Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/19/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTH OLD MINUTES Wednesday, April 19, 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 Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 - RECEIVCD 1-,fAd 102:osl7m ,rrjUN ) L2JfJ) ~.4 n~-t SouIL~;& TL,;11 Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for February, 2006, check for $8,590.40 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Board of Trustees 2 April 19, 2006 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Lawrence Holfelder -- SCTM#126-11-1 Peter & Sonia Panagopoulos -- SCTM#30-2-70 George & Sandra Engelke -- SCTM#98-5-14.3 Anna Cooper -- SCTM#35-6-29 Sheila Patel -- SCTM#51-4-5.1 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. -- SCTM#53-5-12.5 Nicholas Bruno -- SCTM#76-1-2 Joseph Brittman -- SCTM#78-2-10 Edward & Adrienne Solomon -- SCTM#114-1-4 Margaret Reinhard -- SCTM#116-4-23 Charles & Lynn Hill -- SCTM#80-3-20 Steven E. Losquadro -- SCTM#117-6-33 Mary Raynor -- SCTM#116-4-21 Laughing Waters Property Owners Association -- SCTM#87-3-2.1 &60 Barbara & Joseph Isabella -- SCTM#107-7-6 Terry & Francis Triades -- SCTM#94-1-12.2 Thomas Perillo, Sr. -- SCTM#99-3-4.4 Peter & Arlene Manos -- SCTM#33-1-18 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, I apologize, we were a little late getting going. But we had more people speaking than we had planned. We like to give everybody an opportunity to speak. I'd like to introduce the Board, we have Dave Bergen, Peggy Dickerson, Jill Doherty, myself, Lauren Standish is our office manager, John Holzapfel and Brownell Johnston. Heather Cusack, our environmental technician, and Don Wilder is CAC, Conservation Advisory Council. There's not many people here, but we have been busy the last few years. We totally rewrote the Wetland Code and presently, this is a tough one, we're crafting a mooring plan. It's going to take some time. Dave Bergen is kind of the lead Trustee on that. We're also rewriting our shellfish code, make some changes to that and bring it up to date, and through these processes, our legal advisor Brownell, I'd like to tell everybody he has been volunteering his time. He's been to all these meetings, he's guided us through all the legal ramifications, and he's been a great asset. I'd just like to thank you, Brownell, you're a great help to this team. MR. JOHNSTON: It's a pleasure working with you and the 2 Board of Trustees 3 April 19, 2006 other four and Lauren and Heather. TRUSTEE KING: That being said, let's get going with the meeting. I'd like to get these meetings so we move along. We're starting to go until 1 :00 in the morning, it's just too much. We want people to participate; we want your input, so keep it concise if you possibly can. Dave, you have this statement, just to let folks know how we feel. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This statement was announced at a previous meeting, so I'm just repeating it. The Trustees treat all permit applications very seriously. Our goal is to obtain as much information as possible pertaining to applications prior to rendering decisions. Many applications come before us for rulings each month, as such we need to run the meeting in both an efficient and effective manner. A statement has been included in the past which states that presentations for applications are limited to five minutes, yet our practice had been prior to January to allow applicants and their representatives to address the Board well beyond this time limit. This has resulted in meetings running into the early morning hours when both the Trustees and the applicants were exhausted. This process was not in the best interest of either the applicants or the Trustees. As such, effective in January, the Trustees meetings were to be run according to published guidelines. Presentations made by applicants or their representatives will be limited to no more than five minutes. Every attempt will be made to end the meeting prior to 12:00 midnight. Exceptions can be made by the Trustee president or his or her designees. Applicants are encouraged to devote appropriate attention to their presentations prior to the meeting in an effort to avoid any inconveniences as a result of this practice. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thanks, Dave. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. SANDRA KRAC & JUDITH PEREZ request an Administrative Permit to install an 8' by 12' pre-fabricated shed. Located: 490 Northfield Lane, Southold. SCTM#79-3-4.2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this. It's pretty straightforward. The shed is going on top of railroad ties in the back yard. It's well past, or well beyond or well away from the pond that's out there. The only question they're going to have is how close to the property line the Town code will allow it. As far as we're 3 Board of Trustees 4 April 19, 2006 concerned, I see no problem with this and will make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in Favor? ALL AYES. 2. JENNIFER B. GOULD requests an Administrative Permit to construct a single-story addition to the existing dwelling, with removal of stoop deck and cellar entrance. Located: 1820 a/ka/1825 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM#31-13-3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Everybody on the Board looked at these plans, and I believe everybody on the Board didn't have a problem with what we looked at last Wednesday. So if there are no other comments from the Board, I will make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also want to mention it is consistent with LWRP. All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. JOSEPH l. TURCHIANO requests an Administrative Permit to place a gazebo on the southwest corner of the property, approximately 20 feet from the existing bulkhead. Located: 450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#115-12-5. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I went out there and where he wants to put the gazebo is too close to the wetlands to the area, to the neighboring wetlands. I suggested -- he's got like a tiered property -- and I suggested for him to put it on the upper tier on the other side. He didn't like that location. However, he has not come into the Trustees' office to inform us what he wants to do. So I make a motion that we could approve a gazebo in the location that I suggested, which is beyond 50 feet from the wetlands. And if he wants to do something with it he can and if he doesn't he doesn't have to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. RONALD & EILEEN BREUER request an Administrative Permit to revegetate the buffer area 50' by 36' in accordance with the planting plan submitted and install a shed 24' from the buffer area. Located: 100 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-3.1 TRUSTEE KING: This is an area that had been disturbed and there was a recreational vehicle parked almost in the wetland area that has been removed. And the disturbed area, 4 Board of Trustees 5 April 19, 2006 we have a planting plan it's going to be revegetated. Heather reviewed the planting plan, everything seems to be in order. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. KAREN & ROLAND GRANT request an Administrative Permit to remove dead and/or diseased limbs and branches landward of top of the bank. Located: 1775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-5-9.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this and there's a whole lot of dead limbs that need to be just trimmed, they're not looking to remove trees, they're looking to take care of removing deceased and dead limbs. As such, I would make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DAVID HOFFMAN requests an Administrative Permit for the removal pruning of existing vegetation to provide for planting of smaller plants to secure bluff from erosion and regrading of turf area to direct runoff away from the bluff edge: Located: 1230 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM#52-2-36 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We met with the applicant. He redesigned some of the plans according to what we asked him. I have a copy of the new ones. The baccharis is not going to be cut; it says specifically will remain undisturbed. So he followed along and did what we asked him to do and I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RICHARD & JOYCE FRIEDLAND requests an Administrative Permit to add 5' to the south side of the house and construct a new deck. Located: 105 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-1-42 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this also. It's a very simple addition of only five feet of the house and then they'll bump the deck out five feet as it's 148 feet from the water. It's a matter of reducing it down to a little bit less than that, obviously five feet less from that side. The house is closer to the water from the other direction actually towards what's Haywaters Cove. The only thing that I would ask -- and I will follow up on this - 5 Board of Trustees 6 April 19, 2006 they have on their survey here that the post and rail fence there is going below the mean high tide mark, and I will double check with the applicant to make sure that this survey is -- if that's true, that the fence is adjusted according to our code saying it has to be at least 10 feet above mean high tide. Given that, I would make a motion to approve this one. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. SOUTHOLD TOWN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS requests an Administrative Permit to replace the broken asphalt portion of the boat ramp with a 14' by 16' concrete apron. Located: Bayview Avenue, Greenport. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have asked the DPW when they repair these to run this by us so we can keep a little control on it. This is a straightforward application. It clearly needs repair, and I make a motion that we approve this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORINGS 1. LOIS LOCKWOOD requests a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 22' boat. Access: Private. TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with this property it's on the west side of the Mattituck Creek, and it's just south of Mattituck Shipyard. I see no problem whatsoever, it's right in front of the house. They're waterfront property owners. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. FRANK & PATRICIA PERONE requests an onshore/offshore stake in Arshamomaque Pond for a boat no larger than 18'. Access: Private. TRUSTEE KING: I'll recommend approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. JASON HAAS requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a 19' boat. Access: Private TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don Desikowski and I inspected this and feel there's room for more moorings in this area. He has all the proper paperwork. The only thing is the boat is in his brother's name. So I make a motion that we put the name 6 Board of Trustees 7 April 19, 2006 in Jason and Brian Haas, and I make that motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: 1. RICHARD DEMOTT requests an Amendment to Permit 682 to repair the existing 59' of bulkhead and 20' return in-place using vinyl sheathing and create a nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. Located: 5240 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-14 TRUSTEE KING: There was a little misunderstanding here. By code, if you have a permitted structure you can do ordinary repairs to it; you don't need a permit or anything, it's part of it. Like I said, there was a little miscommunication and it was actually resheathing in front with tongue and groove vinyl, so that requires an amendment to the original permit. So other than that it's pretty straightforward. It's a small bulkhead. And we're having a nonturf buffer placed behind it. Are there any dimensions on that buffer? I would say like a 15' nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a minimum width piece of property there. It backs up to the road, so I would go for a minimum size buffer because of that. TRUSTEE KING: Well, make it 10' then, 10' nonturf buffer. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. JON KERBS requests an Amendment to Permit #1951 to modify the existing docking facility to consist of a 30' by 3D" catwalk, an 8' by 30' ramp, a 67' by 4' floating dock, and I believe he has a floating dock there, and changing it to a catwalk, and a 48' by 4' floating dock with 6" pilings to support the existing catwalk. It's reducing the overall float structure out there as per DEC recommendations. Located: 440 Riley Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#143-5-10. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Kerbs is here if any of the Board has any questions. Basically he has the floating structures. This is what he has now; this is the catwalk part, and this is all float here, and what he wants to do is keep the catwalk part, replace the float and then this is catwalk, and then change the angle just a little bit. He wants to make -- Mr. Kerbs, you want that five feet? 7 Board of Trustees 8 April 19, 2006 MR. KERBS: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 48' by 5'. MR. KERBS: I'd like to have what the DEC asks for TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the drawing it says four, that's why we put four in here. MR. KERBS: This was my original permit from the Trustees going back in the '80s; that's what I have now is a 67' by 4' floating dock and a 48' by 4' floating dock, what I want to do is get rid of that 67' by 4' floating dock and make that a catwalk. But then what the DEC had suggested is just putting on this end here -- I think it's actually it was the DEC's -- that's what the DEC wanted me to do. What this is doing is that's getting rid of a 67' float and dock, but I would like -- this used to be 4', and I'm redoing it, that's why I'm going through this now. What was there on the end float was 4' by 48' and the DEC said I could make it 5' by 48' and this little 4' by 4' would give me stability, and by doing that whole thing I'm cutting down here 44 percent. I'm talking taking out 240' of floating dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good. MR. KERBS: I would ask, I'm still talking to the DEC, they asked me to use 4' by 4' posts and I was talking to them, and they suggested I use 4' by 4' floats, and I said the ice will pull them out. It took three months for them to say use an ice eater. Well, I went there today, and there's only a foot of water. You just can't use a ice eater. So I talked to one of the ladies there today who said you're absolutely right; I'm going to talk to the engineer and what we can do, that's not going to work. So I would like to do what you guys suggested, 6" pilings, which is fine. But I'll ask a question too, I've got right now, three big pilings there, and something that crossed my mind today, is there's about a 20' span between those pilings, and I don't know if you could use beams that would span 20 foot, but if I could and it would be strong enough, then I wouldn't have to go and put three new pilings in. It would be more restrictive on me but just so I don't have to come before you again. The DEC says every 8' two pilings. I'd like to just leave the three and add two more, then I wouldn't have to pull anything out. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The DEC is basing that on 4' by 4', MR. KERBS: Even that they're looking at the span. I think the most would be 10. TRUSTEE KING: Then out stretch it out with the bigger poles. MR. KERBS: If I left what was there and then just put one 8 Board of Trustees 9 April 19, 2006 on the other side, the only disturbance I would do in the whole creek would be putting three pilings in, but they would be bigger, if you wouldn't mind if I came back to you. TRUSTEE KING: That makes sense. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Why don't we approve this and if you get the DEC, come back and we'll amend it. MR. KERBS: I'd rather that for two reasons, one thing I don't disturb the creek and the other thing is it saves me from putting a whole bunch of pilings in, I only put in three. And what it is is there's not a real silt in there, years back I used to take 25 foot pieces of pipe and push them into mud the whole way, there's nothing there. So if I have pilings that are staying, I don't want to touch them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you want to start with 3' by 25' catwalk, 6" pilings instead of 4", and then 4' by 67' catwalk 3' by 10' ramp, 4' by 4' extension leading to a 5' by 48' -- MR. KERBS: Yes, just as the DEC asked for except for the pilings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve as DEC requests, I'll read, starting with a 3' by 25' catwalk, leading to a 4' by 67' catwalk, which is replacing the current floating docks there, to a 3' by 10' ramp with a 4' by 4' extension that's kind of overlapping so the ramp can go on that to a 5' by 48' float using 6" pilings. And he can come back for an amendment to rearrange the pilings if he has to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Amendment to Permit 6228 to authorize the replacement within 10.5" of one approximate 18 linear feet section of timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead, rather than res heath it on the landward side as originally proposed: Located: 555 & 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#87-3-2.1 and 60. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: After some site visit and a phone call to Rob, we solved the problem, we understood what was happening and I would make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BARBARA & 9 Board of Trustees 10 April 19, 2006 JOSEPH ISABELLA requests an Amendment to Permit 6222 for the installation of an upgraded sanitary system. Located: 1855 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#107-7-6 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. Rob, I just had a couple questions on the plan. MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann, En-Consultants, for the applicants. TRUSTEE KING: Are these new cesspools east of the house? If you look -- MR. HERMANN: Yes. There's an existing septic tank and pool really to the south of the house, and there's a new tank and two cesspools proposed farther landward. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought when I was there. TRUSTEE KING: That's basically out of our jurisdiction. MR. HERMANN: It basically is, but since the lines had to be dug from the house to the tank, and you issued a permit for the original work anyway, we'd rather be safe than sorry. TRUSTEE KING: That clarifies that. This is an improvement. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of STEVEN E. LOSQUADRO requests an Amendment to Permit #6279 to allow for the placement of 982 cubic yards of fill for the septic system, and the front portion of the lot. Located: 1150 Fanning Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-6-33 TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a project that we originally permitted conditional upon some changes on the east side of the property. And I am concerned because before this came to our attention tonight, they started work on this without permission on what they're asking for an amendment, moving a septic system. They started digging that. There was a stop work order and a citation issued. I know that the work they did do there as they dug they hit water, and that water did not dissipate over several days. I went and looked at this. There was standing water there. They ran into the same problem when they did the foundation for the house. I know the CAC discussed this and they have some concerns with this also, and I guess I have a real problem with this one right now. TRUSTEE KING: I do too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't have to approve this amendment tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We should wait for the court. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree, I think since this has been cited 10 Board of Trustees 11 April 19, 2006 by the bay constable that really it could be at this point we have to wait until the decision is made by the court regarding the citation. Brownell, is that something -- MR. JOHNSTON: That's a procedural thing that you've done in the past. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is not a public hearing, but I do want to allow you a chance to speak, but if you could make your comments brief. MR. JOHNSTON: David, I misheard what you had to say, the court normally waits for us to give them a recommendation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but we normally wait to do any kind of approval -- MR. JOHNSTON: Until the violation is resolved. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Just briefly, you issued a permit for the construction of the single-family residence and the construction of the septic system, that's the first thing that's important to know. The second thing that's important to know is that there is no stop work order. The third thing that's important to know is that this man was ticketed by John Desinkowski for installation of a septic system without a Trustee permit, which is completely false, I think it will be thrown out. The fourth thing to know, which I think is important, is the installation of the septic system is done pursuant to a permit issued by the Health Department and that permit requires as do, I'm going to say 10 out of 10, an excavation inspection. So I do Health Department work all the time, I know Mr. Hermann does and they all state excavation required. Now my understanding is upon excavation the Health Department made them backfill with clean sand, which is a proper thing to do when you're building a septic system. The dirt that you're looking is the dirt that's stripped from the septic area so that sand can be backfilled so that septic system can be properly sited on the lot. So there's no other way to do this other than the way it's done. Now, obviously there's someone down there complaining, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our problem with this, with this amendment that we looked at this week, the location of the septic system has changed. So it's the location of the septic, yes, it was approved with the previous permit, the septic was but under a different location, it was further in the corner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, I have the plan here, if you would like to step up and take a look you can see exactly what the problem is. 11 Board of Trustees 12 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Wasn't there fill brought in? MR. ANDERSON: There has to be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the original plan that was presented to us. Right in here is where they have dug, so they have moved it over. MR. ANDERSON: From where? TRUSTEE BERGEN: These plans were submitted, that were approved with permit, out of here you can see it's offset from the corner of the house and it's now -- MR. ANDERSON: I see what you're saying. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This field has been moved over here, and it's easy to tell because all you got to do is go out there and look where they dug the hole. MR. ANDERSON: You're saying the septic system was slid closer to the wetlands? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The whole septic system was moved farther to the east. They haven't planted it in the ground yet, but that's where they haven't dug the hole. MR. ANDERSON: Why not simply grant the permit amendment under the condition that the septic system be installed as originally applied for, same location. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We didn't have that in front of us. We went down and looked -- MR. ANDERSON: A hole. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right. A hole has been dug, the work was stopped by the bay constable. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Was there also fill brought in? MR. ANDERSON: My understanding was they had to excavate underneath there was boggy soil, so they removed that to bring sand in there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So again, that's not in the permit. MR. ANDERSON: But it's on my request for the amendment. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's already been done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The work was done prior to us approving it. MR. ANDERSON: I understand that, but you have to understand the mechanics of this -- MR. JOHNSTON: They dug it without a permit. MR. ANDERSON: Listen to me because this will happen constantly, because you will see excavation stamps that are placed on every Health Department permit for a septic system that you also regulate, and that call is made in the field by the Health Department employee. So when the Health Department employee says I want you to strip away the soil and backfill with clean sand, that's what you do and that's one of these things that will always be because that's how 12 Board of Trustees 13 April 19, 2006 you install a septic system. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that happens 10 out of 10 times? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Whenever they build a cesspool, they have to -- MR. ANDERSON: If they encounter unsuitable soil, upon inspection -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're saying that's 10 out of 10 times? MR. ANDERSON: You'll see an excavation stamp on the map on any Health Department permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bringing in new fill? That's the question I'm asking. MR. ANDERSON: The answer is you won't see it on the approval, the call is made in the field at the time the Health Inspector arrives. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I built three houses and every one of the houses never had any fill put in. MR. ANDERSON: You probably had good soil. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Absolutely, and I think that's the case in many cases. MR. ANDERSON: If you go back and look at your Health Department permit when you built those three houses, you will see that there was a stamp on there requiring an inspection at excavation. And it just so happened at the houses that you built, you probably had good sandy soil, this one didn't. That's all we're talking about. So as a housekeeping measure, we put in a permit to account for that fill. So I think it's been done properly. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It appeared to us that the land by the road was at least a foot or two higher than it was all across the front of the property, that was our concern, and the cesspool was moved and there was no permit for any of that. MR. ANDERSON: Your site plan shows you the grade that was approved anyway. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you're coming in for more fill. MR. ANDERSON: As a result of having to put the sand underneath the septic. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, was any material taken off site? MR. ANDERSON: I don't think so. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There are piles of top soil, there are three of them around. MR. ANDERSON: We're talking about taking the soil and the septic, stripping it away and backfilling with sand, that's what we're talking about. So that the septic system operates properly. Now, if the fellow puts the cement 13 Board of Trustees 14 April 19, 2006 system in the wrong place, that's a different animal. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Now the septic system was going to be elevated, I take it? MR. ANDERSON: The septic system was always 8.1 feet, that's what your grades show on the site plan that you approved on January 18th. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's still going to be 8? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, in order to get the separation of groundwater, yes. First floor elevation of the house is at 10. TRUSTEE KING: I recollect that lot being, the elevation of that lot, the entire lot is much lower than it is now, a lot of fill must have been brought in there, and I don't remember any request for fill to be brought in. MR. ANDERSON: We put in that request to clarify but the result of the fill is the result -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, the fill was brought in, will you agree with that? MR. ANDERSON: This is what you approved. MR. JOHNSTON: Bruce, what was your answer to John's question? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Bruce, was fill brought in? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you know approximately how much? MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't. We put in our application 982. TRUSTEE KING: Previous to this? MR. ANDERSON: No, we did not. But it did show in the elevation that was approved. TRUSTEE KING: How did the elevation of that lot get raised by so much? I'm talking about the lot, not the septic system. MR. ANDERSON: This is the front area here. You asked us to grade back from the phragmites, which was done, and what you're seeing is some grading around the house, and you're seeing the raising of the grade in the septic area, which is required by proper design septic because you don't want to put the septic system in groundwater. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, I guess some phantom came in there and raised the whole lot two feet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's our problem. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I see, that lot was about two feet lower than the paved highway, now it's flush with it; how did that happen? MR. ANDERSON: If you're going to properly -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is the permit to do it? MR. ANDERSON: I put that in as an amendment. 14 Board of Trustees 15 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The work was done prior to the amendment being ruled on. MR. ANDERSON: As a result of the Health Department inspection. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All you had to do is say you wouldn't proceed until you get a permit from the Trustees. MR. ANDERSON: Alii have to do? I'm not a contractor. I am trying to explain to you what happened. With that having happened, we put in the amendment. There was never a stop work order, and he's being charged with installing a septic system without Trustee permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not a septic system. MR. ANDERSON: That's what the ticket says, what's what the appearance ticket says that's going to be thrown out. MR. JOHNSTON: Then they will issue another one. MR. ANDERSON: He can issue all he wants but the point is to resolve this through this process and I think we've done that. Why would we not approve it is the question? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The amendment being applied for strictly has to do with the placement of fill? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Not movement of septic? MR. ANDERSON: I have no knowledge of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the septic field, while it hasn't been installed, the hole that was dug for it is not in the location as per the plans that had been approved with the original permit. The two surveys had two different locations. MR. ANDERSON: But they're very close, you're talking about the guy with a backhoe here. You're talking five or six feet, on a fellow with a backhoe that's not a big difference who is removing fill so that permeable material is replaced. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then everybody can build a house five or six feet away. You're saying five feet is nothing; to us it's very important. MR. ANDERSON: We're talking about an excavation of an area so it can be backfilled with sand. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's not clear to us, that's the problem, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: We made the application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: After the fact is what we're trying to say. MR. ANDERSON: We were alerted that there was a problem with fill, so we made the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion that the 15 Board of Trustees 16 April 19, 2006 application be tabled until after the court date so we can see what the court does. MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The court date is May 19th. MS. STANDISH: The court waits for us. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. But we can do something in between. MR. JOHNSTON: Why don't you just table it until the next meeting? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would amend my motion that we table this until the next meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next meeting is the 17th, the court date is the 19th. MR. JOHNSTON: Don't tie it to the court date. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I amend my motion that this be tabled until the next meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you're going to move the cesspool, you might want to bring in new diagrams showing where they're going to be. If you're not going to move them, fine. MR. HERMANN: John, sometimes when I'm up here, John Costello -- for the record, Rob Hermann, I have no interest in this application other than watching two people talk past each other. What Bruce is saying is what happens on these applications is that the Health Department requires an excavation. It isn't going to necessarily be the case that you are going to need to bring in fill, they just need to check in the field whether that will in fact be the case. Once the contractor has dug a hole and they have encountered unsuitable soil, they are required, while the Health Department inspector is there in order to get an approval, to take that material out and immediately bring in clean sand and fill a hole. Otherwise, you would have a giant hole in the yard. This Board probably doesn't see an amendment that often because in most cases, nobody would come back to the Board and say, oh, by the way, we had to bring in X number of yards of fill to put in the hole, so you would never see it. But here there was a citation issued. But in my experience when these citations are issued, the court just sends the applicant back here to resolve the issue with you, which is what Bruce has done. So if you table this, again, it's no bearing in my life, but the court's just going to say, you have to go back to the Trustees. So you're going to be sitting here having 16 Board of Trustees 17 April 19, 2006 this exact same conversation next month. Bruce is going to say everything he said tonight and nothing is going to change. The Health Department required the removal of unsuitable soil and the trucking in of fill to fill that hole. So if there's a problem with the cesspools moving or some other fill to raise the lot, that's another issue, but if your focus is only on this issue, there's nothing the Board is going to accomplish by putting this off. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, our problem -- and I think I'm speaking for everybody -- is that we saw that the land across the whole front of the property had been raised a substantial amount, which appears to us as fill. MR. HERMANN: Which is a different story. I just want to address so you understand through an uninterested party the issue of the fill in the hole. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That I can deal with, I understand the -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is an opportunity now for discussions over the next month between ourselves and the representatives for Losquadro to see if we can resolve this for a meeting that is scheduled for prior to the court date. MR. ANDERSON: What are we resolving? TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point there's been a motion made and approved, and I say we move on. 6. Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of PAT & BART JOHNSON request an Amendment to Permit #6201 to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling 75' from the concrete wall, rather than 66' as originally approved. Located: 860 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM#37-5-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is moving the house farther away from the shoreline. This won't be anything but an improvement. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: We had some postponements I should have let everyone know at the beginning. Number 4, Kevin and Susan Ferrell has been postponed until May; 11, George and Sandra Engelke has been postponed; 17, Manzi Homes; 18, Don Jayamaha; 19 has been postponed; 20 and 21 have been postponed. If there's anybody here that sat through them already, I'm sorry, I apologize. We will take a five minute break now. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to make a motion to go off the 17 Board of Trustees 18 April 19, 2006 regular hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: These are the public hearings section of our meeting. Please keep your comments brief, if you can. We want your input and we want to listen to you, but we don't want to go on forever. VII. 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 1. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of TERRY & FRANCIS TRIADES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 120 linear feet of timber retaining wall and backfill blown-out face with approximately 2,000 cubic yards of clean sand to be obtained partially from recovered blowout material and partially trucked in from an upland source and replanted with beach grass, Rugosa Rose and Bayberry. Located: 2505 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#94-1-12.2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. This is a project that the Board reviewed back in 1998. Jim, I think you may be the only Board member that was a signature on that permit at this point. The project was never undertaken. It was supposed to have been undertaken shortly after the Mally retaining wall was constructed to its east, a project for which this Board also issued a permit. There has been continued toe scour, and a loss of some of the gabion material that the Board in 1998 had originally requested act as the toe armor for this structure, and during the severe rains last fall, there was also significant top-down slough off of material that you can see came down and over the top of the bulkhead to the east, 18 Board of Trustees 19 April 19, 2006 and between the scour from the bottom and the runoff from the top, there is a definitive swale that sort of looks like a meteor hit this site that overlaps on to the Mally property to the east. So what has been proposed, although the structure now will be further landward of what the Board had originally approved, is a retaining wall to seal the gap between the two adjoining structures to the east and west, to refill the entire area that has been blown out, and then to plant it with beach grass, Bayberry and Rosa Rugosa. Because of the partial overlap onto the Mally property to the east, we obtained consent from Ingrid Mally, who I don't know if she or Bob Fondorfer are here tonight, but they have been active proponents to get this done as they have been pushing for the Triadeses to do this for seven or eight years. They had expected them to do it after they completed their project a long time ago. The only other structural or design difference from what the Board approved previously is that the structure would now extend onto that easterly property to tie into the face of the Mally wall, which did not go up to the mutually shared property line. You can see the return extends back to the property line on an angle, but the face does not come up to the property line. So, again, there is overlap there now, hence the request for the longer structure, and the need for the Mally authorization letter, which was prepared, signed and submitted, should be in your file. If the Board has any questions, I had corresponded previously with Heather about this, who mentioned also the idea of implementing some sort of a nonturf buffer at the top of the bluff. I would agree that would be a good idea in terms of mitigating over the long term some of the problem that would occur from top-down run off. This is one of these sites in Mattituck where you get a one-two punch of the toe scour at the bottom you have clay subsurface layers here, and when you get that kind of rain that we had last October for nine days or whatever it was, the turf does not absorb the water the way a more natural area would where there would be shrubs with root systems that would hold the material and at some point you get so much water that sits on that clay level, it actually blows out the bluff and you have a combination of both things happening here. One is a little bit more spectacular and a little bit more of an evulsive event, the other is a little more chronic and occurs over a long period of time. If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The pictures here show that there 19 Board of Trustees 20 April 19, 2006 was a gabion down there at the bottom, or appears to have been. MR. HERMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was part of something previously permitted? MR. HERMANN: There is a concrete wall and gabion structure behind it that seemed to be constructed on both parcels in the past, and it's been eight years, but I think we explored this with the Board last time, and I don't think there was ever records of any permits on it, but the Board felt at the time that since it was there and they would otherwise probably request toe armor to just build the retaining wall landward of the gabion structure, and let the gabion act as toe armor as opposed to taking all that material away, and then trucking in new material from the outside just to accomplish the same purpose. Some of that material has been torn up in the past eight years from the bottom up corrosive action of the sound, so I don't know what the Board's pleasure is going to be on that. Because the Triadeses still have a valid DEC permit for this that we're modifying for the extension, we've tried to keep everything much the same as the DEC and this Board approved previously, but if there are changes in design that you think would be smarter or a better idea now given a number of years have passed, we certainly would consider them. And I know the idea that the nonturf buffer at the top and toe armor at the wall are both things the Board wants to see and I think they're good ideas. As I said, we can certainly work with those ideas and amend the plans accordingly. I don't have any problem with them. We just wanted to approach them sort of keeping things as much the same as possible. MR. HERMANN: You can do three things, David; you can ask for the gabion material and that concrete wall be completely removed and bring in new capstone tow armor; you can ask for that material to be left there and have capstone tow armor come in just to shore it up, or you can just leave it alone as was indicated on the prior permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I don't have a problem with using that if it's going to be useful material for you to help defray the costs and get the job done. It's just that I'm looking at the pictures here, and so what you're asking for is a bulkhead, either the material that's there that was a gabion and concrete, whether it was a wall or whatever, has to be moved out so the bulkhead can go from one side to the other, or the bulkhead's got to go inside of it so that it actually 20 Board of Trustees 21 April 19, 2006 goes from return to return. MR. HERMANN: Correct, that's what it would be. I don't think there's an implementation problem on the construction site in terms of putting that wall in. All that fill material that's coming down has to be moved. That wasn't a problem previously, but again, that was from the blow-out from the rains, has nothing to do with the toe scour. It's Figure 3 I think shows it most clearly from the pictures that were submitted. If you look in Figure 2, what I honestly can't recall is the section of gabion in the section of bulkhead to the west, I don't know if that was always there or if that got physically shifted from the Triadeses' site to the west. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The whole thing just shifted? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. How were you planning to have access to this site to do this work down here? MR. HERMANN: Through Bailey Beach Road. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, the way the application stands now are you armoring the bulkhead at all or just putting it beyond? MR. HERMANN: Just-- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Willing to armor it. I do think it says that on the code, that any bulkhead on the sound should be toe armored. I know what your feelings were eight years ago, but I didn't know what they were now in terms of using that gabion material. If you don't have a problem with it, we'll supplement it, if you would like to see it removed from the -- I think we should put the buffer and the toe armoring, and you can use the materials that are there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak? TRUSTEE KING: Is there any kind of plan that shows the area where the plantings are going to be done? MR. HERMANN: Yes. There's both on the plan view and the cross view, those areas are indicated and there are specs in terms of size, densities and species, which is just the standard fare for that area. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record were those reviewed by Heather? MS. CUSACK: Yes, it's here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP found this to be consistent. The CAC requested that this application be tabled pending a recommendation from an engineer. We had also discussed the opportunity for an engineer to come in and -- correct me if I'm wrong, any Members of the Board -- what we were 21 Board of Trustees 22 April 19, 2006 concerned with is what to do with the top -- not the bottom, but what to do with the top, because what's happened is this has blown out to such an extent as you mentioned and we saw, it actually concaves under there. If you walk out to that turf, you would collapse. I'd also strongly recommend somebody put some barricades up there because I almost did. MR. HERMANN: That area, I think that would basically be resolved. I don't know what an engineer would have to do with that, that's really from a landscape planning perspective, but that would certainly be sliced and that turf would be completely removed, and whether it's 15 feet or whatever, all of that turf would have to be cut and removed and replanted. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just to ask this again, I may have missed it. What prevents this from doing the same thing? What prevents it from sliding in the next downpour since these are not mature plants? MR. HERMANN: Ultimately good luck. I mean that's part of I think Heather's point in terms of doing some sort of nonturf plantings at the top because that's the only thing that can help prevent it. When you create -- and I know the Board has struggled with this for years with properties all across here, now your code has changed to help you deal with it -- when these lots are clear cut and you remove the shrubs and the vines and the trees, you're taking out these massive root systems and you're just bringing in top soil and putting down grass, which has a very minimal root system and doesn't hold water very well. So the only way to correct that is to try to roll that back to some extent to replace that turf back with material that can absorb the water number one, and hold the soil number two. But Peggy, if all this work were done say next fall and we had a hurricane or some sort of storm that hit this the wrong way, you would lose it. But they don't have any choice, that's sort of the peril of living there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I've seen this plan done with some sort of mesh work, is that something that helps? MR. HERMANN: It is and there are all sorts of products now. There's core, which is coconut fiber, blankets, straw blankets, it depends on the landscape contractor. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But does that help? MR. HERMANN: It does help, especially if it's hydroseeded in addition to this. We're showing beach grass being planted, but sometimes I know Peter Sterling will do a hydroseeding of rye or some sort of cool season turf grass 22 Board of Trustees 23 April 19, 2006 that will come up right away, and sort of hold the material in place to allow the larger specimens to take hold. Unfortunately, and I've heard this discussed in the Ferrell application, it comes down to a choice of landscape contractors; if it's somebody that's looking to save money and a crappy job is done, it's not going to work. But if a good landscape contractor is hired and they do it the right way, which is how we design it, then it should work. But you're right, if you had another evulsive event, potentially you could lose it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: See, one of the questions I had as to whether or not maybe a consultant would be good in this case is, I'm not sure if just what you're applying for is the best way to go, in other words, bringing in fill and filling in this gully; or if somebody would say from an engineering perspective the best thing to do is to cut back the lip, do that, plus bring the lip back a certain number of feet, and do a nonturf buffer so you can take care of the drainage issue that's critical. That was the question we had looking at it is whether or not that lip's got to come back a number of feet. MR. HERMANN: Well, I don't think you need an outside consultant to figure that out. If part of this project were to be modified to put in a nonturf buffer, part of that crest would have to be shaved back and I can't tell you off the cuff how many feet because once they start bringing in fill, some of that material is going to slough itself, it always does. You're dealing with a lot of earthen material and once you are it will tend to move in a way that strikes a stable angle of repose. But if it doesn't, I understand what you're saying is part of it is to actually slice that top of off, and let that material act as part of your fill material. And if you want to see that here, I don't see a problem with it because it's going to happen anyway. That lip isn't going to hold on once that material is brought on, it's going to slough, it has to. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question is I don't know how much of that is going to happen, but we don't have the answer. MR. HERMANN: You can get a $500 an hour engineer to tell you, and it won't be quite right once they do the work. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is just an informational question, when we were up at another spot down a little bit there were dry wells maybe 10 feet off the edge of the bluff, first time I've seen that, and there was a hole, you know, with pipe 23 Board of Trustees 24 April 19, 2006 going down, and it carried the water it appears -- MR. HERMANN: Not helping the situation. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was just a question. Moving the water further back the pressure isn't as much? MR. HERMANN: All they're doing -- I mean I'm not a geologist and I don't know the make-up of the subsurface soils of this area enough, but I've been around it enough to know in Mattituck that you do get those areas where you have a clay layer, and it saturates. And if you're pumping water in a dry well right on down onto that layer that much faster, and going to saturate that much faster and it's going to blowout. It's not a good idea to have dry wells that close. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question from Don from the CAC perspective here given what's been discussed, would you be comfortable with what we've talked about, that it could be that some of that lip is going to go and letting that happen as it naturally would? MR. WilDER: As much as I know, it sounds like a good plan. What I was thinking of is there a body of knowledge out there of best practices for bluffs? I don't know if it's out there or not. TRUSTEE KING: Don't clear to the edge and plant sod. MR. HERMANN: NSRC actually has booklets that they put out. We have them in our office. They talk about all these very things. It's not rocket science. All the ideas that Heather's mentioned and you've mentioned, it's all sort of the typical, in what he's saying the body of knowledge, they're sort of the rules of thumb. And sometimes we come in from a design end and do that, and other times we get feedback and see who wants what. It's just more efficient. But everything you're bringing up, I mean, it's right, if it's done properly that's the way it should be done, and I don't think there are problems. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. If there's nothing else, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? All AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd like to make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Terry and Francis Triades with the following stipulations here: First off, as far as the armoring goes at the bottom of the bulkhead, that you have permission to use what was there and then supplement it with armoring as needed; that there is a nonturf buffer at the top of 15 feet; and I'd also like to recommend that mesh be used in conjunction with the plantings to help with the stabilization of that bluff while 24 Board of Trustees 25 April 19, 2006 the plants become mature and the root systems become mature. MR. HERMANN: Put it in, Lauren, as erosion control matting and that will cover it because I don't know what specific material they would use. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Included in the motion is the planting plan is adhered to as submitted. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS PERILLO, SR. requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 114 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall to be armored with 1-3 ton stone armor; place approximately 200 cubic yards of clean sand fill on bluff face landward of retaining wall; and plant bluff face with cape American Beach Grass 12" on center and Rugosa Rose and Bayberry (two gallon, 3' on center). Located: 360 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann from En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Pretty similar project to the one we just discussed here. There is a plantings plan in place for the bluff face. Here we have proposed 1 to 3 ton stone toe armor as we just discussed on the prior application. I need to submit for the record a letter from the Honeysuckles Hills Property Owner's Association giving the applicants authorization to work in this area. On the record, I'd like to thank the association, Ron and Peter McGreevey were very helpful in expediting, if you will, getting letter so we could be heard tonight. Again, it's pretty straightforward as far as these projects go on the sound because again, you've got a situation where you have adjacent existing structures on both sides, and this project would seal the gap in between. We did get a comment back from the DEC that would appear to indicate that the project is approvable, but they are asking for the structure to be moved several feet landward so that it ties into the landward end of each return. Now, Jim, it creates a slight angle, which I know you're not always that fond of. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Did they give you a reason, Rob? TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this with Mr. Hamilton before we 25 Board of Trustees 26 April 19, 2006 had our field inspection. MR. HERMANN: It was Chuck who looked at this? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was Chuck. We went out there together, and he said he wanted it from the landward end of the return. MR. HERMANN: That's the letter we got. If you're on board with that, I've already discussed that with Mr. Perillo and he's fine with that. There is not going to be as much fill proposed on this project. We have to come back a certain distance as you see on the cross view. We are coming up a certain portion of the bluff face. It's an area that's stripped of vegetation; it hasn't really been collapsed as catastrophically as some of these other sites. So I know that some of the neighbors have been after Tom to do this for a long time, and he's almost waited too long but not quite. So we would be happy to change the plan. If they will make the DEC and the Town happy. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about mesh fabric? MR. HERMANN: There is a planting plan. And I'll start noting on the plans that some sort of erosion control matting will be used. TRUSTEE KING: This is a much smaller area. MR. HERMANN: It may not be necessary, but as I say, if you get a good landscape contractor to do it, they would probably use it anyway, and usually DEC's permit conditions typically allow for the use of that even if it's not called out in the plans. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Yes, sir? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes, Jim. Ron McGreevey, I'm the neighbor to the east of Mr. Perillo, and I'd like to see this thing approved because I've had my fingers crossed for years that it didn't get hit because it acts like a venturi, it sucks everything out. Getting back to the geotech everybody's talking about, the bluffs just bulge out underneath it, you can look on the beach and see that, that's all. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Any other comments? I'll make a notion 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 that the bulkhead is moved landward, and it connects to the landward end of the return to the east and to the west, and it's to be armored with stone. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 26 Board of Trustees 27 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. Costello Marine Contracting, Corp. on behalf of SHEILA PATEL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to add additional 6' by 6' upper stringer to existing bulkhead. Face exterior surface of bulkhead with one-quarter HDPE sheets. Bolster entire bulkhead, 146.5' with 1-2 ton rocks to prevent toe scour and minimize beach loss in the future. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#51-4-5.1 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr. representing Mrs. Patel. This is similar to an application that was before you, the Board in 2001. And that was about an eighth of a mile east of this location and the homeowners were Karacosta and Ciatellis. It was granted permission to bolster those two bulkheads with rock and my access was from offshore, and this is a similar situation. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against? Does the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only question I had from the site visit was how was access going to be gained. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And he just said by offshore. MR. COSTELLO: Unfortunately offshore. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the rocks will be brought on a barge and off-loaded? MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Sheila Patel as I read earlier. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to mention the past two are consistent with LWRP. WETLAND PERMITS 1. RICHARD DEMOTT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 44' fixed open walkway, 4' by 16' hinged ramp, and a 6' by 20' floating dock, and two 2-pile dolphins to secure the floating dock. Located: 5380 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was a permit that we opened the 27 Board of Trustees 28 April 19, 2006 hearing and then tabled it last month. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? Is there anybody here to speak on that application? If not, the question the Board had last month on the reason it was tabled was we did not have an LWRP submitted. We do have an LWRP recommendation of it being inconsistent. I'm quickly looking at their reasoning here. All the standard issues that they have. It looks like one is doesn't enhance the visual quality of the area, placement of this dock, and the feeling was that the visual quality of the resources will be impaired. Need for the dock is unsubstantiated. It's in a creek, a critical environmental area; it's a long document so stand by. Those are the main issues. In summary, the proposed action is within a significant fish habitat. The construction methods and timber have not been identified; and the application does not propose mitigation to the areas impacted through the construction of dock using best management practices. If there are no other comments I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, and it does have on the plans CCA posts, it doesn't have any other CCA here, so just confirming there is no other CCA used other than the posts. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought when we were out in the field we noted that this dock was shorter than the existing docks, and it's much smaller in scale than the other existing. TRUSTEE KING: As you go south they get smaller. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: I think the water depth gets less as you go south. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this wasn't even going out as far as the ones to the south. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that area spartina could be planted around there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, his property wasn't, it's the property next door that you walk down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That area is pretty well vegetated as I recall. These are winter time pictures so it's hard to tell, but you see a lot matted down, which would indicate that spartina's there, it's just matted down because it hasn't grown yet for this year. Here are those two stakes. 28 Board of Trustees 29 April 19, 2006 Is there a Second to my motion? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. PETER & SONIA PANAGOPOULOS request a Wetland Permit to construct a retaining wall 25' from the top of the bluff. Located: 1310 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM#30-2-70 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: If you have any questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe that the Building Department requests them to do some sort of wall. We all went out and looked at this, and we agreed that something needs to be done. We also would like to see along that wall a French drain -- MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Peter Panagopoulos. I spoke to Heather about it. It's not finished the house, so -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In constructing the wall, we would like to see on your side of the property along the wall a French drain. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: In other words, a dry well? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No we'd like to see the dry wells for the house and the roof runoff for the house. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right, due to the construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You haven't done that yet? Okay. A French drain you dig the earth along that wall and you fill it back in with certain materials. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: A valley like? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and you fill it back in with certain materials. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right. You see the sketch from the Department of Buildings, the engineer drew that and it was a question at the time it was supposed to be along the residence, but then the Department of Buildings wanted to go farther, so they do have that, that's in the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you plan on doing the French drain along that wall? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the dry wells? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes. The dry wells are going to be mostly for the roof, the gutters tie them altogether. MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: That's not our final grading, we haven't done it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: Once it's done my engineer is going to 29 Board of Trustees 30 April 19, 2006 do a final analysis of his own to make sure there is no runoff, but we are not done, that's why the gutters aren't up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. We just want to make sure it's in the plans and in addition to the dry wells containing the roof runoff, we would like to see the French drain along that wall to contain all the water. The whole property slopes that way, and we feel it would be better drainage if that is done from the property. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Yes, using the plan that was submitted with the Department of Buildings. MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: It's not in the survey. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What you added to the building, we're going to add to our permit. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Would you like me to get a copy to give to you? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: It shows only along the residence, but it will continue because the same line on the border line, but it will continue then since we have to go farther, it will go the same way. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We can write it in the permit and that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for or against this application? MS. CUSACK: Jill, just one thing that to keep the buffer along the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, okay, thank you. LWRP finds this consistent and CAC approval with the condition to construct retaining wall 25 feet -- the wall and final grade are designed to contain all the runoff, which that's what we were just discussing. Any other comments from the Board? Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. THE TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the request to construct a retaining wall 25 feet from the top of the bluff 25' from the top of the bluff along the east side of the property with a French drain along that wall, and to also to note that the gutters and leaders will be put into a dry well as they complete the project. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the buffer, there's a nice buffer you have on the property and we'd like to keep that 25' nonturf buffer, no disturbance, no pulling out. We just like to mention that and make sure. 30 Board of Trustees 31 April 19, 2006 MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right, if I maybe may ask one question, my neighbor which is how this all started because all lots west of my property, they are all sloping down, it's natural grass was planted, and there's no problem, you know, just it's worse now. There was changes apparently from someone at the time, the person today that complains and I had to put the wall along - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just interrupt you, first, let's finish this motion. Do I have a second on that motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, go ahead. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: The gentleman complain this is how started the whole wall, it's pitching towards my property, which actually from the residence to the border line I have only 10 feet, and he's pitching me because he have changed elevations at the time he bought the property next to it between my residence and his. So this way nobody will build there. Now he's pitching about 90 feet of water right onto where our retaining wall will be. Now, is there anything that I could do or because I asked the inspector, and he just didn't want to touch it or comment on that? MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: We have a letter from the engineer verifying that, by the way. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: He's pitching 90 feet of water which eventually is going to go into my basement because I'm only 10 feet away from his fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you're saying that that one's pitching back towards you? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: He's pitching 90 feet of water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the west side? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: No, the east side. That all slopes down this way and there's no problem, but I was forced to put a wall there, but my question is that he's pitching 90 feet of water towards my property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the east side he's coming down. MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Right. From the east side of my residence but he's east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you talked to him about this? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: No. We started with a lot of problems in the beginning. First he wanted to buy me out, then he was complaining about a container that we had for tools; he collected signatures and the problem continues, that's why I want to do the wall, and I'm hoping that will stop there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this will alleviate some of the 31 Board of Trustees 32 April 19, 2006 problem. MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: The question my engineer had had, this isn't our final grading, so we might have to end up eventually having to redo everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you come back to us for an amendment. MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: It's a very costly project, even though it looks like it's finished. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we could tell that you weren't done. MRS. PANAGOPOULOS: And my engineer wrote a letter and stated that once we were done there will not be any runoff. It's kind of building -- we're doing the icing on the cake, my engineer said, before you put the cake in, and we're doing it. We just don't want to go to the trouble of going to attorneys. It's kind of strange that we have to go through this process, and in reality my engineer also wrote that he is actually going towards us. And when I did ask the Building Department, they said it's too bad because he already did his house already. So do we have to hire attorneys? MR. PANAGOPOULOS: I want to thank you very much for your time. 3. CHARLES & LYNN HILL request a Wetland Permit to construct a 6' by 26' addition on the north side of the dwelling, 6' by 26' deck, and a 26' by 20' detached garage on the south side of property. Located: 655 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#80-3-20. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment on this application? We all looked at this, this was down on Reydon Shores, little house, pretty straightforward, small addition which is unusual today. It is consistent with the LWRP. So, if there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. CAC recommended approval and they want a condition nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. I discussed that with the applicant and I told them usually when they replace the bulkhead that's when we make them do a nonturf, and he expects to do that within a year or two. I hate to force them to do it, and then have to redo it. Any other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 32 Board of Trustees 33 April 19, 2006 4. MARY RAYNOR requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the first and second floors of the existing dwelling within the existing footprint. Located: 575 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MRS. RAYNOR: Mary Raynor, I have the affidavits. I didn't get the cards back but on the cover letter I sent with the application, I gave a little explanation saying that that was a summer home since 1950 and we wanted to renovate it and make it our year round home. We're in the process of going before the Board of Appeals. We've already moved in the west side two feet to allow more room between ourselves and our neighbor. And we voluntarily cut off the front part of the deck closest to the water so we could have a little deck outside of our kitchen. And I guess that's alii have to say. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to try to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this, Mary, and I was very happy with the plans especially that you did shorten that front deck a little bit. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for or against this application? MS. HANDS: I would like to speak for it also. I have seen Mary's plans, and they're beautiful, and we're looking forward to being neighbors. Dolores Hands, neighbor to the east. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's also a couple of letters in here To Whom it may Concern, the first one says that you have been outstanding members in our small but very significant beach community, and there's one from -- they're all good. In favor of . . . They will add to the beauty of our lovely community, very nice. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council also approves, consistent with the LWRP. Again, I just wanted to compliment the shortening of the only area that was anywhere near 100 feet, it's the deck which is going to be shortened. I would like for hay bales to be -- is that bayberries along the front by the deck? MRS. RAYNOR: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just a line of hay bales, I think the neighbor three houses to the east had that when they did their construction, and gutters and dry wells. I will make 33 Board of Trustees 34 April 19, 2006 a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to renovate the first and second floors of the existing dwelling within the existing footprint, that gutters and dry wells be added, and also I want to make a comment that this house is consistent with the adjourning neighbors. They're all right in line with one another. And that hay bales be placed along the bayberry line on the seaward side of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Swim King Pools on behalf of JAMES ORIOLl & SUSAN MAGG ORIOLl requests a Wetland Permit to install a 20' by 40' in-ground swimming pool. Located: 495 Hall's Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#116-7-4 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I should point out before we start that survey has been changed. The project has been slightly changed upon our recommendations. It was moved 10 feet closer to the house further from the wetlands and that diagram is now in our records. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against this application? MR. ARNOFF: Harvey Arnott, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York on behalf of the applicant. Good evening, I've given Mr. King a letter from the DEC just for your informational purposes. As you know, there was a violation involving some removal of trees. DEC has issued a warning letter saying just don't do it again. They're not taking any action in regard to that, and I thought that the Board should be aware that it's a closed issue as far as the DEC is concerned. That letter is dated March 31st and signed by Karen Graulich. My client is here and really would like to break ground in the somewhat near future if that's possible and wanted to know what questions the Board might have as to the application. I know you've been down there several times. By the way, I should let everyone know I did call the DEC and hoped to get a coordinated review; they refused to show up at the same time you were there, but they did come anyway. In that regard, I would invite any questions you may have. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't think we have questions. It was just the one thing I think I had asked was a cross-section; in other words, the land slopes a foot and a half or two feet maybe from one end of the pool to the other, and there didn't seem to be any walls or anything holding, flattening that surface up. MR. ORIOL!: On the left side I basically showed where the-- 34 Board of Trustees 35 April 19, 2006 the bottom left, I drew a little side-view where the driveway is with the negative slope going down to the buffer zone. Then just taking steps, dropping that in the beginning, and the pool is obviously going to be level, and there will be a one foot drop towards that buffer zone. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The other question was the backwash? MR. ORIOLl: It's going into the dry well, which is above the 100 foot mark. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's the dry well that's marked out there? MR.ORIOLl: That's correct TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's for the pool. MR. ORIOLl: That's correct. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Those are the questions I think we have; does anybody have any other questions? TRUSTEE KING: You got a warning letter from the DEC, did you require a permit from them? MR. ORIOLl: Only because of the clearing. TRUSTEE KING: Because of the clearing? MR. ORIOLl: Exactly. MR. ARNOFF: There's a letter of nonjurisdiction also. TRUSTEE KING: Has the catamaran been removed from the area of nondisturbance? MR. ORIOLl: It will be. MR. JOHNSTON: The answer is no. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I might also comment that the CAC didn't look at this project and that the LWRP found this a consistent action. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He goes to court on the 21 st of this month. MR. ORIOLl: I think we wanted to get it as close as possible. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For clearing the trees. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: DEC gave them a letter but we still have our -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we approve it and not give him a permit? MR. JOHNSTON: You can approve it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not give them the approval and not give them the permit until after the court date? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we're talking about is there's a violation out by the Trustees, and I think according to our rules and regulations, we can't issue a permit if there's an outstanding violation. MR. ORIOLl: The pool's not in DEC's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're talking about the violation with the 35 Board of Trustees 36 April 19, 2006 trees with the Trustee office. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the Town. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had a couple comments, John. I would also recommend because of the proximity to the buffer, use hay bales and silt screen. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Absolutely. MR. ORIOLl: I guess last time we agreed. When we did the house it had to be there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we're talking about is the violation, and do we want to deal with that at this point, also? In a sense do we want to replant the trees? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was thinking of replanting along that buffer line. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that would be our recommendation to the Town? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I would like to see, the trees that were removed be replanted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or can he do some other plantings besides taller. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me explain what's happening, Harvey. There is a violation out there. That has to be settled. The justice will wait until our comments to settle it. We have to make some sort of statement to them. Our statement is to replant the trees. That will be based on the application that you have in front of us will go forward with the idea that hay bales are put in, all of that, and that there will be a replanting to get rid of the violation so the application can go ahead. We're not going to give you the permit until the violation is settled, but our comments to the justice department is going to be replant trees in that area. MR. ARNOFF: Does that mean we have to wait until the next meeting? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, not at all. MR. JOHNSTON: If they approve it with those conditions you won't. MR. ARNOFF: That was my question. MR. JOHNSTON: That was my answer. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm trying to explain, that's what we want to do. MR. ARNOFF: If, for example, the Board votes and approves it and we resolve it on Friday, then we can get a permit on Monday? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Maybe Tuesday. 36 Board of Trustees 37 April 19, 2006 MR. JOHNSTON: One second, Harvey, do you want it planted before or a planting plan? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, they can't plant in a day. I'm going to make a motion. MR. ORIOL!: There's going to be landscaping going on. I really wouldn't want to do it now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It makes sense to do it with the project. I'm going to make a motion that we approve the application, hay bales will be placed between the pool and the wetlands to protect any siltation going down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I interrupt that? We mentioned hay bales right at the road, at the nondisturbance buffer. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The road, the fake paper road that's there, that will be where the hay bale line will be. Secondly, that trees will be replanted, do we want to make a size? On just Heather's recommendation? MS. CUSACK: Six inch, something like that. Do you want to specify what was taken out? Oak trees I think. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Based on Heather's recommendation; is that okay? Four to six inch. MR. ARNOFF: Fine. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want to say how many? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We'll say four, we'll say the same number. We have hay bales, we have a replacement of trees, and the dry well will be placed as in the diagram and that the trees will be planted as the work is being done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And planted along the buffer line? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Approximately where the trees were taken out of, approximately. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was my question, do you want them where they were taken from, which is where the pool was going to be, or do you want them along that buffer line? TRUSTEE KING: Landward edge of that buffer is where the trees were removed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The landward edge of the buffer. Just so there's no problems, the trees will be placed plus or minus 10 feet within -- the pool is now 75 feet away from the upland wetlands, and the trees will be placed somewhere around the 30-35 foot mark between the pool and the upland mark. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not changing anything, I'm just saying that my concern is to replace four that were removed, but they can be to the perimeter of your property, so they're not smack in front of your view. I'm just clarifying. 37 Board of Trustees 38 April 19, 2006 MR. ARNOFF: That's great. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do I have a second for all of that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Steven Kramer, P.E. on behalf of LAWRENCE HOLFELDER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 6340 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-11-1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. KRAMER: My name is Steve Kramer, I'm a professional engineer, family member and consultant to the applicant. Basically what we're doing is we have 100 linear feet of primary bulkhead that's falling apart, and we want to encapsulate that bulkhead with new plastic material. I would like to not destroy what's there now, but basically cover it on the seaward side. There will be some material taken out, wood material taken out of the project and disposed of properly, but we would like to leave the predominance there to hold the slope while under construction. If anybody would like to see pictures, I have pictures of the project. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bring them up. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. The question I had, do you have any plans for the old, the existing groin that's there, do you have any plans for doing anything with that? On the west edge of the property there's an old groin? MR. KRAMER: We're not doing anything with the groin right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it functional? TRUSTEE KING: On the landward edge of the groin, looks like it's open, not really doing anything. MR. KRAMER: That groin was not part of the original estimate. If you folks feel it should be rebuilt, we can deal with that. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's doing anything for you. MR. KRAMER: I agree, that's the opinion of the dock builder. TRUSTEE KING: The other bulkhead sticks out so far, this groin isn't doing anything at all for you. I would recommend just removing it. I don't think it's doing anything at all. MR. KRAMER: Can we leave it? CCA is now a hazardous material. TRUSTEE KING: Is that CCA? 38 Board of Trustees 39 April 19, 2006 MR. KRAMER: I'm sure it is. TRUSTEE KING: It looks older than that. MR. KRAMER: The pilings could be creosote. It's 40 years old. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend removal of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would too, I'd like to see removal of it. TRUSTEE KING: While you're there. MR. KRAMER: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: In the long run it's a good idea. I looked at this, the bulkhead is well inside the neighboring bulkhead on either side. I don't have any problem with replacing it. Are there any other comments on this application? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the groin be removed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Was there any plans on doing anything with that secondary retaining wall? MR. KRAMER: Not at this point. My only hope is that those tie rods come off in one piece and we'll be able to connect to them. I don't know what we'll find under the soils there. What do you think, well, I have the pictures, the primary slope between the house and the first retaining wall, it's-- TRUSTEE KING: Very steep. MR. KRAMER: It's steep and it's turf grass, would you recommend -- TRUSTEE KING: That's why I asked you about that secondary wall, if you were going to do something with that, I would strongly recommend a nonturf buffer landward of that, do some plantings because if must cascade off that. MR. KRAMER: I'll recommend plantings, I don't think we're going to do anything with it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just for your information, Heather has planting plans generalized. MS. CUSACK: Lists of plants. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And for another point, Allen Connell from the Federal government will help you with planting and what you should do and how you should do it, and he's free advice. He's been doing it for number of years. MR. KRAMER: Where is he? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Riverhead, Department of Natural Resources I think. Heather? MS. CUSAK: Natural Resource Conservation Service, it's on 39 Board of Trustees 40 April 19, 2006 Main Street in Riverhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He lives out here in Southold and he's very familiar with the whole area and he's very helpful. TRUSTEE KING: Did we vote? I'll make a motion to approve the application with the removal of the groin. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Robert Barratt on behalf of JULIE TSAI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-1-21.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BARRATT: Robert Barratt and I am rather well supported here this evening because the owner of the property is here with me, and before I go into the details, I thought I'd give her the opportunity to introduce herself and make a short statement. We will keep within your guidelines. MS. TSAI: Good evening, for the record I'm Julie Tsai, I'm the owner of Lot 21.1 , and I'm here because my family and I would like to build a house on the lot. It's a very beautiful neighborhood and our family acquired it in the 2000, and it's for us. We have a big family from the city, but then actually we live out in Riverhead as well as some other areas in the county, and it's very nice. Thank you very much. MR. BARRATT: I have had several discussions with the Board over the last three months. It probably would help if I cleared the air slightly on one issue. I have worked for Julie as a realtor on other properties associated with her family, and through that professional relationship developed a professional friendship as well. When she began to run into some difficulties here, and not the least problems were money was in short supply, I offered to assist her in preparing applications, both for the Trustees and also for the DEC, and of course, for the Department of Health. Having said that, things were proceeding I thought in a reasonable shape on lot 21.1 until the DEC sent their Mr. Marsh out to the site. He's well named, Mr. Marsh, and his final review of the site gave us some serious problems because he found some wetland plants which severely restricted Julie's plans. Since that time we have modified the plans, we have prepared for the Board a proper survey by qualified land surveyor and subsequent to that, the Trustees visited the site and saw the proposed house. 40 Board of Trustees 41 April 19, 2006 Following their visit, I was led to understand that they felt that certain restrictions that should be further applied and that information I transmitted to the owner, Julie, who you just met, and Julie and her family discussed them, and they decided that they still would like to go ahead, build a house and enjoy this lovely area, not to mention the great school system and everything else. So, as a result of that, I prepared this piece of paper, which I have given a copy to the owner's association, and, of course, to the Board of Trustees. And in here, Julie is prepared to do the following things. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, what is this paper? MR. BARRATT: It's a fragment of the survey marked up to show changes. This was transmitted by memo about three or four days ago, and this has been available for the Trustees to have a look at. Basically what she's prepared to do is reduce the size of the proposed house from 50 foot length to 45 feet, and then push the front of the house out a little bit to try and gain back some of the footprint that she's losing on the end. This way, the undisturbed wetlands buffer will be at least 60 feet, and that's about the best we can do. In addition, what she would like in order to encourage her children, et cetera, to stay on the house rather than down in the wetlands, we have asked for a wraparound deck, which is indicated by the dotted line that surrounds the rectangle, and the idea of that wraparound deck would be that the kids would play on that rather than in the sand. Secondly, we fully recognize and understand that the house must be built on stilts and this will mean that any drainage effects will be mitigated from the sides of the house. Another area of concern was the septic tank. Now, the septic tank is a sealed vessel and it should not leak under any normal circumstances. But I was led to understand that there was some concern that since it was only 76 feet from the wetlands that that might not be sufficient to quell people's uncertainties; so she is willing to move it over so that it's 91 feet from the wetlands. And then finally, there has been a lot of concern about view, people's visual passages to see the sound, and Julie doesn't have huge resources, and she would be happy to build a house a little bit less than 1,000 square feet in size the way that this, and not put a second story on the house, but hopefully a 41 Board of Trustees 42 April 19, 2006 widow's walk so that she and her family can enjoy the view of the sound, et cetera, that would be available from that widow's walk. And that's really alii have to say and I thank you for you r attention. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for making these changes. MR. BARRATT: One thing I should say on Julie's behalf, I thank you for allowing me to prepare this draft without bringing the land surveyor in. This way we've probably saved her at least $1,000. MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, can I ask one question? Mr. Barratt, when were these new papers submitted to the Trustees office? MR. BARRATT: This paper was -- the guidance was given to me about a week ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could interrupt and fill in. We inspected this last week and these are what we relayed to Mr. Barratt last week. So he drew these; this is what we asked for, and I told him he could submit it like this for now because we don't know if we're going to have any other changes. MR. JOHNSTON: So that was submitted? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This letter came in the 18th. MR. JOHNSTON: Came in yesterday, okay. MR. BARRATT: You have to understand, I got the feedback some time last week, and we had to go before the family to get agreement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing that was relayed to you that is a little different than the way I was picturing is the wraparound porch. The Board and I were thinking on the road side of the house, the opposite side of the house of where you have it, that's what we were talking about. So it isn't closer to the wetlands, so it's on the road side. I don't know what the rest of the Board feels. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That wasn't my understanding. My understanding is one of the reasons we asked for it to be raised and put on pilings was so there could be a wraparound porch. My impression was not along the front but just as the appears in the plan, along the side and partially along the back so they could enjoy the view, and as we had talked about, if they wanted to entertain there rather than down in the on ground, in the sand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I think Jim and I misunderstood. I thought we were doing this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my impression. MR. BARRATT: May I submit, there would be a front setback problem if we were to do anything there too. So I'm modest 42 Board of Trustees 43 April 19, 2006 by nature, but I think what we have now is just about as good a solution as we can get to what is a very difficult situation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to make a comment? Again, I would like to remind people to keep comments to five minutes or less. MS. BALL: My name is Lillian Ball, good evening. I am the chairperson of the Kenny's Beach Association, Wetlands Preservation Committee, Great Pond Preservation Committee, which is the area, as you know, between Great Pond and Long Island Sound, and I have a number of issues that I want to remind the Board of on the biological side because this area has been deemed by both the DOS and the Natural Heritage Society to be globally rare wetlands, significant habitat, extremely important for wildlife and birds and easily compromised by any sort of development, any kind of building whatsoever will affect it. So I would really like the Board to consider this issue. We have had the support of the previous Board of Trustees, as you know last year they revoked a permit given in the same wetland interdunal area, and based on the new information. You don't have new information, you have information that's been here all along. And for you to make a decision without regarding that information very seriously, I think would be a very sad mistake, and a sad comment on what the brave Trustees did last year. They stood up for what they believed in; they got the new information; they had to say they had made a mistake. So I hope this time around you guys would consider it extremely carefully under those circumstances. Larry Penny from East Hampton Natural Resources also gave an eloquent speech at the testimony in January last year about how an interdunal swale is a -- a wetland has a number of different qualities, and the interdunal swale though it may look sandy is in fact very high water table. Any interference at all in the sand will interfere with the entire ecosystem, which is wetlands and dunes, as you heard from the Natural Heritage Foundation. It is also making any disturbance at all in an interdunal swale makes it possible for the invasive plants to go wild. And as you know the Kenny's Beach Civic Association got a grant with the Peconic Land Trust from Fish and Wildlife to restore the properties that we have already purchased and preserved from invasive species. The invasive species situation in the town of Southold is dire as the Nature Conservancy will tell you. The phragmites and the purple lustrife are running wild. So 43 Board of Trustees 44 April 19, 2006 we are in the process of trying to control that and will restore the wetlands to their former permeability and freedom from these invasive species. So if there is any septic action in that area, it will encourage more invasive plants which is the last thing we want to do. I also want to remind you that the wetlands are already taxed to the max. In fact, the building is all around the area. The wetlands are an island in the middle of development. They are already performing their purifying functions at a very serious disadvantage because of the population density in that area, and if we should have a hurricane like we did in the '50s and I believe in 1982 there was another one where actually the water from the sound went into the lake, we would have no protection. And Larry Penny also cited situations in East Hampton where, in fact, they allowed building on an interdunal swale in the '80s and two houses have since fallen off into the bay. So you weaken the whole structure of the environment. You weaken the ecosystem and you put everyone at risk. I want to also emphasize we're not advocating that it would be a taking. This is a situation where the properties are all on the community preservation list of the Town of Southold, and the county is already pursuing very actively the acquisition of all the lots in question, 21.1 being one of the lots. We have had some recent very good developments. We have now three things in contract and a fourth that looks very promising and is in negotiations. And as per my discussion earlier this evening with Julie Tsai, it seems we need to go further with her on the other two lots that the family owns. So I will be pursuing that with the county, and I want everyone to know that the money is reserved for purchasing these lands. The family has actually received an offer on one of the parcels. So that is something that needs to be resolved before the Board goes forward and makes any decisions on the 21.1 lot. So last year I think the Trustees set a precedent that the Natural Heritage Society, Suffolk County Planning Department, Mark Terry, the DOS, the Significant Habitat Maps, et cetera, all these county entities, town entities, state entities, have said that these are very, very important globally rare, maritime, freshwater, interdunal swale. It's the only one on the north fork. It's adjacent to the Peconic Dunes County Park and we could have a significant conservation biology chunk there that would really preserve this very, very unique area of Southold. And I would hope that this Board of Trustees 44 Board of Trustees 45 April 19, 2006 would take that responsibility very seriously. And I will close with a very sweet letter that I received today from Chris Moussari from the Cutchogue School. He's in the third grade. He says, "Our third grade class studies endangered species. We learned that loss of habitat is one of the top reasons for some animals and plants that are being threatened. In our town of Southold there is a habitat called an interdunal swale. This is an area between two dunes. We learned it is a rare habitat. There are some unique animals and plants that live there such as bob whites, iris prismaticas, which is an endangered species in New York and the carnivorous sundoos, and native cranberries too. "We hope you will consider all the wildlife that is dependent on this very important and special habitat. If a house is built on this property, many of these plants and animals might become extinct or endangered. We don't think this is right. "We appreciate your taking the time to look at our issues and we hope you will agree with us and help solve these global problems before it is too late." From the mouths of babes. And these are the babes we want to protect the wetlands for, Julie's children, our children and everybody's children. Please, take that into consideration. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Yes, sir, if you could identify yourself. MR. ROSAKIS: My name is Tom Rosakis, R-O-S-A-K-I-S. I received this email sketch from Mr. Barratt today. Although it's shown as a 91 foot setback to the septic tank, it's actually 82 feet from the north wetlands. Just a point of fact here. "Dear Mr. King and Trustees, Thank you for this opportunity to speak at this hearing. My name is Thomas Rosakis. I have been a member of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association for 17 years, and a member of the preservation committee for two years. In that capacity and as a private citizen, I am here to oppose -- MR. JOHNSTON: Excuse me, sir, are you going to read this fou r page letter? MR. ROSAKIS: Yes. I can do it in five minutes. MR. JOHNSTON: Can we stipulate for the record and have her type it for the record? MR. ROSAKIS: You mean I can't speak it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you summarize the points? 45 Board of Trustees 46 April 19, 2006 MR. JOHNSTON: We will have it in the record and give it to each one of the Trustees to read. MR. ROSAKIS: I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do that. I'll put in it in the record, but I would like to do that under duress. MR. JOHNSTON: Go ahead and read it, sir. MR. ROSAKIS: The Kenny's Beach Civic Association was founded over 50 years ago and has more than 125 members who own homes on the sound front community bounded by Peconic Dunes Park and Horton's Point. Our area encompasses two public beaches, a freshwater lake, a large freshwater pond, numerous small DEC regulated wetlands. This designation was due in large part to our preservation committee's efforts. We hired Eric LaMont, contacted DEC's Natural Heritage Program and lobbied at the Department of State. Some of our members participated in the initial formation of the LWRP with Valerie Scopaz. We are not armchair environmentalists. We paid for the original report by Dr. LaMont. We are truly proud of our accomplishments and fully expect the Town Trustees to respect our dedication and efforts. Our members made the lion's share of contributions that made the Harper Preserve a reality. Eight people donated $170,000 and the Town contributed the balance of $50,000 to buy and preserve this land. Most of us made these contributions with the express intention and expectation that the Town would respect those efforts and that the purchase would lead to the preservation of all the lots, including this one. Certainly we expect the Trustees to continue to support rather than undermine our efforts. We do not expect government to bail us out or do our job, but we do expect government to do its job. The preservation committee opposes all the development on this site for the following reasons. The latest survey submitted by the applicant shows no setbacks to the property lines. This is quite curious as it is the primary purpose of a site survey plan to show these dimensions. Why are these critical dimensions missing? If the Trustees grant this permit they might inadvertently grant a variance or preempt the Zoning Board of Appeals in their duties. If one scales the west side yard it seems to be less than the minimum 15 feet required by Town code. It would be out of the Trustees jurisdiction to approve a site plan that does not conform to the building code. Two, the Planning Department had determined that the contents of this application are profoundly inconsistent 46 Board of Trustees 47 April 19, 2006 with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. will refer to Mark Terry's letter of February 9th where he makes the statement inconsistent at least six times and annotates in 10 pages the policies that this application -- by the way, I am changing this to make it shorter, so it doesn't conform to that in some ways. If you approve this permit, I'm sure there are quite a lot of people who will be interested in how this proposal is consistent with Southold's new and as of yet untested Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The setbacks from the wetlands to the proposed house do not meet the Town Wetland Code specification by 40 percent, and the wetlands to septic setback falls 18 percent short of both Town and DEC minimum requirements. The boiler plate sentence in the Town code, allowing site-specific considerations is customarily used to expand an authority's jurisdiction, not reduce it. This globally rare significant habitat is one of the most valuable areas identified in Southold in years. If this area does not merit the enforcement of the minimum setbacks, what would? Four, the proposed plan does not take into account that the entire project resides in a New York State Department of State significant habitat. That wetlands and dunes comprise a delicate system is comprised in and six scientific reports that were cited by the Trustees last year in denying a permit to an almost identical project, Mazzanobile, less than 400 feet away in the same significant habitat. As you know, the applicant sued the Trustees and that suit is still pending. In his affidavit defending the Trustees' actions, former president AI Krupski quotes these experts -- their six names are in this report -- including Heather Cusack, the Trustees own environmental technician, who recommended that the Board enforce full setbacks from both the house and septic system. This is the same area as defined by the Department of State, October, 2005. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, if you could summarize? MR. ROSAKIS: Yes. Granting this permit would be inconsistent with the Trustees' unanimous decision last year to deny the aforementioned Mazzanobile permit. I will skip to the last. Seven, the Southold Town Trustees have been charged with preserving the interest of the commonwealth for over 300 years. As compelling as individual interests may be -- and we are in no way arguing that they are overly compelling here -- it is your duty to 47 Board of Trustees 48 protect the public interest and general welfare by merely enforcing the minimum setbacks. Attached please find copies of the LWRP consistency review law, and former president AI Krupski's affidavit in defense of the permit denial in Mazzanobile v. Town of Southold. This letter will go to the Town Board, Sean Kiernan, Steve Resler of the New York State Department of State, and Tim Kelly of the Suffolk Times. Thank you for your patience. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Rosakis, please, this is the affidavit. We can't accept this. This is under litigation. We can't accept that information. TRUSTEE BERGEN. Yes, ma'am, hang on. MS. TSAI: Again, my name is Julie Tsai, I'm the owner of Lot 1 and 3 on that strip of land. And actually, I would like to briefly talk to you about when we first acquired the lots in 2000, we acquired three lots all together from Mr. Georgopolous. When we acquired it, our family, we love the beach, we love the area so much that we also purchased a house right on Great Pond lake front house, because lots, we can't really live on it, but we wanted to enjoy it, so we enjoyed it over the summer, that summer staying at the lake front house right by Great Pond. So actually, I personally know the area very well, and we wanted to originally acquire all three because we saw a lot of big houses around there. There's a big white house across from where our lots are, and there's a little blue house at that time. So my family were all very interested, and I brought my cousins and everyone else to come in, and they all put in their money so we could have a place to build up to for our children. If we were looking for a flip over, we could do that a long time ago, but we didn't; we reserved it for our family to build on and to enjoy. That's why the intention is not to destroy the environment in any way. The intention was very simple, just like we wanted to be part of the town of Southold as a resident. We wanted to have our children grow up in a very beautiful area; that was our original intention. And I think when we started having trouble was when last year, two years ago, we started receiving letters from the neighbors protesting, talking about we can't build, and I had to be the one, tell the family, I'm sorry, it's possible that we can't build, what are we going to do. It kind of put a distress on the family since we're not familiar with the laws and the area restrictions and all April 19, 2006 48 Board of Trustees 49 April 19, 2006 that. But at the time when we purchased, we had no idea what was going to be ahead of us. But anyway, my point is right now we understand the needs of our neighbors in preserving the area, so we are in discussion with them, and I have to represent their interest as well to the family, and say let's let Lot 3 and 4, which is more connected to the wetlands area, let the county or the neighbors enjoy that, that's fine. But it's very interesting when we went out one day to the survey, we went out and we saw the neighbors, they dump their grass clippings right around our lot; they were not managed. We drove by and there was a deer head hanging on the tree on our lot, but we couldn't do anything about it because we don't have a house there. So those lots, although they are preserved as wilderness, but they're not managed. We actually saw the dumping of their clippings. I didn't have a camera. That's why I say, well, to our interests right now we just wanted to make Lot 1 possible to build and live. There are houses to the left and to the right of us. There is already a house existing, and that little blue house built up to the second floor, and I did receive a letter that the neighbor came to the Trustee Board meeting requesting that second floor, and I remembered saying we needed to attend to protest against it; we didn't because we wanted to say, okay, that's just building up to the second floor, that has nothing to do with us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, if you could summarize, you're at five minutes. MS. TSAI: After hearing all this, I just want to let everyone here in the Town Trustees know we're here to become residents and that's it. I'm a teacher in the town of Riverhead, and I try to contribute back to the family, but our family -- one last sentence I wanted to make is they felt a little bit in a way not welcome. And I try not to make it that obvious, but it sounds like we don't want to be judged because we're Chinese. I don't think that's not an issue, but I hope that's definitely not a an issue for that. I like to express what I want to say. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak? Yes, sir. MR. MCNALLY: My name is Rich McNally, I have a summer cottage at 1455 Lake Drive, which I share. I'm a co-tenant with my sister, she lives up around Boston suburbs. I speak for myself and for her. It is summer cottage it's not winterized, but it was passed on to us through our inheritance through our parents. 49 Board of Trustees 50 April 19, 2006 My sister and I were basically fortunate enough to be summer kids out here since we were little. I can recall my dad saying that that area in between the oval -- and the oval meaning Kenny's Road, Lake Drive, Leighton Drive and West Drive, although it's not an oval everybody called it a oval -- was wetlands, and this was when I was seven or eight years old. I asked my dad what does that mean. He said you can't build on it. So I can ask the Board today, what has changed in the last 45 years? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. MCNALLY: I'm not finished. I asked this question of the same Board about four years ago when the Mazzanobile property came up for a similar to build or not to build. My neighbor down the block George Prambrick gave me a call one winter and said, hey, Rich, did you know there's a building application. I said what are you talking about, George. Well, they're going to talk about it down at the Southold Town Trustees. So I'm sure a couple of you have heard me before. I submitted some photographs of the two one acre Mazzanobile lots, which are part of this nine piece parcel within the circle. And at that time I talked to the issue of an outcropping of the water table right in the middle of the two Mazzanobile lots, which at the time was not shown on any map as being a wetland area, and I said to the board, how can this not be part of the wetlands when, in fact, during the rainy season it's a little lake and it's a depression and when it's wet enough, the water table becomes a lake. So I said to the Board, four years ago, and by the way, over by what is the nonexistent Central Avenue, there were wild cranberries and sure enough, some DEC people went in there and flagged it off. The outcropping of the water table -- and this is on the Mazzanobile lot, has nothing to do with your lot about a quarter mile down the road, that little outcropping of the water table is today a natural cranberry bog because the seeds from the cranberries by Central Avenue came over, they fell into the water, which was a little pond, they stayed put and today there are natural cranberries and my daughter and I discovered this four years ago walking on that lot. And sure enough, it was flagged off. It's now part of the wetlands. The point I'm making here is this, it's all one ecosystem. What are we doing here? We're arguing that we should now build on these wetlands? I don't get it. Just less than a year ago the Town Board reversed its decision to issue a building permit on the two Mazzanobile lots and here we are again, the same situation is presenting itself. And 50 Board of Trustees 51 April 19, 2006 I think if this Board of Trustees issues this building permit, it's an absolutely ridiculous precedent to set because the entire Kenny's Beach community has literally put its money where its mouth is. We've raised through private donations to the wetlands committee tens of thousands of dollars, and one of these nine lots has now been purchased and is going to be forever public under Peconic Land Trust, and thanks in large part to Lillian Ball, who held the flag for like three years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, if you could summarize because you've had your five minutes. MR. MCNALLY: Okay. Years ago when we drove out on Friday afternoons to come out to Southold, we would get sprayed by the airplanes that were crop dusting the potato fields and the cauliflower fields. We got these little mustard splats on which we realized years later was DOT, which went down into the water table, infected the fish and wound up in osprey eggs. And finally after years we realized everything is connected here. These nine lots are connected to Great Pond. It's a natural ecosystem. It's been written about a globally rare interdunal swale with all sorts of like natural flora and fauna and natural cranberry bogs, I can't speak to Lot 1 specifically, and believe me, we're not here because you're Chinese, we just want to keep the wetlands wet and we don't think they've dried up in the last 45 years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? MR. JOHNSTON: Let the record show that none of the Trustees have commented about the Mazzanobile case, pro, con or otherwise. MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue, speaking on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. The environmental significance of these lots in the interdunal areas really quite well documented so I'll not repeat any of that, and I'm sure the Trustees are very familiar with the circumstances there. The NFEC is very interested in critical small lots as well as large lot preservation. Perhaps the activities of the Town are best known through preservation of farm and large open space areas, but those small lots in neighborhood areas are just as important and sometimes can be very critical to the character of the neighborhood. The NFEC of course supports the Town code and the Town plans with respect to our future. It also supports property rights. We believe that people should use 51 Board of Trustees 52 April 19, 2006 properties that they own for legal purposes according to the Town code; that should not be interfered with. But we do not support a compromise of that code. When issues like this are brought before the Trustees or the ZBA, there seems to be a tendency to make a compromise. What we really have here is a code that represents the community's agreement of how we're going to behave. Yes, there's supposed to be interpretation of trivial things, maybe we need a foot here maybe an error has been made, needs to be corrected, but when the exceedence becomes glaring, then we're actually compromising the Town code and going out into an area that is really not the interest of the Trusteeship or the ZBA. So that's an explanation of the NFEC's position on these kinds of issues. Small lots are very important; they're important to the property owner. They're important to us as a community. When a Board exceeds the Town code significantly, they are really giving away public property. And that is not what we want to see happening. The rights of the owner and the public need to both be served. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? MR. COSTEllO: John Costello. It sounds like there's a reasonably serious attempt to devalue somebody's property, and if it does get devalued to some degree, maybe I could afford to purchase it or purchase part of it because I would love to have the ability to bid on a devalued piece of property in Southold town, whether it's open space or not. If it does get down in value and it is such an asset, I would love to be able to put a price in. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MS. YATES: My name is Caroline Paul Yates, and I own a summer residence at 1795 Wheaton Drive. It's a ticklish issue, balancing the needs of people who own property against the needs of the environment and the town, and I would simply like to say tonight that due to the sensitive nature and the environmental significance of our interdunal swale ecosystem, I would like to see the Town grant no variances for wetlands setbacks when considering development of any properties in our area; and unfortunately, that pertains also to this project that's being proposed here tonight. We would love to have the Tsais as members of our community, but unfortunately the piece of property that they own has been determined to be unsuitable for development, and I won't go into reviewing, but we have a lot of 52 Board of Trustees 53 April 19, 2006 documentation to that effect. The area needs to be protected and the Town needs to protect it. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other comments, members of the audience? I do have just two pieces of input, one is the CAC recommendation that was made back in November '05 was that it be tabled at that time because of wanting the wetlands to be flagged. I counted in the file here, approximately give or take one or two, 25 letters, and I didn't go through some of them because they are over such a history of time some of them are written by the same authors, somebody wrote one and then about six, eight months later wrote another, but there are about 25 letters in here and none of them are in support of this application. The LWRP recommendation has already been mentioned. It is found inconsistent because it's within 100 feet of the wetlands. Again, with the septic system 100 feet, questions about protecting and restore the ecological quality of the area for Town of Southold, talking about the New York State Natural Heritage Program and the maritime dune community and the that the proposed action will result in a physical loss of part of a dune ecosystem. As was mentioned, it's a long report. Again, it's within 100 feet of this maritime dune system; this could endanger threatened planted species in the immediate area. And due to the size of the lots and the placement of the home on the highest point, there's nothing in this policy that relates to this action. Are there any other comments from the Board on this before I discuss some of the other aspects of it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments that I heard from the public. I hope you realize this is not a personal to your family. Again, I think the comment was well said, we would love to have you as members of this community. I realize that you certainly did not intend in 2000 to come in and destroy the area or destroy the plants or destroy the animals. It really is not connected to that and your intention was to buy a building lot. I find it very difficult to not ignore but not put faith in all that we have heard about the globally rare habitat, the protection of this unique habitat, the minimum setbacks, and that this area is in the process of being purchased and preserved. So I just wanted to reiterate some of those points, those are my concerns. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that -- I know I've only been on this Board for the last few months, but I know I've been present 53 Board of Trustees 54 April 19, 2006 for Board meetings since last summer, and I know this application has come before the Board many times during the last five or six months. The Board after listening to a lot of the comments both written and verbally as well as the LWRP recommendations has gone back to the applicant and asked them to please restake several times, to move things several times, to downsize several times, and we have gotten down to the most recent proposal where this house was again, just in the last week or so, downsized yet again plus put on stilts. They moved the septic tank so there has been a lot that the applicants have done to try to mitigate the issues that have been brought up. So I appreciate the sensitivity of the area. The Board has noted that there obviously are other homes in the area, and have been talked about tonight, homes across the street, homes on either side in this area. But I just wanted to set into the record, again, all the requirements that -- and the suggestions that the Board has made to the applicant, they have complied with pretty much every single one that's been made. I just want to check one more time if there are any comments from the Board. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I have a couple comments just in general. I think the basis of my comment is if there's any place more rare than this piece of property in the town of South old it doesn't occur to me. This has been recognized -- and I'm looking through the LWRP -- and it makes very clear that this is a globally rare country, federally rare and also a state rare piece of property. It doesn't exist anywhere else. We have codes that are set up to protect this type of piece of property, and it just seems in going through the LWRP, it says inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent with all the policies that the Trustee Board has set up. I find it difficult to speak positively against this application. The owner bought this property four, five years ago. The rules and regulations were in place at that time. They were aware it was a questionable piece of property. It was not obviously fitting into the then current codes. It was still within a problem area. So, as I went through the LWRP, each issue comes up that it's inconsistent and inconsistent. It's globally rare. It will do damage to the environment. So I'd like to say that publicly, it is an inconsistent application, and it does question the basic codes of the Trustees. I'd just like to say that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'd 54 Board of Trustees 55 April 19, 2006 like to make a motion to close -- TRUSTEE KING: Don, are you interested in going to look at this property? MR. WILDER: Yes, because it's been significant changes since we looked at it, so we're not up to date. TRUSTEE KING: We got new stuff tonight. I'd like sometime to review what's been presented tonight. I question why you have to have that bump-out. I think it says on the north western part of the house, but it looks like it's on the northeastern part of the house in the description, 4' by 5', a push-out on the northwest side, maybe I'm wrong but I think that's the northeast corner of the house. MR. BARRATT: It's on the northwest side of the northeast corner. TRUSTEE KING: What is the reason for it? MR. BARRATT: To try to regain living space for the family. TRUSTEE KING: I know when we talked in the field we wanted to keep this house as small as we could. That's a significant addition. I think you could go without the widow's walk. I would recommend that we table this until they look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to make a motion to have it tabled? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. I'll make a motion that we table so the CAC can take a look at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know sometimes, Don, all your members don't get out, but maybe for this you can have all your members. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All opposed? TRUSTEE BERGEN: All the opposed? Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: Three ayes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's tabled so the CAC can look at it. MR. WILDER: Can we make sure that the wetlands are flagged? TRUSTEE BERGEN: They have been for months. TRUSTEE KING: The house staked might be 20' by 50', if you downsize that. MR. BARRATT: The stakes are still on the 50 foot. 8. LES Associates on behalf of MARGARET REINHARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3' by 10' 55 Board of Trustees 56 April 19, 2006 extension to the existing dwelling, 19.3' by 12.2' second-story addition, second-story bay window, 6' by 19.3' deck, and to renovate the existing 13' by 20' deck. Located: 505 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-4-23 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MS. SAKAFICO: My name is Linda Sakafico from LES Associates, 107 West Montauk Highway in Hampton Bays. I am here on behalf of Margaret Reinhard, who is the applicant. She has been a resident at this subject parcel for over 50 years. She's a 98 year old woman who would like to add this renovation so she can live here all year round rather than only as a summer resident. Her daughter, Delores Hans and husband is here if you have any questions with regard to the proposed additions that they are requesting the Board to review. I have submitted a letter from the Suters, who are the property owners adjacent to the west, and Mrs. Raynor, who was case Number 4 earlier this evening is also recommending approval for this application, and she is west of the Suter property, which would be designated as Tax Lots Number 22 and 21. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for or against this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this. This is just down the road from Raynor's, it's just also next door to the building we just approved recently. They're all choosing to have permanent homes here, which they have beautiful views. CAC recommends approval and LWRP reviewed it as consistent. So I didn't see any problem. The only change from the footprint is a small bump-out wooden deck landward and a small bump-out from the kitchen, which I believe the neighbors had no problem with. MS. SAKAFICO: That's correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't see any problems or anything to change or add for this permit. So I will make a motion to approve Wetland Permit as stated to Margaret Reinhard on 505 Beachwood Road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. CUSACK: Do they have hay bales on the plans or is that not needed? 56 Board of Trustees 57 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't think they were needed because the deck also ends right at the vegetation line, and they also removed a portion of the deck to move it back from the 100 foot, so they really accommodated our setbacks. 9. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of PETER & ARLENE MANOS requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing house within the existing footprint with a one-story porch on the north side and a two-story addition on the south side, covered porch, in-ground swimming pool, terrace, sanitary system, and garage. Located: 2000 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-18 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, I'll try to do this briefly. The house that was presently there was built I guess in the 1950s. Mr. and Mrs. Manos are here. The plans were to remodel the house and put a second story on the house with the addition of the porch on the water side and some additional work. What happened is, and I think the builder -- the contractor is here as well, when they were in the process -- they got a building permit. They got a Zoning Board variance to put the pool where it is in the side yard and to place the addition that is on the seaward side at its closest point, this exact same plan is what the Zoning Board had approved. What happened is when they started, they got the building permit, started the construction, they discovered the foundation was structurally unsound due to water. The way the house had been built, the sill wasn't high enough, there had been a lot of water damage over time. So the foundation couldn't support the construction. At that point there were parts of the building that were remaining, parts of the foundation that were remaining, but they discovered more problems than they had anticipated. The Building Department said go ahead demolish it, not realizing that in demolishing it, we would end up starting over. At least the position the Zoning Board would take is that you would have to come back because originally because it's a renovation of the house, but now we have to come back because it's a reconstruction of the house. In that time you guys adopted the change to the code that requires the same review that the Zoning Board reviews, which is the setback from the bluff. We understand also the neighbor is here, and he's had some concerns with the proximity of the pool. We had plenty of time to discuss it out in the hallway, since the foundation is no longer there 57 Board of Trustees 58 April 19, 2006 is -- our goal, our preference was to have the pool along the waterside, that's where you want to have the pool, but at the time when the application was made, we were squeezed because the existing house was there; we were working within the bounds of the renovation of the existing house. You could see that the existing house was directly in line with both neighbors. The houses in that area all built in the same place. In order for us to try to accommodate everyone, we would like to be able to put the pool on the water side, which we would propose to keep the line, the original line, 51, I think the survey shows it 51 on one end 65 on the other, because of the topography, the change, take the existing line, the foundation, the excavation is all there, that's where the foundation was, put the pool as the closest point and then just build the house that far back. It will end up being -- we haven't designed it essentially, no offense to the original architect who's not here, they spent $50,000 in architectural services that are essentially out the window. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I ask, could you just describe that new approach that you're taking? The pool is going to be where the house is? MS. MOORE: No. The pool, the closest point of any structures, which we would consider the pool a structure, would be where we are now showing the 51 and the 65. So we would take that line as the closest line for any structures. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then the house would be? MS. MOORE: Mr. Manos, for health reasons, needs to have a pool for the exercise, he'll speak for himself, you won't believe his age, he has to admit to it, they really want to have the pool; and that's why the pool was put in the side yard at the time. If we put the pool there, and the pool is 16 feet in width, I have to be realistic that there has to be some decking around the pool, so the reality is that we're probably looking at about 20 feet where the house begins. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So the whole house has got to be pushed back 20 feet. MS. MOORE: Towards the road in order to squeeze -- but I want to keep that setback. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were talking about that in the field, to move the house -- MS. MOORE: Yes. I understand from Heather that there was some thought that if we could move that pool there, and that was our goal in our original application to the Zoning Board, which the Zoning Board said no to was putting the 58 Board of Trustees 59 April 19, 2006 pool on the bluff side, but the house was in place so we didn't have a lot of room. This way we can keep to the excavation that's already taken place, the disturbance is there; have the pool be the starting point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What are you proposing from the seaward edge of the pool, how far from the top of the bluff? MS. MOORE: Seaward edge would be at 51 -- make it 50, it says here 51, it's the same footprint. What I did was I did a straight line across, which seems to be 51 and 65 if the architect's drawings are accurate. TRUSTEE KING: That would be the seaward edge of the pool. Is there going to be a deck around that also? MS. MOORE: The decking's going to be between the house and the pool. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the house and the pool? MS. MOORE: It's going to be an in-ground pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you have two feet on that side of the pool edge? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You need an edge. MS. MOORE: You need an edge of the pool. So if you did it at 50 and 64, you'll have a foot of rim around the pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would need to see where you propose the fence around the pool as well. MS. MOORE: We didn't get that far. TRUSTEE KING: This is the old plan, they'll have to submit new. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, I think you're going to have to -- MS. MOORE: We're going to have to draw it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. Also include a backwash for the pool where it's going to be. MS. MOORE: Sure. I was going to do it as a dry well. The backwash and the dry wells can be the same hole? Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dry wells for the roof runoff and the dry wells for the pool? I don't know what the code says. MS. MOORE: I don't know what the code is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We generally like to see a separate one for the pool, so if you can squeeze a second one in. MS. MOORE: That's fine. See the problem is after all that architectural design now what we're doing is setting kind of limits so they can go back and design based on the setbacks that are established because to try to design - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that these changes, although this is what we want, they're significant, and I think we're going to have to wait until you resubmit the plan, send it back to LWRP. MS. MOORE: We did it as a permit. 59 Board of Trustees 60 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me look through LWRP because they found it consistent. MS. MOORE: Consistent? So we're doing actually better. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me look at the CAC. They recommend approval with the condition and all the conditions that the Trustees would put on it, a 20 foot nonturf buffer from the top of the bluff, and dry wells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. MS. MOORE: I think we have that already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's already there and just show that on the new plan anyway. I think, I'm still learning LWRP, but I think under LWRP when there's a significant change like this it has to go back to them. MS. MOORE: Because we're talking about the same setback and the only difference is we're actually putting a pool where the building was. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see, what you're saying because nothing's going closer. MS. MOORE: Actually what our proposal was, we're actually pushing back further than our original request. So instead of a foundation you're putting a pool, which is a lesser. I have no objection. I think it does need to be drawn, I have no problem with drawing it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree, it's staying at the same line and the same requirements for the pool are going to come in here as far as drainage goes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? MR. MANOS: My name is Peter Manos. One of the things I'd like to say is that swimming is one of the little bits of exercise I get. I'm 83 years old. It's great going down to the beach but how in the hell do you get back up? MS. MOORE: I know the neighbor's going to be supportive of the Zoning Board because we want to try to accomplish the same thing since you're kind of duplicating reviews here, I'm hoping that the Zoning Board will see the same -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, when do you go in front of the Zoning Board? MS. MOORE: We have the application in, I just don't know. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It doesn't matter if we wait until you get new plans to us? I mean, we can approve this next month so we just have the plans? MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm going to have to try to get the drawing because I'm going to have to show it to the Zoning Board anyway. I'm not going to have elevations, obviously, just the footprint. 60 Board of Trustees 61 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why can't we approve it pending receipt of the plans of what was discussed here tonight? MS. MOORE: Isn't that what you were saying? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My question is which was better? MS. MOORE: No. I would rather you approve it subject to receipt of the drawing, so alii need you to do is sign off on it when you get the drawings, as long as I've drawn it the way you've approved it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That makes sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments from anybody on the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Where's the coastal erosion line? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thirty, 40 feet away. TRUSTEE KING: So any fencing would be landward of the coastal erosion line, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make sure you put the fencing on the drawing. MS. MOORE: Do you have any requirements as far as where the fence goes? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Check with the Building Department, that's Building Department. What we would like to see is everything landward of the coastal erosion line. Whatever the boundaries are of the Building Department. MS. MOORE: Right now the privet actually acts -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know what the Building Department requires. MS. MOORE: They're going to require a fence. I'll check with them, they might not require it on the sound side if you have a barrier on the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And can you draw, I'd like to see a nondisturbance buffer maybe from the coastal erosion line. MS. MOORE: We have it already. It's already landscaped, we're not touching any of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was existing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that enough? MS. MOORE: It is already existing, it's already mature, we don't want to touch it. As a matter of fact, all the construction and excavation was very good about that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'm just going on our notes. Any other comments from the Board? What Peggy's saying is from where the lawn is from the coastal erosion line out seaward to that hedge, there's lawn there, if we say nonturf as a buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was all hedge row, would we want say landscaped in here, no lawn, just to keep the lawn away from the bluffs that have been blowing out. 61 Board of Trustees 62 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have extensive decking there. MS. MOORE: You have lawn there now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Top of the bluff is where this hedge is and normally we would have -- just say nonturf to the coastal erosion line? MS. MOORE: Can we say 10 feet? Because that we can landscape. Instead of grass what they would rather you have any kind of nonturf, low-lying shrubs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It could be gravel, sand, beach grass. MS. MOORE: Anything, not grass. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. THE TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Peter and Arlene Manos for the request to reconstruct a house, a two-story house with additions as shown on the survey -- MS. MOORE: I'm trying to suggest, because all our plans have to be essentially thrown out, if you could establish a setback that our pool will be at a certain distance and the house behind the pool, just generic distances so we can design after the fact. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve an application for Peter and Arlene Manos to construct a house with a pool on the seaward end at least 50 feet back from the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was going to say at least 50 and 64, there are two existing points there, as per survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As per site plan 50 to 65 feet back from the top of the bluff, with a 10 foot extension on the existing buffer, dry wells for the roof runoff for the house and also a separate dry well for the pool. MS. MOORE: Do you call it a back wash? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Back wash. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jill, how did you define the 10 foot, that seems very fuzzy? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten foot extension on the existing row of hedges. And all subject to receiving new site plan showing the previously dimensions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of EDWARD & ADRIENNE SOLOMON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool and enclosure 62 Board of Trustees 63 April 19, 2006 fence. Located: 1205 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck. SCTM#114-1-4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. SAMUELS: I am Tom Samuels, the architect. This was a site that was earlier developed with a foundation and then purchased by the Solomons, at which time we came back to you for amendments to the permit for the house on the site at the time, and we were beyond the 100 foot as it was at that time defined jurisdiction, so we went along actually with very little influence from you guys. And now the pool, which is also within 100 feet from the wetlands, but it is by new definition within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: I had a question with the wetlands delineation myself. I think it's nearer to the toe of the bluff. MR. SAMUELS: That line was on the drawings as I inherited them. TRUSTEE KING: I know. We have all been out to the site. It was purchased by Pelligrini, I think it was. They came to us and got a Wetland Permit to tear the house down and build a house in its place. And at that time a line of hay bales was placed along the top of the bluff, and I think that was to be a nondisturbance area from seaward of that hay bale line. Where this new location for the pool is I think it's down beyond that. It looks like they pushed the hay bales out of the way and went down there with a piece of machinery for some reason on the western edge of the property. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. I think those are actually new hay bales in that vicinity because it's beyond where the original foundation was. The contractor put new hay bales along there. Actually all the hay bales degraded over that time, so they put new hay bales there on the edge of the clearing. TRUSTEE KING: I had some questions on the fence. It looks like they want to the fence almost in the wetlands at the base of the bluff. MR. SAMUELS: There is a fence now on either side of the property. TRUSTEE KING: There's a chain link fence that goes down into the wetlands on either side of the property. MR. SAMUELS: That's correct, those are there, but no, the fence that encloses the pool is approximately on the 26 foot contour so I don't think it can be in the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: It goes right along the edge. 63 Board of Trustees 64 April 19, 2006 MR. SAMUELS: Most of the contours are below that fence line. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. We're all right. MR. SAMUELS: We actually it's very close to the line that En-Consultants -- TRUSTEE KING: The fence is going right at the top of the stairs then? MR. SAMUELS: Yes, please, that's where we'd like it to be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was essentially at the top of the bluff? MR. SAMUELS: Since you were there, you should recognize that the bluff, if there is a bluff there -- TRUSTEE KING: I consider it a bluff right in front of the house, but as you go west it slopes down more. MR. SAMUELS: Right, but towards the bottom of the stairs there is what probably would be called a bluff; in other words, there's a steep drop. I would say that was the bluff. Then it slopes from there up many feet, I would say 75 feet. TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't bother me. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That fence is fine. MR. SAMUELS: We certainly are willing, and I talked to Heather today about removing some of that preexisting fence in the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: That would be nice because that goes right down into the intertidal area almost. MR. SAMUELS: Yes, that's terrible. TRUSTEE KING: It would be nice if that was removed up to like to the toe of the bluff. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. We would say to the six foot contour line or whatever, to the toe of the bluff, it doesn't suit us in any way. We don't need that. TRUSTEE KING: That would be good; that would be an improvement on that property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a fence on the other side? MR. SAMUELS: You mean for the enclosure of the pool? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This becomes the fence for the pool. MR. SAMUELS: Right. And we're using parts of the side fence that exist as the enclosure for the pool. TRUSTEE KING: This to me is like the tidal wetlands boundary right along in here, not out there. It's still a good distance. I think it's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? I'll make a notion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. 64 Board of Trustees 65 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application -- by the way, it was found consistent with the LWRP and CAC recommended approval. They had one condition, recommended approval with the condition dry well is installed to contain the pool backwash, and all trees with a diameter of six inches or more from the hay bale line to the water are left in place. From the hay bale line to the water, if I remember right that was like a nondisturbance area. MR. SAMUELS: It could be. It doesn't show up on the paperwork we have. We're treating it as a nondisturbance. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the dry well for backwash for the pool, and I don't know how many feet of fence you would remove there, probably 25-30 feet or so. Remove the old existing chain link fence that's into the wetlands, remove it back to the toe of the bluff TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 12. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANN MARIE NELSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove 62' of existing west bulkhead, construct 435' of new bulkhead immediately in front of and within 18" of existing bulkhead using vinyl sheathing. Remove 65' of east and north bulkhead sections and replace in-kind/in-place using vinyl sheathing. Repair 30' of existing stone north bulkhead in-place. Relocate existing concrete blocks above spring high water line. Maintenance dredge existing basin to a depth of minus 4' below mean low water, approximately 1650-2000 cubic yards. Deposit spoil (sand) as beach nourishment on southwest side of the inlet between high water and high marsh area. Located: 1420 Ninth Street, Greenport. SCTM#45-6-9. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who wishes to speak? MR. COSTELLO: I've spoken on this many times and I believe the last discussions at the last meeting were if we could get an approval on it with any contingencies the Board so desires because there were some environmental concerns, legitimate environmental concerns of sewerage being pumped into the wetlands area, and I think if those restrictions would allow that before the project could be done, so be it. I think it would be a wise decision on the Board's part, and I would hope some of the powers to be, this Board, the Police Department, the Health Department, the DEC and 65 Board of Trustees 66 April 19, 2006 the Highway Department of Southold could resolve that problem in some time frame, and by placing the sand as beach nourishment to the west, I think you'll also assist as just a natural bypass to what is occurring now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you say you're going to place to the west? MR. COSTELLO: To the west side, it's just a bypass of sand; the east side has too much sand, the west side has too little. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Just for your information, earlier tonight I think just during the work session or before, I'm not sure, I don't think you were here. At the time we spoke and said that Jill had been in contact with DEC in the sense of controlling the sewerage that's coming from up above, and they're trying to get the police involved and the DEC and make some headway in that. We didn't want to close off the pipe at this point because if there is a problem that water would be coming onto Town property, and we can in turn use the Town as an agent to close that off. But it's the intention of the Board, I think, to move ahead with the idea that there will be an application approved if that pipe is closed. MR. COSTELLO: And I think any Board Member wants to go down on there on a rainy day, you'll know what the problem is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Even dry weather they were saying it's flowing right through now. MR. COSTELLO: And that is a violation on some body's part. And again, Mrs. Duffy is here and to put the sand on the west side, we certainly would need her approval because that is the property that a majority of the fill would be placed on. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That letter isn't in the file yet? MR. COSTELLO: I think it's in the file. I hope it is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we approve the application of an Ann Marie Nelson with the stipulation that no activity should start until the pipes are closed, pipe on Silvermere is closed, sealed off, stopped; do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I just add that we did get a letter 66 Board of Trustees 67 April 19, 2006 from the adjacent owner allowing for the spoil to be placed as part of the application. 13. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY, INC. C/O HELEN SZARKA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-kind/in-place eight existing jetties, dredge basin inlet to minus 4' below average mean low water, approximately 800 cubic yards, and use spoil as beach nourishment. located: Sage Road, Southold. SCTM#53-5-12.5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTEllO: Yes, George Costello, Sr., for the Breezy Shores Community. We had a verbal from Chuck Hamilton to do the dredging down at the entrance to the boat basin and to put it on the beach. The problem is, and I'm sure everybody is aware, that we have eight jetties, most of them are nonfunctional due to a lot of facts. One is if you look at the pictures that I sent you, which were taken about five months ago, prior to 2001, this community taking ownership, the in-shore sections of most of those jetties were cut off. They were cut for the access for kids to play on the beach because at that time there was quite a bit of beach down there. The existing bulkhead which I bid on and lost the bid on in 1985 due to my brother's bidding. It's basically three to four feet out, but the real problem we're going to face shortly if a Katrina or a Rita ever shows up that the sheathing to that bulkhead is six feet, there are some areas where the sheathing is in the bottom two feet. So I tried to explain this to the DEC that if I did the dredging and used the material for beach nourishment and was allowed to put some of the jetties back, I could keep some of the beach nourishment intact in front of the bulkheads where it's needed. Otherwise, I'm going to be coming back to the DEC and the Trustees in South old looking for a rock revetment to keep the bulkhead there once the bulkhead is undermined. Obviously you can see on the eastern end, it's a little more prevalent, the beach loss and the erosion that's occurring on the return. Normally in the past three or four years we've gotten permission from the DEC to rebuild existing jetties most of the time, if they were functional, but they allowed us to cut them back to the low tide and drop the elevation down to 18". And when you look at these pictu res that I presented to the Board, you'll see that most of these jetties are fairly tall, and that's one of the reasons why they cut the section out so the kids could play on the beach 67 Board of Trustees 68 April 19, 2006 and transverse the beach itself. I am trying to present my case, and it's one that if you look at it today, it doesn't look like a major issue but because I know how long the piling are and the sheathing are, I know it's going to be an issue tomorrow or the day after or the day after. So I am requesting some help with these jetties and obviously the dredging, which would be for beach nourishment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for this application? MS. SZARKA: Yes, my name is Helen Szarka. I met some of you when you came to Breezy Shores. I have to say you were very pleasant and not quite what I expected. So that was a very positive surprise. I just have a few remarks to make. Over the years the waterfront land at Breezy Shores has been severely eroded. Many years ago there was a road on the water side in front of the cottages. Now many of the homes are extremely close to the bulkhead shoreline. It is very important that we try to protect and support this shoreline and the eight jetties will do that. Previous owners did not do the best job maintaining the jetties and the property. This newly formed community is trying to solve some of these problems that we inherited due to this past neglect. Rebuilding the jetties would be a step in the right direction for us. The sand that will be deposited from the dredging will be very helpful to maintain the beach and the bulkhead. But as George mentioned, we have been having very erratic weather and another storm may take all of this away and the end result of that would be that we would have to come back to you for other requests for permits or revetments, and I have to tell you that this community right now does not have the money to do that. So we're asking that you be very sympathetic to our cause, we really need help. We need your support. I know that the jetties are nonexistent, but we're asking you to help us the best we you can. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else want to speak? TRUSTEE KING: I think the only question we had was why was there so much beach when there's no groin? MR. COSTEllO: It was pushed down there. If you go down to the west end, you can see there's quite a bit of soil deposited on that corner. There's probably -- and I was being fairly reasonable about the 800 yards of dredging down there. Most of that I believe came right from the east end. I was there yesterday to take another look at it, and I 68 Board of Trustees 69 April 19, 2006 noticed there was probably 10, 15 or 20 yards of sand piled up against one of the jetties. It was on the west side of the jetties. I was a little surprised, but I guess we had a little blow-out of the southwest, pushed up a little bit of the sand. TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Mr. Hamilton about this and that was one of his concerns. A real strong southwester and you'll get beat up. MR. COSTEllO: Yes. When you get the tide running out of there or ebb tide or flood tide and the combination of wind, it's a snotty little spot. I've sailed through there plenty of times with a barge, there's quite a bit of current there. It's kind of an iffy situation at any given day, any weather condition. And my only concern is to keep the bulkhead there, and that keeps the little shacks there. That's basically the bottom line of this whole application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: One of the ideas we floated was simply putting the end jetty, the furthest east and putting that out as a block; that's the most eroded part of the whole area, and that that might act as a block for the whole beach. And that since the other ones aren't functioning that well anyway, and there is beach in front of those with just the end one it might all build up. Any comment on that? MR. COSTEllO: I understand and agree with that theory, but if you were to go back in some aerial photos, and I wish I had a series of photos to show you how much beach was out there. Somebody smarter than me 40, 50 years ago put eight jetties for a reason. Very low slung piece of property, floods fairly easily, and I got to believe that those eight jetties has kept that beach there for 40, 50 years. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Another question. Some of the spacing of the jetties seems to be -- normally they say the jetties to be effective should be two, two and a half times the length, and some of them seem a little too close to be actually functioning to do what we want them to do. So that was another question. Do we want all eight of them in there because some of them aren't doing what they should be doing; should they be spaced? Comment? MR. COSTEllO: I agree, at that time, I don't know if the homeowner or the outfit that owned that place 40 years ago, I think at the time they didn't need permits, I think they did what they thought would work. Whether they were all working the way they're supposed to, I don't believe so. But since they were at that location, obviously we had a 69 Board of Trustees 70 April 19, 2006 survey to show the location of the jetties, and the length that they used to be. They used to be fairly long. There are some remnants that are quite well offshore, 65 feet offshore. We don't want to go there; they can't afford to go there. So that is a possibility. Again, that would be a DEC, Army Corps, some of those guys seem to think they know what the spacing should be. We're willing to negotiate or maybe a little experimenting on two or three jetties or something, but I don't want to completely remove them, and then have them in a dire straight three years from now, and sort of say to myself or say to the Board, I kind of told you so. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What we suggested and -- do you want to go, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Couple comments. The LWRP found this consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends disapproval of the application to replace the jetties; however, would recommend approval of an application to remove and replace Number 1 jetty on the south end -- I know there is a little confusion, some people are saying east/west, some people are saying north/south, but the Shelter Island side would be the south end of the property -- complete removal of the remaining seven groins and place the dredge spoils on the south and east sides of jetty Number 1. When the Board was out there, that is exactly what the Board recommended at the time. Because it seemed like the majority of these jetties were nonfunctional right now. When you say 40-50 years ago somebody made the decision to put a total of eight jetties in there, I think that was common, or I shouldn't say it was common, it was done in a lot of places around here. We have felt the effects of it since then. There has been a concerted effort to try to cut down on the numbers of jetties because while the jetties cause benefit to one side of the jetty, it's at the detriment to the other side of the jetty. So that an answer some people have had is you put one jetty and it's causing a detriment to the other side, well that neighbor should put in a jetty, and then that neighbor should put in a jetty, and the next thing you know you have jetties going all the way down to the beach. And that was the situation that possibly happened here. So what we were recommending is the removal of the jetties, to replace the one all the way down at the end, and place the spoil down there from the dredging to renourish the beach down there. And then we took pictures of it, take a look at it and see if the beach maintains as it is over the next year or the beach does 70 Board of Trustees 71 April 19, 2006 erode in some way. It's our feeling, hopefully, that the beach will maintain just as it does naturally, that there won't be any decrease, and obviously we're promoting the increase of the beach at the southern-most end where the nourishment would go. MR. COSTEllO: Okay. If I could ask the Board a question. let's imagine that the eight jetties are rebuilt as shown in the plans; what side is going to be the detrimental side? Who are we hurting and where is the fill -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just environmentally is there a need for that? Because if you don't put any jetties there then there's no erosion also. It could be the converse side of that. I'm not saying this is how it should go. I'm just saying that's the other side of the argument. This goes back to people saying he should put a jetty, he should put a jetty, he should put a jetty, and all you have is jetties going down the beach. You remove all of them, then there was no need for the jetties. And we had said that we would look at it in a year or two years out, and if there is significant erosion beyond what other properties have experienced, then we would reconsider the opportunity to maybe put additionals as you say, maybe not all seven are needed, we're saying okay to one, but maybe a couple are needed MR. COSTEllO: In the past, obviously this argument comes up constantly, and at one point, and I'm going to say this is probably 10 years ago, we were given permission to pre-fill jetties, and they had to be low profile. And the theory behind the prefilling was to negate any down drift effect. That's pretty much what we're going to try to do anyway. We're taking our own spoils, our own beach that is heading from east to west going down to the inlet, collecting on that corner, dredge it, take it down to the other end and put it back to our little teeny system. And if you notice the jetties are 18 inches above grade where the existing ones are maybe three our four feet above grade. So if we were to pre-fill, let's imagine say four jetties, that negates any down drift effect and we're good to go. If I lose any beach, it's down to the corner again, in the basin, I dredge it out again, and put it back on the beach. Again, the only thing I'm trying to do is keep the bulkhead there. If I could do that with one jetty and not charge the community for seven, then I'm a hero. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have the same goal. MR. COSTEllO: I'm a little reluctant to take the jetties out until I hear from Mr. Hamilton, and, Mr. King, did you 71 Board of Trustees 72 April 19, 2006 do the on-site with Chuck? TRUSTEE KING: No. I happened to run into him at Peterson's and I mentioned to him what we had seen, our suggestion was going to be to remove the jetties. He said his concern was a good strong southwester there is going to cause problems because there's nothing left. MR. COSTEllO: I don't know what his real feelings are. He was very quick to come down, take a look at the dredging, call my secretary up and say he was in favor of it, but I don't know what he said about the jetties. TRUSTEE KING: He didn't appear to have a problem with them to me, just low profile to the low tide mark is what he told me. MR. COSTEllO: At this point, if it's going to be a recommendation that I remove them, I would rather table the application and get the input from DEC, find out where they're going because normally if I take a jetty out, it's usually gone forever, unless I can get a clear understanding from Mr. Hamilton on what he's going to do. That spooks me a little bit. If I have to table, I'll table. Does that sound fair enough? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Definitely. TRUSTEE KING: Sounds fair to me. TRUSTEE KING: I've seen good luck with the new low profile groins, especially when you fill them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In considering -- not deciding upon, but in considering a low profile, would four do as well as eight? MR. COSTEllO: If placed properly, yes. That's the thing, I'd have to pay a little more attention to it, look at old aerial photos. Obviously there's a couple areas where the tide is almost touching the bulkhead, and that's down to the west a little bit and on very east corner, where jetty Number 1 is. I'd have to figure out that placement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you look at that and give us a plan for reducing the number and something that the DEC would also -- TRUSTEE KING: Take another look and reduce the number of groins. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can talk to Chuck again on it. He didn't seem to have a problem with low profile all eight of them in my discussion with him. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But I think what Mr. Costello's concern is if we have him take out four groins and then he finds out, well, I need those four groins back, Chuck might say no. Is that what you're -- 72 Board of Trustees 73 April 19, 2006 MR. COSTEllO: You don't take anything out until you absolutely have to. The footprint is the footprint. TRUSTEE KING: I would investigate lowering the number and properly space them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm hearing is a suggestion for tabling this. Just two things I'd like to mention before we get to that. Two other items, one was there were some boats on the beach in the peninsula there, for them to please be removed from storage there. There was a very large floating platform for a boat he said that somebody had donated. MS. SZARKA: That's history, not history, but it will be history in a couple of weeks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you had talked about maybe putting in a small boat rack in there, and we will need that when we get to the final plan stage, if you could just show us on the plans where that boat rack is going to go. MS. SZARKA: Certainly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At that point, then I'll make a motion to table the application pending more consideration of the jetty situation. MR. COSTEllO: A new plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All the in favor? All AYES. 14. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANNA COOPER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 48' of existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Truck in 15-20 cubic yards of clean sand/topsoil and place landward of the bulkhead as backfill. Excavate area landward of the bulkhead as required and replace excavated material in same place as fill. located: 565 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM#35-6-29 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here who would like to speak? MR. COSTEllO: George Costello, Sr., representing Mrs. Cooper. Existing bulkhead way past its age, apparently we had some heavy rains, it flooded, popped the out. She would like me to replace it. I'm going to replace it with vinyl sheathing right in the same old spot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would just like to see a 15 foot buffer. MR. COSTEllO: You got it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments from the Board? lWRP finds it consistent. CAC recommends approval of application. They are looking for a 50 foot nonturf buffer. What is the length of that return now? Because 73 Board of Trustees 74 April 19, 2006 that's based on what the buffer goes to now. MR. COSTEllO: Six on the south end. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I support a 15 foot buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think a 15 foot buffer is sufficient. If there's no other comments I move to close the public hearing. THE TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? All AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of Anna Cooper with the addition of a 15 foot buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? All AYES. 15. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of NICHOLAS BRUNO requests a Wetland Permit to remove 52' plus/minus of existing bulkhead, 18' east end return, 8' west end return and replace in-place using C-loc 4500 vinyl sheathing. Construct a 4' by 5' cantilevered platform onto a 32" by 12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6' by 20' seasonal float secured by two 2.5' diameter galvanized steel pilings. located: 115 Sun lane, Southold. SCTM#76-1-2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. First of all, I'd like to thank the Board for letting my older brother go home to bed. I had a brief discussion with Mr. King on this application, and his concern with the narrow channel way was how much of the channel way was going to be taken up. I went back, staked the channel way two days ago, photographed it with the stakes out there and the channel way is 73 and a half feet wide, from bulkhead to bulkhead. So in order to take up, put the bulkhead where it is now in the same location, put the floating dock outside of that, and he has a boat there now that's 9 and a half feet, if it had 10 feet, it would only take up approximately 23 percent of the waterway, not one-third, 23 percent. That is replacement of the bulkhead in-kind/in-place, putting a 6' wide floating dock, and a 10' boat, whether it's 11' with a bumper in it, it is still only taking up less than one-third of the waterway. It's deceiving, and I think Mr. King had a legitimate -- I thought it was narrower than that, and I thought that the boat being tied to a float would exceed the one-third portion of the waterway. It doesn't come close. Like I say, that could reduce to 23 percent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The idea of the float is to get further 74 Board of Trustees 75 April 19, 2006 out? MR. COSTELLO: Because of the shoal and right off of that it is considerable deeper. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was our concern. MR. COSTELLO: And the cost of the bulkhead, in the shoal condition, in the shoal with sheathing, it's less expensive. And to dredge there would be difficult because there's a lot of mud and where would you put it. There's plenty of water out in the middle. TRUSTEE KING: Like you say, it's deceiving. It looks so narrow there. MR. COSTELLO: With your concern, I thought it was narrower than that, we went up with a tape and went across, 73 and a half feet from bulkhead to bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just say no more than one-third across, that's what we normally do. MR. COSTELLO: Because if it had been in that one-third neighborhood, I would have approached the owner with indent some of the float into the bulkhead, in our brief conversations. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? It was found consistent with the LWRP. CAC recommended approval with the condition of a 10' nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. If I remember right, it wasn't a very big yard so 10 feet's probably enough. It was pretty narrow there. So 10 foot buffer. If there's no other comment, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted with a 10 foot nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. And the docking facility including the vessel is not to exceed more than one-third of the way across the creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 16. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH BRITTMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct 105' of low-profile bulkhead using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing, re-vegetate intertidal marsh area with spartina alterniflora and install a 32" by 20' seasonal ramp and the end of an existing dock onto a 6' by 20' seasonal float secured by four 6" pilings. Located: 80 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-10. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to comment on this 75 Board of Trustees 76 April 19, 2006 application? MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, and I am the agent for Mr. Brittman on this application. I believe Mr. Brittman met with the past Board onsite and the past Board of Trustees suggested to him that the only thing that he could get approved at that site would be a low profile, the bulkhead, where the tide would come up and feed, and he said that he would be tickled to death to have that in order to try to get the vegetation, intertidal vegetation to revegetate the area instead of the phragmites. So that was why the application was made for that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Had the applicant ever tried replanting that area? MR. COSTEllO: If you looked at it, the photographs, it's a pretty sharp drop off. He did try to do some planting, but they have a road runoff pipe. He tried in that area but the steepness of most of the banks at the west end of the property -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's also shaded. MR. COSTEllO: But the bulkhead doesn't go out -- you know where the trees start, the shade, we stopped it, we didn't go to his property line. Because he said the Board met on site was reluctant to go all the way because the erosion wasn't as severe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, did you have a chance to talk to Mark? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I didn't, he's against it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Even after your discussion, because you had some comments? MR. COSTEllO: Who? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Planning Board, Mark Terry who writes up the lWRP, and what he basically said is it's inconsistent. The applicant hasn't demonstrated the proposed action is consistent; and basically he says that there's no evidence that you need a hardened structure there, and basically they don't like to have hardened structures according to the rules and regulations. So he's against it on that basis. He just thought there was not a lot of boat action up there anyway. So what I told him is based on, you know, I work on a creek that has no boat action, there's nobody, it sloughs off on a regular basis because it just undermines and it comes off. So I can understand that there is a constant, and to me this made more sense and what his comment was you people have the right to do whatever you want. Basically he said you can override my comments. I'm just writing what I find on the 76 Board of Trustees 77 April 19, 2006 books. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the comment is that it's a natural process. MR. COSTEllO: There is a degree of boggy material that is supporting the phragmites and some of the other vegetation that is in there. And as you go to the west there is a little more of the high marsh back into the woods, and there is some spartina alterniflora and to encourage that I think you'd be better doing a better job than letting the bog fall off in clumps, it's slumping now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As John says, it's a natural process. MR. COSTEllO: That was a dredged portion of the canal at one time. TRUSTEE KING: It's private bottom, right? MR. COSTEllO: Yes, I think I know who dredged it but I wasn't involved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And I think you know we looked across at one that was done 10 or 15 years ago, we were at a different property -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The property we just, the Bruno property. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, where you measured across, that low sill bulkhead right there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's a low sill right across from that, and it seemed to be just a little too high, and that there was some alterniflora growing, and I noticed your's was at one and a quarter above, that's a critical measurement and that will encourage alterniflora to grow, and I think you'll increase environment not decrease. TRUSTEE KING: That's my feeling too. MR. COSTEllO: I probably was involved in working and designing the first low sill bulkhead that was constructed, and the DEC uses is on a documentation, on the island boat yard on Shelter Island. We had a little marina and we wanted to keep the wetlands for environmental reasons. So what we did is we allowed the bulkhead, just cut planks out of the bulkhead so we had six foot of water on one side of the bulkhead in a real wetlands. It's still there. And the DEC came out there and they allowed it as a trial, and that was probably 1983, and they use that in filming. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it still there? MR. COSTEllO: It's still there, Island Boat Yard in Shelter Island. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't remember where that is. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just want to the comment too, the CAC 77 Board of Trustees 78 April 19, 2006 disapproved it. They didn't think there was any need for it. So just add that also. We also had a problem, I think, with the float it was going out too far I believe. I don't have my comments right in front of me. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about maybe turning it, making an "l", rather than straight out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An l heading north. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Turn dock to left, northwest. MR. COSTEllO: I think you could. There's two things -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, no, no, I'm sorry, not left. I'm sorry, I remember so I'm sorry. Make an "l" out of it instead of straight out, because that brings it into his property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's another dock or whatever over there. MR. COSTEllO: There's a couple things. The concern because it's a dead end, there is not going to be an increase of traffic, but if you measured it and it was measured out to be just the one-third, but it's insignificant. There's not going to be any traffic and you can shorten the ramp to bring it back or put it in an "l" configuration. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our thing it was not directly across, it was the neighbor, direct neighbor, if they had a boat there, and then you have a boat there it would be too close. MR. COSTEllO: If that's a concern putting it in an "l" configuration, I don't believe it's going to bother him. Because I think his son has a canoe and he has one boat, so maybe that accomplishes the same thing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I've seen some of these low profile bulkheads, and if they're done properly it increases the size of the wetlands and it gives you deeper water on the other side. One in Mattituck that's absolutely beautiful. You don't even know there's a bulkhead there. It just looks like a wetland. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? All AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I make a motion that we approve the wetland application, we believe it will be a positive step for the environment. It will allow for the growth of intertidal marsh and protect it. We also would like to see an "l" formed by the dock not straight out and also a 15 foot nonturf buffer from the edge of the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 78 Board of Trustees 79 April 19, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? All AYES. TRUSTEE KING: And you could tell him those phragmites, keep them trimmed a foot high. MR. COSTEllO: If we were inundated in salt water, they don't do too well but they'll hang around the edge. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I say one thing too, on the application of Nelson, I do want to make a point, that the lWRP was against. They wouldn't write a comment until we resolved the problem, so that we're passing it. I just want to make it clear for the record that we're passing it with the idea that the pipe is being closed, so it will probably not be a problem, not that I can say that. TRUSTEE KING: We intend to improve water quality in that area. MR. COSTEllO: I have one other question, Gardiner's Bay Homeowner's Association. TRUSTEE KING: He talked to us tonight. MR. COSTEllO: I told him it was necessary because if I got some of the Board Members to agree to that 6' wide, which was your concern instead of the 8' wide, which basically was hopefully designed by Mr. Hamilton. TRUSTEE KING: He told us he didn't want an 8' float? MR. COSTEllO: He told me 10. I met with him onsite. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Continue. MR. COSTEllO: It makes no difference. They agreed to allow the 6', what we'll do is try it, we'll try to coax to the people to eliminate some of the dinghies, so if he wants that done or they want that done this season, this Board at some stage is going to have to take some action. TRUSTEE KING: We told him he needs a new set of plans, because he said he was going to raise the elevation on the fixed dock, we don't know that. He said he was going to change that dock, so I told him submit the plans showing that, showing the 6' floats -- well, you had a drawing anyway. Submit that so next month we can do it and we waive the application fee because they already paid one fee. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he would have to fill out a whole new application. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. He has to apply for what we talked about. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And what he said is you can start to work on the floats and all that stuff. MR. COSTEllO: I don't want to start buying floats in the wrong size. TRUSTEE KING: He said the DEC said they had to do some replanting. I told him go ahead start replanting, it has nothing to do with us. He was afraid he couldn't replant 79 Board of Trustees 80 until he got a dock permit. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. (Time ended: 11 :02 p.m.) April 19, 2006 RECEIVED .... ~ /J :05 j111f JUN 2 2 3Xl6 80