Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/14/2007 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert Ghosio, Trustee Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 REC;:l\;',O v~ .3.3" pM. AUG 2 0 II .t.tiM ~vln'c~ NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 14,2007 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 21,2007, at 6:30 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 13, 2006, and January 4, 2007 of 'frUS1('CS 14, :::007 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, as much as it is. Tonight we would like to kind of move things along as quickly as we can. I don't want anybody to get shortchanged but I would like to move things along because of the weather conditions tonight. It's only going to get worse. The roads are already terrible. So if we can just move on and get going right away, we'll go through the postponements so there is nobody sitting here waiting for something to come up that we are not going to look at. On page three, number nine, MARY ZUPA requests an Amendment to Permit #6214, has been postponed. Under Public Hearings and Wetland Permits, number seven, has been postponed, the Application of PAOLO and JEAN BLOWER. Number 11, the Application of MARIA TRUPIA has been postponed. Number 15, the Application of RONALD and MARIA SMITH has been postponed. Number 16, the Application of FITF, LLC, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number 17, the Application of PATRICIA MELE, has been postponed. Number 18, the Application of ELIZABETH SIDDONS, has been postponed. Number 19, the Application of JAMES BAKER, has been postponed. Number 20, the Application of ARTHUR R. TORELL, has been postponed. So we will not be talking about them at all tonight. We'll set the date for the next field inspection; Wednesday, March 14, at 8:00 in the morning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting is Wednesday, March 21, at 6:30, with the work session starting at 5:30. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Did anybody go through the minutes of December and January? Because I have not looked at them yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve both. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: January's is the organizational meeting. I made some comments, and Jill said she made the changes, on Jim and I remaining as LWRP representatives. And as long as those changes have been made, I'll second the motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The monthly report. The Trustees monthly report for January 2007. A check for $9,129.66 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. 2 Board 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. RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 14, 2007, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: GABRIEL SCIBELLI- SCTM#90-2-15 FITF, LLC - SCTM#9-8-2 RICHARD & KAREN SEELIG - SCTM#63-7-37 PAUL KEBER - SCTM#72-2-2.3 REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SCTM# 80-3-21.1 DONALD J. PETRIE - SCTM#50-2-14 BOB MARSTON - SCTM#117 -5-30 CHARLES BOYAR - SCTM#71-1-42 PAUL & CHERYL RAGUSA - SCTM#50-1-6 EVE MACSWEENEY & LORI FEILEN - SCTM#50-2-13 JAMES BAKER - SCTM#1 0-5-9 BRUNO FRANKOLA - SCTM#71-1-19 GREGERSEN'S KEEP LLC, BECK-WITT, and QUINTIN - SCTM#35-3-12.10 GEOFFROY L. PENNY - SCTM#104-7-2 ALAN CARDI NALE - SCTM#118-1-9 BRIAN RETUS - SCTM#15-3-4 PATRICIA MELE - SCTM#115-12-16 TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS/ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: MARK MELNICK requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6488A to place new structural supports under the existing deck. Located: 405 Private Road #3, Southold. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: I did talk to the Board members about this. He had a permit for all of this from this Board already. 3 of 20117 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think you spoke to me about it. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Okay. He asked to repave the deck supports. That's it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When did we do that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You were there in November. UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: The additions are going on the landward side of the deck. The deck is not going to be touched or even improved. The supports are going to be -- this deck right there (indicating). TRUSTEE KING: This is the existing. You are just going to put new supports under it? UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Right. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That seems pretty simple and straight forward. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with strictly replacing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it's a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, these are applications for amendments. Understand that these are not subject to public hearings, but if someone has a brief comment they would like to make, we'll take brief comments. But these are not opportunities to make long comments on any of these applications. That was already done when they came before us for the full permit at some point in the past. I just want to make sure people understand for applications for amendments, extensions and transfers, we don't ordinarily open it up to public comments. Number one, JANICE & BILL CLAUDIO request an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6261 for the new roof configuration of deck and to construct a three-foot stone landscape wall. Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. We went out and looked at this in a field inspection and it looked pretty straight- forward. They had, just as it said, had changed the deck out in front of the house and reconfigured the roof line over it. And we all saw the stone wall that they, across the front -- when I say "the front," towards the water. It was to the east side of the house, and it looked fine. So I would like to make a motion to approve this amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number two, FRED FRAGOLA requests an Amendment to Permit #6452 increase the width of the boat slip from 25-feet to 3D-feet and increase the size of the floating dock from five feet to six feet wide. Located: 1145 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. 4 ofTruswcs l'L TOtO I looked at this with the DEC a week or so ago. This was the permit we approved. It was for a basin built into his property. It was part of a shoreline restoration project and he originally had a slip that was 25-feet long. He's making that 30 and he's putting in a 6x24 foot within this slip, so it's a very small, minor change and he's willing to change the bulkhead height so it's actually lower. So it is less than what we approved. That's no problem. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was that deemed inconsistent, Jim? Sorry. TRUSTEE KING: It was deemed consistent. The original one was consistent with LWRP, and this is less. Like I say, he's just modifying the size of the boat slip within the basin, so it has really no affect. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: GEOFFROY L. PENNY requests an Amendment to Permit #6069 to construct a 3.5x45 foot timber access walk a minimum of three feet above grade and install a 20 to 25 foot flagpole adjacent to the existing deck. Located: 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. We all looked at this on Monday. Is there anyone who would like to speak? MR. PENNY: I'm Geoff Penny and the reason I wanted to do this access walk is the wetlands had eroded and encroached on my neighbor's property so I can not get to this section of bulkhead without trespassing or walking through the wetlands. There is a good chance there will be a boat tied up this year to that section of bulkhead and there will either be a lot of trespassing or a lot of walking over the wetlands. It's my only access to my property and that part of the bulkhead at this point so I'm just asking for your approval so I can get to that part of my property and use it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There has been quite a bit of discussion as to the purpose which you just explained. Jim, does our code require one access? We would consider the eastern walkway -- was that walkway where the flagpole is? That's been there, that walkway and deck on the east side, has been there before? MR. PENNY: Yes. That plastic walkway, I resurfaced it this year. But you can go back in the process, to the original permit, if you want, and you'll see it's on there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that was one of the conversations that came up was -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me for a second. Since our stenographer is not here, could you step up to the microphone because we've got to tape record this and then transcribe minutes. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the discussion was there was access on one side and now you are asking for another access on the other side and our code limits you to one access. So that was one of the conversations that went on. And you are also aware we don't have an LWRP review, so. Does anyone else on the Board have any comments on this application? TRUSTEE KING: I think we questioned the need for it. That was our biggest question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question. There appeared to be a stake out close to the water that we assumed was a boundary marker for the property. I didn't see any boundary 5 marker up landward of the area where this was to start. So I was trying to eye it and it looked like you did have land where people could walk, in other words, without going on your next door neighbor's property. You are saying that there is not any? MR. PENNY: No, there is definitely not. There is like a little retaining wall by the guinea hen coop there and right at the end of that is the property marker. It's like right up against it, so it's not that noticeable. And if you eye that to the pipe that is out by the cedar tree, it definitely approaches probably 18 inches across the property line and it's all vegetated and I just assumed it was wetland vegetation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Again, the biggest comment for me, myself, would be the two accesses on the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that, but without this secondary access, then it creates a situation where that bulkheaded area, you couldn't keep a boat at. In other words nobody could even walk out there to fish off of it even, if they wanted to. So that's just what I saw here. TRUSTEE KING: If there room to tie a boat at that bulkhead and also have access with the boat? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a very legitimate question. MR. PENNY: Plenty of room. I had a 24-foot boat there for a while this summer. You can tie the boat up, not towards the entrance but more towards the other end of the bulkhead and then you still would be able to get a 27-foot boat in there. It's a lot of relative kind of points. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are planning on making this a timber access, right? MR. PENNY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Akin to what you've already got there? MR. PENNY: Yes. It would match what is there. It's 12x4 posts, 2x8s and decking that matches the decking on the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there room on this side of the bulkhead? If you want to come up, we'll show you. MR. PENNY: No, there's not. Definitely not. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a boat on each side of the floating dock? MR. PENNY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So this would be a third? MR. PENNY: Third or fourth. It's, you know, once you have docking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What if we have him do it with that new fiberglass grading? Are you familiar with the fiberglass grading? TRUSTEE KING: Unless he just walks right out through it and steps up to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's too sharp. You would be literally walking into the water to do that and it's a very sharp drop off. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When you say three feet above grade, what do you mean? Because that slopes down pretty much. MR. PENNY: It's going to be level with the bulkhead most of the way. It's just toward the landward side it goes up maybe half a foot or a foot and then back to grade. It shouldn't be that obtrusive to the neighbors. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Geoff, are you familiar with the graded walkways? The light goes through it and it's open. That would be the perfect spot for that. It's a little more 6 Board oCfrllstocs 14. expensive and stuff but it' something that won't kill what is underneath. So it's something to consider. MR. PENNY: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you call the office, Lauren can give you -- do you have the information on it, Lauren? SECRETARY STANDISH: There is a sample in the office. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a sample in the office, you can just take a look at it. Should we table this or- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we have -- this is not a public hearing, so we just table it, Lauren? It's an amendment, not a public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: We can just move on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just move on and leave it the way it is. MR. CORCORAN: But, do we still need to resolve the issue of one access or are we comfortable with that issue? The code says one dock or mooring. It doesn't necessarily say one access. That may be your policy, but I'm not sure if this is a dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, according to our definition, it says any permanent or seafill structure except a building located or proposed to be located on land abutting or comprised of fresh water or tidal wetlands or connected to a bulkhead or upland and extending over the water surface designed to secure a vessel and provide access from the shore to the body of water. That's under definition of dock. And it goes on. And it says catwalks in here. MR. PENNY: Yes, but then if you look at the definition of catwalk, catwalk is intended to go to a dock. So it's a little circular. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is going to a bulkhead going to a dock. MR. PENNY: It's going to a bulkhead and it's not, the walkway itself is not intended for boats to be tied to it. So it's a little different than a dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But I think the purpose is the same that if there is one dock, it's shading marsh and now if there is another structure, it's doing the same thing twice. And my thought is that was the original intent was to reduce that shading of those wetlands. So the consideration was to only allow one. MR. PENNY: Or the graded surface, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It still shades. It's better, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we can't do anything on it until we get LWRP, so that will give Geoff time to look into the grading to see if he is willing to use that and we'll come back next month and -- TRUSTEE KING: Have you applied to DEC for this yet? MR. PENNY: Yes, I sent a letter in and also an amendment. They got back to me and said it has to go through the regular permit process, so. It will be a little time. It took them four weeks to get back to me. TRUSTEE KING: So they'll still be inspecting that also? MR. PENNY: Yes. They'll be a little behind you guys. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application with the condition of the open grading. So we are waiting on the LWRP. MR. PENNY: Thank you for your time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thanks for coming out tonight. 7 'frUS1(:es F 14. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of WALTER GITLIN requests an Amendment to Permit #6224 to construct a new entry on the north side of the house with dormers above on the existing structure, removal of the terrace on the south side of the house and increase the size of the existing deck on the south side of the house. Located: 1180 Smith Drive South, Southold. We went over this last month, right? We went to the north side, the road side. So the deck is being increased closer to the wetlands? It says increase the size of existing deck on the south side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, increase the decking on the south side of the house. The shaded area they are adding. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original had this as part of the second story but they changed it, so the only thing he actually added was the stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm thinking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's the extension. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the only addition over what has been previously approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now that we are clear on that, I'll make a motion to approve the application of Samuels # Steelman Architects on behalf of WALTER GITLIN for the Amendment to Permit #6224 as applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS requests an Amendment to Permit #6302 to include 152 square feet of clean fill for the installation of the sanitary system, install two drywells to be connected to sump pumps located within the proposed dwelling and the installation of a 160-foot French drain located approximately 140 feet from the wetland boundary, along the northern property line. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. We reviewed this last month and voted on it. They had some confusion. And what Dave said in the beginning of the meeting, these are amendments, they are not public hearings. But we do take public comments, and this gentleman who was here felt he did not have the opportunity to speak about this so we've reopened this hearing. Now is your chance. MR. LANE: Thank you. Good evening. Is it the purview of this Board to look at the French drain issue? TRUSTEE KING: It's completely out of our jurisdiction. MR. LANE: It's not within 100 feet of the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you please state your name? MR. LANE: Yes. Dennis Lane, Cutchogue. Or is anyone familiar with a French drain, how it works? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we are familiar. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. LANE: Well, it's going to dump the water from one spot to another spot on our property. It doesn't get rid of the problem of the water, it just distributes it to another piece. And I don't think you have a copy of this. I would like to approach to show you these. 8 01' I'ruSkCS This is the one you have under Suffolk Environmental. This is one that is dated the same year of the geologic survey. It shows the flood zone right through where the French drain is going to be. They are both pulled from the same information. Again, it's not shown on this new one. (Indicating.