /~. 05 Pi'll JUN 2 2 2006 ~al~ 82