Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/18/2007 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Gbosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N ew York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES R[e::lV::;) ,;.~ /0: 33/JM AUC 2 !i),007 (:Jf:JAdI U. L),!;a ~OUlhdd TL"I! CI~rk Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert Ghosio, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Montefusco, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 9,2007, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:30 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone. I apologize for this meeting being late. We were supposed to start at 6:30. Some of you have been sitting here could see some of the problems that are going on. We are trying to give people the opportunity to speak. We would like to keep things moving along. I don't want to cut anybody off, either. "frUSLces I'm Jim King, I have the pleasure of being the chairman of this board. To my far left -- I'll introduce the rest of the board -- is Dave Bergen Dave. Next is Peggy Dickerson. Jill Doherty is the vice chair. Lauren Standish is here, she's our office manager. Bob Ghosio is a trustee. We have our Assistant Town Attorney Lori Montefusco here as our legal representative and we have Wayne Galante taking notes. If you have anything to say, please come to the microphone and identify yourself for the record so we can get everything on. We try and do a good job of keeping an accurate record because there have been some questions lately. I want to make sure everything is recorded properly. Usually we have a member of the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory Council. We usually have a member here. They also do site inspections for applications. They look at the same things we look at and give us their recommendations on how we should process the application. I think this is going to be an interesting year as far as problems go. There is a lot of dredging issues that will be coming up this year and you could see there are some serious water quality problems that are very difficult to address, but we do our best. We do runoff projects, we have two projects now that have been approved and we are just waiting for the funding, really, for one. The other one has been funded and should be starting pretty soon in Mattituck. With that, we are late enough now, we'll just get going with the meeting. The next field inspection is May 9. Is everybody comfortable with that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The next regular meeting will be May 16 at 6:30 with the work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Has anybody read the minutes of the 20th of September? I haven't read them. I apologize. I probably have them in my mass of paperwork. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We got them because last month we talked about it and some people hadn't read them yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read them. They were all right. I'll make a q j (\, 1 motion approve the September 22, 2006, minutes. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for March, 2007. A check for $5,604.21 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a resolution. 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, April 18, 2007, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Harbor Lights Property Owners Association - SCTM#71-2-11.4 David Shamoon - SCTM#122-9-7.20 James Grace - SCTM#26-2-6.1 Barbara DeFina - SCTM#26-2-7.1 Virginia C. Sica-Peters - SCTM#86-5-9.3 Basilio Esposito - SCTM#53-4-7 Belvedere Property Management, LLC - SCTM#134-3-5 Cheryl Hansen - SCTM#78-5-3 Leander B. Glover, Jr. - SCTM#138-2-33 Harry and Katherine Bais - SCTM#70-4-42 TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the resolution? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Four, Resolutions and Administrative Permits. ELIZABETH CANTRELL requests an Administrative Permit to trim 1 ~. . .' the phragmites to 12 inches as needed. Located: 2125 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. Before we start on this, a quick note. We have some cancellations. I don't want anybody sitting here waiting for something to come up that has been cancelled or postponed. Number 16 on page five, the application of Arthur Torell, has been postponed. Number 17, the application of James Baker, has been postponed. Number 18, the application of Benali, LLC, has been postponed. Number 19, the application of David Shamoon has been postponed. Number 20, the application of Paolo and Jean Blower has been postponed for tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 21, the application of Virginia C. Sica-Peters is non-jurisdiction, so there will be no hearing. TRUSTEE KING: And there will be no hearing on 21 because it's been found to be out of our jurisdiction. MS. MESIANO: Could I add to that two matters, nine and ten. I'm not prepared to address them this evening. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, the application of Elizabeth Siddons and; number ten, the application of Vincent Basilice, you wish to postpone? MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Nine and ten will be postponed also. Those are two applications you are the permit person for, right, Cathy? MS. MESIANO: Yes TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. ELIZABETH CANTRELL, we just started this one. This was a little interesting. Jill and I looked at this, and Dave Bergen. The three of us looked at this, I think it was Saturday morning. We allowed trimming the phragmites to 12 inches and in some of my discussions with DEC there is a possibility that it may be better to mow them right to ground level to try to eradicate the phragmites. What we'll do in this case -- Elizabeth Cantrell works in our office, so it's somebody we can keep an eye on. Not that we don't trust her or anything like that, but we'll give her this permit to trim the phragmites to 12 inches in one section and we'll give her another 25-foot section that can be mowed to ground level, and we'll monitor the two areas and see how it works. And one of the reasons I decided to do this was I guess it's the next door neighbor, somebody has been going in there and mowing and the spartina patens are coming back in place. I think it's a experiment that is well worth doing. That's what we'll try and do with this. I think it will work out to give us a good indication as I ~. 'frus[(:cs to how we should handle this in the future. So I make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit with those conditions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Briarcliff Landscape, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL & TERESA SMITH, requests an Administrative Permit to revegetate the bluff by adding blue dune grass to the slope and plant a buffer zone along the top of the bluff to prevent further erosion. Located: 1405 Terry Lane, Orient. We did go out and look at this and we didn't have a problem with the revegetation of the bluff but what we did want to make sure is that we try to use native plantings because in the planting plan that the applicant offered there was some non-native plantings there that would require a lot of maintenance and we would rather see native plantings that are low maintenance. We also wanted a non-turf buffer landward of the bluff. And we have down here in the field notes a 20-foot, non-turf buffer to go there. Let me take a second to review the environmental technician's notes. (Perusing.) Not to use blue dune grass because it's not a native species. Again, we are recommending American Beach Grass to be used instead, and we recommend using a salt-tolerant species, again, like we talked about. We have a note here from Briarcliff Landscape that they would approve of a 20-foot buffer. So, if there are any additional comments from the board on this one? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit with the change from blue dune grass to American Beach Grass and the inclusion of 20-foot, non-turf buffer with natural plantings. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. CICHANOWICZ: Can I address the board? My name is Neil Cichanowicz with Briarcliff Landscaping. Just to be clear on your approval, what I'll need to do is change the plantings on the bluff to American Beach Grass and then the buffer zone I think we resubmitted a plan that showed like a 20-foot buffer. Can I come up for a second. I have other copies. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here is one dated April 2. MR. CICHANOWICZ: There's like eight copies here. I think it was 16. :) still showing the blue dune grass on there. Obviously that has to be changed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) Okay. All right, very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can he just do a handwritten change and initial it and that would be good for our purposes, instead of him redoing the plan? Is that all right with everybody? It's a minor thing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, mark out "blue dune grass" and put in "American Beach Grass" and have him initial it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Then it's done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That works for me. We'll just do it with one official copy and it will get stamped. TRUSTEE KING: You made a motion, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's already approved. MS. MONTEFUSCO: We have to redo the resolution though. You just changed it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the resolution we removed the blue dune grass and substituting it with American Beach Grass. MS. MONTEFUSCO: We have to revote on that then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did. It's in the resolution. All we are doing is amending the plan to reflect what we are voting to approve. Is that all right? MS. MONTEFUSCO: I thought I heard you say blue dune grass when you read the resolution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MS. MONTEFUSCO: Okay. V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING/STAKE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, mooring/stake permits. Numbers one through eight, I'll make a motion on one through eight, on all these moorings, they are replacing permits that were there with boats similar in size, so I'll make a motion we approve numbers one through eight, which read: 1. PETER BELL requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 19-foot boat, replacing Mooring #891. Access: Private 2. JACQUELINE LONK requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 19-foot boat, replacing Mooring #775. Access: Public. 3. CHERYL HANSEN requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek replacing Mooring #111 for a boat no larger than 35-feet. Access: Private. 4. STEPHEN GRANDE requests a Mooring Permit in Cedar Beach Creek for a 13-foot boat, replacing Mooring #129. Access: Public. 5. JOHN GRUOSSO requests a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek for a 17 -foot boat, replacing Mooring #95. Access: Public. 6. SUZANNA MEDOVOY-NEUMANN requests a Stake Permit in Narrow River 'frUSLBCS 11 7007 for a boat no larger than 18-feet, replacing Stake #23. Access: Public. 7. CANDACE KURTZ requests a Stake Permit in Narrow River for a boat no larger than 18-feet, replacing Stake #11. Access Public. 8. ERIC IZZO requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Creek for a 22-foot boat, replacing Mooring #42. Access: Public. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: What was the size of the boat on #970 before? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine is PHILIP STANTON requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 35-foot boat, replacing Mooring #970. Access: Private. The previous boat was much smaller. I can't remember the size but I would like to make a motion to approve this as long as it doesn't impede navigation or cause a hazard. If it does, it has to be revoked. TRUSTEE KING: Or moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or moved. The code is 35 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I thought when we were talking about that we were going to reduce something that size. I think it's still in the code, 35 feet, is the maximum. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And in Town Creek there are boats that are 35 feet, that are that large in there. But without seeing the boat at the mooring, it's kind of hard to tell if it's going to impede navigation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my question. I was not sure. I thought 35 feet was much larger than what we allowed in the creeks. But if you are saying no, you checked on that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the maximum is 35. They meet the limit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to make sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Philip Stanton with that condition. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: BASILIO ESPOSITO requests an Amendment to Permit #6387 to demolish the existing dwelling and the deck and to reconstruct a new structure with a new foundation. Located: 1745 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. Good evening. Your name, sir, for the record? MR. ESPOSITO: I'm Basilio Esposito. Good evening. \) ~:O{j7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The board went out and looked at this and because you are now going from just going up to a second floor, now you are demolishing it. MR. ESPOSITO: There is no foundation at all, just on here, so for that reason it would never support the second floor. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. We understand that. But because you are now demolishing it, we have to take into consideration where the other houses are and where you are as far as the waterfront. So our recommendation from the board is that we would like to see the house moved back ten feet landward, because now you are taking the house down. MR. ESPOSITO: Well, what difference would it make? I'm just knocking down something, it would require better construction. I will not knock down because any other reason. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are not questioning your need to knock down the structure, to completely renovate now. We are not questioning that. But because you are now taking the house -- MR. ESPOSITO: Because I knock down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are taking this opportunity to mitigate for the environment, to move the house back. If there was nothing there and you came in to do a new house, we would not let you build it that close. So now you are taking it down, we are just asking you move it back ten feet so you are in line with our regulations. And it's safer for you in the long run because you never know what kind of storms are coming, you know. I know you have a stone wall there, but it's -- MR. ESPOSITO: If I take it down then I lose completely the water view. I don't need the building in that spot anymore. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's only ten feet. You won't be back behind your neighbor. You'll still be in front of your neighbor. MR. ESPOSITO: On my right. My right, my neighbor is about, I would say 15, 20 feet in front of me. In other words, when you look to my right what I get the best view I lose completely all the view. What I need the house on the water for if I can't see the water? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have straight out and to the left MR. ESPOSITO: Straight out is the only place I have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe it was the feeling of the board, and we also have our, we have another department in town called the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and they have reviewed it as being inconsistent for that reason also. So the determination would be inconsistent unless we moved it back and then we can deem it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: What's the determination on the LWRP; it's inconsistent? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. This is proposed reconstruction. Because now it's not inplace. So now it's inconsistent. ;~ \)f'I'rust(:cs MR. ESPOSITO: It's inconsistent? Why is it inconsistent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under the conditions -- to try to answer your question -- under the conditions for the LWRP, it recommends that all houses be 100 feet back from the water. When we have somebody come in brand new on a lot that has never been touched and wants to put a house on it, we now try to have it at least 100 feet back. In your case, you have a house there. It's already there. But they are saying if, when you just wanted to put a second floor on it, we were not taking the whole house down, so they were saying okay, that's all right. But now, because you have to take the whole house down, there is the opportunity the town has now to ask the applicant to move the house back. Now, again, it would be all the way back 100 feet in the LWRP and we certainly don't want to do that because we want to make sure you are not that far back. What we are saying is we can mitigate this to meet the standards of the LWRP by moving it back ten feet. Because I know the contour of the shore changes slightly there. That way it's in line between your house and the other two houses. In other words, now you are, already, like you said, farther back one house to the right and this would move you back ten feet, but it would not move you back behind the house to the left. MR. ESPOSITO: Ten feet makes a big difference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Esposito, one of the things our president just reminded me is that our ZBA requires a 75-foot setback from a bulkhead and since you have a concrete seawall, we don't know whether they are going to determine that to be a bulkhead, which would then put a 75 foot setback on you. So we would like to present to you tonight to table this so we can find out that information. MR. ESPOSITO: Well, the house right now is less than 75 feet. It's about 65 feet away from the bulkhead. Roughly. I don't know exactly. TRUSTEE KING: I think what we want to do is move it back ten feet. That's less than 75 feet from the block wall; am I correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that was just 75 feet. I think it's 50 now. That's why we are talking moving it back 25 feet, to get it to 75 feet. (Perusing.) It's 35 feet right now. That's what that is. This would make it 45 feet. TRUSTEE KING: The scale is off at 25 feet from the house, if this is correct. From the stone wall. If this is correct. That's where the scale is off at. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At 75? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, 35. TRUSTEE KING: But this is a pretty huge expansion on this house. There is another layer. This will be quite an expansion, this JI '~OiO l) of Truslc'cs proposed addition. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it the feeling of the board we would like to table it? MR. ESPOSITO: The extension on the right, I brought it down by five feet. That's going to be much less. TRUSTEE KING: My only concern is the ZBA, whether or not they consider a cement seawall retaining wall, as a bulkhead. I don't know. I think we should find this out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We would like to get further information. Is that all right with you? The feeling of the board now is we would like to get further information. MR. ESPOSITO: Can I leave one wall up and go ahead and start work and leave everything just the way it is? Because I will not set back. I been in construction all my life. I want to do something to create better construction and -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we are saying is the Zoning Board is going to have, under their code, which is the Town Code, their restrictions are going to be further than what we are prepared to do tonight and we would like you to go to the Zoning Board first and then come to us. Or we could find out. TRUSTEE KING: My only problem is do they consider a cement block retaining wall a bulkhead. If they say no, it's not a retaining wall, good, fine, we move ahead with the application. If they say yes, it's a bulkhead, then you are mandated for a 75-foot setback under the zoning law. That's my take on this. I think we should table this until we find out what they determine that wall be to. MR. ESPOSITO: That's a sea wall. TRUSTEE KING: They may say it's a bulkhead and you have to be 75 feet landward of it with your house. MR. ESPOSITO: All there has the same seawall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a separate board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to get further information. I'll make a motion to table this tonight. MR. ESPOSITO: Can I file the old approval, whatever you approve before I can go ahead and build the way it was before? