Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/22/2007 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes R::CCiVED ,~ 3:S~~ 6:00 PM o ..~e~ VVednesday,August22,2007 Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: VVednesday, September 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM VVORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our August meeting. My name is Jim King. I happen to have the honor of being the chairman of this Board, for those that don't know me. And for those who have been here on occasion, that's old news. I would like to introduce the rest of the folks here. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee Bergen; to his right is Peggy Dickerson; next to me, to my left, Jill Doherty, she is the vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our office manager; Bob Ghosio is another trustee and Assistant Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran is our counsel tonight. VVayne Galante, our reporter, down Board of Trustees 2 August 22, 2007 here, keeps track of everything everybody says. If you have any comment to make, please come up to the mic and identify yourself so he could get everything on the record. We have with us a new member of the CAC sitting in tonight along with Don Wilder, a regular member. The CAC is the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do a lot of the same site inspections we do and they give us their input and suggestions on determinations that are made environmentally. With that, I guess we'll get going. There are a number of postponements. We don't want to have anybody sitting here tonight thinking something is going to come up and it's been postponed. On page three, number seven, the application of DEBRA LACHANCE, has been postponed. Page four, number 16, the application of PETER & ALETRA TAGlOS, JR., has been postponed. Number 17, the application of MARIA KATSIGEORGIS, has been postponed. Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, number two, the application of MISSY DIACK, has been postponed. Number ten, the application of DEBRA LACHANCE, has been postponed. Number 20, the application of JIM & EILEEN KASSCHAU, has been postponed. Number 3D, the application of ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST, has been postponed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, 21 on page seven, the "postponed" word went on page eight. TRUSTEE KING: Number 21, the application of JOHN INGRILLI, has been postponed. Number 31, the application of CARRIAGE HILL ASSOCIATES, has been postponed. 32, the application of JOHN FRANKIS, is postponed. 34, the application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, has been postponed. And number 33, the application of HENRY H. TRAENDL Y & BARBARA CADWALLADER, has been postponed. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Could I ask why number two is postponed? Did I fail to do something? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Two on what page? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): On page six. Wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, that was not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was number two on page five is postponed. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry. TRUSTEE KING: We'll postpone it if you want. Let's do the next field inspection, September 12, eight Board of Trustees 3 August 22, 2007 o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, that's four days after school starts. would rather not be out four days after school starts, and we do have the 13th open. Dave is not sure about his schedule so, I don't know. I would like to put in a request to do it on the 13th, but. TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't matter to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's a school holiday for us, I have no problem with the 13th. If it's not a school holiday, I would have a problem, I would only be able to be with you part of the day. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be able to be there the whole day. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. I can be with you as much as I can that day if it's not a school holiday. That way it meets Peggy's schedule. That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: That's Thursday the 13th. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll have to play it by ear also because the kids are off that day. So I'll see what I can do. TRUSTEE KING: This is one of the benefits of being unemployed. I can do any day. It doesn't make a difference. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hopefully it's a day off for me. TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting, Wednesday the 19th at six o'clock. Work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That, I cannot make. I notified everybody about a week ago that I'm out of town on the 19th and 20th. It can't be changed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem with both, now we are falling into the holiday. It's better we keep it with the 19th. TRUSTEE KING: Stay with the 19th. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We tried to switch it around. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any motions on that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the inspection day for Thursday the 13th, and set the public hearing work session for 5:30. Public hearing for six o'clock on September 19. is there a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Anybody read the April minutes? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I read them. I submitted a couple of, I think it was one minor change to Lauren to let Wayne know about. TRUSTEE KING: I found one typo on page two. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I read them, I didn't have a problem with them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes of April 18. Board of Trustees 4 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) J. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees Monthly report for July 2007. A check for $7,788.56 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 VII, public hearings section, of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 22,2007, are classified as Type II actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR., & SUSAN DANOWSKI-SCTM#138-1-14.1 BUD HOLMAN-SCTM#123-7-8 DAVID M. WIRTZ-SCTM#37-4-13 MICHAEL JUDGE-SCTM#83-2-11.14 ROBERT G. BOMBARA- SCTM#54-4-19 RONALD STRITZLER-SCTM#94-1-14 JOAN YORK-SCTM#123-5-29 MICHAEL & DENISE CHUISANO-SCTM#15-3-17 JOSEPH & NORA FLOTTERON-SCTM#118-2-14.1 MISSY DIACK-SCTM#58-2-11 JENNIFER B. GOULD-SCTM#31-13-3 WICKHAM BUNGALOW EAST, LLC-SCTM#110-8-32.1 PAULA DIDONATO & JUDY TEEVAN-SCTM#56-5-26 GEORGE & NANCY ROSENFELD-SCTM#88-5-35 PHILIP G. MILOT-SCTM#123-5-26 DEBRA LACHANCE-SCTM#52-2-26 LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI-SCTM#92-1-3 PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD, INC.-SCTM#35-1-25 AL SAFER-SCTM#98-5-2 AL STRAZZA-SCTM#117 -1-16 Board of Trustees 5 August 22, 2007 ROBERT LEHNERT-SCTM#111-13-1 ROBERT LEHNERT-PECONIC BAY BLVD., CUTCHOGUE STEVE & LINDA FIGARI-SCTM#117-6-33 JIM & EILEEN KASSCHAU-SCTM#118-1-1.2 JAN JUNGBLUT-SCTM#70-6-20 JILL & CAROL RIDINI-SCTM#110-7-4 LAURA A. WEIL-SCTM#26-1-20.1 PAT VARDARO-SCTM#35-5-22 MICHAEL BUNKER-SCTM#70-5-46 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: We'll get into our resolutions and administrative permits. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll do number one. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, what we try and do, we really have a lot more work to do than we have had in the past. We are trying to get a little more efficient on running these meetings so everyone is not here until 12:00 or 1 :00 in the morning. So what we are doing is, on a lot of these resolutions and administrative permits, most of them are pretty simple. If there is a complete agreement on them and there is not a problem, we kind of lump them all together and approve them all at once. Any1hing that there are questions about, we set aside and vote on it. That's the process of what we are doing. That's what we were talking about before. Do you want to do one, Peg? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. JOSEPH & SHERRI MELCHIONE requests an Administrative Permit to remove dead shrubs, dead oak tree, and replace with native plants, prune existing plantings and to replace the shingles, siding and insulation on the existing dwelling and replace the garage door. Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. I don't know if anyone is here this evening. I went down and did an inspection. He's doing a lot of removal of dead shrubs, trees, pruning, et cetera. I just wanted to make sure that I'm looking at a planting plan he's got here now. Most of it is removal. A lot of it is removal landward of the dwelling. I would like to approve this with a request for some tree replacement because he's removing quite a few of the older cedars. This was also in the same area that we have already given a Board of Trustees 6 August 22, 2007 permit. It's a recently purchased home and in a past permit there was a stipulation of a ten-foot buffer, and I just want to make sure that when this permit is, when this resolution is given and the permit is given, that we have a replacement of the same number of trees and also that the ten-foot buffer is maintained behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What kind of trees do you want, and how many? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a small cluster of dead trees. I'll say I want a minimum of half dozen native cedars. There is nobody here to mention this to. So I'll approve this with replanting of native cedar trees and ten-foot buffer along that bulkhead which, again, is already on a previous permit but I want to make sure that it's done. So I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit to remove shrubs and pruning with the stipulation that removed plants or removed cedars be replaced, half dozen of those, and also the ten-foot buffer is maintained behind the existing bulkhead for Joseph and Sherri Melchione. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll jump, so you can follow us here, to number four, Claus Hertel, then we'll come back to numbers two and three. Number four, CLAUS HERTEL requests an Administrative Permit to replant area of cleared land in a non-disturbance buffer and a One-Year Extension to Permit #6211, as issued on September 21, 2005. Located: 305 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. We went out and looked at this. There had been a violation issued for clearing, and that has been taken care of in court. So what he's looking for is an Administrative Permit to re-plant the cleared land, which we thought was fine. And he has indicated the cedar, bayberry, will be used, and it's shown on the survey depicted where those are, and that's fine. Now, is Mr. Hertel here tonight? MR. HERTEL: I'm here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also wanted, as per the -- now, this gets into the transfer of the permit or, excuse me, the extension, one-year extension of the permit. The permit itself was for building a dwelling arid putting in a fence, and a split rail fence installed landward side of the 50-foot buffer. So, by extending this we are assuming this is so you can build the house and put in the fence and do the work as depicted on the permit that was issued on September 21, 2005. Board of Trustees 7 August 22, 2007 MR. HERTEL: Let me explain a little bit about the genesis of the permits. I purchased the land because I own the house next to that lot and I own the other lot next to my house. I purchased the land because the developer who purchased the property wanted to build a big house there, so I wanted to preserve the integrity of the land. At this point, I have no intention to build but maybe in the future, two years, five years, I don't know at this point, I may want to build a cottage there. That's the only reason I'm requesting an extension of permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are saying you don't want to build your house in the next year? MR. HERTEL: I may. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why you want the extension of the permit, because you want the opportunity to build a house next year. So included in that is the split rail fence to be installed. That's in permit #6211. MR. HERTEL: Oh, there was? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERTEL: Only assuming the house is built, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's all part of the same permit. TRUSTEE KING: Not really. The fence request is put in for that piece of property and the other two pieces of property also. Building permits were applied for. And one of the conditions were to delineate that buffer zone with a split rail fence so there is no mistaking where clearing can and can't take place. In your situation, clearing took place in the buffer zone. If the fence had been there, it would not have happened. Our feeling is let's get the fence in place, get the line delineated, end of problem. MR. HERTEL: My intention is really to build, to put a fence at the edged of the property by the road. And the reason I want to, I don't want to have the fence is because I want to plant cedars there basically to delineate the non-clearing or non-disturbance zone from the rest of the property. Because as I mentioned, I own the other two properties and I don't want a fence to run through the middle of one of the pieces of land that I own. It kind of ruins the integrity of the whole -- TRUSTEE KING: The whole idea was to delineate that non-disturbance area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can he request an amendment to use cedar trees instead of a fence and inspect it afterwards? MR. HERTEL: That would be my fence. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that. If you would rather plant a row of cedar trees along that line, the same line the fence is going to be on -- Board of Trustees 8 August 22, 2007 MR. HERTEL: I would prefer to do that. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with that concept. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to step up for a second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the cedar trees are maintained. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are talking about is along this line you have delineated with number one to represent the vegetation, which are cedars, that you'll just continue that with cedars all along that line. MR. HERTEL: There will be cedars here and cedars here as well (indicating.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: What Mr. Hertel depicted is on his survey, is already listed, there are already present notations there will be cedar trees there. And what I just went over with him is there will be a cedar tree line, heavily vegetated cedar tree line that acts the same as a fence. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just say it can be either a split rail fence or line of cedar trees delineating the buffer zone. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What will you have for spacing between the trees? TRUSTEE KING: Enough for a deer to go through? MR. HERTEL: Enough for a rabbit to go through. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2'6". MR. HERTEL: They'll grow in time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Cedar trees grow rather thick, so if they are 15 feet apart, you are talking seven-and-a-half feet on either side to grow. Over the years they'll grow in. So I have no problem with every 15 feet MR. HERTEL: That's pretty much what I'm thinking, between ten and 15 feet. Why don't we say 12-and-a-half feet. TRUSTEE KING: 15 is fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's go with every 15 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they are to be maintained, so if they die off, they'll be replanted right away. MR. HERTEL: Yes, it will be done in the next two to three weeks. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to put a time when they should be planted and in place? And we can go out and look. 60 days, 90 days? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What are you comfortable with? MR. HERTEL: I'm happy with 60 days. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we do that. TRUSTEE KING: The main reason, the main thing we want to see is the buffer zone. MR. HERTEL: I'm all for maintaining the integrity of the whole area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, what I would like to do for this, number four, Mr. Hertel, is to grant the One-Year Extension to permit #6211 and to approve an Administrative Permit to replant the disturbed area as depicted on the survey that was submitted on July Board of Trustees 9 August 22, 2007 31,2007. And we will include on that non-disturbance line where he currently has item number one listed, for cedar trees and cedar trees well be planted long that line every 15 feet and we'll be out to inspect the area in 60 days to make sure the work done. MR. HERTEL: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make that a motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you MR. HERTEL: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: So the rest of the items, that would be number two, the application of the SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT; number three, the application of ANNE SOWINSKI; number five, the application of WALTER WILM; number six, the application of LILLIAN BALL; number eight, the application of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON; and number nine, the application of INA HASDAY, I'll make a motion to approve those as it's written. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) SOUTH OLD PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing post and rail fence and chain link fence with new stone columns with chain fence in same place. Located: 40 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#64-1-1 0.1 ANNE SOWINSKI requests an Administrative Permit to abandon the existing existing dwelling. Located: 825 West Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#90-1-26.1 WALTER WILM requests an Administrative Permit to replace 198'+/- of 60" high stockade fence along north property line with the same or similar type fencing. Located: 4605 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#137-3-5 LILLIAN BALL requests an Administrative Permit to install three (3) solar collectors for solar thermal on side of garage. Located: 2045 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59- 5-4 Allan Dickerson on behalf of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON requests an Administrative Permit to demolish the existing storage shed and rebuild beyond 100' from the top of the bluff. Located: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM#74-1-35.51 Robert Stromski on behalf of INA HASDAY requests an Administrative Permit for roof replacement and interior alterations to the existing dwelling, upgrade the Board of Trustees 10 August 22, 2007 sanitary system, and install a drywell for stormwater management. Located: 100 McDonald Crossing, Laurel. SCTM#145-4-15 v. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING/STAKE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: We have two mooring permit requests. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, JOSEPH GROHOSKI requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in West Creek for a 12-foot boat. West Creek is a creek we don't allow anymore moorings or stakes. Mr. Grohoski had a stake there for 50 years. He still has it, still uses it. He's 87 -years old and recently we had sent the bay constable out to get rid of all the illegal boats that have been just plopped in the marsh and everything and we discussed it and we said that Mr. Grohoski can have this stake for a 12-foot boat. So I make a motion -- TRUSTEE KI NG: What about are we going to move it closer to the public land or leave it the way it is? I think there was some talk about moving it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I didn't see that. I'll make a motion to approve an Onshore/Offshore stake for Joseph Grohoski in West Creek at the public boat ramp to be, the stake to be moved over there, and this permit will not be transferable. So, in other words, when he's done with the stake, it becomes void. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number two, MICHAEL MARSCHEAN requests a Mooring Permit in West Creek for a 34-foot sailboat. Are there any questions on number two? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have number two. This is a sailboat that sits at the edge of the channel there. Mr. Marschean owns the property the little dock is on and so I had suggested to him to apply for a mooring permit. He has. We looked into it and according to chapter 9622, a boat cannot be moored there because it is within a channel, right on the edge of the channel. So I make a motion to deny this application for Michael Marschean for a mooring permit in West Creek in the Kimogener Point area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I go back on that? Board of Trustees 11 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to make a motion to reopen. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a public hearing so, I rescind the previous motion I just did and I'll make a new motion to deny the application for Michael Marschean for a mooring in West Creek for a 34-foot sailboat and that the boat be removed within ten days, because the boat is there now and it should be removed and give him ten days to remove it. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that more of a code enforcement issue? Is that something he should be issued a violation rather than that being part of a resolution for a mooring request? MR. CORCORAN: Yes, I think once you make -- you could make a motion as a Board requesting enforcement action on this. And you can all decide that you are, together, and vote, that you are going to send a letter demanding compliance within ten days, if you want to do that. I think you should probably separate the two. Since you have not rescinded, there is no motion to rescind your first motion, leave that in tact and you should all decide what course you want take in enforcement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The boat has been there for a couple of years and he's agreed to move it. But as we experienced with that other sailboat on the beach, today is the day, since May. So I don't want this to be there until, you know. I want to give a time limit where he must remove this boat. He's willing, he said he was going to get it out of there right away. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just send him a letter saying he has ten days or two weeks to move it out of the channel. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's a better way to do it, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Leave the motion in place. We already denied. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren can add that sentence to the resolution letter? MR. CORCORAN: No, you just all agree upon it. You don't have to make a formal motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, thank you. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE KING: Correct me if I'm wrong, on applications for amendments extensions and transfers, we'll do one, four, five, six, seven, ten, eleven, twelve and fifteen. We'll approve those all in one shot because there was nothing there that was -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there somebody who would like to speak against one of these applications? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I would like information about number seven. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could step up to the microphone and Board of Trustees 12 August 22, 2007 introduce yourself. TRUSTEE KING: We'll take seven out. Just hang on for a second. We'll approve: Number one, JOSEPH & GRACE FINORA; number four, HUGH SWITZER; number five, RALPH PANELLA; number six, STEVE & LINDA FIGARI: Number ten, JOSEPH GElS; number eleven, BART & PAT JOHNSON; number twelve, STEVEN & ANDREA KOL YER; number fifteen, JAMI FRIEDMAN. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Now we can go back to number two. 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. I know there was some questions from a neighbor the last meeting we had that if the property is filled there will be runoff problems. Is there anybody here on this application? (No response.) We asked Mr. Drouzas to stake out the elevations. To me it was not really clear what was what. I know most of the fill will be out of our jurisdiction. I wish there was somebody here to go over some of the details with us. It's the one area where that one stone wall comes down and the rest in the corner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I see the file? (Perusing.) And the stone wall is in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: Right. This is the area they had staked out. They had those rebars, the little red flag, green flag. I don't know which was which. I would almost prefer to table this and have these people meet us there and show us exactly what is going on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would suggest we have someone from the Building Department be at that inspection as well. Because the whole reason I understand they have to bring this much fill in is you have to have a certain percentage of the basement covered so it's not counted as a first floor. In other words, it will be first floor, second floor, third floor. If they bring the fill in, that would be a basement. TRUSTEE KING: We questioned it and I never got a chance -- I forgot all about asking them -- about what the minimum first floor elevation is. They have first floor elevation at 14 feet. I don't Board of Trustees 13 August 22, 2007 know what the flood zone is here, what the requirements are. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll meet with the Building Department. That was a great idea. TRUSTEE KING: I think there is too many unanswered questions here to go ahead now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this to next month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number Three, AL STRAZZA requests an Amendment to Permit #5132 to add 2'x6" cross bracings to the front and sides of the existing pilings. Located: 1180 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. This was a dock that had some ice damage in the storm that we had, I think it was in February. I forget now. What it did was lifted and actually sheared the end of the dock partially off. So he's requesting to put some cross bracing in to strengthen it. My feeling is it should just be the last, the seaward bay, in other words the end of the dock can be cross braced and the last bay going out can be cross braced. But I think it's unnecessary to put all the cross bracing on the inshore part of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: Comments? MR. STRAZZA: AI Strazza. I gave you pictures with the permit showing why that won't work. Just like for years I have been telling you the 4x4s were not going to work. Time has shown that the 4x4s don't work. First they rose, then they broke. TRUSTEE KING: This was really an unusual storm event with that ice. It was tremendous damage in other places, not just you. And if you look at pictures it's only the last bay that took the brunt of it. If that was cross braced, I don't think that would happen MR. STRAZZA: And if it happens again, what would I do? The dock builder is beginning to think this is the goose that laid the golden egg, this dock. TRUSTEE KING: Personally, I don't think the cross bracing is necessary as you go landward. The last bay needs it, yes. I would not even object to a third piling being put in on the seaward end. We do that in a lot of docks. A lot of docks are two-pile bays until it goes out. MR. STRAZZA: DEC wouldn't allow it. TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to allow the cross bracing? MR. STRAZZA: That would not be a problem. That would almost be considered normal maintenance to prevent redamage. I'm not going anywhere in the water. I'm not going to hurt anything. Now, when I had the six inches in there, nothing happened. As Board of Trustees 14 August 22, 2007 soon as I took the six inches out and put the four inches, like you people all agreed -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's necessarily true. It seems to me, years ago when it was 6x6s, the whole end was up like that like a rocket launcher. MR. STRAZZA: That's when it lifted. That's when I made page one of The Times. TRUSTEE KING: So that's my recommendation: Last bay to be cross braced. MR. STRAZZA: So I'll leave the last bay off and if it breaks again I'll put the braces in the last bay as well? TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about the seaward end. MR. STRAZZA: I understand. TRUSTEE KING: Just that last bay is to be cross braced. MR. STRAZZA: And if it breaks at that point next year or the year after, at that point -- TRUSTEE KING: Come back. MR. STRAZZA: Fix it again and come back again. TRUSTEE KING: Because like I said, that was a very unusual event. That doesn't happen all the time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are we on the same page? He's saying go ahead and cross brace the seaward end. MR. STRAZZA: Everything but the one that is not in the water. I had no intention of doing that anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Just the end one. You have three bays marked off to be cross braced. We want to only see one. You actually have four. MR. STRAZZA: That won't work, Jim. Look at the picture. It's not going to work. And if your town engineer does the calculations you'll see that won't work either. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). MR. STRAZZA: You have to brace at least the ones that broke so there is some -- TRUSTEE KING: So do here, the end and the other side. MR. STRAZZA: Do you have the pictures, Jim? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We are looking at them. MR. STRAZZA: I want to put cross bracings up to where the posts broke. So if you look at where the posts broke -- TRUSTEE KING: This was just such an unusual event. It froze uptight and blew about 60 miles-per-hour. And it actually sheared the dock. It was not because of the ice rising with the tide. It was the sheering effect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you agree with that? That it was the sheering effect of the ice being blown through that broke this. It was not the ice lifting it up. MR. STRAZZA: That's not what happened. It broke because the 4x4s were not strong enough. Board of Trustees 15 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are saying the same thing. MR. STRAZZA: Not really. I did some engineering calculations. am a PE, so I know something about this. TRUSTEE KING: This dock has been very controversial from the getgo. MR. STRAZZA: You got that right. I was forced to Todd take the 6x6s out and put the 4x4s in. I did that. I don't want to keep having to repair this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I see your pictures just to make sure they are the same as what we have here. MR. STRAZZA: I think so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could see your pictures I'll make the comparisons to see if we are talking about the same pictures. MR. STRAZZA: (Handing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the same as we have, and this is the same. This one I didn't see. This is the same. So what we are saying is this section here be crossed. MR. STRAZZA: I understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you are asking also -- MR. STRAZZA: This one and this one. And if you notice, that one is broken. I replaced that one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I just want to make sure that your pictures are the same as ours. MR. STRAZZA: What I'm saying is you need at least one, two, three. And then it probably won't happen again. Because then they'll hold each other. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) If this is supported enough you won't get the stressing on that either. What happened is the dock broke from the end inland. It did this. (Indicating.) MR. STRAZZA: But it broke primarily because of the crushing. The 4x4 basically wasn't strong enough. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think 6x6 would have withstood that ice. MR. STRAZZA: Maybe. I don't know. If I retained the calculations I would be able to tell you. Right now I can't. TRUSTEE KING: Alii know, all the damage I saw from that ice storm. They had about 15 boats in Mount Sinai Harbor that went en masse up on to the beach from that storm. Moorings, everything moved. MR. STRAZZA: If it happened once there is no reason it ain't going to happen again. Alii want to do is brace the ones that broke. If I do that, then each one of them will have support from the other. And I'll have the stresses moving into the 2x6s and holding it back. The only problem running there is the rigidity might bust it. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's an unnecessary structure to add more. My motion was for the last bay only to be cross braced. MR. STRAZZA: You are just telling me to do one section? Board of Trustees 16 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: The last bay. MR. STRAZZA: It's going to break, Jim. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second Jim's motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. STRAZZA: What are you telling me you want me to do? TRUSTEE KING: The last bay, seaward end, can be cross braced. MR. STRAZZA: If it breaks again, will the town pay the dock builder this time? TRUSTEE KING: You can come back and say I told you so. MR. STRAZZA: I already told you that once before. You didn't believe me. All right, doing it this way isn't going to work again. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of AL SAFER requests an Amendment to Permit #6458 to relocate the pool to the southwest side of the dwelling, construct associated stone terracing landward of the pool and remove the previously approved decking on the landward side of the dwelling. Located: 1295 Robinson Lane, Peconic. I would ask if there is somebody here that has some concerns or wants to speak against this? MS. POSEL: Nancy Pose I. We are the adjacent property owner to the west of this property. One of the owners is also a pool designer and he has done a blueprint and a letter with some concerns that we have, which we would like to share with members of the Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll accept it. All letters were to have been submitted prior to the meeting, but we'll go ahead and take a look at it. Just so everyone knows, written material is always required prior to the meeting. But we'll certainly accept it and consider it. MS. POSEL: This is a surnrner situation and we are not farniliar with all of the procedures that we should be following in this instance. We particularly want to draw your attention to the wetlands pond on our property, which we want to be sure that we can preserve the health of this pond. The plan that we have received from Suffolk Environmental shows a pool on the beach side and we are wondering why this pool was moved from the rear of the house to the beach side. We don't see any properties on this bay that have pools on the beach side. And the previous owner had a pool in the back and we got considerable disturbance from noise, from people using that pool. Now, this pool is much closer to our bedrooms and we are very Board of Trustees 17 August 22, 2007 concerned about the noise. We are concerned about drainage. This plan does not show any drywells. We don't see any fencing noted here. Another problem is that we wonder if they anticipate using this pool at night and if that means lights. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could hold on for a second. I know you said you are a summer resident. You don't understand the process here. This is not a public hearing. The public hearing happened with the original application for the permit for the house. That is when we took public comments. It was an open hearing and we had a public hearing. For amendments, as you saw with some of the others, we don't usually take comments. This is not a public hearing. What we looked at with this one is does it meet the setbacks set by Chapter 275, which says pools must be at least 50 feet back from the wetlands or the bluff. And this pool is setback 50 feet from the top of the bulkhead. It does have a drywell associated with it, so it does meet the Town Code as far as locating this pool here. It's actually farther away from that wetland area that your survey depicted than it was when it was originally proposed. So now regarding lighting or sound from the pool, the town doesn't have a sound ordinance so we don't consider that when we are considering whether to grant a permit for whether it's a house or pool or septic system or any of the things we normally give permits for. So, again, this is not a public hearing to accept public comment. I've accepted your letter, I have. And I'm hearing you. And what I heard in particular what you are interested in, from our perspective, was the setback, was it far enough to meet 275 guidelines. And it does meet 275 guidelines as far as setbacks go. It does have a drywell associated with it. MS. POSEL: That's not on here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the survey. There is a drywell on the survey that will address the runoff. That has to be done by law. Not only with runoff from the pool but runoff from the house. That's in the current drainage code the Town Code is passing, that all property owners are responsible for drainage from their property. The property owner, the applicant, does know already through the process they have already gone through already that they have to take care of that. MS. POSEN: Thank you, very much. MR. LOHM: Mr. Bergen, may I try to alleviate her concern about the sound. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could make it brief. MR. LOHM: The noisy part of the pool, the filter pump, will also be located farther from the westerly adjacent property than originally approved and Mr. Safer does plan to enclose them in a sound proof enclosure. Board of Trustees 18 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. Why did they move the pool from where it was to the new location? MR. LOHM: Esthetic concerns, I'm presuming. He liked it better. His architect came up with the idea and they moved it. And again, like Mr. Bergen said, it does meet all the required setbacks. MR. CORCORAN: Did this project go before the ZBA? MR. LOHM: No, it's not required to. MR. CORCORAN: Did I hear somebody say 50 feet from the bulkhead? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 50 feet from our boundary is the minimum setback. That's our minimum setback. It's beyond that. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a zoning code. MR. CORCORAN: 75 on all structures, I believe, on the bay. If there is a bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's where the 50 foot is measured. Not from -- on the plan it has 100 feet from the wetland boundary. What I measured was from the bulkhead. It's 50 feet from the bulkhead. MR. LOHM: The original permit was set from high water mark and the wetland line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This pool doesn't extend forward of the footprint from the house deck that we already approved. TRUSTEE KING: My question was does the zoning have a 75-foot setback FOR the pool like it does for a house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That I don't know. MR. CORCORAN: This Board doesn't need to concern itself with it but I'll check with the zoning office just to make sure. MR. LOHM: If he does, I don't believe he does, but when he goes for the amended permit to construct this, the building department will most certainly direct him from the ZBA. MR. CORCORAN: It would be nice to know what we are all doing at the same time, but we are working on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I would like to make a motion to approve number seven, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of AI Safer. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll do eight and nine together. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH MANZI requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6213, as issued on September 21, 2005. Located: 405 Cedar Beach Drive, Southold. And number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROCKHALL DEVELOPMENT CORP., C/O JOSEPH MANZI requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6212 as issued on September 21,2005. Located: 355 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. Board of Trustees 19 August 22, 2007 The Board looked at these, reviewed these files and again I believe the only condition would be a split rail fence. Do we want to -- TRUSTEE KING: I would almost like to do the same thing we did with the other applicant, make it a split rail fence or a line of cedar trees 15-foot center. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And give him that choice. TRUSTEE KING: I think that makes the three properties in uniformity with each other. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to comment? (No response.) I'll make a motion to approve Suffolk Environmental Consulting to request a One-Year Extension to permit #6213 and also a One-Year Extension to permit #6212, with the condition that the split rail fence or a row of Cedars 15-foot on center. With that condition, do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: That's 15 foot on center. Do you want to put a time limit on that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Within 60 days. TRUSTEE KING: He was granted 60 days. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 60 days. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 60 days from the time of the extension. TRUSTEE KING: From the date of the extension. MR. HERTEL: Those two lots are pretty much jungle. I don't think it makes sense to plant within 60 days. There is trees there now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it's cleared and it's delineated and goes beyond that. MR. HERTEL: I think it should be 60 days beyond clearance of the land. TRUSTEE KING: We don't want to do that. We are just afraid of, we have seen this so many times. Quite frankly, I'm really just tired of seeing it. People coming in, clear down into that, then come for a re-planting plan. It's a clear violation. Why don't we just stop it to begin with. Either put a split rail fence along the line or plant a row of cedar trees along the line. It's his choice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we do 60 days. If they have a problem with it, they can come in and we'll give an extension. MR. HERTEL: 60 days from today? Or, because the deadline is not clear to me. It's all jungle. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's an extension as of the 21st. 60 days from September 21. TRUSTEE KING: When does it expire? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The 21 st. 60 days from September 21. Board of Trustees 20 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you think about it, you don't want to plant beyond that anyhow how. You are into the winter season. You want plant in the Fall. MR. HERTEL: What I'm saying is those two lots are completely covered with brush. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand what you are saying. What we are trying to prevent if when they decide to come and clear it, that line is already delineated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want the line there. I'll add to that that the Cedars be planted within 60 days from September 21, or split rail fence installed. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are up to number 13. TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Patrice Keitt on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6209 as issued on September 21,2005, and amended on July 24,2007. Located: Basin Road, Southold. This is a very controversial dock. We have been going around and around for years with it. It's a simple extension for the permit that was issued and amended. I'll make a motion to approve the extension. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (FOUR TRUSTEES IN FAVOR.) (TRUSTEE BERGEN ABSTAINS.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record that I abstain. TRUSTEE KING: Let the record reflect Trustee Bergen abstained. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, GEORGE & MARINA SEEGER requests a Transfer of Permit #411 from AI and Olga Brandsema to George and Marina Seeger, as issued on June 12, 1967. Located: 930 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. Are the applicants here? (No response.) I went out and looked at this. What I found when I looked at the permit itself, what is there now, because the permit was granted in 1967, and the structure that is there now doesn't match the description of the permit number 411 dated June 12, 1967. Yet, what is there now does conform with our -- nothing exceeds our guidelines under 275. So I make a motion to approve this transfer with the condition that they come in and obtain an amendment to the dock and catwalk and small deck to match what is presently there today. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we put a time limit on that; 60 days? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll be fine with 60 days from today. Board of Trustees 21 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: To come in and ask for an amendment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, so that what is on the permit matches what is there on the location now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits. Young & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal system. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. There is a little history on this. There was an application before us before. It was denied under Coastal Erosion. The entire project is seaward of the coastal erosion line. And it was denied under Wetlands application also, without prejudice. And they are coming back now with another application and I think it's going to be a long review. We'll need a lot of information on this. It's a very sensitive area. We are going to ask our environmental technician to do a write up on it and I think we also need to get some more expert opinion, perhaps, from DEC, somebody in the coastal engineer, somebody will have to take a look and give us some guidance on this whole thing, exactly where the beach is. There is a lot of interpretation here, as to what I could see, in the description. So we'll start with gathering the information. Go ahead. MR. DANOWSKI: My name is Pete Danowski. I'm an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Bombara, who are here this evening. I will in a few minutes ask that Mr. Bombara be allowed to speak to just explain the underlying acts that led to his purchase of this property and his desires. I would say as well that I have heard and read a few comments Board of Trustees 22 August 22, 2007 from the immediate neighbors. I certainly respect their opinions and have had a brief time tonight to chat with a few of them and perhaps those conversations will lead to some more meaningful conversations after tonight. And we'll certainly let you know if that is the end result of those conversations. I would say, as the president has stated here, there was an earlier denial without prejudice. An appeal has been filed to the town board. That appeal has been held in abeyance as we proceed to the reapplications that we filed before this Board. I recognize this Board has met out at the site to examine the site. We had the firm of Young & Young stake the site showing the three alternate locations we now suggest. We color coded the flag so there is some attempt to try to have some clarity when you went there. Not that that was totally successful. In simplest of terms, we have tried to move the location of the house back as far as possible and also reduce in size to some degree the house. We have also an alternate plan number three. We've taken the pool location and removed it from the area between the Sound frontage and the home itself and moved it to the eastern side of the house. These also have recognized, as you have made conditions in the past or made suggestions, we have agreed with at least one alternative and we do with all three, to build the house on poles so the house would not be sitting absolutely on the surface. We also connected the garage so it's not a separate building. We also have to be mindful of the Suffolk County Health Department regulations with regard to location of septic system. So their location is depicted on the plans, and the house location is as close to the road as it could be located, on all of the plans. Mr. President did say something that's totally accurate. There has been a lot of comments made about interpretations or meanings of some of the words both in the Town Code and in the state legislation that preceded the Town Code. Certainly it's our position, as we have established it on the site plans and surveys, that the physiographic change has been located by Douglas Adams of the firm of Young & Young. He's a qualified engineer who has located that physiographic change. By definition, the beach area is defined as a 1 DO-foot distance from the physiographic change. That is noted on each of these plans and you'll note varying degrees of distance beyond the 1 DO-foot distance. I think there was also a request made and certainly it's been on all of the plans that we locate the high and low tides and clearly, for tidal wetlands purposes or any other purpose, each of the plans shows a location of the structure to be well beyond the 1 DO-foot setback distance. Board of Trustees 23 August 22, 2007 Also, all of the plans comply with zoning regulations as far as the building envelope and that building envelope has been depicted on each of the plans. So we think, on behalf of the Bombara's, we have done everything possible to relocate the house, to resize the structure, to deal with the structure being placed on poles and to relocate the possible swimming pool and still be mindful of the Suffolk County Department of Health Department regulations. Having said that, I would also ask to repeat something that was done by reference the last time, so the record is totally complete, without having to reiterate all the comments from the last hearing. That is, I would ask you to incorporate by reference the total record from the prior hearing. That would include the prior granting of coastal zone erosion permits for the neighboring properties along the same stretch of road. I make note of it because on many of those instances there are comments such as no tidal wetlands jurisdiction, house is setback beyond 100 feet. There are comments certainly on the Betsch case that are well taken and I would note the attorney from Twomey Latham, Ms. Palumbo, who represented the Betsch people, did an excellent job of presenting the law on that question. That same law applies to this particular applicant. The same cases that were found are applicable. The same positions are applicable, that you may recognize that you have the ability to regulate this activity but that does not mean that you are prohibited from granting a permit. Albeit, if you did that, I think it would be an inverse condemnation taking away my client's property rights in that regard. So having said that, I would wait, in a few moments, comments from the public, with regard to this application. My client only wishes to be treated as others have been and granted a coastal zone erosion permit, subject to reasonable conditions. We will certainly revegetate areas, we'll certainly listen to types of construction comments and we would like to reach an agreement on where to locate the building and how to build it. Having said that, I would ask at this time to be allowed to bring Mr. Bombara up to make comment about his decision to purchase this property, if I may. TRUSTEE KING: Before you do that. Just one comment I would like to make. The cases you talked about, those were additions, not new constructions. MR. DANOWSKI: I certainly understand that, but the same conditions take place with regard to regulated areas. When we talked about the Susan Tasker (sic) case which was cited as, often cited, as one of the earlier decisions in this case, and that was made part of the brief, I certainly understand the position. But it's our Board of Trustees 24 August 22, 2007 position once you go beyond the beach area and once you go beyond that distance, by definition, 100 feet from the physiographic change, then you are entitled to and we have a right to a building within that area beyond the hundred feet. That is our position. MR. CORCORAN: I think that is a point that there is some clarification. I think that's what Mr. King was speaking to when he opened this hearing. One thing you stated which is totally correct is that the beach extends 100 feet from the marked change and physiographic territory, but the definition goes on to read where there is no dune or bluff landward of that beach. So this is what we are concerned about. Does the beach end at that 100 feet or is there either more beach or dune beyond that 100 feet. I think that's what the Trustees are grappling with and will want some expert opinion about. MR. DANOWSKI: And I have reason to say that I don't blame them for grappling with it or waiting for some further information from experts in that regard. MR. CORCORAN: Because if it's a dune or it's beach, there is nothing in this law that allows a house to be built from scratch in that area MR. DANOWSKI: I think you'll have some debate on that as to regulated areas and non-regulated areas. The same argument you had on major and minor with regard to existing structures where you say well you are building more than 25%. It doesn't prohibit you from doing that. It just makes you ask for permission because it's regulated. And I'm suggesting to you, you can build in the area. But there is no sense two attorneys debating about that tonight MR. CORCORAN: I disagree, but I'll be happy to talk to you about it. MR. DANOWSKI: I'll be happy to talk to you about it as well. If I could call Mr. Bombara, with your permission. TRUSTEE KING: Try and keep it brief. We are not going to move on this tonight. We have a lot of information, so we'll just get a feel for it and we'll move on. MR. BOMBARA: Thank you. Good evening. I want to tell you how we got to this particular point. My wife and I are both near retirement age. We always spent a lot of time on the North Fork. We are looking for a place to build and ultimately for a final retirement home. We entered into a contract which was subject to being able to build a certain square footage house. The first thing I did is I called the Town of Southold Building Department and gave them the block, lot, address, told them exactly where it was. I told them what my contract read and said if I was able to build on this lot and I was told yes. If I was told no, we would certainly not be here today. I'm certainly not a fool to spend the kind of money that I did to buy a piece of land that you can't do anything Board of Trustees 25 August 22, 2007 with. So I just want to let you know, this is how we got here and, to be honest with you, if I was not given that information by the Town of Southold Building Department, we would not be here tonight. Thank you. MR. CORCORAN: For clarification, our Building Department doesn't and is not authorized to give letters of build ability on property, to avoid this sort of exactly he said she said debate we often get post hoc. MR. DANOWSKI: I think it was part of the record the last time but I think I have to establish and I'll make the comment rather than call Mr. Bombara up again. He closed on this property and paid $1.1 million for this particular parcel. And the other comment that he might have made last time, I think, as well, that I might have repeated, is that when he visited the site and looked to the left and right, there were buildings under construction. Albeit, they were renovation projects. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this project? MS. MURRAY: Hi, I'm Ann Murray, I'm with the Land Use Committee of the North Fork Environmental Council and I was curious to know why since the coastal erosion hazard permit was previously denied why it's being reheard again. Can anybody answer that? MR. CORCORAN: There is a new proposal and a new plan and every application deserves to be heard. MS. MURRAY: Okay, because it kind of defies logic for me to consider it again if it's already been denied under that. In any case, I think granting this, which it appears you are not going to do tonight, it would be inconsistent with the LWRP, which has been the law in the town since 2004. Not only that, if you are truly stewards of the land, consideration of your earlier rejection and the CAC refusal to conduct a full review because of the coastal erosion hazard line, and the LWRP inconsistency, should prevent you from permitting the destruction of this fragile sand dune, which is also in a significant environmental area. I mean this is a beach, this is a sand dawn, I'm sure you have all been there. We don't build on sand dunes in Southold Town. