Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/20/2006 James F. King, President Town Hall Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Peggy A. Dickerson Southold, New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - RECEIV;:D'~ . BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES II " '.;.:r /I /}'/ MAY ~ ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r'Yrk# . .?dJ MINUTES Soulhold TCiVln Cler. Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Holzapfel, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney For Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 6:30 PM WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our September meeting. Before we get going, I would like to introduce the Board. I have the pleasure of being chairman of this Board. It's an honor. To my far left is Dave Bergen. We have Peggy Dickerson, Vice-President Jill Doherty, myself, Lauren Standish is our office manager, John Holzapfel is a trustee, Brownell Johnston is our legal advisor. Heather Cusack is our environmental technician, John Wilder is on the CAC and Florence is our recorder, she keeps track of everything. We have some postponements we'll go through so we don't have anybody sitting here. Number 12 has been postponed, Catherine Mesiano Board 0 f Trust ees September 20, 2006 on behalf of Vincent P. Basilice. Number 21, the application of Arthur R. Torell, has been postponed. Number 22, Harolds, LLC on behalf of George Guimaraes has been postponed. Number 23, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Grace Burr Hawkins has been postponed. Number 24, Liberty Permit & Research on behalf of Joseph and Catherine Gentile has been withdrawn. Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, Number one, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Susan S. Rentchler has been postponed. Number two, Patricia Moore on behalf of Angelo and Josephine Padovan has been postponed. So we don't want to have anybody sitting here waiting for these to come up. We are not going to address them tonight. Usually we give a brief rundown on what we have been doing. It's not brief anymore. We are still working on the mooring code. A draft was submitted to the Town Board. It's come back to us for another look at it. We'll have to reevaluate a few things, I believe. We are still looking at revisions to the Wetland Code. We'll be possibly modifying that, tweaking it up a little. We also have road ends and road runoff problems and after all the rain we've had I'm sure we can appreciate some of the problems we have now with drainage issues. It's town wide, it's state wide; it's nation wide, really. It's going to be a long, expensive process and it's time to get the funding for it. And we are revising the shellfish code and bringing that up to date. We met with the county on some dredging issues and we had another meeting the other day. So that's ongoing. The next field inspection is October 11 at 8:00. Does anybody have a problem? (Negative response.) Do I have a motion on the field inspection? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Next Trustee meeting, October 18 at 6:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do we have an approval of the minutes of July 19? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll move to approve the minutes of July 19. TRUSTEE KING: Any corrections, Dave? I had a couple of minor ones. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I had a couple of minor ones. TRUSTEE KING: Just a couple of minor issues. You were left out of the introduction but I know you were here. MS. STANDISH: And there were a few minor ones. I'll let you know what they are. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the minutes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make the motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 2 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for August, 2006, a check for $7,528.20 was forwarded to the supervisor's office for the general fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews, as follows: Sandra Engelke - SCTM#98-5-14.3 Gladys Milne- SCTM#37 -5-15 Norma Miller - SCTM#41-14-14 Joseph Iavarone - SCTM#86-6-4 Arthur R. Torell - SCTM#33-2-11 AI Safer - SCTM#98-5-2 Janina Casey-Dittmar - SCTM#88-5-58 Nick Bubany - SCTM#104-8-1 John and Joy Gallagher - SCTM#37-5-4&5 JLH Associates, LLC - SCTM#30-2-61 William Grella - SCTM#117-7-30 Philip and Jennifer Stanton - SCTM#64-1- 14.7 George Guimaraes - SCTM#9-6-4 Jack Farnsworth - SCTM#123-8-1 Deborah Doty - SCTM#103-13-5.3 George Kofinas - SCTM#11 0-7-18.2 Mary Zupa - SCTM#81-1-16.7 Charles Geitz - SCTM#58-2-5 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, all but three it looks like we could lump together. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the interest of saving time, we are going to lump a few of these together: Number one, the application of Walter Gaipa; number two, the application of John and Linda Volpe; number four, the application of Brigitte Gibbons; number five, the application of Robert Krudop, and; number six, the application of Monica Kreischer. We've reviewed all these and find them to be straight forward amendments and I make a motion to approve the ones I just listed as applied for. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Nassau Point Property Owners Association I looked at and I believe there is someone here. I just wanted to ask about the purpose of the clearing, if you want to come up to the microphone. The whole board looked at it in its drive-by and then I went back and looked at it specifically. Are you proposing to do clearing on both sides of the road? MR. FOLEY: Jim Foley. No, just the beach side between the parking lot and the road. Just the one side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, because the map we had it was highlighted on both sides. MR. FOLEY: Right. I identified the tax map, sorry. 3 ----------------- - --- - - --- Board 0 f Trust ees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My other question was, in the interest of ground cover and erosion protection, how do you propose to move in and what's the purpose of the removal? MR. FOLEY: The purpose of the removal is there has been a lot of overgrowth there that's been killing the existing trees there. That's one. Two, we have some issues where the overgrowth got to be so big that you could not see people parked in front of the beach, which we considered a safety hazard because people are hanging out there in the evening, leaving their garbage behind and we thought if we just created a view to the beach parking lot it would mitigate some of that. So just, we are not proposing to move all of it, just enough to create sight vision to the parking lot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For example, you would hand trim briers and the brush -- MR. FOLEY: Yes, there was a lot of poison ivy and briers in there that was choking everything else out so I think if we get rid of that it would actually help things because the existing trees there that are healthy will have a greater chance of surviving. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Some of the shrubbery I think John had mentioned there was some other shrubs. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There was some bayberry, that stuff we would like to have stay. MR. FOLEY: Yes, that stuff - we don't intend to move any of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And all the removal, are you mowing it or hand clipping? MR. FOLEY: We were hand clipping all of it, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I need to recuse myself from this particular application. TRUSTEE KING: This will just be on the east side of the road? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just the east side, yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Nassau Point Property Owners Association to trim and cut by hand the overgrowth between the parking area and the road with no removal of trees or shrubs, but basically just the poison ivy, briers, underbrush, but no ground cover. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Please note for the record I recused myself. Thank you. V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSfTRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we are moving on to applications for amendments, extensions and transfers. These are not public hearings. If anybody has any comments, you may make a comment, just if you could make it brief. The first one is John and Joy Gallagher requests an Amendment to Permit #5745 to include a 2'8" by 10' ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. This is a request 4 --------------- -- Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 that had come in once before and the Association has since come in for a request to move their dock, so this extension will no longer interfere with the new dock for the Gardiners Bay Association and we all looked at it and I went back and looked at the outer stake and it's in line with the neighboring dock and I have no problem with it. So I make a motion to approve as applied for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Kathryn Niedoroda requests an Amendment to Permit #6140 for an extension of the dock to 65 feet (60' previously approved) and addition of 4x12 foot fixed "T" and two piles, and eliminate the steps to grade. Located: 700 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Cathy, do you have anything you want to add? MS. MESIANO: I just want to make sure that you did get a copy of the most recent plan that shows the stakes and did you see the stakes on site? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: August 29, 2006, I have stamped. MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, we have that. MS. MESIANO: Well, in that case, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think we had any problems with this. We looked at it and everything was okay. TRUSTEE KING: Yup. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Kathryn Niedoroda requesting an Amendment to Permit #6140 for an extension of the dock as stated. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And also, as we reviewed the plan, we deem the action to be consistent with LWRP. MS. MESIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Mary Zupa requests an Amendment to Permit #5636 to construct a 12" extension to the existing return at the northwest end of the low-sill bulkhead and replace 20 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. The entire Board went out and looked at this. It has been reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Board does have a couple of questions for the applicant. MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We were concerned, it looked like this return was to help a runoff issue, in other words sand and sediment is going down around where this return would stop and beyond a silt fence and low-sill bulkhead into the water and it is silting out into the water. How did things look Friday? MS. MESIANO: It's the same thing that's occurring. I would like to say that this project was not allowed to be completed, which has contributed to this problem; so the land has not been final graded. The plantings and returns have not been allowed to be completed, so I think the erosion problem that you see is a combination of those facts. The original design that was recommended by the DEC and the Trustees wasn't sufficient. I think more has been done and since it was stopped and we were unable to do anything, 5 - ----- --- Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 I think the situation was exacerbated. So, yes, it is worse since the rain last week. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you currently under some type of stop work order from the DEC? MS. MESIANO: The DEC has not issued us a formal stop work order. They have requested that we stop work, and we stopped in deference to their request. So we don't have an actual stop work order but we have complied with their request. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When did they make that request, approximately? MS. MESIANO: December. TRUSTEE BERGEN: December? MS. MESIANO: December. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you had mentioned in what you just said, the Trustees have also asked you to stop work in this particular? MS. MESIANO: The Trustees, in December, it's my recollection the Trustees responded to a complaint from someone and was at the site on December 14. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that was in December. MS. MESIANO: That was in December. And at that point in time we were ordered by both agencies to stop work. Subsequent to that Ms. Zupa was issued a violation by this Board and a notice of violation by the DEC. This Board's, the violation, I'm sorry, I'll back up and say by the bay constable. That violation again was taken up with the town attorney. I disagreed with her, there was no basis for the violation and it was dropped. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was dropped a while back, correct? MS. MESIANO: Correct. And under this Board's orders, under Mr. Samuels' work, closed up the bulkhead that was opened to the bay at that point in time and finished the portion of the bulkhead. The job was not done and the DEC again said who gave you the authority to do the work, we demand you stop working. So, again, no administrative procedure, we did what Mr. Hamilton asked. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we received a planting plan on January 31, which was signed off on February 3rd. MS. MESIANO: That's correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I'm asking these questions, and I'll get right to the chase, we are very concerned that this planting plan has not been completed because hypothetically the planting would help prevent the erosion. MS. MESIANO: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Don't think I'm going down the road of not approving the extension. We want to see the extension. But the planting plan is extremely important to us so I would like to hear when that planting plan is going to be completed and also given the fact we are in the Fall and it's the best season to plant. MS. MESIANO: Under the circumstances, we would love to have it done yesterday. The DEC has not allowed us to proceed. I have delivered the same request to the DEC that I submitted to you. The planting plan that you have, the DEC had months ago and the DEC has taken no action. So I would appeal to this Board if there is any way you could encourage the DEC to help us along, because our hands are tied. 6 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, I was out there with Mr. Hamilton on another issue and he has no problem with you doing the planting. This was verbally conveyed to me at the time we looked at that problem. A lot of it the area should be regraded and stop pitching in towards that bulkhead. MS. MESIANO: We know that that needs to be done. TRUSTEE KING: And all that sand that is outside the low-sill should be recovered and brought landward. It's got to be planted up and we want to get it planted as soon as we can. MS. MESIANO: We know that. TRUSTEE KING: He doesn't have a problem with you doing the planting. MS. MESIANO: I did hand deliver to the DEC the same as what I gave to you. Now a couple more things I need to point out to you and these are things we have no control over. We would like very much to complete the project. There are other things we would like to do, too, but that's for another day. We have a problem in that the piece of property is open season. There is driving all over the place. I have closed ramps ad nauseam, tire tracks up to the bulkheadings, through the areas that are trying to be vegetated. If you stand at the bay and look to the south, I believe, look to the right, you'll notice the farther away you get from the jetty, the more dense the re-vegetation, because there is not so much traffic. There is so much traffic, vehicular traffic -- TRUSTEE KING: Whose traffic is it? MS. MESIANO: Everybody in town except the Zupa's. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That has nothing to do with this administrative permit. MS. MESIANO: I just want to say that we want to be able to plant it but we don't want to have everything driven over. We have no control over the activity. This is pertinent. Because we would like to plant it, we would like to resolve it and I know you don't want to hear it, Dave, but I think it needs to be said. We have no control over what is going on and we fear more degradation. There is so much driving going on right up to the bulkheading that I'm certain that that is contributing to some of the deterioration. And I think Mr. Samuels, from a technical perspective, can speak to that. I would like to be able to do everything 100%. Nothing we would like more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I said, I want to make a motion to approve this permit but what I'm trying to tie into the motion is the completion of the planting plan by a certain date. And I'm hearing from you you've been stopped by the DEC verbally but nothing in writing. And you've heard Mr. King said he talked to Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Hamilton said he has no problem with the planting plan. So I'm trying to think of a way we could expedite this. MS. ZUPA: I'm Mary Zupa. I'm the owner of the property. I myself have been told by Mr. Hamilton in February you don't do anything until I tell you to do it. And I will tell you what to do and when to do it. I am -- I feel as if my hands are tied. Even at this respect, it's not that I can't take your word that he told you this. I absolutely believe it. But until I have a permit -- and, by the way, it wasn't once or twice, but three times, once in a snow storm that Cathy Mesiano hand-delivered it to the DEC because it seemed to become lost every time Peter Sterling would put it in the mail to Chuck Hamilton. So we were very anxious to get it done and now I would like to have it on an amendment to my permit from the DEC that if in deed you might notice in my original application to you where it was stamped that it was approved, that there is a revegetation approval. Not with every speCific plant. And I have it 7 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 from the DEC also. But I have to tell you that I'm really frightened and I don't want to go ahead and have some higher agency come down and fine me, you know, $200,000 after I spend I don't know what it's going to cost, to plant. And yes, I think you do know that we are sincere and we really want to do it, however, I feel we are not in a position to go forward until I have approval with proper documentation from the proper agencies and so also, not only do I fear from the agencies, but I fear from the people that are prohibiting me from doing it, the individuals. I don't want them to complain against me and have the police down there or have someone have me in court again. I just need to be able to have a full resolution from all the proper authorities, and we will go forward. Thank you. MS. MESIANO: I just want to add - TRUSTEE BERGEN: Very briefly, please. This is not a public hearing. MS. MESIANO: I know, but I want you to just be aware of something. And I just want to say that what Mary is saying, trying not to say is that she was found in contempt of court and she was accused of obstructing the association's right of way along the property through the process of doing this bulkheading work. She was given a 15-day jail sentence, which was suspended, because they yanked out the fence that was there illegally. So she is, when she says she fears, take it literally, please. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave, I have a suggestion. We could put a timeframe on the planting and we can decide when to start the clock on the timeframe. In other words they can notify us, yes, now we have our DEC permit and then we say, okay, say we say thirty days, now your thirty days starts now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I follow what you are saying. Yes, if you would introduce yourself first. MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Rambo Construction. The sill bulkhead was ill-conceived to start with. Sill bulkheads are really only appropriate where they are placed to protect meadow bog which has f1atina alterna flora on it. They are not meant to protect the upland, and that was what was attempted to do the by the DEC. I believe. I don't believe the sill concept came from the Trustees, although it could have been. But obviously if you have a structure that is below mean high water and the water can get to the bank behind the sill bulkhead, the bluff behind the sill bulkhead is going to erode. And that will continue to happen until such time as you decide that the sill bulkhead should either be removed or converted into a bulkhead of the same elevation as the other bulkheads. What was done was foolish. I met with the DEC at the site, I told them that. I told them this was not going to work. This is before we started. This is quite a while ago. Anybody that goes to work on a piece of property without proper documentation from the DEC, not verbal orders, not conversations, not hearsay, is very foolish. I have been caught in that trap where you call an analyst and he says we are going to issue you your permit. You can get started. And then you get hit with a violation. As recently as this last big furor developed, I was told by Matt Penskie, who is one of the senior analysts at the DEC, that the permit was in the mail. A law enforcement officer, who can remain nameless, came down and grabbed the file and said there are violations on this property. He hadn't been on the property, but there are violations. We were in the process of working on the project. The project was under construction. 8 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Dr. Samuels, I'm sorry, but I need to understand for everybody in the audience, for these types of permits, amendments, extensions, transfers, it's not a public hearing. We are granting a courtesy for people to speak. MR. SAMUELS: I understand but I need the good officers of the Trustees of the Town of Southold to intercede on what is a tragic miscarriage of justice. We want to plant. We want a sill bulkhead with a retaining wall on the bay side where there is a dramatic need. We want to put in the rock armor that you approved. It was delivered in anticipation of them issuing a permit. It goes on and on at great cost to Rambo and certainly to the Zupa's. Moving 20-ton machines is not an inexpensive operation. So we need the good officers of the people of the Town of Southold as represented by this Board of Trustees, whose authority is being continually eroded by various other factors. I am very happy that I've had this opportunity. I'm sorry I had to exploit your explanation. But it has to be said that when the Trustees of the Town of Southold are exploited by other agencies, the Town Trustees who, after all, are us, the commonality of the People of Southold, should be protected. Your will is the will that should carry. Not these other agencies who have objectives that are entirely different and who have very little concern for the rights of the Town Trustees. The only Trustees who have been able to resist this are the Trustees of the Town of East Hampton, who will not even return a phone call from the DEC. And they have been very, very successful protecting the waterways in East Hampton. And I commend them for going back to their patent. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I would like to make a motion to read Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Mary Zupa requests an Amendment to Permit #5636 to construct a 12 foot extension to the existing return at the northwest end of the low-sill bulkhead and replace 20 cubic yards of clean fill. The only change I would like to make to that motion is I would like to tie to it we would like to see the planting plan as submitted on January 29 and approved on February 3, 2006, completed within 30-days after receiving DEC approval. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. SAMUELS: Until the construction is complete, how are we going to plant if the construction is not complete and is held up. Even the 10, 12-foot extension, which was advised of us by the DEC to do. We don't have a permit to do it. I can't tell you how frustrating it is. Can we plant when the project is not complete? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are fine -- we've already given you permission to plant. If you are being held up by DEC, it's an issue with the DEC. And what we have connected here, as soon as you have gained approval from the DEC, we are saying go forward, plant. We are saying within thirty days we want to see the planting also. I understand how frustrated you are and how frustrated the applicant is because you are saying you are being held up by the DEC-- MS. MESIANO: The DEC, the Board of Trustees -- TRUSTEE KING: Try and move it along. My particular concern is that one little area where that return is, maybe if that bank was pulled back and <) Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 regraded, make it a little more gradual rather than a steep dropoff, you could plant some beach grass there. We are doing what we can. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Next is Richard Fevola requests a Transfer of Permit #4853 from Susan Oiestad to Richard Fevola for the existing docking facility as issued on January 28,1998. Located: 2200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. I was out with the Board, we looked at this. There were benches on the sides, the measurements were slightly different. We are quite willing to allow the permit to go but it should be redefined in terms of what the length is and what the size is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall, this is a transfer. That would take care of that and then there needs to be an amendment done in the future. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. That's what I'm saying. So I'll just make a motion that we approve the Transfer of Permit with the condition that an amendment be filed to accurately represent what is there. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number Five, Peconic Land Trust requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6014 as issued on October 20,2004. Located: 10273 North Bayview Road Extension, Southold. This was a permit to do renovations at the old Prock (sic) property as it relates to shellfish. No changes to it that I could see. It's just a simple extension. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) And we'll open it up to our public hearings. If you have comments, please keep them as brief as possible. We'll try and move along on these if we can but we welcome your comments and we listen to them. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS - WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number one, George Bornschein requests a Wetland Permit to square off the rear of the dwelling, add a second floor addition and extend rear of existing garage 3'10" to meet the dwelling and for the existing deck. Located: 560 Oak Street, Cutchogue. 'looked at this the other day and the only question I had was I think Lauren called you about the deck. MR. BORNSCHEIN: Yes. The deck was there when I purchased the home in 1979. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, and you are just connecting your garage to your house. Your second story is going up. MR. BORNSCHEIN: Just lengthening the garage. It's not going to connect one building to the other. It's just extending the garage so I can get my car in there properly. And square off the two corners on the east side of the dwelling. ]0 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you have any plans to upgrade the septic since you are going up a second floor? MR. BORNSCHEIN: No, we have two small bedrooms now. It's going to remain two bedrooms. And I have three wells, actually, three cesspools, and the last one is a 1,200 gallon cesspool is what I'm told, when I purchased the home. And I never had any problems with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the condition drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff. MR. BORNSCHEIN: Have you visited the property? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MR. BORNSCHEIN: I'll give you a section plan: The house, the lawn and the deck. But between the lawn and deck there are concrete retaining walls which go down to the sub-surface. And no runoff has ever washed onto the deck. It's all contained on the lawn areas. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just reading the CAC recommendations. The Conservation Advisory Council. MR. BORNSCHEIN: Okay. But I never had any runoff there. It hits the retaining wall and goes right down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And this application is exempt from LWRP. Any other board members have any comments? Any comments from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for a Wetland Permit to square off the rear of the dwelling, add a second floor addition and extend rear of existing garage to meet the dwelling and for the existing deck at 560 Oak Street, Cutchogue. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. BORNSCHEIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Charles Geitz requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing dwelling and construct a cellar, raising the house five feet; decking to be removed and replaced after house is raised; and remove the shed. Located: 1580 Leeton Drive Southold. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application. MR. GEITZ: I'm Charles Geitz. I have nothing to add. It's all there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. This was just raising the house up to put a cellar underneath, and you were dropping it back down, in other words, you are not putting the house on pilings? MR. GEITZ: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. On the plan that we have we were looking for the location of the septic system. Do you happen to know where the location of your septic system is. MR. GEITZ: (Indicating.) Right along here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what he has pointed to is landward of the house between the house and Leeton Drive is where the septic system is, approximately, I remember there is a vegetable garden. Around where that vegetable garden is? 11 ------------------------ Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 MR. GEITZ: Just past that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Towards Leeton Drive, then? MR. GEITZ: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The CAC did support this application and it was exempt from the LWRP. Are there any questions or comments from the board? (Negative response.) What we would like to do is make sure there are hay bales during construction between the front of the house and the Sound and that gutters and drywells are installed on the house to contain the roof runoff right there so it doesn't runoff into Long Island Sound. MR. GEITZ: My in-laws had the house since 1960 and there has been no gutters on the front of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we would like that included in the project. MR. GEITZ: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve Charles Geitz' request for a Wetland Permit to raise the existing dwelling and construct a cellar, raising the house five feet; decking to be removed and replaced after house is raised and remove the shed on Leeton Drive, with the addition that staked hay bale line is placed between the house and Long Island Sound and gutters are placed around the house with drywells to contain the roof runoff. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Joseph Iavarone requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing one and a half story wood frame dwelling, demolish existing one-story section of house and construct a new one a half story wood frame addition. Demolish existing detached garage and construct a new two-car garage. Located: 405 Wood Lane, Peconic. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, I was retained at the very last moment and you now have my appearance in your file. Mr. Iavarone is here. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Iavarone, do you stipulate she can represent you? MR. IAVARONE: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, very much. MS. MOORE: I saw the plans, it doesn't look like some of the things you would like are on it. I'll be sure to have the plan revised to show the drywells, hay bale placement, and there is going to be a need for a sanitary system and the sanitary will be in the front yard. The placement has yet to be determined. We need a test hole first to determine the exact location. The landward side of the house appears to be at the 75-foot mark from the bulkhead so that should put the sanitary at least 75-feet from the water, if that's acceptable to the board. So I would ask to amend the application to include at least the fact that there will be a sanitary system and it will be at least 75-feet away. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is the sanitary now? 12 Board of Tmstees September 20, 2006 MS. MOORE: The sanitary now, it's on the east side yard, toward the back of the house (indicating.) TRUSTEE KING: We have it here. MS. MOORE: The sanitary now is in this area here, west side of the property, close to the water. So that being abandoned -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: In reference to that, the question we have is can he just put the sanitary greater than 100 feet and then it's outside of our jurisdiction so we don't have to worry about where it might end up. You are leaving it at a high question. MS. MOORE: We are dealing with the Health Department standard. That's the problem. They do have plenty of room -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So we would rather have it outside. MS. MOORE: All right. If we are not able to, we'll come back. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That was one of our notes. MS. MOORE: All right, so I'll make sure the surveyor places it more than 100 feet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this application? Anyone on the Board? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'm now going to make a motion to approve - one other thing. LWRP found this inconsistent. The proposed distance is less than 100 feet. And that's it. Basically that's it. So in our determination, we have mitigated these concems by our particular best practices that we are following. And I'll also mention that the CAC is resolved to support the application and didn't have a problem with it. They want a 20-foot buffer and an effort to save as many trees as possible. They are recommending a 20-foot non-turf buffer along the northwest corner. MS. MOORE: Right now it's grass. Non-turf. Okay. There is a brick patio there that is staying. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay. MS. MOORE: Non-turf is no grass. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. And we do that on all our applications. MS. MOORE: No, no. Would it make more sense to have a certain distance from the bulkhead that's stone? Because right now it's a back yard that's a very stable back yard. If you had pebbles, some kind of distance of stone, to prevent the water from going beyond where the grass is, into the creek, that might create the buffer that you need. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We had recommended ten foot. I was just reading the CAC's recommendation. MS. MOORE: I see. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Our recommendation is ten feet, just because of that issue. So I'm going to move that we approve the application of Joseph Iavarone for renovating the existing one-and-a-half wood frame dwelling, demolish existing one-story section of the house and construct a new one- and-a-half story wood frame addition. Demolish existing detached garage. We would also like to see the cesspool located greater than 100-feet from the water. We would like a ten-foot non-turf buffer and drywells and gutters for 13 -------- ---------- ----- Board 0 f Trust ees September 20, 2006 the house. And hay bales during construction, between the construction and the water. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before I start the next one I just want to explain to the public something that happened there. This was found inconsistent under LWRP because the house was less than 100-feet away. For any of you that were at the Town Board meeting, the Trustees kind of took it on the chin for not following the LWRP and it was pointed out by Councilman Krupskie that is an inherent problem that right now exists that when the LWRP finds it inconsistent because it's less than 100 feet and it comes to the Trustees. We are trying to address that. The LWRP committee and the Trustees are going to be meeting to try and address that so we can eliminate that problem. That's our goal and I just want to way to the public, we are not ignoring the issue, we are dealing with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next one, number four, Dan Collins on behalf of Janina Casey-Dittmar requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition to the existing dwelling and provide drywells for leaders and gutters. Located: 275 Watersedge Way, Southold. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. TOFF: (sic) good evening, my name is Vicki Toff on behalf of the property owner. I also have my notarized mailings and postings and copies and returns, if I can submit those. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any comments you would like to make? MS. TOFF: No, nothing to add to the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody who would like to make any comments? Any other people who would like to make comments either for or against this application? (No response.) I went out and looked at this and in reading the application you did a very thorough job because you included the hay bales and the gutters and downspouts which we would request. This is basically an addition right over the same footprint. There is already a non-turf buffer out there that was excellent with beach grass. This application is supported by the CAC and it is exempt under the LWRP. Are there any comments from the Board concerning this application? (No response.) Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I would like to make a motion to approve this application, again, check it again to make sure we include a line of hay bales during construction, and gutters and drywells. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) You're approved. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anthony Portillo on behalf of William Grella requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing deck, remove lattice fence on both sides 14 ------- Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 of property, construct a new stone wall on north side of property and a new mahogany fence with concrete columns and stone veneer. Located: 1200 First Street, New Suffolk. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The entire Board saw this, reviewed it, have seen it. We have the new plans as of September 18. LWRP is consistent and I don't know -- CAC does not support the application because the impervious driveway should be removed and replaced with a pervious driveway or develop a drainage plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we felt that the pitch towards -- away from the water and we felt that was -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you hear that, John? We looked at it and the driveway that they put in was pitched toward the road and not toward the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, you are saying First Street runs into the water. MR. WILDER: Yes. You need drywells, something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How does the Board feel about that? TRUSTEE KING: I felt that a drywell should have been put in the driveway and in fact I suggested that. When the Town Code comes out with drainage issues, it will probably be addressed there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We can make him do it now. Put a condition on it for drywells. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll put -- is there anyone else here to speak to this application? MR. GRELLA: I'm William Grella. We put in a driveway that as far as I know is permeable. The water will go through the driveway. That's why it was pitched changed. It wasn't blacktop that was pitched towards the bay. We put in stones with sand between. The water is supposed to go through it. But it's also pitched towards the road. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But I thought that was on a concrete pad. There was a poured concrete slab and then the stones, as I recall -- I could be wrong -- I thought there were stones on top of that. MR. GRELLA: It's sand with the stones on top. That's why we chose to do that driveway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would like to come up, I have a picture that shows it's a concrete pad. MR. GRELLA: I had that entire driveway taken out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that was when it was finished. Remove existing asphalt driveway, new stone driveway to replace. MR. GRELLA: That is not. Trust me. TRUSTEE KING: When I saw it, it was like a fine stone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, then I'm mistaken. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So do we feel that's pervious enough? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to say, look at this last rain storm. MR. GRELLA: It actually did quite well. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how much you had there. I had six inches of rain in my home in Mattituck. MR. GRELLA: It was bad. And before the driveway was going towards the Bay so it was washing underneath the deck and rotting all that wood out. Now 15 __________ _n_____ Board 0 f Trust ees September 20, 2006 it's going the other way. And I really didn't see that much runoff in the road itself. But I mean that's the way it was headed. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We asked for a pervious driveway and that would meet our definition. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have, on the one fence, what's the height going to be on the fence on the south side of the house? MR. GRELLA: Six feet. TRUSTEE KING: Did you have to get a variance or anything like that from the town? I thought residential fences were only four feet. MR. PORTILLO: Four feet for the front of the house. TRUSTEE KING: Side yard you have six? MR. PORTILLO: You have six. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. PORTILLO: And I checked the zoning code on that. TRUSTEE KING: All right. That's the only question I had. Not that it's our issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just commenting that the application as it reads doesn't include anything but a driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He received an administrative permit for the driveway. TRUSTEE KING: We told him he could finish it last month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just have to make sure the permit -- that's all we're doing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Anthony Portillo on behalf of William Grella requesting a Wetland Permit to repair the existing deck, remove lattice fence on both sides of property, construct a new stone wall on north side of property and a new mahogany fence with concrete columns and stone veneer. Located 1200 First Street, New Suffolk. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. PORTILLO: When can we start construction again? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As soon as you have the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Contact our office. It takes a few days. I would say beginning of next week contact our office and see if it's ready. MR. PORTILLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before the next hearing, I would like to recuse myself from the Jack Farnsworth application. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Environmental East, Inc., on behalf of Jack Farnsworth requests a Wetland Permit to construct a gable roof and stoop onto the existing gazebo and replace the existing railings on the gazebo. Located: 1140 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: Environmental East on behalf of Jack Farnsworth. Mr. Farnsworth is also here if you have any questions. 16 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this, it's just a very minor modification to - I wouldn't call it a gazebo. I don't know what you would call it. It's really not a gazebo. But I didn't have a problem with this. It's very, very minor. Re- shingling the roof and adding a section to it. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) For the record, it's approved by CAC with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, gutters and drywells installed to contain roof runoff and all fencing within 100-feet of the water is removed. And exempt from LWRP. I thought this was such a minor job I didn't even consider a non-turf buffer on it. MR. FARNSWORTH: There will be two footings six inches into the ground. TRUSTEE KING: It's such a minor change. I can't see it having any impact. How long has the bulkhead been there, any idea? MR. FARNSWORTH: It's got to be from the '20s and '30s. TRUSTEE KING: That will be coming in for replacement. That's when we can get them for the non-turf buffer. That's the time to get them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So anything with the fence? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know, that stuff's been there for many years. Whether they have a fence permit or not, I didn't get into that. I just went down there to look at a little addition. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could we ask the applicant about the fence? MR. FARNSWORTH: Jack Farnsworth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was noted by the CAC, there is a fence to the water; is that correct? I haven't seen it, that's why I'm asking. Is there a fence going along the property line or something down to the water? MR. FARNSWORTH: There is, what do you call that, a stockade fence along the seawall, that goes along the property, along the seawall? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's been here almost twenty years. MR. FARNSWORTH: There's almost nobody that lives around here that hasn't been down there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since it was brought up by the CAC I wanted to ask you exactly what the fence was. MR. FARNSWORTH: There is a stockade fence that runs along the top of the cement bulkhead that's there. It runs along the street end. And it turns the corner, it's not a fence then, it's on this side, it's the front wall of the gazebo. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem. Did I make a motion to approve? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, and I believe I seconded. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of Fred Fragola requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dock and wood bulkhead and remove the debris to an approved offsite location; install a 25x50 foot boat slip at the southwest corner of the parcel connecting to Fordham Canal, dredge minus six feet below Mean Low Water, 1,000 plus/minus cubic yards of material and bring to an approved offsite location. Install a 5x20 foot cutout off the boat slip in the northwest corner of the boat slip to accommodate a 5x20 foot float with a ramp to provide access for a vessel moored within the boat slip. Restore the natural shoreline vegetation to 1,092 plus/minus square feet of area adjacent to the boat slip and create a 17 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 vegetated 50-foot buffer area of non-disturbance and to include a four-foot wide pervious gravel path to access the boat basin and shoreline area. Located: 1145 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. Is there anyone here to speak to comment on this application? And I believe we have some re-drawn plans that we have some modifications to. MR. FRAGOLA: Hi. I met with Chuck Hamilton -- MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, this is the applicant, Florence. TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this in the field. It would be on the southerly end, we want to maintain where the bulkhead is to the corner of the basin. MR. FRAGOLA: Here is the drawing Chuck Hamilton came up with. He essentially agreed with everything at the meeting. The only difference he had, only 25% he wanted to shorten up the underwater jetty on the north side. His comment was he would remove this jetty totally in this printed area and if it has to go in, he'll make a decision on that. He wants us to dredge on the south side, minus two feet. That's about it. It's basically everything you said. The only issue is subject to is based on the difference of elevation of six feet here and two feet here. In addition to that, at the meeting -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come up and see what we are looking at? TRUSTEE KING: The next door neighbor was there when we were out at the site. I think everything we addressed in the field has been taken care of. The bulkhead is going to remain here and this area is going to be dredged. MR. FRAGOLA: It's not going to be what it was before. It's going to be less than what it was. So it will be minus two feet. Chuck Hamilton made a comment he said he was going to make it one foot but after I talked with him, he'll go with the two feet. So to answer Bob's question, it will be greater than it was before. It will be two feet depth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you are saying is it's not going to be totally level it's not going to be back to where it was before but it's going to be -- and this will be reduced 25% and this is subject to review after the construction. So after the construction if we feel the need to put something there. MR. FRAGOLA: The only thing I request, you had mentioned about a 10-year maintenance as far as dredging. I don't know what the next step is. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we approve this based on the new drawings and we can include the ten-year maintenance dredge. (Perusing.) (Inaudible) So we'll wait on the revised plans for this. Are there any other comments on this application? Anything from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application based on the modifications that we made and we'll get new plans indicating that, and I think we should also add on the ten-year maintenance dredging for the basin and the general area there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. JOHNSTON: Fred, are you still using Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.? When they issue the permit, do you want them included in the permit or delete that name? 18 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 MR. FRAGOLA: I would prefer to have it issued to me. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Number eight, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Evan Akselrad requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x50 fixed dock with seasonal4x14 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1355 Shore Drive, Greenport. Is there anyone here to speak to this issue? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I have delivered to the Trustees a revised plan that moves the dock to the west. We've re-oriented the float. Before I go any further, I would like to know what the Board's comments are, please. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The Board's comments? MS. MESIANO: If there are any questions. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let's hear from the public first. If you have questions, that's fine. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? Any board members? (No response.) Here's the plan (perusing.) CAC recommends approval with a non-turf buffer. MS. MESIANO: That buffer has already been approved. I came before the board last time. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's just a comment from the CAC. Does anybody else have any questions? I just have one quick one. The DEC's depth of water you have to accomplish for them, for their approval? MS. MESIANO: We need to maintain two-and-a-half feet and we are out three feet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The only reason I ask that is I heard the DEC has been asking for four feet. MS. MESIANO: If that is the case, and we really don't want an expansive dock. And Mr. Akselrad, if it's necessary, if the DEC wants them and we have to go longer to gain greater depth, he'll eliminate the float. He just wants to be able to launch a kayak, a canoe, a small boat. He doesn't intend to tie anything large up here. He just wants to be able to access a boat on moorings. So he's not looking to extend as far out as three feet, four feet to accommodate that. He's looking for a minimal structure which is why we proposed the dock here to try to keep it as low profile as we can. To gain access for a kayak or canoe. If the DEC is looking for something greater, we'll go smaller to eliminate it. TRUSTEE KING: Is this going to have a mooring? MS. MESIANO: I'm not asking for a mooring. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No, you're just asking for a dock for a boat. MS. MESIANO: I'm just asking for a dock for recreational marine access. I don't know if he has a boat on mooring. He mentioned to me he would like to be able to get to a boat on mooring. I think he was speaking in the future because he's building a house, he does not reside at the property yet. He's planning ahead, as you had mentioned about the CAC recommendation, my comment was that we had come to you before with that and that was already approved. So this is a work in progress. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments by the Board? (No response.) The LWRP finds it inconsistent, the proposed action is for private use and will not support a pattern of development that enhances the community character. The application has not demonstrated that the dock structure would not adversely affect the scenic viewshed of Pipes Cove. The materials used to construct the dock are unknown and should be identified. The use of 19 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 the dock -- I'm just reading what they are saying. The use of the dock must be identified. The installation of the proposed dock may promote power boat traffic and possible following negative affects. The dock structure results in a physical loss of marine habitat. The proposed action would result in a physical loss of ecological components as listed above. The applicant has not demonstrated that the following dock standards and operations have been met. The dock structure will protrude from an existing bulkhead to a minimum of three-and-a-half feet. The shore locked structure will obstruct and impede public access and the applicant currently enjoys access to public waters through the location of the waterfront parcel. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed action meets the above listed policies. And there is an entire document. Okay, no more comments from the public, I'll make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I will make a motion to deny this application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Evan Akselrad to construct a 4x50 foot fixed dock with a seasonal ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP and in particular there are three or four issues that myself and I think the board members would question. First, the dock may result in the destruction of vegetative materials. Second, the dock may be unsafe when constructed due to the large fetch, wind direction and third, the dock may adversely affect views, viewsheds and vistas important to the community. And last, the cumulative impacts of residential and commercial dockage will change the waterway of the environment and alternate design construction location will minimize -- let me stop there. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Anybodyopposed? (No response.) Thank you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Next is the application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of JLH Associates requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff stairs from the top of the bluff to beach. Located: 1690 The Strand, East Marion. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in favor or against this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We are looking for access down the face of the bluff to the beach adjacent to the structured site. The structure proposed is a timber steps 4x105 feet. It's not unlike many of the steps along the same area. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments from the public or from the Board? (No response.) I looked at this personally and I didn't see any problems at all. The CAC asked that there be minimal disturbance to the bluff and they asked open mesh grading be used on the landing but, you know, that's not necessary. It's recommended. If you want to do it, fine. But I'm not going to - MS. MESIANO: I'll pass it on to the applicant. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? 20 ---------- Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application for JLH Associated to construct a bluff stairs from the top of the bluff to the beach. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) It was consistent, also, with the LWRP. I didn't say that before. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of George Kofinas requests a Wetland Permit to revegetate approximately 2,500 square feet on bluff face that was damaged by fire; replace inkind/inplace destroyed 11x50 foot wood deck and 8x32 foot bath house; and repair/replace the cap of the pre-existing retaining wall. Located: 552 East Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. We just met at the site, with the Board. I have made every attempt to explain this situation to the Board. This is not an act on the part of the owner/applicant. There was arson at the site. We would like to revegetate. There is ongoing erosion because there is a steep slope about 30 feet back from the retaining wall and due to this slope, rain is contributing to this degradation so we are anxious to get that revegetated. Mr. Kofinas is also quite disturbed about replacing his guest and bath house that was destroyed by the fire. We are requesting replacement inkind/inplace replacement with same and repair of the bulkhead. I can only offer to address any concerns the Board might have questions of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only question I have is when we were in the field we spoke about the replacement of the structure and my comment to you was I was not comfortable approving anything like that until it goes to the ZBA because in the code in section 280-122, nonconforming buildings with conforming uses, (b) reconstruction of damaged building. It states: A nonconforming building containing a conforming use which has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than 50% of its fair value shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless such building is made substantially to conform to the height and yard requirements of the bulk schedule. This might fit, I don't know, but I would rather see that approval before we make our decision. MS. MESIANO: I have to disagree with you. The zoning board's recent determination with respect to the Board's request brings that whole issue into question. In its other situation, that was not a voluntary act on the part of the owner. This was not either. And the way the Zoning Board's determination is written it seems to give you the latitude to say it's okay. One of the many interpretations of that decision leaves this open for that type of situation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know if I agree with that. But in any case would you consider taking that part of the application out of this proposal for now -- MS. MESIANO: What I'd like to do is table -- if we could get a partial approval -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm trying to say, yes. MS. MESIANO: Because revegetation of the bluff is crucial and we would like to proceed with that and we would like the opportunity to pursue this other further. Because in light of that determination I think not just myself but for 21 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 your perspective we need to get our brains around this because the way the determination was written leaves some question. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, it does. And it's not something that if you came in here with a brand new structure, we wouldn't approve anything that large. MS. MESIANO: I would never even dream of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I would like to table that portion of the application. MS. MESIANO: We recognize the need because we don't want to engage in a protracted argument at the cost of the bluff. So I would like to hold that in abeyance and leave that open and get as much of an approval for revegetation as I can. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lauren, what is the procedure to separate -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why not just remove that for now from this application so we can approve -- MS. MESIANO: I would withdraw without prejudice and clearly understanding that I can come back to you. Now, there is a conflict in my mind. I don't want to have to make another complete application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I want to ask Lauren what the procedure is. MS. STANDISH: You can table that portion the rest. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is everybody comfortable with that? (Board members respond in the affirmative.) We'll table that portion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Makes sense. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there any other comments from anybody for or against? (No response.) I don't think we have any comments from LWRP and CAC supports to revegetate the bluff face and reserves decision on the construction and the repair in place the cap of the pre-existing retaining wall. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. MS. MESIANO: If I can add just one comment. I want to make sure we include the issue about the Oak trees because we don't know, we discussed that, Mr. Kofinas wants to be able to remove them if they don't come back in the Spring. I don't know if you want a revegetation of the bluff face or if the Oak trees would be part of your decision. We are willing to table the wood deck and back fence and the retaining wall we would like to be able to repair. TRUSTEE KING: Is the fence going to be removed at this time? MS. MESIANO: We would request that you allow us to keep the fence during the duration of this construction because we are fearful of arson, of trespassing. It gives us some protection of the property at this time. Part of his approval on the house as I understand it was the moving of that fence. So that's still a valid point. We would just like to keep it for security until the construction is done and that can be accomplished. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the fence going down from the top of the bluff down to the beach, correct? Now that I see it, I understand. MS. MESIANO: He's concerned about the property. This is the second arson that he's had. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does anyone have a problem with leaving the fence during construction? TRUSTEE KING: No, not until everything is taken care of. 22 Board of Trustees September 20. 2006 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And then once the construction is complete -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: When is the applicant willing to remove the fence; on completion of this work in this application or completion of construction? MS. MESIANO: Completion of construction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And when do you think the approximate timeframe -- MS. MESIANO: I would say based on the magnitude of the house it will probably be about a year before it's finished. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of George Kofinas for a Wetland Permit to revegetate approximately 2,500 square feet of bluff face that was damaged by fire and to repair and replace the cap of the pre-existing retaining wall, and table the portion of the inkind/inplace destroyed wood deck and bath house, to table that portion of the application. The fence may stay until the completion of the construction, until you receive the CO then that must be taken down. And whatever Oak trees you can save that are still alive, to try and save that. MS. MESIANO: Can you verbalize that the Oak trees, should they not revegetate, could be cut to grade? There will be no excavation, no cutting of the stump. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If the Oak trees have to be taken down, you can cut them to grade and not take the stumps out, just cut them to grade. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Deborah Doty requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x80 foot fixed walk (fiberglass grid material), a minimum of 1.5 feet above grade, 4x14 foot fiberglass grid panel ramp and cantilevered kayak slide (two four-inch pvc pipes). Located: 670 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. This application is a prior application that we have not finalized through the DEC and the only change is that what the Board indicated earlier its willingness to approve with the condition of the kayak slide which was actually recommended by Mr. Hamilton. Very simple, low-profile structure, minimal disturbance. This is smaller than any other docks in the area. If the Board has any questions, I'll be happy to address them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The material for the support posts I could see here are pvc, correct? MS. MESIANO: No, it's 4x4 timber. The pvc is recommended only for the slide, a kayak slide. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) Seeing nobody running to the microphones, the CAC is in support of the application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer and no treated lumber on the support posts. I would like to hear from the Board but I know when I looked at this I felt there was a pretty wide area of vegetation down there as it was between the water and where the lawn is starting. I don't know if other people felt the same or different on the Board. 23 Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel that there was sufficient vegetation and that it was in line with the neighbors. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words the buffer was in line with the neighbor's buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, the neighboring house, when we had them do that berm and move up their buffer, which actually came in line with her and it's in line with the other neighbor. MS. MESIANO: We are proposing no disturbance to any ground. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. We are just addressing CAC comments. The LWRP found this inconsistent. And this is a very lengthy report, so bear with me. It was inconsistent because of providing access and recreational that is compatible to the natural resource values of the area. The applicant has not demonstrated it meets the standards pursuant to 275-11, all one through twelve standards. Does not meet LWRP standards with regard to public access to public trust lands and navigable waters including use of all rights of public anchoring. Provide access and recreation is compatible with natural resource values. And again, quite lengthy in its comments here. This creates a real challenge for the Trustees. Again, going back to the LWRP issue that we are trying to address. I know we looked at this and dock is recessed, in other words back from the two neighboring docks. Both neighboring properties have docks. And this is back beyond where those two docks go out. There is also no float affecting the bottoms hence we talked about this kayak slide. Is there any recommendation from Board members as to how this could be brought into consistency? TRUSTEE KING: The design and the location between two longer docks, I mean -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the materials, that answers a lot of those 1-12 criteria. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I think based on the technical aspects of this process, the Board of Trustees deems the action be consistent with the LWRP and with that, if there are not other comments, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I would like to make a motion to approve the application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Deborah Doty requesting a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x80 foot fixed walk (fiberglass grid material), a minimum of 1.5 feet above grade, 4x14 fiberglass grid panel ramp and cantilevered kayak slide using two 4-inch pipes made of pvc. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MESIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Sim Moy requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake Road, Southold. Is there anybody here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental. I understand the publiC hearing was closed at the last hearing. 24 Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We left the hearing open. MR. ANDERSON: You left it open? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm not prepared to speak so I would ask you to put it off for two weeks for written comment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak to this application? MR. WIGGINS: (Sic) Good evening, Miller Wiggins, Cayan Association (sic). I understood this public hearing is still open, and we all appreciate your time and effort and forbearance to this long application. There are two members of the West Lake Association here that live there who are present this evening and would like to speak: Sara Sowinski followed by Peter Gunn, who is the president. SARA SOWINSKI: Good evening. Actually, I'm here tonight-- MR. JOHNSTON: Could you spell your name for Florence, please. MS. SOWINSKI: S-O-W-I-N-S-K-1. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. MS. SOWINSKI: -- (continuing.) And along with my cousin Sara Hermann who couldn't be here tonight, are joint property owners on West Lake Drive. She has submitted a letter a month ago at the last meeting and it was forwarded to the Board of Trustees. I'm not sure if you have it. What I would like to do is go through a few highlights from this letter, if that's permissible, from you. I have copies of the letter also because she couldn't be here either. She's in Poughkeepsie. It was dated August 19. I'm just concerned about the project. Would you like me to give you some copies? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could just keep your comments brief. That would be great. MS. SOWINSKI: Again, this is just brief highlights from that so as to try to keep it brief, as she couldn't be here. I understand that this application is still outstanding because prior to tonight's meeting, everything was presented to last year's board. That board had asked for and received a second review by Camp, Dresser & McGee (sic) of Woodbury, a firm independent of Suffolk Environmental Consulting, representatives of the applicant. While CDM has reviewed the proposal and sent their findings and recommendations to the board members addressing the ground water flow and elevations, it appears that Suffolk Environmental Consulting in responding to them has concluded that this project is still safe and viable. I am concerned that the response from SEC to CDM's request for calculation of flow contribution to West Lake from the Moy property be useful to determine the planetary effluent impact on the lake. I agree that this would be a reasonable request for information on which to base a valid decision. However, the response is based on general assumptions and comparisons stating that there are eleven dwellings with sanitary systems surrounding the lake already discharging into it and that only a portion of the proposed sanitary system will enter the lake only on half the time as a result of the tidal action and ground water flow direction. Perhaps I should be happy to know it's not 60% of the time. This argument diminishes the policy in force. In this instant, it's just a one-more rationale that could very well become a one-too-many results, emerging only after the fact. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Waste Water Management has also reviewed the ground water flow analysis and made 25 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 comments to consider during their process. I share the concern that the clay present in the core will prevent proper drainage on the site. I would like to know their final statement. As I mentioned in a letter to last year's board, the sanitary system as illustrated on the survey is not in compliance with surface water setbacks as stated in town code. It was also noted by CDM that prior approval from the New York State DEC would otherwise need to be acquired. The revised property survey of the applicant's project that I received does not indicate a change with respect to this issue. Town Code Chapter 97 states: A leaching pool setback of 100 feet, a septic tank setback at 75 feet. The town will still have to grant large variances, if it deems the water flow research acceptable. That same code states that the residence setback is 100 feet from the Wetland boundary. It is not met in either case of the West Lake Inlet or Little Peconic Bay bulkheads, resulting in yet another large variance. Research into past Board history regarding construction on West Lake property adjacent to the applicant's indicated that the Board felt a seven-foot variance for a structure wall would be too critical for the ecosystem. Also, the proposed driveway does not meet the 50-feet setback requirement. In relation to this issue, the proposed driveway does not appear to be on surveyed property. It is beyond this project's property boundary. And the Cedar Beach Park Roadway means West Lake Drive leading to the Inlet bulkhead. If the town approves the project, does the applicant acquire this by default due to the location of the proposed driveway on the drawing? Does the code exist permitting this? Currently, the policy of the Town of Southold is in place to protect, preserve, maintain and hopefully improve the condition of the Wetlands and for guidance in deeming acceptable projects indicates this application fails to conform to several provisions as noted above. I look to the board to be staunch in the execution of the policy currently in existence. Thank you for allowing time to express this concern. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is one other person that wanted to speak? Just state your name. MR. GUNN: My name is Peter Gunn, I'm the President of the West Lake Homeowners Association. I submitted a letter earlier this week, on Monday, to the Board. I believe you all have copies and I just wish to read it into the minutes, please. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll enter it into the record as if you had read it. MR. JOHNSTON: The Board has all read the letter. We'll stipulate and Florence will type this into the record as if you had said it. MR. GUNN: Very good. (INSERT) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Again, it's my understanding it's closed. I just ask you keep it open for written comments. It's supposed to be closed, so I don't know why we are -- I would request two weeks and come back next month and make a decision. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 26 Board of Tmstees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just going to review some of the comments here, CAC's comments. This goes back to March 15,2005. CAC recommends disapproval of the application because of the following reasons: The concern was with raising the septic system in proximity to the water table; concern with the drainage; concern with a suitable buffer area; status and condition of the bulkhead is unclear. LWRP report states that the proposed action is inconsistent with policy five, protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold; Five, part one, prohibit direct or indirect discharges that would cause or contribute to the water quality standards; protect and enhance the quality of coastal waters; limit the potential of adverse impacts of watershed development on water quality and quantity, and; policy six, to protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem; protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetland. I would also like to, I'm not going to read it but I would like to submit our environmental technician's report on the Sim Moy application. She references many of the reports that are already in the file, but I would like to have that also typed into the minutes. (INSERT) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I am going to make a motion to deny without any prejudice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we hold on one second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was hearing the conversation but I didn't know if it was relevant. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was just thinking. How sure are we that we are able to have this closed? We don't have the minutes here. TRUSTEE KING: I'm positive we do -- MR. JOHNSTON: Okay we're good. Three out of five are sure we -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I wish I had my notes from last month. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce wanted us to close the hearing and keep the comment periOd open for two weeks. I know that is what he wanted. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Table. I have "table" down on my notes from last month. TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure that's what we did. We tabled this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have "tabled" down also. TRUSTEE KING: I think I said we should be prepared to make a decision next month. MR. JOHNSTON: Three out of five remembered you tabled. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: "Tabled." That's what I have written in my notes to myself. MR. JOHNSTON: There is a modification suggested by one of the board members. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I was just going to suggest -- I mean Bruce obviously has a question in his own mind what happened and I don't think it's fair to act on it and that perhaps -- the hearing is closed, and give it a two- week period for him to respond to anything he wants -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Start that over. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's just a discussion on the Board. I'm not saying -- in fairness to Bruce. It's closed. We can reserve the decision. We can make the decision based on any comments and the public can come and read any comments that he makes and in turn put their own comments in, so that we'll 27 - Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 have that to make our decision. Does that make some sense to the Board, or? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine with me. I'll make a motion to what he said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's brilliant. TRUSTEE KING: We'll close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: The hearing is closed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The hearing is closed. I already closed it. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And we are reserving decision and there is a two- week open period to make comments to the Board. TRUSTEE KING: Written comments will be accepted for two weeks. In writing. MR. JOHNSTON: And the end of the two-week time is -- give him a date. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then what happens? I think this has gone on long enough. With no disrespect to you, Bruce. MR. JOHNSTON: It's only a procedural thing, Jill, so you won't make your final combined decision for 15 days. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, two weeks brings us to October 4. MR. JOHNSTON: Is that okay with everybody? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's what the majority of the Board thinks, that's fine, I'll go along with it. Is that seconded? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I'll second it. (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Could someone read that motion back? I'm a little confused as to what just took place. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If I can paraphrase it. The hearing was officially closed tonight. MR. ANDERSON: That I understand. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: But there are -- comments from the public will be received by the Board up until October 4. Written comments. And the Board will make a decision some time after that time. There is no more public meetings. That's over with. Gone. There will be a decision forthcoming. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Gentlemen, John's comment about "some time," it could be a long time, it could be a short time. It isn't two weeks. It isn't -- it could be a long time. Okay? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of AI Safer requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new six bedroom, two-story single-family dwelling with related appurtenance and tennis court. Located: 1295 Robinson Lane, Peconic. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of the applicant Mr. Safer. We filed this application. This is just the redevelopment of an existing dwelling, that is set back 100 feet from the water line. So not that we need a permit at all but we felt at 100 feet it was best to make the application. That's why we made the application and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Well, I believe we consider the line from the top of the bank as it's noted on the survey. So that would put it in our jurisdiction. MR. ANDERSON: What line. 28 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying you're measuring the line from the high water mark. MR. ANDERSON: Right, because that's the wetland boundary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are saying the top of the bank. Regardless, you are here and we are reviewing it. I think we had some questions. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I just want to say, Bruce, the code has been changed but we do have jurisdiction from the top of the bluff, not necessarily just the wetland line. MR. ANDERSON: You call that a bluff? Being up on the Sound, I don't really know out here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP finds it inconsistent because it's within 100 feet. There is an existing house there and we feel that it's not like a brand new house and we feel it's consistent. That was their only comment. The CAC supports the application with the condition that drywells are installed to contain the pool backwash and roof runoff from the dwelling. The entire slope plus ten-foot is being vegetated and there is no extension of the dwelling on the seaward side. Which I don't believe there are. Are there any other comments from the Board besides that we really like the house? We like the design of the house. Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Just one question, Bruce. When was that little access or whatever it is, looks like a little driveway going down to the beach instead of stairs at the end. When was that built? MR. ANDERSON: I have no idea. You mean the pavers. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: I do not know. TRUSTEE KING: It seems to me I was out there a couple of years ago and it wasn't there then. MR. ANDERSON: I don't even know that the surveyors were out there. I don't know that I could even verify it one way or the other. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the slope was always there. TRUSTEE KING: It just looked new to me. I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry does this include the existing decking on the bluff there? Is that what you are questioning? TRUSTEE KING: The question is where these pavers came down and there was a new set of stairs, it looks fairly recent and it should have had a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So what I'm saying, should we add all this to it or have him come in for a separate permit. Because this stuff, at least the decking has been there for a long time. I think the pavers are new, obviously. MR. ANDERSON: The pavers are not even here on the survey. They are not surveyable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. That just stabilizes it and the grass can grow through it. That has always been there. But the pavers and the stairs are new. Which technically would need a permit. Do you want to add that to this or have them come in? Because all this stuff has been there for years. Do you know if there is existing permits for any of this decking or anything on the bluff? MR. ANDERSON: I have no idea. Because, like I said, it doesn't appear on the survey. I wouldn't even be able to tell from aerials. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How do you want to handle that? 29 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would this Board approve those, if it was submitted as a separate application, would this Board approve those steps, I don't know if it's slate or stone. TRUSTEE KING: Concrete with slate tops it looks like. I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wouldn't either seeing as it's a continuation of the concrete bulkhead that is existing. So it really didn't add much to what was there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So then could we add it to this permit application as is. Permit it in with the project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have no problem with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would that be okay with the applicant? MR. ANDERSON: To add them in. Yes, fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: No problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That sounds like a way to resolve this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm thinking. Should we add pavers in there, since that was added? TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't show it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was a new addition to this whole section so we could add that as well. Is there any other comments, for or against? (No response.) Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of AI Safer for the request of a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new six-bedroom two-story single-family dwelling with related appurtenance and tennis court. Located: 1295 Robinson Lane, Peconic. I would add the addition of the pavers and the stairs on the east side of the property going down to the beach, to the approval and a line of hay bales during construction and of course we would like to see the drywells, gutters and leaders on the house. And I believe the septic is out of our jurisdiction. And I did mention the CAC and the CAC supported the application with the normal condition of drywells and a ten-foot buffer -- I think they have a slight buffer. Does the Board feel we need an additional ten-foot buffer? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does it go all the way across? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if it goes all the way across. It looks like it doesn't, on the other side that is not in front of the house. We could add a ten-foot buffer along the length of the property, from the top of the bank back, so the lawn is not going all the way to the top of the bank. So ten foot from the top of the bank landward. You have some existing there that can be part of the ten feet. But on the other side of the property, it's lawn right down to the bank. Do you want to see where I'm talking about? MR. ANDERSON: (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you already have a bit of a buffer here. So from here back. Ten feet. Not in addition to this. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I make that motion. Should I repeat it? Do I have a second? 30 Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, Patricia Moore on behalf of Philip and Jennifer Stanton requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing residence and rebuild a new residence no closer than the existing setbacks. Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold. Anyone here to comment? MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening, Patricia Moore. I know you've been to the site and inspected it. This is a continuation of it. We've had it staked so you could see the exact location of the structures and I believe that now you have an accurate depiction. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: This was just a swimming pool. MS. MOORE: The house is existing but it's to be demolished and replaced with a house in a similar location which is approximately 81 feet from the wetlands. The pool was the question whether it was in or outside of your jurisdiction. I think it was so close to tell at the time, I believe you said it measured 97, something like that. So we included everything into the permit, just making it simpler, particularly since activity is going to be required to do the construction, we might as well include everything. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: I thought we measured that and it was 100. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Remember we discussed that in the field and we said that our in our code in 97 it says 50. It's an accessory structure so we found it consistent. TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent because the house is closer than 100 feet. MS. MOORE: It is now. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just reading the LWRP. MS. MOORE: I know, I'm not debating. TRUSTEE KING: Proposed distance of new residence from edge of wetlands is proposed at 81 feet. I thought we measured more than that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: That's why I asked earlier because I thought the house was outside our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: I rely on others to give me measurements, so, I would rather be on the safe side. Remember this shows the edge of wetlands was flagged in '03. That's when we started the process. Also, if I could interject for just a moment, whether I'm in or outside of jurisdiction really doesn't matter at this pOint because I have already produced a permit application so if you just say a permit to do what we've asked for here, I'm covered, the contractors will be covered and there won't be any problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the distance that we measured and with what it says about the pool and the house, we found it consistent with LWRP. MS. MOORE: That's good. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: There is going to be a 20-foot non-turf buffer along here, from what I'm reading? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application. MR. GRATHWOHL: I'm Jim Grathwohl, Chairman of the Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission and I would urge you to consider very seriously denying the application for demolition. We have sent you a letter 31 -------- __ __ _______n____ - _____________n___ Board ofTmstees September 20. 2006 dated August 24, I believe, and I'm not going to repeat from that, but I do want to make a couple of comments. Almost no building today is beyond salvaging. There are ways of working around any damage of reusing any building that seems hopeless, as long as there is sufficient will and community support. Let me point out, this particular house, and I will just quote a couple of points made in our letter to you, the house was built circa 1860. This home has had a long and historic past making it one of the great local houses of the 19th and 20th centuries. Its position on Town Creek makes it a remarkably strong landmark. Many of the building's original and distinctive features survive. Prior to its purchase by the Stanton's, it had remained in the same family for over 104 years. Demolishing it would destroy forever a significant addition to the build history of Southold Town and Suffolk County. We understand that the Stanton's have restored a neighboring historic house and are supportive of preserving Southold's unique architectural heritage. The Landmarks Preservation Commission urges you and the trustees to recommend to Mr. and Mrs. Stanton that they consider these substitutes to demolition: Stabilize the exterior of the house while maintaining its historic character. Do a complete interior renovation. Redo the interior to their taste with new mechanical systems, new kitchens, baths, et cetera. Stabilizing and renovating actually would be more cost effective than demolishing and rebuilding. Again, the Landmarks Preservation Commission urges the Trustees to recommend alternatives to demolition to the Stanton's for their landmark home. I would also like to point out that this is a trend that is happening all over the country but it's really becoming more and more prevalent in Southold Town. The threat is tear downs. Here's how it works. Perfect example. Developers and home buyers search desirable neighborhoods for a building lot that can lawfully accommodate a much bigger house than the one that is currently on it. The property is acquired, the existing house razed and a bigger house is constructed in its place. This simple process can transform the street scape of an older neighborhood and destroy the character that is its life blood. I want to underscore that the Landmarks Preservation Commission understands that home buyers should be able to alter or expand their houses to meet their needs. No one says that older neighborhoods should be frozen in time like museum exhibits. The challenge is to manage change so that it doesn't destroy the distinctive character that makes South old especially so appealing. This means that people must take action instead of just sitting back and letting tear downs destroy the place they call home. So I would urge you to help us put the brakes on tear downs. It's a huge job but it deserves our best efforts. South old's older neighborhoods are important chapters in the story of who we are. Working together, we can keep that story alive. And I would urge you to join us in not south forking the north fork. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MS. MOORE: If I could just respond briefly. I would like to share the suggestions you have with the Stanton's. The Stanton's are a very unique couple. They actually spent almost two years studying this house because they wanted to preserve it. They have spent an enormous amount of money just in engineers and architects and when one engineer told them impossible, they went to another one and another one. So they have made every effort to try to preserve or to retain this house. But the reality is sometimes you just can't. It's more than it's not feasible financially. It's that it's just not structurally 32 ----------- Board of Trustees September 20. 2006 feasible. They do in fact own the house next door and that house is of similar vintage. They took great pains to restore that house, probably spent three times what a normal house -- a demo and reconstruction. So to paint them as a picture of the developer that comes in and demolishes a house that is there and wants to build up their new one, they are absolutely the opposite of that. This Board, I know I don't have to tell you, but it has really no say whether or not a house should be demolished or not demolished. The wetlands, in fact, we are complying with state building codes that are partly the problem because you have hurricane standards, you have FEMA standards. There are so many things you have to comply with. That these things are burdens we have to overcome. But I think the Board will do the right thing. These owners have tried very hard to preserve this house. What they want to build there is a similar look. They have described it to me as Savanna style, white, very similar to the style of this home. Sometimes you just can't preserve it and I don't like hearing them being painted in this light because they really did agonize over it and suffer in coming to the conclusion that there is no way of doing this without demolition. So that's why we are here is for the permit. Whether we renovated or it's new construction, it's still within your jurisdiction, the same permit process would have applied. But they certainly do not cherish the demolition. It's really forced upon them. I will certainly pass to their architects the comments that have been made. I hope that they have and I know they have very good architects and very good engineers that they have relied on for their opinions. But I'll certainly pass it on. If there is any way, I'm sure they'll try. But I think we are here at this point because it can't be saved, so. MR. GRATHWOHL: Pat, I just want to clarify. I gave them credit in the letter, as you'll recall, and I quoted that. My comment about developers was a general comment. It was not about them at all. However, Mrs. Laxton who is here who sold the house to them only four years ago just can't understand that all of a sudden it's gone downhill in four years and needs to be demolished. And my other comment is a little more locally oriented, after talking to Pat a while ago, she told me about all the money they spent. And my concern is both their engineers and their architects are from New York City. And I'm sure they are qualified and professional but they really have no feel for the quality of life in Southold Town. And that's really what we are trying to maintain. So this is really not an adversarial contest at all. We want to be supportive and would be but I hope that you would reconsider any possibility of tearing the building down. It's a great building. Thank you. MS. LAXTON: I would like to say a word. Somehow we managed to live very happily and comfortably in this house. And it could be modernized inside, as any house could be. But we kept it up structurally and I'm very sorry, I'm disappointed at Phil and Jennifer. But they were my neighbors and I thought we were friends and obviously it's very upsetting to me. It's been in our family for 104 years and it's extremely upsetting to lose a piece of Southold history. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? (No response.) I don't think this has any official historic status, am I correct? Does this have any official historical status? MR. GRATHWOHL: The Society of Preservation of Long Island Antiquities lists and is eligible automatically to be a landmark in Southold Town. It has not been. It is not officially a landmark. 33 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: Any board comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion, if there is no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) CAC comments, recommend approval of the Wetland Application to demolish the existing residence and rebuild a new residence no closer than the existing setbacks. LWRP found it inconsistent because it is only 81 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was before we found it consistent because it's further than 81 feet and it's an existing dwelling. TRUSTEE KING: Hay bales are put in place, drywells are shown for runoff. I don't see anything missing on here. 20-foot non-turf buffer that is going to be put in place. I know it's a nice old house but these people own it now. I've seen there was some vinyl siding put on it and some Andersen windows, so some of it's been modified. I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Let's take a ten-minute recess. (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Number 16, Patricia Moore on behalf of Nick Bubany requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x75 foot fixed dock (minimum 2.5 feet above grade), 3x16 foot seasonal ramp and a 6x20 foot floating dock secured by two eight-inch diameter piles. Located: 200 Hickory Drive, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak for this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant owner and we are here to address any issues that you might have. I know you were out there on site because I met with you and the owner and we talked about the inherent problems over there and just for the record, this property used to have the dock inside the lagoon but over time the lagoon has filled in and wetlands developed inside the lagoon so it seemed a more appropriate environmental application to request the dock than to seek to dredge inside the lagoon and put the dock back inside. So that's the proposal before you. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for or against this application? MR. ZITO: Yes. My name is Frank Zito. I own Broadwaters Cove Marina right next across from the dock that they want to build. I am not against the dock for a person's home, but it's in the channel, the navigable channel that everybody uses and it's four poles, not two poles. And that's the only thing I have. And I wouldn't mind seeing them dredge the lagoon out nice and putting a little dock in there. MS. MOORE: Well, if he can get the permit - MR. ZITO: I know, I've been fighting the DEC a long time. MS. MOORE: Then you know why we are not. MR. ZITO: Yes, I know. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Can you just come up a second. MR. ZITO: Sure. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: We had a question about the channel come up over the last week. And I just looked at it. These are the depths they are showing the boat out here. Now, I just measured from the outer two piles. They are not 34 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 on the description, by the way, the outer two. So there are two more out there. Now, I just measured. This is four feet. So four feet. And that's about 90 feet. MR. ZITO: I don't think this is right. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand what you are saying. We can't argue -- but this is 90 feet. You still have another 20 or 30 feet here. That's three feet at low tide. So I just wanted your impression is -- MR. ZITO: If you put a boat here and there is another dock here that's not in your drawing here, you are trying to get two boats come in and out, this is going to be out in the middle of the channel. I just want him to go back ten feet, that's all. MS. MOORE: Well, we need to keep to the depth of water for our boat. MR. ZITO: So your boat is coming in and out and this is the poles, how you have to put a boat outside of the poles, he's in the middle of the channel. The channel goes right through here. There is another dock on my side. MS. MOORE: They are the owners. They know where things are. They said there is no dock here. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I asked the same thing. That's way over here. MS. MOORE: That's about as close as their docks are to us. MR. ZITO: I don't mind, it's just -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: I understand what you are saying. I just, as I said, the surveyor who did the depths and when you see 90 or 100 feet, that's a wide channel, with the boat on the outside. So you are more familiar with -- MR. ZITO: My customers are up in arms. That's all I'm trying to tell you. And I just came here to tell you, I don't mind them having a dock there. I would like to see them dredge the lagoon. That would be the best thing, I think. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on just a second, sir. Mr. Zito, are you finished with your comments? MR. ZITO: Yeah, that's about alii had to say. And it's just that my customers are getting nervous that they are going to have problems going in and out. That's all. And I would like to see it come back just a little further. Because I don't know what size boat he's going to put there. That's alii have to say. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Sir, state your name first. MR. BUBANY: Nick Bubany. I own the property. First of all this other dock he's referring to, I don't know where it is. MR. ZITO: It's directly across on my side. It's far away. MR. BUBANY: You have buoys out in that channel. And I know they are not 90 feet apart, which means that the channel, I mean I lived there for 30 years. I seen boats go in and out. They don't come anywhere near this dock. Most of them stay out further. They know by now that they should stay out. Also they continue to go past my dock they hit the Broadwater Cove Marina, which goes out further. MR. ZITO: Right. That's the other thing. You are between two marinas. You have your own marina there and your own association. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Please keep your comments to the Board. MR. BUBANY: The width is widest at that point. It is about 90 feet. So it in no way interferes with any boats coming in and out because in order to get to my dock in this picture they would have to be in two feet of water coming out. And most of his boats stay out pretty far. 35 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question about the stake you have out for the dock. Is that at the end of the dock or is that at the end of where the boat would be? MR. BUBANY: That's at the end of the floating dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. BUBANY: Those pilings, by the way, are not only for safety purposes, because it does get very windy there but any boat coming out is going to see those pilings. We can paint them white if they like so they can see from the other. MS. MOORE: If you would like us to add a florescent strip on there, that's no problem either. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue? MR. WALKER: Peter Walker, Cutchogue. I keep my boat at the marina and I have to take issue with that channel because I come in and out quite frequently and I have to use my depth finder. When I had a 31-foot boat if it was low tide, if I wasn't dead center, I would be in the mud. It's a lot narrower than it appears and if you put those pilings out as you come around there would be a little trouble. Especially like the gentleman said, if it's a good, windy day, it blows right off the causeway and it comes in. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Anyone else who would like to make a comment? MR. BUBANY: If you look at the soundings, that is in a recessed section. And if your boat is a substantial size, which it sounds like it is, you would be out beyond. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: If I can just show you. (Perusing maps.) I think the question arises is, is the channel wide enough. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Perceptually, when I looked at it, it looks very narrow compared to the diagram. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: There is a question, obviously, in our minds, too. Is it worth having it done, two stakes out, four stakes marking four- foot depth. We can set our own agenda here and have it and go look at it again. TRUSTEE KING: Might not be a bad idea. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And then you guys can go look at it. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? MS. MOORE: Yes, you want it where the piles are going to be. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What I'm suggesting is that you get somebody out there who is going to mark the extent of the channel on each side so we can look at where your poles are in relationship to the size of the channel as it passes by your property. So if you were to put two posts on the far side, two posts, sticks, on our side, so we can see the channel and in turn those sticks should be at the four-foot mean low water mark. MS. MOORE: The only difficulty with that, and as you can see the four-foot line curves in to where our propose dock was. That's -- so what do you want me to have Bob Fox do? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It would be good to put a post there and then on the opposite side another post so that we could see. Do you follow what I'm saying? MS. MOORE: Yes, so where our dock is, that's the widest portion. I'm asking do you want the narrowist portion too? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Well, my own opinion would be, if you could put one at the end of the four-foot contour line by where the boat is and then directly, 36 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 a right angle, sort of, the other side of the channel and then come down maybe a 100-150 feet and put one at the four-foot mark and another, where it gets more narrow so that we just have a sense where the channel is so that we can tell how wide it is and in turn make a determination. MR. ZITO: This doesn't get dredged in there. So every year it gets filled in a little bit more. So every year this channel will be closing more unless this gets dredged. And it's not going to get dredged, from what I understand. So that's another consideration. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Will an aerial help see that channel better? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I can also make a recommendation. I agree with what you are asking for. I'm also willing to volunteer myself to go out there in a boat and go through this whole area, back and forth, and look at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually across both sides, from the marina. MS. MOORE: If I could interject. We have an alternative proposal. It's not really the desired one, but we came up with an alternative proposal in case the Board wanted to look at different alternatives. So what we had is the dock, rather than the "L," it was done with the help of my clients. I'll put one up here. It takes the dock and goes straight out. Because we were trying to address some of the concerns we raised at the field. So we said let's come up with some other drawing. It's not the best because he's concerned about his boat. But he's going to end up having his propellers on the outside in deeper water. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: What it effectively does is bring in another eight or nine feet, open to the channel more. MR. ZITO: That's alii was asking. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that's acceptable -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember you were concerned about doing it that way for safety reasons during storms. MR. BUBANY: I'm still concerned because the back of the boat is going to be hit by all the hurricane winds coming in. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing is if you get a bad easterly you usually have excess amount of water. Usually, if it's easterly, you get exceptionally high tides, so grounding out is not a problem. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Any other comments based on our revised -- MS. MOORE: If this will satisfy the concerns -- TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me back up a little bit. The CAC -- MS. MOORE: If you would notice, I'm asking how many piles, because we changed the drawing. There are five piles all together to make it more stable. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Let me back up a little here. Reading it for the record. The CAC does not support the application because of concerns on the impact of free and easy navigation, and I think some of that has been mitigated. The LWRP says this is inconsistent because it does not provide for free an unobstructed public use of all navigable waters below the line of mean high water. In my own opinion that doesn't apply here because the marshes are there and there is no access there. That is not a question in this particular case and I think by shortening the dock and bringing it back we have mitigated some of its affect on the local channel and I think we have made it consistent in our minds. I will make a motion to approve the new 37 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 plan. Pat, I was looking for something when you were speaking about the pilings. MS. MOORE: Not a problem. You can see there are five piles; two on either side of the ramp and two on the outside and one at the end of the float. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And that's all in the plan that's been handed in. So I make a motion to approve it as the amended plan. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of Ernest Schneider requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x6 foot ramp onto a 4x10 foot fixed dock with a 32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock secured by two six-inch diameter pilings. Install two two-pile mooring pilings. Install a four-foot wide woodchip or stone path through buffer area. Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here to speak with regard to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello and we are the agents for Ernest Schneider on this application. As you can see, we have made some modifications, justifiable modifications. The neighbors had concerns that going out the one/third distance, plus the boat, was in excess of what was necessary, it would have some encumbrances on the channel. We reduced that to come up with a one/third, which included the boat, and we reduced it from that 20-foot measurement down to the 11-foot. And those plans were submitted to the Board and now it represents, if the boat were 12-foot in width, it would represent less than one/third. Which is on the plans. It's approximately 32%. The boat is not quite 12-foot in width anyway. It's less than 12-foot but we wanted to make sure we stayed within the guidelines that Southold is trying to maintain. One of the alternatives that we did was instead of a six-foot wide float, we went with a stationary four-foot wide dock so that the boat could be safely and securely secured at that location and not encumber the channel. It's narrow and the objections we had at the last meeting were justified and we reduced it. So, if the Board has any questions, let's try to answer them. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's exactly what we wanted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Costello, I'm going to need a little help. Because we have your plan here that is submitted on September 18 and I'm trying to compare it with what I read, and it's very different. And so we need to modify this to make sure we did it correctly. MR. COSTELLO: What was read was the original application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And I thought you'd come in and modify it. So we need a change to change the description to match what it is you are doing. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. From mean low water to mean low water, across the creek, and it's just off shore of the vegetation line, the channel at that location is 70-foot in width. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I concur with that. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. And we narrowed the dock up from the mean low water line the dock and the "T" is only going out 11-feet. Which constitutes taking up a little less than 16% of the waterway with a structure. So that the boat is tied there from that point, from mean low water, we are going out 11- 38 Board 0 f Trust ees September 20, 2006 feet, which includes a seven-foot walkway onto a four-foot wide by 30-foot "T." TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, you said "walkway." Is that the same as the 4x6 foot ramp? MR. COSTELLO: On the land there is a chip path up to a small ramp, 4x6, then it does to another ramp that goes down to the dock of -- this is all over land -- of six foot. The first 12 feet is over land from the low water mark. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hold on. So you have second ramp and it's also 4x6 feet, to the low water mark. And that's going to -- MR. COSTELLO: It continues from the low water mark and additional seven feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So an additional ramp to the "T" dock. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Seven foot walkway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the "T" dock. And the "T" dock size is MR. COSTELLO: 4x30 foot. Fixed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Got it now. Is there anybody else who would like to address this application? (No response.) CAC recommends approval, bear with me, with the condition of a raised fiberglass catwalk. So the catwalk itself, the material on that catwalk, my question to you, can that be a fiberglass catwalk? MR. COSTELLO: It could be, but it's unnecessary. The wetlands vegetation on there is only phragmites and poison ivy so it serves no purpose. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are also requesting the float not be stored in the wetlands. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP found this to be inconsistent. It's a very lengthy report of inconsistency. I'll try and highlight what they have highlighted. First they said the planning board required a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer on property adjacent to the water. And I believe there is more than a 50-foot buffer all around this piece of property. So I'm not sure why that is even on here. And the dock will impair navigation to other vessels in the area where the dock will unduly interfere with public use of waterways. The proposed dock structure will impair and partially obstruct navigation of the channel. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant has proved to the Board that navigation of the channel will not be impaired if the action is approved. Note that the navigable channel is very narrow in this area. A vessel moored at the end of the dock, a passing vessel will be forced to navigate waters less than two feet depth at low water. The creek was referred to as 60 feet on the survey dated May 3rd, and then a different amount, 70-foot, in the one dated August 14. Proposed dock structure with a vessel moored at the end relation to a 60-foot width would impede the partially obstructed navigable channel. I think with the new survey showing it's 70-feet, that brings us into consistency for parts of this. Heather, you said there are some comments you wish to relate from Mark related to this LWRP evaluation? MS. STANDISH: I think you read them. One of the things he put in there, like you said, was about the water depth that the other people coming down the creek would have to go into in order to go around that dock. And if you look at the most recent plans that we have they don't show standing from that shoreline. That's where that came from. And do you see the hydrographic 39 ------------..--------- Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 survey in the file, the reason he was questioning that width is he said on the hydrographic survey it showed the original width and on the more recent one it was 70 and he was questioning how that was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We addressed that out in the field and we agreed with the 70-foot measurement. So I think with these changes that have been made have brought this into consistency. Are there any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there any docks, this is west. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Up at the end of the creek is two or three small docks. Again, one of the concerns, and I could certainly answer Mark Terry's comment, and Heather's, because what we did to get the width, you know at the location is a little scalloped out. It's indented. That shoreline is irregular in shape anyway. So we picked the spot that was the widest of any spot. So that was why we picked up the additional footage. And the one location that we had, it only had the phragmites on it and poison ivy, and it is scalloped out and it's slightly eroded on the clip and the sluffing of the bank, which is bog, basically on the opposite shore. I don't know if it fell in or not, but the main channel is outside of the proposed boat. It's muddy. When we put the first stake in out at that 20-foot mark and it went almost out of site. At high it was almost under water because it is siltation and mud. But where the other stakes were, it is harder bottom shoaler. But the boat would still be in adequate water. He only needs 32 inches of water, at the most. So we are out of the channel. It's a narrow waterway. I mean, but there is only a couple of small boats at the end of the dock and there are other docks to the west and there is a couple of docks opposite on the other shoreline. And there will not be another dock on the opposite shoreline, which is one of the reasons that maintained that 33%, because he already has a dock and I don't believe you would allow two docks on one piece of property. And that is to the east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, also on this same survey where this area that Mr. Terry addresses, which shows 2.3 feet, as you proceed up the channel, it's progressively shallower than that. So the concern is for navigation down here where it's 2.3 feet, they've already made it through waterway that is much shallower than 2.3 feet. Do you follow my logic? And then also to confirm what you are saying, there is also one dock on that piece of property so they would not be able to, according to our current town code, would not be able to place another dock on that property that would be opposite. The only other comment I would like to make, you said here install four-foot wide wood chip or stone path, we would ask that please remain wood chip or stone, as natural as possible. That's a beautiful natural area through there. Are there any other comments from any Board members? (Negative response.) I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I would like to make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of Ernest Schneider for a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x6 foot ramp leading to a 4x6 foot ramp that takes you to mean low water, to a seven-foot catwalk that will go to a "T" dock that is 4x30 foot fixed. And, again, that's secured by two six-inch pilings and two additional mooring pilings, is that correct? I'm looking at the diagram here. It looks like it's eight pilings in the diagram. 40 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 MR. COSTELLO: Only on the fixed portion of the dock. There are no mooring pilings because -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's fixed. But how many pilings in total are there? MR. COSTELLO: Well, ten. Ten pilings and two 6x6s in the water. There is one on the inside of each end of the dock, inside the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We get eight here on the dock. MR. COSTELLO: Eight fenders, two inside on the end of the dock, each end, so it doesn't get iced down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Come up and show me on the diagram here. MR. COSTELLO: (Indicating.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was easy. As per sheet three of the diagram, there are ten pilings on the dock. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Excuse me, you included the four-foot wide path in there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Gladys Milne requests a Wetland Permit to remove 106 feet of existing bulkhead and 96- feet long wooden boardwalk and replace inkind/inplace. Located: 240 Knoll Circle, East Marion. This says "inkind/inplace." Are you using the same type of material? MR. COSTELLO: No, I'm sorry, I don't know if we made that, but it is not inkind. The cross section will show you that it's C-Loc vinyl bulkhead and the existing bulkhead is creosoted and we'll dispose of that at a landfill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments, comments from the Board? (Negative response.) It is exempt from LWRP and CAC, approval with the condition that the entire lower area is non-turf and graded vinyl is used for the boardwalk. That's CAC's comments. Hearing no other comments-- MR. COSTELLO: If I can make a comment. The boardwalk being vinyl, I'm not so sure, I mean the boardwalk would be, if they do a boardwalk, it would be probably woods because they are going to plant in the non-turf buffer beach grass and if you put the vinyl down you'll be mowing the beach grass. Because it's on ground. It's on silt and it would serve no purpose to put the vinyl. It's not like we are trying to let sunlight in and the beach grass would come right through. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was just a CAC comment. Yes, sir? MR. MADSEN: (sic) Larry Madsen. There is no objection as far as the Board goes but I was just talking to her yesterday and she doesn't really want a boardwalk. (inaudible.) MR. COSTELLO: Could we ask, if you went to the site you will see approximately ten feet of the grass that is planted grass that is planted in the sand and the ten foot area that has poor grass in it be a non-turf buffer. Because it then heads uphill from that point on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's what we were thinking. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Gladys Milne to removed 106 feet of existing bulkhead and 96 foot long wooden 4] -------- Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 boardwalk and replace inplace. I would also add a five-foot buffer in addition to the boardwalk and if they decided not to do the boardwalk, we would see a ten-foot buffer. And I make that motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) So we'll just amend the description to say 96 feet long and just make it inplace and leave out inkind. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Number 19, Costello Marine on behalf of Norma Miller requests a Wetland Permit to remove 70 foot of existing bulkhead and stairway and replace inplace -- if I may change that also, John, taking out inkind. Located: 12901 Main Road, East Marion. I looked at this. It's already there. It's existing. They are just taking it out and putting it back. The shrubbery there is probably going to remain, I suspect. It's not grass it's just heavy bushes. It's manicured but it's not turfed or in need of a lot of fertilizer. Is there anybody who wishes to comment on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello and we are the agents for Ms. Norma Miller. Again, it's a creosoted bulkhead. It's probably 50-years of age and it is completely dry rotted at the bottom. Should she have a storm or anything at that location, this bulkhead will be scattered around the bay. And she wants it replaced. We are replacing it with vinyl C-Loc sheathing and she has everything right there. There is basically, there is I don't know if you call it a non-turf buffer but there is certainly no lawn, no vegetation of any consequences. There is beach chairs and miscellaneous places. There is a non-turf buffer behind it if you consider that. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Does the Board have any comments? (No response.) The CAC supports and recommends the existing buffer is maintained. The action is exempt from LWRP, so I make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I make a motion we approve the application of Norma Miller to remove 70 feet of existing bulkhead and stairway and replace inlike and inplace that bulkhead. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Costello Marine on behalf of Sandra Engelke requests a Wetland Permit to remove 173 plus or minus feet of existing bulkhead and construct new bulkhead with nine foot and 14-foot returns inkind/inplace. Remove two three-foot existing stairways from bulkhead to beach and replace inkind/inplace. Revegetate slope with Cape American beach grass. Remove existing west stairway to bulkhead and replace inkind/inplace. Remove existing east stairway to deck and construct new stairway and deck. Locate: 5704 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Before I speak I would just like to hear out if the LWRP coordinators have any - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Exempt. 42 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 MR. COSTELLO: The whole thing is exempt. Thank you. Every structure there, again, it's just the age and it's a replacement in place of the existing. Again, with vinyl. It's going to be C-Loc. The stairs are going to be reinforced and reconstructed exactly the way they are and there will be no changes whatsoever. All the treated material that's in there, there is some creosote, some CCA, will be disposed of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So make all of those inlikes. CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition there is minimal disturbance to the bank and effort is made to save as many trees as possible. Is there anyone else here who would like to make a comment? (No response.) I do have a couple of comments. I made this inspection and I am not inclined to have you replace the western staircase. There is already a stairs on the property. The other problem I think the Board had with the western staircase is that it's so close to the bordering property. My other concern it that when you say you are going to be revegetating the slope with Cape American beach grass, there is quite a slope there. Are you just revegetating behind the bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: No, when we excavate and put a new backing system in, you take the excavated material and you probably are going to take it right up to the edge of the slope where you store material so you could recover it and reuse it to backfill the bulkhead. You will be destroying almost 20-feet, whether you want to or not. So that whole area will be revegetated with Cape American beach grass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that now. Because that was my whole concern, to not disturb it. But because of the process it needs to be utilized and then replanted. MR. COSTELLO: One of the other things is any of the decking or any decking or any stairway or anything we are going to replace, we will be replacing with untreated wood. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looking for minimal revegetation but I understand construction-wise now that's going to be gone and you'll replace it. So those were my two concerns. Is there anyone on the Board who would like to make a comment? (No response.) No other comments from the -- there is a comment here. It said exempt, that's why I didn't look. Reconstruction of the bulkhead inkind -- it's just the exempt letter. Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the Wetlands Application to remove the existing bulkhead, construct new bulkhead with nine and 14-foot returns; removal and replacement of the eastern stairway, revegetation of the slope with Cape American beach grass and that the western stairway is to be removed and not replaced. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we close the hearings, I got a call from a gentleman who said he dropped off an application for an emergency permit today. 43 Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Turn your page. We are not done with the meeting yet. It's not on there but we are going to do it under that. Under Coastal Erosion. We'll handle it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure it was not forgotten. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion we go off of public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) And we go onto resolutions and discuss setting the scallop season for 2006- 07 season. VII. RESOLUTIONS-oTHER: SCALLOP SEASON: MS. STANDISH: I have the resolution here. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Just, while she's looking for it, remember what it was, it's the same as last year; we are closing Hallocks after two weeks of commercial but everybody else is one day off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I second that. TRUSTEE KING: So it's the first Monday in November. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It's November 6. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren, just give that to Florence and she can type it in. MS. STANDISH: I'll E-mail it to you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's done. MR. JOHNSTON: Jill, what's the new chapter number for shellfish? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't recall at this moment. I still have it written down as 77. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So do we need to vote - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was voted on and approved. MR. JOHNSTON: And we have to give them the new number. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And what are we on? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Emergency permits. EMERGENCY PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we start with Arnold Barton. Should we put Barton and Baxter together or do we have to do two separate permits? We'll do two separate because it's different. We have Briarcliff Landscaping on behalf of Arnold Barton, located on Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. I don't know the exact number. It requested an emergency permit to shore up the cliff that was damaged from the September 15 storm. And Barton is the one that just put in, shored it up with the sheathing and that's all they wanted to do so I make a motion we approve the emergency permit on that and they come in for an amendment to their existing permit to change that existing permit, whatever number that is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. 44 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Chris Mauceri on behalf of William Baxter on Nassau Point Road next to Arnold Barton in Cutchogue requests an emergency permit to shore up the property from the September 15 storm and I make a motion to give that emergency permit -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. And to disconnect the drain pipe going from the drywell in the driveway to the bank. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to put drywells in the driveway so the water is not going down the bank. And I make that motion. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next emergency permit is John and Andrea Parks at 3995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This one was the one from Cathy Mesiano on behalf of Parks requests an emergency permit to -- I'll make a motion to set the hay bales, the silt fence to shore up the top of the bluff and they can come in later for a full permit to do whatever they need to to cut that gully out that she was explaining that resulted from the September 15 storm. TRUSTEE KING: Hay bales only, no fill to be added at this time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. A series of staked hay bales right at the top of the bluff. So I make that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next one is Nassau Point Property Owners Association. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to recuse myself from this one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I reviewed this emergency permit request and I feel that what they want to do is they want to redo the drainage that failed from the September 15 storm and they want to bring fill back in and basically it's more of a maintenance. They are not adding any other structures and I'm wondering if the Board feels that it could be an administrative permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I just ask, if they just add fill, what prevents it from happening again. TRUSTEE KING: I take it this was looking landward? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Just a little bit of background, the, Town Highway Department put the drainage in and is maintaining the drainage. And they are not putting a pipe out. This drainage was done several years ago and this was working until this particular storm and the Highway superintendent feels that what work to restore it to be done will hold it. TRUSTEE KING: Is this Town property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is not. It is Nassau Point Property Owners Association property. I researched it today. And they are applying to do this. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And they just want to put dirt in? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: And Peggy's question, will it still -- I mean has it happened over years? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No it hasn't. This is the first time it's happened and the Highway Department is actually doing the work, for whatever reason, and that's something the Town Board has to -- 45 -- Board 0 f Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: I wonder how far off the road is this drywell, do we know? It's so blown apart, now is the time to do a proper drainage system in there rather than just dirt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Highway is redoing the drainage. That's what part of the thing is. Let me explain what the drainage is. The drainage on Nassau Point Road and there is drainage going down here. I feel the drainage the Highway Department is putting there is sufficient. It's worked before. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are saying when they repair this, it will encompass this whole problem? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What the application is for is to repair in place drainage basins due to storm on Friday, September 15. That's what the emergency permit is for. If you want to do it as an emergency permit, let's do it as an emergency permit and then they can come in for a full application. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is it an emergency? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say yes, and half the work is done already, because Highway did it. It's an emergency. Drainage failed because of this storm. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Is it Town drainage? TRUSTEE KING: This has been a problem area for many, many years. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Did the Town put drainage on private property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the Town put drainage on private property, with permission. Yes. So do you want to do this as an emergency permit and then have them come in for a full permit or is it just administrative? Fill does constitute administrative. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: How far is it from the water? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's within our jurisdiction. I have the facts, I just can't retrieve them at this moment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem with the drain being replaced. My only problem with it is just the fill going to take care. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So let's do it as an emergency permit, then they can come in for a full permit and we can answer those questions then. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But with the emergency permit they are going to fill it with soil. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. It's an emergency and Highway did it today. So I make a motion we approve this emergency permit for Nassau Point Property Owners Association to repair the drainage and replace the fill around the drainage. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And then they'll come in for a full permit to amend and do something more major. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Right. Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) And please note for the record Dave recused himself. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, number three. Teperman. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: He requests an amendment to proposed work to bring the existing shed into compliance. And here is the things that they are going to do. The two north facing existing windows shall remain; French doors shall be removed and its opening closed off to match existing shingle wall; the owners, and this is in addition -- the owners requested consideration for a window matching those existing be installed at that opening. 46 Board of Trustees September 20, 2006 TRUSTEE KING: We said no. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Fine. So we don't have to do that. The electrical panel shall be removed; all electrical service to these appliances should be removed; only electricity to the exterior stair lights, shed lights and two utility 60-watt interior lights shall be run from the main house panel. Electrical work shall comply with all codes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought we said on that only exterior lights. I didn't know that we approved any interior lights to it when we talked about this last month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I know they talked about two lights on the porch they wanted to maintain pointing to them. And I thought that's the only thing they wanted. I didn't think they asked for any interior lights. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All right, so we'll just stop it there. The outdoor shower shall remain. All plumbing fixtures and vents shall be removed; architect has attached drawings of the shed and its deck along with a survey of the property from 2004, previous to alterations, and the current survey. This submission is intended to ameliorate the shed structure compliance only. Deck size compliance for the entire property will be considered under a separate submission. TRUSTEE KING: Weren't one set of stairs going to be removed, too? On the west side of that I think is a set of stairs. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Remove stairs is on the diagram. It doesn't say which side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, so the last page, the survey, they didn't mark for it to be removed. TRUSTEE KING: Does that say all plumbing, John? Is that a generic statement? TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: It says all plumbing fixtures and vents shall be removed. The outdoor shower shall remain. TRUSTEE KING: That should include toilet. Plumbing fixtures includes toilet. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: So I'll make a motion we approve an amendment to proposed work to bring existing shed into compliance. And these are the conditions in order to fulfill that condition. One, the two north facing existing windows shall remain. The French doors shall be removed and its opening closed off to match the existing shingled wall. Two, the electric panel shall be removed from the interior of the shed. All electrical service to appliances and those appliances shall be removed. Electricity shall to the exterior stair lights and shed lights shall be run from the main house panel. Three, the outdoor shower shall remain. All plumbing fixtures, including toilet and vents shall be removed. Four, the west side stairs as on the diagram numbered one, will be removed. And that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: Motion to adjourn the meeting and we'll go back to the work session. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE HOLZAPFEL: All in favor? RECEIVtD ". ~ (ALL AYES.) /1.' <f r IlIl1 MAY 1 5 2007 ~ ~((~ iJ 47 ~"fl -,,";1' 'js~. . ~-~ oufo Ci'1 r --