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That permit still exists, yes. MR. ESPOSITO: All right, because I'm trying to do something good. TRUSTEE KING: The original permit was for an addition to this home, and it was approved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we certainly don't want you to go back to the old permit if you feel the integrity of your home is -- MR. ESPOSITO: I have to reinforce them. I have to go reinforce and that's it. I'm trying to do something decent because I can't look out of my house and this is the foundation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What we are saying at this point is we would like to table it. :'1)1)7 in of 'frustees I fL 2007 MR. ESPOSITO: I understand. But you have to understand I already permit approved, now I want to make next step to improve the construction. That's what I'm trying, to improve the construction. TRUSTEE KING: You have a valid permit to add on to your existing home. Now you come in and you are going to demolish the whole thing. That starts a different process. MR. ESPOSITO: Right. The reason is because of the foundation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We understand. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is your decision tonight? Do you choose to go back to the old permit or stay with what you have? MR. ESPOSITO: I would not decide tonight, to tell the truth. TRUSTEE KING: Can I get a motion it this? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to table the applicant's request for an amendment from Basilio Esposito for permit #6387. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of ANTONIO VANGI requests an Amendment to Permit #6505 to include a single row of 500 to 1,000 lb. stone toe armor at the seaward toe of the new retaining wall instead of plus/minus one ton stone. Located: 645 Glen Court, Cutchogue. We all went out and reviewed this and I don't think we had a problem. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to mention one thing in this application. The applicant is going to use Duck Pond for an access site; am I correct? MR. HERMAN: Yes, that's the plan. And I think last time when you approved the original permit you said that might be a little hairy. TRUSTEE KING: It might be a little complicated. I was down there the other day and the town has dumped a bunch of surge stone at the end of the road to stop the runoff. Now there is a nice big pile of surge stone at the end of the road. In order to get access, that all has to be removed. Somebody better check with the town to get the okay from the Highway Department. MR. HERMAN: All right. I don't actually know if they actually hired a contractor yet. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like a dump truck load or two has been dumped there because there a big problem of road runoff in that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Usually the contractor knows to go to Pete Harris and get bonded. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to just mention that. MR. HERMAN: The couple of people they were talking to, I know are 11 of' 'frllstccs 18, 20CO the usual contractors around town. TRUSTEE KING: It's not going to be a simple matter of removing the guard rail and driving down. There is a lot of material to be put aside and has to be put back. Just so you know. MR. HERMAN: Also, just remember on this one, the original permit, the language in the written part of the permit didn't actually reference the stone, so just make sure that that is, because this is not, I mean there was stone approved at your request under the original permit. It's just because of the request of the DEC we are downsizing the stone. TRUSTEE KING: Understood. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve this application of Antonio Vangi. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Suffolk Environmental Consultants on behalf of THOMAS GLEASON requests an amendment to permit #5472 to extend the bulkhead return by an additional eight feet and to elevate the top of the revetment to equal the top of the bulkhead. Located: 5115 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. Jill and I did go out to look at this one and it appeared as though when the job was done originally, that it wasn't, the revetment was not as high as what was on the original plan and with the storm the other day that was, there was massive damage done behind the revetment and behind the bulkhead and so it made perfect sense looking at this to extend the return by eight feet and to elevate the revetment back up. As a matter of fact I talked to Mr. Hamilton about this specifically in a meeting I was in yesterday and he agreed with that also. TRUSTEE KING: It wasn't built high enough to begin with, I guess. That's my understanding. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The understanding is it was not built to the specs originally. If it had been built to the specs, possibly this would not have happened. But that's hindsight. Now, unfortunately, the property owner had a tremendous amount of damage, like a lot of people did, from the southeaster that we had. Even though it's called a nor'easter to us, in essence it was a southeaster. Are there any other comments about this? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, I'll make a motion to approve this amendment for Thomas Gleason, 5115 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 12 Hoard of'frust('cs (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Suffolk Environmental Consultants 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 recongifuration of the proposed gravel driveway. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. Anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. As you know, we met in the field on this last Wednesday. I'm handing up surveys that add drainage to the property, particularly along the western side lot line, which consists of a French drain and a second formal leaching basin. That French drain will actually feed storm water into those two and should eliminate any concerns relating to the fill and the impact it could have to the adjacent property owner. The second point I want to make is that what prompts this application is this man has a small house, 28x40 foot house. He simply wants to be able to park underneath and the fill is not something he wants to do, it's something he's required to do as a matter of building codes. And it's designed to minimize the fill, which is why it only covers 50% of the surrounding perimeter foundation. It's important to know that all the fill is retained behind retaining walls, so there is really no, there is little or no potential for that fill to somehow wash into the wetlands. And it's also important to note that the wetlands themselves consist of really a swale vegetated by phragmites, and the actual map of the wetland boundary as per DEC maps occurs some 310 feet away from the proposed property. You had asked us at the last hearing to consider the removal of one of the sets of the back stoops in order to, so that the project would not have any setback implications, and I'm here to say that that was removed and that the back stoop that remains would be 56 feet from the wetland boundary, which is the phragmictic swale whereas the house would be 50. So we are not encroaching any closer toward the wetlands. I believe it's an entirely reasonable request. I know, I just think when you are dealing with a house this small it's not unreasonable to have some sort of attached garage and I note that we have established a clearing and non-disturbance line that really engulfs most of the lot of this property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question, Bruce. How far out from the house will this fill extend on both sides? !3 TRUSTEE KING: It goes to the retaining walls, right? MR. ANDERSON: The fill is approximately eight feet; eight feet out from the retaining wall, I mean from the border of the house. And it will, the road is higher than the land, so it's not a situation where storm water is going to run from the house on to the road. It's really the opposite is true. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC did look at this and they did not support the application for the amendment because the proposed dwelling is too close to the wetlands. The property appears to be affected by salt water and there is evidence of endangered and protected plant life such as pink lady, etc., and LWRP has found it inconsistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, excuse me, in the inconsistency, for what reason? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll take a look at that now. It is inconsistent, it has been noted -- it minimizes loss of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Minimize losses. MR. ANDERSON: If I may, I would like to address that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that it, Bob, or are there others -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands, and that's it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It says here the proposed distance from the corner of the residential structure is 51 feet; to the proposed steps, 46 feet. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required. And they would like, LWRP would like us to adhere to those setbacks. And that's it for the moment. That's alii have here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Recalling the French drains and the extra drainage, does that mitigate that? TRUSTEE KING: There is no fill to be brought in on the south side of that house? MR. ANDERSON: No fill. TRUSTEE KING: What about between the retaining wall and the road? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it has to wrap around the house on the north side. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking where your retaining walls are. Will there be any fill between the retaining wall and the road? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it shows it right there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I asked. How far out? MR. ANDERSON: It goes out about eight feet. TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about from the retaining wall to the road. Will that area be filled? MR. ANDERSON: Can you point to it? TRUSTEE KING: Fill in this area (indicating.) MR. ANDERSON: No, the fill is right here. TRUSTEE KING: Only in this confined area here? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. . ii i< ~~{J07 ;J B()anJ of'fruSleCS I 10,'Oli7 TRUSTEE KING: With the retaining walls holding it in place, MR ANDERSON: That is correct. TRUSTEE KING: Because I know the original permit said no filL That's why I'm questioning this. MR ANDERSON: I understand that. I don't want to put in filL None of us want to do that. It's just that we are compelled to do it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because of the flooding? MR ANDERSON: No, because of the building code. Absent the fill, under the zoning code it becomes a three-story house. We don't want to fill anything. We have to. TRUSTEE KING: If there is no fill being added to the south side, how does that change it? MR ANDERSON: Because more than 50% of the perimeter distance of that is covered by filL It's done at 50% TRUSTEE KING: Now I got you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I ask a question, Bruce. The driveway that goes under the house, is there no possibility of that garage coming out the east side and not going under the house, so the driveway would come off Northfield Lane into a garage that is at the east end of the house? MR ANDERSON: You mean between -- can you point to it? Show me. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just looking to take away the need for the filL If this driveway is going here is there not the possibility of the garage being on this end of the house? What's the need for it to go under the house? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would have to build a bigger structure. We are maintaining the same footprint. TRUSTEE KING: It would be a larger footprint. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whether or not it's a garage or basement, the Town Code says the same, it's still a third floor, right? MR ANDERSON: You drop the thing down, I suppose, but you make the footprint bigger. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the garage is in place of the basement. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: His choice is either put the fill or don't put a basement. MR. ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, yes. MR ANDERSON: But I do want to address a couple of things. Number one, first of all, LWRP, the first thing I would like to say is for the LWRP to come back and object to the house being 50 feet from the wetland. That's already established. So we are not revisiting that, okay. It was, the survey that they were looking at had the two rear stoops on it. The easterly one was 46 feet from the wetland boundary, so we have now mitigated that, so the setback issues are mitigated in this submission. The second thing is to say that to build in a flood plane is inconsistent with the plan wipes out almost 90% of the houses on the shoreline. Because most houses on the shoreline are in flood planes. The way that is mitigated, it's mitigated through the design of the building and that is controlled by the building inspector and the Building Department. That design is that the slab of the house can be sited no lower than the grade that it sits on and there be a hydrostatic openings of one inch for every square foot of area to allow water to theoretically pass and repass through the home. And that's a FEMA regulation. So the regulations themselves mitigate the LWRP and I could not get a building permit unless it featured those hydrostatic openings or unless it complied with the FEMA regulations. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP does say, and I missed this before, that the majority of the property is located in a flood plane elevation eight and recommended that the structure be located not within the flood zone to the greatest extent practicable. TRUSTEE KING: There is no basement here, correct? There is no basement? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's a garage. It's a garage/basement. There is three levels to the home. There is the garage and two stories above it. TRUSTEE KING: I mean the rest of the house, does it have a basement under it? That's my question. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the cavity, if you will, is 28 by 40. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But without the fill he would not be able to build this end forward. He would have a basement. TRUSTEE KING: It was my impression from the first application that there was no basement, it's going to be built on a slab. MR. ANDERSON: It is. We are not excavating a basement. That's what I'm trying to tell you. I can't get a flood plane permit. I can't drop a basement into the ground. And I think that's what you mean by basement. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I mean you dig a hole in the ground. MR. ANDERSON: It is a slab at ground level. TRUSTEE KING: The slab is ground level. The garage will be ground level, the floor of the garage is going to be ground level, basically. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's correct. And I need to bring the fill around it so that it doesn't count as a story under the definition of "story." TRUSTEE KING: How are you going to prevent road runoff coming down the driveway and going into his garage? MR. ANDERSON: We have a drywell there. TRUSTEE KING: Is it enough to handle it? MR. ANDERSON: I hope so. That will be his problem and not yours. IS.201l7 16 ofTrusi~cs I don't mean to say that, but I mean, honestly. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It is if it overflows and runs down into the wetland it's our problem. MR. ANDERSON: The thing is he'll have a driveway of some sort. I don't know where else to put it on the lot and I don't really think it's wise to make the house any bigger. It's a tiny house. TRUSTEE KING: If it's that tiny, all the fill will be maintained within the retaining walls? That's my question. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where are they planning on putting the utilities? MR. ANDERSON: The utilities will go on the first floor but it will have to be elevated to meet the BFE, which is the base flood elevation. Because you can't put your utilities below the flood elevation. But those are all building -- and I can't get relief from you and I can't get relief from the Building Department for any of those flood related things. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know, I'm still a little confused. I'm looking at the elevation of the land and the elevation of the first floor. You are not going to have a hell of a lot of head room in that garage. 13 foot elevation, first floor elevation, I take it that's the top of the floor, elevation 13. Would that be the standing surface to the floor? MR. ANDERSON: No, that's usually the under. You know, I don't have the building plans with me. TRUSTEE KING: The first floor elevation is the floor level. You have floor joists and everything hanging down below that and if you have a natural elevation of seven feet, you are only looking at five feet. MR. ANDERSON: No, it's not designed that way. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at what this thing shows. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's going to have an eight foot. MR. ANDERSON: Seven feet is the limit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a minimum, isn't there? MR. ANDERSON: But that's a Building Department. As I said, I don't even want to ask for the fill, but I have no choice. TRUSTEE KING: You are ending up with 12-foot elevation in the fill area; am I right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 12 going to ten it looks like. MR. ANDERSON: Sorry, what's the question? TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't that benchmarked in the tree at 12 feet elevation? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it was. TRUSTEE KING: That's the height of the fill, right? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be the maximum height of the fill? ,'\ ] l K, 01 MR. ANDERSON: That's right. TRUSTEE KING: If you have -- MR. ANDERSON: And the grade elevation. TRUSTEE KING: I guess you are probably around an eight foot elevation just outside that retaining wall. So the wall will be about four feet high. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it was chest high. You saw it. It's about like this (indicating.). That's what we, that's -- this high. TRUSTEE KING: I understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bruce, would you consider doing some kind of planting down in that boggy area there to help mitigate this to get the fill? MR. ANDERSON: I absolutely would. Because a lot of it is lawn. The interesting thing, as you know, most of this property is lawn because it's been encroached on by the neighbors TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That area I was standing on, you know, I was sinking down to my knees. It's pretty boggy down there. MR. ANDERSON: It's soft. It's low. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I admit I'm a big guy, but -- TRUSTEE KING: We'll get you some snow shoes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm telling you, I almost -- with a four-wheel drive you'll be pulling me out of there. How does the board feel about that? Perhaps some kind of mitigation. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. I think that would be helpful. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good idea. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE KING: French drains would take care of any problematic runoff. All the fill will be retained behind those retaining walls. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to specify a certain area? MR. ANDERSON: What I would suggest is this. You know, what we can do is take this from the air and we can define where those lawn areas are and we could propose native plantings in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about plantings in the flood zone? MR. ANDERSON: Of course we can. We plant in wetlands all the time, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As long as that would sustain a flood. It can't be used for anything anyway, so it would be nice to restore that. MR. ANDERSON: We didn't do any of the clearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We know. What we are saying it's a boggy-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to make sure what you are going to plant will last. MR. ANDERSON: If I were to go in there and plant something like groudsel, even small stuff, something like ten foot on center, it would take off and you would have big groudsel within two years. 'J ('\, ~O{j7 IS Hl):Jrd l.ff"rrUSk'CS And it will grow well because it's soft down there and it's not an expensive plant, you know. That can be easily, I mean I would probably mix it up with a few other things but as a primary shrub, I would suggest that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response.) Anybody else want to address this? MS. MURRAY: CAC recommends against it and it's against the LWRP-- Anne Murray, East Marion -- I would suggest that you not approve this. It's in a flood plane. I think the owner of this property, I wouldn't spend my money building over there. If there is a really bad storm it will end up in the wetlands whatever is built there anyway, so I would say please don't do it. It's against the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you want to mention the restoration part of the mitigation by LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When the mitigation in the replanting of wetlands would help to mitigate the issues with the LWRP. That is allowed by that code and those policies. That's really not a bad idea, to be able to do that. TRUSTEE KING: What was the original, was there an original assessment available on the original application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the original? I don't see one. TRUSTEE KING: When did we look at this, two years, ago, originally, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I think so, sure. TRUSTEE KING: It was not this board. It was another board. I was on the board and Peggy was on the board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was brought before us last month, because I remember -- and the LWRP report was there last month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What Jim is saying, with the prior permit might have been prior to LWRP, so he may not have-- MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I know what you are getting at. Was there an LWRP. I don't remember. TRUSTEE KING: Was there LWRP review on the original one is my question. MR. ANDERSON: I don't remember. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought it was reviewed under this amendment. TRUSTEE KING: What was the date under the new application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original application was back in '04. April 2004. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was prior to LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because last month I remember the comment from the LWRP person that was here. TRUSTEE KING: Because this is a valid permit now to build a house there. That was what I was trying to get at. 01 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we made a building permit application. That application was rejected because we had the three story. That's what prompted us to come back to you folks. TRUSTEE KING: Right. Because if I remember right, we worked a lot trying to turn this house and downsizing it. I remember we went through an awful lot with this original application. MR. ANDERSON: I was hired in 2003 to begin this process. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original permit was issued September of 2004. TRUSTEE KING: So that was before the LWRP was adopted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: Were the French drains in place when it was reviewed by LWRP? Was this what they reviewed? MR. ANDERSON: No, not what I handed you today. I just picked that up this morning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Last week in the field I asked for French drain. TRUSTEE KING: That was not reviewed under LWRP, the drainage system. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that mitigates. MR. ANDERSON: And the back stoop was removed. TRUSTEE KING: So there have been modifications made to this since the time it was reviewed by LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: All right. That's what I thought. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the original permit was when, September 4, 2004. Did you ever do an extension? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Honestly, what happened is we were very much delayed by DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Did you get DEC approval for this? MR. ANDERSON: Not yet. I've gotten it for the house and I'm anticipating an easy road with them, because it's minor. TRUSTEE KING: Nothing is easy in this world. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any idea what the depth of ground water is there? MR. ANDERSON: Ground water elevation is at 4.8 -- is at 1.9 feet above sea level. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I imagine the sanitary has been approved? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we have Health Department approval for that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments? (No response.) If not, I would like to make a motion that we approve the application for an amendment, permit #5999 for placement of 40 cubic yards of fill around the northern portion of the proposed dwelling, construction of four retaining calls containing said fill, construction of three sets of stairs and reconfiguration of 118.2007 II I I ;:01"- the proposed gravel driveway with the stipulation that the French drain be added as has been drawn on this print that we, that was submitted tonight as well as pending a planting plan to help mitigate the issues on the wetlands there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wait a second. Did we reduce the three sets of stairs to two? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, as applied for -- we took one off and eliminated it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It should read, again, construction of four retaining walls that contain said fill and construction of two sets of stairs, not three. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of KATHRYN NIEDORODA. MR. ESPOSITO: Excuse me one second. I'm Vincent Esposito. I'm sorry to delay your time. I apologize. I'm the son of Basilio Esposito. We were outside. While things are fresh in everyone's mind, the board wanted us to go back ten feet. We wanted to know if the board would be willing to accept five feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This application has been tabled so we really can't discuss it now, but even if we do five or ten feet, we can discuss it at a later time. We still need to find out from the Zoning Board first before we make any decision. MR. ESPOSITO: If we agree to ten feet, can we tell you in the next day or so or do we have to wait for the next meeting? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We still have to wait for the next meeting to do a resolution. So it's been tabled. And we have to find out information from the Zoning Board first because if the Zoning Board says 75 feet then we can't legally say ten. MR. ESPOSITO: Can we accept ten feet in the next day or so? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We still have to find out from the Zoning Board. That has to be done next. MR. ESPOSITO: How did it come about ten, initially? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten was, we wanted to move back ten feet to keep in line with the other houses. MR. ESPOSITO: But if we agree to ten, we can't get the okay anyway, correct? C I "fTrusi"cs 1:'. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, pending zoning. MR ESPOSITO: So we got teased by ten. MS. MONTEFUSCO: Is this part of the prior-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is Esposito. MS. MONTEFUSCO: Is this for the record on Esposito? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I don't want to open it now. You can call the office tomorrow. MR ESPOSITO: But why mention ten? All right, fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other issue came up in the middle of it We didn't realize the other issue before tonight otherwise we would have adjusted. Sorry. MR ESPOSITO: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of KATHRYN NIEDORODA requests a one-year extension permit #6140, as issued on May 18, 2005 and amended September 20,2006. Located: 700 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. This was discussed by the full board and the board didn't have any problems with it Are there any comments from anyone? It's just an extension. (No response.) So if there are no concerns or other comments from the board, I'm making a motion to approve the request for Kathryn Niedoroda for an extension of permit #6140. Second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MESIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf of MARY DIGREGORIO requests a one-year extension to Permit #6120 as issued on April 20, 2005. Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue. We all looked at this and we do not have a problem with extending this. Was there another issue here, too? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was just on for extension, right? I'll make a motion to approve the extension. TRUSTEE KING: Was there a question -- was that deleted? (indicating.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was deleted. We just have it on for extension. I make a motion to approve TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, NICOLAS ANDREADIS requests a Transfer of Permit #268 from David Hallinan to Nicolas Andreadis, as issued ) d or I III, '.'1)1)7 on April 24, 2006. Located: 700 North Drive, Mattituck. Jill and I looked at this. What is existing there now is beyond the scope of the permit. The catwalk is 64 or 65 feet. We have it written down. There is a 12x12 platform that there is no permit for. We can transfer the 60x4 foot catwalk without a problem but the 8x20 foot float and 3x3 foot ramp, 20x3 foot ramp. But I think the 12x12 foot platform should be removed. And as far as the landward edge of the dock, we could leave that. It's more like a ramp to the dock, really. So I think -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would have to come in for an amendment. TRUSTEE KING: He should come in, we'll do the transfer. He should come in and amend the length of the catwalk to indicate what is there, which is not a problem, but it should be amended so everything is right. But the 12x12 platform should be removed. I'm familiar with this property. The previous owner to David Hallinan was a lobster fisherman that we lost, lost at sea. He had that platform there to stack lobster traps on. It won't be used any further for lobster traps. If it's removed, vegetation would grow back and it would be a little better environmentally. That's what I would recommend. Transfer the permit with the condition the 12x12 platform is removed and the applicant comes in and amends the length of the catwalk landward to indicate what is already there, which is about six more feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to give a time limit to come in and amend that? TRUSTEE KING: Um, have the removal of the platform and the amendment by June. That gives them plenty of time. End of June. June 30. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Patricia Moore Esq., on behalf of DANIEL & PASQUALlNA BERKOWITZ requests a Transfer of Permit #70-6-23, from Edward Koster to Daniel and Pasqualina Berkowitz, as issued on January 28, 1993, and a Transfer of Permit #2017 from Edward Koster to Daniel and Pasqualina Berkowitz, as issued on August 2, 1985. Located: 3683 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This is just a case of an old grandfathered permit on a dock and a float, and the house is being sold. What is existing, however, is not up to current code. So I think we were going to transfer it so the new person can take over and any future rebuild or any maintenance on it will require amendments for the current code. Is there anybody who would like to comment on this? MS. MOORE: I represent the purchasers. Mr. and Mrs. Koster are here because they obviously are familiar with the project. If you want to put on the record, I think if I remember correctly from Mr. Olsen, because he represents the Koster's, they had the same dock that is there presently was the one that was built by the Koster's and at that time when they applied for the permit, they were down in Florida and they just asked for generic measurements, so they put on paper and when we came in with a marine survey that was exact, the two didn't really match exactly. The only concern I have, I have explained to the client based on what Mr. Olsen had told us, what he understood you said, was that if it were damaged by a storm or it was, you know, it was needed to be reconstructed, that we would come in with a compliant or with whatever was appropriate at the time. But normal maintenance and repair they want to keep what is there. You know, a board here, a board there is standard stuff that they would not expect to have to essentially rebuild a whole new dock, meeting whatever your standards are at the time. So I don't have a problem or my client didn't have a problem with the condition that if it's to be, if it had to be reconstructed it would have to comply with whatever the permit requirements were. But beyond that, you know, normal maintenance, they are buying a piece of property with what they thought was a dock and they, the Koster's, believed everything was legal. So it's been there a long time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing, I think we have to be specific because there is a fine line between repairing a couple of boards and then repairing a significant amount which we would consider to be too much and we would want them to come in for an amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think some of the language was future work must get prior approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But what Pat is saying, if she needs to replace a board, does she have to come in for a permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But future work, because this is an unusual situation, I agree. TRUSTEE KING: Somewhere down the road, all the piles are going to have to be replaced. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So at that point you have to come in for an amendment. MS. MOORE: Sure, that's normal. Your procedures require if you are going to replace the structure, that is the piles and the infrastructure, you come in for a permit. But ordinarily, I don't think your code, I don't have it memorized, I do have the code with me, but ordinary maintenance and repair doesn't require a permit, particularly when you have a permitted structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, as long as what you are repairing it to J ~. 24 \) I I .llil!~ what the permit says because what the permit says is not what is there. That's what our point is. MS. MOORE: That's what I thought that you were persuaded by the Koster's that it is in fact what the permit, the permit that was issued is the same structure that is there. It was just not well described at the time. It's not, the structure is no different than what it was. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we have no problem because the structure has been there for years, and that's the way, the size, that it's been all along. Back when it was grandfathered, it was not clear, the size was not clear on the permit. What is in our file, the dimensions in our file and what is on the permit are two different things. And we are not saying that anything was done illegal or anything like that. That's just the way it was done back then. So what we are saying, for the future, is if anything is to be done, just come in and let's get it on the record of what size and everything and make the permit correct. It's just a matter of procedure. MS. MOORE: I understand that but it leaves to a lot of, unfortunately, discretion that, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying. Repairing a board is one thing but, oh, I just replaced the ramp, but now it's a different size. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only way to get around that is any work that is done at this point has to come in, come in for a permit, and at that point we could straighten out the paperwork. So that's probably the easiest and best way to go. MS. MOORE: I think that's different than what you told the Koster's you would do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It may be, but. MS. MOORE: Why don't you come up. Unfortunately, I was not there. MS. KOSTER: We explained the discrepancy was in the permit was due to me guessing, making a guess at the table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. MS. KOSTER: The dock was built before we got the permit. We only replaced a piling that rotted, something like that; a board that rotted. There has been no structural change in the dimensions of the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. MS. MOORE: But by the fact she got the permit, it is a permitted structure. That's why, when I have a client that buys it, I want to make sure the structure that is there is a permitted structure because it gives it the legal authority to continue to stay. And I think that that is what -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are actually saying is you could repair it under the current permit as long as is it conforms to the current of'Trustees code. MS. MOORE: But the current code is a smaller dock. So it's not going to conform. I don't have the drawing in front of me but let's say your float and your dock is 6x30, the code only allows 6x20. What they are saying is when we want to repair it, we have to shrink it even though you have a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we are saying you have to come in to us first. MS. MOORE: No, what you are saying is you come in first and you have to comply with the permit standard. So you do shrink it. You are not honoring the grandfathering. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you come in and say we have to just replace a piling, we are not going to say, okay, now shrink the whole dock. We'll say, okay, we'll give you a permit to replace the piling. MS. MOORE: I've heard, going back, I'm not so sure it's true because I have heard in the past -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is certainly that possibility. MS. MOORE: Yes. And in all fairness to the client that is buying the property, she just wants to know is it a legal dock or not. I think the Koster's have persuaded you at least at one point in time it was a legal dock, it's just paperwork was less precise than it is today, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The fact remains that what is out there is not what is on the original permit. TRUSTEE KING: What's in the original permit? That's my question. (Perusing). MS. MOORE: But you can't retroactively clean up paperwork from the '80's. That's not fair to anyone today. To say it doesn't comply with the permit, that's not the case. They are representing to you that they got a permit. They did what they had to do to make it legal, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are just trying to do here is -- MS. MOORE: I understand. But understand that my client as a buyer has to know, hey, do I have a legal structure or don't I. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just back then things were a little more -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My understanding when we stood there, Pat, is that the dock can be permitted as is but, and I can't remember the structure we are talking about, I mean specifics, but if, let's say the last 20 feet got washed away, it might not -- MS. MOORE: That's a reconstruction. That's reconstruction. That's different. Repairs are -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are defining where that line is. MS. MOORE: But the definition is based on whether it's a permitted structure or not a permitted structure and that's what I want to establish that it is a permitted structure. IS.20il} /\ ] If;, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. MS. MOORE: But what you are giving me is not really recognizing -- he keeps saying it's not a permitted structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our intent is to give a permit for this structure. That's what we hope to do. That's what we all talked about. MS. MOORE: That's okay. We can stop there and we are fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original permit shows a 3x50 dock, 2x12 ramp and 5x15 float. What's there now is four-and-a-half by 62 foot dock, 3x18 foot ramp and 6x20 foot float. So what's there now and what is on the original application is substantially different. MS. KOSTER: May I speak to that? It's because I made, I came up and filled out the application right at the desk and they said make a guess. And I made a guess. TRUSTEE KING: These are measurements that were from years ago from the original -- MS. KOSTER: The dock has never been changed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand. MS. MOORE: Some of you do. Others, I'm not sure. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't realize she did it back then. I missed that part. MS. KOSTER: I just made a guess and nobody ever thought about it again. MS. MOORE: I don't even think there were marine surveyors at the time. TRUSTEE KING: I thought those dimensions came with the original application to build the catwalk. MS. KOSTER: I don't know when the original dock was put in. It was put in before we built the house. Before we bought the property. MR. KOSTER: In early 1960. The dock was there when we originally looked at the property. And we were told you need a grandfather permit, just fill out whatever you have here. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I see. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So here it is. So she guessed. So it's the dock that has always been there. They never changed the size of the dock, it's just that it was not accurate. So what we are saying fine, give it a permit, but if you are going to change it, let's make it accurate. So what Pat is saying is that she wants to be able to is make it permitted, but if they have to repair it a little, they don't have to come back in. That's, we just have to get the wording right. It's all a matter of procedure and wording. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So everybody is clear, the survey in the file does, from 1963, does show the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And she showed us pictures from then. MS. MOORE: But nobody had dimensions. 01' TRUSTEE KING: Are there dimensions? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And she showed us pictures from the early '70s with the dock there. So we have no question as to how we got to this point. So what we are saying -- TRUSTEE KING: Can we just approve the transfer and do an amendment? MS. MOORE: Sorry? TRUSTEE KING: To show the size that they have now. MS. MOORE: They request a permit and recognize that what we have in front of you as the approved, as the grandfathered dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why can't we transfer an amended plan? MS. MOORE: You do could do that, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Amend that to what is there existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That way the sellers can close and the buyers protect their dock. MS. MOORE: Exactly. TRUSTEE KING: We agree on something, Pat. MS. MOORE: We do. We agree more often than you think. It's, we just have to get there. TRUSTEE KING: It's something you are stuck with and you are not going to beat it to death. MS. MOORE: And thank God we caught it before my client closed because I have had history with problems. We want to close right away, so we want to try and finish this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response.) I make a motion that we approve the request to transfer the permit #70-6-23 from Edward Koster to Daniel and Pasqualina Berkowitz issued January 28, 1993, and transfer of permit #2017 from Edward Koster to Daniel and Pasqualina Berkowitz as issued on August 2, 1985, reflecting that the existing dock is a four-and-a-half foot by 62 foot fixed dock, a 3x18 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Enjoy Peconic Landing. TRUSTEE KING: Let's take a five or ten minute break before we go to public hearing. (After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing and : I of'frUS10CS go to our public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll go into our public hearings tonight. Please remember that we try to limit all comments during public hearings to no more than five minutes so we can keep these moving along. Technically we didn't need to receive comments for the last hour. MR. ANDERSON: May I suggest you just combine the first two? COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have them both. Number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAMES GRACE requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing stone revetment and install approximately 106 linear feet of new stone revetment along the situate shoreline to prevent further erosion. Located: 190 Willow Terrace, Orient. Does anybody here wish to speak to behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, for the applicant, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. As I said, I want to first show you some pictures that -- by the way, Barbara DeFina is here as are Mr. and Mrs. Grace. These were taken by Barbara DeFina, to let the board know, that they were hit with the storm and lost, I'm told another four or five feet of land. The escarpment has moved back as a result of last weekend's storm. Here is another one that may be of interest to you. That's the first thing I want to say. The second thing is, and I didn't know this until I talked to Mr. Grace, is that, and when I looked at it, when you were out there, you would have seen the remains of what were the broken up sidewalks from Village Lane when they were replaced. Those were actually buried and no one, they were never visible until the profile of the beach dropped. So as part of this application, I spoke with the Grace's, that material will be removed, and so you should know that. The third thing is when I submitted the plans, I was not aware that there was historically on the Grace property a quasi boat ramp and what they would do is wheel small sail boats and stuff down that side of their property. So when we proposed the revetment we effectively cut that off and so what I then did was to prepare new plans to put the boat ramp back and you'll see that on the lower lefthand corner of the site plan that is before you. And basically of'frus[ccs they want to be able to continue to wheel, hand wheel boats down there, and we have, we were looking around and found a product, it's a grid material, it's a geo-grid that lays down, it's like a mat that allows whatever vegetation, weeds, whatever, to grow through and stabilize the soil. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any information on that stuff? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, and I'll be happy to get that to you. TRUSTEE KING: We have been looking at that for some of these paths going down to a catwalk or something. MR. ANDERSON: We'll provide that to you. I do apologize. These are kind of last minute. I simply didn't know about the boat ramp. The erosion on both properties is very obvious to anyone who looks at it and we feel if nothing is done, the situation will worsen. Of course the angles that are proposed for the rock are very, are not all that steep, so as I explained to both clients, in the event you get a frontal wave that will crash upon the structure and go over the structure on to the grass. But they face, the properties face west and our big storms come out of the southeast or northeast, so they don't really get the effect of those waves. What they get is the effect of the surge. I believe the structure will protect it from those effects and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Before I check for other comments, I just want to mention this was found consistent under LWRP. The CAC did inspect it and they supported the application. We had asked for an environmental assessment to be done by our environmental technician, Heather Cusack, for both the Grace application and the next application. We'll get to that. We'll do that next, DeFina. She reviewed both of them and she states here that she contacted somebody with the New York State DEC, Eric Star, an environmental program specialist, to consult on this and they recommended explore reasonable alternatives such as a berm on top of the bluff and establishment of buffer plantings on the bluff face between the bluff and the lawn, or design a revetment that includes some fill and plantings between the rocks. When we were out there, we brought this up and we suggested that there be some plantings placed in between these rocks and the revetment which would help meet these recommendations proposed by Mr. Star and our environmental technician. MR. ANDERSON: It may be possible to kind of seed it but honestly, the way this is designed is you have a filter clothe. The purpose of that is to keep the soil from leaching through the rock surface so that the land behind it doesn't collapse. So whatever you are going to plant in there, you don't really want, the roots are probably not going to flow through the filter cloth, in my opinion. i IS, 2007 of'Trllslces 111< Secondly, you are not going to have very much in the way of nutrition there because this is rock. There is not much fertilization. There is no soil fertility. It's rock. I'm not saying I couldn't add that but usually we don't do that because you don't want to be putting top soil or anything down there that might otherwise wash into the water. That would be sort of counter to the thing. And the third and probably the most compelling part is -- Mr. Grace is here tonight. MR. GRACE: It's dated '96 or '97. MR. ANDERSON: It makes the point it was entirely vegetated and the vegetation failed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The vegetation between the rocks where it would break some of the waves. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we are asking, to try that. MR. ANDERSON: I don't have much confidence to try it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we are asking for. MR. ANDERSON: Do you have any idea what you want planted in that space? TRUSTEE BERGEN: American Beach Grass. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, we can add it to the plans. TRUSTEE KING: What is planned for behind the revetment, to be planted behind it? MR. ANDERSON: No, none. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the next thing, I was wondering if there was any opportunity for a non-turf buffer given, particularly with the destruction that has happened and the location of the revetment, to take that space now and make a non-turf buffer instead of lawn. MR. ANDERSON: Well, let me say this, that if the land has disappeared, I'm told eight feet back, or five feet. MR. GRACE: It's eight feet now. MR. ANDERSON: Eight feet back, then the question is you are going to restore that area, that eight feet, would you have any objection to planting let's say beach grass, is what we are talking about now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make it a non-turf buffer instead of a lawn. MR. GRACE: What I have now is sprinkler heads. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would have to be removed. MR. ANDERSON: I could also tell you, the application we did prior, I have seen examples where this board has asked to put sand over the structure and plant beach grass on that. I haven't seen that to be real successful, but you may get some growth. So I'm all ears on this. I don't think we are here to really fight you on any of these things. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak to behalf of the Grace application? MS. DEFINA: Yes. I'm Barbara DeFina. I live next door. I have many years experience planting here. When I first bought the house in 1993, I washed out next to the bulkhead. And they let us put in sand and plant beach grass. Gone. I have planted beach grass, I planted sea lime grass. I've planted absolutely everything. It's been planted in the rocks, it's been planted in the sand. It's all gone. It doesn't stay. It just cannot withstand the waves. In those rocks, I let grow things that decided to grow there on their own that I actually tried to pull out with my hands and could not get out. Gone. Everything is gone. Beach grass is gone. Where those rocks are in my pictures, there was sand and beach grass before and that's why I had -- TRUSTEE KING: These pictures are very dramatic. This shows it. wonder what has changed. MS. DEFINA: I planted everything imaginable. MR. ANDERSON: One thing for sure, the beach profile has dropped because those, that sidewalk was not there. Those sidewalk remnants, that road, those sidewalks were busted up years ago and that's what they did, they put them along the shoreline. TRUSTEE KING: That's unbelievable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you ever have to remove those or just put the stone on top? MR. ANDERSON: We'll remove them because they are out on the beach proper and we don't want the foreign material, and that's part of our mitigation. I say that because lately, you put in an application they come back violations, you know, in some cases, not so much you guys, but with DEC. That material has been there for decades, literally. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, were you done with your comments? MS. DEFINA: I plan on planting behind the revetment anyway but it's always pot luck. I'll put in more lime grass, but it's pot luck. The waves will just, if I'm lucky to keep it there, if not, they are gone. TRUSTEE KING: You might have a better chance with a revetment there. MR. ANDERSON: I think behind it, it will probably work. You may have to try to do something in the cracks. TRUSTEE KING: I think that would be very difficult. MR. ANDERSON: And it will, I mean, this is beach grass. It can withstand salt. You know, that's where it grows, and as long as the revetment breaks up the wave energy, the beach grass should survive fine, just as that picture shows the entire shoreline dominated by beach grass. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can we get a copy of that picture for the file at some point? Ii :~] of 'frUSl(;CS MR. GRACE: I'm not sure how to do it. I'll sure try. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can scan it or you can scan it. That would be great. It's a good reference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question for Bruce. The coastal erosion line, I don't see it written in here. TRUSTEE KING: It's on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: There is a dark line right behind the revetment. It's indicated. MR. ANDERSON: It's on our survey, too. It's on our site plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. As long as we have it. MR. ANDERSON: The prints are not great on this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay, as long as we have it. Were there any other comments from the board on this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Being no further comments from the board, I would like to make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the application of James Grace located at 190 Willow Terrace with the addition of the following: That they will remove the concrete that is there. We are adding to the application the inclusion of this 12 foot wide by, if I read this correctly, 18 foot long access ramp for a boat with a geo-grid. And we are adding, I'll say ten foot, non-turf buffer landward of the rocks that will be included in on this when the restoration is done for what is lost there. MR. GRACE: That's getting very close to the house. We are about 56 feet and this is going to take up eight or ten. We are not going to have any lawn. I'll lose my flag pole. You want me to go ten beyond this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. From the rock revetment. My understanding is where the rock revetment is planned there is now this gap that has been lost recently. MR. GRACE: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That has been lost, so you are filling in that eight feet and it will become a non-turf buffer. Not lawn. MR. GRACE: That's what I'm worried about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm willing to amend it to eight feet if the board is okay with that. MR. GRACE: I would prefer five. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are recovering what you lost. Be thankful for that. MR. ANDERSON: And you want also the specifics for the geo-grid. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I made a motion. 'frus!\.)C's TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do we need a new plan? MR. ANDERSON: I'll add it to the plans and get them to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Suffolk Environmental on behalf of BARBARA DEFINA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing stone revetment and install approximately 107 linear feet of new stone revetment along the situate shoreline to prevent further erosion. Located: 192 Willow Terrace, Orient. This is right next door to the permit application that we just talked about. This has also been found consistent under LWRP and it was inspected by the CAC and they voted to support the application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the applicant Barbara DeFina. I would just reiterate the comments I made in the last public hearing. Thank you. That being the hearing of James Grace. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, with this one, we would ask for the same thing, we would ask for -- as I recall, the concrete went along the front of this property also? MS. DEFINA: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, so there is no concrete to be removed. Thank you. We would ask for a non-turf buffer to match the next door neighbors's non-turf buffer so the two will be contiguous. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, and I'll give you a planting plan for beach grass. That's what I'll add to the plans. TRUSTEE KING: That's fine TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a float on the beach and I can't remember which property this was. MS. DEFINA: That was mine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What plans to be done with that float? MS. DEFINA: Dismantle it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it will be removed? MS. DEFINA: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the board? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I think we covered it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) j ! (>, ::~Oii7 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number two, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Barbara DeFina listed at 192 Willow Terrace with the conditions of the removal of the remains of the swim float from the beach and add a non-turf buffer that will run contiguous with the Grace's. Same width. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you all, very much. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Wetland permits. Number one, CHERYL HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to rebuild the existing sunroom. Located: 445 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. Would anyone like to speak for this application? MS. HANSEN: Cheryl Hansen, and I would like to get a permit to re-do, reconstruct the sunroom in the same size that it is now but we would like to add a five foot setback with an overhang, and just the same size room just set it back, because it's a southern exposure and what is there right now is -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just shocked. We don't usually get less. MS. HANSEN: I know that. We can change it and go forward. The reason being it's a southern exposure and right now there is aluminum, the old awning windows and the floor and water is coming through and upheaved it and cracked it and electricity is a problem in that room, so we would like to rebuild it and set it back with the overhang. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have an exemption from the LWRP. You have, I think I saw the CAC recommended gutters and drywells. MS. HANSEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To be installed to contain roof runoff. looked at it also. Hay bales, do they need hay bales? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's going to be -- it's so minor. I don't think you have to worry with that. There is no excavation, is there? MS. HANSEN: I don't know. Might be. There may have be to be some excavation for the back five feet, you know, because it's 16x16 right now. We would have to go back. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, hay bales. As a precaution. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll ask for hay bales. MS. HANSEN: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) : 10, The only other thing that was discussed when Dave and I walked out there, we saw you had a berm on the west side of the bulkhead. You have a buffer right now on the south side and -- MS. HANSEN: And on the east side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no buffer that we saw on the east side, non-turf buffer from your bulkhead. In other words, your neighbor had a non-turf buffer. MS. HANSEN: Yes, because we never had one there and it was not until we fixed the bulkhead in the front that we had to put that non-turf buffer. Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We would just ask you now that you are doing work there that you continue that. MS. HANSEN: The only thing we are not doing the work down that way, we are just doing it -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was a comment Dave had made and when we are doing, when someone comes in to us with a permit, very often we ask that you try to bring in what you have to the current code. TRUSTEE KING: Is that section of the bulkhead new? MS. HANSEN: No, it's been there all the time and we never did any work on it. We put the buffer there, we did, when we had to rebuild that bulkhead, four or five years ago, and we complied and came in and applied when we built the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we do it when we re-do the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was just a comment. Just offering it out there. MS. HANSEN: Thank you. If we don't have to do it, we prefer not to. TRUSTEE KING: Because some day you'll have to come in and have that bulkhead fixed and that's when you can do the buffer, because then the area is already disturbed. MS. HANSEN: Yes, but right now we would hate to disturb it because there is no reason to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just thought we would ask. MS. HANSEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else who would like to speak? (No response.) Being no further comments from the board or the audience, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for wetland permit to rebuild the existing sun room with gutters and drywells and hay bales on the south side of the renovations. Do I have a second? MS. HANSEN: Five foot setback with overhang? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the new sunroom will be five foot less. Landward. MS. HANSEN: Right, with an overhang. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With an overhang. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. HANSEN: I should wait now, otherwise you'll change your mind. I put five feet down but I think it's actually 56 inches. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can write five plus or minus and that will cover it. MS. HANSEN: Okay. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're welcome. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Going on to the next matter, I'll recuse myself from the next wetland permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, LEANDER B. GLOVER, JR., requests a Wetland Permit for the existing docking facility consisting of a 4x29 foot platform, with steps leading to a 4x20.6 foot dock, 16x30 foot ramp and a 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 6170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf this application? MR. GLOVER: Leander Glover, Jr., it's been there for many years. I'm just here to get the permit to make it legal. It's been there for many years. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. CAC supports the application with the recommendation that no CCA treated lumber is used, which the dock is already there. LWRP finds it inconsistent, however the structure was put, was built prior to LWRP. And so if it was built today, it would be inconsistent. So are there any questions from the board? TRUSTEE KING: When was that dock built? Do you have any idea when that dock was put in, Mr. Glover? MR. GLOVER: No, it was quite a few years ago. A lot of years ago when Larry Tuthill was just starting. TRUSTEE KING: That was in the 1800s. MR. GLOVER: I don't mean his father. But the fill was put in there. TRUSTEE KING: Has it been there 40 years? MR. GLOVER: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Over 40 years. MR. GLOVER: Yes. The fill was put there in 1938 when the railroad widened because it kept filling in with snow and then they bought land anywhere the land was higher and they would truck it anywhere within three miles, so and my father come home and said I don't know what to do with it, so I told him put it down there. TRUSTEE KING: You would get a ticket today for that. That's of definitely a violation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response.) Hearing none, motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the dock for Leander Glover, Jr., as noted on the application for 6170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Please note for the record Trustee Dickerson recused herself on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next one, number three, Swim King Pools on behalf of JOHN FRANKIS requests a Wetland permit to install a 20x40 foot swimming pool. Located: 1540 The Strand, East Marion. I believe we asked him to go to the Planning Board first, so is that one postponed? MR. FRANKIS: We are here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll obviously open it up and talk about it. It's inconsistent with LWRP. What our concern was is in this subdivision there are covenants and restrictions so we can't approve anything that opposes those covenants and restrictions. So we wanted to make sure that this doesn't. Let me just read this for a minute. (Perusing). MR. FRANKIS: They had originally approved it, when we gave it to the subdivision, the pool was in the plans, so the subdivision had originally approved it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically when the Planning Board researched this and they said it's unreadable. That's their -- it says please be advised the proposed action is subject to covenant and restrictions dated May 14,1975, filed June 11,1975. Liber page bla, bla, bla. Unreadable by Pebble Beach Realty, Inc. The document is attached for your use. TRUSTEE KING: Have you had copies of what was approved originally? MR. FRANKIS: When the whole building permit was filed, before it went to the building permit it had to go to the people at Pebble Beach. It was just approved. When we gave it to the building permit we were under the assumption it was all under one permit because we had it all on the same plans. And so we had the DEC approval, then when I went down to the Building Department in regard to a couple of other things and we were ready to do the pool, they said no, you need to fill out a separate permit on that. So we said okay, we'll fill out the separate permit for it 118, ,,:;U07 'frus;,,:cs TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten of this document, I don't know exactly where, but it says: An owner of a waterfront lot facing on the Long Island Sound shall not construct any part of the dwelling northerly of the approximate 100 foot bluff setback line shown on the filed map unless approved by the Town of Southold. Does part of a dwelling mean accessory structures as well? MS. MONTEFUSCO: Can I see that? MR. FRANKIS: If I could comment on that. Both of the houses to the right and to the left are well within 100 feet of the boundary on them. They were built, I mean one doesn't even have a CO, it's been there about 20 years, and the other one has a CO and is built well under 100 feet within the thing. As a matter of fact, it created a problem with the neighbors because we were the only ones that followed the rules. TRUSTEE KING: If those aren't in the covenant and restrictions, I don't think we are bound by them. I think we need some legal research on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe you might need a variance from the zoning board as well for this pool. MR. KA TOPODIS: If I may speak. They wanted your approval before we go for the variance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the zoning board said they wanted -- MR. FRANKIS: We were under the impression it was approved and you had the original permit, then when we went to get the permit for the pool itself we were told we need a separate permit for that. We did a couple of preliminaries before we go to the Building Department and we got from Department of Army and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation it was not in their jurisdiction and we would not need anything by them. TRUSTEE KING: I think we had a little problem lately by them where we can't override a zoning code or planning board covenant and restrictions. If you need zoning you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance, and I think you should get that variance and then come back to us for a permit. That's my understanding. Am I correct? MS. MONTEFUSCO: Yes. MR. FRANKIS: Can you give us the permit subject to the Zoning Board approval? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We tried to do that last month and it's been a major problem. TRUSTEE KING: We have been beat up by this issue. It's, the zoning board decision would override us. We don't want to give you something they say you can't have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is a letter from August, '75, from an attorney to Mr. Epson, from the Planning Board. And it says Mr. . . . , '\prill POil; Donovan, whoever he is, indicated he would be willing to setback the inland lots exclusive of the corner lots to 50 feet. Lots on the Sound he felt must remain 25 feet because the hundred foot setback from the bluff. So I'm not really, it doesn't make sense and it's confusing. MR. FRANKIS: Most of the homes there are not built, this was the only one and it created a whole controversy because everyone felt we were blocking their house now. And there is not a single house that is built on The Strand, is built within the area. That becomes the issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Regardless of what this says, the covenants were never changed from this so we have to still go by what the covenants and restrictions are. MR. FRANKIS: What I read is you could build if it was under. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a letter. It's not changed on the covenants and restrictions. Unless you research it and find that it has and you come back. MR. FRANKIS: The covenants and restrictions for Pebble Beach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We have a copy of the filed, covenants and restrictions from Pebble Beach. MR. FRANKIS: But it's not readable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not. Other parts are. You are welcome to research it on your own. MR. FRANKIS: In other words if we could find another copy that says differently. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But I think you need to do go to the Zoning Board first. MR. FRANKIS: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Building Department also kicked it back to the Zoning Board, or they said Trustees. MR. FRANKIS: No, they said Trustees. MR. KATOPODIS: They considered accessory structures so therefore to the Trustees, and since the structure is within a hundred feet they consider it as accessory. That's why. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How far away from the bluff is this proposed? MR. FRANKIS: 30 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So anything within 75 feet from the, 100 foot from the top of the bluff is zoning also, so you have to go to zoning. MR. FRANKIS: But it has to be in the covenant because nothing on The Strand is within 100. So it has to be in the covenant or none of the houses can exist. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But we don't have that in front of us today. think our best bet is to keep the hearing open. We'll go back, you can go back to the Zoning and find out and we'll work this out and we'll work with Zoning. MR. FRANKIS: How do I go about getting a copy of the original \) f' 'frusft.:'cs 11 x, covenant from Pebble Beach from 1975 that is readable? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's a title search. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a title search, I believe. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Suffolk County Clerk's office. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to say Suffolk County Clerk's office TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go to the Planning Board and ask them any questions you have. Go to the Zoning Board, you know. But it's just, if it's covenant and restrictions. MR. FRANKIS: I have a feeling I'll end up in the same circle because the Zoning Board will say where is the covenants, I guess. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your first thing is to research the covenants. And I understand the area, that it's not the case that everybody is 100 foot back. Nobody is. MR. FRANKIS: We are the only ones. That created the whole problem. Whoever is there saw it. We were the only ones that were 100 feet back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want to create a further problem by acting on this tonight. We'll keep the hearing open and on for May 16 and hopefully by then everything will be resolved. Do we have to close the hearing before we table it? TRUSTEE KING: Just table it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Close the hearing, then table. Keep it open and table. It. Okay, what we can do is just table the hearing until this is revolved because if you have to go to zoning you will not get through zoning until next month. MR. FRANKIS: So, in other words, if I come back next month and I have the covenants with me of Pebble Beach, it says you can build under 100 feet, then just come here? Just so I'm clear on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You come to our office and we'll clear it up before the meeting. MR. FRANKIS: Come to your office, okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then we could refer it to our town attorneys and talk amongst the whole group and then we are all clear before we come to the meeting. MR. FRANKIS: Okay, very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to table Swim King Pools on behalf of John Frankis in order to research covenants and restrictions until we get a determination from the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Theodore J. Bucci, Jr., on behalf of HARBOR LIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove 15 feet of existing bulkhead and replace inlike, inplace. Dredge area in front of bulkhead to below-4 feet AMLW (approximately eight 41 2007 cubic yards) and truck spoil off site to approved disposal location. Located: 112 Windjammer Drive, Southold. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. BUCCI: Yes, Theodore Bucci. I am representing Harbor Lights on this. I own the bulkhead adjacent to this piece and unfortunately I couldn't get the okay to proceed with this until after you okayed my section. That's why I'm here doing this on my own. If you have been down there you see that this is falling into the water and it's taking all our property away with it. That's why we are addressing this right now and trying to get it replaced. Looking at this, I don't know whether I made a mistake or not when I said inplace, inkind. Can I use vinyl like I'm doing now? TRUSTEE KING: That's what we want. MR. BUCCI: That's what we are going to do. It just wasn't on here and I wanted to make sure. TRUSTEE KING: That's our recommendation. We have been using plastic lately. I had one question on that. The groin, or whatever you call it, is sticking out. The end of that, that high groin that sticks way out, is there any consideration of removing the dilapidated area where there is a big space? It serves no purpose that I could see, other than maybe an obstacle. MR. BUCCI: The boards had fallen off. And as that whole section there, that's not the Harbor Lights Section. The Harbor Lights section is -- TRUSTEE KING: That's somebody else. MR. BUCCI: That's mine. And that was a breakwater to keep all the debris from coming in. Those last boards have come out and what I was going to have done at some point is just sink it down so the piling goes straight in there again and replace those I think it's five boards. But that's some other date. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's another permit. TRUSTEE KING: Is that a permitted structure, do you know? Is there a permit on that? MR. BUCCI: No, that whole boat basin is not permitted. That was done -- TRUSTEE KING: In the old days. MR. BUCCI: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP finds it consistent and suggests perhaps assessing the feasibility of installation of a silt boom and screen to be employed during dredging, et cetera. CAC supports the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Bob. It's exempt from LWRP, I believe. Which makes it consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Double check that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a report here. Let me see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It should say in the second paragraph. TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we say non-turf buffer to extend the same as the next door neighbor is I believe that's what we had. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, buffer to match neighbor's. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that okay with the applicant that there is a non-turf buffer to match the one we asked for on - MR. BUCCI: That's fine. Because the Canadian geese, believe me, they won't want to feed on it and it will be cleaner for us to step on. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application of Theodore Bucci, Jr., on behalf of Harbor Lights Property Owners Association requesting a Wetland Permit to remove 15 feet of existing bulkhead and replace with vinyl and dredge the area from the front of the bulkhead to below four feet and truck the spoil off site to an approved disposal location, with a stipulation the buffer will match next door. Located: 112 Windjammer Drive, Southold. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. BUCCI: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it's ten feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of HARRY & KATHERINE SAIS, requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace inplace approximately 106 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; construct approximately 104 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead immediately landward of existing timber bulkhead to be cut to grade or removed; and backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 2655 Calves Neck Road, Southold. Is there anybody here to speak to behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Just if the board has any questions, I could answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. In the description -- sorry, let me back up. First, this was reviewed the under LWRP and found to be exempt. And the CAC reviewed it and supports the application. In the plan you submitted here, you noted here that the existing 4~ ":Cj[J7 launching ramp to be eliminated. MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't see that in the verbal description. wanted to make sure we match each other. MR. HERMAN: Glad you mentioned that. Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity -- maybe if you come up here I'll show you what I'm talking about -- to remove the jog that is created by that ramp so the bulkhead right now showing 42 feet in length that goes to the 16 foot length does not have the jog in it. In other words, take this out, you can eliminate this little jog that is here so this goes across like this? MR. HERMAN: You have to tie it across this way, though. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are saying go this way (indicating.) MR. HERMAN: Yes, it almost has to -- whether you extend this out or extend this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't want to extend it out. All right. It was an idea. We notice in here it looks like this plan shows a 15 foot non-tu rf buffer on it, correct? MR. HERMAN: No, it shows a 15 foot area for backfill, but a ten foot non-turf buffer would be fine. We just have to add it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We wanted it to match next door and next door there is currently construction of the bulkhead going on the Anderson property. MR. HERMAN: This is to the east? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And they have a 15 foot non-turf buffer that was included in their plan. So we thought as long as you were doing it, it would match their non-turf buffer and go right on across. MR. HERMAN: All right. I mean the only reason I mention ten is because it has been the practice of the board for a standard ten foot, non-turf buffer behind these bulkheads. I don't know if it's a moving target or it's case by case but -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We kind of see how much lawn there is. TRUSTEE KI NG: It depends on the size of the lawn. MR. HERMAN: I mean it makes no difference to me personally, it's just clients are always, you know, they don't want to give up too much of their yard, obviously. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand, but this will match next door. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another question we had. We don't know if you had any plans regarding the, I don't know if it was a cedar or evergreen tree, that was on the western corner there. Is there going to be any opportunity to save that or will that have to come out? MR. HERMAN: I see the rather huge one. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I, "'f-r ~r'1'ust'~'CS MR. HERMAN: Well, back in that corner is actually where we are showing the replacement immediately landward. Dave, I don't know, because I can't tell how far set back it is from the bulkhead, so I don't know if the contractor can work around it or not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's real close. TRUSTEE KING: They are not going to be able to do that work without taking that tree out of there. Too bad you can't save it. MR. HERMAN: That's the only thing I could say. That's a big tree. TRUSTEE KING: It's a shame to lose it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would be a shame. If there is any possibility of saving it, we request that you try. If not, we understand. Because I know you also have the eight-foot return that is part of this project also, correct, that's in that corner? MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a pretty big bacharus there, too. MR. HERMAN: The problem is that the only way that you could really do it practically would really do a seaward resheathing, then cut and reweld into the existing tie rod so you don't have to excavate. But we'll never get approval to go out where it's in the marsh. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no. We were just concerned about the tree, that's all. MR. HERMAN: I mean they didn't speak to me about it, but if I were them I would want to try to keep it. I could certainly pass it along. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe they haven't thought about it yet. MR. HERMAN: I mean that area back there would have to be replanted one way or another. Obviously they are not, unless they can save that tree or move it and put it back, I mean you are not going to get something of that size. They could certainly put woody vegetation back in that area. Jim, I'll talk to Steve Pollack. He's the one doing the job. I'll see if he's talked to them about it. TRUSTEE KING: Some of these trucks today, they just reach down and pick up huge trees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe they could transplant it somewhere else on the property. MR. HERMAN: They could just move it and just move it back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You don't want to move it back as close either. MR. HERMAN: I have to admit, I have not given it any thought. So we'll have to think about it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response.) Being no other comments from the board, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 11 :+'1 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants under Harry and Katherine Bais at 2655 Calves Neck Road, South old . TRUSTEE KING: Is this the one that had the little hook in the bulkhead? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We addressed it. With the inclusion in here that we are removing that existing seven-foot launching ramp and that we are requiring a 15-foot, non-turf buffer and that the applicant will do whatever they can possible to save that one cedar tree. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Actually, it might be a Spruce. Just say evergreen. Seriously, say evergreen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, the evergreen tree. MR. HERMAN: I think it is Spruce, anyway. Which means it was probably planted in the first place. TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure it was. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA KAPLAN requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18 inches) approximately 126 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with recycled plastic bulkhead; backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and construct 11x14 foot wood deck and 3x6.5 foot stairs in same location as existing structures to be dismantled for bulkhead construction. Located: 1700 Inlet Way, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. There should also be, in this one, a ten-foot, non-turf buffer from the bulkhead back, which in some places will go immediately behind the bulkhead and others will overlap that retaining wall. This is sort of our fun one of the month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we thought when we looked at it. MR. HERMAN: What we have done is proposed what is really the only real practicable way to do this, which is to build in front using the recycled plastic sheathing. This is not the corrugated vinyl. This is more of an imitation timber T&G but it's made of recycled plastic and there will be no excavation behind the bulkhead. They'll use helical anchors to drive the anchor system back into the existing grade underneath that wall. I talked to somebody about this. I don't remember if it was Jill. I mean the only 'frUS1CCS other alternative here is basically dismantle that entire property, which we are trying to avoid doing, and we are trying to avoid it collapsing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, is there a permit for the wall part of it? MR. HERMAN: Probably not. I mean I discussed with the Kaplan's and I think the property has been in the family for ages. And I think prior generations built that wall probably when the house was built. It's a real, I mean, as you go up that road, that comes down, I mean it goes, it climbs very, very quickly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you ever look at the sinkhole behind that wall? MR. HERMAN: You know, I didn't. I was on my way here tonight and I tried to do about five different things. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we have a picture of it. MR. HERMAN: We'll have to include some sort of backfill material for the retaining wall. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have it. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that's nice. (Perusing). We probably want to add like ten yards of fill to the permit. The backfill that is proposed now is just to backfill the area between the new wall and the existing wall and level the grade behind it. I mean there will be no excavation, so there is no material coming back in, but we are basically filling in the corrugation, not the corrugation but the spacing between the two walls, what little there is, so there is not much needed of it for that purpose. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, my concern with filling in, it appeared as though this depression or hole was created, because if you look at the upper wall, it's bowed out. It's bowed out and it seems to be one of the supports was also cracked, and so my concern is if you fill in that soil, you are adding more pressure to an area that is already bowed out. MR. HERMAN: They would not do that until the bulkhead was reconstructed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the upper wall, not the lower bulkhead. MR. HERMAN: But the sense, they had a couple of different marine contractors look at this and the sense is that as the material behind that seaward wall which, I mean, it's almost plywooded in one whole section, is the material has been lost out of that, the material from up above it is coming down from the retaining wall, otherwise that would be no reason for that to happen. There has to be some hyperstatic connection between the two. You would not just lose that from a wash out. I mean the sinkhole you are showing me looks like a classic sinkhole behind a bulkhead that is immediately exposed to the tidal waters, which the retaining wall isn't, so the only connection can be from down below it, as material is leaving the bulkhead below it's pulling the material down. liS, Sometimes you see if the bulkhead is down the bay and you see some sinkholes sometimes even up on the bluff slope. Not a real high bluff, but you have an embankment and it starts to collapse from underneath. So I would not want to be the contractor on this job but, I mean, basically it's been designed the only way that anyone can really propose without them redoing the entire site. So, I mean if there are repairs that need to be made to that wall, I mean, I would, from what I could see, it would just be ordinary maintenance. Whether it's a structural support or whatever. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, my concern when you eye it up, it looks like it was bowing out in that area, which I thought was partially the reason for the collapse was filling in where it bowed out. In addition to what you are saying where it might have gone all the way down and seaward, it might be just filling in because that wall is bowing out. Because we noticed a crack in one of the large support timbers there. The vertical timbers. That was my concern, when you fill in that hole, will that create additional pressure. MR. HERMAN: I think the contractor will have to take a look at it. And if there is something significant that needs to be done to that wall, I guess we'll have to come back here with an amended permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I'm just thinking of the safety of the whole thing. MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are we adding something after that? MR. HERMAN: I just said we would probably add like ten yards, make it 25 yards of fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we add that wall into this permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I wrote down to also make it approval of the permit for the existing wall. MR. HERMAN: To legalize the retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if you have to repair it, you could. MR. HERMAN: That would be nice, thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we discuss on the one side extending that buffer so it connected with the other? You I had looked at that. That was on the eastern side, I think. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was a buffer on one side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It looked rosa rugosa, maybe. MR. HERMAN: The roadway is to the east. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was before that. MR. HERMAN: There is an area that is back there now that is existing with the shrubs and everything. That would not be changed. That area would stay as it is. We are just talking about extending a ten-foot buffer along the rest of the bulkhead. There is no plans to clear any of that other material. Remember, it's not remove and replace. We are just going out in front and driving anchors through. There will be no excavation of the existing . . . . or 11?\, =:007 non-turf and the Kaplan's, they don't use that area. It's a lower area, so there is no plans to mess with that at all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) Any other comments from the board? TRUSTEE KING: Just that it's going to be a tough job. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve for En-Consultants on behalf of Barbara Kaplan a Wetland Permit to replace within 18 inches approximately 126 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with recycled plastic bulkhead; backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and an additional plus or minus ten cubic yards for filling the eroded area and construct an 11 x14 foot wood deck and 3x6.5 foot stairs in same location as existing structure to be dismantled for bulkhead construction. I'm also going to -- can I do this in the same permit? (Board member respond in the affirmative.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make an approval of the permit for the existing wall and the ten-foot, non-turf buffer for all the way across. MR. HERMAN: Yes, wherever there is not a buffer, it will become a buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application. It's inconsistent under LWRP, but based on the fact that you have no excavation, we are adding a buffer, you are using recycled plastic materials. Was it going to be any other native plantings? The buffer will be non-turf. MR. HERMAN: Just the buffer. I assume the only reason it's being deemed inconsistent is because it's stepping out. Not that there is anything in the LWRP that prohibits that, but I realize that's the position Mark Terry has taken for whatever reason. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Because it doesn't comply with 275. TRUSTEE KING: Does stick out beyond the neighboring bulkheads? . MR. HERMAN: To the east there is nothing that abuts it. So, yes. To the west it more or less lines up more or less the way it was. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Based on those mitigation efforts, the Trustees deem this to be consistent with LWRP. And that was a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) (I (' 'frUS1CCS TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of CARLL & SUSAN AUSTIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct 28 foot low-profile, vinyl groin in place of existing 38 foot timber groin to be removed; remove existing 41 foot timber groin and reconstruct 4x7 foot stairs to beach. Located: 3300 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Jim and I went out and looked at this. This is exempt from LWRP and the CAC says this application was inspected by Peter Young and questions the purpose of the repair. The groin is also blocking the lateral public access and the Trustees' action should be consistent with the actions the LWRP. It is consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt, I think. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's exempt. Therefore it makes it consistent. That's what I'm trying to say. And it's going to be a low-profile, so in a matter of time -- there is the low profile to the west of that and the sand filled right up to that and you could walk right over it, so I don't see that being a problem. The only thing we would want on this would be the landward end is no less than six feet from the top of the bulkhead. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I would like my presentation to consist of everything Jill just said. Yes, we are actually removing ten feet of the existing groin that is non-functional. We do show in the cross section a six foot height or six foot separation between the top of the bulkhead and top of the groins. That's consistent with what you just said. There is only one other thing you mentioned there. I forgot what it is. TRUSTEE KING: It won't impede people walking by. MR. HERMAN: No, I mean -- well. Yes, I do remember. The groin that is to the east, the one that is half gone, that is to be removed. I had spoken to I think both Jim and Jill about this during the field inspection. That has drift here is east to west, predominantly along the shoreline, that easterly groin which is basically non-functional now, also would actually inhibit the beach accumulation for the applicant. So we are eliminating that and rebuilding the low profile. I wanted to know if we could add to the application the refilling and replanting of the area between the bulkhead and the retaining wall that apparently was pretty badly washed out this weekend. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have an estimate? MR. HERMAN: I don't. I mean I could come up with one pretty quickly or just calculate it and give it to you. TRUSTEE KING: We could do as needed. MR. HERMAN: If we just limit the fill to the area between the lj Trust;;.:'cs bulkhead and retaining wall behind it to meet the grade level of the bulkhead, you can specify it that way, but Susan had called me and said she was, you know. TRUSTEE KING: Can you give us new plans showing that? MR. HERMAN: Yes, I would. I spoke with her today and I didn't have time to do it before I came here. But we would just basically show that area which is just an area that's already planted with beach grass. So we would just reestablish that. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, not a problem. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from anybody else? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve En-Consultants on behalf of Carll and Susan Austin, 3300 Peconic Bay Boulevard, in Laurel as applied for with the addition of adding fill to replace what was lost in the storm and replant as needed and as per a new survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's adding fill behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Adding fill behind the bulkhead and adding fill behind the bulkhead and remaining wall and replant with beach grass. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also not to be landward of the groin. TRUSTEE KING: No less than six feet below the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to add that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of RONALD & MARIA SMITH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4x152 foot fixed, elevated, timber catwalk, 3x20 foot hinged ramp and 6x20 foot float supported by two eight-inch diameter pilings. Located 2105 Westview Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. This is one that we have been postponing for a number of months. From my original discussions with a couple of the board members, from the original field inspections there were not, didn't seeming to be any objections to the proposal. This is actually a bit in the shadow of the reconstructed and extended dock the board recently approved to the north for the Weiner's. However, there was some discussion about the scope of the support piles of the fixed catwalk. We had originally proposed six-inch pilings over the marsh and eight-inch pilings over the open water. We have reduced that to show 4x4 support posts over the marsh area to reduce the disruption of the vegetated marsh and leave eight-inch pilings over the open water area, which is consistent with other decisions. So there has been some variance in which the DEC and this board has approved. I have tried to have extensive discussions with Jim about trying to sort of standardize some of these specifications for particular waterways. So we are taking a shot at the 4x4's with the eights. Actually I was looking at a couple of the docks that were constructed that way recently, Jim, in Mattituck, and they held up really nice. Schultz' dock being one of them. I'm speaking with them because they are considering some renovations to the house and, you know, I asked them, they said it's really held up just fine with the bubble around the outside they have had no problems with lifting or anything. TRUSTEE KING: I know the first application was all heavy stuff but we downsized everything and I think the DEC actually downsized it more than we did and it seems to be standing up pretty good. Are they going to hand dig these 4x4's going across the marsh? MR. HERMAN: It's not proposed. It's up to you. TRUSTEE KING: I think they should be hand dug. I seen some of these things have been jetted in really ruin the marsh. MR. HERMAN: I don't think how well they can jet the 4x4's anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Well, if they are hand dug, it's a good idea. Any other comments on this application? (No response.) Any comments from the board? (No response.) It's downsized from what we originally didn't have a problem with, so I think it's an improvement. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application as proposed but now with 4x4 posts over the vegetated marsh. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 11 S~ 'T'rustccs MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Going to number eleven, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of THOMAS GLUCKMAN requests a Wetland Permit to install a solar panel approximately 25 feet landward of the existing bulkhead and inkindlinplace repair and replacement of the existing 20x28 feet wood deck approximately 10 feet landward of the bulkhead. Located: 1350 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. LWRP finds part of this exempt and part of it is inconsistent. The exempt part would be the wood deck. However, the solar panel is found to be inconsistent. The action as proposed is located on the bluff. A minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 275-3. Please require that the applicant amend the application to meet the above policy to the greatest extent possible. The application was supported by the CAC. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I would like to say, first of all, after having gone back to the site and reviewed the location of the proposed solar panel, I recommended to the Gluckman's that they consider putting the solar panel above the bluff. I think it was approximately ten feet landward of the bluff in a south or southwesterly facing orientation because I realized once I went there again, that the solar panel would be in a west facing bluff and would maybe get sunshine four hours a day in the afternoons, during the summertime, so it was not practical from a utility perspective, much less other perspectives, that we keep it on the bluff. So I would propose to relocate that solar panel so that it is above the bluff, very close to that, that would be the northerly property line. I will give you a survey with that shown on there. And I would like to comment, too, as far as the LWRP finding of inconsistency. This is not a structure, per say. It's four 4x4's that would be set in the ground and the panel would rest on it. And the purpose of the solar panel is to heat the swimming pool and eliminate the propane heating system. So if you look at it from the perspective of carbon emissions and other environmental aspects I think the reduction of emissions mitigates the fact that it's a thing placed closer than 75 feet to a bluff. I'll stop at this point and ask if you have any questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody on the board have and questions? I have some. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Go ahead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Knowing a little bit, actually, more than a little bit about this heliacal solar pool heating system, I would be more apt to suggest that that go on the roof of the pool house. It is a much cleaner installation and it's facing the right direction and would not, and that would get you out of the hundred feet. And put you the closer to the pool pump. Much more efficient. MS. MESIANO: I suggested that and because of the visual aspect, the esthetic aspect, they didn't want to mount it on the roof of the pool house. TRUSTEE KING: I think it fits in better on the roof of that than it does out on the bluff. Esthetically. We are all pretty much in agreement that's the appropriate place for that. MS. MESIANO: Okay. And your reasoning for that, other than -- I respect your opinion as far as your knowledge of the systems and so on, but from your position as a Trustee and from the Trustees' perspective, what is your objection to the proposed, my second proposed location, off of the bluff? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it still puts it within that hundred feet, which is inconsistent with LWRP and also 275. So rather than try to mitigate something that doesn't need to be mitigated, really, let's put it up on the roof where it really belongs. MS. MESIANO: Okay, now as far as 275 is concerned, I don't know that it actually is a structure that would be subject to, first of all, I don't believe a building permit is necessary because it's a solar heater. It's not an electrical collector. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You may want to check that because anything, boilers, pool heaters, any of that stuff, technically, has to go through the Building Department, so. MS. MESIANO: I will look into it. It's premature at this point. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Even a boiler does. MS. MESIANO: I know a boiler does because it's within a structure and because the electrical connections where this is outside and not within a structure, et cetera. I would, if the board is so inclined to disapprove my application, I would then request that you hold this open so I could discuss this with Mr. Gluckman. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to try to approve the deck separately? MS. MESIANO: I would like to do that, if possible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then come back. MS. MESIANO: Because they suffered about half million dollars worth of damage in the house. Over the winter they had a freeze. They had tremendous damage. So they'll have people working there, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not a problem separating it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was the deck measured differently, Jim? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, that's -- the actual size of the deck, what we measured is 12x25, not 20x28. TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, where do you get those little scales, if I may ask? . . . . (.f' MS. MESIANO: Well, I pried this out of John Costello. But I have found them in some supply -- office supply catalogs. TRUSTEE KING: Office Max has them; anybody like that? MS. MESIANO: The local guys don't. I found them in some -- TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious because I have scales and you can't carry this around. MS. MESIANO: It's so nice to have one this size. I wrangled it out of John Costello. Could you repeat the dimension you found it to be? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We found it to be, in the field, 12x25 feet. MS. MESIANO: You were measuring the basic depth of the deck from the, on the survey where it points and says wood tie, from approximately that area to the seaward? TRUSTEE KING: We measured the deck itself, Cathy, with the length of the deck. MS. MESIANO: Okay. I was measuring it off of the survey, so, if you measured it in the field. TRUSTEE KING: We measured the deck in the field. MS. MESIANO: Okay, so you measured it 12X25. I'm not going to argue with you. How do you like that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The other issue that came up out in the field was that there really is no non-turf buffer on top of that bluff at all. And we would really like to see a non-turf buffer and some plantings put up there. Does anybody want to suggest how wide a buffer we are looking at? There is plenty of room. We could go 20 foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What was the first structure we walked up on? What's the closest structure if you go 20 foot? Is it going to bring it up to the pool? MS. MESIANO: 20 feet brings it into the area where the rock wall is as you enter the pool. I think that that would be, if you look at the contour of the property, I think 20 feet is a little excessive. I could probably get them to go with a ten foot area. Ten foot along that bluff, that is more or less parallel to the bulkhead. I wouldn't want to touch that area, that curved, that area that says top of bank that is landward. That would destabilize that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm willing to go ten feet on that. MS. MESIANO: And the area closer to the chainlink fence on the north side is vegetated. I wouldn't want to break into there because it's not an area that would get very much sunlight. What do you recommend in there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where is this now? MS. MESIANO: On the northerly side where the bluff meets the chainlink fence that is in the approximate location of the proposed solar panel above the bluff. Ii () r 'rrust~es J 1 S, TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I see what you are saying. MS. MESIANO: There is trees and vegetation in there. It's not lawn down in that area, so I would say that we are talking an area, if I could just give you an idea here (indicating). I could see doing something here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be all right by me. MS. MESIANO: Okay, then that is, let me just define the area for you. That would be a non-turf buffer of ten feet in width running for a length of approximately 75 feet from the point where the bluff, the edge of the bluff fades into the area that is denoted "top of bank." So measured 75 feet in a northerly direction from that point. Now, if I might revisit the solar panel issue again. Just hear me out. If we were to plant a non-turf buffer in that area, we could get some higher grasses and some finer vegetation in there -- let me back up and start again. I have discussed at length with Mr. Gluckman the location of this solar panel and he is really opposed to putting it on top of the pool house, for esthetic reasons. What can I offer you in mitigation that the board might consider allowing him to have it down in this location? TRUSTEE KING: Nothing to me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not really inclined to approve anything else. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me look where you are talking about. Just because you changed the description. (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: It doesn't sound like the board is inclined. MS. MESIANO: Well, I had to try. Had to try. And for as much as they paid for all of this, I could understand them wanting the esthetics to be in tact. So I can't agree with that statement but I'm not the one making the decision. So, anyway, we are in agreement on the replacement and repair of the deck and installation of a 75x10 foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff in front of the swimming pool and that you will hold open the hearing with respect to the placement of the solar panel. Now, if I convince Mr. Gluckman -- TRUSTEE KING: Is there any doubt on the board's mind we would ever consider -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we could hold open one part of it. We could remove it from, with mutual consent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would have to close the hearing first. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With mutual consent we could remove it so it's not even in this permit request but if it remains in the permit request we would have to deny the whole thing. TRUSTEE KING: We can't separate and approve the deck reconstruction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would really have to close the hearing on the whole thing. Ii '2f){i'^' TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It can't remain half the application open. TRUSTEE KING: What's the sense? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because she is asking for it so she could talk to her client. TRUSTEE KING: What difference does that make if we already made up our mind? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could approve it with the stipulation that the solar panel be put on the roof of the pool house and if they choose not to, then they choose not to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Then they would have to come back and amend. MS. MESIANO: Let me ask you a question. Measuring from the top of the bluff and would installation of a solar panel on the roof of a structure that is half, more than half of it is more than 100 feet from the bluff, is that within your jurisdiction? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Say that again? MS. MESIANO: The pool house, most of the pool house is out of your jurisdiction. It's more than 100 feet from the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you wouldn't need approval from us then. MS. MESIANO: If he decides to install the pool heater and he wants to put it on the roof, I don't have to come back to you because it's on the roof and most of the structure is out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: Correct. MS. MESIANO: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So technically we could approve it with the stipulation that the solar panel be placed a hundred feet away from -- MS. MESIANO: Can I suggest a better. Because if we get down into measuring the peek of the pool house and it's 99 feet, perhaps, if you just say roof of the pool house so that if it's 99 feet I don't have to come back to you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sounds reasonable. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application of Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Thomas Gluckman requesting a Wetland Permit to install a solar panel with the stipulation that the solar panel be put on the roof of the existing pool house and to replace inkind and inplace repair and replacement of the existing 12x25 foot wood deck approximately ten foot landward of the bulkhead and also stipulation there is a 75x10 foot wide non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? "frllstecs (ALL AYES.) MS. MESIANO: Do you want to describe the location of the non-turf buffer or do you want to say -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could just draw that into the plan. MS. MESIANO: Okay, and the other -- I'll just leave it alone. If I replace the stairs, if I fix the stairs on the deck and it's not part of the 12x25, am I going to have a problem? I think that's how I measured. I took the overall measurement of where the steps were and took the outer limit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's a given that the stairs are part of. MS. MESIANO: As long as I'm not going to incur a violation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just add this in. TRUSTEE KI NG: If the deck is 12x25, who cares what the stairs are going up to the deck? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we'll do is 12x25 including the stairs. MS. MESIANO: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Add to that motion, the addition of stairs on to that 12x25 foot deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MESIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FITF, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dilapidated 1 Ox1 00 fixed dock and to construct 4x15 foot stairs leading to a 6x40 fixed dock, 3.5x20 foot ramp, an 8x20 foot float and an 8x30 foot float in an "L" configuration. Proposed dock shall also be three feet lower in elevation than existing dock and 17 feet shorter than the existing dock. Located: Reservoir Road, Fishers Island. Anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consultants. I'm here to answer any questions the board has. With respect to the site, it's a ten foot wide ex-commercial oil. TRUSTEE KING: This was part, I think this was part of, not part of a swap but something with the town. MR. JUST: It was half marine residential, half marine business. They bought the property, gave a lot to the town for open space. It's adjacent to the Fishers Island School District property. It had been a commercial ferry oil terminal at one time. TRUSTEE KING: This is over right where the ferry comes in on the north side there. Big structures there. Big old dock. MR. JUST: It's one of those docks you drive the trucks down, the 10-foot wide. Really, really heavy duty. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this quite a while ago. ] 1:\, :~Uin EL:::trd \) " " !Uif,' TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You mentioned it when we were over there, that it was coming in. We kind of looked at it from afar. MR. JUST: The dock would be narrowed by four feet, shortened in length by 17 feet and dropped in elevation by about three-and-a-half feet from what is existing now. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any problem with it. It's less of a structure than what is there now. We do everything bigger on Fishers Island. Any board comments on this? Any problems? (No response.) Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6x80 foot extension with wave-beaks, onto an existing pier, to relocated three 3-pile dolphins, to relocate one ladder and to install one new ladder. Located: Robins Island, New Suffolk. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. I just want to let the board know this permit was identical to the permit that was approved about two-and-a-half years ago. Unfortunately it's gone by the wayside and hence expired. We went over there Saturday morning, I believe, three of the four board members, four out of the five board members, to look at it. If there are any questions, just let me know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, this was reviewed under LWRP and found as consistent. The CAC inspected the property and supports the application with a recommendation that the construction material is consistent with best management practices. I know several of us went out to look at this and as Mr. Just said, this is something that had been approved previously by the board and there are no changes from what was approved previously. The purpose, primary purpose of this is to protect from the northern exposure the existing floats that are there and to help prevent damage due to ice, so that's the primary purpose of this extension. MR. JUST: As the board knows, I spend almost every weekend over there during the fall and winter. There is a lot of people going of' "frusL-::cs ,\ , , , , over to the island during the dark, during the light, and those floats that are exposed to the west side, that fixed pier, are actually treacherous. There is a lot of ice on them and they dip right into the water and take a pounding with the northerly winds. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the addition here. That will help protect from the northwest exposure. They are primarily a landing dock. Were there any questions from any board members? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I remember going out there originally. MR. JUST: Just like Mr. Bergen said, David, that is the sole landing source for goods and material for people that do go to the island. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other comments, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Belvedere Property Management for the project as described. Located: Robins Island, New Suffolk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 14, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of ROBERT & JUDY GOLDMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to an existing residence with a new exterior stone terrace. Located: 930 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. Is there anyone to speak on behalf of this? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of the Goldman's. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was inconsistent. Jim and I were out and inspected this. And if we just, I think by putting gutters, drywells, leaders that would mitigate and make it consistent. The CAC did not inspect it so therefore they don't have a comment. The only comment I had, the addition is on the side. It's 75-feet plus. It's within a hundred. The only thing Jim and I saw, that the clippings and everything for a long time had been dumped down the bank and you could see where there is no growth there. If they could please stop doing that. MR. SAMUELS: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: It's killed all the vegetation there. It's really big piles of grass clippings and trimmings and everything else. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's really to their benefit if they stop. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to have it removed? oi"fruS!l'CS TRUSTEE KING: Yes, remove it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make that stipulation. This is basically straight forward. It's in line with the existing house. 75 feet back from the top of the bluff. The bluff except in that one area is pretty well vegetated. I don't know if you have to do a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so. It's pretty well vegetated. I don't see the drywells and gutters and leaders on the plan but that would be part of the approval. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) 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 Samuel & Steelman Architects on behalf of Robert and Judy Goldman for the request of a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing residence with a new exterior stone terrace, with the addition of gutters, drywells and leaders, and that the area of the bank that has clippings, that be cleaned up and the dumping be stopped. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 15, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of RICKY & LUCY MANETTA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing residence and garage and construct a new residence and garage. Located: 905 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. Anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of the owners. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you show cesspools on -- MR. SAMUELS: Yes, it's on the uphill side. It's a new sanitary system. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It is, okay. That's one of the comments I had had. CAC supports the application with the recommendation of the gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and a line of staked hay bales, which is on the plans already. It's already an upgrade. Is there any consideration to move the house back since it's being demolished? MR. SAMUELS: It's being moved back quite a bit, actually. It's almost entirely behind the existing house. We considered additions and renovations and project and decided their ambitions are a ] I (II l,ref ru,tc:cs f is. :'Ol(} little larger than that, so TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're right Good. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) LWRP does review it as inconsistent, however its comment are about the hundred feet and the house when it's -- I'm sorry, how far is it going to be back with the new construction? MR SAMUELS: 100 foot from the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's only this corner in our jurisdiction. Actually, they moved it back. MR SAMUELS: We tried to be behind your jurisdiction, actually. We are 100 foot from the beach on the adjoining parcel. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Ricky and Lucy Manetta to demolish the existing residence and garage and construct a new residence and garage. Located: 905 Harbor Lights Drive. Based on the best management practices of hay bales, drywells, the house being moved back, the septic is being upgraded, that this deems this project consistent with LWRP. Second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR SAMUELS: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Tom, we'll need revised plans on both of those showing gutters and drywells. MR SAMUELS: There is gutters on Manetta. It will be on Goldman, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. RESOLUTIONS - EMERGENCY PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right we are on the resolutions. These next four are emergency permits from the storm the other day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, Jim, did you see the one on Peconic Bay Boulevard? MS. STANDISH: They were in the office today. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They just came in the office today. TRUSTEE KING: I talked to Mr. Hamilton today. He said DEC will be issuing emergency permits in two days. They know there has been so much damage there. They are going to be very active getting these permits out so people can do the work. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The first, GUIDO & MARGUERITE DOSSENA requests an emergency permit to patch the upper retaining wall. This has a k of' \ grandfather permit under a different name. Evelyn Stewart. Do you want to do this, Jim? Since you seem to have some background there. MS. STANDISH: We are not doing anything with the grandfather one because they are not replacing it. It's just the upper retaining wall, patching for now. They'll come in for a full permit next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I've looked at all the other ones. TRUSTEE KING: In this one, they are repairing the upper retaining wall and there are going to come in for a permit and bulkhead because the whole bulkhead has been destroyed. They are just going to be patching the upper bulkhead for now in the emergency permit. So I would make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Resolution number two, Boulevard Planning PC on behalf of ROBERT LEHNERT requests an Emergency Permit to repair the bulkhead and replace to match existing currently on site. Located: 5425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. I went out and looked at this. This is a situation where the bulkhead gave. It's a 15-foot right of way. The bulkhead gave. There was over a cement landing. That's how long ago this was done. The cement landing then collapsed and the bluff collapsed behind it. So it's got a little -- not a little. It's a bluff blowout. It's a cement slab has to be removed. The stairs are gone and it's sections of bulkhead are gone. Now, they are asking for an emergency permit to repair the bulkhead and replace to match existing. I'm a little confused on that because that would require a full permit. You know, emergency repair for this, my recommendation would be as we have done before, just a temporary repair of that bulkhead to prevent anymore damage and if they think it needs it, I don't think it does, but if they feel they need something to help retain that bluff from collapsing anymore, I would be supportive of that, but I'm not supportive as an emergency replacement of the bulkhead. I think that's got to come through a permit request. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Rob Lehnert in the office and he understood that. He was just coming in for repair and later on apply for a full permit. MS. STANDISH: And he came in today. I didn't want to get involved. So the next three are all like that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just approve the repair and that repair will be with non-treated wood. MS. STANDISH: Can you be more specific on what you mean by ! ?<, ,,:007 "repair"? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Repair of the bulkhead only, with non-treated wood. And that's it. The rest of it will have to be done under the regular permit application. MS. STANDISH: Scratch off "and replace existing." TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we finish voting on it, should we put a timetable on these emergency applications to come in with a full permit? Like here is the emergency application and you have two months to apply for a full permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does that restrict a person, what if they can't pay for it within -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just apply. Not do the work. So we can get them back in the office so they are not just doing a temporary thing. Because Vic just came back from last week. TRUSTEE KING: Now he's come in for an amendment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only question I would have with that is I know with the two that we gave emergency permits to for bluff collapses because of the engineering that was required, it took them, the applicant several months before they could apply because of the engineering studies that needed to be done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So six months. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be more comfortable with that. To say they must and back in six months to apply for a permit to redo that. MS. MONTEFUSCO: What's the interest of the Trustees requiring them to come back within a certain timeframe? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a temporary fix and there are some people out there that will just keep the temporary fix which may be a safety or environmental hazard if it's left there for any length of time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus, what we just said is we would use non-treated woods and for bulkheads we now require vinyl. MS. MONTEFUSCO: I see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But I wouldn't want to force them now to invest in vinyl that will be just yanked out when the replacement is done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because emergency repairs are just that, it's temporary. MS. MONTEFUSCO: I'm just wondering what happens in six months if they don't return. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm thinking. If they don't come back, this temporary repair is not going to last that long. It's not going to last more than a year or so. MS. MONTEFUSCO: What happens if they refuse to come back, what do we do? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying. So just leave it as temporary. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there is a timing and the time runs out, technically what work they do would be in violation and we have to )f)(17 of'rrus!....'cs i i violate that. MS. MONTEFUSCO: I don't know about that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know that I would support that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If somebody uses a temporary repair up there, half inch plywood and a couple of 4x4's and it goes -- TRUSTEE KING: Do it for a year. What happens, that becomes their bulkhead. Have we got pictures to show what they are going to repair? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There you go. And here is another angle of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a repair? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What they are trying to do, if another storm comes along or extreme tide, the tide doesn't go through the holes in the bulkhead and take down more of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with Lauren. Just say repair, that's a very open-ended description. Someone's repair could be another person's reconstruction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, in the same token they could, like we just said, they could put 4x4's and some three-quarter inch plywood and never come back to us again and that becomes their bulkhead or their retaining wall. Is that what we want? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what my thinking is. What is our recourse to make people -- MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's my question. I don't know if we have one right now. I guess you could make the emergency permit expire on a certain date and, like you said, you know, make whatever they have out there unpermitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That won't make them come back in our office. MS. MONTEFUSCO: Right. What you do, that's Bob's angle, then it becomes a violation if they don't come back. But that's a little, that's not really spelled out in the code right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just go ahead. TRUSTEE KING: If we could make it more specific what the repairs are, to replace the sheathing only. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Repair sheathing and supports for the sheathing, (Perusing.) I believe the whalers are still present. It's hard to tell from these pictures. I don't think there were whalers missing. TRUSTEE KING: If they start putting in piles and whalers -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the whalers are all there, so we could just say replace the missing sheathing and the bulkhead with non-treated plywood so they can't even come in with tongue and groove or anything like that. TRUSTEE KING: As long as it's untreated. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying. TRUSTEE KING: We have a situation in the Sound over in Hashamomuck, they had all the bulkheads went in the storms and they gave I'" (I C '1 rusr\;c~~ 1 '! emergency permits to re-sheath and they just left it. Haven't done anything since. One of them started putting a bunch of poles, we gave them a permit to put in a new plastic bulkhead. Now he's coming in to dig behind it and put dead men in. They play this game. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But let me go ahead and amend number two as follows: Boulevard Planning on behalf of NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requesting an emergency permit to repair the bulkhead, the damaged bulkhead sheathing with non-treated plywood. That's it. And any additional work will be applied for through the full permit process. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, now, Boulevard Planning on behalf of ROBERT LEHNERT requests an Emergency Permit to repair the bulkhead and replace to match existing currently on site. Located: 5425 Nassau Point Road. I have looked at this one also. This does not have, this does not have stairs. This is just a plain bulkhead and I would again list this the same way to state that it's a repair of the damaged bulkhead with non-treated plywood and any other additional work to be done they would have to come back in for a full permit. I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other one, Boulevard Planning on behalf of ARNOLD & GERALDINE BARTON requests an Emergency Permit to repair the bulkhead and replace to match existing currently on site. Located: 5295 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. I looked at this one and it's the end of the bulkhead, the same thing, the very end of the bulkhead where it goes into this right of way that we, area that we already addressed, is what needs to be repaired. Their stairs were taken away and I said the stairs are not an emergency. The stairs can be applied for as anybody else would for replacement of stairs that disappear. I didn't consider replacement of stairs to the beach from the bulkhead down to be emergency. I thought we were concentrating on is the repair of the bulkhead also. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about cement walls, what is that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: They would have to come in, again, and -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You mean that's what recently fell. Was that II eroded in -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The wave action took out the soil, I'm guessing, behind that and then the wall fell in by the wave action. So with this one, again, that's on the Nassau Point Property Owners one we already addressed. There is one with the Barton would be repair the damaged bulkhead with non-treated plywood and they would come back in for any other work that would be required through the regular permit process. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RESOLUTION - OTHER: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Resolution to Amend Administrative Permit #6230A issued to DIANE DALY to require removal of the existing 32 foot walkway, consisting of four 4x8 foot sections before December 1 of each year and not installed before April 1 of each year. Located: 8265 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This is the one we discussed that has that dock that goes out into the water? TRUSTEE KING: It's a temporary permanent structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So this is to try to address the issues that we had with that permanent -- not permanent dock there and Great Pond, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember it now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments, questions? Pretty straightforward, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion that we pass this resolution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) R!::CEIV;:D ... rd ;rY; ~ Iflft ~fl7Jl?dJ SOccI: :...1 C ~rk