Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/24/2007 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Pat Finnegan, Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 RECEIVED . ~ 3'.5\ p"llf) Soufhold Town Clerk ~Q.~ NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. I'm Jim King, I happen to have the honor of being the chairman of this board. I would like to introduce the rest of the team to you. To my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him is Peg Dickerson; Vice-chair Jill Doherty; myself; Lauren Standish is our office manager. Next to her, Trustee Bob Ghosio; Pat Finnegan, our town attorney is our legal advisor tonight; Don Wilder with the CAC, the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do inspections, same inspections we do, and give us their advice, and we have Wayne Galante here keeping track of what everybody says. If you have a comment, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. We have a number of postponements tonight. I don't want to Board of Trustees 2 July 24, 2007 have anybody sitting here waiting for something to come up that we are not going to address. On page four, number 19 has been postponed, the application of PETER & ALETRA T AGlOS. Page six, number 14, the application of PERI HINDEN, has been postponed. Number 23, the application of CARRIAGE HILL ASSOCIATES, INC., has been postponed. Number 24, the application of PETER BACCILE, has been postponed. Number 25, the application of JOHN FRANKIS, has been postponed. Number 26, the application of MARK HANSEN, has been postponed. Number 27, the application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, has been postponed. And number 28, the application of HENRY H. TRAENDL Y & BARBARA A. CADWALLADER, has been postponed. These have all been postponed and will not be addressed tonight. Number 22, the application of EMANUEL & MARIE ARTURI has been withdrawn. The next field inspection is set for August 15, at eight o'clock in the morning. Is everybody all right with that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The next meeting will be Wednesday, August 22 at 6:30, our work session starting at 5:30. Is everybody clear? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't want to take too much time to discuss it but I just thought we could maybe cut our work session to 5:30 and start at 6:00. It's something we can think about, maybe do it for the next meeting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if we are setting for the meeting now, we have to set it for 6:00 or 6:30. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to make the work session start at 5:00 and have the meeting start at 6:00? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if it's for everybody to get off work and get here at 5:00. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can't get here at five. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just saying cut the work session down to half an hour. TRUSTEE KING: We can split it up if you want. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we need somebody on the work session, the work session at 5:30 and the meeting start at six and have meeting start Board of Trustees 3 July 24,2007 at 6:30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our work sessions have never lasted less than an hour in the last two years. You would be eliminating people wanting to come before us in the work session or set it for another time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would have to extend the work session we have the Monday before the meeting. Do you want to do that? TRUSTEE KING: What's the board's pleasure. I don't care. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Cutting it from one night and adding it to another night. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem staying half hour, 40 minutes, on the nights we are here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to try it for next month, see how it goes. If it doesn't work, we can put it back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: If you want to try it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So August 22 we have the work session start at 5:30 but we'll start the regular meeting at 6:00, so we only have a half hour work session. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The monthly report, Trustees monthly report for June, 2007. A check for $7,946.63 was forwarded to the supervisor's office for the general fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices, are posted on the town clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews. RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Tuesday, July 24,2007, are classified as Type II actions pursuant Board of Trustees 4 July 24,2007 to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. Rose L. Milazzo Revocable Trust - SCTM#57-2-20 Christopher & Amy Astley - SCTM#13-1-5.2 Amy Gross - SCTM#13-1-4 Herbert Young - SCTM#110-7-8 Richard & Marianna Kirikian - SCTM#126-11-3.1 Peter Drouzas - SCTM#52-2-20.1 Elana Goodman - SCTM#52-5-11.1 Maria Katsigeorgis - SCTM#44-1-12 Joanne Gouveia - SCTM#44-1-11 Shore Ends, LLC - SCTM#117 -5-24 Ralph Panella - SCTM#87-6-9 Broadblue, LLC - SCTM#35-4-28.41 Charlotte Burkhard - SCTM#128-2-16 Elizabeth Sheehan - SCTM#123-7 -11.1 Elaine Romagnoli - SCTM#117-7-29 American Museum of Natural History - SCTM#1000-130 Patrice & John Keitt - SCTM#81-1-19 Sue K. Odell- SCTM#86-7-3.1 Dennis Katevais - SCTM#35-4-28.25 Lisa Tanal & Nisan Minakyan - SCTM#94-1-21 Thomas Byrne & Veronica Kaliski - SCTM#52-5-1 John Ingrilli - SCTM#119-1-15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the SEQRA reviews. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Resolutions and Administrative Permits. Number one, JAMES & JUDY HAYWARD requests an Administrative Permit for the removal of weeds and old plant material, to reinforce wind eroded berm and replace with salt tolerant and native species and dense grasses, and to provide a seasonal platform for removable screen room, to be removed at end of the Fall season. Located: 1450 Three Waters Lane, Orient. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing I suggest on the plans is we make sure to mention, given, like we said, this is six feet. I don't see that in here. Six feet into the plantings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't see the 12. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like pretty much what we discussed in the field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just need some -- we just need to know how far Board of Trustees 5 July 24, 2007 they are going in on the east side. TRUSTEE KING: Did you take a measurement across it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You took a measurement from here. 12 feet, that's what you did. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's all right, too. I think that pretty much looks like what we discussed in the field. I'll make a motion to approve this. We just need to know the width of the path and I think four feet would be a sufficient width. So we'll get that. I guess we'll just write that on ourselves. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE KING: So it's a four-foot wide path to the platform. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How big is the platform? TRUSTEE KING: 12x12. That stuck in my head. So I'll make a motion to approve this with a four-foot wide walkway and 12x12 foot removable wood platform. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, JAMI D. FRIEDMAN requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites that surround the elevated timber catwalk to 12 inches. Located: 830 Clearview Road, South old. We all looked at this and I'll make a motion to approve A clearing on two feet on either side of the catwalk only. Up to two feet by hand. Phragmites. Not the baccharis bushes, just the phragmites. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, THOMAS WICKHAM requests an Administrative Permit to install a set of three steps along the recently scoured beach. Located: 4787 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. I looked at this. The beach has been eroded drastically. Severely. It's a very simple structure. I see no environmental effects of this and I will make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Lawrence Matzen on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., requests an Board of Trustees 6 July 24,2007 Administrative Permit to remove the Japanese Knotweed by spraying with Round-Up. Located: Beach at end of Knoll Circle, East Marion. We all took a look at this. This is something we approved in the past. This is basically re-upping their program. The program seems to be working. They'll be spraying once a year to try to knock down the Knotweed and we would like to recommend hand removal as well. So I would make a motion that we approve this amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of SOUTH OLD PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to modify and enhance the existing sanitary system. Located: Founders Landing Park, Southold. I went out and looked at this. Is Garrett Strang or anybody representing Garrett Strang or this project here tonight? (No response.) Okay, obviously this comfort station does need a new sanitary system. My only question with this was there are only a couple of mature trees there to the east of the asphalt driveway and I would request that the sanitary system be located in a manner so it would not be required to cut down those mature trees. There is plenty of space in there to put a sanitary system. So I have no problem making a motion to approve this under the condition that it would be located so that the mature trees that are located to the east of the asphalt driveway would not be required to be removed. So I'll make that as a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: PETER DROUZAS requests an Amendment to Permit #6386 to include 800 cubic yards of dirt along the front of the property. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. CAC did not support this. CAC recommends that the property owner restore the contours back to their original state in order to avoid any potential runoff. We need a final contour and of what it would look like. And replace the hay bales. Is there anybody here representing Peter Drouzas? MR. DROUZAS: Right here. Board of Trustees 7 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you come up to the mic, please. MR. DROUZAS: I'm Vlassie Drouzas. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know what the final grade would be? MR. DROUZAS: I have a sheet. Do you want me to come up? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. DROUZAS: This is from the architect (Handing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you stand at the mic so you can get on the record, please. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing.) We are trying to figure out the direction of the map you just handed us. TRUSTEE KING: Which way is north on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's really not showing the whole property. If you could tell us where Rt. 48 is on that. MR. DROUZAS: It would be right here (indicating.) 48 is here. This would be north. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you replace the hay bale line? MR. DROUZAS: No, I didn't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That needs to be replaced and maintained. MR. DROUZAS: The DEC came by and stopped us, so we were not sure of what we could do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could go ahead and replace the hay bale line. TRUSTEE KING: The house is in our jurisdiction but the majority of the fill is really out of our jurisdiction. The only bit is on this east side of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Approximately where the drywell is and a few feet north of that drywell is the only thing in our jurisdiction. MR. WilDER: Well the wetlands, it's already filled. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The area requested to be filled is up by the road. TRUSTEE KING: It's all between the house and the road. MR. WilDER: There is a small road there that comes to the road end. There was a pond at the end of that. All those properties drained into that. That pond has been filled in. TRUSTEE KING: The pond has been filled in? With what? TRUSTEE BERGEN: With this project? MR. WilDER: I don't know. looks like brick and sand to me. don't know what the original contours were. I had no map. TRUSTEE KING: This is where the pond is (indicating.) Way down in here. There has been no activity in there from this project. That I know of. The hay bales is still there but it's really not very functional. I couldn't see where somebody has gone beyond the hay bales. MR. WilDER: You have bulldozers and sand in there. \ TRUSTEE BERGEN: Don is talking about this area right here (indicating.) That was not designated as wetlands when we went out and looked at it originally. That was not designated as wetlands. Board of Trustees 8 July 24,2007 TRUSTEE KING: Did you go by the neighbor's house? That's where we went in. MR. WilDER: We went behind it, down that road. That road drains into that area, as do all the properties around that, but I had no map of the original contours at all. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to take a look at this? Take a look at this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you come up here. I need a clarification on this drawing. Is this the limit of fill, this dark line? MR. DROUZAS: let me find out quick. (Perusing.) Yes. That -- we could make that dark line a little further at that point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the dark line on the part that you just gave me is the limit of fill? MR. DROUZAS: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Comparing this to the survey, it looks like the same line. TRUSTEE KING: It is the same line. MR. DROUZAS: Exactly. Because that's where the driveway is. TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't that look like the same line? MR. DROUZAS: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So there will be no fill in this area? MR. DROUZAS: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll just double check the measurement on this. TRUSTEE KING: There is about 20 feet in our jurisdiction, of this fill area. This line runs here and we've got the wetland, maybe 100 feet, so it's this area here is actually in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can we get the fill out of our jurisdiction, put it at the hundred foot? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the southwest side of the proposed house there is about a 20 foot section of proposed fill that is in our jurisdiction. The rest of it is out of our jurisdiction. If you could move that fill line north and get it totally out of our jurisdiction that way you are not putting any fill in our jurisdiction, that way we can give you the letter of non-jurisd iction. MR. DROUZAS: It has to be 20 foot forward? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, toward the road. North. To get it out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 20 feet toward the road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: North. TRUSTEE KING: let me just recheck this. MR. DROUZAS: Excuse me, 20 feet from where so it's out of your jurisdiction? TRUSTEE KING: This is the wetland line right here (indicating.) Here is 100 feet to the corner of that house. Anything north of this corner is out of our jurisdiction. Board of Trustees 9 July 24, 2007 MR. DROUZAS: I'm Peter Drouzas. I have this. This is the driveway. TRUSTEE KING: That's the intended driveway coming in. MR. DROUZAS: Halfway on the house is the driveway and the garage, of course. And on the other side is the cesspools. We have to cover the cesspools, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's outside of our jurisdiction, so you don't need our permission to do that. MR. DROUZAS: I tell you before, so many times. There is no water there on wetland. There is no water. If you go there now, you not going to see. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not just stagnant water, it's the plant species. MR. PROVENCHER: My name is James Provencher. I just have a question about this. That is a natural collection point for water where he's trying to build, okay, and that is our house (indicating.) There is a pitch this way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you can go back to the mic now so it's all on the record. Thank you. MR. PROVENCHER: Okay. That's a natural collection point for water. And the way our house is, it's essentially an upgrade but the way our houses are, the land actually goes down and then goes back up by where he's talking about, in that corner. TRUSTEE KING: Where are you in relation to where he's going to build this house? MR. PROVENCHER: (Indicating). I'm right over here. This road is the road I'm speak of. TRUSTEE KING: You are directly to the east. MR. PROVENCHER: In this area here is a natural collection point for that area. TRUSTEE KING: I mean to the west. MR. PROVENCHER: Yes. If that area is filled up, where is that water going to go? There is a new law that states -- TRUSTEE KING: I believe under the new law he's required to maintain the runoff on his property. MR. PROVENCHER: Okay, but it's our runoff, actually. But that's the way, but the thing is, my point is, it's naturally a collection point and that is why it was not a buildable lot. One of the reasons. Okay. I also have a second point that this land has changed hands three times since I have lived there and it's always been an un-buildable lot. What has now changed now in the laws that will make it a buildable lot? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we are here tonight just to bring the fill in. The house permit was already granted. Board of Trustees 10 July 24,2007 MR. PROVENCHER: Sorry. What? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The house permit was already granted so we are not here to discuss that tonight. We are here to -- MR. PROVENCHER: The land he's supposed to fill up is the low-lying area, as I said numerous times is a collection point for, natural collection point for water in that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe if we put some French drains on either side of the property. On the side of the driveway. French drain here and here. That would help it slow it down. MR. PROVENCHER: As long as I have lived there that has been a wet area and that's been since filled in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our jurisdiction -- MR. PROVENCHER: Let me see what -- I don't have my glasses. You have to show me what you are talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our jurisdiction is from this line here. MR. PROVENCHER: From this line here. (indicating.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This dotted line, 100 feet that way. So it stops here. So from here, all this is our jurisdiction. We don't have jurisdiction over here. MR. PROVENCHER: Who does? Who has jurisdiction over this area here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The building department. MR. PROVENCHER: You and the building department. You share the area in question, correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. PROVENCHER: So my point is that since you share that area that we are speaking of -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry to interrupt you. Do you think if we have him do French drains -- are you familiar with French drains? MR. PROVENCHER: I don't know what French drains are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a series of a natural, gravel and dirt, and it looks natural and it doesn't collect all the water. What happens is the water seeps down. Instead of just running here, it runs across here and seeps down. Some will run depending on the heavy rain or not and it will slow down the drainage. MR. PROVENCHER: That won't help us in a very heavy rain, as you are saying, so the water will back up this way and start flooding our basements. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where did the heavy rain settle? It came down here and settled right here? MR. PROVENCHER: Yes, this area. My house is over here. They are sand basements. When the water, if the water should have nowhere to go, that water will collect and flood our basements. That's my concern also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: See this line here. That's the limit of the fill line. He's not filling anything here. Just in line here. Board of Trustees 11 July 24, 2007 MR. PROVENCHER: This has to have a gradual slope, does it not? Of what, how many feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are trying to look at the elevations. MR. PROVENCHER: That's one of my bones of contention is what has changed to make it a buildable lot if the last three people couldn't build on it. Did our environmental laws change? TRUSTEE KING: Was it ever reviewed? MR. PROVENCHER: Of course it was. TRUSTEE KING: Who turned them down? MR. PROVENCHER: You guys or the building. TRUSTEE KING: I have been on this board for 12 years and not seen a review on that property. MR. PROVENCHER: You haven't? The guy that had it before, three or four years ago, tried it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe through the building department. TRUSTEE KING: He didn't come through the Trustee office. I would have seen an application if these people brought -- MR. PROVENCHER: Because it probably didn't get that far. It got squashed. Because it's not -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we have issued a permit. So there is a permit issued. So all we are here tonight is to address -- this is not a public hearing. MR. PROVENCHER: I thought it was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We get to the public hearings later. This is just an amendment. So we appreciate your comments but all we are dealing with is just the fill issue and not -- MR. PROVENCHER: That's one of my concerns as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very legitimate concern. But we are not going to be dealing with the house, if the house is allowed or not allowed. That decision is made. MR. PROVENCHER: Right. It may be where the house is going to be, if the slope is not, if that's not a doable thing, I mean you can do anything on paper and -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we asked. We have more questions for him, so thank you for your comments. We'll work with them. I just have more questions. This doesn't really explain, it's not clear to us what the elevations are going to be. The way you have it, it doesn't really say "elevation." It says -- I'm not even sure what it says. What this means. 443 times six feet equals 222 square feet. Then it's a line showing -- MR. DROUZAS: It has the elevations up to the top. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is elevations on this side but this side is not very clear. One of the questions, if this is the limit of clearing, what's going to happen here? What is the elevation here? It has to be a Board of Trustees 12 July 24, 2007 gradual slope. You can't just have a drop. What are you going to do in this area here? MR. DROUZAS: You are talking where? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right here where you end the fill. MR. DROUZAS: This is very up to the garage. Halfway on the house and the garage. This is open. The way it is, is a bearing wall to the garage. Very long. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Very long. And how high is that going to be? MR. DROUZAS: Maybe four feet. Three-and-a-half feet, four feet. Somewhere in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are asking for permission to put a wall up. What kind of wall? MR. DROUZAS: Concrete wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not in the application here. MR. DROUZAS: It's in the approved plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is? TRUSTEE KING: This is it here. TRUSTEE KING: It's here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't say anything about a wall. MR. DROUZAS: Do you have an approved plan? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is it right here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have the building department plan. TRUSTEE KING: The building department is completely separate from us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't say anything in the permit that you got from us about a bearing wall here. MR. DROUZAS: Right here. This is the wall I'm talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How high is that? MR. DROUZAS: Three-and-a-half feet, four feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's important for us to know. MR. DROUZAS: That might have it on the scale there. (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's still in our jurisdiction. The remaining wall is in our jurisdiction. It was not on the original plan we approved in June of '06. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know, at this point we don't have enough information to satisfy us right now. I think I would like to table this and we need a better, make it more clear, the elevations. If you are going to put a wall here we need to know the specifics of the wall. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see things staked out in the field. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I would like to see elevations marked on the stakes because I think Mr. Provencher has a legitimate point. TRUSTEE KING: We just went down with, one of the problems with a lot of the fill that is brought in -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you understand what we are talking about, we want this whole wall staked from the beginning of the wall to the Board of Trustees 13 July 24, 2007 end and we want to show how high it's going to be, show us how high and the limits of where you are going to put the fill, and we want it clearly marked and we'll go out next month. And we need to request the wall -- we need the dimension of the wall, if it's going to be three feet by how wide, what it's going to be made of and any other; if you are going to put any other drainage in here, which even though we don't have jurisdiction over here, you might consider putting some kind of drainage in the driveway area to stop it from coming here. I mean there is other, you can put drywells in there, you can do French drains on the sides. MR. DROUZAS: Can you give me a letter what you need exactly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's probably easier to have your architect call the office and the girls will explain it. MR. DROUZAS: Let me ask you a question, the DEC, we have to do the same thing with them? TRUSTEE KING: They have more jurisdiction than we do. They have 300 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever the DEC asks for, you'll have to tell them what you are doing as well. MR. DROUZAS: So have the architect call you during the week. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And we need to see the staked hay bales in place. Can you do that now so when we come out we can make sure they are there MR. DROUZAS: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this to get further information. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. PROVENCHER: I would like to thank you for addressing my concerns. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. We have some simple ones here. We are going to fly on these amendments and transfers. We have some easy ones. We'll try to group them together and approve them all at once to save some time. We have number two, the application of JOANNE GOUVEIA; number four, the application of HOWARD L. WELLS; number five, the application of JOSEPH MELCHIONE; number six, the application of JOSEPH MELCHIONE; number seven, the application of DENNIS KATEVATIS; number nine, the application of WILLIAM BAXTER; number ten, the application of CATHERINE & RICHARD REINKEN; Board of Trustees 14 July 24, 2007 number 11, the application of JAMES & MARINA MITCHELL; number 12, the application of MARY ZUPA; number 13, the application of MICHAEL L1EGEY; number 14, the application of LEO ALESSI; number 16, the application of GUIDO & MARGUERITE DOSSENA; number 17, the application of DENNIS KORD; and number 18, the application of TIMOTHY & DEBORAH BEAUMONT. All of these were, there was no controversy on them that we could find, so unless there is anybody here that wants to comment on any of these -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes, on number 18. George Baldwin, 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport. I'm the neighbor on the north side. My letter I believe should be there concerning -- TRUSTEE KING: These are not public hearings. Are you talking about number 18 in the public hearings? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: We are doing transfers and amendments. The other is coming later. Yours is coming later in the night. MS. SNYDER: Dorothy Snyder, Southold Ventures. We had a question on number 12. I'm the adjacent property to the people that are asking to put a second story -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, we are on the beginning of the amendments and transfers. We are not in the public hearings yet. MS. SNYDER: I'm so sorry. Sorry. TRUSTEE KING: We are on page three and page four. Two, three and four are the pages we are working on. Amendments, extensions and transfers. The public hearing section will come a little later on in the night. Anyway, we read these off. They are all pretty simple. I'll make a motion to approve the ones we have read off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Now we'll go back and address some of the more difficult ones. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, the application of MARIA KATSIGEORGIS is rather complicated. I don't think we should move forward with it because there a very strong possibility a violation will be issued on this property, so I'll make a motion to table this one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests an amendment to Permit #6209 to slightly angle the three finger Board of Trustees 15 July 24,2007 floats, (1) 3x20 feet and (2) 3x40 feet, in a direction parallel to the shoreline. Located: Basin Road, Southold. This is a permit the trustees issued for modifications to a docking facility. This is an amendment that was required by the DEC. It's a very slight change to the angle of the floats that are attached to the floating dock. I think we should move forward on this. We have really been battling this thing out for a long period of time. I would like to make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have some comments first. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do have an issue with this one. My issue is that as it was, as we had originally approved the dock, it allowed for a second dock to, the possibility for a second dock location which had been previously approved and as a matter of fact tonight we just gave an extension for that permit. The reconfiguration as the DEC has put in would result in would result in insufficient room for that dock that we just extended a permit for, for a possible dock there. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was just the opposite. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, what has been proposed, there is a small dock that was to be removed to the east. That small dock has not been removed yet. It was my understanding that number 12 tonight was a one-year extension of the dock in that approximate area, and if this reconfiguration of the long dock is done, it is moved, it's angled over in that direction, it's angled toward this dock. It's angled toward this proposed dock. TRUSTEE KING: If you look at this and look at that, it's further away than this is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we went over that and measured it. TRUSTEE KING: This actually brings it further away. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought with these angles it did not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the scale. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it has the scale on it. If you compare the two, I thought this was a much better plan, myself. This is the new plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the new one, the one before us tonight. TRUSTEE KING: We approved the floats going perpendicular. The DEC put the angle out more with the shoreline. This is 30 feet; just about 30. 28, 29. This is 20 feet, 22 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this does allow for more room. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten feet on the end. TRUSTEE KING: It actually gives more room between them than what we approved. That's I felt this was kind of a no brainer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, like I said, I thought it was bringing it closer. If it's creating more room for the other potential dock, Board of Trustees 16 July 24,2007 then I'm fine with it. TRUSTEE KING: From what I could see on the two sets of plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what it was, this is what we approved and it's amended to that. TRUSTEE KING: I spent a lot of time going through this and looking these over. There has been so much controversy with this whole place. It's to the point it's embarrassing. I'm sorry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have a motion? TRUSTEE KING: I believe I made a motion to approve this amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MS. MESIANO: Excuse me. We would like some comment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could still take a comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would take comment before you vote on it. TRUSTEE KING: Make it quick. MS. MESIANO: I would like to make the sure the board is aware -- Catherine Mesiano here on behalf of the Zupa's. Mrs. Zupa, who owns the 580 Basin Road property and Mr. Zupa jointly with Mrs. Zupa the 365 Basin Road. I want to make the board aware the temporary restraining order that was issued by Judge Weber was extended. We are scheduled to appear back before Judge Weber on the 31st for a written decision, a written determination from him on that matter, and a hearing is scheduled on that matter, September 18, so at this point in time the action approved by the DEC has been stayed by the courts. I would further like to say, and I'll keep it as brief as possible. It's nothing you have not already heard me say. Again, this board, I have heard from many of the present and former board members your emphatic comments that these docks are illegal. They have never been permitted, they should be removed. This board has said that in my presence more times than I can count and I see no action in that direction. The three points I would like to make is that this reconfigured dock does nothing as far as an environmental benefit because if you were to calculate the degree of the amount of bottom coverage, I don't believe you'll find a great difference between that which is proposed and that which is existing. So you have done nothing but move it around as a shell game. There is really no benefit, environmentally. The second issue, again, goes back to your procedural issues. I have never had this board accept from me any application that doesn't have the owner's authorization and, again, you have documents signed by representative of Paradise Point Association signing as an owner and I take exception to that. And my third point is that by doing this you have taken away, essentially, the riparian rights of the Zupa's. The Zupa's have Board of Trustees 17 July 24,2007 riparian rights as owners of the property. Easement holder doesn't usurp riparian rights of the owner. By your approving this dock, which essentially -- TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, may I interrupt you, please. We already have an approved permit. That is already in place. We are not reissuing a new permit. They have a valid permit now. This is a very simple modification to an existing permit. MS. MESIANO: The modification, Jim, worsens your position because now the dock is halfway across the basin instead of a third. TRUSTEE KING: That's not true. MS. MESIANO: I beg to differ, because I could draw a straight line as well as you can. I've made my points. I have nothing further to say. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. What's the board pleasure? I made a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? AYES: Trustee King, Trustee Doherty, Trustee Dickerson, Trustee Ghosio TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll abstain. TRUSTEE KING: Let the record note Trustee Bergen abstained from the vote. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 15, MARK MELILLO requests a Transfer of Permit #8-88-90-4-21 from Robert E. Mitchell to Mark Melillo, as issued on December 2,1988. Located: 685 Oakwood Court, Southold. A violation was served and it's been -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, there was no violation served on this property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As of last Saturday. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A summons was issued on this property, so I make a motion we table it until this is rectified in court. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular meetings. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) PUBLIC HEARINGS: WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into our public hearings. This is the Board of Trustees 18 July 24,2007 public hearing section now, wetland permits. We have had a lot of discussion about our meetings have been really running late. We are trying, one of the ways we are trying to speed things up is by grouping the amendments, the simple things together, trying to save some time there. And another thing we talked about is on the public hearings instead of having somebody come up and say how great this project is going to be and go on and on, if we visit it and look at it and don't have a problem with it, we would just like to kind of move along. So we are not going to be asking people to plead your case and tell us how wonderful this project is, but we do want to hear from anybody that has a comment or a problem with it or a question about it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if you are here representing them, you can just let us know for the record who you are here, if we have any questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, WILLIAM C. GOGGINS requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing timber bulkhead with +/-73 feet vinyl bulkhead, construct 4x3 foot steps and install a 15 foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. Located: 1780 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. This was on the agenda last month. We went out to revisit it at low tide and the request is to replace one, part of the request is to replace the groin, 63-foot groin, and we measured it at low tide and we feel a 45-foot low profile groin would be sufficient in that area. I think -- is that the site or is it the 74? And then the other area, we have no problem with the vinyl bulkhead and the steps and non-turf buffer. Does the board have any questions on this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was the specific elevation on that groin? TRUSTEE KING: I think the top was supposed to be two feet below the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was thinking that also. I think that should be on the record, whatever it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Two feet from the top of the groin, the existing groin would be the elevation. It would slope down from there. TRUSTEE KING: The top of the groin is two feet below the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And as the groin goes seaward out, it slopes down and stays low profile. TRUSTEE KING: With a distance of 45 feet at low tide. MR. HERMAN: I have a quick question. Rob Herman. I don't think Bill is here tonight. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, he is. MR. HERMAN: Jim, are you going to have any or is the board going to Board of Trustees 19 July 24, 2007 have any communication back with the DEC? Because I know at the last month's meeting -- TRUSTEE KING: I know the DEC wanted 30 feet. MR. HERMAN: Right, and that was -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. MR. HERMAN: I only ask because I know this was one that you had done a joint field inspection with Mr. Hamilton and I know that we are going to run into a problem there without any further feedback from the board in terms of your second inspection. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know when he's coming out. If he comes out, I'll ask him. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I'll just tell him we went out and checked it down to the low tide mark. It's 45 feet. I'll give him that information and he'll do what he's going to do. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions? MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins, the applicant. I sent an aerial photo from 2001 which shows the low tide at the end of the 63 plus or minus feet. The low tide does change there over courses of months. Sometimes it's as low as outside of the groin, which is at 63, 64 feet, as shown in the aerial photo. And that was just lucky on my part to find that because I went to Google Earth and I Googled my property and there it was at low tide, and there was the groin, and I'm assuming that was low tide in 2000-2001 when Google Earth took the satellite photographs, so at that time the low tide was at the 63 feet marker. And, again, I know you don't want too much public comment but I think there is a reason why the engineers at the time of construction of the groin, the drawing of my groin and the groin of Gilkreist's (sic) to the east, and they angled them at those lengths, I think, for a reason, an engineering reason. And I haven't found out what it was, I haven't retained an engineer. But certainly at low tide at that time of the aerial photo, low tide was at the end of the groin. And I appreciate the board changing it from 30 feet to 45 feet but 55 feet might be a little better. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). We are looking at the one to the east. MR. GOGGINS: To the east of that groin is water and it goes all the way back along that neighbor's property, back pretty far. Mr. Herman has more knowledge with the exact numbers on that. In effect it puts us in a peninsula situation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The one to the east in the Google photograph shows an extension that kind of angles. MR. GOGGINS: That still angles there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's lower than what is on the upper part. Board of Trustees 20 July 24, 2007 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying that part is still there but it's buried. MR. GOGGINS: It's not buried. You could still see it at low tide now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can see it here. MR. GOGGINS: It's still there, right. Mr. Herman, on the Gilkreist (sic) it goes out perpendicular and angles to the east, their groin. MR. HERMAN: I don't remember off the top of my head. I just gave up to the board a photo I took on December 29, 2006, that shows low water at the end of your groin as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we have been doing when people come in and replace these, we are shortening these. TRUSTEE KING: When was that taken? MR. HERMAN: December 29, 2006, low tide. MR. GOGGINS: So we have low tide, 2000, 2001 and low tide then. think that's indicative of the average low tide in that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we have been doing, as these come in, we are shortening them and making them low profile. There is a part of the section that we are willing to have you replace that is non-functional now only because we did go out there at low tide and we feel it should, we are willing to have it go out 45 feet. I think that's what we are all comfortable with, to give you the 45 feet and not the 63. Is there any other comments from the board, any other opinion after seeing these photographs? MR. GOGGINS: It doesn't change anybody's minds? You didn't want to extend it another ten feet? TRUSTEE KING: I think you have another mind you have to change just to get to 45 feet. MR. GOGGINS: I understand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So no further comments from the board? MR. GOGGINS: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'm comfortable with what we did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If DEC says something different later on you can always come back for an amendment to us then and see what happens, if DEC gives you something greater. But I doubt it. MR. GOGGINS: I doubt it, too. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the permit for William Goggins to replace existing timber groin with new 45 foot low profile groin, starting at two feet from the top of the existing bulkhead going out, low profile, replace existing timber bulkhead with 73 foot plus or minus vinyl bulkhead, construct 4x3 foot steps, install 15-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. Located: Jackson Street, New Suffolk. Board of Trustees 21 July 24,2007 MR. GOGGINS: Sorry, if I could interrupt. We talked about extending the ten foot wide deck, the length of the bulkhead which I think was 60 feet, we discussed, replace the non-turf buffer so the deck would be ten feet as it runs north/south and as it runs east to west it would be 60 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the non-turf would be a ten foot. MR. GOGGINS: Ten foot, and we put a ten foot deck on top. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You want -- so the decking will be along the whole width of the bulkhead, ten feet wide and approximately 60 feet long. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we want an additional five feet of non-turf beyond that decking? I think we are deciding just the ten foot. TRUSTEE KING: It will have to be pervious. We don't want the deck right on top. MR. GOGGINS: It will be pervious. We'll have separation between the boards. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We discussed separation width on that one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Recently we did a spacing. TRUSTEE KING: 3/8th's of an inch. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion with the non-turf buffer, will be 10x60 foot walkway with a spacing between the walkway no closer than 3x8th's inches so it's pervious. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. GOGGINS: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know what, we have to go back on this. I was on the amendment mode. Can I have the file back, please. It's exempt from LWRP and I just need CAC comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need to make a motion to reopen first. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I never closed it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We voted on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We voted on it, so I'll have to make a motion. CAC supports the application with 20-foot non-turf buffer. I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. FINNEGAN: Just make a motion to approve the resolution as stated earlier. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the resolution as I stated earlier. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Sorry about that. Board of Trustees 22 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Number two, LISA TANAL & NISAN MINAKYAN requests a Wetland Permit to complete the installation of a staircase; reduce the size of the 8.5x8.5 foot deck to three-feet wide walkway, replant all disturbed areas beneath walkway and within ten feet east and west of walkway, remove retaining wall beneath staircase and remove all concrete bags and debris. Located: 2375 Sound View Avenue, Mattituck. I have some questions. Is there anybody here on this project? MS. TANAL: Lisa Tanal. TRUSTEE KING: I had some questions. I looked through a lot of this from the DEC and it's a five-page document, but page four and five are missing. Have you got that? MS. TANAL: I have four and five and I faxed them to you today but I think Lauren was already here when I faxed them, but I brought copies. TRUSTEE KING: Because I was looking for the consent order. Did they give you any set of plans that they approved? They usually have a stamped set of the plans. MS. TANAL: They didn't give us anything stamped. TRUSTEE KING: You didn't give them a set of plans to show what you were doing? MS. T ANAL: Yes. This is exactly what they sent us. We just need the approval from you to continue so they -- you know. That's all they gave us. TRUSTEE KING: I have never seen them go through this without having a set of plans approved by the DEC. It's very unusual. MS. TANAL: This is all they sent us. TRUSTEE KING: Particularly if it's a compliance. MS. TANAL: Yes, and then we need to get your approval in order to do what they want us to do and then they'll send us the stamped thing. I think it says it on that. TRUSTEE KING: Just give me a second. (Perusing). I wish I had this when I went out. It would have simplified things. MS. T ANAL: I didn't realize it was not in there. It's such a big file. We tried to make sure it was all correct. TRUSTEE KING: How many retaining walls are underneath the stairway going down? MS. TANAL: There is just kind of like boards across. They are not true retaining walls in the sense of a retaining wall. They were just boards that were placed there to hold the soil back. TRUSTEE KING: I understand that but I'm looking at part of this compliance and it says remove all retaining walls beneath the staircase. MS. TANAL: About four. We'll comply with everything it says but we need your permission to proceed with the compliance. Board of Trustees 23 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the description, if we made it retaining "walls" instead of singular wall, would that work? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I could use the same language. MS. TANAL: You went out to the site, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. TANAL: You saw it was not retaining walls. They were just boards across. TRUSTEE KING: I considered them retaining walls. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They were retaining, even though they are small, we still consider them retaining walls. MS. TANAL: So the soil doesn't fall on the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what a retaining wall does. Could we maybe, since we have complete plans here, if all our questions are answered, can we do this subject to receiving the stamped plans from the DEC? TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm thinking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if DEC has a problem with that, DEC can write to us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I heard them say is DEC won't give them the stamped plans until we give them approval. So if we give approval subject to receiving DEC stamped plans, it's a big circle. But we are just hearing that from her. If we get a letter from DEC saying that's what they want then we could release the permit. MS. TANAL: Isn't that in their compliance order? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see where it says that. We just don't want to approve one plan and DEC approve another plan. MS. TANAL: There is no other plan. That's the only plan. And all we are going to do is change what they want changed, remove what they want removed and just finish the last ten stairs. TRUSTEE KING: That's the part that's confusing me. You have a shaded -- gray area, shaded here, that will be removed. And you have two existing lagging areas on the stairway that are going to be removed. But there are more retaining walls, too. This compliance says all have to be removed, but it doesn't show this on the plans you submitted to us. MS. TANAL: Well, we won't leave any retaining walls. We'll remove whatever is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to know a specific amount of retaining and see them on the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why not just remove all retaining walls shown on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: I think we can approve this based on part of the compliance language "all retaining walls to be removed." So we can go out and do a compliance check after this work is done, do a compliance check, and I'm sure the DEC will do the same thing. Board of Trustees 24 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So I think we have -- I'm going to put a notation on these plans that all retaining walls are to be removed. That makes it consistent with the DEC. MS. TANAL: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you comfortable approving without getting DEC stamped plans? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, if that answers all your questions, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: No recommendation made. When did you look at this? MR. WILDER: I didn't personally look at it. The other people may have. TRUSTEE KING: I was wondering if you seen it before. MS. TANAL: They came out July 11. I was there. I was waiting for you people. Two gentlemen came on the 11th and we went up and down with them. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Any other questions from anybody? (No response.) Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application to be consistent with DEC compliance conditions with all retaining walls to be removed, all concrete bags and debris have to be removed, existing platform is to be reduced in size. There will be a three-foot wide walkway, all disturbed areas beneath the walkway and within ten feet east and west of the walkway to be planted with beach grass 12 inches on center. I think that's it. We can approve that based on that. And we want to see approved plans from the DEC before we release the permit. Make a note for DEC we approved this based on what the plans are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you understand the last part? MS. TANAL: I can't hear. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The last part is we'll approve this based on receiving DEC approval and we'll send a copy of our approval letter to the DEC, then once we get their approval we'll send out the permit to you. MS. TANAL: Okay, so I don't have to do anything, you'll be corresponding with them? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I'll second that. MS. TANAL: Now may we begin to work? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not until you receive the permit in hand. Board of Trustees 25 July 24,2007 MS. TANAL: I need to receive the permit from you? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You need to have the actual paperwork in your hand. I second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct an existing 3x75 foot pier to 6x85 feet, a 1 Ox1 0 foot lower platform, two three-pile fender/tie-off dolphins and a removable 4x40 foot aluminum access ramp with pile supported hoist waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: North Shore of Great Gull Island. As I said, this is a project out of Great Gull Island. It was reviewed by CAC. The application was reviewed. They didn't make an inspection, however the applicant, as long as the applicant refrains from using CCA. It was found consistent under LWRP but he does have some provisions here for that consistency. Number one, recommending that if there is any vegetation that is disturbed as a result of the construction of this, that there is revegetation done of that area and that's, make sure that it doesn't exceed one-third of the way across the water. Well, I don't think this is exceeding one-third of the way across Long Island Sound, so I think that's okay. We did not make a field inspection of this but we have discussed this based on a presentation that was already provided to us. I first would like to ask if there is anybody who wishes to speak against this application? (No response.) Seeing nobody rushing to the stand, is there anybody else who would like to make any brief comments on this application? MR. NIELSON: Keith Nielson on behalf of the Museum of Natural History. I would just like to offer the last two bits of testimony on the project, the affidavit that the poster was mounted to the concrete pill box and we got a picture of Ms. Helen Hayes with the poster. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So everybody could see. MR. NIELSON: We are suffering with a little bit of the access to the site, so we are improvising. If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to address the question that was offered under the review for the LWRP. I don't see on this plan anything but boulders underneath this proposed reconstruction project, so is there any vegetation there that needs to be restored? MR. NIELSON: It's all boulders. Board of Trustees 26 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to address that. Any comments from the board? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Being no comments from the board, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to approve number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of the American Museum of Natural History as stated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) MR. NIELSON: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Can I hold you up a second. The Turnbull's are here but they vanished. Since I have a half a dozen, can we shift up, second call Turnbull and move on to number five, if you don't mind? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll move on to number five and come back to number four. TRUSTEE KING: Number five, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of ELIZABETH SHEEHAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 90 linear feet of timber retaining wall in place of existing timber retaining wall and backfill/renourish embankment with approximately 20 cubic yards of material to be trucked in from an upland source and replanted with Rosa Rugosa (three feet on center). located: 640 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Jill and I looked at this and we didn't have a problem with it. lWRP is exempt, minor action. CAC recommended to support the application. MR. HERMAN: I have nothing to add. TRUSTEE KING: I just have one comment, Rob. Rosa Rugosa, just reading they have a program going on in Connecticut now to get rid of it. It's an invasive plant. MR. HERMAN: It's not invasive, it's just non-native, so the push is to use Rosa Virginiana. If the board proposes to use Rosa Virginiana. Rosa Rugosa is more available. TRUSTEE KING: I just thought this was interesting. MR. HERMAN: That's the reason why. It's not native. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response.) Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 27 July 24,2007 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of CHARLOTTE BURKHARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 99 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing, storm-damaged bulkhead and backfill scoured area landward of bulkhead with approximately 150 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American Beach Grass (12 inches on center.) Located: 5360 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Jim and I inspected this. It's exempt from LWRP and CAC supports the application with the condition of 15-foot non-turf buffer. The whole front was basically a buffer, so we would recommend to maintain that. In the plans, Rob, do you plan on removing that old, the old bulkhead that is behind that? MR. HERMAN: I think -- I think what's there will be pulled out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the only question we had. MR. HERMAN: And we show backfill up to about 21 feet, so if you want to make it a 20-foot non-turf before it will maintain what is essentially there, and it will be replaced. TRUSTEE KING: We noticed when we went down there it was like a time warp going in there because it's typical little old cottages from years ago, the whole front is nothing but beach grass, no lawns. It's what it used to be. It's all a non-turf buffer in front of the cottage. MR. HERMAN: You didn't plan on changing that, did you? MS. BURKHARD: No TRUSTEE KING: It's like the way things used to be. I was really amazed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions, comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve as stated with the condition that it will remains non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM & JOANNE TURNBULL requests a Wetland Permit to partially demolish an existing one-story, one-family dwelling for the purpose Board of Trustees 28 July 24, 2007 of renovating and constructing a two-story, one-family dwelling wherein proposed expansion of the existing dwelling shall be situated partially upon and partially beyond existing foundation walls and all seaward expansion shall occur over and in place of the existing wood deck; construct 1 Ox13 foot addition to existing deck; construct 20x37 foot inground swimming pool, masonry pool patio and 8x12 foot shed; and install a new sanitary system, public water service line, drainage system of drywells, pool drywell, outside shower and pool enclosing fence. Located: 54005 North Road, Southold. This is a hearing we opened and I believe we tabled last month. MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There were some concerns that we had and it looks like you addressed those. Does anybody want to see these? (Perusing). MR. HERMAN: I have an extra copy if you would like. Just to briefly summarize, there were three essential issues; one was the sort of roadward rotation of the proposed swimming pool and patio to angle it away from the crest of the bluff, which was done; the elimination of some of that area of the existing deck to essentially create a line. I think Jill had suggested at one point keeping it, to cut the existing deck back in line with the seaward extension of the proposed section, and that was done. And then as part of those two things, working to establish at least a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and we thought when Mel Gonzalez, who is also here, the architect for the project, was speaking with the board last month, we thought that width might have to be compromised at some locations, but Mel worked out a design to keep it uniform, ten-foot non-turf buffer all the way from one end of the property to the other, including the outside of the deck. So we hope this would satisfy what the board was looking for last month. And then it could, we could obviously have this translated on to the survey that was originally submitted. Mel wanted to present these plans for the board's consideration and hopefully approve them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Has CAC taken a look at this at all? MR. WILDER: I think that I did last time. We didn't this time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC didn't make an inspection, so no recommendation was made. As we discussed last month, LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Is there anybody else here who would like to comment on this? MR. HERMAN: Just one other quick comment. As Jim had asked us about moving the sanitary system so that it was completely out of the jurisdiction, that is not shown on here. That will be shown on John Ehler's survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does the board have any questions or comments? Board of Trustees 29 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does LWRP have any comments? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's inconsistent with LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Because it doesn't meet setbacks. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically because it doesn't meet setbacks. The proposed distance of the two-story house from the crest of the bluff is 20 feet setback. A distance of 100 feet is required, and it talks about minimizing potential loss from flooding and erosion hazards. That's why it was found to be inconsistent. So it's an existing structure. MR. HERMAN: That was part of the discussions last month and why the board had asked us to try to make some of these changes to get the buffer established and get the septic system farther away, to forfeit some of the existing deck and to push the swimming pool farther from the bluff crest. But we did discuss all those issues last month in terms of the height and limitations with the roadway and slope of the property and existing driveway and the fact that this is partially being constructed over the same footprint that's there. This is one of those you can't really go anywhere on this site. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So they are trying to mitigate it as best as possible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the comment about the erosion, with the ten foot buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was an issue that we had. I don't think that's mentioned here. Not in the LWRP. MR. HERMAN: It does satisfy one of the LWRP policies where it talks about the discussion of minimizing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought it was in the inconsistency. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, yes, it says the same, basically; minimize potential loss and damage by keeping structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. That's part of this issue. But we have done some of that by extending the ten-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: I think when you put a buffer in, you move the septic system out of our jurisdiction. It's a giant step forward. MR. HERMAN: It's a big improvement. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments or questions? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think they answered them all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve this application as described in number four with the changes that have been made on these plans, establishing a ten-foot wide, non-turf buffer within the limits of the existing plantings and ground cover along the bluff and edge of the structure to the south. The Board of Trustees 30 July 24, 2007 rotation of the pool as it's shown on the plans and the redesign and elimination of the wood deck as we recommended is also reflected on the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you say the septic is out of the jurisdiction and to be put on the plans? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's correct. Removing the septic from our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of ELAINE ROMAGNOLI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 109 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing, storm-damaged timber bulkhead; backfill/renourish eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 50 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American Beach Grass (12 inches on center); and reconstruct inkind/inplace existing, storm-damaged masonry patio on grade, as necessary. Located: 1230 First Street, New Suffolk. The Board did go out and looked at this and before we get the Board comments, it was looked at by the CAC and the CAC supports the application with a condition of a non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead -- between the patio and the bulkhead, sorry. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to be exempt. As I stated, the Board in total went out and looked at this and first off I would like to know if there is anybody here who wants to make any comments against this proposed application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody, just a question the Board had. This stated it was going to be replaced inkind/inplace; is that correct? MR. HERMAN: Not inkind/inplace. It's to be replaced in place but with a vinyl bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, inplace. Just a question the Board had from an engineering perspective, that bulkhead, the current bulkhead is almost right up to the wall of the dwelling. We were just wondering how that is going to be done. In other words, how you do that without the house falling down. MR. HERMAN: Well, it's a good question. The section, the 51-foot section of bulkhead, I'm not sure, and Elaine, you can answer this since you are here, but I'm not sure -- have you made the decision with the contractor to actually run that entire distance or are you really looking to replace across the water and then back toward, to the house? Board of Trustees 31 July 24,2007 MS. ROMAGNOLI: Just back to the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's 48-foot along the front and 3D-foot along the northern side is what the applicant is actually asking for; is that what I'm hearing? MR. HERMAN: Yes, and that is sort of a peripheral consequence of typically when we file with DEC we try to get approval to replace the entire thing so that if the applicant actually replaces less than that, they can do that. If they represent less and then need to go back and get more then they have to start making the rounds again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you get into the project and you find you have to replace -- MR. HERMAN: We would have to amend it and have probably an engineered plan so as not to destroy the house while putting in a bulkhead. But I think Dave's representation is correct that for the trustees permit purposes, the 48 feet along the harbor and then 30 feet back to the house is what would absolutely be needed to be replaced most urgently. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, with regard to the buffer, the patio itself was not pervious material, correct? MR. HERMAN: It's masonry patio and the seaward edge is about nine, almost nine feet from the outer face of the bulkhead. But similar to Burkhard, I mean that area even now is, it's not turf now. It's Rosa Rugosa and planted grasses, and from my discussions with Elaine today, she mayor may not replace some of that patio and just plant it with more grasses. So I think if we say seaward of the patio, which was the recommendation, that will cover any possible variation of what she does. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. I was going to recommend seaward of the patio, that it would not be turfed. Any questions from the Board on this? (No response.) If not, I'll 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 the number seven, 1230 First Street, New Suffolk, as listed with a modification that instead of constructing 109 linear feet it would be a total of 78 linear feet; 48 feet along the water and 30 feet on the northern side going from the seaward to the edge of the dwelling, and that there would be, also, in essence, a non-turf patio between the collapsed portion of the patio, between that patio and the bulkhead that would remain non-turf. MR. HERMAN: I also, I have one, hopefully easy but critical favor to ask of the Board. I am literally leaving town tonight as I Board of Trustees 32 July 24, 2007 leave this meeting. Can we have the permit issued with that information but allow me to then subsequently submit revised plans showing the shorter bulkhead, like in two weeks? Because the DEC issued their emergency permit today and I don't want, if Elaine can get somebody to start this work I don't want her to be held up because I'm on vacation for two weeks. I can't possibly get this modified plan to you by tomorrow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We haven't approved it yet. MR. HERMAN: If you approve it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that motion, what Dave just said. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor of that motion? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: So with that what we will need is obviously, as was just alluded to, we'll need some revised plans. I'm just wondering if we can draw in on this plan here tonight what he's talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's minor. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because it's very minor. MR. HERMAN: And I could give you something formalized a week-and-a-half from now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you bear with me a second. MR. HERMAN: Thank you TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, if you can come up and look at this and initial it, if it's okay, and if you have to confer with your client, if you could read my handwriting. This is not to be replaced, and non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: I'll show her what we are talking about. (Perusing.) It sounds great. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number eight, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of SUE K. ODELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 21 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead within ten feet of existing timber bulkhead; reconstruct 3x6 foot steps to beach; reconstruct 3.5x3.5 foot steps and 4x6 foot platform landward of bulkhead; and backfill with approximately five cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This is exempt from LWRP and CAC did not make an inspection. I made this inspection and the only question I have for you, Rob, was the ten inches is going to meet up with the bulkheads on both sides? MR. HERMAN: It will actually still be a little tucked behind both because it's in a little bit of a gap. And it's actually more than, both bulkheads are more than a foot out. One I think is two feet out. So even with the step out, the no wall, I mean the sheathing portion of the wall will still be behind the adjacent Board of Trustees 33 July 24, 2007 bulkheads. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only thought, if it's going to be flush to the neighboring, it takes the platform, two platforms and two staircases to get down to the beach. If it was flush with that, the neighboring bulkheads, could you have less structure there, you could get the stairs down with less. You know what I'm saying, instead of going down twice? MR. HERMAN: But we would not be able to push, we would not be allowed to push the bulkhead out far enough. I know what you are saying, on the east side, to do away with the stairs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You could do it less if that bulkhead -- is it a major, major -- it's just as I looked at it. MR. HERMAN: Only if we went out farther. But we can't, though. In other words, even with the step out, you are still tucked so far behind that wall that you would still have the stairs coming down. See, it's on the drawing that the stairs are still going to be sort of within that gap. You see what I mean? I mean it's going to be maybe a foot that bumps out here or they could just do a two-foot stairway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You just said plus or minus ten inches so I didn't know if it was going to be flush with the neighboring bulkheads. MR. HERMAN: No, I mean the idea between your Board and the DEC, there is a pretty strong push to try to do things inplace unless there is a reason for it, and here it's because of those walls and that bank coming down, that the contractor is actually going to use helical anchors, there will be no excavation behind this wall, it's just going to be driven in front and anchored through at significant expense to keep it tucked in that little gap. I mean we thought about what you were suggesting. That's why I understand what you are saying. The only way it would work is if we step the bulkhead farther out, but we really can't get approval to do that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here in the audience to speak against this application? (No response.) Any board members; questions since I saw this? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make a motion to approve the wetland permit request for vinyl bulkhead steps to the beach and clean sand back fill for Sue Odell as stated, on Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 34 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICE & JOHN KEITT requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct (inplace) existing +/- 19 foot screened porch and 16x32 foot inground swimming pool; install spa; replace existing 1,817 square feet wood deck around pool with 1,330 square feet wood deck; replace existing 143 square foot deck landward of bulkhead with 400 foot stone paver patio on sand; reconstruct 6x6 foot wood retaining wall; construct covered porch in place of existing stoop and steps; and install stairs to stone paver patio and to beach. Located: 280 basin Road, Southold. The Board went out and looked at this project. The CAC did not make an inspection so there is no recommendation from the CAC. LWRP evaluation that we have was done in March, 2007, it was found inconsistent. So I don't see there was an evaluation done of this particular project request. MR. HERMAN: Dave, I can actually address that because I spoke to Mark Terry on this. It might shed some light on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. HERMAN: Mark had done an LWRP review for the zoning board application and the zoning board application was actually for a, I don't want to say more grandiose because that is an exaggeration but a slightly larger version of what you are looking at, which is what this Board had approved in November of 2004. But the permittees allowed the permit to lapse and found themselves in front of the zoning board and it was the LWRP's recommendation that the zoning board compel the applicants to keep everything in place as opposed to the larger expansion, if you want to call it, that this Board previously approved. So that's what the zoning board did. So I contacted Mark and I said you just looked at this in March and it was your recommendation that the zoning board compel the applicants to make everything in place. Do you want to see this again? And he said no, we would not do another review because the prior permitting board, in this case the ZBA, already compelled the applicant to do what we requested. So I would not take in another application. I would not even look at it. So assuming that you'll take my word that is an accurate reflection of my conversation with Mark, that's why there is no new LWRP review, because the town, not through you but through the ZBA, has already shrunk the project from what you previously approved to what is before you today. MS. FINNEGAN: The modifications have been consistent? MR. HERMAN: Yes, and they were issued a variance already. MS. FINNEGAN: That's the identical application that is here now? Board of Trustees 35 July 24, 2007 MR. HERMAN: Yes, the plans that are before the Trustees are the same plans that were before the zoning board with the exception, not relating to the proposed development, if you will, but there was a pool drywell, for instance, that had been requested by the trustees previously and that pool drywell just ended up off the architect's plans in front of the zoning board. So that pool drywell is back on the plan here before the Board. There is a non-turf buffer that is shown between the outer bulkhead and the inner retaining wall that was not shown on the ZBA plan. Essentially we added a couple of these mitigation measures to make sure that the plans would be consistent with what this board would normally require and approve. So it's a plan that the ZBA approved, which from the town's perspective, I think environmentally, is an improvement over what this Board thought was okay and this plan is a slight improvement over what the ZBA had thought was okay. With respect to the proposed pool, patio, et cetera, it's unchanged. It's the exact same plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the resolution of the ZBA here in front of me dated June 4,2007, and the pool size does match on our plans have plan submitted, matched for what the ZBA was calling for except they are saying a depth of no more than four-and-a-half feet, and that is not noted in our plan here. It's just the size of the pool is noted and not the depth. The deck permitted to a size of 16x20. MR. HERMAN: The plans were revised 6/7/07 as per ZBA approved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just checking to make sure it all meshes here. Now the Board did have several questions with regard to this when we were out there. We didn't have any problems. We'll start with the easy part. We don't have a problem with the screened porch at all. There was no problem with what is proposed with the pool. There is a question regarding, it appears as though at the top of the top retaining wall, there has been constructed a, looks like a three-foot wide walkway, and I don't see that, a three-foot wide walkway, unless I'm missing it, requested at all on the plan so -- MR. HERMAN: It was not shown because that was constructed as a cap. It's a pretty healthy cap, and I advised the Keitt's that they may have to either legalize it as a walkway, which they have several reasons they would like to do, or the cap would have to be modified in some way. It was harmless in my eyes but I did advise them that that was wider than a typical cap. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And that was exactly what our -- MR. HERMAN: Do you want to address that? TRUSTEE KING: I have a question. Why wouldn't it be built inside the piles rather than over the top? MR. KEITT: I'm John Keitt. The cap, the thinking behind the cap Board of Trustees 36 July 24,2007 when we talked with the guys that built the bulkhead and all this, we wanted to have something substantial because we wanted people to know they were coming to the end of something that dropped off and we tried to make it only enough to cover the pilings and the top of the sheathing, so we tried to make it not any larger than that. We are going to have a non-turf buffer in front of it so that there will be some, there will a lawn then we'll plant some things in front of it. We really wanted to have something a little bit bigger than just the normal little cap because we wanted people to see there was really an edge there. So we were concerned about the safety and also because we did it mahogany, we did it in a way it would look nice because it sort of frames the yard. It's not something that is wide enough, first of all, we would not want anybody to walk on it, because there is a drop. And we didn't want to -- so that was really the thinking behind it. It was not big enough to put a chair on. We don't want people walking. We'll have a buffer around it. And we just wanted something that people would know there is an edge there. And the old one we actually had, my sister-in-law fell off; didn't fall quite as far but it was just a regular size and we were just sort of aware of that and we wanted to have something a little more substantial. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In our observation of it, it looks like a walkway and our feeling was, the board feels this was extremely dangerous because of that drop off and we had a serious concern about that and considered recommending removing it entirely and putting a regular cap on the top of the bulkhead as you would find on any bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What prevents a person, as we did, from stepping up on it? MR. KEITT: We are going to have a turf and we are going to have, we are thinking about putting in poles and then like a rope thing in front of it, so we are not, it was meant to be sort of a, somewhere we could really see the end of. We spent a lot of money on it so, and that's not your problem, it's our problem, because we had it done very nicely to finish it off that way. It will not be something anyone would view as being -- I understand your position. When we talked with the construction company that did it, it was sort of their idea so why don't we just cover the pilings, it will look nice and it also would make it clear that there is an end there, otherwise you would have sort of just a little pop. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Kind of seems it was encouraging people to walk on it because it's wider. MR. KEITT: I completely understand. We didn't think it was going to be like that. That's why we are going to plant things in front of it. It won't really be a way to get on it unless you go through Board of Trustees 37 July 24,2007 all this and we are certainly willing to consider putting up some kind of rope railing kind of thing to let people know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Will there be public access to it? MR. KEITT: No, no public access. It will be all fenced in. Completely under control. It's just enormously expensive to take it off as we spent an enormous amount of money putting it on. I know that's not your issue. MR. HERMAN: Not to interrupt you. The reason I said it seemed harmless, in my eyes, earlier tonight you approved a ten-foot wide deck behind a bulkhead that fronts the beach as part of a non-turf buffer. This is a three-foot wide walkway on top of a retaining wall that would then have another however many feet of non-turf buffer on the seaward side of that before you got to the outer bulkhead, so I think my point was, I wasn't, because I think John had mentioned they were going to put this sort of very maritime looking rope along the edge of it, which is something the Board would not normally be concerned with, that from Chapter 275's perspective, it was not anything that was out of character that this Board would ordinarily approve within a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: I mentioned we were out there. That really has no environmental effect. My concern is it really looks like a walkway that you could walk on. MR. HERMAN: If you took a wrong step, yes. TRUSTEE KING: From my perspective, if I built it I would have left the pilings extended up, built a walkway landward of that and then drape the rope along the piles and people could walk along it and be safe. That was our concern. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are referring to before, was an entirely different situation here. There was not this huge drop from the bulkhead before that we were talking about. MR. HERMAN: I meant from an environmental-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me see if we could shed some light on this. One of our concerns -- and this is a question for legal counsel -- is there any liability to the town if we were to approve this as is, in essence approving a structure that we had serious concerns about, that somebody could fall off and seriously harm themselves? If we were to approve it and that was to happen, would this be, would we be liable because we approved that structure? MS. FINNEGAN: I can't say that we wouldn't possibly be sued for it. You know. We could certainly face that possibility, but they are going to being primarily liable because it's their house. It's hard to say no, we don't have any because some day we could find out. We could get dragged into it, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But noting on the record tonight our concern for that and our advice to the applicant to either reconfigure, as Mr. King had said, taking it up, moving it back and putting a rope Board of Trustees 38 July 24,2007 barrier or fence, whatever you want to call it, along there or doing something in the alternative, that is going to address our concerns for the safety of the applicant, the applicant's guests. MR. HERMAN: I don't think there would be any objection since it's their intention to do it anyway, to require that a railing or some sort of rope railing, something, obviously, you see the way they are handling the property, it's not going to be a chainlink fence, so to put up some sort of railing on the safety purposes on the seaward edge of the walkway. MS. FINNEGAN: I think it would be appropriate to have them come back and show us what they have done. MR. HERMAN: Yes, and that could even be addressed as a separate issue. It's however you want it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not sure from the diagram, the required fence for the pool goes around the pool and back to the house. Is that something that can be extended? In other words -- MR. HERMAN: I don't think you would want to put a fence along the edge of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there shrubs there? MR. KEITT: Very low. The view is -- MR. HERMAN: I don't think the town or they would want to have the view of a fence sitting on top of this with -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I mean incorporating the two. Thinking about the safety of it. MR. HERMAN: I understand. I mean the pool is required by New York State safety code to have a fence and you would want for very serious reasons to have that enclosed. I think this walkway would be more something that you would just want to make is clear that somebody would not take a wrong step and go over. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me address a couple of other concerns. One was the stone pavers, deck, that is between the lower bulkhead or just landward of the lower bulkhead there. Was that to be pervious surface? MR. HERMAN: That was the idea, yes. Specifically, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was a question that we had. The other question we had, and I'll ask other Board members to help me out in this, but I believe that the stairway, one of these two stairways did not match what was on the plans. The stairway going from the top to what is proposed here is a deck that the stairway is there already and does not match what is on the plans. MR. HERMAN: You are talking about the stairs that lead from the deck down to the pavers? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERMAN: That was the one you stopped in mid construction once all this came up and is it that the width of those stairs do not match up? Board of Trustees 39 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was shaped -- it was an "L." This plan shows it straight down and it looks like to be an "L" shape, going down then out. MR. HERMAN: The deck section runs here and the stairs that shoots straight down from there and from what I remember it was there, that's what it was, it was just half down. MR. KEITT: It did turn, it did take a right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not showing on the plans. MR. KEITT: Do you have a preference on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It has to match up with the plans. It has to match up with the plans so we could submit new plans showing that so it would match up. MR. KEITT: We could just take it straight down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever you want to do, because you have to submit new plans. Whatever your preference, it doesn't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there going to be any plantings done here where the proposed deck is between the non-turf buffer area? Was there going to be any proposed plantings in that area? We have written down here to plant beach grass in there. MR. HERMAN: Between the two walls? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To the west of the walls. MR. HERMAN: Between here, yes, absolutely. Apologies for some of that, Dave. Normally, that was like, it rose suddenly and it was an hellacious rush to get it before the Board and we just went with the architects plan basically that had been in front of the ZBA. So a couple of these items that we would normally have included in the site plan didn't make it, but the expectation is that it would be required. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is there is a drywell there, could it be duly noted on the plan. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that was on the plans we had before that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody who would like to speak on this application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody, are there any questions from the board regarding this application that we have not addressed yet? (No response.) Not hearing any comments I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve En-Consultants on behalf of Patrice and John Keitt at 280 Basin Road with modification of the stairs that are there to match the stairs in Board of Trustees 40 July 24,2007 the plan, the inclusion of beach grass in the lower non-turf buffer between the seaward bulkhead and the upper retaining wall and that the board wanted noted on the record, we had serious concerns from a liability specifically of had a as you call it, cap, along the upper retaining wall and we are strongly urging the applicants to take whatever measures they feel are appropriate to limit that liability and create a safe situation there. MR. HERMAN: I think they are happy to show a proposed railing on their revised plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be super. As a condition that would be proposed railing showed on the new set of plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want it on the seaward side or landward side? MR. HERMAN: On the landward side is even better. TRUSTEE KING: Because you want to keep people off it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, on the landward side. So the railing would go on the landward side of the cap. Great. And just for the record, the inconsistencies under LWRP were addressed by the ZBA, so with these modifications it would bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of BROADBLUE, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage and deck; place approximately 250 cubic yards of fill to raise grade in center of property beneath dwelling; install a drainage system of drywells, pervious driveway and public water service line; install a sanitary system located more than 100 feet from wetlands; and establish a 50-foot non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the existing bulkhead. Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. This is an empty lot. We were out there in the pouring rain. CAC looked at it and revolved to support it and LWRP finds it to be inconsistent, specifically because of the proposed distance to the new dwelling from the bulkhead is 75 feet rather than 100-foot setback. They recommend requiring that a proposed non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer, also a non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, again, on behalf of the applicant. This is a project the board approved four years ago. A permit was issued for a dwelling that was one foot wider on April 30, 2003. It included the construction of the bulkhead just behind the high water mark at that time and the construction of a dock, also the installation of fiber roll and marsh plantings between the fiber roll and bulkhead. All of that marine construction was done. The fiber roll is Board of Trustees 41 July 24, 2007 still out there. The plantings had failed. They lasted for a couple of years, according to the applicant. I think they are just -- alterna flora was under water too often to persist. But the fiber roll was still in place. The bulkhead is there. The dock is there. The Board renewed the permit in March of 2005 and then again in March of '06. The permit is now lapsed in March of '07. In order to come back to the Board we had the survey updated to show the bulkhead, to show the dock. And in order to maintain the required 75-foot separation from the canal that is repaired both by DEC and town zoning code, they lynched a foot off of the house. Interestingly, the house actually but for 78 feet of land area would conform to the zoning code where it's located. But because the parcel has 20,078 square feet there is a 40-foot road front setback, so the house would require a five foot variance from the zoning board, but otherwise conforms. It cannot meet 100 foot setback, obviously, from the canal. Strict adherence to that would render the lot sterile. And obviously the Board has decided not once but three times that this lot was appropriate for a location of a small house. So we are really just asking the Board to make the same decision again given that no conditions have changed on the property, particularly because of the construction of the bulkhead, since the last two times that it renewed it, including last year under the current code. This should be an easy one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else here that would like to make a comment on this? (No response.) Any questions from the Board? (No response.) There was a question from the environmental technician. I want to ask you, how is the runoff going to be contained after the fill is brought in and would a French drain and non-disturbance buffer help? MR. HERMAN: The fill is the same fill that was proposed in the last permit. It's just on fill that center area at the parcel. There is a drainage system of drywells proposed and as you mentioned that, just relating to the LWRP comment, what is actually being proposed here and what was required by DEC is a bit better than a non-turf buffer. It is a non-disturbance, non-fertilization buffer in that that 50-foot of area between landward of the bulkhead cannot be cleared. So it's not a matter that they can't plant lawn, they can't do anything. It has to remain uncleared. If it were cleared it would be a violation of the existing and currently valid DEC permit and this Board also, I think required a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer as part of the last permit. And where we Board of Trustees 42 July 24,2007 are proposing the same thing here and would ask the Board to make the same restriction on the property. So there is a, there is, I mean in terms of the concern for runoff, you know, nearly half the lot is going to remain in the same condition that it is now. I don't know where you would run the French drain to. I mean as it is, the runoff would be absorbed in that non-disturbance buffer before it would get to the canal. Not that it's the most pristine wetland area or anything but it would still be absorbed in that non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I think with the mitigations and particularly the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer that would bring it into consistency. MR. HERMAN: And the septic system is still outside the Board's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I would like to entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as described. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Have a good vacation MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, Robert Bohn Contracting on behalf of ELANA GOODMAN requests a Wetland permit for the existing rock wall and stairs, the existing inground swimming pool and surrounding patio. Located: 1555 Bayview Avenue, Southold. We have been out there a couple of times. It's inconsistent because of the distance of the pool and patio. It doesn't meet the setback requirements. So we have some conditions we want to put on this. There was a pipe going through the wall. We want to see that removed MR. BOHN: No problem. TRUSTEE KING: We want to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the retaining wall and we need to see a backwash for the pool. MR. BOHN: Okay, sure. TRUSTEE KING: Drywell. I think what we need to do is put a time limit on that buffer. How soon can we see a non-turf buffer there? MR. BOHN: I'll speak to her and see if they can do it right away. Do you have any time limit you could give me to give her? TRUSTEE KING: 60 days and 90 days to get the work done. Board of Trustees 43 July 24,2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fine with me. 60 days is fine with me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 90 days is good. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They could still plant in October. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would need revised plans. TRUSTEE KING: Ten foot non-turf buffer, and drywell for the backwash of the pool. MS. STANDISH: It has to be done within 90 days. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And I think it's really not in our category to look at but I think there is a concern about that wall not meeting the state requirements for enclosures around a pool. MR. BOHN: I spoke to the building department and they sent out Gary Fish. From the beginning they felt it would be no problem. I think it might be a lack of communication between the two offices. I haven't heard yea or nay from them about the rock wall. From the get go they said okay. TRUSTEE KING: I got a different message from them. MR. BOHN: Really. This is the first I'm hearing that. TRUSTEE KING: It's something you might want to talk about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has to go back to the building department and address it there. TRUSTEE KING: They may change their assessment. Like I said, it's not in our purview. Any other comments from anybody? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Those conditions would bring it into consistency? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think so. That should bring it into consistency. Are there any other comments to be made? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application with the conditions that we stated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) And we need to see a new set of plans to show that buffer and the location of the drywell. MR. BOHN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. BOHN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of THOMAS BYRNE & VERONICA KALISKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition, first floor kitchen extension and deck extension. Located: 2345 Bayview Avenue, Southold. This was found inconsistent with LWRP and I believe it was Board of Trustees 44 July 24,2007 just because of the distance. Yes. CAC supports the application with the condition of leaders, gutters and drywells installed to contain roof runoff. The Board inspected this and basically we didn't have a problem with it. We want to see the drywells and hay bales during construction placed 30 feet landward of the bulkhead. Non-turf buffer; leaders, gutters non-turf buffers. (Perusing.) I don't see where we wrote the distance, though. We'll work it out. Is there anyone here who has any questions on this? Comments? MS. SNYDER: Dorothy Snyder, Southold Ventures. My property abuts this. I do have several complaints. First of all, by adding a second story it would devalue my property and also my architect is not here but the way I see his plan drawn, in which I believe you have also, I see on the side here where he wants to extend his deck where first he had a ten-foot side yard now he's getting something like 4.5 feet side yard, which is my property. So what is the legal side yard allowed for a property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the side yards, that's the building department that determines the side yard. They have their own calculations, so I can't answer that question. MS. SNYDER: To me, until it's looked into further, it should not be approved any further. My architect is out of town on vacation, which it seems so many people are, so I would like this shelved for the time being. But I'm definitely against it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Based on just the side yard comment, that is not, we can't. MS. SNYDER: No, also the height. When this goes that much higher, we can't see over it and when I bought this property, it was a long time ago, and we are finally trying to get to do something with it and I would appreciate it being denied. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one question. You said you are the adjacent property owner? MS. SNYDER: Yes, we are Southold Ventures. He sent us the notice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Alii have here is adjacent dwelling. I don't have a name on here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is Raymond Strong and Bayview Avenue. MS. SNYDER: We are right -- if I may show you. TRUSTEEBERGEN:Su~. MS. SNYDER: I have all of the property up here. This is Bayview. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the survey. Here is the pond. MS. SNYDER: We have a full block. We go from the Sound then down Colony and on to Bayview. So we are right behind him. We are right here. We go all around and this is my whole property. I have 56 acres. But this is Bayview. This is where my property goes all around and right next to an adjacent and kitty-corner Board of Trustees 45 July 24, 2007 corner of Colony and then down around. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are across the street. MS. SNYDER: No, we are on the same side as him. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I still don't see it. MS. SNYDER: Here is Bayview. TRUSTEE KING: You are on the other side of Bayview. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here is your road. Is your property here or is your property here? MS. SNYDER: Here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are saying what is listed on here is Raymond Strong. MS. SNYDER: We are Southold Ventures. You just sent me this. Do you see this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even though our map says formally Raymond Strong, this is your property? MS. SNYDER: Southold Ventures, yes. And it would then be an obstruction. And also I don't know the legality of that five foot, he's going way further into what he had before. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, that's a building department issue. MS. FINNEGAN: If there is a problem with the height or side setback he'll have to get the building department and go to the zoning board and when they have to go to the zoning board, you get notification of that also. MS. SNYDER: Thank you, so much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment? (No response.) Does the board have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: The building is going straight up, isn't it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the exception of this corner here which is on the, which is coming out this way. It's just coming out a little bit further. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like these are steps coming down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the new proposed deck is coming out to the same line as the existing deck and adding the stairs on to that. On the diagram it's a little bit bigger, which is on the landward side. Again, does the Board have any questions for the applicant? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's pretty straight forward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions from the audience? (No response.) All right, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Frank Uellendahl on behalf of Thomas Byrne and Veronica Kaliski as stated with the condition of drywells, hay bales during Board of Trustees 46 July 24, 2007 construction and a non-turf buffer of -- we don't have that in our notes, what we wanted the non-turf buffer. Did you want to go 15 feet? They have 75 feet from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there stairs? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. I would say 15 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. FINNEGAN: Does the board find that brings it into consistency? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that brings LWRP into consistency with those conditions. Gutters, drywells, hay bales during construction. We'll need a new plan showing the 15 foot non-turf buffer and the drywells on it, please. TRUSTEE KING: Put the hay bales on there, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about that. TRUSTEE KING: Hay bale line 30 feet from the bulkhead during construction. MR. UELLENDAHL: Very well, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 13, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of RALPH PANELLA requests a Wetland Permit to excavate behind existing bulkhead and install filter cloth to back side of T&G sheathing to prevent leaks. Backfill excavated area and fill void areas with approximately 80 cubic yards clean trucked-in soil. Place filter cloth on top of fill and install 20-50 pound core stone on top of filter cloth to hold fill in place. Remove 121 feet of existing bulkhead, east and west returns. Construct 75 feet of new bulkhead, 20 feet east return and 26 feet west return inlike, inplace, using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Remove 20 feet existing jetty and replace inlike, inplace. Located: 540 Takaposha Road, Southold. This project is exempt from LWRP because it's a replacement. CAC didn't make an inspection. And I believe when the Board looked at this we had some questions and when we finally figured it out, I believe we wanted to think about getting this done in phases, in two phases. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the game plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's how he applied for it. That's why it was confusing when we were trying to read it. Is that correct? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. We want the bulkhead now. We want to just build one return and cap it off with stone. What happens is the wave jumps over the bulkhead and during the storm found its way around the end and he lost all the fill. So we are asking to have the bulkhead replaced, but not right now because, just because he doesn't need it now. So we'll build a return, fill it and cap it off. For now. Board of Trustees 47 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are just adding the other part to the permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does it need to be separated for any reason or just approved as is? My question is because the language was confusing. Did we want to change the language to read more clearly or leave it as is? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just approve the whole plan as is and then you can -- TRUSTEE KING: The it was confusing because 121 feet, then 75 feet of new bulkhead. That was the confusing part. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you mind if we change it to approve the whole project and you can -- MR. COSTEllO: Approve the whole project is great. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Instead of splitting it up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cut out removing 121 and then construct 75 feet of. MR. COSTEllO: Well the whole thing is the bulkhead is 40-years old, if it fails in the next 12 months. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm looking simply what we just found. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approve what the dimension of the bulkhead and with the extension of the return and leave it at that. TRUSTEE KING: My only question is the difference in dimensions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the dimension of the existing bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: 121 feet long on the existing bulkhead? MR. COSTEllO: The face is 75. TRUSTEE KING: You are including the returns in that description then. MR. COSTEllO: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the returns on either side? MR. COSTELLO: 20, 26. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you say remove. I would say remove 75 feet of existing bulkhead and construct. I would say remove 75 feet of existing bulkhead instead of 121. That gets everything on the same page. We talked about possibly extending that return, I think it's the west side of the property looking at the water from the right, possibly extending that return because it's all scoured out behind that retu rn. MR. COSTEllO: We were hoping to remediate that with the rock and filter cloth and bring that around as part of the non-turf buffer to decrease the amount of structure. We were going to just do that with stone and filter cloth. TRUSTEE KING: That should really be in the description that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. What you are proposing is a rock revetment. MR. COSTEllO: It would only act as revetment if it's going to be capped off. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cloth on top of fill and core stone on top of Board of Trustees 48 July 24, 2007 filter cloth, and old fill in place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Read it as we have in our notes, plus the line. MR. COSTEllO: We'll just lay filter cloth down and stop the fill from going anywhere and place rock on top of it. That's not a revetment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The suggestion was if the return was extended eight feet, then there would be, we didn't see any need for the rock revetment. In other words just extend that westerly return eight feet. MR. COSTEllO: Every time I'm here we are trying to minimize the structure. I think just laying the filter cloth down and holding it in place with rock will minimize the structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If this does it, fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only thing I'll change is remove 75 feet of existing bulkhead; correct? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How? It doesn't make sense to me. Add up what is existing. If the returns are 20 and 26 feet and they are existing, 75 plus 46 equals 121. TRUSTEE KING: The first description says remove 125 feet of existing bulkhead. That includes the returns. It should say remove 75 feet of bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And leave the rest the same. That's all that has to be changed. TRUSTEE KING: Or if you want to say remove 75 feet of bulkhead and add the two returns. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just say remove and approve the 75 foot bulkhead with two returns, 20 feet on the east side, 26 on the west side, and add the filter cloth to the top and fill with 50 pound core stone. MS. FINNEGAN: Approve removal and replacement with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then removal and replacement of. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So all you are removing in essence is 75 feet of the face of the bulkhead. The two returns are remaining the very same, nothing is being done to them. MR. COSTEllO: As of right now we are not taking any bulkhead out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But your final goal here, over the next couple of years, is to replace that 75 foot face. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should do it in two parts. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I thought we originally said. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we give a permit to do the first part up to remove 121 feet. Stop it before removing-- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I have. TRUSTEE KING: They can come in when the tirne comes to replace the bulkhead and amend the permit. MR. COSTEllO: That's fair enough. That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: For the second part come in and amend what you Board of Trustees 49 July 24, 2007 already have. MR. COSTEllO: I just want to have it in there. I don't want to come back twice in case the bulkhead fails by the time I get people to do this job. TRUSTEE KING: You do this work, two years down the road they want to redo the bulkhead and you put a new one in it's just an amendment to this existing permit. That just saves confusion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I thought was said. We recommended it be done in two parts. Is the removal of the jetty going to be done at this time? MR. COSTEllO: As of now, no. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That would be phase two. MR. COSTEllO: Phase two. Exactly. Well, if things get worse. Can the jetty be part of this, that's kind of the worst structure on the property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we are asking. So we could do that. Yes. I'll read the whole thing after I see if there is anyone else who would like to speak to this. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak against this proposed project? (No response.) All right, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve wetland permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Replacement of the jetty as inkind/inplace. Is currently what is there a low profile jetty? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's about knee high. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure the Board is understanding what they are approving. They are approving a jetty listed as inkind/inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say remain as low profile. TRUSTEE KING: We need a measurement from the top of the groin to the bulkhead, by rights. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is nothing here. TRUSTEE KING: 20 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that additional information I don't know that I would want to approve the jetty in this. MR. COSTEllO: I could give you a height on it. That's easy enough. As of now, after the storm, the jetty is in deplorable shape. In one day. I could take a height now, what the beach elevation is. Like with the first hearing, the beach changes. If the day before the storm it was a low profile jetty, right now it's a little bit more of a high jetty. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we try to do is get a measurement from the top Board of Trustees 50 July 24, 2007 of the bulkhead to the top of the jetty on so there is no misunderstanding as to exactly how high that jetty can be. If it's exactly what you say, if we say 18 inches from sand, that sand could change tomorrow, that level of sand drastically one way or the other. MR. COSTEllO: So low profile jetty two feet above the sand? TRUSTEE KING: In the total length what we have there is 20 feet? MR. COSTEllO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it was functional as of this April storm. And we saw that. TRUSTEE KING: We need a measurement from the top of the groin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm recommending. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right. Close the hearing, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request on behalf of Ralph Panella to excavate behind existing bulkhead and install a filter cloth to back side of T&G sheathing, back fill and excavate the area and fill void areas approximately 80 yards of clean fill. Filter cloth on top of fill and install 20 to 50 pound core stone on top of filter cloth to hold fill in place. This would also approve the removal of the 20 foot existing jetty and replace inlike/inplace with a low sill, low profile and stipulate that the permit would be held until measurements are brought in from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: How wide is that stone area going to be behind the bulkhead? MR. COSTEllO: 75 feet, the length of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I mean landward. MR. COSTEllO: Ten. TRUSTEE KING: So that acts as a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And core stone ten foot width takes the place of a ten-foot buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) MR. COSTEllO: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, JMO Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JOHN INGRILLI requests a Wetland Permit to install on filter fabric +/- 105 feet of 1-1.5 ton boulders along the toe of an eroded bluff. The boulders shall then be covered with +/- 150 cubic yards of clean sand which shall then be trucked in from an upland source and then planted with Cape American Beach Grass 12 inches on center. located: 10375 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. We all did go out there and looked at this. CAC resolved to Board of Trustees 51 July 24, 2007 support the application with the following conditions: Mitigate the runoff coming from the area of the dwelling. Decking should be constructed using best natural practices and that there be no detrimental effects to the neighboring properties. LWRP does find it inconsistent. It is their assessment that erosion is not significant and the property is not endangered and could be mitigated through the successful establishment of vegetation at the toe of the bluff. Hard shore line protection structure should only be allowed on properties endangered and no other alternative to save the structure. There are some other policies that they list here. Limited interference should be mitigated to encourage no adverse impact to adjacent property, natural coastal processes and natural resources and undertaken by private property owner does not incur significant direct or indirect public costs. LWRP requires that the proposal be evaluated for impact of diverting wind and wave energy on the neighboring parcels. Furthermore the proposed boulders would disrupt the natural erosive forces that nourish the beach. Inspection and evaluation of the parcel leads to the conclusion that changing the grade and adding sand and plantings is the first project to install in order to reduce erosion at the toe of the bank. I also want to mention there is a letter from a neighbor which I'll read into the record. The neighbor is Alison Byers, 10335 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. As a neighbor of the applicant, I wish to provide comment on this application proposing to put boulders along the toe of the bluff and replace platform to the stairs. I support the applicant's proposal to place boulders at the tow of his bluff. My comment in reference to the replacement of the platform to the stairs to the beach, I'm looking at the site survey provided. It appears the present location of the platform and stairs are either right on my property line or could be over my property line. I have no problem with the proposal to replace the platform and stairs. I'm requesting that they relocate it to the west so that they are a minimum of 15 feet from my property line. Thank you very much for your consideration of my comments. As I recall, I think we saw the same thing. We saw that the stairs were right on the property line. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO, for applicant, if there are any questions from the public or further questions from the Board. To let you know, I did get some comment back after your inspection. I did go back to the site last Monday. And you are absolutely correct, there is that stockade fence that runs down Board of Trustees 52 July 24, 2007 along the southern side of the applicant property and it does cut right through that deck. The deck does overlap the property line. We have talked to the homeowner and they are more than happy to reconfigure that deck and relocate it a minimum of 15 feet away from the property line. I think that addresses the neighbor's concerns. As far as the LWRP, I really can't address that at all tonight without actually reading the report, but I do feel that by placing, if you look at some of the pictures and the topographical survey that I submitted with the application, there was a significant loss of sand and a good part of the toe of the bluff did disappear with a couple of nor'easters earlier this year. Our thought was by placing the boulders tucked in close to the toe of the bluff, covering it with sand and re-planting, there would always be the sand to re-nourish the down drift from the beach and we could also replace the sand on top of it, but we would have the protection built under the toe of the bluff that was always there with the rock. Sand could always be replaced and retopped. Having the rock there could be a permanent protection to the toe there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other questions or comments from the audience? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no questions. I'm a little perplexed the LWRP evaluation of inconsistency stating that they didn't see any loss of property. Clearly they had a collapse and there was a loss of property there, and the structure is falling down that is there. And it's unstable because of the loss. So I'm just thinking that the proposed project as stated would mitigate possibly his concerns with the bearing of those boulders once they are buried and sand is put over the top of them, that maybe that would mitigate that inconsistency. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to tell you, while I agree with you this is one of the more involved LWRP assessments that I have seen so far, it's quite a few pages. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, Glenn, I cut you off there. MR. JUST: As you look, as you face the platform from the water, you look at the left-hand side, it's boxed in from the side. If you look at the 2x12's, the frame of it, it's about six feet, you could see the difference in the coloration, you could see the sand that disappeared. It's obvious. It's really obvious the amount of material that has disappeared there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We agree with you there. MR. JUST: I don't have anymore feedback yet from any other agencies involved but again I would be more than happy to take a second look Board of Trustees 53 July 24, 2007 at the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only thing I do see, I ran the distance of this. We don't have our pictures. The pictures submitted in the file, the shoreline is fairly consistent. I'm just saying as far as being worn away, it's fairly consistent with the rest of the neighboring -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You could see the erosion here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with what Dave said. By moving the platform over and doing it as stated, it mitigates. MR. JUST: If we were to move the platform over it would be at the end of the existing stairway and revegetate that whole path down from the house, which would stabilize the bluff as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think that would bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think I'm more apt to table it and see if you can't address some of the issues that the LWRP is concerned with. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll provide you with a copy of the report. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe because this is so extensive and so many questions that they have. TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with the other agencies, Glenn? MR. JUST: At an absolute standstill. I'm not going to try to BS you. You know how it is with the DEC and everything else. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this until we can get more questions answered on the LWRP assessment. MR. JUST: If you can provide me with their comments, I'll be happy to address them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Lauren will give you a copy now. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: David Corwin on behalf of HERBERT YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit to replace 69 linear feet of bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, install 16 linear feet returns behind bulkhead, install 20 cubic yards lost fill from an upland source and install new CCA retaining wall and tropical hardwood deck behind bulkhead. Located: 465 West Road, Cutchogue. The Board did go out and look at this. The CAC looked at it and resolved to support the application. LWRP found it exempt, so is there anybody here to speak against this application? (No response.) If not, a couple of comments first, that the Board had. And I'm sorry, please introduce yourself for the record. MR. CORWIN: David Corwin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had asked if this -- this shows a jog out in the middle of this bulkhead presently, in other words, 23 feet of bulkhead with a jog, then 30 feet of bulkhead going to the east and we were wondering if that could be just straightened out so there Board of Trustees 54 July 24,2007 is no jog in there, so it's a straight bulkhead. It seems like a very, very tiny jog out for some reason. MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. As far as the deck goes, we met the applicant out in the field and, the homeowner, I should say, out in the field, and the distance between the bulkhead and the new retaining wall would be 16 feet, according to the plans. I just want to double check that, if that's correct. MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the deck then is 15 feet of deck on the plans. MR. CORWIN: The new deck behind the retaining wall, that will be moved back I believe it's six feet so it would be six feet along their new deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. The confusion I had is the 15-foot space. So you are a saying in that space will be the six-foot deck? MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Is that behind the second wall? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That new deck is between the bulkhead and the second wall. Or is it behind the second wall? MR. CORWIN: It's in front or south of the new retaining wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what is showed on the plans. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I was confused. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the decking itself, to make the deck your non-turf buffer so that area between the retaining wall and the bulkhead is a non-turf buffer, we are asking that the spacing be 3/8th's of an inch in the decking material between the decking pieces of decking material. MR. CORWIN: Just one note on that. When it's installed it will be less than 3/8th's because it will shrink, but it will be installed to end up with 3/8th's after it shrinks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How long does it usually take, depending on the weather? MR. CORWIN: Six months. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have consistently just asked for spacing to be 3x8th's inches during construction. Do we want to keep to that or do we want to grant an exception to that? TRUSTEE KING: As long as it ends up 3/8th's and it's pervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So upon final inspection, compliance inspection it will be 3/8th's. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When is the compliance inspection? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those are the only comments I see here. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) Any other information the applicant wants to provide? MR. CORWIN: No. Board of Trustees 55 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve number 16, David Corwin on behalf of Herbert Young, 465 West Road with a condition that new plans will be submitted that will reflect that the jog is taken out of the bulkhead so it's straightened out and the decking that is located between the bulkhead in the new retaining wall upon compliance inspection will be spaced at 3/8th's inches. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 17, David Corwin, on behalf of SHORE ENDS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 104 linear feet bulkhead in place using vinyl sheathing; reconfigure docks, 176 square feet new dock; place 38 cubic yards clean fill behind existing bulkhead from an upland source; and install a ten foot non-turf buffer. Located: 6635 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. This is consistent with LWRP, and CAC supports the application. A couple of comments from the Board. We were wondering if the bulkhead could be raised, the height of the bulkhead could be raised two feet and then on the -- I don't know what direction, on the one side, have a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and on the side facing the house, have a five-foot non-turf buffer, and that way the slope of that could be a little more, not so drastic and be evened out a little more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The west side would be the five foot and the north side would be ten foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We met the applicant in the field and he didn't have a problem with that. Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this application? (No response.) Any other comments, questions from the board? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is the applicant willing to consider that amendment? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you willing -- MR. CORWIN: The applicant is here. He indicated he would, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions, comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application. I make a motion to close the public hearing. Board of Trustees 56 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of Shore Ends LLC as stated with the addition of the bulkhead being raised two feet and on the west side have a five-foot non-turf buffer, and on the north side had have a ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make one amendment to that. Right now it states 38 cubic yards clean fill. With raising that bulkhead, the Board understands there will be additional fill required to fill in on that level. MR. CORWIN: Okay, so I'll make a note, I'll refigure the fill. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. I would not want the applicant to be limited to 38, then it would not suffice for the project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. We don't need a revised plan, just a revised amount of fill. Because it's not really noted on the plan, the fill. Actually, yes. You know what, because of the buffer zone on here, revise the plan and show the buffers and recalculate the fill at that point. So I make that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. CORWIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 18, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove a 40 square foot section from the seaward side of the existing one-story single-family dwelling; remove the existing wood deck and stairs located off the southern side of the existing one-story dwelling; remove a 72 square foot section from the landward side of the existing dwelling; construct a 732 square foot two-story addition to the landward side of the dwelling; construct a 144 square foot one-story addition to the landward side of the proposed two-story addition; construct a 192 square foot porch with stairs on the southern side in the corner created by the existing one-story dwelling and proposed two-story addition; and install a sanitary system landward of the proposed additions. Located: 1165 Island View Lane, Southold. We have an inconsistency report from LWRP. The proposed distance of the addition to the residence from the wetland is 50 feet. The minimum setback distance of 100 feet from the Wetland is required pursuant to chapter 275. Additional actions to further this application to conform to LWRP to establish non-turf buffer landward of the wetland to protect the creek. Construct hay bale line prior to construction. Gutters and drywells to contain all roof runoff. There is also the CAC that made no inspection on this Board of Trustees 57 July 24,2007 site. I also have a letter in the file from a George Baldwin. He has some facts he felt were left out from this application. Prior to the application on this project. Prior applications on this project had been made to the town ZBA which conducted inspection and discovered the waterfront is in disrepair in that an existing bulkhead is in a state of near collapse and threatens the remainder. A scheduled hearing was postponed and the applicant was instructed to apply to your Board to obtain a permit for soil stability and structure upgrades. There is no mention of the above matter in the present application. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to application? MR. LOHN: William Lohn, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, on behalf of the applicant and Mr. John Milazzo is also here on behalf of his brother, officer of the trust. I hate to start out the application with an apology but the project description as submitted was correct but the survey as it was prepared from the site plan done by the architect, the surveys we got were incorrect. They were missing a few things. I'm just passing out copies of the site plan, which is correct. One thing missing was the proposed porch. The other was the removal of the triangular section of the existing dwelling. Those are really the only changes. I really don't have too much to say on this. It's a very simple application for a small addition to a very small existing dwelling. The hallmark of this application I feel is the installation of the new sanitary system which is located beyond 100 feet from the wetlands, which would a drastic improvement over the existing, which I actually located today in the field is located approximately seven feet seaward of the existing wood deck on the south side of the dwelling. I really don't have much more. I can't really comment on the LWRP. I tried to get hold of Mark today and I could not. I have not read the document yet. The only thing I will say, it's an addition to an existing dwelling, which is a pretty common occurrence out here. We have absolutely no problem with the non-turf buffer, hay bales and silt fencing, so I believe that will bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have a non-turf buffer. MR. MILAZZO: Yes, ma'am. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we talk about the distance? MR. MILAZZO: John Milazzo, 28 Croft Lane, Smithtown, New York. If there are any questions on the plans we gave you today, I know it's a little confusing, if you want I can walk you through it if there are some questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll tell you, the full Board's main concern was to move, get the structure farther away from the shoreline. Board of Trustees 58 July 24, 2007 MR. MILAZZO: I think we addressed that. We have an existing, to give a background, existing CO for the existing structure. We are proposing to take that structure, remove 42.88 square feet on the seaward side, remove the existing closest wall to the water by 5'3 1/4 inches back so there is a triangle. You'll get 42 additional square feet of building that exists will be removed. The closest point to the water will be additionally five feet away from the existing structure. We'll take the septic and put it 100 feet away from the wetland edge which will take it out of your jurisdiction. All of the building will be going toward the street. Nothing will be closer to the existing bulkheading. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any plans -- you have a wood bulkhead halfway across the property. Do you have any plans with the part that is not bulkheaded? MR. MILAZZO: At this time we don't. MR. LOHN: Has the Board made a trip out to the site? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. LOHN: I've been there several times. I did not think there was, the part that is not bulkheaded, I didn't really feel there was any significant erosion. It was pretty heavily vegetated or at least substantially vegetated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. That's the part of the building that is very close to that area. It concerns us. MR. MILAZZO: That's the piece of the building that would be removed so it would be further back from the landward edge. MR. LOHN: And that cellar entrance and stone wall shall be removed. TRUSTEE KING: I have a problem with that whole second story. MR. MILAZZO: We have an architect for the project. He's actually done other houses in the neighborhood. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing.) Is there any way-- MR. MILAZZO: Can I approach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you need to point to something? MR. MILAZZO: If there was any questions on the survey -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I got it cleared up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand it's a legal existing structure and we understand that people apply to put additions on legal existing structures. However, this is unusually close to the wetland and if there is any way we can have this house, the whole entire structure picked up and moved back from the wetlands, in any way, to just get if further away. MR. LOHN: May I submit some additional information to the board. This little aerial demonstrating the existing character of the neighborhood. As you can see there is a graphic representation of the proposed addition. The size and sighting of the resulting dwelling I believe is very close to the character of the Board of Trustees 59 July 24, 2007 neighborhood, as you notice, adjacent to the subject parcel there are, you know, much larger structures that are located as close. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think moving the septic out of the jurisdiction is definitely a great improvement but as you have heard, I don't know how long you have been here, but you heard tonight we are constantly trying to improve and upgrade. It may be the character of what is there, but things were done differently in the past and now we have learned from that we are trying to improve and I believe the full Board was extremely uncomfortable with the positioning of this dwelling being so close to the water body. MR. MILAZZO: There is an existing dwelling there. What we are trying to do is improve the existing dwelling and bring it the septic system. So what you are asking us to do is not improve, you are asking us to knock down a building and move it back. I'm sure this project will be no closer than the existing structure. In fact it will be removed and further back from the wetland. MR. LOHN: That is definitely correct and also as per LWRP, we'll be installing drywells as well as removing the seaward portion of the structure. I feel this is substantial improvement of what is there and meets the goals of improving the structure, especially with the non-turf buffer we are willing to install. TRUSTEE KING: I'm uncomfortable with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The ZBA asked them to address the wetland issue as far as that wetland area. So they were actually sent back to us. MR. MILAZZO: I don't think there was a ZBA application. I don't think there was a hearing, but I could check. I don't think it ever got to that point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to the ZBA and that I told me it was not applied for but they asked you to go to us first. MR. MILAZZO: That's why we are here. We are trying to do everything within the code. The house that was proposed meets all the zoning setbacks so if there is any concern as to that, it's within the existing envelopes. It's legal. The only part that would not meet the existing setbacks is the existing structure. Which is sort of a Catch-22. We have a structure that conforms but yet -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, existing non-conforming legal structure. MR. LOHN: To put an existing on this, I feel this is the best way to put it. I mean there is really nothing else you could do to make, I don't think, a reasonable addition on this dwelling any better. It's on the landward side, we are installing drywells, moving the sanitary system, bringing that up to code. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's great. I think the Board is uncomfortable with the amount of structure that is being added to this significantly small piece of land on the water. MR. MILAZZO: But, again, I hear your concerns and understand them. Board of Trustees 60 July 24, 2007 This will be, and it's not you, it's the Board's and they are valid. This project conforms to lot area coverage, will conform to -- we are taking the existing building and making the existing building shorter, both the front and back; moving it from the water and we are doing a projection back. The building when it remains will be 512 square feet. It's 512 square feet now. So I know you are worried about massing but you are talking about the most insignificant size of the building is 512 square feet back now. And we are bringing everything away from the water. So I'm not sure the massing issue -- it will be a 1,200 square foot residence when we are done. In the neighborhood there are significantly larger buildings which are on smaller lots. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We appreciate the mitigation you have done so far but we are saying it's not enough. MR. MILAZZO: I don't know how you could conform this lot without expecting us to spend substantial funds and having us still coming back to the Board and you saying you didn't do enough, you have to come back. It's a very tight lot. I heard four or five applications today, it's a tough one. This is a small lot. We had the one on Wiggins Road which had a significantly smaller lot. They were able to put a house in. We've had three applications for Wiggins Lane in Greenport. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, and it was 50 foot non-disturbance buffer. If you could give us that, no problem. MR. MILAZZO: We had three applications approved tonight where they are building second floors to existing structures. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are any of them within 20 feet of the water? MR. MILAZZO: I don't know, I don't have the records in front of me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the issue. You are 17 feet off the water now. You'll be 21 feet off the water later, when it's done. We just went through this with a project in New Suffolk where we had a historical cottage that was very close to the wetlands and they understood that they had to knock down the building and try to make it conform to some semblance of setbacks off the wetlands. It still doesn't conform but the Board did understand it was a historical -- historically, the building was always there. MR. LOHN: I also understand where these concerns are coming from but this is a very, very minimal addition and with the installation of drywells and non-turf buffer I don't see where this could have an adverse affect on the environment when the existing structure without the benefit of any of these mitigation measures and the septic system located barely 30 feet from the wetlands, how could this addition cause an adverse environmental impact. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is currently Mr. Milazzo's residence? MR. MILAZZO: He's in college. Board of Trustees 61 July 24,2007 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does it have central heat in there? MR. MILAZZO: It has heat. I don't think there is a heating system. It's a summer house. It's 512 square feet. You could heat it with probably a small space heater if you need it, in the middle of the dwelling. What would you like us to do? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to see you consider a smaller structure. Or I could make a motion this evening, but my motion would not be -- MR. MILAZZO: So the addition can be smaller? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Smaller and landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keep the structure with the addition you want but just move the whole structure back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Our field notes from all the Board said no structure seaward. Move landward. So, I -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I also want to address the notion that there are larger homes in this area that are just as close to the water. Just looking at the aerial that doesn't compare that for me because of the angle of the shoreline. The other structures are indeed farther away from the water. And I'm not seeing any that are anywhere near 17 feet. MR. MILAZZO: If I said closer, I apologize. The size and sizing is similar. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it's similar. Almost all these you show in the aerial are further away from the water than this cottage is. Considerably. That's because, I admit that's because of the angle of the shoreline. MR. LOHN: I would contest then the size differences are going to kind of make that a moot point. By my eyes, the dwellings around the area are much more substantial than what is being proposed. MR. MILAZZO: One of the difficulties is if you push this house back toward the street, which I understand the goal, you are going to force us to take the septic system and push it somewhere else, which will make it closer to the water. So it's sort of a Catch 22; would you rather have the septic system before you next month, asking for a septic system within a hundred feet of the water or have a house where we can take all the roof drainage, capture it on site and have that within a hundred feet of the water. That's a tough choice, I know. MR. LOHN: The septic system is maxed out now. Any movement of the septic system will force us into a variance situation with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. That's what moving the dwelling back is going to put us in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you move the whole dwelling back. MR. LOHN: That's what I thought was being asked. I think the hallmark is that relocation of the sanitary system given its Board of Trustees 62 July 24, 2007 current location and the new one will be -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you willing to reconsider reducing any of this? MR. MILAZZO: If I had to. I don't want to. Of course we will, but I don't want to have a game where we come back, is this enough, is this enough. If you give us guidelines of what you would like, we'll work with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you would consider, we can table this to look at it again in the field and meet you in the field, and reconsider what we would be looking for and what would be agreeable to you. Or I could make a motion. MR. MILAZZO: The motion would be to deny, so I don't want that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't say that, but that's the choices. I would be willing to table this for next month and meet you out there and table this. Or our other option -- MR. MILAZZO: What is the normal field inspection day? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The 15th. I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. LOHN: Thank you, very much, guys. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 19. Ryall Porter Architects on behalf of AMY GROSS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story addition to the existing single-story dwelling, install a new swimming pool and pergola, expand the existing driveway and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1165 Island View Lane, Southold. The Board was out there to take a look. CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that drywells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. LWRP is showing it as inconsistent. The distance from the proposed addition to the top of bluff line is 18 feet. The distance from the pool to the top, 58. The proposed pergola is 57 feet from the top of the bluff and minimum separation distance of 100 feet is required. They are asking us to also relocate the proposed drywell to the house landward of the house and require a non-turf buffer long the top of the bluff to minimize erosion. Is anybody here would like to ask any questions or address this application? MR. RYALL: Yes, Bill Ryall, Ryall Porter Architects, for the project. I'm also a neighbor. There is just a couple of things I should probably point out. We were at the last ZBA hearing and they said verbally that they were approving it, the application, but we have not received the written answer yet. Maybe you have. But there were a couple of things that they asked us to do. One, there was that drywell in the outside of the northeast corner of Board of Trustees 63 July 24,2007 the house. And they just asked us to locate it closer into the corner and away from the bluff, which of course is no problem at all. And they asked us if we would put the, move the pool which is in the front yard, further away from the front property line, street line, so that the setback would be 25 feet, not 18 feet from the street. And the house currently doesn't put any of the runoff into the drywells. There are no drywells for runoff but we will be capturing everything from all sides of the house and putting it into drywells. And also, we are not going to change the existing gravel driveway at all. So there won't be that disturbance. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments or questions from the audience? (No response.) Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response.) It was pretty straight forward. We felt that adding the drywells and mitigations you have given us would be very good. TRUSTEE KING: The septic is out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we were just looking at. It looks like it. It's up near Northview Drive. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. RYALL: We are putting in a new septic system. We are adding a bedroom, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you know the distance? We trying to calculate it. MR. RYALL: From the bluff? Good question. It's on the landward side of the house but I'm not sure. I would have to scale it. TRUSTEE KING: We have a scale. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 90 feet from the corner of the house by the front stairs to the property line. MR. RYALL: The other thing -- TRUSTEE KING: So it's well out of our jurisdiction. MR. RYALL: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's well outside our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thanks for confirming that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think moving the septic out of our jurisdiction will make it consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are still working on the 100 feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's trying to find out the distance of the original septic so we can clarify it. TRUSTEE KING: It was within our jurisdiction. Now they are moving it out. So that's a plus. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about a non-turf buffer; do you want to request a non-turf buffer? I don't have anything on our field notes about that. Board of Trustees 64 July 24, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think because there was plenty of vegetation there already. MR. WILDER: The vegetation was solid there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was plenty of vegetation there. MR. RYALL: If you look at where the top of the bluff line is, that is not where the grass is. The grass is really back closer to the house than where the hay bale line would be. I mean that's where it is right now. The turf doesn't say. It shows that little rock wall. The turf is landward side of that rock wall, then it's all vegetation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one drywell on the right side looking from the road, that is a little close to the bluff. MR. RYALL: The one in the northeast corner there, the one closest to the bluff, that's the one the ZBA asked us to push into the corner farther away from the bluff. So that's what we are going to do TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So where will it be going? MR. RYALL: If you look at the plan it says something frame utility bin. Right to the right of that where it has number 80. 80 contour line. Right into the corner, outside corner of the house there. It would be as if you slide that drywell down toward the bottom of the plan. As far as you could get it to get it away from the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can we just draw that in? MR. RYALL: Yes. The owner did have one question. I don't know if you want to answer it or not. Obviously if she were to make any changes to the plan we would have to resubmit it, but I had advised her that you would generally prefer the pool in the front yard than anywhere else in a situation like this. And she asked if it would be, if the trustees would be favorable to having the pool on the side yard to the left of the house, between that little garage and the house. And it certainly would not be any closer to the bluff than the house is already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What would the ZBA allow? MR. RYALL: Of course we would have to apply to them, too. I don't know what they would say. She would have to just reapply for the pool and see what they say. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would not be apt to want to do that, to be honest with you. MR. RYALL: You would not because you don't want anything closer to the bluff than it has to be. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MR. RYALL: And you can see the addition to the house toward the bottom of the plan, landward, away from the bluff, so we did do that, try to keep everything away. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we moved it to the left side it would be inside Board of Trustees 65 July 24,2007 of 75 feet. Right now we are not. And we would like to keep it that way. MR. RYALL: That's the number you would like to work with, 75. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. RYALL: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: 100 from the bluff. MR. RYALL: That's what I thought. So we are already closer. All right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application with the following changes. That the drywell that we discussed and indicated on the plan on the northeast side of the house be moved back into the corner by the retaining wall. And I think that's all we needed to do, right? Everything else looks fine: Drywells, leaders, gutters. That mitigates and makes the project consistent with LWRP. I make a motion to approve with those changes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ryall Porter Architects on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & AMY ASTLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story addition to the existing dwelling, new stair/entry hallway addition, new screened porch, removal of the existing brick patio and to install drywells to capture all roof runoff. Located: 460 Northview Drive, Orient. This is inconsistent with LWRP because of distance, and that's it. CAC supports the application and the one comment we had was just like on the last application, if it could move the drywell landward, the drywell on the east side landward of the brick patio; in the area of the brick patio: MR. RYALL: Bill Ryall, Ryall Porter Architects, on behalf of the applicants, and in this one we actually have written approval from the ZBA and they did ask us if we would move that drywell by the screen porch closer landward than it is right there. So, we would be glad to do that. And that brick patio is already there. We could take it out if you would like. It's not doing much of anything. There is a, there is patio underneath the screened porch, so it won't ever be used for anything. So we would be very glad to take that out. Board of Trustees 66 July 24, 2007 It's actually, says concrete patio, it's actually bricks sitting in sand. So it's hardly there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are not going to be using that, that could be removed. MR. RYALL: No, because in fact you could see the land falls off there and for the screen porch to be useful as the same level as the house, it's on footings, on two concrete footings, which will be hand dug and there will just be a post holding the porch up off the ground. So in fact the disturbance will be much, much less than what you would think just looking at the plan with the rectangle sitting there. It will just be three footings holding it up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this is heavily vegetated, like the other property was, so I don't believe there is a need for a buffer, just to maintain what vegetation is there. Are there any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Drywells. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have that. Being no other comments from anyone, I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to make a motion to approve as stated the application of Ryall Porter Architects on behalf of Christopher and Amy Astley as per plans dated received July 17, 2007. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. FINNEGAN: For the record the Board finds this consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I stated because of the vegetation and everything, and moving the drywell back, it's consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 21, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of RICHARD & MARIANNA KIRIKIAN requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing dwelling with a second-floor addition and new entry porch. Located: 6760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Jim and I looked at this. It is inconsistent with the LWRP because of the distance. And the CAC supports the application with the condition that gutters, drywells are installed to contain runoff. And that's the same comments Jim and I had, that gutters, leaders, drywells and there was there is a non-turf buffer there so that should be maintained. Is there anybody here to speak against this application? (No response.) Any comments from the Board? Board of Trustees 67 July 24,2007 (No response.) Any other comments or questions? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve as submitted with the condition that the non-turf buffer be maintained and that will bring it into consistency with LWRP. And the drywells and gutters. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Motion to close this meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.)