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Everyone is going to have to remember to speak up because unfortunately we don't have our stenographer here. MR. LANE: Last time I came here I spoke too loud. The French drain is on this one. It shows it clearly. It's right on our boundary line. This way. Right here. It's 160 foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's right here. MR. LANE: So I guess it doesn't make sense. You know, is one part of our property more important than the other? TRUSTEE KING: That's completely out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's 182 feet. Our jurisdiction is 100. TRUSTEE KING: The septic is also outside of our jurisdiction. MR. LANE: And something that was said earlier, it's 152 cubic yards, not 152 cubic feet. Fill is cubic yards. TRUSTEE KING: It should be cubic feet instead of square feet. And like I said, it's outside of our jurisdiction. I don't think we can -- can we have anything to say about a French drain that is out of our jurisdiction? MR. LANE: Why is it here before you? TRUSTEE KING: It was a request from the Zoning Board, for the French drain. We approved -- this was an application to build a home, which we approved quite a while ago, and then it had to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance, I believe, I believe it was for the garage because it was attached to the home and I guess then questions were brought up -- MR. LANE: I think there is a front-yard setback issue which is before the Zoning Board as well. TRUSTEE KING: And they asked them, evidently, if this came from the Zoning Board, to put a French drain in. It was nothing that we had anything to do with. MR. ANDERSON: If I may. Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant. You are absolutely correct. The house, 150 cubic feet of fill, septic system, is all approved. Done. We made an application to the Zoning Board in that just as that permit process started, Heather, from your staff, came to the Zoning Board and said, look, we've noticed a difference between your survey, the one you approved, and the one the Health Department approved. The one before you now. And the difference is two cubic feet of fill on top of the septic tank. Which fill was necessary to have a proper cover over the septic tank as per the Health Department. With that, the Zoning Board asked us to come back to this Board to amend the permit even though what we are asking for here is, the two feet of fill is not really the subject of this application. So we've made that application and that's why we are here. And that fill is outside the 100 feet. And when Heather approaches, well, the Trustees told us, the Trustees are concerned about runoff and would like to see a French drain to control it. That's what we were told. So we added that to the map and we submitted it back to you. Other than that, I don't even think we belong here. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. 9 I30ard ()C'f'rustccs F ~bruar.v 14. 20{)7 MR. ANDERSON: But I'm happy to comply with whatever request you have. But I would oppose providing more drainage. So we were stopped in the middle of our zoning presentation as a result of this. TRUSTEE KING: Both issues are completely out of our jurisdiction. I don't see how we could have any control over any of it. MR. CORCORAN: So the question remains, again. Do you need approval of this new map or survey from this Board or does the prior approval get you to where you need to go? MR. ANDERSON: What I tried to do -- a French drain, first of all, is simply a trench backfilled with coarse stone providing some drainage for passing. And what I did is I wrapped it around what would be the northern property and extended it down the eastern property. The eastern terminus of the French drain is at 88 feet from the wetland boundary. So theoretically you could regulate 12 of French drain. It was done to resolve a question your staff raised and also as an accommodation to a neighbor who is worried about runoff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you think the French drain would be better in a different spot? Is that what your complaint is; location? MR. LANE: I think the concept of a French drain is very good in a vineyard. But in this instance, this application, all it does, it takes it from one place to another place. Where is the water going to go? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the purpose of a French drain is it has layers and a lot of the water goes in. It doesn't all run off. You can't contain all of it, but it does contain a lot of it and if it's properly maintained, it works well. MR. LANE: I'm not going to argue the point but the research I've done on the French drain is that it has holes in the top with a filter over it and what it does is it does not allow the water to go down through it. That would defeat the purpose of it. It takes it into the bottom half of the pipe and brings it to another point -- MR. ANDERSON: No, there is no pipe here. We provide you with a cut sheet on the left side. It is simply a trench 18-inches deep, 18-inches wide, with coarse gravel stone. It's shown on the survey. There is no pipe. It's just supposed to provide some extra drainage capacity as an accommodation to the neighbor. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a pipe. It's a natural -- there is one on Locust Avenue, on the farm field, and the water used to run from that farm field on to New Suffolk Avenue, down to Deep Hole Creek and you couldn't, on a rain like today or whatever, you couldn't pass there. The farmer, at the request of the town, put a French drain there. And I would say, probably on a heavy rain, 75% of that water does not go into the road. And what happens is all the water runs in there and with a farm field you'll get all the silt there so what you have to, every once in a while, scrape off the top layer. And there is different layers of gravel. And you put it where the water runs naturally and it drains into that. That's how it works. MR. LANE: I just think in this application it's not going to be very effective. They are raising the elevation of their property. So, correct me if I'm wrong, is it 152 cubic feet or cubic yards? MR. ANDERSON: That's what it says, cubic feet. MR. LANE: Because we have something that says 152 to the third power. MR. ANDERSON: Look, the point is, if you want, I can pull it back 11 feet so it's 100 feet and give you a letter of non-jurisdiction. That would reduce the capacity, which I'm happy 10 I 'k"OCC to do. Or you can give me a permit amendment, but these nice people have been deprived of the process with the Zoning Board because of a runoff concern that your staff raised to us. So we are just trying to help you out one way or the other. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You said you could move it back -- MR. ANDERSON: I could move it back 12 feet. I'll show you. TRUSTEE KING: It will still be out of our jurisdiction though, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This end here is 88 feet from this end. So if I pull it back 12 feet or whatever, then I don't need a permit. But it was put in as an accommodation. So to accommodate. That's fine. It's just a little less capacity. I could live with that. TRUSTEE KING: I thought the French drain ended here. I didn't realize it goes in this direction. MR. ANDERSON: So either I get a permit amendment or I cut it back and get a letter of non-jurisdiction for the changes. It doesn't matter to me. Their needs I think would be served by the amendment. MS. LANE: My name is Joanna Lane, I own the property next door. I understand you don't want long comments at this point and that it should have been brought up earlier, but the whole point is the scope of the project changed from the date that the original hearing and with all due respect I don't think it's the amount of 152 cubic or square feet of yards of fill. The main concern, as I understood it, was the increase in elevation from the original plan. It was approved at nine-foot and the one that went before the ZBA was 11 foot. And given the water runoff problem, the higher up it is against our property lower down, the greater the problem would be with the runoff. So then the French drain came up, fine, I'm not an expert, don't profess to be an expert on French drains. All I'm looking for from the Trustees is a guarantee that whatever is being put in place is going to keep the water runoff from flooding my property, not just that it's to appease our complaints but that it's actually going to function. So can you do that? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we can guarantee anything. It's in the new drainage code that's passed now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We can't guarantee that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a new drainage code that will -- I don't want to say guarantee -- that will state that any new home must maintain their runoff on their property. And that is a new law. MR. CORCORAN: There will be a public hearing on it in two weeks. MR. ANDERSON: If I may, just to finish this off, this is our engineer's drainage calculation, and you'll see it lists the drywells, it lists the French drain, it would comply with the law you are about to, if the Town adopts it. The French drain reduces the drainage capacity because that French drain, by this engineer's calculation, amounts to 363 cubic feet of water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we are trying to say is that the Town is aware this has been a problem in the past and these types of neighborhood issues have come up before and the Town has worked on a new drainage code and it's in the process and the purpose is to prevent this from happening. MS. LANE: I appreciate that. But as a practical matter, are you satisfied that whatever the drainage plans are of this applicant, it's not going to flood my property? That's the question I need answered. 11 Board ofTrustoos 1.1. MR. LANE: If I can just make a simple statement. The house is on slabs. It's not on a crawl space. It's on a slab. We don't have far to go before it floods. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are satisfied that this will help the situation. MS. LANE: Help the situation that they are creating. In Southold, for example, if they didn't have a basement and they just had it on slabs, it would be all the footprint of the house to which the water could dissipate. With a basement, that square footage is removed. So they are exacerbating the problem themselves by doing certain things. MR. ANDERSON: That is incorrect because the house elevation would be where it would be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you asking what recourse there is for the neighbors? MS. LANE: Yes, what is my recourse? MR. CORCORAN: Well, you would have to hire your own private attorney to take action. But the basic question is are you as a Board satisfied with the drainage calculations provided by the applicant. Normally, I think you do look, if it's within the wetland, someone to retain their storm water. And these plans show it's going to do that. TRUSTEE KING: The plans are signed off by a licensed engineer, which is all the credentials I have saying this is going to take care of the drainage. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And in reality, only 12 feet of this French drain is even in our jurisdiction. MR. CORCORAN: Right. But the home is, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. CORCORAN: I think normally you ask of applicants, correct me if I'm wrong, if they are building within a wetland, they should take measures to contain the storm water engendered by that development. TRUSTEE KING: Right. They've got three 8-foot diameter by six-foot deep leaching pools. MR. CORCORAN: So whether those are in the jurisdiction or not, I think you want to be satisfied that the storm water is taken care of. MS. LANE: Bearing in mind it's clay there. TRUSTEE KING: Again, we have a certain amount of information saying that this is sufficient. MR. CORCORAN: If that is what is normally require and satisfies that burden, that's what you do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The engineers and the Health Department say it's okay. That's really the only thing we have to go on. MR. LANE: Well, the two surveys, you see a discrepancy there between what has been presented from the same institution. So how can you come to that conclusion? Look at both surveys. They don't show it on theirs. The French drain runs right here. It sits on a flood zone. It's from the same geologic survey. Same date. Theirs doesn't show it. MS. LANE: The engineers signed off on a different survey. MR. ANDERSON: May I say something? The flood zone has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Nothing. MS. LANE: I would just like to make sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any further comments? MS. LANE: I would just like to ask that the previous statements I made to the ZBA and the comments that we tried to attempt to give you last time but unfortunately didn't happen, 12 14,2007 are part of the public record together with the photographs that I submitted to Peggy Dickerson, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They are in the file. MS. LANE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: So what's the Board's pleasure? We approved this last month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We don't have to do anything then, right? I mean we could reopen it and re-vote on it. MR. ANDERSON: I would ask you to reapprove it. TRUSTEE CORCORAN: If you are inclined to continue to approve it, I would do it again. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would disagree with that. Otherwise we'll be reopening amendments all the time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We already offered that on this case. TRUSTEE KING: This was a case there was a mix up on what time he was told to be here and we had the amendments first in the meeting. He got here after we had done everything. He felt he didn't have his opportunity to speak. Tonight he had his opportunity to put on the record his concerns. Everything I see, that we approved, I would stand by our original approval. I'll make a motion to approve it as it stands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have to close the hearing again? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is an amendment. This is not a hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Sounds like it's a hearing, but it's not. I see no information that changes my mind on this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a motion and a second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc., on behalf of ROBERT SWING requests an Amendment to Permit #6188 to construct an addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling, containing 627 square feet removal of the existing septic system and replace with an updated sanitary system within the front yard, installation of a French drain along the southern side yard property boundary and establishment of a five-foot wide non-disturbance buffer along the landward side of the existing wood bulkhead. Located: 4295 Bayshore Road, Southold. I don't think there was any problem with this, as I recall. Are there any comments on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do our notes say in the file? TRUSTEE KING: There were some DEC requirements. MR. ANDERSON: Can I assist with anything? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you want to say something, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Only that our first application that was approved was to put a second floor addition over the existing footprint. That was objected to by DEC causing us to move the addition on the street side of the house. That is now reflective of the changes you currently see. So you are still getting the upgraded septic system, you are still getting it maximum distance from the water, you are still getting various buffers. The living space had to be rearranged in order to comply with DEC demands. 13 (\ f "I'rust00s ::'007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Lauren, now that Bruce explained it, you did talk to me about it in the office. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't look to be a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's coming back for this amendment because of the DEC. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, questions? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll entertain a motion to approve the amendment as requested. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BRUNO FRANKOLA requests an Amendment to Permit #5999 for the placement of 40 cubic yards of fill around the northern portion of the proposed dwelling, construction of four retaining walls to contain said fill, construction of three sets of stairs and reconfiguration of the proposed gravel driveway. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. We went out and looked at this. This is an amendment. The house was already approved to be built and what they were asking for is landward of the house, put in retaining walls and bring in 40 cubic yards of fill and do a set of steps down there. Then in the back of the house do two sets of steps down to the ground. I have the survey from what was approved originally and comparing the survey to what was approved originally to the new proposed survey is exactly what is being asked for. The LWRP found it inconsistent for reasons that the property is located in a flood zone and so recommending a structure should not be located in a flood zone. And the second reason is because it's within 100 feet within our jurisdictional boundary, that the proposed corner is 51 feet and steps is 46 feet. In other words, it's reducing by five feet, these rear steps, the amount of space between our jurisdictional boundaries. The CAC voted not to support the application because the proposed dwelling is too close to the wetland. The property appears to be affected by salt water as evidenced by endangered and affected plant life such as pink lady, slipper orchard and trailing arbutus. The question for the CAC, you are saying the proposed dwelling. So when they were making their determination not to support this, were they not supporting the entire house, which has already been approved or were they not supporting these two steps going down from the back of the house down into the area? MR. MCGREEVY: Both. We did not support it previously. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. We have four letters from neighbors, all of them opposing this amendment. MR. BURGEON: Here is another letter-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll take it but it was to be submitted prior to Monday. All written letters have to be submitted at least the Monday prior to the meeting. Just so people know, it's not just for this case, that's standard operating procedure for us. So now this is number five letter that has just come in and since the Trustees have not seen this, just briefly: Dear Trustees, I strongly object to the construction of the house so close to the wetland border. There is prone to flooding and they need to bring in a substantial amount to fill indicates it is not an appropriate location for a home. You must recognize the need to 14 respect our environment and not jeopardize the beauty and the water and the wetland that surround us. Would you agree stipulate we'll put this entire letter in the record, that it's in the record so we don't have to read the whole letter. It's obviously a letter just like the other four, not supporting this application. If you would like to introduce yourself. Again, this is not a public hearing so, again, very brief. MR. BURGEON: Today made my job very easy. My name is Mark Burgeon, I live here in the Hamlet of Southold. This afternoon one of my neighbors called me at work and said, do you see this lot? And I said, no. It's flooded. So I came with a Polaroid camera and, if I may, I would be glad to show you this picture. I made copies for the official record. The lot is under water today. If you were to visit the lot today, you would have noticed it's under water. And just, again, very briefly, there are about 16 neighbors in that area that are opposed to this. Several neighbors that have been there since 1986, the longest, have seen that lot flood. It is designated tidal wetlands. And those pictures show, that's not just water from the rain. That's water that's come up through the bay. If you saw the beaches today, you saw the tides were up quite high and that's why they designate that tidal wetland. I guess our major concern with this variance or request today is that back in 2004 when the original application went in, several of us were in this room and said the application stated there would be no fill added to the site and now this is what their request is, to start filling the site and putting retaining walls and that's kind of a bait and switch kind of a situation. And the second issue is that originally back in 2004 for the original application it was stated there would be no deck allowed on the side toward the wetlands, and putting those two sets of stairs on the side toward the wetlands sort of indicates to us, although we have not seen the plans to the house, sort of indicates that there will be a deck placed on that side. And we've listed many other reasons why we are concerned about this. It's not just because it's a local -- it's not close to several of these people's houses that have complained. They are just seriously concerned about that septic tank, when a hurricane comes by or major storm comes by, that the septic tank is going to flood right into the Peconic Bay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental, Bruce Anderson. Okay, let me go in reverse order. Our survey before you will show where everyone else's septic systems are and you'll note ours is on higher ground and further from the wetlands. So if there is a big concern there and now that we have public water in the plan, I would encourage the neighbors to upgrade their own septic systems and get them farther away from the water. Point two, the changes before you are not changes we wanted to make. This is a very small house. This house has a footprint of 28x40 feet. It's tiny. And there was a desire to get, what was shown in there was a driveway that would enter, and the hope was to be able to park a car in the garage which is grade level to the house. When he did that, more than 50% of the concrete foundation would be exposed and we are here with this amendment because the Building Department has ruled that absent those two walls with the minor fill in, the 40 cubic yards, that this would be viewed as a three-story dwelling. 15 on nl'I,~~S r'cbruary 14, ,'()07 So the slab elevation with the garage would be story number one and the two stories above it would each be a story, therefore three stories, therefore you would need a zoning variance. We've dealt with these situations before and what you do is your try to build your house into the grade so that at that point on it becomes a two-story house. If you look at where the retaining walls and the fill are all on the landward side of the house, and the reason for that is because it accomplishes what we need to do to ensure building compliance, I also would suggest it's probably better for the neighborhood because instead of seeing a raised concrete foundation, you'll have a grade that slopes up to the house which will soften its appearance from the road, if that is at all a concern. So these changes were brought about as a result of our building permit being rejected. Now, finally, as a matter of the LWRP, to say that it is inconsistent because it is built in a flood zone is mindboggling. Because we do many houses are built in a flood zone. What is required in this case is that the foundation contain hydrostatic openings, which are now built into the project design of the house. So this is a flood-compliant structure, as designed. And as far as the steps, the encroachment we are talking about here is five feet. If that's important, perhaps the steps can be turned the other way. But I think having some sort of rear exit is not an unreasonable request. And finally, as to the nature of the wetlands themselves, we are talking about a single stand of phragmites. That's truly what it is, with lots of poison ivy, and the southern part of the wetland is actually an improved lawn which is improved by the property owner who actually mows across the property line onto our property. So if you look at your survey you'll see the wetland boundary which comes in as a finger and on the south side of that finger is lawn and that lawn is actually maintained by the now formally JP and DC Eaglin. So those are the essential facts. The house itself was already approved. And the essential facts is why we brought this amendment is really to just bring this thing into a condition where it can be approved by the Building Department. And I think the fill and sloping and all that will probably soften the visual affect of the house in any event. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, I have a question. Would a French drain be any help? I know water comes up from the east but I'm just saying, there is concern with the septic and runoff from the north going down. Is there enough runoff to warrant something like a French drain? MR. ANDERSON: It's designed right now with drywells and we placed one of the drywells in the middle of the driveway, and if this Board said please add another drywell or even two drywells, I can tell you right now we would have no objection to that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm thinking of the property runoff as well as the house runoff. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the property pitches to the wetland. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. So I'm just thinking upland of the property maybe a French drain would filter that a little more so it wouldn't go into the wetlands. I don't know if that -- MR. ANDERSON: It could certainly be installed along the edge of the clearing, which is also shown, and I would have no problem with that as well. But we are here because we have sort of a practical problem with the Building Department. 16 Iluard "f'Tru'lCcs 1.1. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just thinking with the fill around there it's going to raise that and then make it a different elevation and the water is going to run off. You know, since it's pitching towards the wetlands anyway, and maybe the French drain would filter it a little more and it wouldn't go directly into the wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: Well, then probably the better way to do it would be to install one along what would be the western edge of the driveway. That would make sense. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, that first floor elevation is at 13? MR. ANDERSON: The finished floor is at 13 and I can show you how the plans are laid out, if you want to see it. TRUSTEE KING: No, just for my own thoughts. MR. ANDERSON: That's the finished first floor. TRUSTEE KING: And the elevation around there looks like it's seven feet, 6.7 feet? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. And that would be the garage slab. TRUSTEE KING: And I'm looking at what you have, the proposed retaining walls, you are going from 12 feet to ten feet, in about a five-foot span? MR. ANDERSON: That's right. We've tried to compress it against the house. TRUSTEE KING: It gets down to a pretty steep angle. MR. ANDERSON: But it limits the amount of fill. We could feather it out to make it more gradual. TRUSTEE KING: Just from my perspective on this, I would like to see everything staked out, corners to corners, these retaining walls staked out. And also the height of that fill to give us a visual on going to the site and looking to see exactly where everything is going to be. Because I can't tell from this survey. It was roughly staked out in the field when we went there. It was kind of hard to actually picture where this stuff is going to be. MR. ANDERSON: Sure it is. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I would like to recommend from my viewpoint is have this staked out and the elevation marked to the height of the retaining walls. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My thought, too, was it's inconsistent with LWRP, which we didn't have in 2004, so I would like to take another look at it. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to look at what is going to be there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem with that. A suggestion, Bruce, to help mitigate the LWRP inconsistency, is exactly what you alluded to, where you have two sets of steps coming off the back of the property right now, if you could amend that to possibly one set of steps, and it's over far enough so that it's still 51 feet as to what was originally approved. That would mitigate the LWRP inconsistency. MR. ANDERSON: Right. MR. BURGEON: Just one final comment. The neighborhood has discussed approaching the owners of this property and purchasing it in partnership with the Peconic Land Trust so that we could preserve it for the Town of Southold and we will be asking the owner if he is willing to sell the property and some of the neighbors are willing to contribute, if we could get a reasonable price. So, thank you for your time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So I would make a motion to table this until we can go out and see it staked in the field and give the applicant an opportunity to consider the movement of those two stairs down to one stair so it's 51 feet away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 17 Buard c) f 14,2007 TRUSTEE KING: I think there is a copy of the minutes in the file that day, but I got a copy of the minutes also and I specifically asked the question was any fill going to be brought in and the answer was no, MR ANDERSON: That's correct TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a copy of the minutes in here, MR ANDERSON: It wasn't my intention to come back twice, believe me, TRUSTEE KING: I understand that MR ANDERSON: I want to be clear about that We were going to stake this, TRUSTEE KING: There is going to be no basement, it's just a crawl space under this house? MR ANDERSON: No, no, there is a poured slab, He's going to have a driveway and a garage on what is effectively the lowest level, which is on a slab, then he's going to have two floors above it TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So that basement is going to be the garage, MR ANDERSON: Exactly, TRUSTEE KING: And you don't call it a basement Because that was also in the minutes, This is simply a house that will not have a basement because the regulations don't permit it MR ANDERSON: It is not a basement, per se. The point is we are not excavating down. Do you see what I'm saying? When I think of a basement, I'm thinking we stake it out, we dig a cavity, put the forms in, you pour the foundation and you have a basement That's not what we have here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But the garage is going down. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct We are taking advantage of the pitch of the property. Because we have such limited space in this house. It's a 28x40 foot house. It's a tiny, little house. It's a very small house. But anyway, I was going to stake this -- TRUSTEE KING: But you have a crawl space under the rest of the house, though. MR ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He said it's a slab. The property pitch is a slab and the only thing underneath the house is the garage. TRUSTEE KING: I go back to the meetings that we approved all this and the statement was made they would have a crawl space. Quote unquote. MR ANDERSON: Do you understand what we are proposing? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we understand clearly. And I also understand we had the hearing and this is what was approved. MR ANDERSON: You have to make a decision. And you want a benchmark elevation of the fill here, Jim? I was going to say here, here, here and here, Do you want an elevation as to the fill level here? TRUSTEE KI NG: The fill level at the corners of the retaining wall. The outside edge of the retaining wall. MR ANDERSON: Okay. So you want a benchmark here and then one here. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Just to get an idea. MR ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a motion to table that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I'm sorry. I made a motion to table it It was seconded. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 18 ,,1"1 rU'Ic'cS ] 14j 20(j! (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Proper-T Permit Services, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD PRIETO, JR., requests an Amendment to Permit #6294. The Board approved this application which is in this description and the way it reads is what we approved except what the amendment actually is, is he's just, the 113 foot of wood-sheathed bulkhead is going to be placed behind the existing bulkhead. What we approved was in-place. So the amendment is to be behind. And that's the only difference. So what I'll read next is what would be if we approve it. It would be to remove 113 feet of existing wood-sheathed bulkhead and 35 feet of concrete/stone/wood return/retaining wall and construct a new vinyl bulkhead of the same dimensions immediately landward of the existing bulkhead. That's the part that is being amended. The old bulkhead will remain in place until the new bulkhead is completed. Rebuild existing fixed walkway making it two feet long on the seaward end and replace existing ramp with a ramp two feet shorter. The location of the existing 6x20 foot float will be unchanged; the location of the two existing two-spile dolphins will be unchanged; the overall length of the dock will be unchanged. Rebuild existing 4x4 foot cantilevered platform in the same location. Located: 2650 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. Does everybody understand that? Because Mr. Fitzgerald, the way he did the amendment is he just redid the whole thing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the actual amendment is just the first sentence? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So it was approved for everything. And we approved to do the bulkhead in-place. Now he's coming back to say we'll do the bulkhead behind. And that's what we would like to see. TRUSTEE KING: It's actually more restrictive. Was this a request from DEC or something? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe so. I believe that's why he's coming back to us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this property originally and I remember it and I think this is fine, what they are proposing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, PETER TAGlOS and ALETRA MaNFREDO- TAGIOS request the last one-year extension to Permit #5858 as issued on February 25, 2004. Located: 545 Williamsburg Drive, Southold. It needs drywells, check the depth with the Building Department. No building permit for the deck. Pink berries near wetlands, not in lawn area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We went out and looked at this and we had noticed they still needed the drywells. The gutters and downspouts were there but they had not installed the drywells yet. There was a deck on the landward side actually -- on the northern side there was a deck that was not on the original plans that has been put in there and there is also a gas tank that is buried within our jurisdiction. It was not on the original set of plans. So it was put in without our permission. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So what's the feeling of the Board as far as expanding the extension without the deck? 19 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did we find out if the deck -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No building permit for the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe, Kieran, that's a question for you. What are our options here as far as, if we provide the extension, does that mean the applicant has to come back for a full permit to address what's there that was not on the original permit? What is the best way that we should handle this? They are coming in just for an extension on the permit that we gave them. MR. CORCORAN: An extension of time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Of time. We went out to inspect this and we found that there was additional items that were not on the original permit, and it was a contentious -- TRUSTEE KING: This was a project that we denied due to the sensitivity of the area. It was overturned by the courts. MR. CORCORAN: Is it on Long Island Sound? TRUSTEE KING: No, this was on the creek. And we issued the Building Permit for it. And now they've come in for an extension and we go out there and there are no drywells and gutters yet, which was part of the original permit. There was a deck added to the house that was not on there to begin with and there was also a large propane tank buried in our jurisdiction, about 15 feet away, basically in a non-disturbance area is where they buried the gas tank. MR. CORCORAN: Were you ordered by the court to grant the first permit? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. CORCORAN: You could extend the first permit and then seek violations on the stuff that was done without a permit. I think you probably have to extend the first permit. That permit is valid. But now, from what I understand, they've done things without the benefit of a permit. So they either need to get permits for those or face violations; pursue the violations. Separately. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve the one-year extension to permit #5858 at 545 Williamsburg Drive, Southold. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we'll refer the possible violations to the appropriate agencies within the town to address. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And Lauren, can you handle that for us? SECRETARY STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, SHANNON GOLDMAN and DEBORAH MCKEAND request a one-year extension to Permit #6079, as issued on February 16, 2005. Located: 8605 Soundview Avenue, Southold. We did this inhouse. It was a simple extension. There were no changes at all. So I would make a motion to approve this one-year extension. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER, LLC, requests 20 01 a one-year extension to Wetland Permit #6083 and a one-year extension to Wetland Permit #6126, as issued on February 16, 2005. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. I think this is nothing more than a simple extension. MR. CORCORAN: At the end of the day, you're right, but I guess you issued, the applicant came in and asked for something. You granted them something slightly less than that. You granted the permit, they filed a lawsuit. The court directed you to issue the permit as they have originally requested and now you've appealed that determination, So now it's all playing out in the courts. My advice to you would be to stand by your original decision and extend that original decision. I think it would be unfair to yank it back. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So make a motion to approve and grant the extension to these two Wetland Permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular meeting and go into our public hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number One, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo on behalf of EVE MACSWEENEY and LORI FEILEN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace and install new hardwood floor boards, stair treads and railings to first and second floor decks. Located: 1250 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Is there anybody who would like to speak to this? MS. DALY: Yes, good evening. Happy Valentine's Day, everybody. Catherine Daly, from Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley. I had spoken to Heather earlier in the afternoon and she said that the Board had some questions and I would like to offer up a certificate of occupancy that was issued on January 31,2007, by the Building Department with respect to some plumbing and electrical work that was done on the property and the reason I bring this up is that the Building Inspector was at the property on January 18 for a final inspection and he noted that no shutters are required at the property and there was a full inspection of the property and there were no violations issued and he felt everything was in order. And I also would like to offer up the property record card showing the original house with the existing deck to show you all that the owners did was to replace planking and put in rails and stairs. TRUSTEE KING: You said the Building Inspector was there in January. This past January? MS. DALY: Just January of this year. And if the Board has any additional questions. 21 14.7007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He actually stated that the decks were replaced, that they were there, but they were replaced. MS. DALY: That's correct TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The stairs were added. MS. DALY: Yes, there were three stairs added coming down and then there were five windows -- eight windows that were replaced. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll say it does look a whole lot better than it did then. Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: One point I was confused on, I saw in the legal notices this week, the transfer, that the property was sold several months ago and there are new owners. I'm just curious. MS. DALY: No, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, it must have been a different piece of property owned by the same individuals. MS. DALY: Yes, in Peconic. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Then I apologize. That's why I was confused when I saw that MS. DALY: On Sound Avenue, not Soundview. Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. DALY: We also have a pending application for beach stairs and we had tabled that because we needed to clear up the revegetation issue. So I don't know, how is the Board going to handle that; on for the next hearing, or -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That location has not come before us yet, has it? TRUSTEE KING: They originally applied for everything and it kind of got side bended because of the violations and other questions that were asked. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can put it on for next month. TRUSTEE KING: That's going to be a very difficult stairway to build, if I remember right, just by looking at the lay of the land. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it's awfully steep. MS. DALY: It was that same application. TRUSTEE KING: I would almost like to see a couple of stakes here and there where that is going to go down that bluff just to give us an idea exactly where it's going to go. MS. DALY: Sure. Absolutely. We could do that TRUSTEE KING: And we'll look at it next month. MS. DALY: Sure. That's fine. Thank you, very much for your time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? (No response.) I make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve this application for Eve MacSweeney and Lori Feilen for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace and install new hardwood floor boards, stair treads and railings to the first and second floor decks. Located: 1250 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, are there any CAC comments in there? 22 "frUSlCCS TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, they resolved to support the application and there are no other recommendations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second the motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: I had a question. We had some questions on this one. This is the one with the stairs severely dilapidated. On the western part of the property, there was a platform and we said maybe we could incorporate the stairs into the platform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to open the hearing before we -- TRUSTEE KING: The gentleman is not even here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Also, after we had been there, I didn't go down the stairs but you guys came up the stairs. Is it for safety, are they on a very unsafe -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We should open it if we are going to talk about it. TRUSTEE KING: There is nobody here to represent him. There is going to be some discussion. I would just as soon table this. Unless there is somebody here who wants to go into it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And our reason for tabling it? TRUSTEE KING: The owner is not here. If we could make the suggestion, can you incorporate the stairs into the platform, making a single project out of this so we could approve everything. I can't see any sense in us talking about it ourselves if he's not here to accept it or -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we could write him a letter or call him and make a suggestion that way it can be done before he gets here. TRUSTEE KING: Give him a heads up on what we are thinking. I have some notes here from Heather. (Perusing.) I think it's best we table it. And in the meantime, make the suggestion. I'll make a motion to table this application of DONALD PETRIE. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge marina entrance, approximately 88 cubic yards and floating dock area, approximately 842 cubic yards, and place spoil on site adjacent to the parking lot belonging to Reydon Shores POA. Located: Reydon Drive, Southold. This is for maintenance dredging and they are asking for the same area as they have done before. Our only question out there was, if you remember, they were going to do a temporary spoil site and let the spoils dry out and over time just spread it out into their dune area. In the field when we spoke to them they said they would replant the dune area, but that is not part of the application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the 23 14; applicant? MR. SCHEFFLER: My name is Freddie Scheffler from Reydon Shores. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just catch Peggy up for a second. Dredging here and this here. They'll fill this sandbox here. They are going to put the spoils here temporarily as it dries out and then fill this area. That has been done in the past. That's how they did it the last time. And he has it staked out where they wouldn't put it in there, they would put it behind the dune and around here and then replant on top of that. And all over time. Over years. (Indicating.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was there any consideration of maybe spreading the dredge spoils out into the parking lot, into the parking area there? Would that work at all? MR. SCHEFFLER: No. We did consider possibly carting some of that away. We would like to nourish that dune along the beach. We had started building up the dune on the righthand side of the groin and it's diminished to the left. So if we could put some up in that dune area then possibly cart the rest of it away, keeping in mind this is over a ten- year period. If you look at the drawing, the little bays, maybe do one bay over a two-year period and the next and the next so there is not a big build up of material. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so you won't have a big pile there all at once. MR. SCHEFFLER: No, we won't have a big pile there, no. MR. MCGREEVY: You could mix that with sand also. MR. SCHEFFLER: We could possibly mix some of it with sand that comes out of the entrance way to clean this mud up a little bit toward the dune area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP finds the project consistent and the CAC supports the project. One thing I would want to see is a planting plan. MR. SCHEFFLER: Well, with the revised situation, we are not going to disturb any of that grass area there. It would only be down near the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying it's going to be in front of the grass area, not on it at all? MR. SCHEFFLER: It would be in front of the grass area, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would need to see revised plans showing that. Is there any comments from the Board; do you understand what he's saying now? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's not going to go into the boxed area that is staked out? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not going to go in the boxed area that is staked out. They are going to continue and go in front of. This is the grass area here and they are going to go in front of. Do you have an estimate of cubic yardage you are going to use? MR. SCHEFFLER: Oh, I would say somewhere around 100. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So then you would be carting the rest off? MR. SCHEFFLER: Looks that way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you don't want to put any in the parking area? MR. SCHEFFLER: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. This is where it's been put before and they've planted. Now he's proposing to put it all in front, about 100 cubic yards in front. Right here, where this picture shows. You would still drain it first, right; keep it in a temporary spot, drain it. MR. SCHEFFLER: You would have to. You can't move that material without that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where is the drying spot going to be? 24 Huard Fcbnlary 14, 2()O~ MR SCHEFFLER: Probably along the channel, the entrance channel. Which is a sandy area now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In that boxed area there. MR SCHEFFLER: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would have to be indicated on the new plans exactly where the drying area is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be between the parking lot and the channel. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So this basically has to come back to us anyway, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we are going to need new plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we could draw it in now and approve it subject to receiving the plans that match what we are drawing in now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. I see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does that make sense to everybody? MR SCHEFFLER: With just a little in the disposal area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't you approach so we can show you on here. Because we are both in synch as to where this drying area is. MR. SCHEFFLER: I would probably just eliminate this disposal area as you see it. This is already built up. We are talking about this area right in here. We can build that dune up a little bit and not disturb any area in here. (indicating.) As you can see, it's pretty high. We made a visit there and I would probably agree we couldn't get all that in there, although if you go back to the original approval in 1997, it was for 2,000 cubic yards and it was through the DEC, the whole bit. But in hindsight now, we are not talking about that kind of build up. Like I said, maybe a hundred. This would be probably four to five feet high, three-feet deep. And then the rest all grass here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because that's where the final location of the spoil will be. What we are asking is where are you going to place it temporarily. MR SCHEFFLER: In this retaining area, this is all grass, it would be right in here (indicating.) The only way we can get this fill out of here is to put it in a box on a barge and bring it over and empty the barge onto this particular area, let it dry and then move it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is a picture of the box. So basically this is the drying area, a little further -- MR. SCHEFFER: Further south of that. Right. That's the very end of the bottom sand. And if you look at the other pictures, it shows that dune pre-relief. You see it from the beach shot, how she drops off. It's the rest we are concerned about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then you are going to replant that, on top of what you put there? MR. SCHEFFER: If need be, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any discussion about the silt tepidity screen? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not in the field, no. It's part of the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. How does the board feel about the amendment description? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's fine as long as it's indicated on these plans now and then upon receipt of the final plans. MR. SCHEFFER: Yes, I would just eliminate that disposal area and the re-nourishment area -- 25 'frus['('cS i 4, '(III, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and note that you are going to replant it with basically with the same grasses and show the temporary spoil site. And note on there somewhere about the cubic yardage that is going to be trucked off and the amount, approximate, give or take that is going to stay. MR. SCHEFFLER: All right, fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments? CAC supports it. Even though the LWRP was consistent, the other comment is to use a tepidity screen while dredging. So we'll incorporate that into our approval. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., for a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge marina entrance, approximately 88 cubic yards and floating dock area, approximately 842 cubic yards and place spoil on site, for a temporary drawing site, using approximately 100 cubic yards to extend the dune as noted on the survey and replant the dune area to truck off the remaining cubic yardage offsite to upland source and to use a tepidity screen during dredging and all that subject to new plans denoting all that. And showing a replanting plan on that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Michael Macrina, Architect, PC, on behalf of BRIAN RETUS requests a Wetland Permit to convert the existing one-and-one-half story cape to a full two-story colonial. Construct roof deck over existing deck on water side of dwelling and a covered porch and second-story addition on the street side of the dwelling. Located: 235 Soundview Road, Orient. Is there anyone here who like to speak for this application? (No response.) This application has been deemed consistent with LWRP. We inspected this on Monday. The CAC tabled the application until the issue of the bank failure is addressed. This is the one where I think the bank failure was on the neighbor's property. It wasn't this property. It goes on an angle. So we did note your comment, the CAC comment, although it's not connected to this application. Any other Board comments? (Negative response.) Our field notes suggest a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. It could be a no-mow, don't mow it. And drywells, hay bales during construction. Did we discuss that? It's all additions, isn't it; decks and the like. You are not doing any excavation. No. Okay. Are there any other comments? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 26 'fniSLCCS 1 14, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for BRIAN RETUS to convert the existing one-and-a-half story cape to a full two-story colonial. Construct roof deck over existing deck on waterside of dwelling and a covered porch and second-story addition on the street side of the dwelling, Located 235 Soundview Road, Orient That would be with a ten-foot, non-turf buffer and drywells on the new addition, Is there a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second, TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES,) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Thomas E, Christianson on behalf of BOB MARSTON requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new 862 square foot dwelling and sanitary system, Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR CHRISTIANSON: I'm Tom Christianson and I was asked to represent Bob Marston and answer what questions I could, First I would like to thank you for your understanding in demolishing the house, Bob Marston asked that I take it down because the south wall had already disappeared, it rotted away, and I didn't realize the permit had expired and I appreciate your cooperation in letting me drop it and he had just left it there, But he has since filed, just to get the permit renewed, he had to start the whole process over again because he let it lapse and the DEC and the Health Department, those are still active permits, So we just needed to re-file for a permit from the Trustees, TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response,) The Board did go out and look at this and we did have some concerns about this, First off it was found inconsistent under the LWRP because it is located in a flood zone area and the proposed structure is now 36 feet from the wetlands, which is closer than the old structure was, CAC voted to support the permit application, The concerns of this were -- we understand there was a structure there but what is proposed is a new structure that is even closer to the wetlands on a very small piece of property and that it was coming closer to the water there, This is Schoolhouse Creek, We first looked to see if there was any way the structure could be moved farther toward the road, in other words, away from the wetlands, but you have the challenge of the septic system in there that really prevents that from happening, MR CHRISTIANSON: Can I comment there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, MR CHRISTIANSON: When I first looked to rebuild the house, when I owned the property, we had the same problem, I was going to rebuild the house where it was and try to work the septic system around in different locations on the property, and I think at that time the Trustees suggested we move the house and put the septic system on the highland and put the house as far from the wetlands as we could, And then the DEC agreed, they looked at it, going back and forth, and they also agreed the location that we chose is about the only location they could come up with, and the Health Department said the same thing, And earlier somebody said 28x40 was little, This is really a tiny, tiny home, We tried to mimic the house that was there as close as we could and still make it a functioning house, Because I have a boat and I like the creek, too, So I'm pretty 27 Iloard 0 [' Truslc'cs February 14, 2(j( >7 concerned about Schoolhouse Creek. But we tried to balance everything out as well as we could, TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There are motor homes bigger than this, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, this is a two-story structure, correct? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the comments from our environmental technician, it was also located within a flood zone and the house is above eight feet elevation and there was a request to restore the salt marsh after construction. Are there any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What kind of foundation is it? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Basically at this point it is going to be a small crawl space that would have the hydrostatic, I think they called it, the ability if there was floods to come in, to drain properly. But it wouldn't be a full basement by any means, no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that area has some real problems with hydrostatic flooding. That whole area down around Schoolhouse Creek, so that's a genuine concern. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Now, like I said, I do live across the street and I did manage somehow to get a full cellar in. But I wouldn't advocate it across the street there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In an attempt to mitigate the LWRP concerns, I notice you have a residence and you have a porch on the back of that residence that takes the whole structure closer to the wetlands. Would there be an opportunity to remove that porch? I know that affects the upstairs deck, but, so that the new residence is not quite as close to the Wetlands. Again, I'm trying to look to see if there is any way we can mitigate the LWRP concerns here. MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think when we were first looking at the idea of putting the porch there to get the eastern sunlight and to put the porch on the second floor, there would be little encroachment. It stuck out I think seven feet. I could go back and ask him. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There might be an opportunity, and I know it means re-drawing the plans, but it might mean an opportunity to move that porch around to the southern side of the house so that it doesn't extend beyond the footprint of the house and would still allow, from that deck, a view of the wetland area and, again, with reconfiguring the upstairs so that the deck was upstairs above that, it would still have the view from part of that deck towards the Wetlands. You might be able to retain the same visual effect you are looking for. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Put it on which side of the house? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The southern side of the house. If you want to approach, I can show you. I know this means completely re-drawing the upstairs. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Wouldn't that create a problem with the property line there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, you're right. Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could still put it here and technically you would have a view of that area. MR. CHRISTIANSON: To view the beauty of the area, to be able to look out here, to appreciate Peconic Bay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about doing just like a wrap-around. Not going all the way this way, but maybe a little bit here and a little bit wrap around the corner and not so much here. 28 February 14, TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concern is that the structure is, with the porch, is very close to the Wetlands. 36 feet, I believe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the porch is going to be on pilings, so we could stipulate that it's going to be hand done or something and not the machine in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's whatever the Board is interested in discussing here. It was just a suggestion that I had and understandably that creates setback areas on the side of the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That porch is 100 square feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a distance between the residence and the septic? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The septic is 83 feet to the marsh. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But is this ten feet required, according to the Health Department. Do you have a Health Department regulation as to how far the house can be? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It has to be seven feet from the house to the corner of the septic tank. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is ten feet there now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are saying have him move everything back three feet? MR. CHRISTIANSON: The problem with moving the house this way is then it doesn't have the proper setback off of New Suffolk Road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is that (perusing.) MR. CHRISTIANSON: We are kind of stuck that way, too. TRUSTEE KING: You could have rebuilt the old house in its present location, couldn't you? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As far as zoning I think he could have. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I mean. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Not as far as Health Department. MR. CHRISTIANSON: First I would have had to have gotten the septic system -- TRUSTEE KING: No, my question was a zoning question, if you could have built the old house exactly where it was, it says 20 feet off the road, why can't you put the new house 30 feet off the road, rather than have to meet the modern setback? Why would you even need a variance if there was an original house within 20 feet from the road, you know what I'm saying? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If he originally got a variance in the first place he probably wouldn't need to go back for it because that was built so long ago and he never got a variance. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Plus, at the time I don't believe there was any septic. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was probably an outhouse associated with that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our concern, because Jim and I walked it, to put this here. But I think the concern is or the possibility is there any possibility of moving it farther away from that wetland? MR. CHRISTIANSON: I would have to go back and ask Tom and Nancy about that because I know when the first documents were drawn, they were saying it was difficult in getting the proper number of leach pools and overflow berms and putting everything in proper positioning. This is the one that when we came up with this and went to the Health Department and the DEC finally came up with this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to see when all that debris is gone to have it staked out what was there. 29 of' TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's on top of where the septic system would be. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. But we also questioned one of these is 55, we actually measured at 82. This measurement here, the 55 feet to the septic tank. Jim walked it and we measured it filter to 82. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured it to here, right? I think you were standing on the other side. This is where the debris is and you were standing on the other side of the debris. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Still, it's right here. This is 55. But if I were standing here, it's 130. I'm just saying it might be something we want to see staked after that debris is removed. MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think the first Board that approved it, the house was there and the stake that I put up and somebody put ribbons on, I didn't -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's neither here nor there what was approved before, because we've now moved the whole structure to a different location. MR. CHRISTIANSON: It was approved in the location. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's talking about this. MR. CHRISTIANSON: The whole question is when I sold it to Bob Marston being my brother-in-law and giving him a hard time for not having renewed it, he didn't renew it, so they re-filed all the papers but not having changed any of the requests from the original request. TRUSTEE KING: Is this footprint the same size from the house that was originally approved? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, everything was approved. I don't think anything has changed on any of the requests. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the original and this is what they proposing? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. He's not putting in any more than what we gave him before. MR. CHRISTIANSON: If you are concerned about the machinery going in, they can work around that, I'm sure, like for the deck area or something like that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, what had been approved was an 862 square foot dwelling, sanitary system. I don't see any plans in here, though. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Look in the other file, underneath. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) I'm just really uncomfortable. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Are you uncomfortable with the machinery or just the footage? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm uncomfortable with the project. I think it's way too small of a lot, a buildable lot, to put a house there now under our code. I'm trying to figure out how we can bring it in to mitigate the LWRP inconsistency and we are going over and over it and don't see any way to mitigate it. This is just one Trustee speaking. I just think it's -- it's a house built 30 feet from the wetlands, 36 feet from the wetlands. It's just my own personal opinion. So, are there are any other comments from the Board on this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to see if it can still be moved toward the road, not all the way back to where it was, but if it could be somewhat, by taking that 40 setback -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: According to the Health Department, move it back three feet. TRUSTEE KING: Can you put the septic closer to the road? 30 oC Fcbr\lmyl4, 2()()~ TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I would really support exactly what Peggy is discussing here and also suggest that the applicant look at maybe some new technology that is out there with septic systems to see if there is something that could be done with utilizing new technology to come up with a different septic system which would then allow the entire structure to move back some. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Those are shallow pools to begin with. The only other technology you would have is something above ground. I'm not really supportive of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, essentially a holding tank system. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce has a comment. MR. ANDERSON: Just a suggestion. I just had a similar one where we wanted to push the septic system back. Setback from the road was ten feet. I don't know if it needs retaining walls or what but we were able to go to the Health Department with the Town's request that it be located on the property line. It went to Board review and it was approved. But it's, so if that's what you want, but you have to help the man. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know if that was Town property. MR. ANDERSON: The road is usually owned by the Town. So I went to this Board and I went to Pete Harris and I actually got letters, I got your permit and I got Pete Harris' letter and that was good enough from the Health Department. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was it a shallow cesspool? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. He's controlled by probably the depth of the ground water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm saying. Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, why don't I propose that we table this -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And what about the demolishing -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Yes. What I'll do is amend this to approve the demolishing so that we get that done and table the application for the construction of the new dwelling to give us an opportunity to see the site with the old structure, the debris completely removed, and give you the opportunity to see if there is any way we can move the septic system a little further and move the house a little further away from the water landward to help mitigate the LWRP concerns. MR. CHRISTIANSON: I'm new at this. Who is the LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, it was passed into law by the Town Board I believe a little over a year ago and it's a very comprehensive plan concerning the preservation of the waterfront. I just said in one sentence what is in four volumes about this thick (indicating.) So you can understand it's a very extensive law. TRUSTEE KING: You might want to consider where all the phragmites are maybe we could do a little wetland restoration project there to mitigate some of that impact. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Do you understand what was being suggested by Mr. King there? MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think so. TRUSTEE KING: Throw some phragmites in there and maybe we could work some sort of a restoration plan in to get some of those Wetland species to come back in there a little nicer. That would help the consistency with the LWRP. MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think when we first applied for the permit, Peggy I think mentioned that we needed to put plants in that area as soon as we were done in construction and if we would do that we would come back to the Trustees and work out a planting. 31 Board ol'Trusloos Fobruary 14. TRUSTEE KING: Something like that would be helpful. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I would say, approve the demolition. (A new audio tape is started.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are back on the record. Bob, would you please make your comments for the record. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only comment I wanted to make was that I feel that historically there has been a cottage on this property that, you know, can we at least agree that some kind of a cottage can stay there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not sure that I can agree to that right now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think he's just making a statement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, I thought you just asked if we could all agree to that and I heard a couple of members say yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, with that I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: No, leave it open. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, I'm sorry. We are trying to approve, as I stated -- Kieran, how do we close the public hearing to approve the newly designed permit request here. MR. CORCORAN: It's really a matter of form over substance. I would adjourn the public hearing for the purposes, strictly the purposes of further deliberations on the location and arrangement of the new dwelling. Close it for the purposes of the demolition request, and then you can make your motion on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. CORCORAN: Do you want to adopt that proposed motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, as proposed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now I'll make a motion then to approve Thomas Christianson on behalf of BOB MARSTON to request a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and remove the debris. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then we'll table the pending application of new construction pending removal of that debris so that the area is staked out and so that we can consider other options to maybe mitigate the LWRP concerns. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Marston, you might want to meet us there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would be good if somebody representing Mr. Marston could meet us there. That's March 14, the date of our next public hearing -- sorry, the date of our next field inspection is March 14. So it would be helpful if a representative could meet us there. It's not a requirement, it's just helpful. MR. CHRISTIANSON: I think I can be there. He owes me. 32 I' I" TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES BOYAR requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing functional timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing within 18 inches of said existing bulkhead and to revegetate a 2x150 foot area immediately seaward of the reconstructed bulkhead with spartina alterniflora. Located: 250 Good Creek Lane, Southold. There is no LWRP report on this. CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that a 18-foot, non-turf buffer be put landward of the bulkhead and when we were out at the site we suggested the bulkhead be put behind the existing and be cut off at the grade level and remove the excess used helix screws if necessary or lessen the grade and raise the bulkhead and we also suggested a ten-foot, non-turf buffer, mainly because of the slope there. Is there anyone here to speak on this? MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Charles Boyar. We don't have an LWRP on it so I don't want to -- I'm more interested in seeing if there is anything that the public has to say. But I'll let you know, we have serious concerns regarding the construction of this, given the height of the wall and the proximity of the foundation to the bulkhead. I talked to John Costello about it. He's going to be the contractor on the job and we are going to come back, I suspect in March, with a much more complete presentation. But if there is anyone here I would just as soon have them speak, if there are concerns I haven't thought of, I would like to know what they are. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: No, just that we, I think last month or the month before, we approved a very similar installation of a bulkhead, it was behind the bulkhead -- MR. ANDERSON: Do you know what application that was? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was down in Cutchogue, wasn't it, or Mattituck? TRUSTEE KING: It was Wilm, on Mud Creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it was steeper than this even. MR. ANDERSON: And that was in Cutchogue? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was 4605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, install behind bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: And they had the choice of either removing the old bulkhead or cutting it off at grade. MR. ANDERSON: I don't personally care as long as it's done safely and we don't ruin the house. That's all. Okay, I'll look at that application. TRUSTEE KING: That may impact the LWRP consideration. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And you are familiar with the scallop grow out next to it. That's another concern as well. Okay, we'll come back in March on this one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Any other comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Bruce, if your client is willing to that, if you want to write a note and then we can get it to LWRP so that can be part of their conditional review, so you are mitigating it already that way. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. If it can be done. Those kinds of questions I usually leave to the contractor because you are in the actual throes of building time. Personally I couldn't build a doghouse, but I do paperwork and read and write and do all that kind of stuff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to table this to next month when we can get the rest of the comments. 33 lioard ,,['Trustees l' 14. ~O((' TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PAUL KEBER requests a Wetland Permit to regrade the existing dirt pile (1,200 cubic yards) located within the central section of the subject property to level off the grade for the proposed construction of a single- family dwelling and appurtenances. Located: Right of Way off Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Just so you know, this is another one that has not gotten LWRP review, so we are not going to get very far today. However, I do have two quick points. One is, when I saw you out in the field, and Bob had a survey, but the survey I'm handing up actually shows the location where the fill was placed. So that's the survey you should be referring to. That was done by a licensed surveyor. Can you see that, Jim? It's a peanut-shaped area that actually goes off the lot So that's the area we are talking about The second thing is that Mark Terry is correct There is a covenant on this property and so I'll need to discuss that with him because I already read the covenant and there is a plan on that as well, and ours is pretty consistent with that plan. That plan was done by Tom Samuels some years ago in connection with the subdivision that was done by Baxter. So I'll meet with him on that Then the third issue, Jim, was you had mentioned in the field that you didn't like the postings. It was done at the property line adjacent to the right of way. If you want me to re-notice or re-post, I'm happy to do so, and I usually put one up by the road. TRUSTEE KING: I think these notices are supposed to be visible from the road. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I have no problem doing that The Town considers sometimes, at least for zoning purposes, considers the right of way a road. So we thought we were posting it correctly. TRUSTEE KING: My thought is-- MR ANDERSON: I would rather be safe than sorry. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see it TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, down on Oregon Road there-- MR. ANDERSON: So let's just agree to re-notice the whole thing so there are no problems. I'm fine with that. TRUSTEE KING: So I guess we'll table this one. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of PAUL & CHERYL RAGUSA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition to the existing two-story dwelling, renovate and alter the first floor, construct a new carport and covered walk and a new two-story addition on the landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: 1600 Hyatt Road, Southold. Before we start with that, the LWRP is inconsistent due to the 100-foot setback. 34 or 14, TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's where the house is, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, the existing house, And the CAC supports the application with the condition that gutters and drywells are installed for containment. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: It was my error when I did the description. Originally the garage was going to be a carport, so I described it as a carport and then later on I got the plans and the survey that had it as a garage. So I apologize, It was my error. The plans that we submitted, and you have in your files the construction drawings and the survey as well as the notice to the neighbors, have it showing the garage, so I would ask to orally amend the application to make the carport a garage. Otherwise it's exactly the same. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would also note the garage is not staked although it's pretty clear where it's going to be. MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm sorry. I usually do ask that. Sometimes they stake it, sometimes they don't. It was landward of the existing so it didn't seem to me that crucial. We are well landward side of the existing structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. That's what I'm saying, it was clear where it's going to be, and it was landward, so, MS. MOORE: And that's alii have to comment, just to make sure that it's described as a garage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just had the comment of drywells and gutters, of course, and we wanted to see -- the bluff is vegetated but we also wanted to see more of a non-turf buffer, maybe just not mow the area there. Jim, do you remember how far we set? It's not in our notes, MS. MOORE: It's pretty close to the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Five feet; ten feet. I know you went back out. TRUSTEE KING: I ran back out. Instead of mowing right up to the edge, leave five or ten feet just unmowed, Just leave it alone and just let some of the stuff grow in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Five or ten feet, is five feet okay? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it's not a big piece of property. MS. MOORE: When I called in to find out if there were any comments after your inspection, I think, Lauren, you mentioned -- did I talk to you? Of course, I talked to Heather. I talked with the client and she had no problem with that. Her plan is to do a lot of landscaping, including there at the top. She mentioned they just bought the house two or three months ago. So they have not cut the grass at all. It's actually from the prior -- TRUSTEE KING: Somebody has been mowing over the edge. MS. MOORE: That was from the prior owner and I explained the rationale and they have no problem with that, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just explain to them if they are going to do extensive landscaping they might need a permit for that as well, administrative permit or something. MS. MOORE: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If she's going to be digging up areas within our jurisdiction she needs to -- and coastal erosion. I don't know what her plans are. MS. MOORE: I don't either. When they are done here -- I'll just make them aware of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. A lot of people don't think landscaping needs a permit, but sometimes it does. It depends what she is doing; it might be exempt, it might not be. MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll mention that to them. 35 (i! I ,ct, :~O{j7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we were just looking at the steps when we were there. There is a wood structure going halfway down. Have you talked about that with your client, to repair any of that? MS. MOORE: Oh, the stairs going down? I didn't go down there, it was too cold. I didn't go down the steps. You know, she never mentioned it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something to redo. She'll have to come back for that. MS. MOORE: She'll come back with a separate application to take care of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia C. Moore on behalf of PAUL & CHERYL RAGUSA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition to the existing two-story dwelling, renovate and alter the first floor, construct a new carport and covered walk and a new two-story addition on the landward side of the existing dwelling, to include gutters, leaders and drywells and to have a five- foot, non-turf buffer or non-mow area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GABRIEL SCIBELLI requests a Wetland Permit to replace approximately 200 feet of existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing, replace existing returns and backfill with approximately 125 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. This is just a continuation of the prior permit, the damage that was done. They put up temporary boards because the contractor really did not want to really start the project until the full permit was issued by both you and the DEC. Because of the fill, if he just took the corrective measure, he would end up losing the fill again. So they waited until now. I understand one of the comments was you wanted some beach grass planted between the bulkhead and the retaining wall behind it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MOORE: I believe they had it before. They had plantings too that were lost in the storm. That's not a problem. If your permit just states that, that way I can be sure they remember to do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. CAC supports the application and LWRP is consistent. Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was some area that had, on the one end, like an oil. What was that? MS. MOORE: Yes. I had mentioned that to Mr. Scibelli and he said that was actually the neighbor's bulkhead that always had a real strong oil smell, not his. He would love to see that eliminated but it's not his property. And I don't know whether that bulkhead was replaced recently or anything. I didn't look into the permit history of that. What he 36 n r 'frustccs 1L 20('; explained is that it was the neighbor's bulkhead that had a very strong odor to it, so. It might be something you should look into. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to GABRIEL SCIBELLI to replace approximately 200 feet of existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing, replace existing returns and backfill with approximately 125 cubic yards of clean fill with the condition that beach grass be planted on the landward side of the bulkhead. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC, RICHARD & ANTOINETTE BECK-WITT & HENRY QUINTIN requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing dock and add a 6x40 foot floating dock extension and two 10x35 foot pilings. Located: 1960 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. This one, for the benefit of Mr. Ghosio, I think you were not on the Board at the time, but this property had been subdivided and the dock where, this particular dock had been built back in the 1980s, was built as a community dock for two land property owners. It has always been a right of way. When the Town Code was changed, you took the position, the Board took the position one dock on one property. When we were going through the subdivision regulations, that rule was not in effect, so we didn't think to split off that strip from the parcel in order to enable us to have our own dock. I started with the application here with a request for an independent dock on the parcel -- I don't know if it's parcel one or parcel two at this point -- I don't have the survey out. But on this particular parcel. And the Board said, well, we really want you to just try and limit it to one dock. So at that point I went back and I negotiated with the individual who had the right to use that dock, Richard and Antoinette Beck-Witt and Henry Quintin, and this proposal was one that everybody liked and wanted to see approved. So with their permission and their consent and as a joint application, so everybody is happy, that's the application that is before the Board now. The goal here is to eliminate obviously the need for a separate dock on the individual parcel. It also preserves the existing conditions of the two boats that have access to the dock presently, and it creates kind of a mini-marina, private marina for the three properties. It's trying to make a better situation based on kind of laws that kind of retroactively changed circumstances that were in place at another time. So that's the rationale behind this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here that would like to speak pertaining to this application? MR. AHLERS: Yes. My name is Paul Ahlers. I'm the adjacent property owner to this right of way. Could I approach the Board with some information? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. AHLERS: First of all back in 2000 I applied for a float of 6x30. It was approved by the DEC and it was rejected by you. I had to maintain a 6x20 float. And my feeling is if they 37 Board ]'k are allowed to extend their docks, why shouldn't I? And also the adjoining property that you looked at, which was the Claudio homes, and I don't see why that dock couldn't be shared, since that's over 100 feet of dock. And that is a mini-marina already. And what is the need for another mini-marina? I always thought the Board's objective was to preserve the ponds and preserve the docks. Also, she called for two pilings, and the drawing shows four. MS. MOORE: No, those are water depths. MR. AHLERS: No, inside. MS. MOORE: Oh, inside. Two were existing, two are proposed. Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just, please address the Board, we'll pass on your questions. MS. MOORE: Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. MR. AHLERS: And that's alii have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. CORCORAN: Jim, do you recall what was the length of the floating dock in Weiserek that you approved; was it 6x20? TRUSTEE KING: 6x20, yes. MR. CORCORAN: Is that your general standard, 6x20? TRUSTEE KING: 6x20 is standard for a residential float, for a residential property. He built a 6x30. MS. MOORE: There are circumstances though. I believe you do reserve the right to based on marina use where you have multiple boats using -- TRUSTEE KING: We have allowed, the only time I could remember allowing in, the property owner owned the adjoining property, to have a 40-float on his dock. But the provision was made if he ever sold that second lot, he had to give up one 20-foot float. MS. MOORE: Which one was this? TRUSTEE KING: This was in Mattituck Creek. One property owner owning two adjoining properties built a dock out and he wanted a 40-foot float. We gave him a 40-foot float but we made the stipulation if you sell this piece of property, you lose one of your 20-foot floats. Because they are going to come in and want a dock. MS. MOORE: Oh, because they are going to have their own dock. TRUSTEE KING: It's almost a similar situation as this -- MS. MOORE: Except that you told us that we couldn't have our own dock -- TRUSTEE KING: Except that there was a second dock already there at the end of that right of way. MS. MOORE: Exactly. The second dock was there since the '80s. I just want to clarify some things. One is that the dock Mr. Ahlers mentioned, it's just his own personal use. He only has to accommodate his own property. This dock is accommodating three parcels and that's why it's been designed this way, because we are talking about being able to place a boat on the east side, on the water side; a boat on the interior side and a boat that has always been on the north side, on the left. So the placement of the boats, everyone has negotiated their location and Mr. Quintin in particular was concerned about the width of this dock to be adequate for his boat, and I think he has a significant boat. So we are trying to, it's acting more as a private marina in this instance than for one dock for one property owner. I don't know if it works or not, I'm not a dock builder, but you could do two docks next to each other and then you would 38 Buard of"f'ruSh.:CS 1" ]4" 20(, have the same thing. I don't know if that is something that works or not. I never discussed it with the client. But if your limitations are 20, then you have two 20s next to each other. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We do have a width limitation. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: First off, this was found consistent under the LWRP and regarding the CAC, the CAC tabled the application because the project was not staked and a proper survey should be required. And the CAC recommends the complete removal of the deer fence. Now, what I was going to address on this, and there are a couple of concerns that I have. What is presently there is a 14-foot ramp leading to a 60 foot catwalk. It goes to a 60 foot ramp to a 30 foot float. So there is already a 30 foot float there. And you are proposing adding an "L" on to that with another 40 foot float. So there would be essentially 70 feet of float. You are also proposing four pilings, and I'm looking at the elevation of 12 feet above the dock. In our code it states you are allowed to have a float 6x20. The code also addresses that pilings shall not project more than three feet above the surface of the dock or catwalk unless a greater demand is demonstrated. So I guess taking it one at a time here -- TRUSTEE KING: Dave, I think that is in regard to pilings holding the dock. Not tie off pilings or pilings that hold a float in place. That's a restriction in the height that applies along the catwalk. MS. MOORE: Yes, not on floats, otherwise you would not be able to tie your boat up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I have already heard you say is the reason for -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth -- but the reason you are requesting this 40 foot in addition to the 30 foot, in other words 70 foot total of floating dock, which far exceeds the 20 foot code requirement is you are saying this is going to be a mini-marina for three property owners. MS. MOORE: Right. It resolves the situation that -- it essentially eliminates our original proposal which I think had 120 feet of dock because you were putting a dock next to this one, centered on the property. So we've eliminated that one and all we are asking for is the 6x40 with the "L" at the end. So we thought are actually reducing our ultimate request and it's a compromise between three independent property owners. Also, just for the record, there was a permit, again, I think it was the '80s as well, that the DEC and you may have approved on this but it never got built. So this "L" was approved at one time but they never built it. Apparently they didn't need to at the time because it was just two property owners. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you tell us where the three properties are? MS. MOORE: Quintin-Beck is the west side of Gull Pond Lane, are the two large parcels. The house is a log cabin house. That's Quintin-Beck. They actually own, I think they are four acre-parcels, and he has two of them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And both of those properties have the right of way? MS. MOORE: Well, one for sure, but it's the same property owner. I'm sorry, it's not Quintin-Beck, it's Beck-Witt. I misspoke. Beck-Witt is the log cabin with the large parcels. Quintin is kind of around the bend, Fiddler Road, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: Who has the right of way? 39 1 MS. MOORE: All of them. They all have the right of way. Well, my client owns the property, so they have the right of way. The right of way is on their property. So he owns the underlying land. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So there is potentially three parcels that have the right of way. MS. MOORE: Well, it's our parcel and Beck-Witt owns two parcels. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there is a fourth person that might be in the mix. MS. MOORE: I don't know if legally he could do that. I just don't know the answer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it's possible. MS. MOORE: I guess it's potentially possible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm still having trouble finding the three. MS. MOORE: Well, our client is one. They own the property. Beck-Witt is the kind of hippie-looking guy that was here, nice guy. He owns across Gull Pond on the west side of Gull Pond is two large parcels right before the nature conservancy. TRUSTEE KING: Now I thought he was the one that had the right of way to the dock and rights to the dock. MS. MOORE: He does. That's one of them. TRUSTEE KING: Where does Quintin come in, then? MS. MOORE: Quintin has, his property doesn't show up there. I think it's Fiddler Road is the next road over. TRUSTEE KING: But does he have like co-ownership of the right of way? He's on the right of way, legally? MS. MOORE: Yes. Yes. In fact he's the one who originally applied for this dock, with the permission of the underlying property owner at the time was Marcus. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How wide is the right of way? TRUSTEE KING: 10-15 feet, I think. Something like that? MS. MOORE: It's at least 35 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't think it was that wide. MS. MOORE: I stand corrected. It's 20 feet. I'm sorry, I don't remember the survey that well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would it accommodate two docks? MS. MOORE: What do you mean would it accommodate two docks? TRUSTEE KING: We've already been through that. MS. MOORE: That was our first application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, I understand that. The reason I'm asking is if it's -- MS. MOORE: Oh, to build one next to the other? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not that I'm making that as a suggestion. I'm building a case here. I'm trying to help. My point being we might want to put, they obviously can't have a 6x20 float to accommodate three owners on this right of way. But if you can't put three separate docks in either, because the right of way is not big enough. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And our code says only one dock per property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. MR. CORCORAN: I think -- and I don't have a point of view on this application at all -- but I think what you are concerned with are a couple of things. I think you are concerned with having more than one dock on a property, so you want to limit it to one. I think you are also concerned with, something that was suggested, is you are concerned with having mini-marinas on these single and separate lots as well. So this is the parade of horribles, 40 2007 but if I had a waterfront lot and I grant people rights away over it and then I come in here and say well five people have rights of way over my lot so I want to build a mini-marina on my lot and you have to give it to me because it won't be big enough if you just give me a 6x20. MS. MOORE: But I don't think that's permitted today. MR. CORCORAN: That's a dangerous argument. MS. MOORE: But I don't -- MR. CORCORAN: That's what you are asking for. MS. MOORE: No, I have a situation that already exists. You are not talking about creating a right of way. Which we have one of those. We actually did that on Toman. My client owns two properties. He's building one dock to accommodate two boats. That's it. The two properties that he owns. So that some day if he sells one of the lots, the one slip -- MR. CORCORAN: But an existing right of way does not give you a right to a particular sized dock. MS. MOORE: No, this particular right of way is an existing condition. You guys legislated - - no, no, no. The problem was created because you guys legislated. MR. CORCORAN: But there's no property right in the size of the dock. MS. MOORE: No, it's a practical issue. I'm here before the Board saying that we designed it this way because we already have an existing dock that is this size and what we need is an "L" to be able to move the boat the is presently here and move it over here next to the other boat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, with the Toman property though, we limited it to a 20-foot float and the agreement was there could be a boat -- not an agreement, but the understanding was it would be a boat on either side. I don't want to compare apples and oranges here. You're absolutely right, it was a right of way, but it was, it kept within our code, the language within our code. What you are asking for is something that is outside the language in our code, and to use your words, a mini-marina. I've heard what Kieran said and that was my immediate reaction also, what do we do when the next person who has a right of way wants to put a mini-marina off of it. MS. MOORE: No, because I think what is going to happen is anyone new will be creating -- for example, had I known, my crystal ball had anticipated you were going to create legislation that was going to prohibit a property owner that already had a legal obligation to not eliminate somebody's right of way that was created back in the '70s and '80s, we would have treated it very differently. We wanted to not impact the right of way in any way, the subdivision, anticipating we could leave them alone, they would be happy, we wouldn't sever their rights to their boats and to their docks. Because this is a permitted dock. This dock has all the permits already. I'm trying to address a retroactive code adoption that treats this property a little differently. MR. CORCORAN: It's not retroactive. It's prospective. You are applying for new docks. MS. MOORE: But your prohibition is that you can't have more than one dock and if you already have that dock on a right of way that you have no legal -- I don't want to say you don't have any legal rights to be determined in the courts what rights you have, but for the most part that was an exclusive right of way with an exclusive dock. You are now going backwards in time. Your legislation is saying we can't build our own. MR. CORCORAN: Exclusive to whom? No. Going forward we are saying you can't build another dock. It's prospective, not retroactive. 41 1 I,j ~, TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is an application to make repairs to an existing dock and a 6x40 foot extension. And I know that I don't, as one Board member here, have an issue with the repairs to the existing dock, with the understanding this is a 6x30 foot float. Already larger than what we would normally allow. But I'm looking for other comments from Board members with regard to the proposed addition of a 60x40 foot, what's termed here a "main dock" on the plan. I'm just quoting what's on the plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would reiterate when I went and looked over my notes from the field inspection I was taken aback when I saw the 6x40. I would want to stay within the code, 6x20. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just to clarify, you are proposing this "L" addition be downsized to 6x20? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, keeping it within the code. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm asking. So in essence what you are then recommending is repair of the 6x30 floating dock and then have a 6x20 "L" off of that floating -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. MS. MOORE: I agree with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If the boat, you said there is one boat that is large. I don't know if you would consider a tie-off piling. I don't know if that would help. Do the 6x20 float and maybe a tie-off piling. MS. MOORE: I would have to go back to them to see if that works. I'm dealing with people that are not here, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because 6x40, I don't know. MS. MOORE: The tie-off piling is out into Gull Pond or both sides would need tie-off pilings? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know what type of boat he has. I'm just saying -- he might not even need tie-off pilings. I'm not saying we would approve one. I just threw it out there. MS. MOORE: Okay. This is what Mr. Quintin wanted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from other Board members; Bob or Jim? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No matter what we do, it's only accommodating three boats, right? MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With this plan, is there space for a fourth boat? MS. MOORE: I don't know, unless you have a dingy or something. I don't know what size boat. TRUSTEE KING: You would have the other side to deal with. MS. MOORE: Well, we have the interior side but it might block - if you put a boat here, could you put a boat there? I don't know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we could stipulate no more than three boats be there, period. MR. AHLERS: If I could address the Board again. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. AHLERS: I would just like all the Board members to look at the existing dock and the proximity of my backyard to that mini-marina. MR. CORCORAN: Pat, Mr. Claudio's property is a separate property? MS. MOORE: Yes. Absolutely. 42 Buard 14,2007 MR. CORCORAN: This Board can't do anything to require Mr. Claudio to allow these people to share. MR. AHLERS: He wants to sell the existing lot without a dock to have dockage because that's what makes the property more valuable and he's not willing to give up any of his dock to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's separate from what we are addressing here tonight. What I would like to ask Ms. Moore is if you - what I'm hearing from the Board is a reduction from the proposed 6x40 down to a 6x20 and if that is something that you would consider. MS. MOORE: Would the Board consider anything larger than 6x20? Because I think when you are connecting a 6x20 to a 6x30, could you at least continue a 6x30? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are letting you keep the 6x30. We can actually reduce that if we wanted to. MS. MOORE: Well, it actually has a permit, so. It's a permitted structure, so it would be entitled to be replaced. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like us to table this to give you the opportunity to go back to your clients? MS. MOORE: Yes, because I have three property owners, three clients. And what I can do is -- we'll come back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of NANCY SUE MUELLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) existing +/-67 foot and +/-68 foot timber groins with +/-64 foot and +/- 60 foot low-profile, vinyl groins, respectively. Located: 2300 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Anyone here to comment? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I did get a chance to speak to Jim about this application after your field inspections. There was a recommendation that appears to be made jointly by the DEC, as I have a letter from them, that the west groin, the final lengths of the west groin and east groin respectively be 60 feet and 55 feet, rather than the 64 and 60 feet that are proposed, and that the top of elevation at the end of groin not be raised above what the existing beach elevation is. Also that the top of the landward end of the groin not be any higher than three feet from the top of the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: You might have false information on that. In our field notes we had 3'7" from the top. MR. HERMAN: That's right, you said three. But we actually had on the plan 3'6". TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I remember we talked about that. MR. HERMAN: So that part is consistent with what we show. I think we show plus or minus three-and-a-half feet. So 3'6" and 3'7". And those lengths are acceptable and the end elevation are acceptable. So unless the Board has any other comments, those modifications are fine. 43 14, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: The only question, when we initially went out, and I know I talked to you about it, is why you were doing this in the first place, because what's there is pretty nice and -- MR. HERMAN: Well, the goal was to maintain that and my answer to you is we are always in a bit of a Catch 22 with the DEC in that if the owner lets a structure like this go too long to the point it's not functional, they are told they can't replace it because it's not functional. But if we go out and try to replace it when it's really functional, we are told we can't replace it because it's functional. So we have to find that sort of magic moment in time when the groin can be replaced. In this case I think there was just a concern because while what we are proposing a vinyl bulkhead, what's there is timber. So if it stays well buried long enough and continues to get inundated at high tide, it is going to rot. And when the beach eventually does drop, if there ends up being a rotten groin there, they are going to lose their rights to maintain it. So all they are trying to do now is maintain it in a functional condition and we would be putting in vinyl instead of wood, which would be a longer term situation and presumably better for the beach front to have the buried vinyl than to have the CCA treated timber in the sand. So I think as long as our proposal is to maintain the status quo, that's really what we are trying to do and the end result would be shortening of the groins as well. So you have shorter, non-CCA groins, with the same elevations. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the Board? (Negative response.) Any comments from anybody else? (No response.) Like I said, I looked at this and we also re-inspected it when Mr. Hamilton from the DEC came up with these measurements. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application of NANCY SUE MUELLER to remove and replace in-place the groins with the westerly groin being 60 feet long, easterly groin 55 feet long; the landward end of the groin, no less than 3'6" below the top of the bulkhead and the seaward end of the groin to be at grade level, as it is now, with no raising of that. Strictly at grade. And that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD & KAREN SEELIG requests a Wetland Permit to place over filter cloth on grade along toe of eroding embankment approximately 146 linear feet of 50 to 150 pound stone rip-rap. Located: 1515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. Is there anybody who like to speak on this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. The project that is before you, this is a property the Board looked at a couple of years ago for a 44 [) (' 'frustec:s 14,2()'17 proposed dock that is now existing. Due to the erosion of the embankment, the owners are looking to have some sort of toe stabilization resolution as they have lost over a long period of time quite a bit of beach front, and over the past couple of years, the rate of that loss has increased. The Board saw a little bit of a sign of that when you issued a permit amendment to allow that catwalk of the dock to extend farther upland. That has not been implemented yet but it was something the Board had approved. If you look at the plans which are based on a topographic survey prepared by Sea Level Mapping, we indicate on the plans the high water line that originally existed in 1983, the high water line that was present in October of 2004 when the dock application first came before you and then what the high water line as of November 2006 was. More specifically, with respect to the erosion, we also show a toe of bank from October of 2004 and what the toe of bank is now, and you can see in one location it is as much as an eight foot landward recession over a period of two years. Obviously this is not a site that is conducive to a construction of a traditional bulkhead. We are I would say no better at this point than to pursue a structure like that here though perhaps part of the problem is due to wave energy that is refracted off the bulkhead return on the property to the east. It is not really an environment given the fetch that would be conducive to use of a low sill bulkhead or fiber roll or something like that, nor did we want to propose a large scope rock revetment. Certainly the DEC would not approve any sort of an engineered revetment here. But part of the problem is much of this bank area is in fact vegetated. I mean it's not an area that is a sandy, unconsolidated bank that is just losing sand and maybe if we planted it, it would be okay. It has been well vegetated over the years and that vegetation is sluffing off at a pretty fast rate. So what we are looking to try to do is use rip-rap of a smaller size stone, 50-150 pound stone that would be stacked in a rip-rap style structure. I spoke with Jim about this briefly and what I reminded him is a reference, and I brought a photo, was sort of the same kind of stone that was used on the Keith and Scollard application. Peggy, I think you were here for that. I don't know if Jill was, David; I know Bob was not. But I brought a photograph that shows basically a quarry stone from that spot. And I also brought before and after photos of Keith and Scollard which, as a side bar, can be interesting to you all to see a project that actually worked pretty well. This is the low sill bulkhead on Keith and Scollard. Really has turned out nice. TRUSTEE KING: That's turned out nice. That's nice. MR. HERMAN: Yes, but you can see that that rip-rap is located here and is basically behind the vegetation that's out there and hopefully if we had some of that loss stemmed at Seelig you could perhaps get some vegetation back in front there. You can hold on to these. If you remember, this is one you and Kenny and AI had looked at, and we looked at it with Karen Grolick and it was actually Karen Grolick's design on this. TRUSTEE KING: I remember that. I remember she wanted that in there. That's turned out really well. MR. HERMAN: That has been a remarkable result. But that, as I said, is a bit of a side bar. But the quarry stone -- TRUSTEE KING: I really like seeing things like that. Something that we do that benefits -- that's really good. MR. HERMAN: It's been a very, very fast marsh re-establishment there. It's worked out pretty nicely. But that larger landscape photo basically is supposed to be typical, that 45 2007 project was spec-ed out the same as this. You are talking about an area that is a couple of feet wide, max, 24-30 inches, and then no more than two feet high, and here, because the embankment drops down pretty steeply, it would stack up against the toe of that embankment. Those specs are also shown in the cross view. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, would they also try to do new plantings seaward? MR. HERMAN: Well, we certainly could. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just noticing on that one picture they did put some beach grass behind. MR. HERMAN: Yes, and in terms of the landward planting here, the only real planting that would be done would be for any area that is disturbed. As I said, this is not an area where you have this sluffing of the bank. The vegetation is holding. It's just eating in and going back and back closer to the house. So we are trying to do something relatively minor. Where your suggestion might make better sense is to almost try to reestablish some marsh on the seaward side. I don't know how well it will hold here. This has become an area with the fetch that has really started to take a hit in the last few years. I'm not completely certain why, but. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What if on the seaward side -- on the landward side it goes right up to the edge. But as it goes to the seaward side, what if the rocks were spaced so some planting could be intermittent between that edge. It might encourage that growth. MR. HERMAN: That could be done. Part of the -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you just did it in front it might get washed away but if you did it and spaced it, it might encourage some of the growth to come back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think part of the issue in here is the fetch that is created particularly in storms coming down that creek, since that island -- well, the island has disappeared that was out there that acted like a barrier island, as breakwater, and we tried to investigate the possibility of having that reestablished and we got rejected on that. But I think that's part of the problem here. MR. HERMAN: It may be. I mean, that would make sense because they have been there for a while and they indicated they never had a problem before. And we actually held off on coming to you for almost a year on this because I had spoken to them and said, you know, this kind of stuff can happen cyclically. Let's see what happens. If it gets worse, you can get it re-surveyed and document the loss, and if it gets better, you save yourself a lot of money. It got quite a bit worse. As you remember, again, we came in for the amendment to extend the capoff landward where we sort of solved their most immediate problem of access. But they are still looking to do something. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm concerned of putting plantings in front of the rocks. I'm just afraid that the fetch is going to come in and take that all out. MR. HERMAN: What happened at Lacalsey. Jim, I don't know if you remember, but it was the same situation at Lacalsey's also Cow's Neck. That's right. And this was Luke Lacalsey's had the same explanation that you just gave. It's around the corner. Lacalsey had that big long fixed dock that was grandfathered and he has that little beach cottage that sits out there and you looked at that with Chris Arston, and they put a vinyl retaining wall around the structure and then you continued rock along the embankment. Where the catwalk was, we have pictures of his daughter where the catwalk was originally at grade, then he's got a picture of his daughter who's like six feet tall with her legs dangling down 46 20((7 to where the beach grade was. And we did plantings there and they failed pretty quickly because they all just got washed away. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If the rocks went out this way, in a random area out this way and plantings in here, that way this would be protecting it somewhat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with that. It's just, what I heard somebody propose I thought was plantings in front of the rocks and that would be a waste. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, no. Because actually on both sides, there is quite a bit of vegetation, so it would be nice to see some of that come back if you could do plantings where you still need those rocks to protect it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I like that idea. MR. HERMAN: Well they would have to do some sort of spacing of the seaward line of them. So what you are saying is the plantings would have some sort of protection. If you look at some of the companies that do the alternative erosion control methodologies, they use that exact thing and try to sell products where you actually have like a planted revetment or planted rip-rap, and we could certainly try that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, there is no LWRP review on this and the CAC resolves to support it with the condition the project is consistent with the LWRP. And while we were out at the site, the only comments I have from us is suggesting a single row of larger stone. The environmental technician review said rip-rap will cause, may cause a loss of spartina wetlands and suggests planting first to stabilize the bank. MR. HERMAN: I think that I just addressed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we really can't act on it without an LWRP anyway, so, are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: DEC hasn't looked at this yet, right? MR. HERMAN: Not that I'm aware. I haven't gotten anything back from them in writing so. If you want to keep it open, unless you have any other comments, hold it over to March and then if we hear something back from DEC or you hear something back from Mark Terry, we can address it. TRUSTEE KING: If they come out, I'll be glad to look at it with them. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we table this to March. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Last one. En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 474 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead immediately landward of and six inches higher than existing timber bulkhead to be cut to grade; construct three four-foot returns and backfill with approximately 85 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Construct a 20x40 foot swimming pool in location of existing patio to be removed, install pool drywell and erect pool fence; restructure roof over existing one and two-story dwelling and extend existing roof overhand over existing concrete and slate patio areas; and install drainage system of drywells for dwelling. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. Rob, we have a lot of comments. If I may, I'll make our comments and then we can start that way. 47 Board of'frustccs 14,2007 MR HERMAN: Sure, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: First of all, it's consistent with LWRP and the CAC supports the application with a 20-foot, non-turf buffer, On your plans you show a 10-foot non-turf buffeL On the south side of the property there are cedar trees right up on the bulkhead, How do you propose to replace the bulkhead with those cedar trees? MR HERMAN: What I think would have to happen is those trees would have to be balled and burlaped during excavation, I discussed this with Alan this afternoon and he's completely willing to do that TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was going to be our suggestion. MR. HERMAN: Some of that naturally existing bacrus that is going to be on the landward side of the bulkhead is going to get lost I mean it's virtually impossible to preserve bacrus like that because it's such a fragile shrub. What he can do if you want to try to maintain the understory and maybe make that buffer in that area a little more diverse, is to use bayberry, beach plumb, bacrus, something that is sort of planted interspersed with the cedars. Alan agreed if any of the cedars were lost during the holding period he could still purchase new red cedars to replant them in that area, the buffer, to replace them on a one-to-one ratio. I think his father, who owned this property for decades and who is probably still the owner of record, but Alan Jr., and his family is gradually going to be taking over the site. I think his father originally planted those cedars for screening because there is no way that that bulkhead was installed with those cedars in place. What Alan told me is his dad planted all of that The bacrus, I'm sure, came in naturally. But the cedars were planted by his dad and they are willing to maintain that And then we proposed throughout the rest sort of the Board's standard 10-foot, non-turf buffer behind the bulkheading that would all be non-turf; it would all be either a no-mow or he would use beach grass or fescue or he talked about using small bearberry or roses or something. So he doesn't want to obscure the view, but something in place of the lawn and we basically are proposing that not only behind the bulkhead but the whole way up that south side of the property where that tidal creek runs in there. Because the work being done on the house is minor, it's really all over the footprint of existing structures but while I would be reluctant to agree to a 20-foot, non-turf buffer, because that would really start to take up quite a bit of that area, instead trying to propose a ten-foot buffer that we work all the way around the property, not just the bulkhead, but the whole way around. And obviously we would agree to replant those trees in that south side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think in our notes we have a ten-foot buffer and I think that is sufficient for us. The area just inside of those cedar trees is a low spot and all those fresh cuttings. Explanation, please. MR. HERMAN: That is a funny story that I relayed to Jim, actually. There is a drain that runs out to the bulkhead and according to Alan, his father had somewhat of a hairbrained idea a long time ago when they were kids to make that a little skating area. So when that lawn was established, you can see all the lawn was pitched into that location and then they would try to fill it with fresh water, let it freeze, then they would use the pipe that is still there to let the fresh water run out into the bay. When they abandoned it, it colonized with probably some natural stuff but also stuff that he planted. And at one point there was a little bridge. I don't know, Jim, if you remember that from the application in 1998. 48 14-, ~?O(n TRUSTEE KING: Remember the bridge? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Now I do. MR. HERMAN: Now, he tried to sort of make this little disaster into this ornamental planted area. Alan Jr., didn't find that particularly attractive, Alan, Jr., and also the bridge was probably not a good structure. So he took the bridge away, cleared the whole area and planned to fill it, though he has not done that yet. I mean it's really top soil. So they were not trying to hide the cuttings from you, obviously. It's just an area and it is really in the middle of a maintained turf lawn. It was artificially created, it was maintained, it was let go. And I would just suggest to the Board that we focus the non-turf buffer and everything along the shoreline and sort of just let them revert that back to lawn. Otherwise, I said to Alan, it's like the cartoon where you build the pool then the duck lands in it and then the regulator comes by and says you can't use your pool anymore, this is a wetland. So the plan is, would be to topsoil that area and just revert that back to part of the lawn and use the area behind the bulkhead and wetland boundary as a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where would you get the topsoil; use some of the backfill? MR. HERMAN: We didn't get that far in the conversation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We should probably put the estimated topsoil in this permit. MR. HERMAN: We could do that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have an estimate? MR. HERMAN: I don't. What's funny is they have had spoil sites on this lot before from where they dredged for that dock. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be a small amount. It's a matter of a little regrading. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So why don't we just say regrade. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Can you explain the drainage thing with the pool, that drain pipe? MR. HERMAN: Yes. We show a dewatering line, well, it's described as a discharge line from the wheat lines for dewaterization of the pool. Because of the high groundwater table, the contractor may need to dewater when the pool is being constructed. What we have been finding with the DEC is what the pool contractors have always done is when they go out there and dig the hole, if there is groundwater, they dewater. And obviously this is uncontaminated ground water. It is not pool water. It's heading toward the pond anyway. They just get it there faster. DEC was showing up at some of these construction sites and finding dewaterization was not included in the permit and the work was being stopped and violations were being issued. So what we are trying to do now on any of these pools for groundwater may be at issue is to include dewaterization as part of the permit so that whatever agencies have an interest in it can condition that a sediment bag be included or the discharge be monitored or whatever it is. So this is not something I think this Board has seen before, at least from us, but it is something that might very well happen and so we are just trying to include as a regulated activity that during, probably, maybe a 48-hour period on and off during pool construction that they may have to dewater the excavation site so they can spray the gunnite or lay the vinyl liner or whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I think that was all our questions. Does the Board have any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any plans for the bulkhead that's on the northwest side of the property there? That looks like that is about ready to go. 49 BOllrd of Fcbrtlaryl4, 2(JrO MR. HERMAN: Of the bulkheading is included in the plan as being replaced. There is like two sections of bulkhead. There is the one in front of the little cottage and then the longer section that wraps the whole area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see. I didn't understand that. Wow. MR. HERMAN: The linear footage includes all of these sections wrapped all the way around, and then this here, too. Propose vinyl bulkhead to be constructed immediately landward. It's just hard to show this site all to scale. But that is the plan, to do all this and, as we discussed last month, this is one of these sites where DEC is going to require that the new bulkhead be installed landward so as to minimize disturbance to the marsh in front. And then the existing bulkhead just gets cut to grade. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about Mr. Miller's bulkhead? MR. HERMAN: We don't have any plans to do anything with that. That actually goes across Alan's property. As they get closer he may speak to the Millers and see if we want to modify the permit to include that. But that would require them to make some kind of financial agreement, permission letter, something with them. So at the moment we would just come over and stop at that point and just tie into the existing wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is this permitted, the gazebo, or is there an opportunity here to permit this in. I was thinking this was maybe permitted with the dock. But I don't know. I'm just saying if it's a non-permitted structure, this is the time to get it permitted in. I'll leave that to the Board. I did look at that because it would obviously be part of the non-turf buffer. We have Polaroids of it from 1997, but that's the only thing I could find. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was done around the same time as the docks. Because I know it was not there earlier on. MR. HERMAN: Alan didn't know. He knew it appeared at some point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know the approximate dimension? MR. HERMAN: I could scale it, sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could do that. Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: No. I was just happy to see they were going to keep that line of cedars in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only question I have is should we stipulate that the drain pipe to the bulkhead be removed? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I was going to do that. MR. HERMAN: Yes, and I made Alan aware of that as well. He had no problem with it. The gazebo is about 12 feet in diameter. I think it's about 100-square feet, looking at it on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the request of En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE as submitted, included with that description is a gazebo approximately 12-feet in diameter. The cedar trees will be balled and removed and then replaced if any die, as we discussed. The ten-foot, non-turf buffer all the way around. Also including some fill to regrade that low spot in the lawn and there is sufficient drywells and gutters around the house, isn't there? MR. HERMAN: There is a drainage system proposed of drywells. 50 ,lr ] 14, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, include that. And drywells, backwash for the pool. MR. HERMAN: There is a drywell proposed for that as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, great. And that the pipe for the pool will be removed after construction. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: All the rest have been postponed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the concept of Jim McMahon applying to DEe for shellfish transplant program from the uncertified area in Hashamomuck to a certified conditional area that has been applied for for the four days in May, to approve that and send him a resolution stating that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Okay, now we can close the public hearing. RECEIVED ~ ~ :3 ;,3,-" 1M A"0 ? Ofl)l~ ~.~~U 4t;.~ . ., >' , ". Cler. 51