Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/15/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 MINUTES RECEIVED v ~ II. 00/7/>1 MAY 2 5 2006 ~Q rJn;JJ, - S"'h;ld-T;wn "cWt- - ~ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Holzapfel, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Cusack, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December, 2004. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For January, 2006, check for $10,213.04 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Board of Trustees 2 February 15, 2006 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Julie Ann Haerr -- SCTM#135-3-28.1 Nicholas Pologeorgis -- SCTM#135-1-26 Linda Borden -- SCTM#9-9-27.2 Don & Mary Jo Murphy -- SCTM#119-1-9.1 Jim & Susan Sweeney -- SCTM#27-3-42 Ann Marie Nelson c/o Pat Nelson -- SCTM#45-6-9 Robert Spitzenberg -- SCTM#78-5-4 Paradise Point Association, Inc -- SCTM#81-1-16.1 & 16.7 Thomas Cavanagh -- SCTM#111-14-13 John and Marion Brandvold -- SCTM#53-4-10 Carolyn & Joseph Ferrara -- SCTM#38-8-1 Catherine & Richard Reinken -- SCTM#98-1-11.1 Kevin and Doreen Barr -- SCTM#81-1-20 Kevin & Susan Ferrel -- SCTM#99-3-4.6 Richard R. Prieto, Jr. -- SCTM#87-3-45.1 & 46 Don Jayamaya -- SCTM#140-1-8 Benjamin & Jocelyn Suglia -- SCTM#137-3-7 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Hello, everyone before we get started, I'll just introduce the Board, David Bergen, Peggy Dickerson, Jill Doherty, myself, Lauren Standish is our office manager, and John Holzapfel, another Trustee, Brownell Johnston, our legal advisor, and Heather Cusack, our environmental technician. Right now we're starting work on revisions to our shellfish code. We're just gathering information now and we have been in touch with the Shellfish Advisory Council to make some changes. Some sections of it haven't been changed in 35, 40 years, they're really outdated. We're checking into 97 a little bit to see if any modifications need to be made to that. We're moving along. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: Board of Trustees 3 February 15, 2006 1. Peconic Land Trust requests an Administrative Amendment to Permit #6180A to cut the phragmites and remove them at the Harper Preserve prior to April 15. Located: 1920 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-1-20.1 TRUSTEE KING: I think we all looked at this and didn't have a problem. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: 1. Meryl Kramer, Architect on behalf of JOHN & MARION BRANDVOLD requests an Amendment to Permit #5879 to extend the deck an additional 4' beyond what was originally granted for a total depth of 12', and a One-Year Extension to Permit 5879. Located: 1955 Bayshore Road, Greenport-- SCTM#53-4-10 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked at this, it was one I did myself. I looked at it as absolutely no problem at all. I recommend that we move ahead on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of LOIS ANDERSON requests an Amendment to Permit #5728 to extend the bulkhead returns to 10' rather than 5'. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#70-4-45 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this, it's just a matter of extending the return five more feet inlands, there's no impact, I'll recommend approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN & DOREEN BARR requests an Amendment to Permit 6198 for the removal of a 12' by 16' deck at the top of the embankment and construct a 10' by 22' rather than 10' by 10' deck landward of bulkhead; and revegetate backfilled and other disturbed areas of embankment with beach grass, bayberry, and Rugosa Rose. Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-20 TRUSTEE KING: Even though these aren't public hearings, we'll take comments on it. There was some questions from the neighbors, Rob, on the location of the deck. MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Barrs, nice to see you again, John. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank you. Board of Trustees 4 February 15, 2006 MR. HERMANN: The Barrs were informed by Mr. Sinning next door, apparently not related to environmental permitting but there are some C and Rs here that require structures to be a minimum of 20 feet from the side property line. So actually, the application tonight would need to be modified to show a 10 by 19 deck that would be on the same side of the stairs but cut back to meet a 20 foot side yard setback. It wasn't a subject of our application but this Board had previously approved a platform, 4' by 4' platform and steps to the beach, and it's my understanding that Mr. Sinning had also asked that that platform meet the 20 foot setback. This is on the seaward side of the bulkhead. But that he had no objection to the steps heading towards his property. So in other words, the steps would be within 20 feet, but not the platform. So I had brought a revised, just a draft sketch to show you what I'm talking about. The deck is being cut back here by a number of feet to meet a 20 foot setback, and this platform here would meet a 20 foot setback from the side yard but the steps would continue down where as before we had it just as reversed, the platform was over here and the steps were heading away from the Sinning parcel. TRUSTEE KING: Why do you want this deck here rather than in the middle of the property more? MR. HERMANN: Because this is where they wanted the deck to be located, down on this side, so Kevin met with Mr. Sinning this weekend to discuss it, and he said as long as it was configured like this, he didn't have a problem with it. MR. HERMANN: Mr. Sinning, have you seen this? MR. Sinning: I haven't seen it. I got a message from Kevin saying it was going to be turned around, which I have no problem with it. MR. HERMANN: You can correct me if my relay of any of that is incorrect. MR. SINNING: My problem is that that bank is cut out too severely. My bluff is going to erode down onto his. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was a concern we had, Rob. MR. SINNING: I think he was going to supply a rebanking or something. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Because they cut the slope of the hill back dramatically in order to make room for that platform, and it's almost vertically exposed. MR. HERMANN: There's going to be a retaining wall that's going to be constructed along the back of that which has always been in this plan. For the Board members that weren't here -- Board of Trustees 5 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't there a second bulkhead in there originally? MR. HERMANN: No. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. HERMANN: I think you're thinking of Kitt next door. Because this was originally approved at least a couple years ago originally as a landward resheathing. And by the time the project was going to be implemented, it changed to a remove and replace. So when I discussed this briefly, Jim, which is one of the reasons why there really wasn't a proper revegetation plan in place as part of this permit -- because there was a nonjurisdiction letter issued by DEC and originally this was just a resheath, and the Board approved the remove and replace as a modification. It was really just an oversight on everybody's part, including the Board's, to require some sort of revegetation. So we're actually proposing that now. I have copies of proposals, but it's from Jim Coffee and Plantings by the Sea. Just so the representation in good faith by the Barrs, it's part of the permit but they're getting that underway immediately. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there another wall then? MR. HERMANN: There's just going to be the retaining wall behind the deck area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What about the first 20 feet from your property? MR. HERMANN: The wall could be extended. The problem is the discussion only came up this weekend, so when I spoke with Kevin, we didn't really have -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It probably goes from here straight down to the bulkhead, then their property is here and theirs comes out. So there's a big hole missing there. If you put the wall over there, there's not going to be anything here. So I think there's something to be figured out more than just -- MR. HERMANN: They will probably have to extend the wall over to at least tie in possibly to the Sinning return, but I think that would be something -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's again a structure within 20 feet of the side line and -- MR. HERMANN: I don't think he would ask for a wall, and then say I don't want you to put it there because it's within 20 feet. MR. SINNING: You would have to have a retaining wall against the back of the bluff, then you'd have to return toward the water to keep my bluff from falling down. MR. HERMANN: I don't know if that's true. We would have to Board of Trustees 6 February 15, 2006 have somebody, a professional engineer look at it. MR. SINNING: I would much rather see that graded down and planted. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have to look at it again. MS. BARR: We spoke to Steve, he will come and he will regrade. Right now the project has been at a standstill, because we have been waiting for this hearing. But we have spoken to Steve Pawlik and Pologrosso, and he will come and regrade, and as you saw this Saturday the crane is still in our backyard over by you, he will adjust the grade on your cliff side. MR. SINNING: When I spoke to Mr. Barr on Saturday, he said he was going to end the deck and put stones. (Discussion.) MR. HERMANN: This Board has never requested somebody to submit an application to put rock and gravel around a bulkhead; in fact, as a condition of the nonturf buffer, this Board has always said stone or grasses or sand or whatever and the only thing that would cause us to need to come in for a permit would be any physical structures. So at least historically this Board hasn't had comments on someone putting gravel, but here I think it's a relevant point because if the Board wants to see this area graded down to the bulkhead, then that would be something you would have to consider requiring. The problem is, with all due respect to Mr. Sinning, I can't stand here and just assume that his layman's interpretation of the bluff is in fact what would happen. It seems to me unlikely that this area would cause the undermining of the bulkhead and embankment simply because you don't have grading going from the top going down to the bulkhead. That's not an unusual condition all along Southold and Peconic Bay. That's why I'm saying, I think it's something that should be addressed, I'm just not willing to say standing here what the solution is. MR. SINNING: I have no objection to the deck. (Discussion) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you think the regrading of that bluff with a substantial proper planting would do the trick? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So just restore the bluff as it was. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the direction we're going. MR. HERMANN: I don't think we would have any problem of that being a condition of this area in here. Because technically this is part of the backfill area that we indicated to be stabilized with planting with beach rose and bayberry and beach grass, all of which are shown in these Board of Trustees 7 February 15, 2006 proposals. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're talking also about the slope going -- MR. HERMANN: Yes, grade and replant it. The only area that would not be like that would be as you described, basically this cut-out, basically for the deck and the retaining wall, but again that's not unusual for these bay front properties, you see these all over the place. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you would grade to their side of the property? MR. HERMANN: Correct. This place in here would not be left to drop, it would be graded and planted, the same as the rest of this area. So we're not saying anything that isn't already -- I don't know what Kevin said to Mr. Sinning about the stones. I know Kevin at one point had said to me if he wasn't approved for the deck, he would put stones there and why would it make a difference to Mr. Sinning whether it was a deck or stones because it's presumably the real life impact would be their presence there, not what they were sitting on. So maybe there was some miscommunication that I don't know. MR. SINNING: Because I said to him it was a structure. MR. HERMANN: I understand legally that you're 100 percent correct, and neither we nor the Barrs are changing that and we appreciate you're bringing it to our attention, but I'm just saying where the stones are coming from, I don't think it's a current plan to put a deck and stones. I think Kevin was saying, if we didn't get approval for the deck, couldn't we just put stones there and socialize on the stones. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we're all going the same way, to regrade, move the deck over, you said make it 10' by 19', 20 feet away from the property line and a replanting plan. MR. HERMANN: If you would approve it tonight conditioned upon receipt of this, I could give it to you, and I could formalize this and give it to you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, let's move along then. I'll make a motion to approve this amendment, the deck dimensions are going to be changed to 10' by 19' and the one corner of the property will be regraded and planted, everything will be planted up. MR. HERMANN: And there will be a 20 foot setback. TRUSTEE KING: Everything will be planted up. MR. HERMANN: As noted on the plans and Jim, remember, that the plantings on the seaward side of the bulkhead is going to be swapped. So I don't think it would need any changing Board of Trustees 8 February 15, 2006 or description unless you want to include that the 4' by 4' platform will meet the 20 foot setback also. TRUSTEE KING: We can put it in there. MR. HERMANN: I think the Sinnings will want to make sure that we see that through. TRUSTEE KING: So this will be approved. MS. CUSACK: Put in your resolution survivability of the plants. We have been seeing a lot of problems with that maybe, come back with a one-year inspection. TRUSTEE KING: And this approval is based on the new plans being submitted and there will be a one-year inspection to see if everything lived. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I meant to say the Conservation Advisory Council recommended disapproval on that and recommended immediate steps be taken to save the bank. I think probably their concern was that same concern, so hopefully we have addressed that. 4. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of PETER TAGIOS & ALETRA MONFREDO requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5858, as issued on February 25, 2004. Located: 545 Williamsburg Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-5-16 TRUSTEE KING: It's fairly substantially started. All the piles are in place. So I'll recommend approval of the extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Olsen and Olsen on behalf of ROBERT S. MARSTON & JOHN D. GARDINER requests a Transfer of Permit #5996 from Thomas and Beverly Christianson to Robert S. Marston & John D. Gardiner, as issued on September 22, 2004 and amended on February 16, 2005. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117 -5-30 TRUSTEE KING: This was a real small, real old little house. We looked in it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The one across almost the property we looked at. TRUSTEE KING: It's just a transfer, so I recommend approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Board of Trustees 9 February 15, 2006 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 TRUSTEE KING: We have some postponements. We'll go through them now. One, Bahrenburg has been postponed; 21, David Shamoon; Sim Moy, 22, has been postponed; and 28, Julie Tsai has been postponed. I apologize if anybody sat here. I'll make a motion to go off the regular meeting? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: We'll have our public hearings now. We have a number of them, so anybody that has any comments, please make them brief. I have a yellow paddle and a red paddle because sometimes people have a tendency to ramble on, and I toyed with the idea of holding up the yellow one when you were getting close to the end, and then we'll hold up a red one when you're all done, but we'll see how it goes without them. Sometimes these public hearings turn into debates and I want to try and curtail that if I can. 2. Patricia Moore on behalf of NICHOLAS POLOGEORGIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing porch on the easterly side of the dwelling and construct a 15' by 30' garage. Located: 22655 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-26 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. We have a DEC permit for this work under Permit Number 1473801883/00004. We have Zoning Board approval with respect to the side yard setback, and you're my last permit process. If you have any questions. TRUSTEE KING: The Board's information, it's been found inconsistent. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's beyond the Coastal Erosion? MS. MOORE: Yes, the Coastal Erosion there is at the street. TRUSTEE KING: It's in the Coastal Erosion area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're only allowed a certain percentage increase. Board of Trustees 10 February 15, 2006 MS. MOORE: To consider it a minor project, it can't be more than 25 percent of existing structures, and we are well within the 25 percent requirement. I had the surveyor do that, it should be on the survey. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Do you have the area of the house anywhere? MS. MOORE: Yes, the main building is 1,722 square feet. Porches, steps and patios are 1,012 square feet, take the two together it's 2,735 square feet. 25 percent of that should be under the 450. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 25 percent of that total or with the garage? MS. MOORE: No, we don't have the garage yet. MS. CUSACK: What did you get for the total square footage of the house? MS. MOORE: It should be right on the survey. It's right on the notes by the surveyor on the right. I have the deck stamped plan maybe I can help you. TRUSTEE KING: That's it, that's the size of the footage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What are LWRP comments? MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: She's asking for the LWRP comments. TRUSTEE KING: Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. The proposed setback from the wetlands system is 77.5 feet. So it's within our jurisdiction, which makes it inconsistent. Required applicant amend the application to meet the above policy to the greatest extent possible. They can't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MS. MOORE: It's also a disturbed area. TRUSTEE KING: Then there's some recommendation. If the action is approved, require erosion and sediment controls, hay bails, silt fencing. We normally do that during construction to protect the wetlands system to the north of the property. Require native disease resistant and draught tolerant landscaping to minimize irrigation and fertilizer applications and require gutters and down spouts to dry wells, which we normally do. MS. MOORE: We have no objection to those being conditions of the permit. The landscaping is pretty much there, you saw it on the street. The landscaping on the north side I think suffers from north winds, so there's not much there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you're saying there's not a need for there to be plantings, you're saying what's existing is it? Because I think the Board had a discussion. MS. MOORE: I'm saying there is a lot of landscaping on the Board of Trustees 11 February 15, 2006 street frontage, I don't think that area's going to be disturbed at all. If you want additional landscaping somewhere just let me know where, I'm sure the owner won't complain, he prefers landscaping. TRUSTEE KING: There's a good sized gravel buffer between where the garage is being built and the dune area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I remember the gravel buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. But I think out here we decided some of it would be planted and some of it had failed. I just had needed replanting and dry wells. Remember this is sort of an erosion here, we saw some runoff here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that where she had the proposed landscape buffer or are you talking further up here? TRUSTEE KING: Down in this area? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It just seemed like some of the replanting hadn't taken. MS. MOORE: Can I bring up my survey? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This beach grass all here had been planted, but if it went along to the east, it seemed to have failed, and there was evidence of erosion. TRUSTEE KING: The down spouts aren't going into dry wells or anything. MS. MOORE: That doesn't make sense. That was the prior owner. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: What we can do is you're going to have gutters and leaders from the garage and at the same time with the new dry wells, just hook up the house. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. If you write the permit that way, I'll make sure. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? Pat, can we get a new drawing indicating where the dry wells will be for the roof runoff? I don't see anything on these plans for dry wells. MS. MOORE: Do you have a preference because since it appears not to be here from the prior renovation of the house, why don't you show me where you prefer it, and if they're not in the ground we'll put them in a particular area. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking somewhere in the area of the new garage. MS. MOORE: In the front not the back, you don't want them on the water side; you want them on the street side. TRUSTEE KING: Or on the side. There may be one in the front by the southeast corner of the house, maybe one there that they can hook the house drainage too. Board of Trustees 12 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you think there are already dry wells there. MS. MOORE: They might be under there. They just never got connected. It seems kind of odd. And it is relative to the last three or four years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jumps out. MS. MOORE: Garity, I think it was the prior owner. TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes you miss them. MS. MOORE: It happens. In this area. Board of Trustees 13 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Put one dry well here and maybe one here. MS. MOORE: That's fine. There's probably going to be a driveway connecting. TRUSTEE KING: There may be some replanting down there where it's needed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We can approve it subject to a new plan. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you draw them on here right now on this, and then I'll stamp it. Do you want me to draw them on? MS. MOORE: Sure, it's your print. TRUSTEE KING: Let me see what you have on yours and I'll just copy them. MS. MOORE: I have connecting dry wells and leaders to drain, and then we just have to identify where the drains are going to go. TRUSTEE KING: I'll put house and garage. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: A row of hay bails during construction seaward, whatever they need for room to work. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, can you put this in the applications instead of us writing this here now? You know that it has to be there, and it's just wasting time. MS. MOORE: I always assume it's going to be conditions of your permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, then we have to write it. We have to discuss it. We have to tell you we're going to change it. But if you put it in your application, then all we do is see it. TRUSTEE KING: They're in the plans already. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So just include it in the plans, and it would save a lot of people a lot of time. MS. MOORE: I have a surveyor that wasn't from the area, usually they provide it. TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other motions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the changes that we have made as far as dry wells, line of hay bails during construction and replanting of the beach grass in the areas where it's gone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 14 February 15, 2006 3. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN & SUSAN FERREL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit to restore the damaged bluff by placing 1,600 cubic yards of bank run sand on the face of the bluff. Stabilization of the restored areas will be implemented by terracing and planting with the approved beach grasses. Located: 130 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there somebody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MESIANO: Yes, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I believe the application speaks for itself. I should add that the reason we're here is that we did suffer a land slide, a significant amount of material did fall. We lost a significant amount of the bluff and this is in an effort to restore the bluff, try to retain its integrity. We have done a lot of investigation. Again, we've consulted with a number of professionals and this plan that we're presenting to you seems to be the most reasonable plan to try to restore that bluff and give it the integrity it needs in order to maintain the stability. I know that there's some concerns. There was a comment I think by the soil and water conservation board; is that correct? And I suppose we should just tackle it head on and say that we are opposed to cutting back the bluff. We feel that that would not be the solution to the property. It's counter-intuitive to anything I have ever heard before this Board for the past 15 years. Cutting off the bluff does not seem to be the solution. Our terracing plan would entail -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a plan from soil and water? We had requested that you speak to soil and water. MS. MESIANO: I was not aware of that. TRUSTEE KING: I understand it's a question of ownership too on that bluff. Part of that bluff is owned by the property owner's association, I believe. MS. MESIANO: Yes, and the property owner. They're polling the property owners and we expect the authorization to be forthcoming. It was a matter of getting the mechanics of getting the paperwork to the individuals and getting the signatures back. But Mr. Ferrel has been in communication with members of the board and there doesn't appear to be an issue with that. I think I should bring to your attention a letter that was issued by soil and water, conservation from June 24, 2004. This was generated by our application before the Zoning Board when a neighbor expressed some concern. This Board of Trustees 15 February 15, 2006 is -- I have a copy for you, but I would like to present this to the Board. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody from the association here? We really can't move on it. MR. JOHNSTON: Give us whatever it is you want us to submit and then we can move on it. TRUSTEE KING: We're going to need that authorization before us before we can move on this, not after the fact. MS. MESIANO: You couldn't condition your approval on that? TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. FERREL: We're trying to deal with the planting season and get things moving. So based on the assumption that we would get the association vote and approval, which by the way, other people have done similar type work, we'd like to ask you to give it conditional. TRUSTEE KING: This isn't new. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would like soil and water to come out now. This is two years old. We would like you to contact Allen Connel from soil and water. MR. FERREL: Yes, I have him here and I also have the Southold Advisory Council here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC does approve this and it was found consistent. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should just table this really until we get stuff in front of us from the property owner's association. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, that's what we do; do you make a motion? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MESIANO: Excuse me, could I request a roll call vote? TRUSTEE KING: To table? No. MR. JOHNSTON: You can request it, but you don't have to respect it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What our concern is we want in writing to have the application complete, the permission from the association. So, we really cannot go further until we have that. And then once we have that in the file to complete the application, we can go forward. MS. MESIANO: Again, in my consistency schpiel, there's been a lot of decisions made by this Board not consistent with that position. And in light of the fact that the Ferrels are dealing with a deteriorating bluff situation, planting season, et cetera, we are really distressed at this because we are ready to move on it and we're at risk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't really move on this until we have Board of Trustees 16 February 15, 2006 a complete, and this Board, starting January 1 st, has done that. The previous Board I can't speak for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just also to assist with, the next time there was a letter from a neighbor who was concerned about how the fill was going to be brought in. They were concerned about the -- the neighbor to the east was concerned about vibration causing more damage to their property. So it's something to address next time also. MS. MESIANO: Is there a way for a better means of communication between the Board and the applicants? Because if I don't go to the office and request, how else do I address these issues? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We met the owner, Mrs. Ferrel, and we explained to her in the field, and this letter from Allen Connel was done on the 10th and we're just receiving it now, so we need time to do that. MRS. FERREL: You came days after you told me you were going to come. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we're just receiving the letter this minute, his response this minute, we didn't receive it before tonight. TRUSTEE KING: Moving along. 4. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CAROLYN & JOSEPH FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consistent of a 4 by 12 inclined ramp; 4' by 84' fixed timber catwalk; 3' by 14' hinged ramp; and 6' by 20' float secured by two 8" diameter pilings. Dock is to be constructed of untreated lumber and ramp and float shall be removed and reinstalled seasonal. Located: 2170 Maple Lane, East Marion. SCTM#38-8-1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann on behalf of the applicants, Joseph and Carolyn Ferrara. The Ferrara are also here. I just want to hand up an aerial photo to the Board, I'm sure you have seen it, but to show you the location of this dock. The application is should be self-explanatory, we're here to answer any questions that the Board may have. Quickly, we are proposing this dock within the virtual shadow of another series of much larger docks that are associated immediately adjacent to this property and resort residential land. The dock is proposed to extend a total of 114 feet seaward of high tide, which is Board of Trustees 17 February 15, 2006 approximately 66 feet or 37 percent less than the adjacent condominium dock, which itself is shorter than two of the three docks to its east. This dock is not being proposed along a virgin or pristine shoreline, but rather in the midst of this existing series of much larger docks including that owned by the Crescent Beach Condominium, who is an applicant to this Board and was granted approval to extend in 1996 what was then a 150 foot fixed dock to a 218 foot fixed dock with wave breaks; all 218 feet of which is permanent structure. Only 84 feet of the proposed dock for the F erraras is fixed, the rest of it, as Peggy read, is ramp and float to be removed seasonally. An unvegetated sandy shoreline adjacent not only to these other docks but again for zones resorVresidentialland, which you can see in that aerial photo is characterized by intense development of and residential development and with the much larger docks. So there's nothing about this application that would change the character of this shoreline. It's again, located next to these larger docks. The dock itself would not create any new navigational constraints that are not already present. Certainly no character of community conditions that aren't already present. And this property is also essentially in an isolated geologic and zoning cell, if you look at the aerial with the inlet to the west, and also the resorVresidentialland on either side of it. So we would hope that the Board would consider all that and consider the fact that this dock has been designed minimally with respect to all of those factors, navigation, ecology and community character included. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this is in Coastal Erosion, Rob? MR. HERMANN: Yes, a Coastal Erosion Permit is required because it is a dock structure that has greater than 200 square feet of top surface area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the Coastal Erosion Permit? MR. HERMANN: There's an application for Coastal Erosion Permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Here tonight? MR. HERMANN: Yes. MS. CUSACK: There wasn't when the Board looked at it but he MR. HERMANN: Lauren had contacted our office and advised us that that needed to be filed. It was faxed to your office. I brought the hard copy tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So are we considering Coastal Erosion Board of Trustees 18 February 15, 2006 tonight on this as well? MR. HERMANN: You would have to by law because again, unless the dock is removed seasonally in its entirety or its less than 200 square feet top surface area, in either of those cases, it's an unregulated activity under Coastal Erosion, but if it doesn't meet either of those characteristics it's a regulated activity for which a permit is required. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was looking at the original permit, and I didn't see it was applied for. MR. HERMANN: During the original submission that was our oversight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak? Yes. MR. ANGELE: We are neighbors with Mr. Ferrara's to the east. I represent 21 unit owners and we have no objections to Mr. Ferrara building the dock. And Mr. Ferrara also proposed that he would move it 15 feet west to give us more of a chance to clam in the area and do our own boating in the area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sir, could you state your name, please? MR. ANGELE: I'm Michael Angele, we are at the Crescent Beach condos, 21 units and we have no objections at all. MR. HERMANN: That was discussed for the Board's information, the Ferraras were trying to keep the dock, again for community character issues, as close to that other series of docks as possible. The land, as you see in the aerial as you go to the west, starts to curve around, and we could move the dock up to 15 feet from this west so that it would still be in a parallel series with those docks. So the Ferraras have no objection to that. Also depending on the Board's feeling, we may want to also add shore parallel steps to either side to the catwalk as part of the proposal to insure pedestrian access during high tide. TRUSTEE KING: Some kind of path it looks like. MR. HERMANN: We can assume in the original proposal that pedestrian access would be landward of the catwalk, but given that that would force access to go through an area of beach grass, we would propose it as part of the catwalk itself on the sandy beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition no treated lumber is used and there is no change to the natural buffer. MR. HERMANN: It is proposed as a nontreated lumber dock, that is in the application and the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We also just received, which I am a bit cautious about, a very lengthy LWRP inconsistency review, Board of Trustees 19 February 15, 2006 and since I just received it tonight, it's four pages long, I myself would prefer to have more time to review that. MR. HERMANN: I respect that, Peggy, but we just listened to an application before where the Board is objecting to the concept of the applicants dumping something on you at the last second. And we prepared a very lengthy LWRP application that was submitted in a timely fashion. The fact that Mark Terry can't review these things in a timely fashion should not in turn be taken out on the applicants. So I'm happy to discuss the LWRP for as many hours tonight as you wish, but unless the Board has another reason to table the application, I hope you wouldn't table the application because of Mark's inability to produce that report. This is a recurring theme with our application and many others. MR. HERMANN: In our LWRP application we discuss Policy 3, Policy 5, Policy 6, and Policy 9 and Policy 10. And I'm happy to discuss those here as parts of the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other Board comments? TRUSTEE KING: I'm always hesitant to issue a permit for a dock on the bay and really delve into these. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think Rob made a good argument along the way of the problems that we normally have. It is not a pristine undisturbed area. There are bigger docks already there. It's relatively close to existing docks. It's not going to change the character of the neighborhood. All of those things I think should be noted, and they're important of why we're going to deal with this application as we should deal with it. MR. HERMANN: John, I appreciate your observation of that because it's no secret that this Board now, despite the fact that there is no written prohibition or caveat against docks on the bay in the newly written wetlands law, by practice, it's no secret that this Board has objected to docks on the bay, quote/unquote for that reason, which is why we put a lot of time in this when Joe and Carl came to me and I said this would have to be an application that would distinguish or that the Board would be able to distinguish this application from others where you see docks come in along the Peconic Bay shoreline with all residential properties, and docks are looking in all directions. Here you have, I think, an unusual, if not unique situation of the Ferraras' residential parcel being in between essentially two condominium associations, adjacent to resort/residential lands that are intensely developed, that are designed by code to be intensely developed, and have literally humongous Board of Trustees 20 February 15, 2006 docks adjacent to it, including one which this Board of Trustees -- not these members but this entity -- granted approval to extend to almost 220 feet in 1996. Now that's not back in the '70s that's only nine, less than 10 years ago. TRUSTEE KING: We always look back at that as being a mistake. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're learning. MR. HERMANN: And that's the tradition of responsive boards who are looking to sort of undo mistakes of the past, but we're not asking you to set a precedent here. We're asking you to make a decision. I think it would be difficult for the Board to set forth a tenable argument that this dock would somehow disrupt this shoreline given its location relative immediately to what's next door. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, do we have any idea of what subaquatic vegetation, any idea of what's in that area? MR. HERMANN: I don't know of any significant underwater vegetation at this site. It's a sandy area. There were no large eel grass beds, which is the one standard underwater population of the DEC -- that the DEC, for example, keeps an eye out for. You see a lot of those on Shinnecock Bay on the south shore. Didn't note anything like that here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of my concerns always is the Peconic Estuary Comprehensive plan that says that their goal is to have no net increase in structure on the Peconic Estuary, and that's always in the forefront of my mind when making decisions. MR. HERMANN: Again, that's why we were very wary of the application to start to bring in front of this Board, particularly in light of the recent decision, but again, I think that this site and this application really, the Board can very easily -- whether it be philosophically, environmentally or legally distinguish this application from others that you may have objected to in the past. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the property to the west, it says resort for beach area. MR. HERMANN: The property to the west I believe is a Cleave's Point owned property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the purpose of this for access or for boat? MR. HERMANN: It's for noncommercial boat dockage. And again, we tried to incorporate both untreated lumber and a seasonal to the dock, which also distinguished it from the Board of Trustees 21 February 15, 2006 docks next to it. TRUSTEE KING: The gentleman mentioned he goes clamming in this area, is there any shellfish activity there, Rob, do you know? MR. ANGELE: Not commercial just clams for our dinner. MR. HERMANN: Is there a shellfishing season there, Jim, that you would suggest the removal of the ramp and float if the application were considered for approval to coincide with? TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious if there was any scalloping in that area. MR. ANGELE: There is no eel grass left in that area that grows because about eight or nine years ago, came in with a machine with an outboard motor, somebody came in and wrecked everything and was eventually caught by the DEC, but that's what they did, they cleaned up the whole area of the eel grass. When I said something to him he more or less told me where to go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's significantly smaller than what's there. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with it. John, I think you're 100 percent right on your comments as far as the area it's in. My only concern might be the vegetation issue. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think for the public record Rob did document that there are past cases, and I just want to make it clear that it's there and there are reasons. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have someone go out and check for vegetation. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, there seems to be a number of people who are familiar, do any of them disagree with what's been said? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? MR. JOHNSTON: Neighbors out there? MR. GRUMPY: Brian Grumpy. I've been living in this area since back in 1964, and I'm very familiar with the area, and you brought up the subject of vegetation. I can give my word I've been in the water. There is hardly any vegetation in that area, especially the farther you go west the less there is -- well, east there is like more seaweed and in that particular area there's none. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm familiar with the area. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm familiar with the area as well and I agree with that. MR. HAGER: My name is John Hager and I'm with Mike at Cleaves Point condominiums. And, yes, I do a little bit of Board of Trustees 22 February 15, 2006 clamming there -- also with a permit -- and I would agree with Mike and with Brian Grumpy, that there's very little grass there, and we would love the Ferraras to put a dock in. TRUSTEE KING: This is an unusual situation. MR. HERMANN: We intended to create that. MS. CUSACK: Like you said, like Jim said, having someone like Chris Pickerel check, just to be consistent with the last application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Costello? MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, I've been a marine contractor in that area for a few years, and it also used to be long Island Oyster Farm bed off of that. That was dredged daily. So much of the grass and the eel grass that were ever in that area was taken up by the dredgings of long Island Oyster Farms. The dock being that close to shore, in the shore with the wave energy is the most -- I can assure you there is none at the Cleaves Point condominiums, and there is none along to the immediate shoreline out to the four foot area anyway. Offshore, hopefully in the future it may come back, but there is none now, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be more comfortable with Chris Pickerel being an expert in that area to have him check the vegetation; is there a problem; do you have a problem with th at? MR. HERMANN: No. Is there any reason Chris couldn't have done that during the past month? MR. JOHNSTON: Is there anything that you have heard that would lead you to believe that there's some doubt of the truth of what has been said? If there is anything in the five of your minds that there's doubt, you're not comfortable, you don't think it's true, you want more evidence. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think to be consistent with what we have asked other applicants to do, we should be consistent in requesting it this time. So I would like to make a motion to table so we can have the area inspected by Chris Pickerel. And if not, then someone else can make a motion. MR. JOHNSTON: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there's not a second then the motion is lost. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to close the hearing. MS. CUSACK: You have to address Mark Terry's review, just letting you know, in your resolution. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If someone else makes a motion. Board of Trustees 23 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: The motion was to table it and have Chris Pickerel go out and it didn't get a second. So then it's a lost motion. TRUSTEE KING: From what I have heard from everybody that's here -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm ready to move on but Heather brought a point up, I'm not familiar with the new code. TRUSTEE KING: If it's found inconsistent-- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We found something inconsistent, and I gather legally that we have to in the amendment cover ourselves by saying -- MR. HERMANN: Is there anything in that report that you need to address, Jim? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was one of the concerns that there's not time for the entire Board to review that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Rob, in reality is there a time line, would it kill you to wait a month? In reality, not on principal but on reality? MR. HERMANN: If there is a proper reason that the Board needs to table this, if there's something that you need from us that we can't provide. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One would be to review the LWRP and two would be to get Chris Pickerel to look at the vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: Peggy, I'll second your motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Opposed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Opposed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Oppose. TRUSTEE KING: So we don't have the votes. We can override Mark Terry's findings, but we're supposed to review this and try to modify it to find it consistent. MR. HERMANN: I understand that, Jim. But this Board has come in and I got a memo faxed to my office talking about how the consultants needs to be prompt, we need to be prepared and I've worked with you for years, and I respect the new members of this Board, and this is a problem that does not stem from you all, but if we have put in a lot of time, the Ferrara have made a point to come in here, all these folks have made a point to come here and the fact that we're being pushed aside, irrespective, they're not going to build the dock before next month. So no, it's not going to kill us, but if you expect a certain standard from us then we can't be in a position where we have a chronic recurrence of Mark Terry either, (a) not preparing the report or (b) Board of Trustees 24 February 15, 2006 preparing it for you at the last second so you don't have time to review it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the problems with that is that the LWRP committee is in the process of reviewing the entire procedure, and is in the process of getting an assistant and is in the process of discussing with the state, and we are in the process of looking at the procedure because it isn't fair to you; it is something that we would rather not happen, but it is happening and to try to review a five-page document at this point is difficult for us to move on. MR. HERMANN: Understood. And if I handed you a 20 page document tonight you would have told me the same thing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So what I'm saying is the problems are being looked at. MR. HERMANN: I hear you and I appreciate it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's where we are. MS. CUSACK: He just has to get it in within 30 days, if you want it in sooner, then you have to let him know. MR. HERMANN: It's not a personal issue, Mark has been assigned to a task that a normal human being can't complete. It's not a personal issue. It's a procedural issue. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's hopefully something that we will improve quickly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I agree with you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Point's made, the problem's still here. MR. HERMANN: So the application has been tabled entirely? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's been seconded, it hasn't been passed. MR. HERMANN: In cases before, Jim, you've issued conditional approvals with sorting out the LWRP. If the Board is concerned with the legality of this, take your tirne I guess is my final answer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Should I make a motion again? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to table this to review the LWRP and also to let Chris Pickerel check out the vegetation. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Pickerel part of it was already denied. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with tabling it to review the LWRP. I personally am familiar with the area, and I know there has not been vegetation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not denying anyone's truth, I'm Board of Trustees 25 February 15, 2006 saying consistently we have asked other people to have that vegetation checked by Cornell. Board of Trustees 26 February 15, 2006 MR. HERMANN: You have never asked me to have - TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't say you specifically. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm going to make a motion that we table the application based on a review of that document that we received tonight. I apologize to you, I appreciate the letter that you sent back to us, I read that carefully and that's why I said what I said earlier. And I apologized but we have to deal with it. So I'm making the motion that we table it on the basis of that document and we look at it. TRUSTEE KING: Second it. MR. HERMANN: The only thing that I ask if there's something that we can address, something that you left feeling empty about between now and March 22, just let us know, otherwise we'll assume that it's resolved and when we come back here in March it will be basically a procedural issue. TRUSTEE KING: There's nothing about this dock that makes me uncomfortable size wise. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There's a motion on the floor; it's been seconded. We haven't had a vote yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? MR. JOHNSTON: What was the motion? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I made a motion that we table this for review and comments from the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I seconded it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Now we have to have a vote. All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Opposed? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Opposed. TRUSTEE HOLZPAFEL: Rob, would you believe, and I say this for everybody's sake, we met four or five days ago, deliberately to go over the agenda and deliberately to contact applicants to see if there were any problems and let them know before this so that we would not have these kinds of problems. So we just got this. We were trying to avoid this. And I'll just tell you about it. MR. HERMANN: I appreciate it, John, and as I've said in months before, I don't think this has anything to do with this Board, past or present. It's a procedural problem in the Planning Board that was created by the Town Board and after putting a lot of time into revising your law, you all, and we all are suffering for it, and I just hope that it's resolved reasonably quickly. Board of Trustees 27 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: It's been a nightmare from the get go. MR. HERMANN: I know it has, which is why it's not a comment on you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll review that report and get to you as soon as possible. We're not going to prolong that. MR. HERMANN: Okay. We'd rather you be sure of your decision, don't get me wrong. MR. FERRARA: Thank you all, I appreciate it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Goodnight. WETLAND PERMITS 1. Docko, Inc. on behalf of PETER BACCILE requests a Wetland Permit to construct 95 linear feet of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier and install an 8' by 20' float with associated 3.5' by 20' wood ramp and the tie off pilings. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#9-3-11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I went out and inspected this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON: Yes, my name is Keith Nielson and I'm the president of Docko Incorporated and I prepared the application documents before you on behalf of Peter Baccile and his family. I would like to first of all note that the application documents that I submitted to the Town include copies of application documents to the Corps of Engineers, the Department of State and the DEC and contained in all those documents are the necessary application forms and the narratives, which address all of the factors in your local law number 6 for wetlands and shoreline lands and the LWRP factors for consideration. I can summarize those, if you would like or if you are satisfied with the adequacy of the application documents, I'll go into a very brief description of what is proposed so that everybody feels comfortable with it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Describe. MR. NIELSON: The pier -- you need to look at your application documents because the drawing I have prepared here is an alternative that was based on some observations at the site visit and conversations from yesterday, and this is not being offered to substitute for the application documents. However, Mr. Peter Frist, who lives on the adjacent property to the southeast, had expressed some concerns that he would like to have more separation between Board of Trustees 28 February 15, 2006 the property -- or I should say between his dock and Mr. Baccile's proposal. So what we proposed to Mr. Baccile, which was acceptable, was to put a dog leg in the dock so that instead of coming out and being 35 feet roughly dock to dock with Mr. Frist, this one will be about 45 feet and Mr. Frist has said anything that we can do to improve the separation between the two floats would be appreciated, so we gave an extra 1 0 feet. With regard to the rest of the factors addressed in your regulations and so on, I would like to state categorically we have complied with everything. This is consistent with the intention of your regulations and the specific requirements of your regulations, including the placement of collection collars around driven piles where sawn timbers are going to be utilized to collect the saw dust from the pressure-treated piles. We will also comply with all the requirements for materials in the decking and so on, as far as the non-use of CCA and the certification of any hardwoods that are used in the project. We have tried to make this dock consistent with the appearance of the other five dock facilities in this small end of hay bales of Hay Harbor, and I believe that we have satisfied everything. The Corps of Engineers has reviewed this, and is ready to issue. The DEC has reviewed it, and they are ready to issue as well. So, those are my comments, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have that other drawing that you showed us during the work session? MR. NIELSON: Yes. These are the exhibits that I prepared originally shortening the original proposal, and this is the one with the dog legs showing separation, and we can take that another five degrees to give you 45 foot space. I would point out that in your Local Ordinance 6, you stipulate 15 foot setback from extended property lines, that would give a 30 foot offset. We have a 45 offset here. So we have complied with the principal terms of the regulation, as well as Mr. Kripp's concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's no CAC comments I assume because they didn't get out there. It is consistent with LWRP. And the file seems to be complete. I think as we discussed in the work session, we would like to see that angled a little bit more. MR. NIELSON: What I can do, if you need to hold off on approval until revised plans are provided, I can do that or you can approve it with the 45 foot offset, and I will submit revised plans that show a 45 foot offset. Board of Trustees 29 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do that. These are complete, you have all the soundings here, and you show the one-third across the way. It's a very complete application. Is there anybody here to have any comment on this application? Board comments? TRUSTEE KING: I think we straightened it out at work session. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? All AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve -- what would be the length of this once we move it? MR. NIELSON: It remains at 95. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: -- approve the Wetland Permit for Peter Baccile to construct a 95' by 4' wood pile and timber pier and install an 8' by 20' float with associated 3.5' and 20' wood ramp and tie-off pilings, with a 45 foot offset from the other docks to the neighboring dock subject to a new plan submitted showing that. And just one note, our code calls for six foot wide floats on Fishers Island. It's consistent with the other floats in the area that are eight foot wide, so I don't see that being a problem in that area. TRUSTEE KING: That's been the standard float on Fishers Island since I've been on the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second the motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? All AYES. 2. Docko, Inc. On behalf of SUSANNA DOYLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct 95 linear feet of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier elevated to clear tidal wetlands. Install a new 3' by 20' hinged ramp and an 8' by 20' float. The total length of the pier is approximately 125. located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-11-5.8 TRUSTEE KING: I guess you're up again. MR. NIELSON: I'm up again. Keith Nielson, Docko, Inc., on behalf of the Doyles. Again, we have followed your regulations and the lWRP closely to make sure that we can provide a dock compliant with all of your code standards as well as DEC, Corps of Engineers and Department of State policies. And in this case, the reason for the longer dock length is because we have an incredible amount of grasses, wetland grasses Board of Trustees 30 February 15, 2006 that we're trying to span, and we're clearing them with bottom sediment clearance -- I should say the distance between the dock structure and the bottom sediments is four feet in compliance with DEC standards. You will notice that the dock starts off a little bit high then tapers down, slopes down to a level off about five, five and a half feet to make sure it's satisfied the flood proofing and inundation characteristics of the cove. Again, it has an 8' by 20' float for stability reasons consistent with other floats and structures on Fishers Island. We have worked out in the application document, you'll notice that I have shown the Miller's dock on Cove Cottage, immediately adjacent. That structure was permitted and it is not yet built. We worked out the separation from their dock at 70 feet, and it's shown on the application drawings. Again, this property has a little bit of an unusual property line. If we were to show 15 foot offset of the property line, the two points would cross somewhere before the end of the pier. The DEC policy to reach four feet of water to avoid future dredging requirements has been incorporated into this dock and so it sticks out beyond the intersection of those two property offsets. We did get to coordinate this with Miss Pankowitz, the neighbor to the east, as well as the Millers, and I believe that we have maintained peace and harmony in the neighborhood and at the same time provided for reasonable boating access and complied with all the other provisions which I have stipulated on other occasions to comply with your regulations. If there are questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? CAC did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation. Jill and I looked at this. We didn't have a problem with it. It's consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a structure that seems to have been there quite a while. TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as stated TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 31 February 15, 2006 3. Docko, Inc. on behalf of LINDA BORDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 28' by 4' fixed wood pile and timber pier, an 8' by 20' floating dock with a hinged ramp and associated restraint pilings. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM#9-9-27.2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, Jim and I went out and inspected this. It is consistent with LWRP, and CAC did not have any comments because they didn't inspect. Anybody here on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON: Yes, Keith Nielson from Docko again, representing the Borden family. This dock is in a very tight cove at the westerly edge of Hay Harbor, near Tennis Racket Island and the cove, and the shape of the property, again, dictates a slightly different approach on the dock's alignment, and we cannot meet the 15 foot offset on this property. As you can see from the drawing, the 15 foot offset occurs landward of the high tide line. So we have made a reasonable approximation of what would be fair to all of the residents in this cove if they all decided to build docks and we have also provided more than adequate clearance from the only other existing dock structure in the code. All tidal wetlands were marked by Rich Starsky, a certified soil scientist utilizing Army Corps of Engineer standards. And we located the critical topography elements. This dock-like facility will require a stairway down to a slightly sloped and then level pier, hinged ramp to a float, and we have reviewed all of the stipulations and material requirements in your local Ordinance 6 and have made the necessary notations and certifications in the application. And this dock again presents no problem for degradation of natural resources, nor does it to restrict in any way public use or public use of public trust lands or waters. And so, I would be happy to answer any questions that might exist or arise. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? Again, complete application, it's consistent. I don't have a problem with it. I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of Linda Borden as applied for. On Equestrian Avenue in Fishers Island. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. Board of Trustees 32 February 15, 2006 4. THOMAS CAVANAGH requests a Wetland Permit to construct to alterations and additions to the existing single-family dwelling, and extensions to the existing porch and deck. Located: 600 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#111-14-13. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CAVANAGH: I'm Tom Cavanagh here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. MR. CAVANAGH: The existing house is over 100 feet from the water, it's 116, but there is a new bulkhead that was put in by a separate application to the Trustees, and it was also a low sill bulkhead installed. The property has water on three sides, but if you measure to the closest distance of the low sill bulkhead on a diagonal, the existing dimension is 74'6" and the deck that we're adding does not extend very far in that area. It would reduce that dimension to 66'6". TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only thing that I noticed when I did this inspection, I did notice some erosion in your driveway and along the side of your house, which I'm just concerned with the elevation. Normally I think with the additions and alterations that you're doing, we wouldn't normally ask for a staked hay bale line, but I'm inclined to request it. You have a nice tree line there, I would feel better with a hay bale line there because you have such elevation and I did notice some evidence. MR. CAVANAGH: There has been new dry wells installed and French drains along that area, and we have not put the topping on the soil, so there is movement. We're saving the topping until we do the renovation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You just have such an incline between there and the bulkhead, I would feel more comfortable with it, just in front of the tree line. MR. CAVANAGH: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here who would like to speak for or against this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Dave saw this I think. MR. COHEN: My name is Dan Cohen, and I share a common property line with Tom Cavanagh. The one that lies on our property is to the west, I have no problem with the location of the changes he's proposing for his house, but there's an error on the drawing that Tom -- I guess was proved to Tom today when it was surveyed. I had it staked, the line, our common line staked out a couple months ago, and the Luendowski survey, which this plan says that it's based on, Board of Trustees 33 February 15, 2006 they did December 23,1997 -- which error has been repeated on this plan in that the existing distance from the northwest corner of his structure to the property line is shown here at 23 feet, in fact, it's 20.7 feet. I don't know that this has any particular meaning except that these surveys tend to be memorialized, and I don't know what's going to happen years from now whether it will in fact adversely affect my rights, and it seems to me it should be corrected since we now know that it's an error. I had another question also about this and I don't know whether it is your problem or the Building Department's problem. This drawing shows an existing concrete retaining wall to be removed, and a new stone and brick retaining wall constructed, and it looks to me like it says eight feet from the property line. I'm sorry, Tom, I just noticed this five minutes ago. Anyway, I don't know whether this is a primary forum for discussion. TRUSTEE KING: You should have the survey corrected showing accurate measurements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was your comment on the concrete wall? MR. COHEN: I don't know that much about zoning regulations, I know that they normally deal with where the structure is located in relation to a property line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This one's going to be removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That's a Zoning issue. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just need to have correct plans in our file. We can approve per new, corrected survey. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this permit? I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct alterations and additions to the single-family dwelling and extensions to the existing porch and deck, with the stipulation that hay bales be placed in front of the tree line before construction or alterations and also per corrected survey. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council approved this and it's exempt from LWRP. All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. BENJAMIN & JOCELYN SUGLlA request a Wetland Permit to construct a 14' by 37' wood deck attached to the seaward side of the existing dwelling; remove 8' by 13' Board of Trustees 34 February 15, 2006 section on seaward side of dwelling within the existing footprint, construct two additions to dwelling, one 6' by 16' and one 8' by 13' both on the landward side of the dwelling and both on concrete block foundation. Located: 4639 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue -- SCTM#137-3-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I actually inspected this three years ago. Unfortunately they let the permit go so we're back again looking at the same renovations. LWRP reviewed it to be inconsistent, however, the comments made by LWRP I believe we can accommodate. My question was I had a concern about the distance on the east side of the house where the proposed new deck was because it was very, very close to the corner of that property where the wetland was, but Mr. Suglia remeasured it for me and his deck almost comes to the inch within 50 feet. LWRP had a concern about the proposed setback from the wetlands because it was 99 feet. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff, and there is no change to the existing buffer. Again, I had a concern about the elevation is quite steep again on that east side of the building and my recommendation and conditions would be again, to have staked hay bales even though there's no excavation, it's quite elevated and within 50 feet. All of the other additions are very minor, porches and decks and there is only two areas where I think they're going to increase a kitchen area. So, if there are no other comments from the public, no other comments from the Board, you saw this, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I agree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for the additions and renovations for 4639 Stillwater Avenue and to make it consistent with the LWRP, I'm going to ask that erosion and sediment controls, hay bales to protect the wetlands system, and I want to ask for the hay bales to be on the proposed front deck or the deck to the east side of the building, along at the top of the slight bluff there. LWRP also asks that there be native decease resistant and draught tolerant landscaping to minimize the irrigation and fertilizer applications and also that gutters and down spouts are required for all of the new addition and renovation areas. Board of Trustees 35 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And dry wells. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, gutters, down spout, subsurface dry wells to control storm water runoff. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And revised plans. MS. CUSACK: Peggy, does the plan show that nonturf area? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The original one did. Landward edge of wetlands, yes. 6. Searles, Stromski, Associates on behalf of JULIE ANNE HAERR requests a Wetland Permit to construct first and second floor additions to the existing dwelling, two car attached garage, and concrete patio. Located: 305 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM#135-3-28 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC approves with conditions: Recommend approval of application with condition of gutters and dry wells installed containing roof runoff and all trees above eight inches remain. It is inconsistent with the LWRP basically because of the setback to the wetlands systems. It's only 60.3 and it will require sediment control same as previous application. Made of disease resistant and draught tolerant plantings, and gutters, down spouts, subsurface dry wells to control water runoff. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. STROMSKI: My name is Robert Stromski, I'm a member of Searles, Strom ski Associates, the architects for the project. Just for the record, I have the affidavits of posting and mailing and the cards, I want to present them. One of the things I'd just like to comment on is unfortunately in the application there was a misinterpretation on the actual amount of cubic yardage to be excavated. I have a letter here which basically describes, there was a typo on the application. The actual correct amount of cubic yards of material that would be removed due to the excavation for the new crawl space of the addition and the foundation of the garage would only be 28.8 cubic feet. I would like to present this letter to the Board for the record just noting that that correction was made and that it is not 65 cubic yards as stated in the application. Also in the application and noticing on the description of the notice, there seems to be just a little bit of miscommunication as to the concrete patio in the rear in the project. The actual intention of the project is that that concrete patio's going to be removed and that that is actually going to become a wood deck. There is a note on Board of Trustees 36 February 15, 2006 the survey that was submitted that it shows the concrete patio, and then in small print it says to be covered by wood deck, I just wanted to make a clarification tonight that that is the true intention, that the concrete patio would be removed and a concrete and a wood deck would be replaced on that footprint with a small extension towards the area as indicated on the survey. If the Board has any questions, I have no problem answering. TRUSTEE KING: On what you submitted to us, I think that should be regraded, not "regarded." MR. STROMSKI: Yes. MS. CUSACK: I just want to let the Board know a letter came in from a neighbor for comment. She called and said she couldn't make the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll just read it briefly. It's dated the 13th. "My name is Patricia Jaeger, I reside at 420 Mill Creek Drive, diagonally across the street from the residence in question. Mill Colony is plagued by flooding and water collecting and sitting for extended periods of time in moderate rainfall and snow. Any rain or snow above moderate is a flooding disaster due to practically nonexistent drains. There is a drain in front of 260 Mill Creek Drive, directly across the street from the property in question; however, this drain is nonfunctioning, despite requests from the owner of 260 Mill Creek Drive, Christine Popovich, to the Town of Southold to come and clear the drain. The next drain is opposite 540 Mill Creek Drive, which does nothing to stop the water from flooding from my home, 420 Mill Creek Drive and 260 Mill Creek Drive. "My concern is that any new precedents being established will add to existing problem which becomes worse daily. It is necessary for me to go out of state and I regret I can't make it." That's basically it. I don't see where her comments, although they're important, I will note them to the storm water runoff committee, but I don't see where they have anything to do with this application. TRUSTEE KING: No, this project, if they're going to have dry wells and gutters for runoff, it should be an improvement over what's there now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As I stated before, the inconsistency, first of all, is there any other comment from anybody else? MS. GAVOSTIC: My name is Jessie Gavostic, and I have the adjoining property, and the proposed garage Board of Trustees 37 February 15, 2006 is only eight feet away from my line. So I'm objecting to that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That unfortunately is not something that we address, that's a Zoning issue. I don't know what the setbacks are as far as Building Department or if he has to go to the Zoning Board? MR. STROMSKI: There is an application into the Zoning Board of Appeals at this point. We haven't been told of a hearing. At that point, ma'am, you would be able to make comment, there would be a public hearing for that particular portion of the project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But environmentally, is there any other comment? MS. GIBERT: Ann Gibert, I live on Mill Creek Drive, not adjacent. But number one, believe this is too close to the property line. Number two, the proposed deck, five years ago I was not permitted to put up a deck because I was too close to the water line, so I don't see why an exception should be made here. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: How close is the deck? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see a deck, it's a patio. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a patio, it's 50.6 feet on one corner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 73 on the other -- 50 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, that's a zoning issue. TRUSTEE KING: What was the distance from her deck? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was the distance from your deck to the water? MS. GIBERT: I would have been 65 feet from the water, and they wouldn't let you do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was it the Board of Trustees? MS. GIBERT: No, it was the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a different board. Again, that's a Zoning issue, you'll have to bring it up with them. Any other comment pertaining to the Trustees? LWRP I think we can make it consistent by requiring erosion control sediment during construction, line of hay bales approximately 15 feet seaward of the patio, a line of hay bales across the property, 15 feet from the patio, and we'd also like to see during construction, even though this is not -- you're not doing anything to the bulkhead, if we can see a 15 foot nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead, since you're going to be ripping up part of that lawn if you can at that point consider that, to plant any native, disease resistant or draught tolerant landscaping. And the other thing is gutters, down spouts, to connect the two dry wells. Board of Trustees 38 February 15, 2006 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just have a question as to the location of the bulkhead you're referring to. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry, not the bulkhead. Isn't this the one buffer, nonturf buffer for our notes, but we didn't say -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we looked at anything down here for a buffer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'm just reading what our field notes say. I don't think we talked on this one about that. There's no bulkheading, that's why it confused me with that. This area is vegetated already. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe it just means keep the buffer if it's existing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, with a note to maintain the current buffer you have. If there's no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application submitted by Searle, Stromski Associates on behalf of Julie Anne Haerr for a Wetland Permit to construct a first and second floor addition to the existing dwelling, two car attached garage and concrete patio on 305 Mill Creek Drive, with the conditions of a hay bale line during construction, 15 feet off the patio, and gutters, down spouts connected to dry wells and any landscaping that could be done have native disease resistant and draught tolerant landscaping, minimize irrigation and fertilization applications. If that is all done, then it will become consistent with LWRP. That is a motion. MR. STROMSKI: At this point I would like to submit a revised plan showing hay bales and just note the dimension of 15 foot from the wood deck, we also have dry wells showing, actually it's locating three. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You've already done that? MR. STROMSKI: Yes. I just added this dimension here. Basically try to pick a six foot elevation but if you wanted 15 feet, we have no problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. We'll just mark that in the permit because it is pretty well vegetated and we'll mark in the permit that we want it kept that way. So I made that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf Board of Trustees 39 February 15, 2006 of ROBERT SPITZENBERG requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in place 107 feet of timber bulkheading utilizing vinyl sheathing, and to dredge a 10' by 101' area immediately seaward of the bulkhead to minus 4 feet average low water. The resultant spoil, 30 cubic yards of sand, shall be used as backfill for the reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 375, Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-5-4 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just, J.M.O. Consulting for the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it, it looks pretty straightforward. It was found generally consistent. CAC comments approval with the condition that a 20 foot nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead be put in, which we concur with, and the rest of it is pretty straightforward. Are there any other comments on this application? Any Board 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 with a 20 foot nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT & SUSAN TOMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 40' dock 3.5' above grade, a 3' by 8' ramp, and a 5' by 18' floating dock. Located: 3795 Main Bayview Road, Southold SCTM#78-2-15.2 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, I'll try to go quickly. It's a long night. I verified with Mr. Toman where he had staked, if you recall, we measured it was about 21 feet, which is what the drawing had shown. He actually took the first at the beginning of the ramp, right at the edge of the water, so that it doesn't extend beyond that 21. I think that's what you were concerned with that what he was showing is not where a float would begin but rather where the float ended; that's exactly what he measured. The increase cross-section was a little confusing because he didn't put three stakes, he only put the one from the edge of the shoreline out to the furthest point, which is the 21 feet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, was that post then the end of the dock or the end of the dock and boat? That was our -- Board of Trustees 40 February 15, 2006 MS. MOORE: That was the end of the float, because the boat is actually incorporated -- if you see the float and the boat are the same. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay. MS. MOORE: Okay, they're parallel. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's the end of it? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's the end. That was I think the only question you had. He had no problems with that condition, that 21 feet be the end of it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll just read, it was found inconsistent and visual quality scenic resources. MS. MOORE: I guess he didn't notice the multiple docks. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm just quoting. The materials used to construct the dock have not been specified. MS. MOORE: The standard, which is what you require, no CCA treated lumber. Here says all lumber from approved list and hardware galvanized. It's right on the cross-section. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay. The proposed action does not propose a restoration plan. MS. MOORE: I don't think there is any restoration plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, do you have a DEC permit? MS. MOORE: No. I think they're waiting to see what you guys do because they had a question about the right of way. I am waiting, I submitted it, I haven't gotten anything back. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If I can just share this with the rest of the Board, the location of the parcel the applicant currently enjoys access to the water. The use and need of a dock has not been identified. The dock structure's out of scale; 3, the proposed construction methods have not been identified; and 4, the application does not propose mitigation to the areas impacted. I think those have been talked about and the materials are there. The dock is -- I don't see any inconsistency based on what we observed and what we dealt with. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to limit the size of the piles to say six inch? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Sure. MS. MOORE: That was already. TRUSTEE KING: It's in there? MS. MOORE: Let me see, no, Bob Fox wasn't able to redraw this in the short time, but that's fine, six inch piles is fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are we okay with the third? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: For everybody's information the CAC Board of Trustees 41 February 15, 2006 resolved to recommend disapproval. The CAC recommended disapproval because the proposed docking facility is too close to the property line. We talked about -- MS. MOORE: I think we moved it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, we moved it over and they may not have seen it, exceeds one-third across the width, which, again, we accounted for and we dealt with. So, are there any other comments from anybody in the audience? I make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then I'll make a motion that we will approve the application of Robert and Susan Toman with the changes of size of piling, with the dock will not be more than 20 feet from the shoreline. TRUSTEE KING: Overall length including the float. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right, dock and float will not extend more than 20 feet from the shoreline and I believe that's it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of EDWARD WERTHNER requests a Wetland Permit to install a 3 by 17 seasonal ramp and 5 by 18 floating dock with two 8" diameter piles. Located: 180 Windy Point Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-6-3.3 TRUSTEE KING: Anyone here to comment on this? MS. MOORE: I'm Pat Moore. Based on field inspections we were asking to amend the application to be more consistent with the Board's recommendations. What we proposed is a 4' by 12' walk with steps to grade into the water. We also will plant intertidal area with spartina 12" on center in front of the catwalk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did not we also say that the replantings were going to be done at the same time as construction? MS. MOORE. You asked. It wasn't done as part of this drawing, but the prior open permit prior to issuance of I think -- I don't know, do you have a sign off at the end, prior to final approval after construction? We were going to have the plantings of the open permit completed by then. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just that it be done. MS. MOORE: Exactly, so we would have coordinated plantings. TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, it's been found inconsistent with the LWRP, but I think this is based on the Board of Trustees 42 February 15, 2006 original not the modifications we made because it says it will impede with navigation, 22 foot total length, it doesn't exist any more. I think what -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked at that before, just while the other hearing was going on. I looked at it and I think we have taken care of it with the revised plan, it's a 10 page document, literally. MS. MOORE: I appreciate the Board's suggestions, they were good suggestions and Mr. Werthner's here, he had no problem with it, it gives him good access. TRUSTEE KING: We try. MS. MOORE: It was very good practical suggestions, which we always appreciate. MR. WERTHNER: Excuse me, I'm Edward Werthner , was I to bring some fill in behind there and bring it up to level before I plant? TRUSTEE KING: You can raise it a little but keep it below the top of the bulkhead. MR. WERTHNER: About four inches? TRUSTEE KING: Sure, that would be good. MS. MOORE: Bring some fill in and leave a lip so it doesn't spill over the bulkhead, correct? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And the plantings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the plantings will be done when this is done. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Comments from the Board? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on new plans showing the new description of a 12' catwalk with steps at the end, and there will be replanting done at the same time that this is installed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Peggy will be excusing herself, she's suffered through most of this hearing with a migraine, so she'll be leaving now. (Whereupon, Trustee Dickerson left the hearing room.) 10. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANDREW WILLS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 16' ramp onto a 4' by 20' fixed dock and ending with a 32" by 16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a seasonal 6' by 20' Board of Trustees 43 February 15, 2006 floating dock secured by three 6" piles. located: 1675 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#52-5-8.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. I am the agent for this application by Andrew Wills. And the description that was just read is slightly wrong, and I just don't want that to be a controversy after the construction and the violation is issued, if it should ever occur. I want to pay the dues now. We intended to construct a 4' by 16' ramp onto a 4' by 30' fixed dock ending with a 32" by 16' aluminum ramp, and a 6' by 20' float. Both the float and the ramp were going to be installed on a seasonal basis, including the three pilings used to secure the float. I believe that the Trustees met with Mr. Wills at the site, and thought that the 90 foot length of the overall structure was excessive. Mr. Wills was a gentleman, and he called our office and he said I would wish to try to satisfy not only the Trustees and reduce overall length by 20 feet, I would also like to move the float into an "l" position instead of straight out because my neighbor to the north is objecting about the float and he could see it at his house. So if it was put in an "l" position, heading to the north, it would minimize the view to the neighbor, and he said he would prefer that and that would be fine with him. So what I did was prepare three additional plans showing exactly lessening the length of the dock, moving the float in a different position, which is not offshore to the Board. You'll see that the structure is being reduced from a 90' total length to a 66' because a lamp is in the middle of a 6' wide float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question on the code, because I'm not familiar with the section where it says no new docks in Arshamomaque; what does that say? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could back up. lWRP found this inconsistent because: Please be advised that the proposed action is within a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat area, Arshamomaque Pond. I believe when we were out there, the discussion we had with Mr. Wills was that we did not -- we were not in favor of putting docks out there in Arshamomaque Pond; is that correct; to the Board members, correct? This is about a five, six page opinion on the lWRP finding it inconsistent because of that. But we had mentioned to Mr. Wills out there was a stake and pulley system as I recall, put a stake and pulley system out to the boat, if that would make him happy because we explained to Board of Trustees 44 February 15, 2006 him that we had not approved docks in Arshamomaque Pond. So that was a discussion we had with him out at the site. MR. COSTEllO: Well, you have approved docks in Arshamomaque Pond. The only trouble is since the lWRP has been adopted, that's a short time ago, there has not been, to my knowledge, a dock in Arshamomaque Pond. But whether that is a policy or regulation, I am not -- it is a critical area, unquestionably, and I would like to know what difference and what impacts a dock ever this size would have on that. I would be curious to know the answer. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, 97-27 B3 (a) prohibited locations and activities. David, is that what you're thinking about? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. Prohibited locations and activities, and I'll read it: "Given this unique and sensitive natural environmental characteristics described in the Southold local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, New York State Department of State significant habitat descriptions, no new docks will be permitted over vegetated wetlands or such as it causes habitat fragmentation of which vegetated wetlands in Arshamomaque Creek" as well as a couple other areas. MR. COSTEllO: The key term in that as you mentioned twice, "vegetated wetlands." Now you will also notice that the selection of the site is the only area on that property that has no vegetated wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're correct. I'm looking at the pictures. MR. COSTEllO: You visited the site. And also CAC recommended approval with the condition of all disturbed areas are replanted after construction. Again, we picked the site so that there would be minimal disturbance. And that was one of the reasons that the owner of the property was willing to mitigate it even further and reduce whatever you think was necessary. That was only from the general comment from someone on the Board who visited the site and thought it was an excessively long structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No new docks will be permitted over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands. Like Mr. Costello said, there's no vegetated wetlands where he's proposing the dock; am I reading that right? MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you very much, when we enacted this -- just for the record to help establish a record, are we all convinced that this application is Arshamomaque Creek area or in Arshamomaque Pond area? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Board of Trustees 45 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Then the second thing for this it would prohibit docks if it's going over vegetated wetlands; you have to decide that and then you have to decide, if not that, would it cause habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands. So those two criteria, I would ask you to have the record show that you have decided that neither of those apply or they do apply. So you have to do three things: Establish where it is, and then convince yourself that either the other two items either apply or don't apply. As long as the record shows that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'm abstaining because I didn't look at this at all. This was before I was on the Board. MR. COSTEllO: Water depths were done by Bob Fox. TRUSTEE BERGEN: looks like at the end of the dock you're four feet? MR. COSTEllO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know he's reduced it, can he reduce it more? MR. COSTEllO: He possibly could. I think for DEC purposes, I think that you want to try to keep, no matter what, the offshore edge of the floating dock in three and a half foot of water, so you're going to invite other problems. TRUSTEE KING: They've given us seasonal floats in two and a half feet. That would be my preference and it depends upon the analyst. MR. COSTEllO: let me tell you, it depends upon the analyst. I've seen it all. I've seen denials in four foot. You could reduce it because of the bridge, you're not going to put a big boat anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We noted when we were out there the boat is a 13' Boston Whaler. So the depth was not an issue to him because of the Boston Whaler, if we could reduce it to 4' by 20' and still have -- MR. COSTEllO: Again, I'm sure that the Board members know that the tides, even in the summer when the tides are more constant and more consistent, that the tides do vary each day because of the moon's condition. So just don't put it on the bottom because I don't think that's what you want. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board doesn't want that either. TRUSTEE KING: Make it 4' by 20'. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you move it in 20, you'll still be past that 2.7. You'll be at the 3. Board of Trustees 46 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: John, is it a need to make it a three pile dock, can you make it two? MR. COSTEllO: Except for the end where it's prone to ice. That would be the only section. If you moved it in and shortened it, but if you moved it in so the boat -- TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend that that's a seasonal float too. MR. COSTEllO: It is a seasonal float already. TRUSTEE KING: When will the float be taken out of the water? MR. COSTEllO: Whenever you decide. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We should discuss what an overall season should be. TRUSTEE KING: The first of November is scallop season, we want to get stuff out of the water, if we can. That would be my recommendation make it 1 April to 1 November. Float has to be out of the water by the first and not in the water before the first of April. MR. COSTEllO: Okay. I think that that's reasonable. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's reasonable. I know there's a lot of shellfish activity there. We want to get that structure out, out of the water by November and not in the water before April 1. MR. COSTEllO: Now, what would you like to reduce the dock further, it appears to be another 10 feet or so, half the length of the ramp. TRUSTEE KING: 4' by 20' fixed dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what it is on the application, as originally. MR. COSTEllO: But it appears if you reduced it to half the length of the ramp, you would still have basically a three foot depth of water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That should be sufficient. Are there any other comments to be made on this application? If not, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? All AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Andrew Wills requesting a Wetland Permit to construct the ramp, fixed dock as per the plans submitted tonight with the stipulation that it reduced, the proposed dock is reduced from what is shown 4' by 30' to 4' by 20'; that there will be only (1) three pile instead of (3) three pile, only (1) three pile, and that the seasonal floating dock will be removed from the Board of Trustees 47 February 15, 2006 water by November 1 and not go into the water prior to April 1. Did I miss anything? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so, I think that makes it consistent with lWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Abstain. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: let the record show that Trustee Holzapfel abstained and Trustee Dickerson is absent. 11. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing floats from dock "A" and relocate as part of the new dock "B". Install 6' by 30' floating dock and reuse (2) existing pilings. Dock "B" construct a 4' by 30' fixed dock with 42" by 12' ramp onto relocated floats from dock "A" continuing onto new 5' by 28' floating dock, ending with (2) 4' by 20' floats perpendicular, and install four new pilings. located: Fox Island, Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-18 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. COSTEllO: John Costello. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the old description and you know, John, I hate to do this to you, but we didn't get out there to look at this with the whole Board. I'd like to table it and I apologize to you for not getting out there. I know I said we would. Did you stake it? Was it all staked? MR. COSTEllO: I don't know if it was still staked after the last storm, but it was staked. TRUSTEE KING: We're just going to have to go out after next month, I apologize. I think it was found inconsistent. MR. COSTEllO: Most of the inconsistencies, Jim, recommended to speak with Mark. I spoke with Mark and he was not sure that this was Southold Town Trustee bottom land or they owned it. There were a few things he was unaware of. We brought him up to speed that this is private bottom. He was opposed because it may be a hindrance to navigation. He managed the mooring system, and the intention was to reduce the moorings, and they manage it themselves, and they have been doing an incredible job. There have been no accidents in the area, and there is a dead end bridge and a walkway to Board of Trustees 48 February 15, 2006 Fox Island, which you're not going to have traffic going through. So he was unsure of that and the situation. We met with him at your recommendation and I think some of the inconsistencies speak for themselves. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, mechanically we would have to table this anyway. We have two recusals and we need three votes. We only have two Trustees to vote, so mechanically we couldn't act on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I recused myself. I put the form in the box. MR. COSTEllO: I just hope this proceeds at the next month's agenda, obviously because in order to obtain the necessary materials and have a usable, whatever is approved, usable for the season in one of the other hearings earlier. MR. JOHNSTON: John, I didn't want to waste any more time because we can't approve it mechanically. MR. COSTEllO: I'm just saying it's going to be difficult to get contractors at the last minute to get these jobs approved and one of the jobs Rob Hermann was on, he's not going to get it done whether you approve it or not. TRUSTEE KING: Comments? MR. lUSHER: My name is Charles lusher, I'm the co-chairman of the marine committee in Gardiner's Bay Estates. We withdrew the original application, and we've done it over as to the recommendation of the DEC. It's a simple addition to the existing float that we have there. last month it was tabled because Mr. Terry couldn't get around to looking at it. There's nothing wrong with the application, there's nothing wrong with navigation, we're well within the one-third width of the pond. It's a simple addition to docks and we'd like to move ahead with this, and I know you guys were out there because I spoke with you when you all came out and looked at the original site. The dock sits there. All we're going to do is add this float to the end of it and we're angling it a little bit because the neighbors to the north, if we left it as it existed, it would interfere with their docks. I don't see why we have to wait another month to get started with this. Boating season starts in another month. MR. JOHNSTON: Sir, could I address your question? We only have two Trustees who can vote right now because one is recusing himself because of a conflict, potential conflict of interest, and the other is recusing himself because he has not viewed the property. We cannot vote. I'm sorry, you need three votes, you only have two Trustees who can vote. So, legally they cannot act on it, I'm sorry, and Miss Dickerson went home, that could have been the third Board of Trustees 49 February 15, 2006 vote, but she's not here so you only have two Trustees, David and Jim, that can vote and you need three. John, will you explain to your client? MR. LUSHER: That I understand clearly. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I didn't see it. It happened back before I was appointed. MR. COSTELLO: The file has enough photographs of the site, but if you haven't visited. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But what I wanted to ask is the two Trustees who had seen it whether they had seen any major problem, and they said they didn't. My point was, I was going to say to you, if you were going to worry about contractors, it would appear that the votes are here to do the job. You can line up people so you're not getting out on a long limb. MR. COSTELLO: I'm in business, I would probably take the gamble to get the flotation device whether it's used here or somewhere else. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what I was asking. MR. COSTELLO: But it wouldn't be constructed. We would try to get it in as quickly at the conclusion, thank you. And I appreciate and respect not voting without seeing it. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Recuse. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Abstain. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. 12. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANN MARIE NELSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove 62 feet of existing west bulkhead to construct 435 feet of new bulkhead immediately in front of and within 18" of existing bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, removing 65 feet of existing east and north bulkhead sections and replace in-kind/in-place using vinyl sheathing repair 30 feet of existing stone north bulkhead in-place. Relocate existing concrete blocks above spring high water line. Maintenance dredge existing basins to a depth of 4' below mean low water approximately 1650 to 2000 cubic yards deposit spoil sand as beach nourishment on southwest side of inlet between high water and high marsh area. Located: 1420 Ninth Street, Greenport. SCTM#45-6-9.4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is nothing here from the LWRP. Is Board of Trustees 50 February 15, 2006 there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTEllO: Again, my name is John Costello. We are the agents for the Nelsons on this application, and I would like to try to contribute again, I contributed some information I believe at the last two hearings, and I would like to try to add a little more. The adjacent property that is to the west of this has been eroding over a period of time. The photographs submitted as part of the application shows that the beach has receded on the west side an incredible amount. They're backing piling approximately 25 feet out into the water. The backing piling for the bulkhead was covered and buried in sand at one stage. The adjacent property owner that is 50 feet further to the west is also eroding and had been eroding over a period of time. It's probably stablized now, and they would allow -- I believe they would allow, she's here tonight -- allow the additional sand to be placed on the west side so that it acts as a bypass of the jetty effect that is created by the east bulkhead. The east bulkhead is filled. The DEC met with me onsite two and a half months ago or three months ago, and said that they would not allow a crib structure, two bulkheads adjoining and filling them on the east side, lessening degree area that we could place the spoil. There's only a certain amount of yardage you can place in a 15 foot by 50 foot area, and I believe the adjacent property owners could or would accommodate the larger area and let it act as a bypass. The rest of it is all existing, functional structures except for the east filled dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a comment regarding lWRP. spoke to Mark. He did not complete his review. I don't know if he had a chance to call you. MR. COSTEllO: No, we talked to him about it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He felt that the water quality questions were not answered. MR. COSTEllO: There are some water quality -- and this Board is aware of the water quality issues that presented themselves last week and the DEC has been notified that the raw sewage is going into the wetlands. And the Highway Department of Southold Town went and looked at the site. What is done, again, to Southold Town road it is the DEC's function, I don't believe it's a function of the Nelsons or myself, but this pollutant pouring into the wetlands. Now, one of the problems with that, the area and square acreage of that wetlands area is probably absorbing most of the nitrates that are being placed illegally in the Board of Trustees 51 February 15, 2006 wetlands. Wetlands have that ability, and I hope and I would think, that the circulation, increased circulation would lessen that degree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for the record, the Trustees did write a letter to the county Health Department to bring their attention to what we felt was a serious issue. MR. COSTEllO: Go down there on a rainy day and you will. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem we're having is the burden of proof is why nothing is quickly getting done. MR. COSTEllO: It's called a subpoena. And you can make them, he has neglected to allow anyone in this house, there are ways of getting in the house, and I'm not a lawyer, don't intend to be. You can get in the house, put die in and you can prove. Again, Mark's concern about some of these things is justifiable, but I would think that the increased circulation into that meadow and the wetlands area, long term will not hurt it, it will help it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also for the record, the CAC recommended approval of this permit as far as constructing bulkhead, it was all bulkhead issues that they approved here. MR. COSTEllO: One of the things when you do a bypass, I tell you, placing fill on an eroded beach wants to be consistent with the material in the area. They want the consistency of the material being placed on the beach, not lighter, not heavier. This material that is in this basin is extremely consistent, that's where it came from. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Anybody else like to comment on this application? MS. JURZENIA: Hi, I'm Darlene Duffy Jurzenia, and I represent the Jurzenia family, we own approximately 1400 feet to the west, along the shore, to the west of the Nelson property. Mr. Costello is correct, and I appreciate his efforts to the DEC on our behalf. I have been begging -- as you know, I have been begging the DEC, the Health Department, the Health Department at the state level in Albany. I have had lawyers writing letters. It's been obnoxious for five, six years maybe to get things done about the discharge. I'm not sure, the DEC told Mr. Costello that they're on it, they're doing it, but I think you got a packet from my sister-in-law that gives you some of the history of the testing that's been done there. I've had Cornell test it, I have had everybody test it over and over and over and over. There's a problem and no one has done anything for years and years and years. I'm not sure that they're going to do anything about it. If they tell you Board of Trustees 52 February 15, 2006 they're going to do it and then you give them permission, once again, they don't have to pursue it. I know the Health Department sent the homeowner in question a subpoena. He went to his lawyer, his lawyer told him don't let them in. He didn't let them in, that's it; that's where it ended, that had to be three, four years ago. So that's a big concern of mine. The DEC closed that marsh to shellfishing and within 100 feet radius of the outlet in the bay. And the outlet is pretty much completely full. It needs to be dredged no doubt, you can walk across it. Miss Bioxa, and I together probably have I don't know how many oysters out there. We have hundreds of thousands of oysters, so my concern is if you open it, what is going to happen, Mr. Costello thinks it will be better. I don't know if it's going to be better or worse. I don't know if it will be a straight shot from that house into the bay. They have tested all the way through. One of the colleges, I think the marine biology department in Southampton, which is now part of Stony Brook, did a study and they put orange tennis balls in to follow the effluent to see how long it takes to get out into the bay and all of that. So I'm not sure if you have that report, I think you do. It doesn't just disappear. It gets right out there. So I'm worried about my oyster beds. I've always been worried about the health of the meadow. Mark Terry told me he would never recommend for you to do anything there until that effluent is taken care of because he is concerned about our oyster beds. We have hundreds of thousands of oysters out there. The only thing I have to say is in reading your little paragraph about this case it says you're directing them -- and I appreciate it because I asked you to do this at the last meeting -- to deposit the spoil sand as beach nourishment on the southwest side of the inlet. I would like you to be more specific because I really want some of that to be on my property because the southwest side of the inlet is a 50 foot parcel that belongs to the Nelson family. I own 1,400 feet beyond that. So I can tell you over the last, the property's been in the family for 40 years, but I've only been in the family for 32, so I can only tell you about the last 32 years. There used to be a lot of erosion there until the inlet filled in. Now my beach is pretty well nourished, reconstructed, because the inlet has been filled up for the last -- I don't know how long -- years, it hasn't been dredged in years. So when the inlet filled in, the beach stablized and actually -- so I really want some of the Board of Trustees 53 February 15, 2006 spoil from the dredging to go back in my property. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. YAXA: My name is Dean Yaxa, I also grow oysters out there, and I'd like to make a few comments. The pipe that's under Silvermere Road there, it's just placed there, there's no easement, no there's no permit, there's no nothing. It just was put there and it's totally illegal. It should be taken out. Nobody seems to want to take it out, nobody seems to want to pucker up and take it out, but anyway that was one point. The second thing is if the meadow were filtering the pollutants, the water wouldn't be -- the area outside the 100 foot buffer, which the DEC just closed, and the water going out there, if it was being filtered, it wouldn't be dirty. If you open it up, the sand that's there is holding back the pollution, I feel it's holding it back, and if you -- just like pulling a drain plug and we're concerned that the 100 foot buffer or the 100 foot area that's closed, the ring around the bulkhead there is going to extend right out to the oysters at 500 feet out. I own the bottom land there, I have a grant. It's usable property, income producing property. If the pollution comes out any further, we're out of business. I can't let that happen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question for you because it isn't shown here. Approximately how far is it from the mouth of that inlet from the bay to your oyster beds because I'm invisioning -- MR. YAKSA: 500 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 500 feet to the southwest. MR. YAKSA: Actually, the oyster bed from the shoreline or from the shoreline. TRUSTEE BERGEN: From the entrance to -- MR. Y AXA: 500 feet out. We're cut off from -- actually 400 feet out, there's a ring around that. And you dredge the sand out and put the bulkhead there. All the pollution is still coming from this pipe, it's in the meadow, the tide changes, zingo, it's still out. And I defy anyone of you to tell me that the DEC isn't going to close more land to shellfishing. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also read for the Board -- and I apologize I should have read this. There is one letter attached here, it's a memo from Heather Cusack to the Board saying the following need to be assessed, review before a decision is made, water quality issue and impact of dredging on the oyster farm, Health Department sampling of water from pipes into the marsh, look at system as a whole, the marsh Board of Trustees 54 February 15, 2006 development problem, the impact of replacing bulkheading and dredging, assess impact on shellfish beds and oyster farm. MR. YAXA: I'm not opposed to the bulkheading process, I'm opposed to what's going to happen if it's done with the pollution. There's three or four families that are paying their bills off the oysters out there and I have no retirement, I'm self-employed, and I'm not going anywhere, and I need to be out there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: One final comment. MR. COSTEllO: One final comment, no matter what, I don't think this should be a rush to decision because without stopping, the effluent if going into the wetlands, we're going backwards. You got to stop the start of the problem. That certainly without that being stopped any road runoff that is occurring and entering the wetlands, thank God there's only one road, if that is occurring it should be looked at. Those are the only pollutants that are going to enter into those wetlands. That's a pretty pristine wetlands, it's beautiful wetlands, they were generous to give it as a park. For somebody to put a toilet in there is not a right thing, so once that's corrected and you can't replace the bulkhead, and there's no need to replace the bulkhead without the dredging occurring, but I think the process, there's no rush to decision. I think that the process should be eliminating, the sewage first and then we'll continue. TRUSTEE KING: John, just a question, the littoral drift is from east to west here? MR. COSTEllO: It's from east to west, that's why the east jetty is totally fill, and there's a great loss of fill on the west side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The aerial photograph you can definitely see it's from east to west. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anything recently from the health department? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they never commented. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not in the file. TRUSTEE KING: You know, you talk about going in the house, I had an incident in Mattituck Creek, almost the same thing and in talking to conservation officers, there was no judge that would give them a search warrant to go in the house and put a tab in the toilet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what the problem is. MR. COSTEllO: I believe the DEC has been notified and Chuck Board of Trustees 55 February 15, 2006 Hamilton has been notified, and if there's one man at the DEC that could solve this problem, I think and the officer that did inspect it for the pollutants, he said he would have difficulty himself, and you better put it over into the enforcement bureau, which Mr. Hamilton is the head of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's got to be a way to stop this. MR. COSTEllO: It's crazy. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll continue to talk and we'll talk about it with the Highway Department. MR. COSTEllO: Make it a no discharge zone. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? If there are no other comments from the audience, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We definitely want to table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to then go to table, but, okay, I propose that we make a motion that we table this application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? All AYES. 13. land Use Ecological Services on behalf of DAVID JOHNSON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct an existing 235' by 52" wood catwalk. located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#7-4-7 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant to comment on this application? MS. CANTARA: Kelly Cantara for land Use Ecological Services representing Mr. Johnson. Just here to answer any questions that you might have. TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this down on the lawn a little through the phragmites. TRUSTEE KING: I just had a few questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a question, overall we didn't have a problem. TRUSTEE KING: Not a big huge problem. How first of all, we'll make it 4' wide instead of 52". MS. CANTARA: Sure, no problem. TRUSTEE KING: How is this work going to be done, and another question is why do you need 10 feet of penetration for the piles for a small catwalk like this? MS. CANTARA: We don't need to. It's just standard. TRUSTEE KING: Because what's been there has been there a Board of Trustees 56 February 15, 2006 long, long time. It almost looks like small locust posts. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Six inch we also said, right? MS. CANTARA: We can revise the piles to whatever you recommend, it's no problem. TRUSTEE KING: We also talked about possibly using fiberglass grating rather than wood, it's not that we're going to require it, but it would be a nice way to go in that location, and how is the work going to be conducted; how are the poles going to be put in? MS. CANTARA: I imagine they're going to be driven in. TRUSTEE KING: By hand? MS. CANTARA: Probably. TRUSTEE KING: It's been there a long time, this is a sensitive area. I'd like to see all the work done by hand. Get these posts in By hand, 6" piles are more than adequate, even a 4' by 4' are adequate. It's a very low catwalk through a field of phragmites to get out to the beach. It doesn't have to be anything massive, you know. didn't have a problem with it. Just those issues, keep it light, no CCA; was there anything from LWRP? MS. CUSACK: It was exempt. TRUSTEE KING: That would be my preference, keep it 4' wide and installation of the poles not to exceed a 6" diameter. That would be my preference. MS. CANTARA: That's no problem. TRUSTEE KING: And I would recommend the fiberglass grating, if they don't want to use that, it should be an untreated wood. Anything else? I think that was it, 4' wide, same elevation. CAC didn't go there. Any other comments on this application? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the changes stipulated. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. CANTARA: Thank you very much, have a good night. TRUSTEE KING: A new plan showing the width. MS. CANTARA: We'll have those probably within the week. 14. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CATHERINE & RICHARD REINKEN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing, one-story, one-family dwelling and construct partially over same foundation wall new, one and one-half story, one-family dwelling with attached garage; remove two Board of Trustees 57 February 15, 2006 existing sanitary systems and construct beyond Chapter 97 jurisdiction new sanitary system; reconfigure existing public water service line; install drainage system of dry wells and extend existing driveway beyond Chapter 97 jurisdiction. Located: 1935 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#98-1-11.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Yes, Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Reinkens. The application is as described. The new house will sit no closer to the wetlands than the existing structure; in fact, most of the easterly foundation wall will be reused for the new dwelling and all the expansion will be to the west towards the road. There will be a system of dry wells installed to recapture and recharge runoff. There are two existing sanitary systems, one of which is presently nonconforming, it's located within your jurisdictional area. There will be a new sanitary system installed beyond 100 feet and outside your jurisdictional area. If the Board has any specific questions about the application, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was consistent with the LWRP and the CAC recommended approval with the condition that there's no construction seaward of the existing footage and there's no disturbance to the bluff. MR. HERMANN: That will all be consistent with what's proposed. There's a row of staked hay bales with silt retention fence shown along the landward side of the existing top of the bank and that's all in brick patio and deck area and wood deck area that is to remain as the structures that were permitted by this Board in the 90s, and those are all to remain and not to be disturbed during construction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I noted on here in addition to the staked hay bales, a silt retention fence? MR. HERMANN: Yes, that's shown on the site plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else who wanted to speak on behalf of this application? Any Board comments with regards to the application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP's consistent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, LWRP's consistent. I'm sorry, there is a note, it's not a letter it's a note here attached. We, the Kosminka family, at 1985 Pine Tree Road have no problem with the Reinken family's request for Wetland Permit. We are certain that any improvement that they intend to make on Board of Trustees 58 February 15, 2006 their property will enhance the area. We are in support of their request. MR. HERMANN: Getting a lot of neighborly support tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Isn't that a beautiful thing? MR. HERMANN: Yes, once in eight years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing that we ask for was a nonturf buffer, I'm sorry, that is all vegetated all the way down. MR. HERMANN: It is, and it's really all on a slope all to remain undisturbed and seaward of the hay bale line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember now. MR. HERMANN: Yes, it's a nice site and they are keeping the house -- it sort of sprawls across the lot a little bit, but that's to keep the elevation a little lower, kind of tucks the house in behind the vegetation from the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nice set of stairs and ramp and everything. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve En-Consultants on behalf of Catherine and Richard Reinken to request a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one-story, one-family dwelling and construct partially over the same foundation wall new one one-half story, one-family dwelling with attached garage and remove two existing sanitary systems, construct beyond Chapter 97 jurisdiction new sanitary system, reconfigure existing public water service line, install drainage system with dry wells and extend existing driveway beyond Chapter 97 jurisdiction. With the hay bales and silt screen as indicated and keeping the buffer that is the natural buffer that is already there, and to make sure there are gutters and down spouts and dry wells. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES 16. B. Laing Associates on behalf of JOHN MULHOLLAND requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Mulholland property behind the bulkhead and the Carlucci property, SCTM#57-2-9, north of Island View Lane, across the street. Located: 725 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57-2-24 17. B. Laing Associates on behalf of VIRGINIA BONT JE Board of Trustees 59 February 15, 2006 requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Carlucci property across the street, SCTM#57-2-9, north of Island View Lane. Located: 802 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57-2-23 18. B. Laing Associates on behalf of MICHAEL CARLUCCI requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Carlucci property across the street, SCTM#57-2-9, north of Island View Lane, with the exception of three to five cubic yards placed directly behind the bulkhead on Baldwin. Located: 865 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57-2-22 19. B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 50 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. Dredge spoil will be placed on Carlucci property across the street, SCTM#57-2-9, north of Island View Lane. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM#57-2-21 TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, 17, 18 and 19 are all this dredging, this common dredging in this area. The problem we had is we asked the locations of the dredge spoils be staked so we could look at it and we couldn't find any stakes indicating where the dredge spoils are going to go. MR. BONT JE: Mike Bontje from B. Laing Associates representing the four applications in question. The two notices, there was one property owner to the north where the dredge spoil location was to be, that had to be notified that turned out to be a Randall Road LLC, and also we had not received back one of the green cards on the prior one from Mr. Mulholland, as he was notified as a result of the Bontjes being a neighbor. I just wanted to hand in that. The second item was with regard to posting, I think that's been taken care of also, all the posting was properly done. The third was as a result of the discussions with Mr. Torpe, and his original concerns with regard to the dredge spoil. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who is Mr. Torpe? MR. BONT JE: Mr. Torpe is the neighbor of Mr. Mulholland immediately to the east. And what happened was in discussion between them, they resolved to remove any dredge spoil disposal from Mr. Mulholland's property. So the dredge spoil will now go across the street. Mr. Carlucci has two pieces of property, one fronts on the waterfront, _.__,"._'.___..,.,._... ._,,_......~.._..,,__..'"_..~~_____,.____..______.__ '"'___,_"O'_~~__'___~"_'~~'_" Board of Trustees 60 February 15, 2006 the other is on the north side of Island View Lane, and I believe he placed some stakes there or placed a stake there. I spoke to him the day after or the evening of our last permit application and he was going to place some stakes in that location. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's across the street away from the water, we saw that area. MR. BONT JE: The only other place where there was a possibility of putting some of the dredge spoil was behind Mr. Baldwin's bulkhead, but that would be immediately behind, and that bulkhead is pretty well established there. That ground has dropped nine inches or a foot. So he was thinking of maybe putting some material there; you're talking maybe three yards of material. So basically other than that one item on Baldwin's property, all of the dredge spoil would now go across the street on Mr. Carlucci's property north of Island View Lane. And I believe you did have a chance to see that the last time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that where we wanted it staked? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Remember they had a little thing around it, and we said that's where it had been before almost? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wasn't on that one. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It was the two areas on the houses that weren't staked and now he's retracting those. TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer to keep the dredge spoils out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where are you at with the DEC as far as the dredge spoil site? MR. BONT JE: At the moment we have an application in, a complete application. We have not heard. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you're just redoing it to put all the dredge spoil across the street? MR. BONT JE: Yes. With the exception of Baldwin, and again, that goes right behind the bulkhead and talking three yards of material to fill in the nine inch drop that's occurred over the years. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want a couple of inches -- (Discussion.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: The one suggestion I had on this project is that there be a turbidity screen put out towards the creek end of the dredging project to help prevent silt from moving out into the creek, if that's possible. MR. BONT JE: We had a thought on that, when we did it the last time, when it was done in 1996, I have some pictures here, it was begun on a particularly low tide, and that Board of Trustees 61 February 15, 2006 actually worked out pretty well. And I have some pictures I can show you because what happens then is it confines the material to the hole itself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Into the basin rather than going into the creek? MR. BONT JE: Yes. What we did was we took the Elier file, but what it did was provide for a basin to work from, and it worked out pretty well, and we really had no sedimentation problems whatsoever and the stuff came up drier too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we keep one for our files? MR. BONT JE: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the tax map number for the record? MR. BONT JE: Of the property across the street? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Sorry to put you on the spot, but I figured it would make it clear. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval with the condition fill is placed in an appropriate area and proof that the area has been dredged in the past. MR. BONT JE: 02-22-22 is the one on the water side. And it looks like 02-9. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the dredge spoil will be put on 57-2-9? MR. BONT JE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the changes that have been made for the dredge spoil. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers 17, 18 and 19, is there anyone here to on behalf of these applications? MR. BONT JE: Mike Bontje, from B. Laing Associates. TRUSTEE KING: I think we covered everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think we got it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to close these three hearings. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the following applications as previously stated B. Laing Associates on behalf of Virginia Bontje to dredge 50 cubic yards. B. Laing Associates on behalf of Michael Carlucci, to dredge 50 cubic yards. B. Laing Associates on behalf of George Board of Trustees 62 February 15, 2006 Baldwin to dredge 50 cubic yards. All spoil shall be put on Carlucci property, 57-2-9, with the exception of three to five cubic yards behind Baldwin bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Include turbidity screen. MR. BONT JE: Or to do the dredging at low tide? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It will have the same effect. MR. BONT JE: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And by the way, I don't know if we mentioned it, all of these applications are consistent with LWRP, and I believe the CAC recommended approval with the condition that the fill be placed -- and you've already answered that question. Everything is consistent. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? 20. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garages, sanitary system, and shed. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#70-12-39.3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, the Ferguses. We submitted a plan to you, as you know, we met in the field last Wednesday. I think we have a consensus on what we're doing here. As I understand, it would be a 50 foot buffer. You had asked us to relocate the shed further landward, it was previously at 75 feet. We sent it back to 100, then we were made aware that we don't have the orientation right. So the site plan in front of you, I turned it 90 degrees so it would be 95 feet, so I would ask that you approve that, and I think beyond that, there's really not much left to discuss in this application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else wishing to speak? The action was found inconsistent with by the Planning Board, basic consideration is that it's 77 feet from the water, and they want you to have gutters, down spouts, et cetera, that has all been covered. So there's no inconsistency. Planning Board office, LWRP. The LWRP comes out of the Planning Board office. So they found it inconsistent, but the inconsistency comes from being 77 feet from the water. The book says 100, so they find it inconsistent. Board of Trustees 63 February 15, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: The book says 100, so every permit is inconsistent? Board of Trustees 64 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. TRUSTEE KING: In the code it says we're supposed to keep houses 100. MR. ANDERSON: 100 feet is the jurisdiction, isn't it? TRUSTEE KING: It's the setback. So as soon as we get inside that. I just had one question, Bruce, on the little shed, is that parallel to the garage now? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's turned so it runs east-west. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Goes left-right. MR. ANDERSON: I'll give you a correct -- TRUSTEE KING: It's perpendicular to the garage? MR. ANDERSON: This way, not this way. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other questions? I make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I also make a motion to approve the application of Edward Fergus for a construction of a single-family dwelling, covered porch, attached deck, attached garage, sanitary system, and shed. With all the usual conditions. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With all the usual conditions of -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, hay bales, that's all coded. The following minimum setback apply to any and all operations, residents minimum setback. The code is written that way. That's why it's the same as being in our jurisdiction, but the way it's written in the book is that the residents should have 100 foot setback from the water. Should be out of our jurisdiction. That's the way the book is written. I understand that's not the way it's functioned forever, but that's the way it's written. MR. JOHNSTON: But as you know, number 2 says, "The Board of Trustees reserves the right to waive or alter the setback where site specific or environmental conditions justify such actions." That's your problem to prove that. 21. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CARLA STARCIC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck. Located: 205 Private Road 3, Southold. SCTM#70-6-9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk environmental Board of Trustees 65 February 15, 2006 Consulting for the applicant, Starcic. We provided you with a site plan and in that site plan we took off the front deck thereby creating a setback of 75 feet. You have that in your records. That was done in response to our meeting out in the field. I also have a piece of correspondence; I'm going to put it in for your own information, and that is because I heard that the northerly portion is a beach and the remainder is a bluff, and the fact of the matter is the northerly portion is not a beach and the remainder of the property is not a bluff, and we provided you with the technical information that I think substantiates that. And that was done basically by looking at your soil survey, Suffolk County soil survey that distinguishes the soils that are predominant on the site from that which is called a beach, also the bluff, which is defined as an escarpment, deals with unstable slopes of 35 percent or more, that also is not existing on the site and also the definition in your Coastal Erosion Hazard law. But I think it's just a question of reasonableness, and I think it's a small house. We can't obviously move it back any further and the conditions are what they are. Hopefully, I addressed everything that has come up in this application, I don't believe I have anything further to say on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak pertaining to this application? MR. HARDY: I'm Charles Hardy. I'm an adjacent landowner and I'm representing all the adjacent landowners plus those in the immediate neighborhood; and this is the third time that this application has come before the Trustees and it seems to be somewhat troubled. Although Mr. Anderson has claimed that this is not a beach, and while I'm not privy to the information that he submitted to you, it seems that what we're asking for is that the applicant and the Trustees comply with Chapter 97, and the definition of a beach, I brought it with me, is that it's subject to seasonal or frequent flooding. This area is composed of unconsolidated, loose and/or coarse sand. There is no vegetation, and that's the result of two factors, one is vehicle traffic, which disturbs and compacts the soil, although in this case, since the Saffas, who are at the dead end of this private road on the lower or seaward end of this property have not frequented their home this past summer, and the only other users are the Giacolas who live adjacent there. So there's another factor then, compression or disturbance by vehicle Board of Trustees 66 February 15, 2006 traffic, and that is salt inundation of the soil, salt build up. You have then a wide expanse of coarse sand. So we have sensed the reluctance of the Trustees to describe this as a beach, and that has important factors for setback. It's not our fault that this lot is so small, but up to 20 or 25 percent of this lot is flooded, and I am going to ask you why, if you consider it a beach or do not consider it a beach. But before I ask you that, let me give you -- we have bombarded you with frequent instances of flooding and here are some more, taken just a couple of days ago. And here is a log that drifted in on their property and here is a neighbor, Pat Bergley paddling merrily, and here is a picture that we measured two to three days ago, 11 to 12 inches. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In your view, what is the difference if it's a beach and if it's not; does it say in the code that there's different setback? MR. HARDY: Yes. Because the landward extension of the flooding stops when there is a physiographic change. In that change, I think David Bergen mentioned that he didn't like my description as a bluff, and I agree with him, it's really not a bluff, but it's a bank. And while a bank is not exactly described in the Chapter 97, a bank is suggested by the definition of physiographic change, and you can see there I am standing in water that's 11 to 12 inches deep and it's right at the edge of the bank where there's a physiographic change. So I would like to ask you why you think that this would not merit consideration as a beach under Chapter 97? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My thing is what is the setback difference if it's a beach or not a beach; is there a difference? MR. HARDY: It then becomes 100 feet from the bank, from the edge of the bank. It's not our fault that this property is so small. Some properties may not be developed. What we're at now at the density and the value of the land, the parcels that were never built on before now become exceedingly valuable and they haven't be built upon. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, are there any other comments from the audience? MR. HARDY: Actually, I would just like to ask you why you would not consider this a beach according to the definition of Chapter 97? TRUSTEE KING: This is an extreme high tide, and in a nor'easter, my yard floods. Same thing, I had almost a foot Board of Trustees 67 February 15, 2006 of water in my yard, I don't consider my yard a beach. MR. HARDY: I have also considered other characteristics that would merit it being considered a beach. But we have now submitted to you four instances since September. TRUSTEE KING: Your interpretation and our interpretation are different. MR. HARDY: But you still have not given me why it does not meet the definition in Chapter 97. That does not answer my question, really. TRUSTEE KING: I can't answer it. I don't want this to turn into a debate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's still a buildable lot. MR. HARDY: So you refuse then to indicate why it meets or does not meet the definition of a beach under Chapter 977 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just respond to close this part of the comments, that I would agree with Mr. Anderson's description here to include from that perspective, there are many areas, just as Mr. King stated, in the town of Southold that flood on occasion during nor'easters and high tides, Skunk Lane floods, Grathwohl Road floods and their front yards to me are not beaches. And we're not going to get into a debate. MR. HARDY: The description says seasonal flooding. You're treating Chapter 97 as a joke. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC recommends approval with the following conditions: No fertilized lawn areas, all roof runoff must be contained to dry wells on the landward side of the road. All property drains contained on site, and save as many eight inch trees as possible. LWRP was inconsistent for the following reasons: 1. It's within 75 feet of the wetlands when they would like 100. We've already addressed that. They also want gutters and down spouts. We've addressed. They're asking for erosion and sediment controls, hay bales and silt fencing during construction to protect the wetlands system and require native disease resistant, draught tolerant landscaping to minimize irrigation fertilizer applications. I have a letter from William Lohn stating that as agreed to that they're willing to remove the proposed stairs on the northern side of the proposed dwelling, remove the proposed driveway providing access to the 16 foot right of way located in the northern section of the parcel. I believe this is what was agreed upon in the field inspection. TRUSTEE KING: I lost that last one, the driveway? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Removal of the proposed driveway providing access to the 16 foot right of way located in the northern Board of Trustees 68 February 15, 2006 section -- MR. ANDERSON: The driveway would come from the south. TRUSTEE KING: Off the upper right of way so there's no driveway going down below? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what else they can do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's been beat to death enough. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I don't know. I don't know what your motion's going to be, but I didn't see Bruce's comments, and I want to read them and see -- I don't know if you want to take the time to do it now or do you want to close -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me just continue. Do we just want to close the hearing, everybody can get a look at that letter, compare it to what we heard tonight, compare the two, and we'll vote it on it, but we can close the hearing, it's over, it's now our decision to make; that's just an observation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to reserve decision on this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you say reserve decision? TRUSTEE KING: We'll make a decision after we take a look at this and decide. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's closed. MR. ANDERSON: I have no objection to close the hearing and reserve the decision for a month. 24. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of RICHARD R. PRIETO, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to remove 113' plus/minus of existing wood-sheathed bulkhead and 35' plus/minus of concrete/stone/wood return/retaining wall and replace in same location with the same structures using vinyl sheathing. Rebuild existing fixed walkway making it 2' plus/minus longer on the seaward end, and replace existing ramp with a ramp 2' plus/minus shorter. The location of the existing 6' by 20' float will be unchanged; Board of Trustees 69 February 15, 2006 the location of the two existing two pile dolphins will be unchanged; the overall length of the dock will be unchanged. Rebuild existing 4' by 4' cantilevered platform in the same location. Located: 2650 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#87 -3-45.1 and 46. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald, for Dr. Prieto. I think it's pretty straightforward. The bulkhead replacement is a straightforward project and the reconstruction of the dock is within the existing footage. We're just going to make the walkway a little longer, and the ramp a little bit shorter, as you just read. The float stays in the same position and it's no further from the bulkhead than it is now. TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt from the LWRP. CAC recommended approval on the application with the condition of a 10 foot nonturf buffer. I think we suggested a 15 foot nonturf buffer, yes, we did. And other than that, I don't think anybody had a problem, did we? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I don't think, I'm trying to remember exactly. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: They came outside with us, remember the little platform on the side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had a question, when I met with Dr. Prieto, he wasn't sure if he needed that 4' by 4' cantilevered platform; so are you sure he still wants that? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because when I met with him he wasn't sure that he really wanted it, okay. TRUSTEE KING: It seemed pretty easy. Any other comments on this application? Any Board comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a 15 foot nonturf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 25. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf DON JAYAMAHA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed open walkway, 4' by 90' with decking and a minimum of 3.5' above grade, hinged ramp 4' by 16', and floating dock, 6' by 20'; install two piles to secure floating dock. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#140-1-8 Board of Trustees 70 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: The Board wanted to see the end of the float staked, where the float's going to be, the float's going to be 90 feet out. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, it's not 90 feet out, Jim, you see it's at an angle there, that's part of the problem because of the angle of the property line. The dock is shorter. TRUSTEE KING: We want to see that staked so we get an idea. MR. FITZGERALD: I understand. It's closer to the shore than the Long Island Oyster to the west. TRUSTEE KING: That's still in the works. We're being sued over that or we're being sued, so that's irrelevant. MR. FITZGERALD: And it's less than a third of the way across the waterway. TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, we want to see it staked at that 90' mark. I have a question, on the survey it says chain link fence along the original high water mark; I've got a feeling that there's a lot of land there that doesn't belong to them. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There's a chain link fence and almost a little wall. TRUSTEE KING: I think that was the original shoreline years ago before they dredged the creek. This has happened in Mattituck Creek quite a bit, who owns title to this section, to this piece, (indicating)? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is a brand new survey. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to see a deed description, because this is an ongoing problem in Mattituck Creek. I'd like to see a deed description with the meets and bounds to see this. MR. FITZGERALD: Suppose it isn't his. TRUSTEE KING: Well then, we've got to talk about who owns it. It's something in Mattituck that I think we really need to address. Just get a deed. So that's what I'd like to see, a copy of deed and put a stake in the water where the float's going to be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The outer edge of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question on this one; given a length of 90 plus 16 for the ramp plus 6 for the float, that's 112 feet out. My concern is the proximity to the docks of Mat-A-Mar and would that create a hazard to navigation to those boats getting in and out? I'm just saying that's my concern. TRUSTEE KING: I think there's concerns across the creek from Mat-A-Mar. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Board of Trustees 71 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP's consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, generally consistent with the policies. MR. FITZGERALD: Good. Really, and I'll have to save that. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor in ALL AYES. 26. Boulevard Planning East on behalf of DON & MARY JO MURPHY requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations to the existing dwelling. Located: 9905 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#119-1-9.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? MR. LENHERT: Rob Lenhert for Boulevard Planning East on behalf of the Murphys. The application we have in front of us, we're doing additions and alterations to a one-story house. The majority of the new construction is going to take place landward of the existing structure. The house, if you look at the site plan is basically a "T". We're taking off the point of the "T" and replacing that, that's the proposal. There's also a small 48 square foot addition towards the east side, the water side of the house, but it's going to remain at the same level as the existing house. It's not going to go farther than what's there, and that's the majority of the Murphys' application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? MR. HOELZL: Yes. My name is Carl Hoelzl, I'm the adjacent landowner there, and looking at the plot plan, the property seems to have grown by about approximately 20 feet, that's one of my problems there. The side line that's adjacent, that's one between us both, there seems to be an error there as to the heading. I have a survey that's mine, and I have a survey from the previous owners, back in the '90s, which shows the house to be exactly 15 feet on the offset. If you take the headings off there, the error gets larger as you get down to the water's edge. So there's a problem with the way they have the headings off there, the offset, and there's a problem with the length they have there, 355. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I see your survey? MR. HOELZL: This is my survey and this is the survey that was done in '95. He shows the common line running about 335, 336, their plan shows it being 355, 20 feet longer. Board of Trustees 72 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're at 408, and theirs is 335. I take it yours is the property here on that side to the north? MR. HOELZL: Yes. And there's a discrepancy there of approximately 20 feet, and the other discrepancy then is the angle they're coming off at, but the heading here is a different heading than what I see. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This is the one that's in the file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the one that's in the file. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: 78-42. MR. HOELZL: That's right. There's a difference there, and the survey from the Hurleys shows the house to be exactly on the 15 foot offset. As you take that offset further down, naturally the area gets larger, go towards the water. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But these two are the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you're saying is the setback from the house to the sideline -- MR. HOELZL: Is incorrect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're looking to the north side -- MR. HOELZL: The north side, also on the landings as you go down that also gets -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: -- Let me finish. On his he's showing an offset from the house 15.65 or 8-5 feet and you're showing 20 feet. MR. HOELZL: No. I'm showing an offset on the house here, that's the Hurley, they're showing the offset being right on the line, there's no plus. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just to interrupt for a second. The Hurley says 78-42? MR. HOELZL: No, this is the property I own here. On this side it's 78-42 on this side it's 78-48, on the survey. And here's the 78 -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Those lines are parallel? MR. HOELZL: Not exactly, they're close but they aren't. They're not exactly the same. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you think they just copied the wrong -- can you see what happened? This is 78-42-10. This is 78-42-10. This is his furthest mark. I just wonder if it got transposed by -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is the date on this survey? MR. HOELZL: 1955. MR. LENHERT: I have to go by what I have is the latest one that I have, 2001. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I understand it, the addition is being done for this is within the scope of the current building that's there. Board of Trustees 73 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we're not putting an addition encroaching into that area that's in dispute. MR. HOELZL: I wanted to get this out in the open now. They're showing the length of property here being 355 feet, okay, and it's both these surveys showing it being 335 feet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think what it's saying is it doesn't impact us at all. It's a legal thing, but it's not our issue. It's not going to change the sideline. MR. HOELZL: No, it's not going to change the sideline. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This survey you have is 335. MR. HOELZL: But this is 355. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But it's a misprint. This was in our file too. MR. HOELZL: I just had one other question, I have a well on the property, and the way they're doing it, they're going to put in three and a half bathrooms there, probably going to have to put in a new sounding. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's determined by the Health Department. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Health Department. MR. HOELZL: The sanitary system comes within 100 feet of the water line? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They would have to come back for an amendment. I'm sure he knows to try to keep it beyond the 100 feet and for some reason if he can't because of your well or whatever, then he would have to come back for an amendment. MR. HOELZL: Thank you. MS. CUSACK: Jill, I have a couple of things that Peggy -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm going to bring them up. I have them. First off, as far as the CAC goes, they recommend approval. With regards to the LWRP, it was listed as inconsistent. The reasons for that, one that it's within 100 feet, which we have already addressed. They asked for erosion and sediment controls, hay bales and silt fencing; so we're asking for staked hay bales and for you to submit the plans showing staked hay bales and silt fencing to protect the system. Require native decease resistant, draught tolerant landscaping, landscaping to minimize irrigation, fertilizer applications and the standard required gutters, down spouts and dry wells to control storm water runoff; any objections to any of those? MR. LENHERT: No objections at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing we asked for is the septic Board of Trustees 74 February 15, 2006 system on the survey here, I have a question mark. MR. LENHERT: I don't believe the septic system's on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're tying into city water? MR. LENHERT: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the current septic? MR. LENHERT: The current septic system is off the side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's well beyond the 100 feet? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So show that on the revised plan also. And given the fact that there's a brick patio in front, between the brick patio difference and the bluff, we would like a natural buffer there. MR. LENHERT: Uh-huh. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board? Then I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE BERGEN: Abstain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve Boulevard Planning East on behalf of Don and Mary Jo Murphy to request a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations to existing dwelling, located 2950 Nassau Point Road, subject to a plan being submitted that will show the staked hay bales and the location of septic system and in agreement to the gutters, down spouts and a silt fencing also along with those hay bales. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the planting by the brick patio? TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the buffer from the brick patio. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Abstain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I abstained. I should have recused myself from the vote. MR. JOHNSTON: Lauren will supply you with the form to document your recusal in the future. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go back to the Murphy one. Strike the motion previously made by Dave, and I make a new motion to approve Don and Mary Jo Murphy. MR. JOHNSTON: You have to reopen the hearing, close the hearing and then make the motion. Board of Trustees 75 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make a motion to open the hearing for Boulevard Planning East on behalf of Don and Mary Joe Murphy. Let the record show that Boulevard East is here representing Don and Mary Jo Murphy, and I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Recuse. MR. JOHNSTON: Let the record show that David recused himself. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion that we approve the application of Don and Mary Jo Murphy for a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations to existing dwelling located 9905 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue Subject to a new plan showing a staked row of hay bales, gutters, leaders into dry wells, a buffer by the brick patio, and showing the septic system on the plan. And I think that covers it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Recuse. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye. 27. Boulevard Planning East on behalf of JIM & SUSAN SWEENEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition with covered porch to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 2950 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#87-3-42 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this? MR. LENHERT: Rob Lenhert for Boulevard Planning for Jim and Susan Sweeney. In this proposal, we're proposing to construct second-story addition over an existing one-story residence. What we're looking to do, we're putting a second story living space on. The existing one-story residence is 1,384 square feet. The second story enclosed habitable space, we're looking to put on as 903 square feet. Above one of the screen porches, we're proposing to put 125 foot covered porch, and also on the second story, we are proposing an open porch of 147 square feet again, over the existing screen porch. No one of the additions we're proposing are going to extend past the lines of the existing house. Board of Trustees 76 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So far the same as the previous permit, the hay bales, dry wells, gutters, where is the current septic on this property? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How many bedrooms are you going to -- MR. LENHERT: Three bedrooms, two baths. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know how long the Sweeneys have owned this property? MR. LENHERT: Very recently, about three years. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who was the previous owner? MR. LENHERT: I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's exempt from LWRP. The CAC approved with the condition recommend a 10 foot nonturf buffer landward of the retaining wall. We would like to see a 15 foot nontu rf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: The reason is it's a vinyl bulkhead and we've only been working with the vinyl for the last few years, and I can't remember putting in a vinyl bulkhead without a buffer being requested, and there's no buffer there. So I don't know if the original owners didn't comply with the original permit or if we forgot to put the buffer in, I don't know, I'm not sure. MR. LENHERT: Does is that mean the new owners have to cut up all the grass? TRUSTEE KING: We can have that 15 foot nonturf buffer put in now you're doing modifications to the house, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we'd like to see that. TRUSTEE KING: And they can put gravel, they can put natural plantings there, just something that doesn't require fertilization. MR. LENHERT: Just remove the grass. TRUSTEE KING: That was my only concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board? Any other comments from anybody? I make a motion we close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion that we approve the application of Boulevard Planning East on behalf of Jim and Susan Sweeney for a request of the Wetland Permit to a second floor addition with covered porch to the existing single-family dwelling, with the condition that we have hay bales during construction, gutters leading into dry wells and a 15 foot buffer behind the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Aye. Board of Trustees 77 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note that I recuse myself. 28. Interscience Research Association, Inc. on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge two areas within the basin and inlet. The inlet area being 50' by 130' and the Basin area 50' by 100'. Both areas to be dredged to a maximum depth of 4' below apparent low water. A maximum of 1,000 cubic yards of material combined may be removed from the two areas in any calendar year. Located: Basin Road, Southold. SCTM#81-1-16.1 and 16.7 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this issue? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker, I'm pleased to report that the association agrees with the brief conference that we had at the work session, and they will repair the west jetty prior to doing any maintenance dredging. MR. JOHNSTON: Who is the "we"? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Paradise Point. MR. WALKER: Paradise Point Association will agree to replace the west jetty, the box jetty prior to doing any maintenance dredging. And we would like to submit a spoil plan, which shows spoil to the west jetty box, to the east jetty box to the extent that it may ever be needed and to the spoil site that Cathy Mesiano got for the Zupas that is just east of the east jetty on the beach. And also would like to report that Paradise Point Association sent their lawyer home. They don't have any opposition to the emergency permit resolution that you have later on on your agenda. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So you have withdrawn that is what you're saying? MR. WALKER: I don't think they have formally opposed it period. Want to be as cooperative with the Board as possible. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We appreciate that. MR. WALKER: We would ask for a maintenance dredging permit with spoil to the west jetty box, the east jetty box and to the spoil site designated by the Zupas on the beach to the east jetty, which is where all the material should go for any material that's not needed in the jetty boxes. We would submit that spoil plan to you as a follow-up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Table this? TRUSTEE KING: What kind of time frame are we looking at? Board of Trustees 78 February 15, 2006 MR. WALKER: To do the maintenance dredging and to replace the west jetty box prior to June 1 sl. It's the close of the dredging window. The jetty box would have to be repaired before the maintenance dredging. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And your contractor is able to repair the jetty in that time? MR. WALKER: Yes. And they're putting together the money to do the work, west jetty box then maintenance dredge. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The question I think is you're putting spoil on somebody else's land, though; am I correct? MR. WALKER: The Town of Southold's land. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So there's nothing in the Zupa's spoil area? MR. WALKER: It's below the high water line. The answer to that is, yes, but the practical matter is DEC has given approval to them for that as a spoil site, so we should be able to -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: My question was I wasn't positive exactly where the spoil area was, and if it was on their property, we'd have to get permission. MR. WALKER: From high water to low water east of the east jetty, where it should go. MR. JOHNSTON: And the "them" is who? MR. WALKER: The Zupas. MR. JOHNSTON: I want the record to be clear. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Other questions? Any comments from the audience? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the Zupas, just to back up what Mr. Walker said, we have agreed with Mr. Walker that it's my understanding that the association, Paradise Point Association, will not contest the Zupa's request for their emergency dredge permit for this immediate season. And that their maintenance dredge permit they're seeking would be conditioned upon their repair of the existing jetty, the damaged jetty, I think we refer to it as the west jetty. That the operations in association with that activity be conducted from Tax Map Lot #16.11, which is the property that is owned and owned in fee title by the Paradise Point Association. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay, just so I can write this and say it in the three spoil areas, west jetty box, east jetty box, and the beach to the east of the east jetty box. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions? I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Board of Trustees 79 February 15, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion, and I ask everybody to listen carefully so we don't make any mistakes here, I'm recommending a permit to maintenance dredge two areas within the basin and inlet, the inlet area being 50' by 100' -- 130', the basin area 50' by 100. Both areas are to be dredged to maximum depth of 4' below apparent low water, a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards of material combined may be removed from the two areas in anyone calendar year. Also, the association will repair the west jetty before the work begins. The access to do the work dredging will be on 16.11, the west jetty box will be used, east jetty box will be used, and the beach to the east of the east jetty box will be used as spoil areas. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: What about cost of the dredge spoils? It's Trustee bottom. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I would presume that the applicant pays that. Do you understand the question he just brought up? TRUSTEE KING: It's Trustee bottom. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Trustees own the bottom and there's a $10 per cubic yard fee for taking our sand and using it, that's been in the code forever. Okay. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: Did he agree to that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We heard it. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you agree to it? MR. WALKER: I don't think-- MR. JOHNSTON: Did you agree to it? MR. WALKER: I don't think I had much of a choice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Normally if it's trucked off site, how do we get the cubic yards? TRUSTEE KING: If the area's 20' by 40', you can figure out the cubic yards. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go back to the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: We've got two emergency bulkhead permits here that we discussed. If there's no question they're emergencies. So what do we do, we just pass a resolution? MS. MESIANO: These are my two matters, I am tempted to narrate them. TRUSTEE KING: It's a temporary emergency action to protect house, which maintaining setbacks plus/minus 30 feet from Board of Trustees 80 February 15, 2006 the permitted bulkhead, bulkhead has suffered a complete failure. The proposal is placement of three ton rock armor along a previously existing bulkhead for a distance of approximately 50 feet for the purpose of diffusing wave energy. The foundation of the house is exposed and awaiting engineer's report for final remediation. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: You're going to change that at some point. So I think a temporary solution -- MS. MESIANO: It's a temporary band aid to try to preserve the house. TRUSTEE KING: How long do you think before we get something permanent? MS. MESIANO: I'm going to try to have an application to you for the March hearing. We have the engineer coming in tomorrow and that's really what we're waiting for. TRUSTEE KING: So if we make this good for 90 days or six months, would that be okay? MS. MESIANO: Yes. We need to solve it before then because we're very, very perilous. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make it for a six month emergency permit. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can I just ask the question I asked earlier, are you just going to do the same thing with this? You had talked about something about rebuilding the bulkhead temporarily out of wood and out of the pieces that you were salvaging. MS. MESIANO: We're talking about the other matter Gobenin now? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. MS. MESIANO: The immediate band aid, if you will, would be to just try to upright that piece that's laying over that 20' section, fortify it with the rock armor, just to stablize what's there, but the contractor felt strongly that the vinyl would not be a good choice in that location because it was prone to so much battering. He just doesn't feel it has the integrity to withstand that. Since it is only a 20 foot section, he was hoping that we would be able to get the Board to agree to replacing in-kind/in-place that failed section. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But you're not asking for that now? MS. MS. MESIANO: I am. I think I wrote that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's what I was unclear about. MS. MESIANO: Because we pretty much understand and know what our situation is on that property, because we don't Board of Trustees 81 February 15, 2006 have the waves crashing at the foundation and so on. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. So in the matter of Joanne Bouvia, a temporary emergency repair for approximately 20 feet of failed bulkhead, three ton rock armor toe of functional bulkhead approximately 30 feet, straighten and secure the failed portion as practical and continue rock armor. A permanent repair would be in-place replacement of approximately 20 feet of failed bulkhead. With a 16 by 10" piles add six 16 by 1 0" batter piles to remain a functional bulkhead. Open storage area landward of new bulkhead with approximately 1 ,000 cubic yards TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The second part of that it's not temporary. TRUSTEE KING: Let's get the emergency repair of approximately 20 feet of failed bulkhead with the stone, and then I would come in for an application for a permanent bulkhead. So, I'll make a motion to approve the 50 section as an emergency repair. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.