Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/17/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 6:30 PM RECEIVED I I : 3t:, .q . W\ . ~clpt.:)l Southold Tow~ MINUTES Wednesday, May 17, 2006 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: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 21,2006 at 6:30 p.m. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m. TRUSTEE DOHERTY moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING Seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 15, 2006. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL Seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For April, 2006, check for $9,022.59 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Board of Trustees 2 May 17, 2006 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Vince Fischetti SCTM#86-5-6 Fishers Island Utility Co. SCTM#10-9-13 Paris Konstantinidis SCTM#33-1-13 Roger Stoutenburgh SCTM#138-2-35 Thomas O'Neill SCTM#76-3-10.1 John Chapman SCTM#98-2-20.1 Charles McEvily SCTM#52-5-6 Vishnudat Seodat SCTM#99-3-4.2 Karen & Richard Seelig SCTM#63-7-37 Maria & Mark Katsigeorgis SCTM#44-1-12 John & Joanne Gouveia SCTM#44-1-11 Robert Peters SCTM#64-1-30.2 Angelo & Josephine Padovan SCTM#135-1-23 & 24.1 Principi Properties, LLC SCTM#56-7-2 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Before we get going, just a few things, what the Board is up to. Right now we're rewriting our shellfish code, and we're working on a new mooring plan for the bay, so we're kind of busy. Also, we're looking to get a pump out boat and we're getting very involved in some road runoff projects. Maybe start with you, Dave, can you give us the status of what's going on with the mooring plan and talk about the pump out boat? TRUSTEE BERGEN: First with regard to the mooring regulations, there was a draft prepared in March '05 of the mooring regulations that was updated April '06, we put together a task force of individuals from across the town, they met a little over a week ago, went through the draft and proposed various changes. These changes will be submitted to the Trustees; the Trustees will hold a work session to look at these suggested changes to see if they should be incorporated into the next draft or whether they should not be incorporated into the next draft. We will, from these changes and from this meeting, create a final draft where there will be a public hearing, it will be announced in the paper, and it will be open to the public. And then if all goes well, it could be this will go forward to the Town Board. I want everybody to understand it's 2 Board of Trustees 3 May 17, 2006 still in draft form, and nothing has been finalized yet. Any questions regarding the mooring? TRUSTEE KING: I think we're making progress, that's it. It's a difficult job, I know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the pump out boat, the Town Board did approve a resolution at the last meeting to send the purchase of the boat out to bid, bid specs have been developed, and bid packages have been sent to I believe four possible vendors. I'm not sure if the opening date is going to be June 1 st or not, but I believe it might be June 1 st, the opening date. It should appear in this week's paper; it should be a public notice as to the bid. Then hopefully in June the Board will decide whether or not the Town's going to move forward with the purchase of a pump out boat. We were successful in obtaining grants, $35,000 from the state, $22,500 from the county. Heather helped us with that, Peggy helped with that and so we were very successful with our grant applications. So that the final cost of a roughly $80,000 boat is roughly about $25,000 to the Town. TRUSTEE KING: Peg, any update with the LWRP? Peg is the chairperson of the committee of the LWRP, which is the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the things we have been working on is an exemption list, which will allow more of our projects to go through exempt from the LWRP process; and we'll be discussing that at some point this evening. The other thing we have been working on also is grants. We're looking into doing a documentary about some of our regulations and their justifications, and also Jill will probably mention that storm water runoff projects will be looking into grant money. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the Chapter 77, our shellfish code, we're redoing -- I just finished, I don't know what number draft that is, but we're kind of in the same process as with the mooring code. We're still working with the bay constables and various agencies of the Town to work on these drafts, and eventually it will go to public hearing for public input, then to the Town Board with the changes. I'm on the storm water runoff committee. We just went to the Town Board Tuesday and are successful in going for a bond to start paying for a lot of our projects. We have a list here that has been compiled -- right now I think there's 120 sites on this list in the town and it's a working list and we keep adding to it, that was started years ago. I believe Bob Golcio when he was on the CAC in that capacity went around and found all the sites, and 3 Board of Trustees 4 May 17, 2006 Heather was on the committee too. So Heather and Bob did that, and then Jamie Richter has put this list together and what we plan on doing is having a separate file for each location. So once we get the seed money we can start these projects. The grants for the LWRP are due next week and Jamie Richter has been working on that. We're applying for five different grants through LWRP, one is for education that Peggy's working on, then we have storm water mitigation, we have the Goldsmith Inlet we're doing a separate. So we're very busy with that, and when we find things like this with this filtration on the work session we talked about, find new ways to help with our storm water runoff, it makes it more complicated but it brings everything up to date and better, so we don't have water running through a pipe right into our creeks. TRUSTEE KING: I think that covered most of it. We're all pretty busy. I've done a lot of water sampling for Mattituck Creek, I've been very involved with Petersen's Marina, which has been bought by the DEC, and it's going to be a completely restored area. There's going to be a public launching ramp there, some wetland restorations. It's going to be a really nice project. That means the whole mouth of Mattituck Creek belongs either to the town or the state, so there will be no further development in that area, makes the entrance to the creek much more attractive now. With that I guess we'll get going. Before I do, I'll introduce the Board. Dave Bergen, Peggy Dickerson, Jill Doherty, Lauren Standish, John Holzapfel, Brownell Johnston, our legal advisor, Heather Cusack, environmental tech, and it's Peter Young, member of the CAC, conservation advisory board, and they do field inspections and site inspections and they advise us on what's going on. And Resolutions and Administrative Permits are we going to try and do these as a group? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The first one we can't. IV. RESOLUTIONS.ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. JOAN & HAROLD KIEFER request an Administrative Permit to construct a deck onto the existing dwelling. Located: 1115 Terry Lane, Orient. SCTM#14-3-3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I looked at this and I know you spoke with Lauren today, the options are -- and I'll explain -- an Administrative Permit we could give tonight and you could start work on your deck, or you can wait a month and write one permit, the permit for the Administrative and the 4 Board of Trustees 5 May 17, 2006 Wetland Permit, that saves you $50 if you do them both together and if you can wait a month, if you want to start now, you have to get the Administrative Permit now to start the work. It's up to you either way. MS. KIEFER: We don't have anyone to do the work anyway. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay, if you want to include that on your application. MS. STANDISH: Yes, you submitted an application tonight for the stairs, but in a separate application, what John is saying that if you want to include them on one application, one fee, one permit in the end, but we couldn't do that until next month. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So as long as you're in no hurry, you can save yourself $50 by melding those two together. You just have to come in saying that the deck as built will be on the Wetland Permit. They just have to be joined together as one document. MS. STANDISH: You have until May 29th. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Then that will occur next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, John, they would be withdrawing the Administrative Permit tonight? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Did I hear you withdraw your permit for the record, that you have right now? MS. KIEFER: Yes. 2. THOMAS NADHERNY requests an Administrative Permit to replace the waste pipe to the existing cesspool. Located: 1025 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#70-5-34 & 35. TRUSTEE KING: We went and looked at this. I think his replacement was already dug, and we wanted to see some replanting down in that one corner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The west side of the dock. MS. CUSACK: I called him, but I didn't get him. So we can just put it into the permit. There is sort of a survey. TRUSTEE KING: He should put it on the drawing where the replanting's going to be. He should submit a little replanting plan for that area. So I say we approve this based on submission of a planting plan of restoration of that little area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. JOSEPH FINORA requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing shed with a new 8' by 12' shed. Located: 135 East Legion Avenue, Mattituck. 5 Board of Trustees 6 May 17, 2006 SCTM#122-3-13 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. It's an old shed that's been there for many years. He's going to replace it with a new one. I asked him, rather than put it in the exact same location as the old shed, he's going to kind of flip-flop it landward so it's further away from the wetlands. So it's just a matter of actually just flipping the shed landward, so the front of the new shed is where the back of the old shed was. It's an improvement. I'll recommend approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. MARTIN SOJA C/O OREGON CLIFFS, LLC requests an Administrative Permit to provide erosion control to the side of the property including the addition of erosion control blanket, boulders and ground cover. Hay bale berm and directing water runoff landward. Located: 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-2-10.13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was a case where when they got their permits, it was out of our jurisdiction, but since the additions to Chapter 97, it has now become in our jurisdiction, and we asked them to come in for an Administrative Permit with a planting plan. And is doing a boulder with erosion control in it, which we saw an example of that in the field and it looked pretty good. The plan looks like as discussed in the field. I make a motion to approve the planting plan as submitted for Martin Soja. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. V. RESOLUTIONS. MOORINGS: 1. JOSEPH CACIOPPO requests a Mooring in Deep Hole Creek for an 18' boat. Access: Private. 2. MARY QUINN requests a Mooring in Broadwaters Cove for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #131 (21 foot boat). Access: Private. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have inspected these and it seems to be fine. I make a motion to approve both. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSrrRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do Numbers 1 through 10 all together. 6 Board of Trustees 7 May 17, 2006 MS. CUSACK: Jill, one thing on Number 8, Jim had asked me to go out there and they had a permit. They have more out there than what was permitted, so what we had talked about, and I called him and he was fine with it, that he remove what he doesn't have a permit for and just transfer what he does have a permit for. TRUSTEE KING: So he understands what's being transferred is probably less than what he's actually got there? MS. CUSACK: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're transferring permit as written? MS. CUSACK: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. What we're trying to do here, folks, is trying to speed up the process. So we have applications for amendments, transfers and extensions. If there's anybody that has a comment on any of them, you're more than welcome to comment. If not, we're going to lump them together, Numbers 1 through 10. 1. WILLIAM & MARY STEELE requests an Amendment to Permit #5813 to install a sanitary system on the landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: 1895 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM#58-2-10 2. PETER COWAN requests an Amendment to Permit #6165 to install an in-ground swimming pool 24' off the rear of the dwelling rather than 35'. 3. Alice Redding on behalf of JOSEPH GONZALEZ requests an Amendment to Permit #6089 to convert the existing attached garage into living space within the same footprint, and to change the front of the house by enclosing the 4' by 13.6' area to become flush with the face of the building. Located: 2700 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#122-4-14 4. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of STEVEN E. LOSQUADRO requests an Amendment to Permit #6279 to allow for the placement of 982 cubic yards of fill for the septic system and the front portion of the lot. Located: 1150 Fanning Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-6-33 5. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KAREN & RICHARD SEELIG request an Amendment to Permit #6065 to authorize the removal of steps; construction of 3' by 33' inclined section of walk from dock to lawn; and construction of two 4' by 4' steps to beach to maintain access along shoreline. Located: 7 Board of Trustees 8 May 17, 2006 1515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#63-7-37 6. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JAMES MURRAY requests an Amendment to Permit #6205 to expand the width of a boat ramp from 8' to 10' and add 8' angled extension to return. Located: 1900 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#145-4-3 7. Stanley Skrezec on behalf of MICHAEL & NANCY FOLEY requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6251 E and Coastal Erosion Permit #6251 C to include the restoration of a 20' by 10' area of the bluff face to the existing approved bluff restoration project. Located: 62675 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM#40-1-9 8. EDMUND & CORIANDER SMYTH request a Transfer of Permit #2019 from Anthony Prisco to Edmund & Coriander Smyth, as issued on August 1, 1985. Located: 370 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM#91-1-7 9. PAUL KEBER requests a Transfer of Permit #6270 from Darren Pfennig to Paul Keber, as issued on December 21, 2005. Located: Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#72-2-2.3 10. ELIZABETH WOLFF requests a Transfer of Permit #5435 from Joseph & Catherine Barbato to Elizabeth Wolff, as issued on October 24, 2001, and amended on June 26, 2002. Located: 200 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-1-20 TRUSTEE KING: Number 1 through 10, I make a motion that we approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 11. ROGER STOUTENBURGH requests an Amendment to Permit 1613 to include a 4' by 20' floating dock. Located: 4640 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#138-2-35 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I am recusing myself from Number 11. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we went out and looked at it we had a couple concerns. One was that the float sat on the bottom at low tide, one end of the float I should say sat on the bottom at low tide, and the other was the size, the dimensions that is listed here did not match the exact dimensions of the float. I have had a conversation with Mr. Stoutenburgh, what he had proposed is to take that float out completely. He has a float to replace it that is a 6' 8 Board of Trustees 9 May 17, 2006 by 10' floating dock that would essentially cut in half the size of the floating dock, the length of the floating dock, hence it would not sit on the bottom at low tide. He would then extend the walkway to the floating dock using 2 by 6's underneath the walkway to help stabilize that because the length of the walkway is now going to increase by another 10 feet. So he's asking our permission to go ahead and stabilize that additional 1 0 foot of walkway with 2 by 6's under it, and I'd make sure it's appropriate material. Then install a 6' by 10' floating dock on the end, rather than the 4' by 20' as proposed. That also would not encroach on the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he already has a 6' by 10' float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. He would take away the I think 5' by 20' that is presently there and replace with a 6' by 10', that's what he proposed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Makes sense. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because again, it won't extend out any further than the present one. So I make a motion to approve it as amended. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would require an amended plan for that Stoutenburgh application. 12. THOMAS ROZAKIS, ANN V. ROZAKIS, AND KATHLEEN VERDERBER request a Transfer of Permit #5928 from Debra Victoroff to Thomas Rozakis, Ann V. Rozakis and Kathleen Verderber, as issued on May 26,2004 and a One-Year Extension to Permit #5928. Located: 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#54-5-29.1 and 55 TRUSTEE KING: I don't think you guys were on the Board when the original permit was issued. This was a very difficult application. There was a lot of opposition to issuing this permit, very controversial, and my feeling is I would like to get it restaked and have the Board go out and take another look at it and possibly have it reviewed under the LWRP. It was never reviewed under the LWRP. We would like to have it reviewed and take another look at it. The extension will not expire because we're in the process now of relooking at it. So the permit is not going to expire. So I'd like to table this and get this place restaked so we can take another look. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I need a motion to go off the regular meeting 9 Board of Trustees 10 May 17, 2006 and go to our public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOlD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE KING: We have had some postponements, Number 3 has been postponed until June; Number 9, Principi Properties, has been postponed, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 will be postponed until June. Fishers Island, I was supposed to go to Fishers Island, I had two to look at and the DEC had lot to look at on Fishers Island, but we had to cancel because of the weather. I don't know how to put this, but I just found out tonight -- Cathy, I'm speaking to you, the first application here, Catherine Mesiano, I just found out tonight there's a lawsuit involving you with the Board. MS. MESIANO: No, there's a notice of claim, not a suit. TRUSTEE KING: Anyway, I just don't want you to be uncomfortable with us moving on your application. MS. MESIANO: I'm not uncomfortable. TRUSTEE KING: Because it's not going to affect my judgment in any way. MS. MESIANO: I trust that the Board members will treat the applicants and their constituents fairly. They may like to shoot the messenger. TRUSTEE KING: You understand how I feel? I just don't want you to be uncomfortable. I don't want anybody to think -- MS. MESIANO: I'm not uncomfortable and I have faith in the Board that you can be fair with the applicants and your constituents and taxpayers. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. 1. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of JOHN & 10 Board of Trustees 11 May 17, 2006 JOANNE GOUVEIA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace in-kind/in-place 10 linear feet of timber bulkhead; the existing rock armor to be placed at the seaward toe of the new bulkhead above high water to deflect wave energy; repair the existing stairs; place approximately 20 cubic yards of backfill, obtained from an approved upland source, landward of the bulkhead and plant approximately 12' by 12' non-turf buffer with 4' wide path to bulkhead. Located: 55405 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#44-1-11 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We have been out there a number of times. We have looked at the piece of property, and LWRP is exempt. So I will say if there's anybody to speak for or against this? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicants. I have tried to present as complete an application as possible. I do have some additional pictures, if you would like me to submit them to you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you want to bring them up, we can put them in the file. MS. MESIANO: This applies to this application as well as the next one. So if I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to do that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for or against this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just say something? We have been meeting with the neighbors on this whole long stretch, and I want to say we met with Ed Romaine this week, Jim and I went and all the neighbors, and I think it was a good start to try to come up with some solution, it's not going to be 100 percent solution because we can't fight mother nature. I think that was a good start, and they need to do something here. MS. MESIANO: I think Ed demonstrated that he's committed to doing whatever he can and bringing in all of the elected officials and public agencies that have jurisdiction, and quasi public agencies, Key Span, because it is a larger problem than just the Gouveia and just the Katsigeorgis property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Is there anyone second to closing the hearing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion that we approve the application of John and Joanne Gouveia. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 11 Board of Trustees 12 May 17, 2006 2. Catherine Mesiano, Inc. on behalf of MARIA & MARK KATSIGEORGIS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to replace in-kind/in-place 50 linear foot of timber bulkhead and 12' returns at each end; the existing rock armor to be placed at the seaward toe of the new bulkhead above high water to deflect wave energy; reconstruct the existing deck; and place 100 cubic yards backfill, obtained from an approved upland source, landward of the bulkhead and plant approximately 12' by 50' non-turf buffer with 4' wide path to bulkhead. Located: 55455 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#44-1-12 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? MS. MESIANO: Again, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant, if you should have any questions. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? MR. CHARNEWS: Clem Charnews, C-H-A-R-N-E-W-S, on behalf of John Xikis, X-I-K-I-S. I met with John this afternoon and he called me up. TRUSTEE KING: We're on Katsigeorgis. MR. CHARNEWS: We're next door, and I've had quite a discussion with him today, and I'm looking at this thing. She just did the first property, which was okay. But it shows in here in-place and in-kind, and as John explained it to me and as I remember, that that bulkhead didn't come to the corner of the bulkhead, it was back about seven or eight feet, and the deck ended on top of the bulkhead. The way this is drawn it says in-place/in-kind, it's taking another eight feet out of Long Island Sound and then throwing the stones over into the high water mark. All the houses to the east have pretty much sand, you can see where the high water is, even on this sketch. The houses to the west are suffering. This is going to throw the rocks out into the water. It's going to do it while at the same time gulping up another seven or eight feet of land it never had to begin with. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you pointing to a picture you have? MR. CHARNEWS: Yes, I'm pointing. I don't know if we could find some old pictures or old surveys. TRUSTEE KING: We have a lot of pictures of this whole area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It might be in the other file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if we have pictures prior to the destruction. 12 Board of Trustees 13 May 17, 2006 MR. CHARNEWS: It's pretty serious stuff. MS. MESIANO: I asked Mr. and Mrs. Katsigeorgis, and they said prior to the failure the corner of their bulkhead met Mr. Xikis and Gouveia, their corner met. MR. CHARNEWS: Well, Mr. Xikis says, and I kind of remember it myself, that it never matched, it was back seven or eight feet. All the evidence is gone now, unless there's pictures or the DEC permits or something in the archives somewhere. TRUSTEE KING: Back here somewhere? MR. CHARNEWS: They're there in place now, they were put there where they would normally be. Which would not so much encroach into the high water mark, so they're kind of looking to replenish all this, which is doing much better than everybody else towards the east already. I think the same person who drew this one drew this one. If they're presenting this to you as a bait and switch, we do want to have a chance to check this out and bring that to your attention. That property is right where -- people to the east are a little happier, they got a little more sand. TRUSTEE KING: We've got some old files. MR. CHARNEWS: We want this looked at because that property is in such a -- it's right where the sand almost stops from the east and it's missing to the west, and to go and take more sand and to take more property I think it's pretty unjust to all the houses to the east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me ask a question of the applicant. There's a line of boulders in front of that house right now. MS. MESIANO: Correct, that was approved under the emergency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When they were placed there, were there boulders there prior to construction? MS. MESIANO: No. This is a photograph before the storm. This is the 1995 DEC approved plan that shows the bulkhead attaching at its corners to its neighboring properties. That was what was approved and there is a 1995 permit issued by the Trustees as well because these properties were damaged in a storm, Xikis is to the east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's the red house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before Deitrich, right? I see, so where is the property line; is this piece right here, Xikis's bulkhead is a little bit higher than this decking, and that's Xikis's property line; is that correct? MS. MESIANO: I believe it is because there were returns and we're proposing returns, and again, this was '95. MR. CHARNEWS: I don't know when these pictures could be taken. I would like us to have an opportunity to research 13 Board of Trustees 14 May 17, 2006 this a little bit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This looks like the bulkhead is back in this section, one piling back. See, right in this section here (indicating), there's something, there's an indent there. I don't know what that is. MS. MESIANO: This is a photograph taken the day before the storm. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We don't have a survey showing it. MS. MESIANO: I have the 1995 DEC permit and the Trustees issued a permit concurrent with that. The diagonal was one of the tide lines. MR. CHARNEWS: There should be a house survey that should show these footprints. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The reality of the situation is we would probably say we would rather have it in line personally because of the energy involved. If you make an opening like that it captures the energy, and it's much more destructive than having a straight barrier. We would normally do that for applications. MR. CHARNEWS: Right. But from that property headed east, there's probably two feet or more of sand gone from everybody so there's no sand being fed there, from that property going west at least there's sand, so I think -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Talking about on the beach? MR. CHARNEWS: Yes, we've got millions of pictures. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been there. MR. CHARNEWS: You can see where the happier people are and the more scary people are, and these people are right in the middle, and this thing is going to gobble more land and throw these stones out into the sound, and the lateral drift of the sand and affect that, there's something to think about there. There's four to five houses to the east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The armoring of the bulkhead is something we're in favor of on the sound. MR. CHARNEWS: So are we, we're having these discussions. You can see by these pictures where these beaches are, I mean -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if what you're saying is just from the bulkheading. It's a lot more than just that one bulkhead that's contributing to the wake. It's eroding. MR. CHARNEWS: If you even look at this application where the high water mark cuts across, it comes in right here. That's these houses going there are in much better shape. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And as you go down further east it goes out again. It's a cove. 14 Board of Trustees 15 May 17, 2006 MR. CHARNEWS: But these four houses it's bad. They want to put those rocks right here, that's in a new spot, that's out below the high water mark and it's going to make this beach better and this area to the east possibly even worse. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the Xikis's stones would be in line with these stones; is that correct? All the armoring would be in line, so the sand would be all consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. All the armoring would be in line. That's what I was getting to. MR. CHARNEWS: I don't know how many years it would take if this is stuck out there like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Xikis is fixing his, it's going to be all one line, Mr. Xikis's is going to be the same as this. So it's good that everybody's doing it together so it will hopefully be as even as mother nature makes it. MR. CHARNEWS: Everybody needs rocks but take them off. If I understand what he was saying that they're expanding this and representing it in an application that that was existing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think when you look at it solely by itself but if you look at everything that's happening there, it's going to be consistent. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If this is the place we're talking about, it matches up almost exactly, it's not indented. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's saying that is out more than that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The wall, it looks like this is the wall. I'm saying this side is level. It's even with the next door neighbor, you're saying it's indented. But it's not indented here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it makes sense just to make it even. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We appreciate the comment but we'll just vote on what we have. MS. GOUVEIA: My name is Joanne Gouveia, and I'm on the other side of Katsigeorgis, and of course, I'm in favor of us all getting back in line there and getting the rock toe. We've tried to get all our seawall bulkheading in line and get our rock toes all in line. Mr. Xikis's rock toe has to get in line with our rock toes. So you know, the bulkheads were always matched up. We're trying to match them again, rock toe them all. And Mr. Xikis's rock toe as well because he's been very anxious to get his rock toe in place. We would work on his behalf too. If that's okay with you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We appreciate the comments, but I think we should move ahead on the application as it stands. TRUSTEE KING: Did CAC look at this? 15 Board of Trustees 16 May 17, 2006 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. I and several other members of the CAC inspected both properties and I guess my comment would be that the substantive issue here is not what they did or did not represent in the application at the question at hand, it's how to mitigate the issue of the erosion and how to protect the property and the shoreline of both properties. So I think the linear nature of this bulkhead is something that is warranted. So I know the CAC recommended approval of both of these applications. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Are there any other comments? MS. MESIANO: The only other thing I'd like to add for the record is the Katsigeorgis's bulkhead is completely gone. We're protected only with this rock armor that was done as an emergency measure in February. Their foundation is exposed. Their house is at risk, so I would -- I'll use the word strongly -- beg the Board to please make a decision because their house and their property is fully exposed. They have no protection from the sound, the wave action, storms, it's only by the grace of God that they're still intact, given the weather we have had over the last three months. So I want to make the point that it is fully exposed, there's no bulkheading there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments from anybody? MR. XIKIS: Because I no hear so good, can I come nearer? The pictures show this house give emergency permit, no give to me, give this house. MR. XIKIS: This picture show the apartment, make new apartment from the basement, all pipes go the water, can't go to swim whole time toilet papers plain in the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the new work that's being done on that house, right or wrong? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't tell, I think so. MR. XIKIS: Toilet upstairs, toilet downstairs, all these things go into the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you're saying they're not going into a septic system? MR. XIKIS: I don't know. I can't do nothing, you got to check. These stones were there, stop the sand, my four house over there that be once go to the sea, all they four, five feet of the water, stones put outside the stones make property big. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what the application's for to put the stones on the seaward side of the bulkhead. MR. XIKIS: If give, give inside, not outside I make -- 16 Board of Trustees 17 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we're trying to do is have the bulkheads all in one line and then all the stones in one line on all the properties. MR. XIKIS: Before all the way out now all the way out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're asking your bulkhead to be out further; is that what you're saying? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's already out further. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're saying your property's out further than this one? MR. XIKIS: Three properties. Three more properties and I am four. That's very soon go to the ocean to put down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what are you trying to say to us? We're familiar with the area and what it looks like. So we know the dire situation is in that area, and we're working as a group with the county and the state in that area. MR. XIKIS: I can't tell what to do. Down here decide, I can't tell. Show always here beach for this; this is mine, all like this (indicating). TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What about this project? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it okay with you this project? MR. XIKIS: It's okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're discussing this one house. At a separate meeting at a separate area we'll discuss all the properties, but for right here we're discussing one property. This is not the end of the discussion for this area. We're going to work with the state and the county to figure out what to do with this area. MR. XIKIS: Permit without I ask emergency permit, no give me. TRUSTEE KING: The Board didn't feel that you had an emergency like these people had. Your bulkhead hadn't failed, it hadn't fallen out and put your house in danger. It was still intact. We went and looked at it. We gave you a permit to rebuild it. We didn't consider in front of yours as an emergency. MR. XIKIS: Walk the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you're talking about your property, we can talk about that another time. We need to talk about this property now during the public hearing. If you have questions about your property and your application -- MR. XIKIS: Yes, my property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: -- we can discuss that at another time. I believe you have applications in our office for your property, and we gave you a permit. We gave you the permit to replace the bulkhead and put stone in front. MR. XIKIS: Nobody told me. 17 Board of Trustees 18 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have to go to the DEC, we can't help you with that. MR. XIKIS: Now ready. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was there when Chuck Hamilton was there. So you have to work that out with him. But we're fine with what we gave you. As far as this Board's concerned, you can go ahead and act on your permit. Whether you have DEC or not, it's up to you to go to the DEC. MR. XIKIS: Four houses now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a serious situation. So we want to move ahead with this. MR. XIKIS: Now no waves four to five feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's happening all over town. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else wants to speak about this application, on this application? MS. MESIANO: Was there a comment with regard to sanitary waste? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe so. MS. MESIANO: Let me just address that. In response to Mr. Xikis' comment with regard to sanitary waste, we did locate the sanitary system, because of our concern that the heavy equipment not drive over it, and it is located in the front yard on what would be the south easterly corner of the house, up close to the house, and there was no evidence of there being a ring, a cesspool, a septic tank in the back of the house, because I was there immediately after the damage occurred, and I've been there consistently, and I know where the septic system is, it became an issue in preparation for the work to be performed because both projects, as you know, are being staged from this location. So I do know the septic system is off the southeast corner of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if the septic system was on the seaward side, we would have seen it. TRUSTEE KING: One question, Cathy, where are you with the DEC? MS. MESIANO: I have the application, this application, submitted to them. I put it right into Mark Carrera. I wasn't able to get a hold of him today, but he has the application, no further information was requested of me. submitted it to him at the same time I submitted it to this Board, so not having had a response or request from them for additional information tells me that they're moving forward with it. TRUSTEE KING: Would it be fair to say that you probably will not start construction until you have a DEC permit? MS. MESIANO: That would be very fair to say. May 17, 2006 18 Board of Trustees 19 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to approve the application as in the plans of Maria and Mark Katsigeorgis. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. En-Consultants on behalf of VISHNUDAT SEODAT requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct in-place approximately 129 linear feet of previously authorized bluff terrace retaining walls, which collapsed during wash-out event; repair or replace in-place adjacent, damaged sections of terraces as necessary; regrade vertical lip at bluff crest and use approximately 15 cubic yards of resultant material, along with approximately 115 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source, to refill washed out portion of bluff face; and replant washed out portion of bluff face and nonturf buffer landward of bluff crest as needed with beach grass, bayberry, and rosa rugosa rose. Located: 580 Lloyd's Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-4.2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant Vishnudat Seodat. Jim, I think you're the only Board member who has the pleasure of recalling this site when it was originally visited back in 2000. This is the former Reese property, which had had a bit of a mass bluff collapse with the adjoining properties of Mahalios and Peck and an additional Reese property which I think is still owned by Reeses to the east. This permit application is to repair in-place the same exact terrace structures with the accompanying fill and plantings that were approved by the Board back in 2000. One of the issues -- I discussed this briefly with Heather -- that I think probably contributed to some of this is the fact that a dry well had been installed by one of the two prior owners. I don't think it was Reese. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was Fox. MR. HERMANN: Yes, one owner in between. That is taking in quite a good deal of surface water runoff there and probably injecting it right into the bluff face, and as we talked about it a couple hearings prior last month is you get these clay areas here and then forces itself out the face. 19 Board of Trustees 20 May 17, 2006 So part of the proposal here in addition to doing the maintenance repair is to eliminate that dry well. TRUSTEE KING: Can that just be filled, Rob, rather than be removed? MR. HERMANN Yes, but I want to make sure they disconnect the pipes to it. So one way or the other that can be done. There is a change to the description that you read. We sent a letter, which I hope you got May 9th, that changed the numbers because we realized something that -- I was working with Peter Sterling from Plantings by the Sea and something we assume the Board might come across, this is again in the Honeysuckle Hills area, most of this land is not owned by the applicants it's owned by the association, and we have the letters that you should have in your file from the association from the original project that required the integrity of these structures to be maintained. I did have a discussion with Peter McGreevey who indicated that the association would work for the promise of that original letter for this project, and they didn't need to give us any sort of new letter. But using an imaginary seaward extension of the westerly property line, if we were just proposing it for Dr. Seodat, the retaining walls would end and leave a gap where there would still be a gully between Mahalios and Seodat. So what we have done is we propose to extend that repair a little further to the west and connect to Mahalios; he obviously is very much in favor of that so he's given us a letter that should also be in your file now that consents to the work extending onto his property if necessary. If the Board has any other questions about the project, I'm happy to answer them, but basically it's something that at least Jim has seen before. TRUSTEE KI NG: I remember one of the first times I went up there, not this one but further to the west, just before they started clearing, and I warned them don't go clearing. Old Jim don't know what he's talking about. Six months later they're in for emergency. I have one question, those pipes to hold the planking they're like an inch and half, I wonder if they used a bigger diameter pipe if that would help. A lot of them are bent like they just couldn't stand it. It would be a bigger surface area, two and a half or even three inch pipe. It might be more substantial to hold that terraces. MR. HERMANN: I think originally an inch and a half was proposed, I don't know if that was actually installed. And this was actually one of the things we discussed when 20 Board of Trustees 21 May 17, 2006 the terracing came up for a different application farther to the east when Peter McGreevey was speaking I think for the Ferrel application, when we had originally coordinated this work for Reese and Mahalios, Peter Sterling, we had believed was going to be the contractor doing the work, and neither of those homeowners hired Peter. Some of the work looked prettily shoddily done to me not that long after it was done. So I think a big problem with what happened here was the installation. I can certainly mention to Peter your suggestion. He did all those Corso properties, most of the work I've ever seen him do is done substantially, expensively and correctly. TRUSTEE KING: The pipes are actually bent. To me that means the pipes are not structurally strong enough. MR. HERMANN Or it wasn't installed correctly. There may have been too much piping exposed, remember these things aren't supposed to be four feet in the air with a ton of fill behind them, just enough to stage off the area to keep it stable. TRUSTEE KING: Once it's all gone it's hard to tell how much was taken, just off the top of my head. MR. HERMANN I know for a fact that Seodat is using Plantings on this, and so I can only trust that Peter will do his usual professional job on it. I have no problem mentioning it to him. I don't know that we could -- I mean, we could just give you a letter indicating if that change is going to be made. Obviously he's got to be responsible for the work. TRUSTEE KING: It wouldn't be a detail in the plans the size of the pipe, but just mention it to him as my suggestion, I think it would help. MR. JOHNSTON: CAC have anything? MR. YOUNG: We approved it. TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with the LWRP. Any other comments on this application? MR. YOUNG: The only comment, we recommended approval with the condition of a nonturf buffer 50 percent of the distance between the pool and the top of the bluff. MR. HERMANN: There's a 25 foot buffer in place now, and we showed that area to be supplementally planted as necessary where some of that wash out occurred, and I think that should be adequate. I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: Do you think it would help to go up onto the turf a little more and do something different there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the steep slope. TRUSTEE KING: Steep slope then it drops down into that 21 Board of Trustees 22 May 17, 2006 buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even if you go 10 feet back. I think that's what we were talking about in the field. If you push that whole thing 35 instead of 25, make it 35 foot buffer, because as that turf slopes, it gets really steep there, so maybe make that buffer a little bigger; do you think that's possible? They still would have lawn. MR. HERMANN: Yes. Or we could just plant the buffer that's there more substantially. It's hard to know where to choose the line. Ideally you would reconvert the entire lot back to brush. I mean, 25 has usually been the Board's standard in the adjacent coastal erosion area because that's by definition the bluff area, but I could certainly mention it to them, maybe have some sort of transition where you would have switch grass in that 10 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That way it's less force going down. MR. HERMANN Yes, I don't think that would be a tremendous problem. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? So we'll change the wording on this to this new letter. MR. HERMANN The dimensions should be 183 total linear feet of terrace retaining walls that have to be entirely reconstructed. And it would be-- TRUSTEE KING: 190 cube yards. MR. HERMANN: 190 cubic yards to be trucked in and we're still looking at the same 15 yards that would come from some of that lip regrading that was probably not sufficiently done the first time. TRUSTEE KING: And we're going to increase the size of the buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So make it a total of 35 feet? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Anything else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's what we had on our field notes. TRUSTEE KING: 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 with the amendments we just made to it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ANGELO & JOSEPHINE PADOVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the existing shed. Located: Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#135-1-23 and 24.1 22 Board of Trustees 23 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MS. MOORE: I know you're familiar with this property. The condition of the shed is obviously in very poor condition. At one point they had planned on putting a cottage on this property, so it's been deteriorating over time. They have to make repairs to it, but because we wanted to be sure they didn't go off and do it without a permit, we're asking for a permit in order to make the repairs. In place, wood materials, windows are starting to fall out. It's just in poor condition, needs to be usable, continue to be usable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to speak for or against this application? MS. MOORE: Mr. and Mrs. Padovan are here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what you're asking, the 18'3" by -- MS. MOORE: It's like there's two roofs there. The 18'3" by 10'2", is the shed portion, the interior, you can go inside. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The building part. MS. MOORE: Right. There's also the wood decking that's covered over, like a roof-over, that has to be repaired as well, essentially the whole thing has to be repaired in the same dimensions, it's just new wood instead of old wood. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, that was our question. The application simply says to replace the little part. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. The whole thing is considered the shed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: While we're looking for it, let me explain. When we went out there, we looked at -- and I can't remember the date of it, we'll find it, but the date of when previously there was applications for it, and it had dimensions at that time with the shed. We then took a tape measure and measured what is now the shed, it was a different size. When you look at the shed, there's a section of it, there's a large portion of the shed, you can tell by the wood and the paint it's probably all about the same time and then there's an addition -- I'll use that word it's probably a wrong word -- addition to the shed that's a different composite, different type of wood, that makes the shed's dimensions larger than what is on the original plans. Now, also in addition there was a deck out front. That deck, as you described had a roof over part of it, then somebody came over along and put a roof over the next part of it, there's been walls -- probably the wrong word -- plywood put on both sides. And there was a set of 23 Board of Trustees 24 May 17, 2006 steps put on the front that we didn't have on anything. What's happened now, and there was a set of steps put on the front that we never had on anything, so what's happened now is this structure is much larger when you encompass the whole structure than it was originally, and again, I don't have the date here. So our concern is when you say make repairs to the shed -- MS. MOORE: We're making repairs to what's there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, and what our concern was that this shed has grown in size. MS. MOORE: But remember, it's been there since the 1930s. TRUSTEE KING: Some of it hasn't been. The plastic roof and everything hasn't been there since the '30s and the plywood on the sides hasn't been there since the '30s, I'm sorry. MS. MOORE: What I'm saying is the smallest portion, there are certain parts of it that have been there since the '30s. TRUSTEE KING: We've got a property card on it that shows exactly what's legal there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I say, when we took the tape measure, it didn't match. It didn't match what was on the property card as the original shed, the structure is larger now than what it was then. I'm sorry I don't have the date. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the feelings of the Board and the CAC is the repairs are fine on the original dimensions; is that correct? MS. MOORE: Tell me, according to the property card what the dimensions were. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: '99 was the last date on the property card. They said the main building is 10' by 14', which on your survey you have 18'3" by 12' MS. MOORE: 10'2". TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 10'2", sorry. And the deck 5' by 18', and then they have porch, 5' by 14', but that might be-- MS. MOORE: 14. TRUSTEE KING: That was covered at one point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is '99 is the last date on this property card. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that you have eliminated the ability to put a house on here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How did we do that? MS. MOORE: You denied the permit. That was just a couple months ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't know the history. TRUSTEE KING: Coastal erosion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I was asking. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Pat, I think just to make it easier, our 24 Board of Trustees 25 May 17, 2006 problem was just the definitions of what was what. MS. MOORE: You had different than I had. I only had the survey. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was our problem. If there's no big emergency, I think if you tell us exactly what you want to do, we'll go back next month and we'll be clear. I wouldn't feel comfortable let's do this or that tonight. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's too vague just to say we're going to repair it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. That was our concern, it said "repair shed." We thought were you talking about just the shed, talking the new roof, the deck. I think for the easement of everybody, if you go back and decide what you really want to do; is it all going to be one big structure, is there going to be a deck, is it going to have a roof on it, and let us know, it's going to save a lot of time and effort. Does that make sense? MS. MOORE: That's fine, I'll come back to you with specifics. I'll do it by the picture. I did not want to have the client spend with Young and Young another $1 ,000 to do a repair on what they've got. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, do you want a copy of it? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's a comment on a dry well at the house that runs into the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we noticed when we were there, away from the beach house and over to the -- or the shack or over to the main house, there seemed to be a run of water that comes down from the gutter system into the driveway, down the driveway, straight, right into the beach, and we were going to make a request that that be addressed by the applicant. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With use of a dry well somehow. MS. MOORE: We'll certainly consider it. Unfortunately there's not much room here but maybe on the adjacent property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, because in doing this repair, we'd probably request dry wells and hook into -- MS. MOORE: That might be better because I think here there's not much room without putting them in the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you relocate the pipe and have it go that way. You could work that in the plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to table the application from Angelo and Josephine Padovan for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit. 25 Board of Trustees 26 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: That's exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's existing. TRUSTEE KING: It's in the coastal erosion area, shouldn't that be reviewed? MS. CUSACK: It depends how much they ask for because she had said it's just for what was there. WETLAND PERMITS 1. Robert Barratt on behalf of JULIE TSAI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and driveway. Located: 310 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#59-1-21 .1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Last month we looked at this and we tabled it, so the CAC can review all the updates and changes that we have worked on over the months. And we requested from last month there was a little portion going out of the house and we wanted that off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can you describe for the record, when you say little portion, which side? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the north side of the proposed house, which is towards the wetland, so that's further away from the wetland with that off. TRUSTEE KING: We have another drawing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the drawing here. Bear with us, we want to make sure we have the right survey here. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is proposed, Mr. Barratt, correct me if I'm wrong, from all our discussions, is a 20' by 45' house, single story on poles, on stilts, with decking around it. On this plan, if you can tell me the dimensions of the decking, we would need to know that; the septic is 90 feet away from the wetland, and the corner, each corner of the house is 60 feet away from the wetlands, the house not including the deck. TRUSTEE KING: If you take this jog off. MR. BARRATT: May I approach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please. MR. BARRATT: I'm Robert Barratt, representing Mrs. Tsai. This might help, I just held these out of the files. This is a sketch as it was. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have that here. MR. BARRATT: And Mrs. Tsai removed the little push-out, maintaining the 60 foot dimension, and then she arranged to 26 Board of Trustees 27 May 17, 2006 have the septic tank moved over 90 feet. The one dimension that's missing perhaps is the 10 foot width of the deck, which of course, is above the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Above the land. MR. BARRATT: Land, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you tell the side of the house here, what is the width here? MR. BARRATT: From there to there is 10 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then what is this width? MR. BARRATT: 10 feet again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's 10 feet all the way around. MR. BARRATT: She sort of figured a six foot chaise, 10 feet in order to get around it TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 10 foot all the way around? TRUSTEE KING: It would be on the east side and on the north side of the house there would be a deck? MR. BARRATT: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE KING: There needs to be 10 feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it possible we can cut that down to eight feet? MR. BARRATT: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why would we want to cut it from 10 to eight? I don't understand what two feet -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what Jim was asking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The decking was off the ground. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think two feet is going to make a difference. MR. BARRATT: Actually it would be more convenient to leave it the way it is because there has to be stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You really want it wider than eight feet for emergency access. That's their access to the house. TRUSTEE KING: There will be no fill brought in? MR. BARRATT: No. TRUSTEE KING: No fill, no regrading? MR. BARRATT: Yes, there will be, not for the driveway, but there will be some fill here for the septic tank. If you look, that part really hasn't changed from the original survey. Here you see the details of the retaining wall because the septic system. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's just in the septic area? MR. BARRATT: Yes, ma'am. TRUSTEE KING: How far is the top of the wall above the elevation? MR. BARRATT: Approximately two feet. TRUSTEE KING: Where is that wall? MR. BARRATT: Here and here (indicating). 27 Board of Trustees 28 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: So it's on the edge of the driveway? MR. BARRATT: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Pervious driveway? MR. BARRATT: Pervious driveway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're proposing a 20 by 45 foot house, with decking on the east side and north side 10 foot wide, pervious driveway, septic and we'll have a two foot wall all the way around it, and it's approximately 90 feet, this shows 91 feet, from the edge of the wetlands, and the house itself on each corner is 60 feet from the edge of the wetlands. So that's what we're looking at. On piles and no grade coming in other than what's needed for the septic. And we'll need an approximation of that amount of fill. TRUSTEE KING: What does this blue line represent? MR. BARRATT: That's right, that is the edge of the nondisturbance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That could be a hay bale line. TRUSTEE KING: So this is nondisturbance line? MR. BARRATT: A hay bale line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you're having public water come in? TRUSTEE KING: I'd almost like to see the hay bale left in place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Put them there during construction and then leave them there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it stabilizes. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could you speak up, please? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're talking about a proposed hay bale line. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could you give us the date of that document you're looking at? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We haven't opened up the comments yet, when we do you can come up and identify yourself for the record. We want to make sure that everything is on the record. MR. BARRATT: The modified drawing was presented on 4/24. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time we'll take any other comments. MR. YOUNG: CAC recommended approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC recommended approval as applied for, however, the council does have concerns with the overall impact, but basically there's a house on either side. They felt that the area has been impacted already, but they approved the current application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At the last meeting we took substantial comments on this, so I would ask if there are people that 28 Board of Trustees 29 have comments, make sure that they're new comments, not repeating what was entered in the record last time and because we have that record, and limit comments to five minutes or less. MS. BALL: Lillian Ball, the chairperson of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association, Great Pond Wetland Preservation Committee. I'm really concerned that the CAC approved this, their reasons for approval are faulty given the fact that this wetland is all connected. There are no property divisions in a wetlands and it's even more essential to preserve this wetland for water quality and stability issues because it is all connected and because it is already surrounded. It's an island in the midst of major development in between the lake and the sound. So that's one reason why the fact that it's houses on either side is not a valid argument, scientifically it's all connected. It's not separate lots. Property lines and environmental fragility don't go hand in hand. I wanted to point out the letter that we sent you last Monday, which does address a number of the property issues. I felt that when Julie Tsai was here previously she made it sound as if they had to have a place to bring up their children in Southold. The fact of the matter is that they own at least six and probably seven or eight properties on the north fork. They own a house directly across the lake, which has been on the market for over a year and has been under renovation, could very easily be a place where their family could live, a much wider spread than 1,000 square foot house, it's a bigger house, it's a perfectly lovely house, and we maintain that this property is being developed for speculation. And it would be a shame to have a small house like that developing, hurting the wetlands, changing the dynamic of this fragile ecosystem and then find that nobody wants to buy it. We have other circumstances in the neighborhood where there have been houses built in 100 percent wetlands, they are not occupied, the people don't come, they're for rent and mostly empty. It's a shame to ruin the wetlands for those kinds of issues. I wanted to give you a little bit of background on where we're at with the county. The county is very concerned about the appraisals. There's a lot of controversy about the appraisals with the county, they are under the impression that the LWRP is protecting this neighborhood and therefore makes the property less valuable. So the offers that they're giving to those land " owners are many times the median in between two different May 17, 2006 29 Board of Trustees 30 May 17, 2006 appraisals and often times a little bit towards the lower side because they feel that the LWRP protects it. Now, with Mark Terry's findings of it being inconsistent and not being able to be made consistent, I would think that the LWRP does protect this area, but it makes it very hard for us to do our preservation process without having the Trustees uphold the LWRP. So I would beg you to consider that aspect of the situation. I wanted to give you an update, there are three properties in contract with the county, there are two being appraised, including the Mazzanobile properties, which were, as you know, before this Board last year, and the Board made a courageous decision to revoke a permit that was made in the middle of the wetlands. I hope the Board will once again make a courageous decision to stop this so we can continue preserving. Obviously, the property owner in that case seems to think that the situation is not in his favor or he wouldn't be allowing Suffolk County to appraise the properties. Two are in negotiations, one of them being Julie Tsai's other lot, 21.3 and 21.4 is one of the two properties that are currently in the county's hands. According to the county, the taxes are so far behind on that Tsai property that unfortunately it cannot be redeemed. They are extremely difficult to get a hold of, they're very circuitous in the mail route, and I think that's why that happened in the taxes. It's not a hardship situation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're at five minutes, wrap it up. MS. BALL: I will sum up. We have then the one property owned by the PL T. So it's looking like we're going to have four preserved at least, and we would hope, we would expect that the Trustees would want to see this property preserved and do everything in our power to help us preserve it, and not to undercut us by allowing houses to be built in this extremely fragile globally rare ecosystem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone else that would like to comment? MS. POPPE: Yes. My name is Patricia Poppe, P-O-P-P-E. I'm the president of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association. It's a pleasure to be able to address you this way. I'm a little disappointed in the CAC opinion. I have to reiterate what Miss Ball said and that is just because there's one or two houses that have been there for a period of time, I don't think that's a reason to now take this large, fragile, unique piece of land and now just open it up to widespread development. I think the civic association is concerned 30 Board of Trustees 31 May 17, 2006 that the decision on the Mazzanobile property becomes a somewhat dubious decision in terms of litigation if now we grant a permit. But I would like to speak passionately, not so much facts and figures. I don't like to say that somebody should not have their dream to build their home in beautiful South old town. I was reassured when I found out that the Tsai family does have other options. Our decisions that we make affect all the people of the town of Southold. And I think we have to weigh that against the decision of one family to try to build a home in a very ecologically fragile area. The freshwater lake that is there is a beautiful lake. It supports a Peconic Dunes camp. It's a swimming hole as our old president used to say, swimming and canoeing and boating and fishing. Actually, the wetlands area is a filter for that whole lake, so once we open this up to the development of this house and perhaps another permit and another permit after that because it's kind of like a precedent thing, what do we do about the life of that lake, the ecology of that lake, the wildlife, the waterfowl, et cetera. That is a beautiful area and if you have gone down and driven around how nice it would be to be able to preserve it and have it there because once it's gone it's gone forever. I think I speak on behalf of all the civic association members. The Trust for Public Land for New York state, if I just might paraphrase them, it says it would forever change the face of this fragile unique wetland, and it would diminish the conservation of the land surrounding it. Once we allow one flood gate to open, they will all open, and that land will be lost forever. I appeal to you to make a courageous decision and deny this permit. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, sir? MR. BAMBRICK: Hi, I'm George Bambrick, I live on Lake Drive, Southold. The survey I have is dated April 7th. When Mr. Barratt came up to your bar there, Ms. Doherty recited some numbers which aren't in play with my survey; what is the date on the survey you have? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We received this April 26th and it's a survey in progress. MR. BAMBRICK: It's a survey in progress? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. BAMBRICK: Can I ask the CAC representative what survey he based his decision on? 31 Board of Trustees 32 May 17, 2006 MR. YOUNG: You have to address him, and then he can ask me whatever he wants. MR. BAMBRICK: Can the Trustees ask the CAC what survey they're basing their recommendation on? TRUSTEE KING: I assume that they based it on what they saw in the field. MR. YOUNG: Yes, we inspected the property, several of us were out there, and notwithstanding -- MR. BAMBRICK: Which survey did he use; can we ask that question? MR. BAMBRICK: We inspected the property based on the materials that were furnished to us by the Town. We felt that notwithstanding the sensitivity of the area, that the market issues are irrelevant, how many properties the Tsais have or whatever are irrelevant, and that we looked at how the applicant managed the process of addressing the issues that were raised in terms of impact on the environment. We felt that the applicant had done what they needed to do to minimize or mitigate any issues that would have relevant impact on the subject property. And that's why we came to the conclusion that we would recommend approval and we stand by that. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. BAMBRICK: I'm sorry, but he still hasn't answered the question. What date the survey was that he based his decision on. I'm assuming that he used a survey as a tool in his decision. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe -- I would assume that he would have the latest survey that we have. Which would be April 26th. MR. BAMBRICK: It appears to me that Mr. Barratt came up with a new survey and new-- MR. BARRATT: 4/24. MR. BAMBRICK: Was that the survey you used at your last hearing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. Because we asked for changes since then. MR. BAMBRICK: My point is that the public hasn't had the opportunity to review this latest survey. And I also have a feeling that the CAC used the April 7th survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I don't believe so. MR. BAMBRICK: The numbers are inconsistent between the two surveys. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One minute, please. MR. BARRATT: I have a remark to help you, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Address the Board. 32 Board of Trustees 33 May 17, 2006 MR. BARRATT: The Board made some suggestions and those suggestions were to modify the marked up survey dated 4/19. The 4/19 survey was marked up and dated 4/24, and it reflects the positions of the stakes that Mrs. Tsai asked to have moved to go along with the suggestions. MR. BAMBRICK: Was the public aware that there were changes made to the survey? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe so. It was all discussed in the public hearings that we had. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the last meeting it was discussed. MR. BAMBRICK: Wasn't there a request that the changes be made at the last meeting? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, and those are the changes. MR. BAMBRICK: And that came up today, but we didn't have an opportunity to look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It came in the office April 26th. So you had time to come to the office. MR. BAMBRICK: I think to be fair the least you can do is table the decision on this matter, and allow the public who wasn't privy to some of this information that you're using to make your decision, and I again question whether the CAC had that information. Give us a chance to review it and come back at a later date and make our comments on this most recent survey. MR. YOUNG: Sir, to answer your question, the property and the proposed definition of the development of that property was staked, and so we could see what the outline and the proposed decking and whatever, and where the wall was going to be in relation to the overall issues that you're talking about. MR. BAMBRICK: So the numbers could be different. MR. YOUNG: So we knew where that building was; it was all marked. MR. BAMBRICK: It doesn't sound logical to me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, sir, thank you for your comments and the CAC got the most recent survey. MR. BAMBRICK: I don't think the public did. MR. JOHNSTON: Let's put it in the record that the office of the Trustees is open from a few minutes after 8:00 to a few minutes after 4:00 every day and if this was submitted on the 26th and today's the 17th, so that's three weeks it's been available approximately; Jill, is that approximately the right time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. BAMBRICK: Are the new numbers the distance between the cesspool and the wetlands and the house and the wetlands, 33 Board of Trustees 34 May 17, 2006 are they consistent with your current law, the town law and the LWRP; are those numbers consistent with those two laws? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not sure I understand your question, anything within 100 feet of the wetlands has to come before this Board. MR. BAMBRICK: I understand that. So if it's less than 100 feet it's not inconsistent with the 100 foot requirement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's within our jurisdiction. MR. BAMBRICK: And would that be grounds for you to deny the claim, if it's not within the 100 foot? TRUSTEE KING: It would be considered. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be considered. If that was the only grounds, then we would have nothing come before us. MR. BAMBRICK: What about the LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: As was discussed last month in the LWRP recommendations, it was found inconsistent. One of the reasons, exactly as you're saying, is because it's less than 100 feet from the wetlands. And as Miss Doherty just stated that's primarily what we deal with up here, just about all the applications that come in to us because they're less than 100 feet from the wetlands. MR. BAMBRICK: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Any other comments? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Again, I'd just like to say, I mentioned it last week and I'll say it again, this particular property -- and I just want to be on the record -- it is globally rare. It is state rare. It's classified S2, which is the highest rank of rarity in New York state. It's a very rare community and it is inside the recommendations that the Town set forth originally, and I just think that if we ever think about denying any piece of property, I don't know if there would be another piece of property that I would consider equal to this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to add to that that I'm uncomfortable with the 91 feet to the cesspool, and also that many of us see the bumper stickers around Town from Nature Conservancy that say "Save What's Left," and I think that's what this is all about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing no further comment, I'd like to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As we all know, this has been a lengthy process on this application, I don't know when it was first discussed. Since January, since I was on the Board, we have 34 Board of Trustees 35 May 17, 2006 made a lot of changes to this, mitigated a lot, and we have done a lot of research with different agencies, asked a lot of questions. And at this time, I'd like to put a motion that we approve the house and I'll repeat what it is, this is all subject to receiving the survey, so approve a 20' by 45' house with a 10' deck on the east and north side with the house 60' away from the wetlands; the septic is 90' away from the wetland with 2' high wall around it as per Health Department; the proposed driveway would be a pervious driveway; the no disturbance line as marked up on the survey will stay no disturbance, nothing north and east of that will be disturbed; a hay bale line will be on that line during construction and to stay there after construction; of course gutters and leaders and dry wells, and one-story house on stilts, and no grass area, have it natural beach, as it is now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one point of clarification, you say the hay bale to stay, how long is the hay bale to line to stay after construction is complete? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Until they decompose. They don't have to keep maintaining that, that will give a chance for everything to settle. Unless you feel that they should be maintained. That's my motion. MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, can you be a little more specific of decompose? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Until they fall apart, until you cannot see them anymore, until they naturally turn back into soil and become one with the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? MR. JOHNSTON: Can we take a roll call vote because of the sensitivity of this one, Jill? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Very difficult decision for me to make. I have driven by this place I don't know how many times. I've stayed awake sometimes just thinking about it. I know we approved a house next door to this, it was only two or three years ago, there was not one objection that I can remember. Suddenly now this is so sensitive. I have to agree with the CAC it's been impacted. This small house is not going to make that much of a difference, I'm going to vote for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John? 35 Board of Trustees 36 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And your own vote? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I vote yes, let the record show that there's three yes and two no. MS. CUSACK: Jill, are you able to specify the nondisturbance area, how many feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As it's on this survey, and this is all, of course, subject to receiving these comments on the survey before the permit is even typed up. It shows 50 feet from the wetlands line approximately 50 feet on one side, and it doesn't show the other. TRUSTEE KING: You're looking at 10 feet between the house and hay bale line, 10 feet. 2. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT PETERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 50' fiberglass grid dock, two feet above grade, with 4" diameter piles. Located: 801 Maple Avenue, Southold. SCTM#64-1-30 .2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of applicant. If the Board has any questions I think the application is straightforward. I've provided you everything I could think to provide you. One other comment is that your LWRP coordinator requested more narrative information. I spoke with Mark this afternoon, he said he hadn't had a chance to review it. I do have a copy of what I sent him. He said the Board could make a decision without him. So for whatever it's worth here are my comments on LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have LWRP comments as of yet. Mark didn't comment before this. He needed more information. TRUSTEE KING: I think he thought maybe there was going to be a float or something there, which there isn't. This is strictly access for a kayak or something. There's no water here. It's a mudflat. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were there a couple months ago. MS. MESIANO: Yes, you were there with the Beninatis. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How did we know that he needed more information? MS. CUSACK: He asked us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was verbal? MS. CUSACK: There's an email. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand it's an easy project, do we need that piece of paper before we can proceed? 36 Board of Trustees 37 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wanted to know what Mark's -- here's the email. He requested that he is unable to review it without narrative explaining how the dock furthers the policies of the LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, was the application not filled out properly? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He wants more information. TRUSTEE KING: To me this was just a minimal platform. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The only concern I have is just ignoring that. TRUSTEE KING: We're not ignoring. I just feel that -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That we would approve it anyway? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's a catwalk over the marsh. TRUSTEE KING: It's low profile. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. There's no stairs and there's no -- TRUSTEE KING: Fiberglass grid type that we're all very happy with. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The concern is what does Mark feel? mean, Mark's saying why should I bother doing any of them if they're not going to bother. TRUSTEE KING: No. He's told us that he expects us to just override it. It's okay, his ego doesn't get bruised. MS. MESIANO: Mark did comment to me that the Board could make their decision without his comment. That was his comment to me. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only thing is it's hard to address any of his concerns without it also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't mention any concerns. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you look at LWRP, this isn't going to be a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's not saying -- MS. CUSACK: He did mention that it was shallow, it was so shallow what was the purpose of it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's a walkway over the marsh so you don't disturb the marsh. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you remember we went out there with Beninati Realty in February, March? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Talked about the grid. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they had come to us to see if it was possible to apply for a dock in that area, and we all agreed at that site visit -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As long as it was a catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: We basically told them at that time it was doable. I don't have a problem with it. Any other 37 Board of Trustees 38 May 17, 2006 comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: Now, I think we were in the field we made a measurement of where the dock was to stop. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it's in our notes. MS. MESIANO: I think you said nine feet. TRUSTEE KING: We're starting to have some confusion on starting points of docks, I just want to get it clarified where. MS. MESIANO: Your comment was nine feet off the beginning of the vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: The platform is to start, the landward edge of the platform is to start nine feet landward of the edge of the spartina alterniflora. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Which edge? TRUSTEE KING: Nine feet from the landward edge of the spartina alterniflora, it's pretty much a fixed point. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want them to put a stake in there? TRUSTEE KING: There were two metal rods there. MS. MESIANO: We had a stake there too, it was as staked because you measured from the stake to vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: I have a second, all in favor? ALL AYES 3. Alpha Consulting on behalf of JOHN CHAPMAN requests a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming pool 75 feet north of the wetlands. Located: 2700 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic. SCTM#98-2-20.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANGEL: Ted Angel, Alpha Consulting on behalf of John Chapman. This application has been approved before. It had expired, it's before you again. It has been approved by the Zoning Board, the DEC permit is in place, and we're awaiting your second approval on this application, which is exactly the same as it was the first time when the permit was issued. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else here to make any comment on this? Couple questions, sir, we noticed that the location of this is in the woods, not on the lawn. I know the CAC had a concern about that. Is there any opportunity to move this pool so that it's on the lawn rather than in the woods? The concern being the loss of a 38 Board of Trustees 39 May 17, 2006 significant amount of woodlands for the construction of the pool. MR. ANGEL: There will be some trees coming down. There will be some screening, a double row of evergreens staggered, five foot high, that the Zoning Board of Appeals has asked for as a screen. There is a substantial amount of treed area there, so the few that are coming down and which again, the area was approved last time around and the permit was not extended. But as far as moving it, because we have the situation of the setback for the DEC of the wetlands, and to put it on the lawn, further onto the lawn, it is partially on the lawn, but it would be basically in front of the living area, and it would not be very cosmetic and useful to the applicant. But screening will be put up as per the requirement of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the road side, a double row of evergreens staggered. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, like I said, it was a request. Now we did notice also that there really is no buffer. The lawn goes all the way down to the edge of the wetlands, and I believe in the CAC's findings they were also concerned about this. MR. ANGEL: I submitted a revised plan, there is a 10 foot buffer on there now, and there is a line of hay bales shown on the revised plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I have submitted here is the site plan dated May 15th. I guess that's the most recent one. MR. ANGEL: That's a revision, and it should show the hay bale line as well as the 10 foot buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It does. I think we'd like to see a buffer greater than 10 foot there. Again, if we could have the recommendation from the CAC on the buffer? MR. YOUNG: It was a 30 foot nonturf buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know how the Board feels about this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Split the difference TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make it a 20 foot nonturf buffer. MR. ANGEL: I can't speak for the applicant because he's had a lawn going down to the wetlands edge in the past, it's there, it's existing. Now we don't have a waterway there. Little Creek is substantially away -- and this is just a huge marsh area that I understand was donated to the Trustees by Mr. Horton, who owned the property there, I have spoken to him on several occasions he always stops by because I have to keep posting this property, and he thinks I want to be his pen pal because I have to keep sending him notices. The point is that there's no dock being installed 39 Board of Trustees 40 May 17, 2006 here, there's not a waterway here, this is simply an in-ground swimming pool and a 10 foot buffer as a give-back to the Town, to the Trustees, would be agreeable I'm sure by Mr. Chapman, but on the other hand, to start going 20 to 30 feet back that cuts substantially into the lawn area, which is limited, and I don't know if that's entirely reasonable, 10 feet would be okay, but again, it's up to you. The permit travels in one direction and I'm not here to argue with you, but I think as a taxpayer and a citizen and someone who has spent an awful lot of money on that property and is doing quite a good job in preservation would be somewhat ill at ease to have to go with that much of a nonturf buffer when he has the turf. If he didn't put the pool in, he'd continue having the turf now, so he's giving you 10 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to address a couple of the issues. What the Board has done when they go and get applications for permits at homes that are already there, I'm not talking about brand new construction, but we look for certain things. We look for if there's gutters and downspouts, we look for buffers, and it's quite common when the Board approves permits for structures after the original construction of the house, sometimes years after the construction of the house, that the Board requests buffers or some other things, in this case, again, this was a sloping lawn that slopes down to the wetlands. They are wetlands, Little Creek does come in, granted the channel is a good ways off, the navigable waters are a good ways off, but it's clearly flooded wetlands and it's a tidal area. So I think it's a good compromise to go with 20 foot, and that's what I'd recommend from the Board. If the Board feels otherwise, I welcome any comments from the Board. MR. ANGEL: The only reason I had a response to increasing that 10 foot buffer is that this permit had been granted, and it just expired last November, and there was no buffer at all on it, now we're adding a 10 foot buffer which I think is okay, it's a fair and reasonable, but to go even more I wouldn't want my client to be upset, but again, whichever way it falls it's fine with me. I'm not here to argue with anyone. I have to look at his position, before he had the permit and no buffer; now he's got a 10 foot buffer and he's also putting in evergreens -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. MR. ANGEL: -- and is doing whatever the Zoning Board wanted. I just want the Board to be as reasonable as 40 Board of Trustees 41 May 17, 2006 possible, but again, it's up to you. TRUSTEE KING: He could plant his buffer up, just not sod. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We just want to prevent the nutrients from the lawn, that whole lawn sloping down going into the marsh right there. It's very common that we give 20 or 30 foot buffers in a lot of the applications that go through. MR. ANGEL: We're not constructing a house, it's a hole in the ground. Okay. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No matter what. As gave Dave explained, clearly, that this is a normal process. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're not telling you what to plant, we're telling you what not to plant. So there's a variety of a ways to put this nonturf buffer. MR. ANGEL: Okay. So this will be a condition of the permit, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. If there are no other comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. CUSACK: Is there a dry well on the pool? MR. ANGEL: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there is one there. I make a motion to approve Alpha Consulting on behalf of John Chapman to install an in-ground pool 75 feet from the wetlands with the condition of a 20 foot nonturf buffer as well as a line of hay bales according to the site plan submitted on May 15th. The dry well included as on the site plan, what we'll do is draw in an amendment to the 10 foot to make it a 20 foot nonturf buffer on the site plan. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. 4. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of GEORGE & SANDRA ENGELKE request a Wetland Permit to remove an existing residence, cottage and garage. Construct new residence, pool, terraces and sanitary system, and renovate the existing house into a beach house. Located: 5704 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#98-5-14.3 TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody who wishes to speak about this project? MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman from Samuels and Steelman Architects. I'm here if you have any questions, concerns. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This was one that we all went out to look at and the one question we had, if I am paraphrasing it correctly because I was on one end of the property, but I think we were talking about moving the swimming pool 1 0 feet 41 Board of Trustees 42 May 17, 2006 closer to the house. MS. STEELMAN: No problem. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Thank you. MS. STEELMAN: We actually spoke to Heather a little bit and we spoke to my client this afternoon, and that's no problem. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And the four foot wall is just a four foot wall, it's just a literal wall? MS. STEELMAN: Yes, it is. But what we've also done as part of moving the pool we're also going to try to simplify and bring that wall down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was the purpose of the wall? MS. STEELMAN: That was actually so we didn't have a fence and using that as part of our enclosure, but I think now my client is fine with putting a fence in and using part of that two foot wall and two foot fence above it; it's not just such a vertical element. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If you are going to do that you would have to amend -- MS. STEELMAN: We would resubmit our drawings to you for the pool location, and on that we'll show you this change. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Fine. I'm just saying you don't want to wait two months and say -- MS. STEELMAN: No, we'll submit them to you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I don't know if we have this in our field notes, are you proposing any fill? MS. STEELMAN: There will be some regrading, but we basically have a full basement in the house, and there won't be any new fill coming onto the property. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for or against this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was just a concern there particularly with the wall as to what trees were going to come down and what trees were going to be maintained and obviously we'd like to see as many trees maintained in there as possible. And then I would like to see what the CAC's comments were. MR. YOUNG: That was prior to my tenure on the CAC, and I have to say you have to go with the notes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Vote of council, ayes for all, there was no problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any plan to remove any trees that are on the bank for their view? MS. STEELMAN: Not as part of our application, we're trying not to. We're actually thinking of shifting the pool over a little more to the east, and I think we can avoid some of the trees. We saw once we put the stakes in that there were 42 Board of Trustees 43 May 17, 2006 some trees there that we might try to save by shifting it up and over. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: It's inconsistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The reason why it's inconsistent with L WRP is because it's within 100 feet of the wetland, that was the only comment. I make a motion that we approve the application of George and Sandra Engelke with the changes that will be brought in, moving the swimming pool 1 0 feet and lowering the wall with a fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? ALL AYES. 5. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CHARLES MCEVIL Y requests a Wetland Permit to construct a deck addition to the waterside of existing one-family dwelling and install dry wells for dwelling. 1795 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#52-5-6 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment? MR. HERMANN Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The application is pretty straightforward, the only addition to it I had discussed with Heather was I guess during field inspection the question was raised about the timber steps that lead from the embankment to the shoreline. We sent over the letter that the steps be incorporated into this application. Mr. McEvily purchased the property a year ago, and there were concrete steps there that were in disrepair. They're shown on old surveys and basically the first thing they did when they moved in was to replace them with the timber steps, and, not surprisingly, didn't know they needed a permit to do that. So if we can make that part of this wetlands permit, that would in effect legalize the replacement of the steps, which I hope is a minor issue. But otherwise as Jim read, we're proposing dry wells to come off the corners to serve the existing house and deck area. Otherwise it's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jim, this is one we wanted underneath cleared? TRUSTEE KING: We want the sod to be removed when the deck is put in. MR. HERMANN Underneath the deck? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I didn't have a problem with it. 43 Board of Trustees 44 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do the field notes say? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Something about the dry well? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. There was a question that there were dry wells on either side where the deck is, in other words, the back of the house. But in the front of the house, at least the northeast side, it seemed like a gutter that just came down here, I couldn't tell if you were planning on tying in that gutter to the dry well in the back or not. We'd like that addressed at the same time or not. MR. HERMANN They could reroute that to those dry wells or reposition these dry wells further landward and make that easier to do, whichever your pleasure. You could make that a condition and they would have to follow it. I do know what you're talking about. There were gutters and leaders but they didn't lead to anything. TRUSTEE KING: We can condition it so the gutters and leaders go to dry wells. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application also to include the steps that were repaired to be in the same application and that all the gutters and leaders from the house be going to dry wells and that the area underneath the deck, the sod is to be removed so it's impervious. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 6. Patricia C Moore, Esq. on behalf of PARIS KONSTANTINIDIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 25 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM#33-1-13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MS. MOORE: This is straightforward. It's a second story over the existing house, and we are outside the coastal erosion line and it's pretty straightforward. I added a dry well because I know you want dry wells, but when the construction is done we'll be adding a dry well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our field notes say dry well, buffer at top of bluff. Do we remember what type of buffer, what length? MS. MOORE: I think it was already a vegetated, if I remember, it's a full. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says need a permit, dry wells at top of bluff cutting on bluff with a question mark and don't 44 Board of Trustees 45 May 17, 2006 mow to edge. That's what the field notes say. I don't remember. CAC recommends approval with the condition hay bales are placed along the top of the bluff during construction and the top of the bluff is replanted. There was cutting on the bluff. So that would be our normal. Did we discuss what width that bluff is; is it 10 feet, 20 feet, that's not on our -- MS. MOORE: There's not a lot of room there. The top of the bluff is about 20 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I can't remember how much distance we figured on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was pouring rain. MS. MOORE: I have hay bales showing between the top of the bank and the coastal erosion line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We see that. But my question to the Board is that what we want from the hay bale line seaward is what we want nonturf or do you want from the coastal erosion line? The coastal erosion line is hitting the deck. MS. MOORE: That's the problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we discussed from the hay bale line seaward. MS. MOORE: I cut the baby in half and figured you needed to get access and circulation around the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable from the hay bale line seaward be a nonturf buffer, and I do recall the fact that a lot of vegetation had been cut down on this bluff, and I would ask that you caution the resident about that. MS. MOORE: I don't recall the look. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ido. MS. MOORE: I'm sure you do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to replant they need a coastal erosion permit. It's plantings there now, they're just replanting. MS. MOORE: We're hoping not to have a lot of disturbance, it's just going to be a second story. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You don't have to dig out and redo, just have to replant. MS. CUSACK: If they're going to leave it but if you're going to put the nondisturbance. MS. MOORE: Right now it's turf and vegetation. If you want us to do it nonturf, then we have to take the turf away and plant plants, or pebbles or whatever it is. So if you want us to do nonturf and then vegetate accordingly, we can do that or revegetate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment from anyone else? I make a motion to close the public hearing. 45 Board of Trustees 46 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve -- I'm just trying to figure out because the hay bale line doesn't have dimensions -- MS. MOORE: It looks to be around 10 feet from the top of the bluff. I'm looking at the deck is 16'3" so that's why it looked like -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Jill, can you do it as per survey and measure from the house? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I want to say in there because the hay bale line -- Pat understands it, but once the person that's putting the hay bale line down -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But they will have the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But I would like to just mention approximately, whether it's several feet from the deck or -- MS. MOORE: It looks to be about -- either from the deck or the top of the bank. Why don't you leave a cleared area of 10 feet around the house and just make the hay bale 10 feet from the deck, and then the rest is nonturf; does that make sense? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Let me just measure. I think it's about 15 -- sorry, you're right it's about 10. I make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition that the addition of dry wells, which is shown on the plan that everything goes into the dry well, and the hay bale line to be placed as per survey, which is approximately 10 feet off the deck, and do we want to do a nonturf buffer? Or do we want to say replant the existing buffer? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there an existing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There's an existing buffer that was cut. So do we want to replant the existing and leave what's there and replace? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The less disturbance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To reiterate, approve hay bale line approximately 10 feet off the deck and also the area that was cut to be not disturbed and replanted. MS. MOORE: Some of these properties you have to keep it -- you certainly don't want to cut it down completely. They actually recommend that you not have high plantings because the wind will undermine the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trimming the tops is allowed but not all the way down to the ground. MS. STANDISH: Buffer 10 feet- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's confusing from hay bale line seaward 46 Board of Trustees 47 May 17, 2006 to the top of the bluff. MS. STANDISH: Is the buffer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of THOMAS O'NEILL requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing bulkhead in-kind/in-place, repair the existing dock in-place with vinyl, dredge approximately 60 cubic yards from area to minus 3.5' and construct a low-sill bulkhead ramp with two 12 foot returns. Located: 1420 Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM#76-3-10.1 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Mr. O'Neill is here, we have neighbors here as well, I hope in support. Based on your inspection we talked about some of the things that you suggested. One of the things that was a concern was if you recall he was requesting the new bulkhead on the east side of the property from the existing bulkhead that is going to be replaced and rebuilt in-place towards Mr. Tyrer's house, that area you had suggested adding some riprap and not placing the bulkhead there. Mr. O'Neill pointed out something that I'm not sure you were aware of, he's planning to dredge approximately 60 cubic yards in front of that area because it's filled in, and with that dredging it may not work with the riprap, that's why he was doing the combination of the retaining wall, which the DEC actually asked us to keep the retaining wall low, at the same level as the existing retaining wall. He had asked for a high retaining wall to match Mr. Tyrer's retaining wall, but the DEC wanted us to keep it as a low retaining wall, kind of in between, certainly not a low sill, but one that was matching the height of the existing retaining wall. So that was the reason why we did plan to keep the riprap behind the retaining wall and add that protection because there has been some -- well, the erosion and the filling in for navigability he does need to do some small amount of dredging in that area. That was really the only concern, the rest I think were recommendations that you made that he had no problem with, replace the existing bulkhead in-place, it was with vinyl; we had already said yes. The dock was fine; I guess the pilings replacement on the north side of the fixed dock adjacent to the bulkhead, which I think he discussed with you at the site, I have it listed here. I'm 47 Board of Trustees 48 May 17, 2006 going through my list of things. Additional planting on the west side of the property because of some deterioration of that area of spartina. So he wants to replant, and actually, I'm going to give him the name of the people that came to see you earlier today because they have the plants and possibly the material that would be helpful to them. Finally, the low sill bulkhead, that ramp for the boat access, that geotech mesh open grid material we haven't researched it yet. It's a suggested material, we certainly would look into it, but we haven't been able to get that information yet. One more thing which apparently was not -- I don't know if he discussed it or not with you, but on the west side, if you recall, there is soil erosion on the west side, and he had wanted to put in just a landscape retaining wall, landward, but certainly within the distance of your jurisdiction on the landward side of the property -- what is the distance from the wetlands about 10 feet, from the water's edge? MR. O'NEill: We did it by the contour line, contour line was three and a half to four foot and approximately where the fence used to be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is the purpose of that? MR. O'NEill: Since there will be no bulkhead in that 72 feet between the ramp and the replace bulkhead, I know that there's continuing erosion and if I can keep the land upland, it will help prevent that bank from continuing to be undercut and eroded away. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. O'NEill: How far back, I would guess maybe -- MS. MOORE: The contour line was a good guess. We have between three and four foot contour. We had it three and a half, so between those two contours. MR. O'NEill: Again, the contour line is not straight. wouldn't want a wall there that's serpentine, I'd like something more practical. However, if it has to be serpentine, it will have to be serpentine. MS. MOORE: Our original plan to the DEC was a low sill bulkhead on that side. MR. O'NEill: They rejected that and said it had to be a low sill on the east end. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say you had a DEC permit now for the bulkhead and the dredging? MS. MOORE: No. Well, we submitted a prior plan and they had us cut back the bulkhead down to the same height as the existing bulkhead. So rather than keep going back and forth 48 Board of Trustees 49 May 17, 2006 to the DEC, we came with that plan to you because we know that's the plan that we believe that they are ultimately going to approve because it was based on their comments. So that's where we are at present. We want to wrap it up with you, go back to them. TRUSTEE KING: How about the dredging; are they going to approve the dredging? MS. MOORE: They haven't disapproved it. They didn't have any comment about that. MR. O'NEill: We have a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers saying it's such a minor amount they will issue a permit by letter. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: By code, we can't put a bulkhead in a creek. It says in the code, no new bulkheads will be in the creek unless it's low profile. So the argument what the bulkhead looks like, we can't do anything about that. MS. MOORE: It's not a low sill, like a low, low sill, but it's considered lower. You had Tyrer, that just got it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: When was just? MS. MOORE: It was built last winter. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Was that before the code? MS. MOORE: No, I think it was after. MS. CUSACK: They may have gotten the permit before. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes, they may have gotten the permit before. The code simply says you can't build a bulkhead in the creek. So I don't see how we can even entertain it. MS. MOORE: We have a riprap there. So you already have a hard structure. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Yes. MS. MOORE: I don't know that you can have a black and white rule like that when you already have a hard structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have several questions but I'd like to have others speak first. MS. MOORE: We're here to listen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other people that would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HOllOWEll: My name is Tim Hollowell, and my property joins Tom O'Neill's just to the west, and we are in favor of this application Mr. O'Neill has made. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak either for or against? MR. TYRER: My name is Greg Tyrer, T-Y-R-E-R. I own the property to the east of Mr. O'Neill and I am 100 percent behind his application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: let me first before I get to my questions, the lWRP found part of this consistent, part of this 49 Board of Trustees 50 May 17, 2006 inconsistent. Specifically the dredging of 60 cubic yards consistent. What they found inconsistent was the proposed low sill bulkhead. What was suggested here hasn't been demonstrated that vegetated erosion control measures would not be successful in controlling the erosion. That's exactly what the Board talked about when they were out there on the site, and I'm talking about to the west of the dock. We had discussed where we felt that the vegetation was there was doing a good job controlling the erosion. We noticed spots that needed to be revegetated where the vegetation disappeared. And we also asked for the leaves to come out of there. So I think that the concern that we had, which was similar to the lWRP was the need for that low sill bulkhead. MS. MOORE: Are we talking about on the west side? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Towards the Hollowell property, between the dock and the Hollowell property. MS. MOORE: But we don't have any low sill bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm saying what was originally asked for and what the lWRP found. Now CAC's comments? MR. YOUNG: This was again before and I haven't seen this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had the CAC comments here, and the CAC recommended approval to replace the existing bulkhead in-kind/in-place; to repair the dock, to dredge and construction of the low sill bulkhead. They didn't say east or west. Now, I have a question regarding from the dock towards the Tyrer property, rather than going east or west here, there is part of application is to dredge in there, and on the plan that we have it shows dredging from the dock inwards, and I'm not quite sure what the purpose of dredging from the dock to the bank is, why that needs to be dredged. I could understand if it was out in front of the dock if there wasn't enough depth for a boat to get in there, but appears on the site plan that you're asking to dredge between the riprap and a line that goes along with the dock. If you would like to look up here. MS. MOORE: I see it here. I think that might have been incidental shading because I don't know -- MR. O'NEill: The original plan was if I can get my 30 foot boat against the bulkhead, I would remove the dock altogether. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But now you want to keep your boat at the dock. MR. O'NEill: I've got to keep that bulkhead because the boat's coming in and I have to repair it even if two years 50 Board of Trustees 51 May 17, 2006 from now when everything else is settled, I can put it against the bulkhead and then tear it out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Time out for just a second. MS. MOORE: Mr. O'Neill originally thought he wanted to continue the bulkhead at this Tyrer bulkhead height, and then bring his boat up against the bulkhead. The DEe had an objection to that. So we said in that case we need our dock, forget that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if you are repairing the dock, Le. maintaining the dock, I don't want to make any assumptions here, that's where you want to keep your sailboat is against that dock, correct? MR. O'NEill: Until such time I can put it against the bulkhead if it ever comes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see -- and I'm just speaking as one Board member here, the need to dredge that area, and if you don't dredge that area that we talked about, then the riprap will hold it all in place is no need for the low sill bulkhead; what I'm hearing is the bulkhead's needed because of the dredging that was going to be done in front of that area. MR. O'NEill: The depth outside of that dock now is insufficient for the sailboat to stay off the bottom. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But that's not on the site plan; there's no dredging indicated on the site plan outside of that dock. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I think if the dock is going to stay they could move the dredging in front of that dock. That would make sense. MS. MOORE: I think it should be in that area in front of the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would make sense. MR. O'NEill: Where the boat is pictured is where I'll have to dredge now to get the boat in. The problem is they don't use drag lines anymore, they have to use one of these backhoe-type things and it would be very difficult to get a backhoe that would reach from the existing bulkhead to be rebuilt out over the water, beyond the dock, into the middle of the creek to dredge material out so a boat can stand next to the dock where it is now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why couldn't they come in by barge? MR. O'NEilL: Well, you know, we have a bridge there. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And you own the bottom there? MR. O'NEill: Yes, I do, the bottom and the meadow beyond it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other item, on the dock here there's no indication of a floating dock attached to the dock, and when 51 Board of Trustees 52 May 17, 2006 we were out there we noticed there was a small floating dock platform, whatever. MR. O'NEILL: I mentioned that, that floated in in one of the storms. I tied it up until somebody claimed it. It's still tied up and nobody's claimed it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you then want to remove that or do you want to maintain that? MS. MOORE: Could it be useful to you? MR. O'NEILL: It is useful to me now, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then we have to draw itin the plans. I'm trying to make sure that the plans indicate exactly what's out there. What I'm recommending here is what we discussed out in the field, which is the in-kind/in-place replacement of that bulkhead that's just inside the dock; the repairs of the dock; maintaining that floating dock that's attached to the dock; between the dock and the Hollowell property there will be no need for a low sill bulkhead along there, that's going to be vegetated where necessary; and now we get back to the other side -- MS. MOORE: Wait a second. The low sill, are we talking about that little ramp? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, again, the original request was for the low sill bulkhead all along there. MS. MOORE: I've taken it off the plans a long time ago. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're taking it off of here. Now for the other by the Tyrer property, that's where I'm looking for input from the Board. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Since there's going to be no bulkhead in front of that, the riprap could be filled in that corner, there's only a minor little area, that could be refilled with riprap and stabilized. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you're saying in your opinion there's no need for a low sill bulkhead there? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But that corner needed some repair. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Definitely the corner needed to be repaired. The dredging will be in front of the dock. MR. O'NEILL: We did say at the site hearing that if in a year or two we find that that corner has not been corrected, it held with the black pipe there that I'm going to remove as soon as I can, all the rain we have had, everything has remained stable and if a year or two, the plan as it's evolving here fails and there's more slumpage, I come back again and ask for relief, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. And then with regard to your additional request here tonight, we did not have a retaining 52 Board of Trustees 53 May 17, 2006 wall between the three and four foot contour, personally, I'm just not seeing the need for that because that seemed to be very well maintained right now with the natural vegetation that was there. I don't see the need for a retaining wall in there, that's myself personally. MR. O'NEill: I thought that would be better tied into the return for the small boat ramp to put a barrier there so that water doesn't bring soil down from higher up, however, whatever's right. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Again, Dave, according to code, retaining walls are not permitted unless excessive erosion, and so by code it says retaining walls are not permitted unless excessive erosion can be demonstrated. MS. MOORE: He's basing it on 40, 50 years, 55 years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other suggestion we had was on what you have listed here as the bulkhead ramp, which is actually the boat ramp, there's matting they now create that you can put down where vegetation can grow up between it that's very environmentally friendly, suggesting that that be used it in there. MR. O'NEill: I've also put in a call to Mr. Pickerel, left a message on his machine he hasn't called back yet. But it was discussed and agreed, as far as I'm concerned, that appropriate vegetation would be introduced where it hasn't taken root now in 55 years, it just doesn't happen. It did happen where it's more protected behind the dock, and near that wall. I haven't been pulling the vegetation out, it has not for 55 years, it has not taken root by itself. I'm looking for something that will be happy there and I'll put it in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there fencing there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What she had asked was specifically about the removal about the -- I'll call it for lack of a better term -- the plastic snow fencing that went along the shoreline. MS. MOORE: Chicken wire. Although it has worked very well, it's been a filter to keep the water runoff. MR. O'NEill: I have leaves upland of it that does filter and the only other problem I have that probably violates the code too is that fence keeps my dog from going around the end into Mr. Hollowell's property and into the neighborhood. I'll have to find some way to retain the dog without the fence there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you talk to Chris Pickerell, you can 53 Board of Trustees 54 May 17, 2006 see about the plantings. MR. O'NEILL: To keep the dog in? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Thomas O'Neill for the Wetland Permit. We're approving the in-kind/in-place replacement of the small bulkhead immediately landward of the dock, dredging in front of the dock, repairs to the dock, maintaining that floating dock that is presently there, the area from the dock to the Hollowell property, that will be just some vegetation added there, the removal of those plastic snow fences that are there, and for the other area up to the corner of the property with the Tyrer property that the riprap will be replaced in that corner, and I think that's it. MS. MOORE: Did we have the boat launch with the mesh? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, yes. And the inclusion as per the site plan the bulkhead ramp. This would be pending a submission of a new site plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of VINCE FISCHETTI requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and add a second-story to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 650 Spring Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-5-6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LOHM: William Lohm, from Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant. Vince Fischetti. The applicant proposes to construct two small additions to the seaward side of the house that will add a grand total of 232 square feet to the existing footprint. He was also proposing to remove the existing 125 square foot walkway located on the seaward side of the dwelling and replace with 180 square foot walkway. And he's also proposing to replace the existing patio with a slightly larger patio, which will add 191 square feet to the patio footprint. Other than that, I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there dry wells on the plans for the second story? MR. LOHM: No, ma'am, but we'd happy to put them there. 54 Board of Trustees 55 May 17, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can we add dry wells? MR. LOHM: Yes, ma'am. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's also a comment to keep the landscaping back from the water. MR. LOHM: Existing as is, the lawn extends all the way to the landward edge of the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, but it looks like there's been a lot of landscaping between the lawn and that edge of the wetlands. You have a lot of baccharis down there, also Conservation Advisory Council approved the application with the condition of gutters and dry wells be installed to contain the roof runoff, a pervious patio -- what is the patio? Will it continue to be brick? MR. LOHM: Actually, it's slate now, but it's proposed to be brick. It will be impervious, but I believe dry wells can be installed on that as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had a problem with that because it was so far away. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just reading, this is still CAC. And a berm installed on the northeast side of the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In what location? MR. YOUNG: My recollection I visited this, and basically we wanted some protection to the creek, to Richmond Creek from the runoff from you can see the contours here, so we wanted a berm to kind of -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At what contour line? MR. YOUNG: Basically I'm just looking at this plan now, and what it was was along the edge of the wetlands. MR. LOHM: The northeast corner? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, northeast. MR. LOHM: I'm sure everyone's been out to the site, is he speaking at the bottom of that existing hill? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to come here, on this survey you have marked edge of wetlands, I believe he's talking about this line. MR. LOHM: Along the entire line? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that where the landscaping is? MR. YOUNG: Just on the northeast quadrant there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, just over here I think he's talking. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is there this landscaping; is this landscaping all along here (indicating)? MR. LOHM: It's just lawn and fairly large -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is the area that I believe Mr. Young is talking about is that area that's pictured. Peter, can 55 Board of Trustees 56 May 17, 2006 you come up here and show us? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The berm is what you want on this side of the landscaping? MR. YOUNG: We were concerned about this (indicating). MR. LOHM: The hill is natural. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did talk about that. MR. YOUNG: I don't think it was a major concern for us. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, just a recommendation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we did talk about that and we decided the house was plenty away, and we weren't going to get the runoff from the house, and there was a big enough vegetation already. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP is also consistent. Are there any other comments from the Board? We have the dry wells and gutters; is there anyone else here who would like to speak? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Vince Fischetti to renovate and add a second story to the existing single-family dwelling to include dry wells and gutters. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. LOHM: Does that approval also include the patio and walkway? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. It's on the plans. (Time ended: 9:30 PM) 56