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? MS. AMPER: My name is Julie Amper, I'm also on the Land Use Committee. I too urge the Board of Trustees to deny a wetland permit and re-confirm their earlier decision of November 15, 2006, to deny a coastal erosion permit on this property. One of the key issues I think impacting on this decision was touched on by Trustee Dickerson at that November 15 meeting. She said, and I quote, you mention things, permits, buildings that have been done in the past and one of the things we are always doing is looking ahead and not looking back. Always reviewing and revising how we see things and Board of Trustees 26 August 22, 2007 taking into consideration so much new information, scientific, et cetera. And we as a Board have been working very seriously revising our code. I applaud this and agree with it. We cannot make a policy of allowing nearby pre-existing construction to legitimatize new construction that has been found to be non-compliant. This is sort of the but-Johnny-did-it-so-why-can't-I defense, which we know what our parents say to that. To do so makes a complete mockery of the environmental review process from the coastal erosion hazard authorization and the CAC to Southold Town code and the LWRP. All over Southold are examples of buildings that do not conform to current codes, that could not and should not be built today. They exist only because they were build before we knew any better, before we had scientific information available to us, information that as we acquired it, we wisely made part of our Town Code. Who today would use lead paint on his home just because it was used next door at some time or other in the distant past? Who, if he could find it, would use DDT or Chlordane as a pest control? Whenever we have discovered threats to our health and to our environment, we have acted imposing bans and enacting laws. To ignore such threats would be unconscionable. Since much of the prime waterfront real estate has been developed in Southold Town, most of the remaining waterfront parcels may well be non-compliant and will face insurmountable regulatory difficulty. I urge the Trustees to stand fast in the face of overwhelming evidence against granting these permits. New knowledge triumph trumps past mistakes and previous building in a contested area in no way justifies the compounding of the felony. We can not make real environmental threats disappear simply by conjuring up mitigating circumstances that strain any rational interpretation of the code. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. ROSAKIS: Good evening. My name is Tom Rosakis, I'm a member of the Kenneys Beach Civic Association and I wrote a letter to you which I would like to place in the record and just read two sentences of it if I might. It's actually an E-mail that I -- may I approach the president? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can confirm we did receive it. MR. ROSAKIS: Thank you. Basically, the letter states: I agree with Ann Murray. I don't know why we are here since the permit was, the coastal erosion hazard permit was denied, and we don't see any substantive changes to this application. I just will quote from your resolution; your revised resolution. The project, my sentence here, the project in any form remains as stated in your revised resolution of December, 2006, quote, seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area, end quote, is prohibited as per chapter 111 of Board of Trustees 27 August 22, 2007 the Town Code, in quotes, inconsistent with the local waterfront revitalization program. No amount of redesign of the project can change these conditions. This application should not be considered. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you: Anybody else? MR. BETSCH: One more, please, if you don't mind. My name is John Betsch, I live at 2325 North See Drive. I'm vice-president of the Kenneys Beach Civic Association but tonight I'm here as a resident of North See Drive. Before I begin, I just want to take exception to Mr. Danowski's comment about my property in that I had an existing structure in place and my approval had to do with the 25% requirement. I understand that it was disapproved for the coastal erosion permit on November 15 and the wetland permit on December 13. The information as presented in this new application is generally the same as has been in previous applications with the exception now there are three proposals. Having appeared before this Board numerous times, I want to be sure that the Trustees' determination is simply based on correct and proper information and a decision is based on consistent and equal applications of other people who have appeared before this Board. For example, when I look at the new applications I do not see any coastal erosion hazard line drawn on any of the three proposals. Which was a requirement. The submitted survey indicates a lot size of 24,879 square feet, however the town assessor's office, which I believe is an official record, states the property is 19,100 square feet, and increase which he shows of 5,779 square feet. Approximately 6,000 square feet. To say that the property has grown approximately 6,000 square feet seems to be a little bit of fuzzy logic considering the ongoing suit going with Goldsmith Inlet and the loss of beach all along that area. And finally, with the notoriety of recent pool accidents I'm sure that the applicant would want to have inplace significant safety measures to do with a pool and I'm not sure whether fencing is allowed in beach areas. Finally, I heard Scott Russell say it's becoming necessary to legislate good manners. I realize legislating is not within the authority of this Board, but common sense is. While Southold does not have a pyramid law in place, as Southampton does, it's important to consider the effect of a structure like this on the quality and character of the neighborhood. We do not want another hotel Reydon in place, which the Trustees did approve some time in the past. That Hotel Reydon, if you are familiar with it, down on Reydon Drive, which had an effect on both the quality of life and Board of Trustees 28 August 22, 2007 for the people living on Reydon Drive, and it was also very detrimental to their property values in that it is now overwhelming and looks more like a yacht club from Disneyland versus all the other houses in place. And I just appreciate your time. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: We had asked for the coastal erosion to be put on the surveys. I would also like to find out what the required first floor elevation is in that zone also. I think they have it down here as 17 feet on the plans. I don't know what the minimum is that is required by law. I think we need to know that. Anybody else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, as was stated by, and I can't remember the name of the gentleman, I apologize for that, when we addressed this before -- previously, we addressed this in one hearing under coastal erosion and a month later a hearing for the wetland permit and it's been stated many times by people in their statements tonight it was denied under coastal erosion. People said why are we here again tonight. I know for myself, and I'm only speaking for myself up here, it's been denied under coastal erosion, it's clearly brand new construction. It's clearly proposed to be seaward of coastal erosion. For myself, I agree. I think it should continue to be denied under coastal erosion. So we can do what we want to as far as having a environmental technician look at the area and having DEC look at the area and any other engineers to look at the area -- TRUSTEE KING: Under the wetland policy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. But for myself, personally, we are going through a lot of time and effort on something that I think we should just deny under coastal erosion again. MR. CORCORAN: You really need to be certain what natural protective feature the proposed activity -- the activity being proposed is in. Because it makes a difference under the law. It's a tortured law, but it matters if it's a dune area, it matters if it's a beach area or it matters if it's just any other area behind the line. You can get a permit for certain construction if it's not in a particular natural protective feature. If it is in a particular natural protective feature, I would argue -- counsel might disagree -- you can't do anything. So it makes a difference where it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. MR. CORCORAN: So your decision should be precise when you make it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that and, as I said, I'm happy to hear, that we are going to, under the wetland permit, ask for some professional advice. MR. CORCORAN: And I don't want to predict any outcome you are going to make, but whatever outcome you make you want it to be solid and principled. Board of Trustees 29 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We have three letters here. I'm not going to read them in. I'll just say who they are from. Mr. Rosakis; I don't know if he's still here or not. We have the letter in the file on the record. There is a letter from Ed Booth and there is a letter from Irene Vitti. These three letters are here. They are in here, just to let you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would also like to state, along with Dave, I happen to agree. I have an issue, you know, with it having come up again under coastal erosion. I think we made the proper decision the first time around. But I'll address the question that came up tonight, one of the folks just spoke, as to why we would even consider the application. It's my belief that, you know, a person has every right to put in as many applications as they want. If he wants to put in an application every month for it, as annoying as that might be, he's got every right to do that. So we are encumbered to consider it. We can deny it, approve it, what have you. I think everybody has a right to bring an application in. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response.) I'm make a motion to table this application, then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. CORCORAN: As well as both on 275 and 111, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Patricia Moore on behalf of RONALD STRITZLER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to cut back the vertical slope of the bluff to a more natural angle, cut back the trees overhanging the bluff edge to ground level and plant between the lawn area and the bluff edge. Continue planting bluff with existing vegetation, complete terracing and backfill, and plant area. Add terracing to strategic locations based on site conditions using wood and plastic sheet pilings. Located: 3055 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. MS. DIACK: What happened to number two, Missy Diack? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was tabled. That was postponed. They felt they didn't notify all the neighbors properly and they wanted to make sure that was done. That's why it was postponed. We mentioned in the beginning it was postponed. So, sorry, for any confusion. TRUSTEE KING: Ma'am, it was at your request, I guess, or your agent's request. MS. DIACK: Not my request. Board of Trustees 30 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: It's not that there was a huge problem or anything like that with us. MS. DIACK: It's okay, I just know all my neighbors got the letter. TRUSTEE KING: Not that we are trying to hold you up or anything. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Pat Moore on behalf of RONALD STRITZLER. I went and looked at this. It's a pretty extensive report. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have all been at the site many times. MS. MOORE: Once in the dark, so I won't count that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Once in the dark, yes. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make a couple of suggestions, Pat. MS. MOORE: Sure. That's fine. We are here to listen. TRUSTEE KING: You have a buffer along the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: The ten-foot wide natural. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, make that 15 feet. It will be a little more effective. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What did we ask her to do? MS. MOORE: You didn't ask me anything. TRUSTEE KING: That property really slopes very steeply down to the northwest. If that buffer was, instead of stopping it along the top of the bluff, if that kind of followed up to the south along that west property line, that would buffer the neighbor's property. Just kind of continue that up and bring it along the property line. MS. MOORE: Yes, because there is some erosion the neighbor is having. TRUSTEE KING: That would help a lot. MS. MOORE: That's fine. It's a good suggestion. Do you want the 15 feet to carry over or -- that's kind of no man's land, so I mean, I was just going to angle it back. Whatever naturally occurs there. It's a very natural slope. TRUSTEE KING: Can you come up here? MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm drawing it on my map as you are speaking. TRUSTEE KING: If you kind of carry it up around like that (indicating.) Go up at least 50,60 feet. Something like that. That would be effective. That would help. I think I read in there they'll use plastic, lumber for the terracing. MS. MOORE: That's what was requested. TRUSTEE KING: That's when I, that was my suggestion. Then I read it in the report. MS. MOORE: Glad we are all on the same page. Anything else? TRUSTEE KING: There has been a lot of tree trimming and vegetation trimming that has been dumped over the bluff. Have them clean that up. MS. MOORE: I know when we noticed that, we asked, whoever the Board of Trustees 31 August 22, 2007 landscaper is -- TRUSTEE KING: It should be removed. I think that was in the suggestions in the report. It was actually a pretty thorough report. MS. MOORE: We were so pleased with them, with the report. TRUSTEE KING: It was good. I guess the CAC did not review the new things. Because we tabled it because there was no detailed plans available. That's changed. MR. WILDER: That was previous. TRUSTEE KING: You have a new one. I'm sorry. CAC supports the application with the condition the buffer is increased to 20 feet. MS. MOORE: Well, we'll stick to the 15. TRUSTEE KING: We compromised. MS. MOORE: I think the report suggested ten. That's why we used ten. But 15 is fine. TRUSTEE KING: Because there is plenty of room for it. It's not like they don't have a lot of lawn. And it's consistent with LWRP. The project follows the plan of a certified coastal engineer from the Natural Resources Conservation Services. Does anybody have any comments? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. It was found to be consistent. MS. MOORE: Thank you. And the buffer -- TRUSTEE KING: Increasing the buffer doesn't hurt anything. Increase the buffer from ten to 15 and to extend along the property line on the western side of the property. MS. MOORE: It's approximately 30, 40, to follow -- I would say to follow the topography. TRUSTEE KING: Let's make it 50 feet landward from the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: That's fine. It's heavily vegetated over there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about the lawn area. Just put that 15 buffer right along the edge of the lawn area there. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Just draw in the 15 foot buffer. MS. MOORE: If I could draw it in. It's very expensive for the client to have -- this was a very expensive survey, so. TRUSTEE KING: How about if I draw it in. I'll scale it off and do it accurately. MS. MOORE: That's fine. And then fax me the permit with just that section of the map. That's fine. Board of Trustees 32 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: I'll do it Friday when I'm in the office, scale it off. MS. MOORE: That's fine. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, under Wetland Permits, MICHAEL & DENISE CHUISANO request a Wetland Permit to construct a deck at the top of the bank and wood stairs for beach access. Located: 1525 Soundview Road, Orient. CAC supports the application with the condition a licensed engineer prepares the plans for the stairs and plans for erosion control along the bluff are considered. The LWRP coordinator has found this inconsistent with policy number six, protecting and restoring tidal and freshwater wetlands, states that the following standards are required for all operations within the jurisdiction of the Trustees. And it's cites our code 275-11; platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than 32 square feet, and the one that is being requested is 12x12 or 144 square feet. Also it's requiring a revegetation plan, if we approve it, requiring the existing vegetation on the bluff is protected during construction, and they are requiring a non-turf buffer landward of the bluff to protect the bluff from erosion. Furthermore, I will say that I did find out that also 275-11 does state that no stairs with access -- there should be no stairs built on a bluff when there is access to a property owned by an association directly next door to said property. And in this particular case, there just happens to be an association right of way right next to this man's property. So, is there anybody here who would like too speak on this proposal; on this application? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Are they a member of the property owners association, do you know? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe, according to the LWRP report -- MR. CHUISANO: I'm Michael Chuisano. Yes, we are a member of the association. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Our code is specific about that. The right of way is right next to your property. MR. CHUISANO: Well, I guess that's it. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments; comments from the Board? (No response.) Board of Trustees 33 August 22, 2007 I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion we deny this application based on code 275 which says that if the property is located next to a right of way owned by an association and the property owner is a member of the association, he's not permitted to build an access on the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that motion. MR. CORCORAN: May I suggest that you also resolve that the application is inconsistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. As stated before, the application is labeled as inconsistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, DAVID WIRTZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove 158 linear feet of existing bulkhead and reconstruct in same location using vinyl sheathing. Located: 245 Pine Place, East Marion. The CAC supports the application with a condition that a drywell is installed to contain the pool backwash. LWRP has found this application to be exempt from LWRP. Is there anybody here like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. WIRTZ: I'm David Wirtz. When I redid the pool, I did have a backwash, drywell put in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the only questions that I had, really, were that there were some things that were in the yard there that I could not, I don't think there were permits for. One of them was the flagpole. There is no permit on the flagpole, right? I have a flagpole, the pool itself and the fences that are within the jurisdiction. MR. WIRTZ: Sorry, on the fences? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The fences as well. MR. WIRTZ: What about the fences? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They are not permitted. I don't have any permits saying they could be there. MR. WIRTZ: When I redid the pool, I had them re-do the fences. I don't remember anymore exactly what I did. But I think it was part of the permit process for getting the pool redone. I know I had someone come in because I had pieces of the bulkhead where they had to he stick the fence out so kids can't come around the side of the bulkhead. We redid the fence as part of that permit process, I Board of Trustees 34 August 22, 2007 thought. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could be a separate file, Bob. MR. WIRTZ: The flagpole, honestly, has been there since I bought the house. I didn't know better. I didn't know I had to have a permit. Honestly, I don't remember anymore what happened to the pool. It's been about eight years or so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only permit I have expired was a wetland permit to remove basically the same thing as what was here. And the only condition there at the time was a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. MR. WIRTZ: Right. I remember that. That's the one I managed to let expire. But I'm with quite sure -- TRUSTEE KING: If it's that old it may be in another file. Because we didn't -- MR. WIRTZ: I'm pretty sure I needed some kind of building permit or something to re-do the pool. I mean, I have to check. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Don't get me wrong. It's not that we necessarily have an issue with it. I just want to make sure since it's there, we've seen it, we put it in. MR. WIRTZ: Fair enough. I don't have any problem with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are all these things you mentioned on the current survey? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Actually, wait a second. The fences are not on the survey. Not both of them. And the flagpole is not on the survey. Everything else is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can't we just include the fences and the flagpole? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have an issue with that. I think that's fine. MR. WIRTZ: I think the flagpole will go down when the bulkhead is redone anyway. The whole area will have to be dug out. I think the flagpole may be history anyway. TRUSTEE KING: If you intend to put it back up, we'll include it in the permit. MR. WIRTZ: I like the flagpole, actually. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just put it in the permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve this application with the addition of the flagpole which we'll need to have drawn into the survey as well as the two chainlink fences that are on the property lines. And LWRP has already shown this is Board of Trustees 35 August 22, 2007 exempt. MR. CORCORAN: Although, you are adding stuff that might not necessarily be exempt. The fences, you just might want to find it to be consistent. TRUSTEE KING: It may be a permit in place. MR. WIRTZ: I know it was inspected after I redid the fences because the inspector did come in and say, your fence, even though the existing fence was not adequate, because of the pool, so he did come back. There has to be something in the file someplace that that was done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Either way, I'll make a motion to approve the application, including the flagpole and fences, noting that the LWRP is currently showing it as exempt. However, I would also find if it's not exempt because of the addition of the flag pole and the fences, that because of all the mitigations involved with this, that we would find the application consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Because the fence is a -- you have the fence because of the pool. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's required for the pool. MR. CORCORAN: It's previously permitted and it's a legal requirement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Hold on. Is there a question in the audience? MR. STRAZZA: I would like to reopen my amendment. I just went and checked my dock. What you suggested ain't going to work. I don't know why you changed your agreement that we made when we did this. TRUSTEE KING: How about if we meet out in the field next field inspection. We'll all look it at it. MR. STRAZZA: Either that or have Jimmy Richter look at it and have him make the decision. I'll go by that. But it's going to break again. TRUSTEE KING: We'll see you out there next month. MR. STRAZZA: When is that? TRUSTEE KING: September 13. Thursday. That's our next field inspection day. MR. STRAZZA: I don't know if I'll be in town. TRUSTEE KING: The dock will still be there. MR. STRAZZA: Right now you won't see what you'll see when the winter is here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to move on. We can discuss this at the field inspection. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll move ahead with number three, ROBERT Board of Trustees 36 August 22, 2007 LEHNERT requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing 100-foot wood bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead. Located: Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. I looked at this. It follows an emergency permit that we permitted back in April. CAC supports the application with the condition of a plan to stabilize the bluff, and it is exempt from our LWRP review. I don't have any problems with this. I do have a few things I want to let the Board know. As you go down the steps, I'm going to request a ten-foot buffer, but actually to the right of the stairs or to the south of the stairs, there is sort of a platform planking piece that is just for light -- tubing and kids tubes and that kind of stuff. On the left side of the stairs is just a sandy non-turf area where again there is a lot of children's toys, et cetera. So when I looked at it, as far as the CAC's comments, to me the bluff has stabilized itself. It was all vegetated down to that point, from my inspection. Would you like to comment on that, Don? MR. WILDER: I think it's going to collapse if they don't remove it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which one? MR. WILDER: Both properties. Which one are we on now? The boat property? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Lehnert on Nassau Point Road. Number three. MR. LEHNERT: The right of way. The next hearing is contiguous to this one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I did have a question about the pilings that are in front of the bulkhead. MR. LEHNERT: Those were for an old beach house that was there before we owned it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are they coming out? MR. LEHNERT: Yes, they can come out. Not a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I would make a request that, there is six of them, I believe, six pilings seaward of the bulkhead. And there is new steps, they were just replaced. MR. LEHNERT: They were replaced. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That were there on the permit. Okay. So is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Mr. Robert Lehnert's request for a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing bulkhead with the stipulation -- I'm going to say the ten-foot buffer is existing. It simply has removable -- Board of Trustees 37 August 22, 2007 MR. LEHNERT: It's the bluff, right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the six pilings be removed seaward of the bulkhead. MR. LEHNERT: Not a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: North of that, Mr. Lehnert is requesting to remove and replace 100 foot of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead. MR. LEHNERT: That's actually 25 feet. There was a typo somewhere. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And when the emergency repair permit was granted, Dave Bergen actually mentioned the cement slabs that are there. Are they going to be removed? MR. LEHNERT: I would like to break them up and use them as fill rather than remove them, if I can. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are not requesting the stairs to be replaced at this point? MR. LEHNERT: Not right now. Because what is happening is, that's Nassau Point Property Owners property. The two neighbors are willing to pay for the bulkhead at this time and we'll leave the stairs up to the property owners association. So we are just looking to do the bulkhead right now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just questioning it because they are a mess. MR. LEHNERT: We'll take the part of that away that is completely broken and trashed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the submission of plan to stabilize the bluff and also it is exempt from LWRP. Does the Board have a problem with cement blocks being used for fill? TRUSTEE KING: Behind the bulkhead? MR. LEHNERT: Yes, we want to just break them up into smaller pieces and use them as fill instead of trying to get them out of there. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's against the code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think so, too TRUSTEE KING: I think the code specifically states no debris to be used or demolition material to be used as fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a comment. It's up to the applicant. Did he include the stairs in this application, even though you are not redoing it now then you'll have the permit for stairs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Even if it's under Mr. Lehnert's name? MR. CORCORAN: You can do that. Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would just need the stairs on the plans. If you don't want to include them now, just saving you from coming in for another permit process. Board of Trustees 38 August 22, 2007 MR. LEHNERT: I was just trying to break it up because of who is paying for everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever is easier for you. If you want to include -- MR. LEHNERT: Let's leave the stairs off for now. We'll come back for that. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing if there is no other comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request by Robert Lehnert to replace the existing 25-foot wood bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead. And with the stipulation -- the removal of the cement blocks with this permit, does it have to be removed in order for him to do the bulkhead? MR. LEHNERT: Yes, the whole thing has to come out before I do the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Remove cement blocks with clean fill and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) SECRETARY STANDISH: Both properties, non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: MICHAEL BUNKER requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing 41-foot section of existing dock as required. Construct new 3x32 foot catwalk on offshore end with a 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock secured by two ten-inch diameter by 30 foot pilings. Located: 3392 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. This application was found inconsistent under the LWRP and I'll try to go through this rapidly. One, the materials proposed for the dock have not been specified. The applicant has not demonstrated the construction and operational standards have been met as stated under 275. The proposed action could impede the public use of navigation of boats. Proposed dock structure extends beyond the minimum necessary for navigable waters. And that's it. As far as the CAC reviewed this. They revolved to support the application with the condition a drainage plan is submitted for runoff on the property and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer is installed Board of Trustees 39 August 22, 2007 on the property. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BUNKER: Michael Bunker. You got the thing, the new plans from Costello Marine. That's what you are referring to? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have plans here dated August 1. MR. BUNKER: These are July 31,2007. TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are August 1, 2007, so. MR. BUNKER: So the problem with these -- and we spent $2,500 to have these made. So what is the problem? It's a dock builder -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I haven't listed any problems yet. What I stated is LWRP's evaluation of it and the CAC evaluation of it. So right now I'm soliciting comments. MR. BUNKER: You want me to comment on the materials? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's just if you have any comments to make regarding the application. MR. BUNKER: It's just the dock has been there for 28 years. It gets torn up every winter. I purchased it four years ago and this is the first time I decided to get it redone professionally. So we applied for an amendment and it was denied last month. So we, I guess, professionally had the plans redone and now we are here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Were there any other individuals who would like to comment on this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board did go out and look at it and we had two questions right now. First, it was not staked, or we could not see any stakes at the seaward end of the float, and we have to see it staked at the seaward end of the float. MR. BUNKER: I went out there last Wednesday. There is the preexisting piling that secured the floating dock that was there before. So I assume that is a good enough stake TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we didn't see it staked. That was just a previous structure out there. We didn't know that signified anything to us. What we normally ask for when these applications come before us, is the seaward end, the most seaward end of the structu re when there is a float, pilings, catwalk, whatever, dock, that that is staked. And this one was not staked. We also wanted to see on the survey the docks on either side. Again, because what we are trying to make sure is to see if your dock is going to extend, as the LWRP set stated here, whether your dock is going to distend beyond your neighbors' docks and if so, why. MR. BUNKER: In all honesty, I don't mind if it's a little shorter, to make you happy. We just want a dock there. Board of Trustees 40 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any suggestions from the Board or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: We just need to see it staked at the seaward end and two adjoining docks shown on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do then is table this to give the applicant the opportunity to stake the seaward end of it and then to show on the survey the two adjacent property owners' docks and so that we can look at it, in our next field inspection, go out there and look at it. MR. BUNKER: The next field inspection is the 13th? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, which is a Thursday. Then it will be on the agenda for the next Board meeting. MR. BUNKER: That's all you need is those two things. All right, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given that (perusing) yes, the soundings show th ree-and-a-half feet of water at the end of that float. That's approximately 50 feet out. So I would like to make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) MR. BUNKER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, PHILIP G. MilOT requests a Wetland Permit to repair/replace the existing bulkhead. located: 4185 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. CAC tabled the application until a detailed plan is submitted and recent repairs have been made on the bulkhead using treated lumber. We have plans, detailed plans here. And the lWRP finds it to be exempt. I went out there and it's an inkind/inplace replacement and, um, I didn't have any problem with it. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. MilOT: I am. I'm Phil Milot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a buffer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a very nice buffer. No lawn at all. It's all pebbles, all in the front. At the northeast corner it's only ten feet between the bulkhead and the deck, so it's all pebbles and all going on to the side of the house. So in this I would permit I would recommend the buffer would be maintained. Which I think you would want to do that. MR. MilOT: The background to this is the most recent storm did a lot of damage to my neighbor's bulkhead, and my bulkhead was built at the same time. During the conversation with the neighbor, he indicated that should look for a permit, an historical permit, to Board of Trustees 41 August 22, 2007 have done that in the past. That bulkhead was damaged by Hurricane Gloria initially. So I went to the Trustees to see if there was a permit on that bulkhead back in 1984, and there was not. So what I'm doing is I'm applying for an application to repair the bulkhead when and as needed, really, because my neighbor's bulkhead, as I mentioned was damaged in this past storm, and the neighbor on the westerly side replaced his entire bulkhead last year. So I can't be far behind. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Was this storm damage? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's existing. It's been existing for years and he's just trying to permit the structure. MR. MilOT: I'm just anticipating that the next storm it's gone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are some minor repairs needed, like he just stated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand. I'm just saying, the wording is confusing. TRUSTEE KING: This was put in before permits were required by the Trustees. MR. MilOT: So when I learned there was not any permit on it, that's why I'm going through this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Philip Milot, 4185 Camp Mineola Road, for a bulkhead, and I make the motion also that the Board finds the lWRP to be exempt because its inkind/inplace replacement. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: What's the material of the bulkhead now? MR. MilOT: This is 20-years old. TRUSTEE KING: It's probably CCA. MR. MilOT: Whatever you want me to put in is fine. TRUSTEE KING: At the time you come in to replace the bulkhead, it will have to be vinyl. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Put that in now. Because he's not coming back in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll revise my motion to approve inplace using vinyl. MR. MilOT: Is the vinyl the black material? TRUSTEE KING: It's usual gray in color. I think they make tan. MR. MilOT: Is that the one that goes-- TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. MilOT: My neighbor to the west has that and the storm takes the top right off. The neighbor to my east repaired his with, it's a black mooring type. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Currently, the code says you can't use treated Board of Trustees 42 August 22, 2007 lumber. So you won't be able to use treated lumber. MR. MilOT: Can I use the plastic wood that my neighbor used? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are saying. MR. MilOT: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The non-turf buffer to remain the way it is. The whole yard is non-turf. I should have included that in there. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Ronald Hansen on behalf of MARK HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 82 linear feet of timber bulkhead inplace using vinyl sheathing and a nine foot return extension. located: 680 Private Road #2, Southold. We looked at this, I don't think anybody had a problem. It's a straight forward replacement. What did we have as a buffer on there? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ten-foot return. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) We want to see a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. MR. HANSEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comment from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a 15-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: lWRP, it's exempt. And CAC -- MR. HANSEN: I'm in the DEC right now. TRUSTEE KING: This is from June. Anything after June on this? MR. HANSEN: They made no recommendation at this time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the CAC he's referring to, not the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: We closed the hearing already, I'll make a motion to approve the application with a 15-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) MR. HANSEN: Can I see you for a minute. Right now this is the plans we have. This is all washed out (indicating.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, Jim. Don't go anywhere. MR. HANSEN: I'll have it 83 feet instead of 75 feet long and instead of 21.6 feet long this way, I have a cut out like this here. I'll leave the existing. Board of Trustees 43 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are asking for could have been applied for now, tonight, and we could have done something. We have now not approved this but we approved this. So you have to come back now for an amendment for this. Just stand by. (Perusing.) You need to come back to us for an amendment. MR. HANSEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Young & Young on behalf of PETER DANOWSKI, JR., & SUSAN DANOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 6x20 foot wood float, new 4x12 wood ramp, new wetlands plantings, new 3x4 foot flagstone, dredging approximately 94 cubic yards to 2.5 foot below mean low water, and restoration of disturbed areas with native plants and grasses. Located: 1625 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue. The LWRP finds this inconsistent. It's the 100 foot issue. They have a lot of other comments here. I'll just run through this briefly. MR. DANOWSKI: I think Mr. Terry and I had a brief, friendly conversation in which he said don't take this personally but almost every dock application will find inconsistent and that it's, aside from Fishers Island and some marina areas we can't comply with a request and have to have a negative report. Whether I agree with that or not, it doesn't matter. He has his report. It's advisory. III be asking for a permit despite that report. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It touches on all aspects of your application, the dredging, it finds it inconsistent with the dredging, with the dock construction, you know, just the normal not using turbidity screen, mentioned to use that. And silt fence and activities during construction would destroy the area of vegetation. And it goes on further to describe -- it's a pretty lengthy report. The CAC supports the application with the condition the dock and the vessel do not exceed more than one-third across the width of the creek. Best management practices are followed in the construction of the dock and all disturbed areas are revegetated. The LWRP, going back to the LWRP report, they also mentioned to further the above policy, for policy six, it recommended the Board require fiberglass grating decking on the structures to minimize shading from the dock constructed to the greatest extent possible. We talked about that in the field. The other thing we talked about in the field is downsizing the structure, to have just a catwalk and maybe a set of stairs. MR. DANOWSKI: I think at the end of the conversation tonight I think what was understood by myself was that we hold in abeyance the decision from this Board until perhaps there be an on site inspection by the DEC and hear about their recommendations or Board of Trustees 44 August 22, 2007 issuance of a permit. And I recognize that at the end of the conversation I wanted to have the hearing because we did advertise it. We did notify my neighbors. I did get a call from Jacqueline Monsell (sic), she said she had no objection and from Joe DePinto in the back who has no objection. So I have no not heard any objections from any neighbors. I also remind the Board, and I'll be taking this up it the DEC, that I own the land on the water and certainly as a condition of any permit that might issue, I would agree that any dredging and excavation take place on my own property and not in trustees' owned waters. I also already agreed to any conditions regarding specifications and fiberglass, open weaved, any material, I certainly have no objection to that. I would also note, because I know there is a concern, as there should be, about navigability, and certainly I don't want to interfere with anyone's rights beyond me. That's the reason I suggested putting the improvements exactly where I have, where it's sheltered and not out in the middle of the narrow sort of tributary area. I would note there are in fact a certain permitted dock structures beyond me. I think the Stoutenberg dock has a permit, Gary Garoski's dock has a permit, and the Monsell's, I believe, had a permitted dock, although it may be falling into the water. So all of those people have every right to what they have and I don't intend to interfere with them, and I support them. They are my neighbors. So, the thought here was to locate the improvements within my property and I will certainly take into consideration the comments made at the field. I'll first try to overcome whatever issues are raised by the DEC, then bring them back to your attention. I did ask for a pre-application conference with Mr. Hamilton. I know he's extremely busy out here and in other places, and I'm sure at some point he may visit the site, but we have filed the application after that request for a pre-application conference, and hopefully they will be coming back to address some of the very same issues you are considering. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other comments from anybody else? (No response.) Any other comments from the Board? What I'm hearing is Mr. Danowski wants to table this. TRUSTEE KING: My thoughts were open-grate, low profile set of stairs at the end. Maybe a rack on the sides for the kayaks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what LWRP said. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mark actually put that in his recommendations MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you. After, I'll get a copy of whatever Board of Trustees 45 August 22, 2007 reports you have and I'll address them in the future. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Danowski, you can get a copy of the LWRP report from our office if you like, or the Planning Department, either one. MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're welcome. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine Young & Young on behalf of MICHAEL JUDGE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 85x4 foot wide beach access stairway with platforms. Located: 13007 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. I went and looked at this. I couldn't -- supposedly it was staked. I couldn't find any stakes. Was there any kind of access path staked out on the way down from the bluff to the house? MR. WOLPERT: Not an access path, no. We staked the top of the proposed stairway as well as the bottom. TRUSTEE KING: I couldn't find it. I would like to see where the pathway is going to go. It's really very heavily vegetated in there. We had trouble just walking through there. I would like to see it staked out where the pathway is going. And make sure where the platform is going to go is staked and the seaward end of the stairs is staked. I didn't see anything. I couldn't find it. MR. WOLPERT: My name is Thomas Wolpert, I'm an engineer with Young & Young, representing the applicant, Michael Judge. TRUSTEE KING: I never saw the stakes. I don't think it's going to be a huge problem. The access path is really -- it's quite a distance from the house to the bluff. Well over a hundred feet. What size are these platforms coming down where the little jogs are? Looks like maybe 4X8? MR. WOLPERT: About that. Yes, 4x6, 4x8. Depending which platform you are talking about. TRUSTEE KING: There's two going down the bluff, and then the steps there at the end. We really need to see it staked out a little better and I'll go back out next month. MR. WOLPERT: September 13th is the date? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could clarify the size of the size of the platforms. Just call Lauren and she will write it in the file. MR. WOLPERT: Not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application until next month so we can go out and look at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. Board of Trustees 46 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: It's not that it's problematic, I just want to make sure everything is okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number eleven, Ian Crowley on behalf of PAT VARDARO requests a Wetland Permit to remove 70 feet of existing timber bulkhead and replace inplace with new vinyl seawall. Dredge 40 cubic yards from no further than 10 feet seaward of new wall to restore existing depth of-4 ALW. Install 4x6 foot cantilevered platform and 16 foot aluminum gangway to access existing 5x40 foot floating dock. Located: 1210 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. The Board went out, we all looked at this. It's consistent with LWRP, and CAC supports this application. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. CROWLEY: It's fairly straight forward. The only thing we are adding the cantilevered platform for access to the floats. The floats, I believe, are permitted there. I know we have the DEC permit. I didn't check with your office. It should be under Suero, not under Vardaro. SECRETARY STANDISH: (Perusing.) TRUSTEE KING: What are we going to do if is there no permit for that 40 foot? MR. CROWLEY: The DEC permit is on the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is he asking for replacement of the float also? TRUSTEE KING: The stairs are existing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not part of this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, the application does not include replacement of that float. MR. CROWLEY: Not that I know of yet. I don't know how it's worded on my plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says remove 70 foot of existing timber bulkhead, replace inplace with new vinyl seawall. Dredge 40 cubic yards from no further than 10 foot seaward of new wall to restore existing depth of-4 ALW. Install4x6 cantilevered platform and 16 foot aluminum gangway to access existing 5x40 floating dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I interpret this as you are just installing a platform and gangway to the existing dock, and that's not being replaced. MR. CROWLEY: That's not part of the plans right now. If it's permitted, I would like to have it worded that way. If he decides to replace it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can stipulate that we are not -- TRUSTEE KING: There is an existing 20-foot float that we don't know if it's permitted or not, on the one permit. Board of Trustees 47 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could stipulate -- TRUSTEE KING: And if we approve the bulkhead, platform, to access the float, does that kind of legalize the float. MR. CORCORAN: Nice argument, yes. You'll want to either add that float to this application MR. CROWLEY: Or -- TRUSTEE KING: It's quite a bit larger than code permits. It's five by40. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Or delete it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or could we make it conditional upon when they elect to repair or replace that float, that it's brought into compliance with current code. TRUSTEE KING: You'll really need to know if there is a permit on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the access we are saying it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. What I'm trying to say is not forced to be changed now but put it on notice they must be willing to repair or replace. At that point it's got to be brought into code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When and if the float is ever replaced. TRUSTEE KING: This resolution does not approve 5x40 float, it only approves -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we approve the size float with the condition that he can leave there and once he replaces it -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to set this aside for a little while? MR. CORCORAN: Set it aside for a few minutes and see what Lauren can learn. TRUSTEE KING: Lauren will check now to see if it's permitted. MR. CROWLEY: If it's not permitted I would just re-draw it with 6x20. I originally drew this for somebody who died. They sold the property. TRUSTEE KING: Did he die when he saw your bill? MR. CROWLEY: I didn't want to do too much leg work before we got it going. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just adjourn this for ten minutes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just make a comment. Instead of a 6x20 float, he has it five feet already. Instead of making it wider and going out and going out to the end there, why don't we make it 5x30. Whatever the square footage works out. You know. Because it's at that end. Instead of making that. SPEAKER: The terminal is on the other side, as it turns out, so I can't access it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could only go to 5X25. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So can we -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How about considering what Dave said. Conditional with when the float is in need of repair that the float then must become consistent with existing code. So it's there. We Board of Trustees 48 August 22, 2007 are saying it's there but if it needs to be replaced, it needs to be replaced with 5x25 or 6x20. MR. CROWLEY: So even if it was permitted, he could not replace it 5x40. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not under current code, no. It's a pre-existing stru ctu re. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, you won't get back what you got. Do you want us to consider this or do you want -- TRUSTEE KING: There is a question if it was permitted, was the permit transferred to the new owner? Because if it wasn't, it's dead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have to do research here before we move forward on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want, we can separate the application and approve the bulkhead and leave the rest off, and then table that section of it. MR. CROWLEY: Okay TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And at least you have the bulkhead done and you could move forward with that, and we'll do some research. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bulkhead and dredging. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have of a site for the dredge material? MR. CROWLEY: It's to be used as backfill. This has all been approved by the DEC. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the Board okay with that, separating out the bulkhead and dredging? (Board members respond in the affirmative.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Ian Crowley on behalf of Pat Vardaro; request a wetland permit to remove 70 feet of existing timber bulkhead and replace inplace with new vinyl seawall, dredge 40 cubic yards from no further than 10 feet seaward of new wall to restore existing depth of-4 ALW. We want a non-turf buffer of 20 feet because there is a large area there that seems to be cleared already. MR. CROWLEY: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is consistent with LWRP and is approved also by CAC. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have to do a resolution to table the other pa rt? Board of Trustees 49 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I need to make a motion to table the second part? MR. CORCORAN: What you would do is make a motion to hold that portion of the hearing open pertaining to the cantilevered platform and access way to existing floating dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to hold open Ian Crowley's request for Pat Vardaro's wetland permit for a cantilevered platform and 16 foot aluminum gangway to access existing 5x25 float. I make that motion to hold it open. MR. CROWLEY: I'm confused. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just approved the bulkhead and dredging. And that's it. We are just keeping this other part open. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. MR. CROWLEY: It's his decision whether to leave it alone. It's his decision. Not mine. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Peter Heard on behalf of LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI requests a Wetland Permit to repair the foundation under the existing dwelling and to remove and reconstruct the existing deck. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive, East, Southold. This was evaluated under LWRP and found to be exempt. CAC did not give an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HEARD: Peter Heard. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments that you have, first off? MR. HEARD: It's pretty straight forward. There is a crack in the foundation. If you have the print in front of you, at the location of the helical piling HP-3, that's the worst part, and it sunk there and it is not so bad as you go out toward the end of the deck, so we are basically proposing to remove the decking as existing and install seven helical pilings around the perimeter of the foundation. And it's pretty straight forward. It's limited excavation, and it will stabilize. It will also raise up the existing foundation as it has sunk and will stabilize the rest of the portion of the foundation to be, to have the pilings installed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this, note, in the rain, and the only thing I went over with the applicants at the time, who were nice enough to let me inside out of the rain, that they would agree to put a drywell. I have noted here on the plans, underneath the deck to collect the roof runoff from the roof from that direction. And I marked it here in the plans. But what I would Board of Trustees 50 August 22, 2007 appreciate, if you could come up and look at it and see if it's okay with you. And if so, just initial it. MR. HEARD: (Perusing.) Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any comments from the Board on this? (Negative response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the request of Peter Heard on behalf of the Alessi's with the one amendment as has been noted on the plans with the drywelllocated on the southeast corner of the house under what is presently a deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we find it to be exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it is exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Gluckman Mayner Architects on behalf of lAURA A. WEll, requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 168 square foot addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling, remove existing porch and construct a new porch, construct new deck and steps on the seaward side of the dwelling and covered by a trellis, extend a portion of the second floor over an existing one-story mass, and CMU access well to be removed and filled on landward side. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient. LWRP finds this inconsistent for the distance of 100 feet and they say the following best management practices are recommended to meet policy five, establish a non-turf buffer, non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland boundary, gutters, leaders and drywells to contain roof runoff. CAC supports the application with the condition drywells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. We met Mrs. Weil on the site. We've been there a couple of times and we had her reduce the project so the extension would not be any further seaward than the existing structure. The stairs are still on the plans. Did you submit new plans yet? MS. WElL: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. We determined with that being done it would make this consistent with LWRP, and of course drywells and gutters to be placed also. Is there anyone here to speak on this also? MR. GLUCKMAN: I'm Richard Gluckman, I'm here with Gluckman Mayner Architects. Board of Trustees 51 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe in the field, the new exterior steps that you have on the plan that are seaward, we asked for them not to be placed there. To remove them to be in line with the existing structure. They are not to go further out. MR. GLUCKMAN: To the edge of the garage structure that's to the north? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking on the seaward side of the addition, the new deck. The garage is on the roadside. MR. GLUCKMAN: Can I come up and see what you are talking about? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please, come up. We had said to take all this off, this whole section off and just do the steps in here. And that's what we requested in the field. MR. GLUCKMAN: The reason we left them on there is the we are proposing on the porch that is adjacent to, that we would replace the windows with sliding glass doors and we felt if there would be a sliding door there it would make more sense to have a stair that you could step down onto. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We discussed that in the field and I believe it was noted you could still do the sliding doors but according to the Building Code you would have to probably put some kind of railing right there so those doors would not be usable for access doors, but for view. So you can have full glass there. But we wanted to reduce the structure since it is so close to the water. MR. GLUCKMAN: Would it be acceptable to -- we are not intending to put footings under those steps that extend toward the water and that we would suggest we cantilever the structure close to the steps out in that direction. We would not be putting foundation in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem with that is this is in the coastal erosion area and no new construction in that coastal erosion area so actually I don't even see the coastal erosion line on here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's here (indicating.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How many sliding doors were you planning to put in there? MR. GLUCKMAN: The width of the porch, which is 30 feet. It would extend across the entire porch. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So how many sliding doors is that? MR. GLUCKMAN: I believe it's three pairs of doors. We would be making it so the water would percolate through the structure. The deck. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern is that the structure that is there already and to add more to that is not something I would agree with. I don't have a problem with the deck, because it's in line with the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we are all inclined -- and please stop me, Board of Trustees 52 August 22, 2007 I'm going to speak for everyone -- that we don't, like Peggy just said, we don't want to add all that structure there and we don't want to see those stairs. We are okay with the deck because it's inline with the house, but we just don't want to see the extension of the stairs on that side. Like I said, you could keep the sliding glass doors, I mean you would have to put whatever the Building Department Code says that you would have to put there, but I think we'll stick with that. MR. GLUCKMAN: Even going to the line of the garage is not acceptable? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The garage is on the other side. MR. GLUCKMAN: The garage is that sort of 2'7" protrusion on the toward the seaward side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't even want that, to go that further out. We don't want it to go farther seaward than it is now. Even though portion of it is further seaward, we don't want to extend the other portion of the house further seaward. As far as the other additions on the road side of the house, I don't think we had a problem with any of that except for, you know, maybe a dry well over in that corner and gutters and leaders. MR. GLUCKMAN: I understand that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the audience? (NO RESPONSE.) Hearing none, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Gluckman Mayner Architects on behalf of Laura Weil and for a wetland and coastal erosion permit to construct -- we need revised plans -- to construct -- I'm trying to get the dimension of the deck. Bear with me (perusing.) I don't see a dimension on the deck itself. MR. GLUCKMAN: The deck is seventeen feet, eight and three-quarters percentage to the south of the house. The dimension of the stairs beyond that seems to be missing. I believe it's seven feet. TRUSTEE KING: See, this is higher. I believe this entire house is outside the coastal erosion line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only portion is this little deck, and that's under the 25%. And this is all bulkhead and sand. This is open beach. This is lawn on this side. She has a fence here and it's lawn here. It's sandy soil, but, it's behind the bulkhead. So I wouldn't consider that Board of Trustees 53 August 22, 2007 beach. MR. CORCORAN: Then you can do the 25% but you have to make the findings from Chapter 111. There are three findings you have to make. You can make them when you do your resolutions but those findings have to be incorporated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And what are the findings? MR. CORCORAN: That it's not a major addition; you have to find that 111-9(a), (b) and (c), that the permit can only be issued if you find it is reasonable and necessary considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extend to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location. It's not likely to cause measurable increase in erosion and prevent if possible or minimize effects on natural protective features. So, essentially, is it reasonable what they are proposing in scale and size, which I think you are finding. Is it going to cause further erosion. I didn't hear anything about that. And is it going to cause any damage to a natural protective feature, such as a beach, or dune or bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's not. MR. CORCORAN: Then you can issue a permit to your specifications. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I just want to measure the dimension of the deck. (Measuring.) 17x14. MR. GLUCKMAN: 17' 8 and 3/4 out. I think the 14 you mentioned is easUwest. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. GLUCKMAN: And then the steps would extend seven feet to the south. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And we are not including that. We are including the steps -- oh, on the south. Yes. Do you want them all along the 14 foot? MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we need the steps going all along? You know, he wants to do a gradual down. I don't think we need all that structure either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did we close the public hearing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we did. I make a motion we open the public hearing again. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The public hearing is open again. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see what you are saying. You are saying just give the staircase off the deck. It is in the coastal erosion area. That width is 14 feet. (indicating.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Peggy is saying, to make the deck even with the existing house, so it would be like a 15x14 deck instead of 17'8"x14. There is less structure and you are evening it out with the house. Here you are extending. And then just make it 13 feet. Board of Trustees 54 August 22, 2007 So it's 13x14, and just square off the house and then having these steps go down like that. (indicating.) (A conversation is held off the record.) Okay, I think I got it. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to approve Gluckman Mayner Architects on behalf of Laura Weil as amended as follows: To approve a 78x14 foot deck on the seaward side to go no further out than the existing house with a 14x5 foot stairs on the south side of that deck and to approve an enclosure with deck on the east side of the house, which is the road side, which would be approximately 14x29 feet, which would be partial enclosure and partial deck, and with changing this application the way we did, I find it to be consistent with LWRP. Drywells are to be placed to contain roof runoff, gutters, leaders and drywells. And I think that covers it. And it includes an extension of the portion of the second one-story structure. Access well to be removed and filled on landward-- on the east side. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this would be all in accordance with your plans, so we would need new plans showing all that and if you can just do the dimensions on it and show the drywells. MR. CORCORAN: Do you need a motion also for the coastal erosion permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry. Yes. I make a motion -- MR. CORCORAN: You could just say for all those same reasons you find the application to be consistent with the LWRP, based on all those mitigating factors and the revisions to the plans requested and you find it meets the criteria of 111-9. You can incorporate what I just said, if you like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion, what Kieran just said, for coastal erosion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And again, new plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14. Agnieszka Golding on behalf of MARK & PATRICIA LAMPL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new roof pitch over the existing second-floor area, new two-car attached garage, new second-floor deck on waterfront, in place of existing Board of Trustees 55 August 22, 2007 concrete block chimney. Located: 910 The Strand, East Marion. The CAC supports this application with the condition of a pervious driveway. CAC questions the presence of a chainlink fence. However, I'll say there is a pool on the property, so it's probably what the fence is about. LWRP is showing it as exempt because the additions to the existing dwelling is constituting less than 25% of the original structure. However LWRP coordinator does recommend establishing a non-turf, non-disturbance buffer landward of the bluff and requiring gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. I have been to the property and I'll open this up to the floor if anyone has any comments to make on the application. MR. LAMPL: I'm the owner of the property and I have the architect here, Frank Notaro and the Friends of Pebble Beach Association is here to support me if there are any questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a letter that we received on August 22. It comes from Wickham Bressler Gordon and Giasa PC. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm writing to you on behalf of Ms. Nacia Kartzonis the owner of lot 126, adjacent to applicant's property to the west. We ask that you disapprove the request for an extension of the house further into the setback area at a distance of 86 feet from the top of the bluff. This involves construction of a second story deck as well as stoops and steps seaward of the existing residence. The proposal is for a huge increase in the size of the proposed house, approximately double that which is there now, referring to the west elevation before and after. The footprint submitted does not include the setback computation for the 18 inches of roof area and overhang which will extend beyond the footprint of the building. Given the concerns of bluff stabilization and the soil and water report, no basis has been shown to allow the expansion closer to the bluff be allowed. If the applicant needs additional living space, there are areas on the front side of the house which would accommodate it. They have just decided to build a house which is too big for a small lot. We therefore ask that you deny the application based on adverse impact and lack of any showing of need or basis for the variance. That's it. MR. NOTARO: My name is Frank Notaro. We are the architects. We just went to zoning. We sent a letter to zoning reducing the roof overhang, so that it complies. Basically what we are doing is just putting a new roof on the existing structure. It has a side entrance right now. There was an objection to a proposed side entrance. You have to really look at the drawings. And then we are proposing a one-story, two-car garage roadside, which is consistent with many of the homes in that neighborhood. So it is not a substantial change. The reason we are here is because we are within 100 feet of the bluff and we are requesting approval to go ahead Board of Trustees 56 August 22, 2007 with this project. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I went out to the site I verified the measurements on the survey and the measurements are correct. The 86 feet from the top of the bluff to the existing house, puts really the only part of the project that's going on in the back of the house. The stuff in the front is not even in our jurisdiction. It's outside of 100 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the pool existing right now? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The pool is existing. The only question that really comes up as far as what is currently there, is whether or not there is the outdoor shower is already permitted someplace. MR. NOTARO: If I may address that. We were issued a letter at the zoning meeting from the zoning board, from Suffolk County. We had not seen that letter prior to the meeting. It addressed certain recommendations for that site. One was to revegetate under the existing stair going down the bluff. There were a number of issues. What we immediately did is we read it and we had a telephone conference with the Lampl's and they, number one, agreed to remove the shower. The shower is fed by a hose, above ground. There were comments about the backwash for the pool. There is a catch basin. They went through all the approvals on the pool a couple of years ago. As far as the irrigation system, I'll give you copy of the letter that we gave to zoning. It addressed everyone of those items. And we would like, our client would like a copy of some forms regarding homes on the bluff that they mentioned in the letter, and we stated that all in this letter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only part of the project that is in our jurisdiction really is the back side. Essentially what they are doing is taking down the chimney and putting up the second floor, extending out a little of the deck. But nothing really out of the realm of -- you know. The only other issue I had is the dumping of lawn cuttings and stuff on the bluff. That we can't do. That we need to stop. But and the establishment of the non-turf buffer as part of the project and of course drywells and gutters, which I figure you'll do anyway. Are there any other comments from the audience? MR. BIVONA: My name is Anthony Bivona, I'm the present president of the Pebble Beach Lot Owners Association, and we support this permit for reasons that we require in our C&R's that every home have a garage and this is the only house of 108 houses in Pebble Beach that does not have a garage. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response.) Seeing as how all questions seem to be answered, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Board of Trustees 57 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as written, noting that it is exempt from the LWRP, so we find it to be exempt. TRUSTEE KING: Hold on a second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a drywell for the house? MR. NOTARO: We will, when we submit it to the building department -- they require it. TRUSTEE KING: Where is it going to go? I want to just put it on the survey. MR. NOTARO: I have not done the calculation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do it subject to receiving it. TRUSTEE KING: When you get everything done, give us a new plan showing the buffer along the top of the bluff and the location of the drywells for the roof runoff. MR. NOTARO: You'll have it tomorrow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go ahead, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make first the motion to approve the application with the stipulations that we have 15-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff, that it also includes gutters, leaders and drywells, which will be put on the plans that Mr. Notaro will submit to the office tomorrow. And that's it. Everything else is fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we find it exempt under LWRP? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 15, Bill Gorman-North Fork Permits on behalf of GEORGE & NANCY ROSENFELD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4.6x16.5 foot addition to the existing dwelling covering the existing second-floor deck. Located: 160 Rambler Road Ext., Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? We have a review from LWRP, which I'll go into in a minute. And the CAC also has some recommendations. So, would anyone like to speak? MR. GORMAN: I would like to hear your recommendations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. CAC would like a ten-foot non-turf buffer, drywells, gutters, installed to contain roof runoff. LWRP, the inconsistency is due to the house being 72 feet away from the wetlands, the existing home, and that a non-turf, non-disturbance buffer be established landward on the wetland boundary also. And also requires gutters to drywells to contain roof runoff. Board of Trustees 58 August 22, 2007 This is an existing home. Most of the addition, the whole board looked at this-- most of the additions are going within the footprint, and our field notes simply comply with LWRP and CAC. This Board did not discuss the buffer but I did have some reservations about the lawn going right up to the wetlands and I would say probably the 10-foot buffer would come in line with the few cedars that are there and then the mowing went beyond that. So I would request anything beyond those cedars, ten-foot buffer, would not be mowed. Either let it grow back naturally or-- MR. GORMAN: So a ten-foot buffer beyond the cedar trees. Just let it go. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Either cedar trees to the wetland area or from the phragmites landward. MR. GORMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) 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 the wetland permit for George and Nancy Rosenfeld to construct their addition to the existing dwelling, covering the existing second-floor deck and with the addition of drywells and gutters and the ten-foot buffer, which will make this consistent with our LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I have a request for a break, so we'll take a break for five minutes. (After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Patricia Moore on behalf of PERI HINDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x115 foot fixed dock, 3x24 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1255 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck. This is one that Jill and I looked at initially. We had some concerns about the dock being so close to the neighbors. We want it a little further to the south. We need to see it staked out, the seaward end of the float to be staked. Any anything want to add, Pat? It's a different design, new design from what was originally proposed. MS. MOORE: Right. Based on the recommendations that you and Jill Board of Trustees 59 August 22, 2007 provided as to the location of where we should start the dock, we started it, and the dock, the float can either go straight out or it can go on an "L." I don't know why Bob Fox put a little bit of an angle. TRUSTEE KING: I think he did that for the water depth, to maintain deeper water. MS. MOORE: That would make sense. That was the only conclusion I could come to. I can stake this. If you had a different design in mind, I didn't want us spending the money to stake it as it is. Every staking, it's about a $200 bill, so I try to avoid the number of times I do it. In redesigning the dock, it actually changed the dimensions of it. It shrunk it a bit because the location was pushed out further. So. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know how big a boat? We said it was a big boat he was bringing in. Do you know the length? MS. MOORE: I could find out. I think it's over 30 feet, so. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking. We have 20. You have about 21 feet from the corner of the float to this boat that is on the south side of the neighbor's float. Which is not a lot and if you have a 40-foot boat you might start crowding the envelope here as far as the neighbor goes as far as navigation. MS. MOORE: My only concern is if I made it straight, he worried about a tie line and I, you know, so I angled it back. And we shouldn't really have a problem because, you know, we can keep the boat, the back end of the boat out toward the channel. But if you want to us move it over, I'm just concerned about moving it too far over into Browers Woods. As it is, where we had it originally was precisely halfway, exactly midway on our property. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering if it was better straight out with the boat just tied on the south side. That leaves you more room for the neighbors. MS. MOORE: Here I have the drawing. I can give you both drawings. I was concerned that this might be, you know, this was not going to be -- TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to look at it. Personally, I like this design. If you throw a 50-foot boat on there, I think you'll have a problem with the neighbor. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This alternative is, I know you are looking for the depth but I would not want to see it go further out. MS. MOORE: Exactly. So I didn't think that was a good alternative. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, if you bring it all back. TRUSTEE KING: There is a dock to the south, too. Have her stake the outer corners of this float as this was presented and that will give us a good idea. MS. MOORE: That's the one I thought was better. That's fine. The Board of Trustees 60 August 22, 2007 outer both ends or do you want -- TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because it's on an angle. MS. MOORE: Put an "X" on it and I'll give it to Bob Fox. TRUSTEE KING: And we'll look at it next month. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions on this one? (No response.) I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you TRUSTEE KING: And you'll get me a copy of that paperwork? MS. MOORE: I'll drop it off tomorrow. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MS. MOORE: It's not being used against my client, is it? TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't. MS. MOORE: Is the DEC trying to use it for any reason? TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm just looking at a lot of these properties. We might have to charge more because the whole thing is on our property now. MS. MOORE: No, it was deeded over. Sorry, you owe us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 17, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAN JUNGBLUT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x48 foot timber dock, 3.5 feet above grade, 2.5x18 foot ramp and a 6x20 foot floating dock, install eight inch piles and two 10-inch anchor piles. Located: 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and was found inconsistent. It was found inconsistent with the concern that it was, as depicted, it was too close to the property lines on either side. It also would interfere with the neighbor's access to the water. CAC resolved to support the application with the condition the project is staked, the dock and vessel don't exceed more than one-third across the width of the creek, and appropriate materials are used. We went out and looked at this application and we had some concerns about it, because it was such a narrow piece of property as it is. It's a pie-shaped lot going down, so the apex of the lot is toward the water. And this had been looked at previously, there was an application in the past for a dock here and we found in the files the application, was dated June 1, 1994, that is basically, I'm looking at the diagrams of it, and it's close to the same as what has been applied for and at that time it was denied by the Board of Trustees for boater safety reasons, and they felt Board of Trustees 61 August 22, 2007 reasonable access could be made with a stake and pulley assembly into the creek. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MOORE: Yes. I delivered and you should have in your file a reconfiguration. After we had met, my client met with the neighbor Mr. Birnham, and Mr. Birnham had no objection to having the float go over the property line into his waterfront. Mr. Birnham will not be effected whatsoever because he has quite a large bit of waterfront. And so the proposal would be to change the angle of the float which would -- essentially, the boat that he has there now, my client has there now on a mooring, is in approximately the same location as the location of where this float with the boat would be. So it was a good alternative and certainly the property owners, both property owners, my client and Mr. Birnham were in agreement on that. So we submitted that to the Board and you should have it in your file at this point. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have this submitted, date stamped August 20, a letter from yourself, Patricia Moore saying Mr. Birnham consents to the placement of an "L" float extending to the west, and then you attach to that a diagram where you show that "L" shaped at the end of really the catwalk, looks like the catwalk comes down on to what is then the floating dock. And there is also a letter here from Charles Birnham saying as adjacent property owner adjacent to the west side, I consent to allow be Mr. Jungblut to relocate his proposed dock so it extends to a westerly direction, crossing the extension of my property line in Jockey Creek. That's not dated but I'm assuming it's recent. MS. MOORE: It was the same date. I waited until we had that in writing from him. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, and on the plans he also signed and consented to it, and that's dated 8/19/07. MS. MOORE: That's the date. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it appears from these plans that the float, the float, as the new proposal shows, will not extend further than the Warner and Taylor dock. MS. MOORE: Right. It doesn't extend further. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it will be approximately 2.7, between 2.7 and 3.2 two feet of depth. MS. MOORE: Correct. Which will meet the DEC standards. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, the question would be still, it's still the set off on the east side so the Warner-Taylor property, it's still within 15 feet of that property line, and in our code we ask for any docks to be at least, structure, to be at least 15 feet from either property line. Board of Trustees 62 August 22, 2007 MS. MOORE: I understand that. But you have pre-existing size properties and this gentleman, the Warner-Taylor dock and structures and the boat itself, does not conform with your regulations. So we are trying to accommodate with a neighbor who exceeds their waterfront and we are trying to allocate fairly the waterfront of both properties, so -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I remember what we suggested out in the field was to see if Warner and Taylor's would possibly change their "T" to a straight float, you know, and that way one person could leave their boat at one dock and the other person leave the boat at the other. And I know he's a sailboater and that's more difficult. But our problem still is the setbacks on either side of the property are much less than 15 feet. And this is where I need help, Jim. As you extend those property lines out into the water, it becomes even narrower. Do you follow what I'm saying? TRUSTEE KING: If the channel is there, they are supposed to be perpendicular to the channel. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. TRUSTEE KING: He has a mooring now, right? MS. MOORE: Obviously we would abandon the mooring. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has access with a mooring or as per this 1975 request he would have access with a stake and pulley system. MS. MOORE: I just want to place on the record, Mr. Jungblut is here and maybe he could place the reason why he needs to have access. MR. JUNGBLUT: My name is Jan Jungblut. First of all, the original, when you had the stake and pulley system, that was in our application, that was never put in. We had originally applied for a mooring. Since that time, my wife had suffered an injury and it's very difficult for her to climb from a dinghy on to the boat. So one of the reasons we wanted it on a dock is to let her have use of the boat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Before I ask for comments from the Board, are there any other members of the audience who want to comment on this application? (No response.) Seeing none, comments from the Board on this? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's too tight. MS. MOORE: Well, it's really -- think about the application I had right before. You had a right of way of ten feet, and the person had a dock at the end of the tenOfoot right of way. You have a lot of those situations in the town and it should not penalize, just look back at the Hinden application, the one we just had before, it has the adjacent property has a narrow, ten-foot strip of property and they have a dock on it. The reason that it's tight is because actually the waterfront is quite generous over here in Jockey Creek, and we have an unobstructed area to the west where Mr. Board of Trustees 63 August 22, 2007 Birnham has agreed to have us put the float. If we had to angle the float even -- or, not the float, excuse me, the dock, out even more on an angle toward Birnham, Mr. Birnham has no objection because he has about 200 or 300 feet, correct, Mr. Birnham's waterfront is about two or 300 feet in width and he has stairs and access at pretty much at the far end of this property. So we are trying to accommodate, we are trying to make it fair. This is the way the property was designed and it's obvious from the most of the properties here on Jockey Creek that they were designed early on to give everybody waterfront access. So we've tried to come back, based on your comments, we have tried to come back with an alternative, um, we can't assure ourselves that Warner and Taylor are willing to make any changes. We have Mr. Birnham that is certainly agreeable and that is something that we came to you with. If you want us to move it over some more toward Birnham, we have his consent. So. TRUSTEE KING: The previous Board reviewed the application and denied this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's what I entered into the record, that in 1994 they denied it and instead recommended a stake and pulley system MR. JUNGBLUT: Excuse me. That application was from the previous homeowner. That was not our application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But it was the same location. MR. JUNGBLUT: Same property, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we understand that. MS. MOORE: Can you tell when the Warner-Taylor dock was issued, when that permit was issued? Because that's the one that is creating all the problems. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have that in the file here. MS. MOORE: I would ask for that to be included in the record and I'll research it and I'll add it to your record. Because that piece property is creating all the problems. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I don't follow you with that as to how that property is creating problems. I see the problem is that this is a very narrow piece of property. Like I said, it's a pie-shaped lot with the apex going down there. So the Jungblut's have access to the water. They do have access, whether it's a stake and pulley system or a mooring. So the access is there. What you are asking for is a dock and the dock, the dock setback is still, I understand have you taken care of, these are my words, you have taken care of the Birnham side of this, but the Warner-Taylor is still very close to their property line. It doesn't meet the setbacks as per 275 code of there being 15 feet there. MS. MOORE: That is a recommendation. There are circumstances where Board of Trustees 64 August 22, 2007 you have to deviate from the 15 feet depending on the circumstances and what is fair or what is already existing conditions. So I'm suggesting to you that given this property that I wish I had -- we probably have ten feet on the one side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one inch equals 20. MS. MOORE: I have one inch equals 30 on mine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is one inch on equals 20 and this says one inch equals 20. MS. MOORE: Are we looking at the same map? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is 20. This is 30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. One inch equals 30 on that. So that is about half-inch down there. About 15 feet. Let me look at the wetland boundary, it's a little bit more. Looks like it might be 17 feet at the wetland boundary and mean high water, approximately 15 feet. That's the total piece of property width. MS. MOORE: The problem we have is I have a client who has handicap issues. She can't get to her boat anymore. So, as far as getting access to the water, she doesn't have access to the water anymore. We are trying to come up with some alternative that will work and we are willing to listen, if you wanted us to move it over, we can move it over. It's just the mooring doesn't work and the pulley system, she still has to get, the dock still has to give her access to the -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where is the boat now? MS. MOORE: Actually right where the float is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it a Grady White? MS. MOORE: Right, it's moored right in front. If you recall, the boat where it is presently is about where the float is proposed. So as far as taking up room or space, you already have the boat there and it's taking up the same space that our float does. So. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the extent of your disability? MS. JUNGBLUT: I have to have my left leg reconstructed. I have no kneecap and I have very little muscle strength left in that leg. And I'm on disability. MS. MOORE: You are on disability? MS. JUNGBLUT: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? I'm looking for some feelings from the Board on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's too tight but I'm willing to table it and try to come up with some creative solution if we can. I think it's too tight the way it is now, though. I don't know what alternatives there are out there. MS. MOORE: I guess my question is what part of it is too tight? If where the boat is now is where the float is, then it's taking up no more space than what is already taken up. The catwalk itself is not taking up any space, it's -- Board of Trustees 65 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's taking up space. MS. MOORE: Well, I mean, it's inplace there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm also measuring from the proposed new plan, the float, to next door, again, is also 15 feet, so. MS. MOORE: But the issue is the proximity of boats to each other and, as I said, if we stake where the float is, you'll find that it's where the boat is now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not just the boat. It's the structure, too. The proximity the structures next to each other, not just the boat. MS. MOORE: It's going over marsh, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only thing I might suggest, I'm sympathetic to folks with disabilities. I have worked with the disabled in the past. Rather than maybe jump to a snap judgment, maybe we can table this for the moment, see if we can go back out and come up with some kind of alternative and figure something out rather than just say no at this point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what my suggestion was, to table it and think about it. MS. MOORE: Fine, we are happy to entertain whatever creative solutions we come up with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're not guaranteeing we can come up with something, but we'll try. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we could close the hearing and reserve decision, or we could table this. What's the preference of the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Kieran, what do you suggest? MR. CORCORAN: If you are going to do alternatives, I would keep the hearing open. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we keep the hearing open. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll make a motion to table this application of Jungblut on 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Opposed? (NONE OPPOSED.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want the seaward end staked? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Pat, why don't you go ahead with your new plan and stake the seaward end of the float. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next field inspection, I don't know if you were here earlier, it's the 13th. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any chance we can get the neighbor there the day that we come, too? MS. MOORE: Which one? Board of Trustees 66 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As we are looking at the water, on the right-hand side. MR. JUNGBLUT: Do you want him to come here? MS. MOORE: No, if he could be present during the inspection on the 13th. MR. JUNGBLUT: No, he's in the military, he's in the Naval Reserve. He's in Washington until April or something. He comes back on the weekend, so I can have him write you something if you want. MS. MOORE: Do you want him to consider the float relocation? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to see what his opinion is on this and see, perhaps is there something he's welling to do to help you. MR. JUNGBLUT: If I see him this weekend or next weekend and have him agree to waive the layout. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just show him what you plan on doing and have him submit his comments to us in writing. He can E-mail them. MR. JUNGBLUT: Hopefully I'll see him this weekend or next weekend. MS. MOORE: Any time before the next meeting. Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD INC., requests a Wetland Permit to widen and improve an existing 6'-9' access path to a ten-foot paved path for handicap access and construct a 20-foot gazebo. Located: 1500 Brecknock Road, Greenport. The CAC tabled the application because there was no stakes for the gazebo. The construction plans for gazebo is not submitted and location of a pervious path was not included. The LWRP coordinator has found that this application is inconsistent, suggesting that of course hay bales during construction to protect the pond and the Sound, but furthermore its inconsistent because distance of the proposed gazebo from the top of the bluff to the pond is less than 100 feet. Okay. I'll say that I did look at it. As a matter of fact we have all been out there at one time or another. We did pre-inspection as well on this. While I was out there I did take a few measurements and I found that the distance from the high water mark that day, which was last Saturday, to the top of the bluff was 35 feet. There were no stakes at the time as to where the gazebo wanted to go. MR. JUST: They put those picnic tables there and actually knocked my stakes down when they put the benches there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's kind of what I figured. I did note that the coastal erosion line is on that path. So that gazebo would be on the water side of the coastal erosion line. MR. JUST: I got a call from your office about that issue. I asked the surveyor to locate it on the survey for me. When I looked at the coastal hazard erosion may myself the scale was an inch to Board of Trustees 67 August 22, 2007 200. I want to be really specific because we could play around with the location of the gazebo. Hopefully we can get it landward of that line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was really the big question was where the line was. The map I saw up in the Planning Department shows it's actually sitting on top of the pathway. So if it's inside, on the seaward side of the coastal line, we'll have to talk about how we do this and make it a removable structure. And the size, the 20 feet is too large. MR. JUST: That's negotiable, too. To understand what the purpose of the path and gazebo is, I imagine, right. Accessibility. To get down there that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely. Are there any comments from the audience? And questions, comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just have the same concern about the gazebo. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Should we table this until we figure out what the coastal erosion line is? MR. JUST: Most definitely. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to find out with the coastal erosion line is. Get some stakes down there. MR. JUST: I already asked the surveyor to put it on the survey for me so we could determine where it is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I have written here is that, at least according to the code, you are looking at 6x6 at that point, would be acceptable. I realize that is kind of small for a gazebo and really unrealistic if we are talking about folks with walkers or wheelchairs. So I want to be considerate of that because I know what the function here is. The only other thing I might suggest is if maybe you could throw it on the plans is some stationary trash receptacles. MR. JUST: That was one of the reasons for the access road to get the little pick-ups down there to pick up the debris. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's amazing how much blows into that little pond off the Sound there. TRUSTEE KING: The path is going to be paved? MR. JUST: We would like to see it paved. TRUSTEE KING: Can you show drainage for it? MR. JUST: We can amend the plans to show that, sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make the motion we table this until we get a revised plan on it and figure out what the coastal erosion line is. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 19, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH & NORA FLOTTERON requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling, 304 square foot Board of Trustees 68 August 22, 2007 porch, 899 square foot garage, remove portions of existing drive, install new drive, add new retaining walls 140 linear feet, remove existing brick walk 92 square feet and wood retaining walls 61 linear feet, remove decking 86 square feet, abandon and fill existing sanitary system, install a new sanitary system, and regrade property. Located: 595 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue. We all inspected this. The LWRP found it inconsistent. It's within 100 feet. And they recommend to establish a minimum of 30 foot, non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland boundary. Hay bales during construction, gutters, leaders, drywells for roof runoff. CAC supports the application with the condition of gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff, sanitary system is located as far from the wetland as possible and drainage is installed away from the wetlands. We went out there, all of us, and it was not staked. But the plans were, the survey was pretty thorough, so we understood where it was going. Do you have drywells on here? MR. JUST: Yes, there were. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that was our comments in the field, too. Drywells. Are there any comments? MR. JUST: I have the applicant and his contractor and his architect here as well. At this time we would like to know if we could possibly modify the proposal. What the idea was to take the whole structure and slide it back about other ten to eleven feet further landward, putting it at a minimum of 50 feet setback instead of 39 feet setback to meet building code and zoning code. We incorporated drywells into it and gutters. It will move the sanitary system further back from where it is now, probably 125 feet. They want to abandon the existing septic system, pump it out and the new one again will be about 120,125 feet landward. On that proposal shows the septic tank right at the hundred feet. The tank is a little further landward of that. I have copies, revised copies of the plans if you would like to look at them now. If you don't mind, Fred has a map if he could show you of the overlay. If he could bring that up real quick. Because I only have three copies. MR. WEBER: Fred Weber, architect. Do you want a chance to look at for a minute? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please. (Perusing). Do you still have to go to Zoning for the side yard portion of it? MR. WEBER: No. We should not have to. The side yard setbacks are a combined, I think, 35 feet. We have one side is 15. The other side is 20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I notice the other side is 15. The east side portion of it is closer, the stairs and all that. MR. WEBER: You are talking about right here? Sorry. That's, well, Board of Trustees 69 August 22, 2007 that's a retaining wall and the stairs are in grade. They are not really stairs down. The way the side works is this gets pushed back into the hill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's not, -- okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this house coming down completely? TRUSTEE KING: They are actually knocking the house down? MR. WEBER: Yes, I guess so. Basically, um, we are trying to move it back a little bit and get behind the zoning setbacks, which is a required rear yard of 50 feet. The house profile would be exactly the same. It would give us an opportunity to, you know, do work on the foundation. The house was originally built and was renovated once so we were a little concerned as we got into it that we might find things that we needed to repair. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is the existing cesspool? MR. WEBER: There are two small, existing cesspools. They are very lightly highlighted here. They are small. Let's put it that way. MR. JUST: Where is the location of the drywells? MR. WEBER: There are three drywells. There was 1-A, which is just to the, sort of off to the side here. There is another one in the driveway and another one off the corner of the house, right here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1-B, 1-C. I see them. MR. WEBER: If you could see, the way this is, that's the area where the house retreats from, that area that is shaded in or dashed, I guess. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Peggy was just saying is basically if you are going to take down the house, could you redesign it to make it fit a little better so that the piece closest to the wetland would be in line with this addition here. Instead of this "L" it would be -- MR. WEBER: Say that again, now? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Move this section here and put it here. I don't know if it's side yard setbacks. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be no farther than it is already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She is saying move this part even further back and attach it to here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since you are moving the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you understand what we are saying? MR. WEBER: Yes, I guess the more the house retreats back on the site, number one, the angle of view, of the water becomes much less. Right now on this side is a house which is more or less abandoned, that will then become in their front yard. Obviously that could change over time, but right now it's basically an abandoned house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Moving this back, where does it go in line with that house, do you know? MR. WEBER: It's not located on the survey. Board of Trustees 70 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would probably be more in line with it rather than less. Same with either house on either side. It will be more in line than less. MR. WEBER: What you are saying is move the whole body of the house back into here, then you would be looking at that house there. You would also be much further back on the property, which is in a sense shielded. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would take it out of our jurisdiction, that's for sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just moving the house back as proposed is going to help bring it into consistency with the LWRP, so I mean -- TRUSTEE KING: It could be left where it is, but if you are moving it back 15 or ten feet, whatever it is, at least it's an improvement of what is there. It's better than what is there now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with it, with the proposal the way it is. It's an improvement over what is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions, any comments from the audience? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of JMO Consulting on behalf of Joseph and Nora Flotteron as amended. MR. WEBER: There is an amendment date. I think it's August 20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As amended as per survey of August 20, which is basically the same plan but it's reconstructing the house and moving it back ten feet. Which would make it 50 feet back from the wetland line. And this -- TRUSTEE KING: That puts the deck, if the house itself is a little fu rther. MR. WEBER: 50 feet, the existing house is 39. I'm sorry. Existing deck is 39 feet. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm looking at. MR. WEBER: Right. And the proposed, well, the house moved back, again, is 50 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the deck would be 50 feet back, correct? MR. WEBER: Correct, the house would be further back. The house would be another four feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application as amended to reconstruct the house and deck as per plans dated August 20, which brings the whole structure 50 feet back from the wetland line with the new sanitary system, which is out of our jurisdiction and has leaders, gutters and drywells, and with these changes, hay bales, during construction, and silt fence, and with these changes Board of Trustees 71 August 22, 2007 I find this consistent with lWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking where you are going to put the hay bales, on the seaward side. You don't need them up on the side, do you? Hay bales, do you need them up to the side? MR. JUST: I don't really think so. Just straight across the whole property. TRUSTEE KING: Just across the seaward face of the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How about the elevation? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Elevation is six even. TRUSTEE KING: Eight gives them plenty of room. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Elevation eight line. Go straight cross. TRUSTEE KING: Elevation eight, go straight across. MR. WEBER: Okay, we can do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure it's enough room for construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. JUST: How about 30 feet from the wetland line back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 30 feet from the wetland line back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 22, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of JENNIFER B. GOULD requests a Wetland Permit to construct 42 feet of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing bulkhead using C-loc vinyl sheathing. Construct two four-foot returns. Existing wood platform and stairway will be removed then reinstalled after construction of the new bulkhead. Revegetate existing slope where disturbed. located: 1825 Truman's Path, East Marion. CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that the bulkhead replacement is a one-time bump out. The lWRP coordinator has determined that this is inconsistent with lWRP because the bulkhead, retaining walls, revetments and gabions should only be inplace replacement of existing functional bulkhead and they should not project the structure seaward of the adjacent neighboring structures. Now, I will say I was out there and I saw this and I know if you don't, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, if you don't build in front of this, you'll lose the house. MR. COSTEllO: You could. What you'll be doing is you'll be disturbing some polluted materials behind the existing creosoted bulkhead. There are aeromatic hydrocarbons behind the bulkhead that we would rather not have go out into the water, and I believe that the, environmentally, this would be the most consistent way, Board of Trustees 72 August 22, 2007 and it would be unable to excavate properly. We'll have to excavate by hand, shovel by hand, in order to install helical screw anchor piling into that -- it's a little bit of a steep bluff, within a 20-foot reach of the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I went out there. There was storm damage there. The only thing that I did suggest on my inspection was no CCA on the platform and revegetate with native plantings. MR. COSTEllO: We'll revegetate because we'll disturb some of the vegetation by digging by hand. This bulkhead was built after one of the hurricanes in the '50s. It was built by Ralph D. Preston. I was part of that company, but not at that time. And it's just old and deteriorated. So is the jetty, but the jetty is functional. It has one hole in it that could be patched, but it's not affecting the little drift to any major degree, so it's irrelevant. The beach on both sides are both equal so, the only thing is, on the reconstruction, the stairs right now, that the stairs are reconstructed and held up with 4x4 posts. Probably on the completion, where you have a stronger piling, you can just do it counter-levered without intruding the two posts on to the beach. That's all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response.) Pretty straight forward. In that case I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as written. And for the reasons that we previously discussed concerning the possibility of collapsing the bluff all together, we are putting the new bulkhead in front of the old one in order to keep it so we won't lose the bluff. That would make it consistent with lWRP. So I make a motion to approve that application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 23, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PAULA DIDONATO & JUDY TEEVAN requests a wetland permit to remove existing 4x4'8" cantilevered platform for existing floating seasonal docks to allow construct of 1 06 feet of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing bulkhead using C-loc 9900 vinyl sheathing. Remove existing eight foot east return and construct a Board of Trustees 73 August 22, 2007 20-foot return inplace. Reinstall cantilevered platform after bulkhead construction. located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. This was found inconsistent under the lWRP and the reason for the inconsistency is because the proposed action projects seaward of the existing wood bulkhead. The CAC went out there and saw it and they resolved to support the application with the condition existing buffer is enhanced to increase the total width of the buffer to ten feet. I have an extra set of plans here. Here is another plan, if anybody would like to see it. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting. Again, we are the applicant's agent, Paula Didonato and Judy Teevan, and I'll try to answer any questions the Board may have on this application. In order to minimize the distance going out, we'll remove, we have room to excavate so we can relieve some of the earthen pressure and remove the older pilings to try to keep it to a minimum. That's alii have. TRUSTEE KING: John, I'm looking at the survey. It looks like that bulkhead is well inside the property line, so even if you go out in front, you are still on their property. MR. COSTEllO: Yes. But we are still, it's not going to deviate, it's not going extend out if we do remove the piling. It's less fill. TRUSTEE KING: It will still be inside their property line. MR. COSTEllO: Yes. Now, one of the things, there was a little bit of confusion on, I believe, was the return. At one time, the distance of the return. The east return goes over the property line. My son had discussions with the neighbor and they want to know if they could leave the old in there and without excavating it. He would rather not have his property disturbed any more than possible. So the new return will be angled straight back and on this gentleman's property so that it doesn't protrude across the property line. That's where the confusion was. TRUSTEE KING: So you are planning on keeping it within the property. MR. COSTEllO: Right. We'll do it in two sections, an eight foot section, then angle it and keep it within this property. Eight and 12. Instead of angling it to 20 the way it was. You'll see, we tried to define that more clearly on, I believe it's page eight. The last page, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as per the plan on sheet eight of eight is what you are talking about. MR. COSTEllO: Yes, there was confusion on it and we added that page, to hopefully -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is also the support, apparently the tree Board of Trustees 74 August 22, 2007 committee supports the application for the bulkhead to go in front so as to help protect that willow tree that is there. They are hoping that willow tree will remain there throughout this project MR. COSTEllO: The owner of the property wants it to remain, too, and we'll keep that tree there somehow. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There were two other conditions that we had. One, there appeared to recently have been a roof runoff project done where the runoff was going down slightly underground and exiting right near the top of the bulkhead from the roof of the house and so what we are looking for is, with this project, a drywell installed to catch that roof runoff rather than the roof runoff being sent down toward the bulkhead. The second issue we have is that apparently there is a very large drainage pipe at one end of the property, I guess the west end of the property, that is handling the runoff from the road, and as a result of this project, that pipe will have to be capped. In other words, we are not going to give permission with the installation of this bulkhead to include that runoff to be continuing in that direction. So we realize that is going to create an issue for the Highway Department and so that's an issue that has to be addressed. And we'll bring that to the attention of the Highway Department. If, I don't want to jump ahead here. If the Board approves this project, it's going to create an issue for the Highway Department. Just you need to about know as the applicant that you don't have permission to redraw a hole and put that pipe through there. It's not going to be any street pipe running through there. MR. COSTEllO: If that's the condition we certainly would not and it's good that it is brought to the attention of the Highway Department because this town and particularly the Trustees have been trying to correct road runoff and this is an area that doesn't need anymore pollution. And the drywell, the owner will contain all the material because we will be bringing in some clean fill so that hopefully that the drywell would be functional. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As a said note I did speak to Peter Harris today and talked to him about this particular site and at our next storm water runoff meeting this will be the subject, not just this site, but other sites like this, and I explained the situation here with permitting this and that has been closed off. So he's aware of it and we'll be discussing it in the near future. MS. TEEVAN: Yes, my name is Judy Teevan, I'm one of the property owners. I wanted to be, make a comment about the French drain that is there. This was basically within the last couple of weeks, so the Costello folks have not been involved in this at all, but we had a new roof put on over one of the rooms and a skylight's lights Board of Trustees 75 August 22, 2007 replaced, and the roofer made the recommendation because water was coming into the Florida room that we have the French drain put in. Which we didn't intend to do anything wrong, but that was put it. What we did at this point is actually cut those pipes so we are not draining that water any longer. So our hope would be if we could avoid putting a drywell in because, one, we don't know how to do that without probably disrupting the willow tree again, given the layout of the yard, which I know you all saw. So we basically made that French drain defunct at this point. We could bring photos and whatever. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I appreciate what you have done but still it has not revolved the runoff issue. In other words, what you are doing now is the water is just running down and taking a leader to the ground and it's that's it. MS. TEEVAN: We basically restored the property as it has been forever and ever and since we bought the house and before. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. What we are trying to do, and you may have heard it already in some applications tonight, is in order to mitigate the effects of runoff from the roofs is that in every project we are considering we are also directing people to put in drywells to take care of the roof runoff. So what we are asking for that one, that corner in particular, to make sure there is a drywell for that. I know there was a note on here as to whether or not, from the environmental technician, whether there was a drywell for the pool backwash already. Is there one of those presently? MS. TEEVAN: I'm not aware if there is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drywell doesn't have to go in that area. know you are limited on your side. But wherever you can put it. MS. TEEVAN: I have to definitely look into it. I don't know what the regulations are in terms of how close to the property, neighbors property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could we be we are talking one drywell could take care of the pool as well as the roof at the same time in that back area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You just have to pipe everything to that drywell. MR. COSTEllO: let me assure Ms. Teevan, the excavated area of the yard, the one area we were going to put in the proper backing system, certainly will be where we would accommodate the roof runoff and the backwash. There is no additional cost. It's one piece of flexible pipe. It will cost me about $30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The first two-inch rain we get, the road is going to flood and everyone is going to be calling up with a problem. MR. COSTEllO: You are right. And I think that the meeting on site and try to coordinate it, or whatever it going to be done by the Board of Trustees 76 August 22, 2007 Highway Department together prior to doing this job, I think would be helpful. I certainly would not want to replace the bulkhead and plug it up because I would hate to have one of the neighbors have problems in their house, any of them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other discussion, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello marine on behalf of Paula Didonato and Judy Teevan, at 325 Willow Point Road, with the conditions that it meets page eight of eight of the plans dated stamped July 25, 2007, with regard to the east return; that the drainage pipe from the public roadway that is currently going through the bulkhead will be cut and cut off with installation of the new bulkhead; that there will be a drywell installed to handle the backwash from the pool as well as the roof runoff on that back side of the house. That looks like everything. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 24, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of JilL & CAROL RIDINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10x10.25 foot extension to the existing wooden deck. Construct 3x104 foot fixed dock with cross over stairway to beach. Install two 1Q-inch diameter mooring pilings. Remove existing wing retaining wall. Construct 116 feet of new five-foot high retaining wall. Backfill area behind retaining wall with clean trucked in soil, approximately 50 cubic yards, and revegetate with Cape American Beach grass planted 12-inches on center. Repair existing stairway up bank as needed inplace. Install concrete catch basin at top of bank on southwest corner of property. located: 805 West Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, Costello Marine. We are the agent for Jill and Carol Ridini on this project. I'm sure the Board will have questions and I'll do my best to try to attempt to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. CAC supports the extension to the deck using appropriate materials. CAC does not support the fixed dock because there are no other docks in the area. CAC also questions the need for a five-foot high retaining wall and the size of the catch basin and whether or not it's appropriate to stop Board of Trustees 77 August 22, 2007 erosion. This is inconsistent with lWRP. It's quite an extensive report. The proposed setback distance for the proposed wood deck to the bulkhead is zero feet; the proposed new retaining wall to the existing bulkhead is 12 feet; catch basin is undetermined feet from the bulkhead. The proposed dock is inconsistent with lWRP since the proposed dock is located in Cutchogue Harbor, which is a New York State designated significant fish and wildlife habitat area. It goes on for three or four pages about the dock. Correspondingly, the lWRP doesn't support the construction of private docks and recommends alternatives which one being mentioned is the mooring of boats. The entire Board looked at this and I believe the entire Board had no problems with replacement of the bulkhead but there was questioning on the need for the retaining wall. We felt that the bluff area was fully revegetated. We also didn't -- so I'll just say there were, I won't speak for the full Board. I'll just say there were questions as to the other structure. Jim do you want to speak to the retaining wall? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I looked at that bluff. The previous owner clear cut the whole bluff. That was the problem. There is no vegetation there now. What was growing is stumps this big in diameter was cut right off at ground level. That's what caused the erosion problems there. It's really coming in nice. There is no need for a retaining wall there. MR. COSTEllO: The last application I believe we made, we were talking about two smaller retaining walls in tiers. And we reduced it to the one single one. And you will see that the material that is on this bluff, basically, is a soft, sandy material. And the previous owner did clear cut most of the larger vegetation off this cliff. I don't know what the vegetation was. I had not seen the site at that time. But they did replant it with some beach grasses. And it's still steep. And by terracing it, dividing it into half, terracing it and picking up a little bit of elevation, you'll be able to revegetate it and keep the vegetation better. If you looked at the site recently you'll see there has been some vegetation, because of the soft soil, slipping and moving toward the west. The property angles slightly and it's sandy material and it does erode and it does erode down to the bulkhead. But by terracing it, I think it would probably be much easier to plant. It's behind an existing bulkhead and we had, I believe, we got last meeting, the Board dropped the dock out of it, did not want the two terracing in it and approved the bulkhead portion of the project. So by taking one of the terracings out and putting in a single five-foot high terracing, the contour of that little cliff with Board of Trustees 78 August 22, 2007 sand, it would just be easier to maintain. That's all. That addresses only the retaining wall portion of the project. That's all. And if you could see, it is the whole property runs down hill to the west and there is, the only area there that is losing and scouring out fill, and it's running over the bulkhead, is toward the west end. You know, that's the reason for designing the terracing in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know if there are gutters, leaders and drywells on that house? MR. COSTEllO: I believe the house has a drywell and we were going to put in an additional one to try to cut the flow of water off heading to the west. You know, try to accumulate some of it off TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is with the catch basin? MR. COSTEllO: Yes. It's sandy material that will percolate the water down if you let it. It's just that the slope of the cliff is a little steep and the beach grass and rooting of the beach grass is just sliding the material, the soft material is sliding down, that's all. I could show you photographs but I believe they were sent as part of the package. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the feeling for the dock retaining wall? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we start with the retaining wall. I have no problem, excuse me, at the time I thought the vegetation would take care of the issue. I didn't see a need for a retaining wall there. Particularly with the installation of this catch basin will help to keep any water from coming down there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not in favor the retaining wall. I think the bluff is pretty stable and it's vegetated and there is a lot of big stump areas that will have to be removed to build a wall. There is a lot of stuff there now, it's in pretty good shape. I was all up through there, it's tough to even get through it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When we were there, it was quite thickly vegetated already. MR. COSTEllO: If you look at the photographs that were submitted, some areas has patches of heavy vegetation and down near the bulkhead you'll also see where the sand is moving down off that bluff and killing the vegetation. So there is movement of sand. That's the reason to try to advocate the terracing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What the applicant showed us when we were there, he was particularly concerned from the, we'll call it the top of the beach house that is this, gazebo, to the west. MR. COSTEllO: That's the worse. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm wondering if there is an opportunity to just consider a retaining wall for that part rather than all the way along the property. Because I know Jim, what you looked at was on the other side where we had the stumps and it could be the vegetation will take care of that whole area. And this way it will Board of Trustees 79 August 22, 2007 address the steepest part of the property. TRUSTEE KING: There was a problem where the stairs are and behind the little cabana. You know, that's something to think about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that something the applicant might think about? MR. COSTEllO: I'm sure they would. let me just point out a couple of things. It's probably in the photograph. With each of the packages. You'll see, particularly on this photograph, there was more fill up on this concrete wall. You are starting to see footings exposed and whatnot. What's happening is this is migrating down to the beach. It's migrating. It's soft sand. The only thing, why to put the terracing in, any agree of terracing, with the height, whether it's fight foot or whatnot, is to try to cut this sharp slope. That's all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are these photos dated here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is when we first went out last winter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is lot more vegetation on both sides. MR. COSTEllO: They have been planting it. TRUSTEE KING: Nothing was planted. I walked through there. MR. COSTEllO: This sand is moving down. TRUSTEE KING: It looks a lot different now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to propose then, that we only at this time approve the retaining wall from that, I'll call it a beach house or beach bungalow to the west. You know, from the stairs that go down where we saw there was some dropping off there on the west edge of the property. That's their biggest concern. That's to the west edge of the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So from here, behind here, and behind this side, toward that. TRUSTEEBERGEN:Yu~ TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not on this side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How wide is that building, John? MR. COSTEllO: I think it's eight feet. I'm not sure. I have it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So make it ten feet in. TRUSTEE KING: Where would that retaining wall be in relation to the back of the bungalow; even with the back of the bungalow? MR. COSTEllO: It would be midway to the bungalow back. It shows on the drawing on page four of ten. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh. I was just going to go back to here. (indicating.) I'm sorry. MR. COSTEllO: It's just on that one side. That's where the worst of the erosion is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's just shy of 60 feet. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll go one terrace behind the building, all the way across. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's about 58 feet. Yes, from the stairwell to the west. To the property line. Which is approximately 58 feet. Board of Trustees 80 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Starting behind the building. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Starting from, my understanding is what we saw was behind this building on either side, this was dropping off also. So I'm saying from the stairwell we'll address what was dropping off from that stairwell over. TRUSTEE KING: Could we just write against the back of the building. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's only where I saw it eroding was behind the building, the beach house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the side where they said it was getting really bad. That's where they are putting the catch basin also. I would recommend this entire length. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if you remember, when we were out this last time that was not as grown in as the other side. MR. COSTEllO: This is going from this point on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That area was not growing in like the other area did. MR. COSTEllO: Only because that's where the water will run, the excess water that doesn't percolate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with doing that one side with a retaining wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, what's your feeling on this? Is that okay with you? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it's fine with me. I would rather have that then have erosion and the whole thing. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any problems behind the building. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we are saying plus or minus 58 behind the building. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just say west side of the stairs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it south or west? Yes, west of the existing stair. Okay, how about -- MR. COSTEllO: That would leave that 12 foot non-turf buffer in front of it anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the Board's feeling on the catch basin? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with the catch basin. MR. COSTEllO: We could put that on the top on that corner, on page four of ten. It shows a catch basin. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. We're just checking. Remove existing ring retaining wall. That's this one. What's the purpose of increasing the size of the deck? Doesn't the deck sit on top of that beach house? MR. COSTEllO: Just the people want a deck. That's where they would congregate. It's in the non-turf buffer area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's existing now. MR. COSTEllO: There is a deck existing. This is, I believe, it is just -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, the lower deck, by the beach house. Okay. Board of Trustees 81 August 22, 2007 (Perusing.) What's the original size? MR. COSTEllO: I think the original size was approximately, it's going to be moved slightly to the west. It's similar in size. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's an addition to the west. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Of a deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A 10x10 addition. MR. COSTEllO: The reason for moving the deck and enlarging it slightly was to put it in line with what they were being proposed as the dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: let me ask the Board, what's your feeling on the dock? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went on record last time on this and I'll remain the same. I have no problem with this requested dock. There are two docks immediately to the, I call it the south, but I guess it's also technically the west there. This proposed dock is less structure than the dock immediately to the southwest. It doesn't extend as far as out into the water as that one does so it does not impede navigation. There were proposed stairs on this dock as, I recall, so public access along the beach would be maintained. This is not an area that has eel grass on the bottom. It's a sandy area. There has been a suggestion that a mooring be placed out front. That entire area, in my opinion, as someone familiar with that area, is not safe to moor a boat because it's fully exposed to anything from the northeast to in particular the southeast. And that gets very, very nasty in there in the southeast. So because there is docks immediately in the area, because it would not impede navigation in any way, because public as access is not impeded, it doesn't visually impair the shoreline, since there are two docks already there, in my opinion, I'm in favor of this application for this dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll repeat my feelings from the last time the dock came in that I feel this is in a pristine area. We have said over and over that pre-existing docks, pre-existing houses doesn't give reason to permit a new structure. lWRP has about five pages with stated reasonings for this dock not being there, and the most relevant one is that it's in the New York State designated significant fish and wildlife habitat area. So my feelings for this would be to not accept the dock or the deck that would then step down to it. So, that's my feelings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to address that last part of the lWRP, the significant habitat area begins at approximately the Cedar Creek or Cedar Beach area and extends to the entrance to Wickham Creek that is two properties away. I don't know how many miles of coastline that is. This is technically in the significant wildlife habitat area, it is by maybe 300 feet. So it's right at the border of it. I'm agreeing, it's technically in the area. Absolutely, it's Board of Trustees 82 August 22, 2007 technically in the area. But it's, in a our coast line of many miles, it is by 300 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of the other considerations we have discussed in the past and will be continuing to discuss the possibility of certain areas of pristine shoreline to be considered for no docks and the two existing docks to the southwest, you know, may have been done in the past but again we have changed our outlook on structures and size of structures and where structures should be. And probably ten, not even 20, but ten years ago, five years ago, these were permitted and they are not what we are looking at now. MR. COSTEllO: Could you tell me, what is the detriment of the dock, the negativity of the dock? I mean -- because there is no eel grasses here. There is shifting sand. There is minimal vegetation, if any, on the bottom. There are docks. This is not a pristine area. It's not a pristine area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would disagree with that. Because there is only those two docks and it's pristine from there over to Cedar Beach. MR. COSTEllO: That takes the pristineness out of it when you put structures there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mud Creek, you mean. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Horseshoe Cove TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with Dave. I agree with approving this dock for the reasons he stated. There is also a concern when we talk about where do you stop the dock. I think in this area, um, you could stop it because as you go further down, it's a couple of properties down, then there is public access for the association. And I would stop it there because that would impede the public access use of that beach. This area does not have public access except for just to walk along the foreshore which there's stairs for people to go across that. And not that this matters but just to note that there was a dock there years ago. There had been a dock there before. Not that that has any bearing on the decision that we make. I just wanted to note that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, we would we used to use asbestos, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying, a dock worked there before. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This dock is between the other two, right? MR. COSTEllO: No, it's just to the east of it. I have been building docks for a considerable amount of time but let me tell you, this is the smallest dock that has ever been designed by either my company or me. In order to minimize the impacts. It's three feet wide. I mean we I are trying to use whatever materials you desire. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I compliment you. Because you are very Board of Trustees 83 August 22, 2007 environmentally conscious. And what you do, I give credit for always keeping the environment in mind. I just disagree with this position. MR. COSTEllO: By keeping the environment in mind you also tend to get more approvals in doing that, too. We are all getting smarter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why my comments that there is less structure with this dock than there is with the dock to the southwest. TRUSTEE KING: If you have a mooring, it's not a structure. I would rather see a mooring than a dock. You have to say no some times to stop it. I think if you do one, you have to do another one and other one along the line. That's my feeling. I think it's more appropriate to put a mooring out in front. As far as the weather goes I think the mooring is safer in bad weather than a dock. The boat turns into the wind and hangs off the mooring then you get beat up into a dock, then you need tie off poles and you need all this other structure to keep the boat from hitting the dock and on and on it goes. I don't see an advantage to the dock to anybody except the property owner. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you have the other two docks there. This dock will be a little bit shorter. Um, I agree with Jim, there comes a point you have to figure out where you have to say no. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm ready to make a motion. Are there any other comments? (Negative response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to give Mr. Costello the opportunity to separate this out again, unless you would like me to make a motion as to the entire application. MR. COSTELLO: I certainly appreciate that opportunity but I think I would rather wait until at least the Board votes on it one way or the other. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to make a motion on this entire application as it is. I would make a motion to deny the application for a Wetland Permit to construct the deck, dock, retaining wall, concrete catch basin, due to the fact that part of this application would impose on the New York State Designated Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. It is inconsistent through the lWRP. CAC also has major concerns or did not support the fixed dock. And it questioned the five-foot retaining wall and size of the catch basin. Its only support was for the extension to the deck. That would be my motion to leave this inconsistent with lWRP and to deny this application without prejudice TRUSTEE KING: You want to deny the whole thing, Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, I was offering Mr. Costello the choice. Board of Trustees 84 August 22, 2007 Because he wants to wait for a vote. I implied that because -- TRUSTEE KING: He'll have a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that. MR. COSTEllO: I represent the property owner so it's difficult for me to make a decision of that kind without consulting them. TRUSTEE KING: Would you make a motion to approve partial motion for the drywell? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I offered. He said he wanted to wait for the vote. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second on Peggy's the motion? If not, the motion is off. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't either, Jim, and I would be happy to do that. But Mr. Costello wants a vote on the entire application as it stands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is no second, we could redo a motion, right? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. The motion goes down. MR. CORCORAN: Someone can offer a motion to approve certain aspects of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you like me to reword my motion? MR. COSTEllO: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll rescind that motion. I'll make a motion to approve a Wetland request to construct 58 feet, plus or minus, of a new five foot high retaining wall west of the stairs, backfill area behind retaining wall with clean trucked in soil. I don't know if you could keep it at approximately 50 cubic yards, and revegetate with Cape American Beach Grass planted 12-inches on center; repair existing stairway up bank as needed in place and install cash basin on top of the bank on southwest corner of property. located 805 West Road in Cutchogue. Do I have a second to approve the retaining wall as stated? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So now I make a motion to deny the request to construct a 10x10.25 extension of existing wooden deck, construct a 3x104 fixed dock with cross over stairway to beach. Install two 1O-inch diameter mooring piles and remove existing -- and that's it. That was a motion to deny the deck and a dock at 805 West Road, Cutchogue. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have a role call vote. Board of Trustees 85 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I said nay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The motion failed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we table the decision on the dock and see it again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the reason for seeing it again? We have the pictures and the stake was out there. So we saw -- I mean, I'm just, you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a pretty intense discussion. I don't know, I just want to get another feel for it. If the rest of the Board is satisfied with that -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm happy to go take another look. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that, then. We are tabling the dock portion to re-inspect TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: How much experience have you had with these, they look like a fishing pole that holds the boat off the dock? MR. COSTELLO: Probably installed 20 or 30 of them. TRUSTEE KING: Do they work? MR. COSTEllO: On certain size boats. TRUSTEE KING: I saw one it's good for up to a 30,000 pound boat. That's a big boat MR. COSTEllO: No, we haven't had much luck. Because the bases break off. But smaller boats, maybe up to 28 feet, 30 feet, at the most. Light boat. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We use them on our 23-foot boat. They work well. Mooring whips they are called. MR. COSTEllO: They only go to a certain size though, at present. That's, we use the biggest for the smallest boat and they work quite well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I make a suggestion. We have some people sitting in the back of the room, I don't know where they are on the list. But if there is an opportunity -- which application are you here for? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We wanted to object to one part of a request for an application. The Holman application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's two away. Okay. Why don't we do Holman next to help them out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll skip to number 26, Costello Marine on behalf of BUD HOLMAN requests a Wetland permit to remove 140 feet and Board of Trustees 86 August 22, 2007 16 feet of west return of existing bulkhead and replace inlike, inplace using C-loc vinyl sheathing; remove remains of existing retaining walls and construct 130 feet of new retaining wall inlike, inplace; backfill void areas behind new bulkhead with 200-250 cubic yards of clean trucked in soil. Revegetate graded areas with Cape American Beach Grasses. Backfill and regrade area behind new retaining wall with 50 cubic yards of clean trucked in soil. Revegetate disturbed areas with Beach Plum or Bayberry. Remove and replace inlike, inplace existing stairway from top of bank to base of bank and stairway from retaining wall to existing wooden deck. Construct new three foot seasonal stairway from top of bulkhead to beach to replace destroyed and missing existing stairs. Install one new piling at offshore end of existing middle jetty and replace existing 4x6 inch top wale. located: 350 Park Avenue, Mattituck. The lWRP finds this exempt because it's being replaced inplace. CAC supports the application with the condition of non-treated lumber used on the stairs; a ten-foot, non-turf buffer is installed along the top of the bluff and no repair work is conducted on the middle jetty. Our comment in the field was also on the middle jetty. We found it was pretty much non-functional and we did not want to see the repair work on that middle jetty. Then the bulkhead itself, no evidence of remains of existing retaining wall. I'm just trying to read it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We couldn't find any secondary retaining wall in there. Anywhere. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought Jim did. Eventually he went in there and found it. Didn't you? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Remember, it went up from here and it was all the way up. MR. COSTEllO: If you look at some of the photographs that were submitted -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It did not have the retaining wall, but this one did. And we found it is. At first we didn't. Then Jim went up in there and they found some remains of it. Whether it was functional or not is a different story. So I don't know if we had a problem with that retaining wall. And the bulkhead was already bumped out at one time. MR. COSTEllO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any reason why it can't be replaced where the original bulkhead was, put it back in within 18 inches? MR. COSTEllO: It's just a cost item. You know, you would have to do a lot of excavating. There is so much of the second bulkhead that is practically nonexistent. They are like broken off and Board of Trustees 87 August 22, 2007 rotted off at ground level. So I mean you would have to do a little excavating to get that out of there. The front bulkhead was in tact until last winter's storms. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This bulkhead as it is now is in line with the neighbors. In line on one side and behind on the other, I think. Just another, note, too, if you could pass on to the applicant, he's dumping his grass clippings down the bank. He has to stop that and probably remove the grass clippings and replant. MR. COSTEllO: I think the guy who he hired to mow the lawn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has to pass that on. That's ruining the bank as well. Are there any comments from the audience or Board? (No response.) MR. COSTEllO: I would like to make one or two comments on it. We will be taking out, the entire bulkhead that was there, the offshore bulkhead that was there, was all CCA. The new bulkhead will not. It will be all vinyl sheathing. The jetty, which the comment was that it was a non-functional jetty, the middle jetty; there is no holes in it. It is probably the most functional of most jetties on that beach because of its low elevation. It's filled on both sides and it goes over the top of it. All the sheathing is in tact. The only recommendation I made to the owner at the time was just by adding one pile at the end, whether it's structural or not, would make the visibility of that jetty a little more visible, because it's only six inches out of the beach at times. And that's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with you as far as part of the jetty is functional, the landward part. But we have a picture here that shows the rest of it that doesn't look functional to me. The part that is in the water at low tide. If you want to look at the pictures, I could show you the portion I'm talking about. (Perusing.) I agree that this part is functional because the sand is covering it, but from here out, it's not. MR. COSTEllO: Okay, the functionality of this jetty is ideal because of the lowness. That's all. That's fine. The beach is not jeopardized. But other, they are all too high. TRUSTEE KING: This other jetty. It's tremendous. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would rather see nothing be done with that and leave it as it is. If you want to take off the non-functional portion and take that out while you are there doing the work on the bulkhead, that would be helpful. MR. COSTEllO: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was going to say putting in a new pile at the end of the non-functional pile, what purpose would that serve? MR. COSTEllO: Just so somebody doesn't run into it skiing, that's all. Because its not visible at certain times. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That could be done with a Clorox bottle and line. Board of Trustees 88 August 22, 2007 MR. COSTEllO: It's a nice beach to ski, too, because some of the adjoining beaches you can't ski to because the water goes to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: The jetty to the east is starving the next door neighbor and it's really a big difference there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would this other gentlemen like to comment? MR. CORIERI: My name is Dave Corieri, I'm the property owner to the east of the Holman property. This goes back a long way. Did you get my package that I dropped off on Friday? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. CORIERI: I gave you the old DEC permit. Anyway, alii ask is that you do not do anything to the middle jetty. There is hardly any sand on our beach. If there was another structure built, just to the west us, I would have even less sand in front of our beach. That jetty doesn't go out as far as the other two jetties, so there no problem with skiers or anything. That jetty goes out 48 feet. The other two are 54. That jetty is in, and from the picture I showed you, all it is is just sticks. So if you take that under consideration, don't hold up any other part of the bulkhead, he needs it repaired, but please consider not doing that. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board or anyone else? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Bud Holman for a permit to remove 140 feet and 16 foot of west return of existing bulkhead and replace inlike inplace with C-loc vinyl sheathing, remove remains of existing retaining walls and construct 130 new retaining wall inlike, inplace; backfill void areas behind new bulkhead with 200 to 250 cubic yards of clean, trucked in soil. Revegetate graded areas with Cape American Beach Grasses. Backfill and regrade area behind new retaining wall with 50 cubic yards of clean, trucked in soil, revegetate disturbed areas with Beach Plum or Bayberry. Remove and replace inlike, inplace existing stairway from top of bank to base of bank and stairway from retaining wall to existing wooden deck. Construct new three-foot seasonal stairway from top of bulkhead to beach to replace destroyed and missing existing stairs. This is not to include the piling at the end of the jetty. And not a cap. I do request that the non-functional portion of the jetty be removed while you are there doing construction. It's kind of hard to tell what the footage is, but from low tide, from the point of low tide seaward to be removed. Board of Trustees 89 August 22, 2007 We find this exempt from, by not doing that, we find this exempt from lWRP because everything else is being replaced inplace, and also we would like to put a buffer at the top of the bank so the lawn is not right up to the bank. And did you take a picture of that? CAC is asking for a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. I think that is probably sufficient. I think they have plenty of lawn there, don't they? MR. COSTEllO: They do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a ten-foot, non-turf buffer on the top of that. That's my motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 25, Costello Marine on behalf of WICKHAM BUNGALOW EAST, llC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct 148 foot of rock revetment consisting of 1-1.5 ton rock on 25-50 pound hardcourse stone foundation and filter cloth base. Revegetate areas disturbed with Cape American Beach Grass. located: 4787 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that the entire area from the house to the bluff is revegetated except for a delineated path to the beach. And the grasses should be maintained and/or replaced until fully developed. lWRP finds this application would be consistent with lWRP. Construction of a hard structure is beyond practical design, consideration is essential in protecting the principal use. The proposed hard structure erosion measures are limited to minimal scales necessary based on sound engineering practices. Practical vegetative methods have been included in the project design and implementation and adequate mitigation is provided to maintain to ensure there is no adverse impact to adjacent property or natural coastal processes. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this application? MR. COSTEllO: Yes, my name is John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agents for the Wickham Bungalow East llC and we were the agents for both adjoining properties. And it was the same, similar design to the joining properties, was allowed by this Board and we are just going to an area that has the least amount of erosion to the northeast, with the same structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I see the plan, please. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, what do you do at the end of the 148 feet to bring it back down gradually? Do you just abruptly stop or -- MR. COSTEllO: No, the height of the rocks, because of the elevation Board of Trustees 90 August 22, 2007 of the bank will be less and less in quantity as you go to the northeast. It's not necessary. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We saw this from the water side when we were out in a boat that Dave was driving. MR. COSTEllO: As far as the CAC's recommendation on planting, you'll see that there is very little or any planting except for some American Cape Beach Grass in the area. They tried to plant it before. It eroded away. After we put the revetment in we'll replant it with American Cape Beach Grass. Hopefully it will re-stabilize. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you know, the property to the northeast, how long the beach front is on that? In other words, from the creek, I'm looking for the length from -- MR. COSTEllO: I can't recollect. I think each one was, one was 150 and one was 126. But I'm not, but they were permitted, I believe at the last hearing -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: She's asking from this property line to Wickham Creek. MR. COSTEllO: Oh, to Wickham Creek. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Change the elevation down. MR. COSTEllO: It doesn't show on the survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What would happen if you just changed the slope and did your plantings on there? MR. COSTEllO: In above normal tide it would just take a little bit of the sand. Most of that is sand that was pumped up there through dredging processes on the entrance. It would just start scoffing out a little bit at a time. Evidently, the slope of the beach, you are finding to the northeast, is doing less scouring because of the shoalness and the waves are losing their energy running up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm looking at elevation eight. Where does that drop down at the next property? I don't know -- I know you didn't survey that, again, to the northeast. We are looking to where, because on this property the elevation pretty much stays the same but as you go northeast the elevation goes down towards the creek opening. MR. COSTEllO: It almost goes down to two or three foot elevation. I believe you have the same photographs. This photograph here, there is no need, because of the shallowness of the beach, the wave energy is running up and losing all its energy on the beach itself. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When Jim and Peggy are concerned with are having this go all the way to the end of the property line. MR. COSTELLO: Maybe bring it into the bank. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe bring it into the bank and lower. MR. COSTEllO: It will be lower. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but to the extent you have it, I think I would rather see it in front of the house, building there, but not Board of Trustees 91 August 22, 2007 to the extent your are going northeast. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can tell you, because I'm very, very, very familiar with this property. That the elevation at the northeast end is not the same, in other words, I don't know that it's eight foot elevation, but it's probably about five foot elevation. It was, approximately two feet of elevation, two to three feet before the storm. Now it's probably five feet of elevation going down there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we should go back and do some measurement and see where the elevation is now. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take another look, walk the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also know that the owner of the property has pleaded with the town to do something because they feel that in another storm it is going to break right through into Wickham Creek. I don't know that I agree with that, but that's what they feel and so they are looking for as much protection from that happening as possible; breaking into Wickham Creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It sounds like the Board wants to take another look at it TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to go back and measure the distance where the house is and check the elevations and the distance to the creek. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any concerns with the way he is proposing the wall directly in front of the house? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's just northeast end of the wall. I just figured if we could get anything else out of the permit in front of the house and let him amend it to something we might consider. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In order to protect the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need a measurement of some type. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Definitely. Did you feel that you want some type of approval tonight for in front of the house or can you wait -- MR. COSTEllO: I think we'll wait a little bit. Everyone wants it done the minute they get the permit. But we are not going to do the adjoining property owners. We are doing all three together. TRUSTEE KING: Do they have DEC there? MR. COSTEllO: I think one of the property owners has. I think the concerns are legitimate. Because how this ends up, and the elevation, the end, because I'm telling you, it would be lower because there is no use putting a rock up in mid air. For what purpose. So the elevation in this would be relevant. And whether needs to be turned in to keep it low, I think that that, you know, if you stake it out and took the elevation, marked the stakes, I could do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, one other question. I believe it was last Board of Trustees 92 August 22, 2007 month or the month before, we approved stairs to the beach at this site. They have not been installed yet but they should probably be drawn into the plan as to where they are planning to put the stairs to the beach. MR. COSTEllO: What we usually try to do under circumstances like this is we try to pick out some select rocks that have a flatness to them and allow -- we try to do that. And it's worked. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are okay to table things for a month? MR. COSTEllO: Sure. And I'll try to get out there and stake out something with elevations so that you'll see, because the drawings don't show it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this so we can get a chance to go out and inspect the site again. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (All AYES.) MR. COSTEllO: If the Board could allow my office to know when you go visit this site I could probably come. So we could mark it out properly or cut it back or do whatever. I think it would be helpful for the owners. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go out on September 13. MR. COSTEllO: If you just tell me when. I won't take the 13th off. TRUSTEE KING: Number 27, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects on behalf of PETER BACCILE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new garage/storage accessory building and install an inground swimming pool with pool enclosure fence. located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. We were all out there in August. Everybody looked at it. We talked about downsizing the pool and trying to move it in closer, a little further away from the bluff. They've done that. It was not a huge reduction. They went from like a 50-foot pool to a 48-foot pool. less is less. It's kind of a different area there. It's a stoned-in enclosure with all stone walls that have been there for a long time. It's been there for a long time, by the looks of it. My feeling was there would be more disruption if you made him remove the stone walls and put the pool even further back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about structurally, being on the bluff like that? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pretty far off the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: It's a pretty stable looking area. It's been developed for a long time. I don't know what it was used for. It's a separate area with the stone walls around it and they must have used it for something. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, did you want to address the fence? TRUSTEE KING: It's been found inconsistent because of the setback. Board of Trustees 93 August 22, 2007 We know that. But we tried to move it a little further landward, downsize the pool. The garage, we'll be putting gutters and leaders to drywells to take care of the roof runoff. The fence on the top of the bluff, there is a privet hedge. There are two privet hedges; there is one along the top and just another one a couple of feet seaward along the top. And they intend to put the chainlink fence between those two privet hedges. I think that's a good idea. The privet hedges are going to remain. They wanted to do some trimming of them for view. I think we could let them trim down to a height of four feet. Same height as the chainlink fence. MS. MOORE: I have some additional information on the privet. I was letting you go until you got to that point. If I could just interject at this point. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. The next door neighbor, is that the one to the left? MS. MOORE: It's the one facing the pool. TRUSTEE KING: The one next to the clear cutting on the bluff, maybe? MS. MOORE: I wouldn't know. TRUSTEE KING: It looked like a violation to me when I was out there a couple of weeks ago. MS. MOORE: Actually, the neighbor called me. He was concerned about the privacy, maintaining privacy here, and my suggestion to him was, listen, talk to Mr. Baccile, see what you could work out, because Fishers Island tends to be very cooperative. If they can be, people talk it each other, and it's gentile, for the most part. Sometimes. But for the most part, they do try to work it out. So they worked it out. My suggestion to Mr. Baccile was, because his, what they worked out was keeping the privet, when you started getting to the privet, keeping the privet but replanting some of the privet on a berm so that it would raise it and in particular that area of the privet was not growing very healthy, so that needed to be regenerated anyway. So what I suggested was, and they were going to work it out amongst themselves, and I said because it was within your jurisdiction I just felt that put it into the plans so that are no issues later, that the berm or the privet has been changed. So that's why it's here before you. I want it incorporated both for the sake of my client to know and feel comfortable that it is going to be done and for the sake of the property owner so he does do it in order to try to mitigate the noise and the privacy, that he didn't get in trouble because it's within your jurisdiction. So that's why I'm here tonight. TRUSTEE KING: That's it? MS. MOORE: That's it. Board of Trustees 94 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have a huge problem with people planting things. It's usually removing. MS. MOORE: He actually has to remove to put the berm, and re-plant. The berm I thought might be an issue, so rather than create an issue, we just included it. TRUSTEE KING: In talking to Mr. Baccile he seemed very environmentally conscious in our discussions with him. He wanted to keep the privet hedge but he wanted it trimmed for a view. Which, you know, that's okay. MS. MOORE: Can't fault him for that. And I think that's why the berm makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: He has a good, stable bluff there. MS. MOORE: My client has no opposition, has no issue with the proposed structure. It's just maintaining privacy that everybody has enjoyed. If you would include that into your permit. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why we can't. Does anyone have a problem with it? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the addition of a row of privet being planted on the western side of the property between the neighboring property between the neighboring property for privacy; gutters and leaders for the garage; the fence is going to be installed along the top of the bluff between the privet hedges and the privet hedges can be trimmed to a height of four feet. I think that's everything we talked about when we were out there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with the pool being moved back a little. TRUSTEE KING: We tried to downsize it. With the existing stone walls that have been there for many, many years, by the looks of it, it would be far more disruptive to move those and move the pool in any further. I think we have done all we can. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows the drywells for the pool and garage. That makes it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I think we did it all we could to make it consistent with the LWRP. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 95 August 22, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of JOAN YORK requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 108 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing storm-damaged timber bulkhead; backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and reconstruct inplace existing platform and steps to beach; and establish a five-foot non-turf buffer. Located: 4025 Camp Mineola Road, MaUituck. This is an application that we gave an emergency permit to. LWRP finds it exempt. I would agree with that. The CAC supports the application with the condition of a non-turf area from the bulkhead to the house and wall. Right now she has an established lawn, and I went back out there the second time to measure, and it's approximately 22 feet from the bulkhead to the house. With the repair they did, they disturbed approximately seven feet. So there is already, like seven feet wide straight across of dirt right now, and I would say a seven-foot, non-turf buffer would be fine. I talked to Rob Herman, the consultant for this, and he stressed that Ms. York would love to maintain some lawn so this gives her a ten-foot lawn and we have a seven-foot, non-turf buffer. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) Hearing none, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of Joan York as stated with a seven-foot non-turf buffer straight across to be maintained. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is, we find it exempt from LWRP. SECRETARY STANDISH: (Indicating.) This was an approval that Rob Herman got back in April from the Board. While he was here, he said, oh, I also want to include the four-foot wide wood walkway. He asked me at the last hearing could we revise the plans but not with what he asked for at the meeting but rather with the walkway. He said he would rescind the original approval, get the permit for this, then he applied to amend the approval back in April. I talked to him on the phone about this. We are trying to figure out how to amend the permit that he actually has. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) Now I remember it. Alii need to see was that SECRETARY STANDISH: They got the approval for a permit. When he was at Board of Trustees 96 August 22, 2007 the hearing, I also wanted to add, he wanted to add something to it. But he's removing it now and adding a walkway instead with A non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we are just rephrasing it? SECRETARY STANDISH: Yes. But he'll come in next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have to open it and do it. SECRETARY STANDISH: Open it, rescind, read the resolution from April and approve it this way, since it's the original application with the application of the walkway. He'll come back at a later time to amend the permit for something else. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So rescind the first one. First we need to open up this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to rescind wetland permit 6579 dated April 18, 2007. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve a wetland permit for En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA KAPLAN who is requesting a wetland permit to replace within 18 inches approximately 126 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with recycled plastic bulkhead; backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; remove existing deck located over and seaward of the bulkhead and replace with a 4x8 deck and stairs and construct a four-foot wide wood walkway landward of the new bulkhead. Located: 1700 Inlet Way, Southold. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MR. CORCORAN: Do you also find it consistent with the LWRP? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I do find it consistent with LWRP. MR. CORCORAN: For the same reasons I guess you found the prior permit consistent? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion that we close this meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.)