Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/14/2007 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 RECEIVeD 'r~.r;L/ 1/, J.j.() IT ,n MINUTES Wednesday, November 14, 2007 c . ~".1(j" 2Ci.3 ., __'J':.t! . d ., <~. I. Soul);(;jd TiJ';!R C!erk 6:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Kieran Corcoran, Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 5,2007 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our November meeting. My name is Jim King. For those of you who don't know me, I have the pleasure of being the chairman of this Board. I would like to introduce the rest of the members. To my far left is Dave Bergen; to his right, Peggy Dickerson; next to her is Jill Doherty, the vice chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our officer manager; to her right is Bob Ghosio, another Trustee. Our legal counsel tonight is Kieran Corcoran. Wayne Galante is our reporter, he keeps track of what everybody says. And Peter Young is with us from CAC. That's the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out Board of Trustees 2 November 14, 2007 and do a lot of site inspections just as we do and give us their input and suggestions on how it should be processed. And it is kind of starting off interestingly tonight. I was hoping it would be a simple night. But nothing is ever simple, I guess. With that, we'll get going. We have a new process here we are going to try. This is strictly experimental. We have this set up with pictures, we go to the site, it's an idea -- Peggy Dickerson came up with this -- so people can see the site, see what we are looking at. So if it doesn't work out, it's Peggy's fault. If it works out great, I'll take the credit for it. I think it's a step forward. So we may stumble here and there tonight with this. It's new technology and I'm not up on technology too much. I still only have a telephone. There is a brief rundown of what we have been doing in 2007. I don't know if you can see it or not, but I can. We have been working on our shellfish code revisions. I think that's going to a public hearing on the 4th of December. We have had numerous problems with dredging projects. Dave Bergen has been the lead agent on that. I think it's been an absolute nightmare on getting areas dredged. We have a lot of new issues coming up, marine habitat issues, along with the piping plovers. It's very difficult. We made a little documentary for public TV, different sites, different Trustees trying to explain some of the things we do and why we do them. We have been working on mooring code revisions. There was a mooring code for the bay that is kind of, I don't know, it's just stopped. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It went to the Town Board months ago and has not been seen since. TRUSTEE KING: We have been working on revisions to the wetland code. That is also coming up for public hearing I think on the same day in December. The wetland code, we revised it. It's really a living document and we are going to continually be revising it, modernizing it and keep it up with the times. The shellfish code had some things in it from the 1930s, so a lot of things are obsolete by today's standards. We have been busy, we have some runoff projects done. This is a project that is just getting finished up. This is on Westphalia Road in Mattituck. It's a different road, an inlet from the main part of the creek that comes up in there. This is the east side and what we did, they put a new culvert under the road. Originally, if you see the cement abutment, there were two pipes, two metal pipes directly from the road right into the creek. All that has been done away with. There is a new culvert underneath the Board of Trustees 3 November 14, 2007 road connecting the two sides and we can see further up, not now, further up the road there is drywells installed on both sides to try and catch most of the runoff coming down into this low spot. Then there is a French drain on either side where all those rocks are. Right up there. There are drywells from both sides. And this happens to be one of the sites -- I have 15 sites in Mattituck Creek that I monitor for water quality for shellfish openings. This is at one of the sites I monitor. It's a nice project and will help the water quality in Mattituck Creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there are two egrets there. TRUSTEE KING: That's on the west side. Originally the creek probably ran, before the road was there, the creek went up, that's the other side, the west side of it. That project I think is just about finished now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we get started, I want to congratulate Jim and Bob. I'm personally very happy that they are back on the Board. I think they bring unique qualities to this Board and they both are very knowledgeable and they are easy to work with. We have our differences and we work through them and I think that makes for a good Board and I'm proud to be working with them. So, congratulations. TRUSTEE. KING: Thank you. TRUSTEEGHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: To me it's an honor just to serve in this capacity. I'm originally from Rhode Island. I grew up in Narragansett Bay, a little, small town. It's not so small anymore. I was up there last year and I can't believe how it's changed. A little harbor where there is half a dozen boats, if there is not a thousand in there today I'll eat this microphone. Last weekend, I lived in Clinton. I was on a submarine in New London, I lived in New London, and I lived in Clinton, Connecticut, and that's where I first started lobstering in 1964. I was just back there last weekend because I went to look at a small boat I was thinking about purchasing. And I took a ride down to the docks, Clinton, where I tied up. And it's the same situation. I don't know where all these boats came from. I come back to Mattituck, I live on the creek in Mattituck, directly across from Mattituck shipyard, and I could look down the creek, there has been some changes, yes, but nowhere near like other areas. I would like to think some of it is because of the Trustees. I really do. Maybe it's behind the times but I think it's good to be behind our times sometimes. That's alii have to say. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm very proud to be part of the Board, too. I'm more than excited to get at least another four years, anyway, before I have to campaign. It feels like I have been doing it for two years now. Board of Trustees 4 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Well, you did. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, yes. But having replaced AI Krupski, really, taking his spot, essentially, and, you know, I always said I hope I do as well a job as he did. TRUSTEE KING: AI was the chair of this board since I was on it. That's 12 years. He was a tough act to follow. Let me tell you. So we'll move on. We'll set the date for the next field inspection, Wednesday, December 5, eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting, Wednesday, December 12, six o'clock, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for October, 2007. A check for $10,133.96 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. Revolved that the Board of Trustees of the town of Southold hereby finils that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 14, 2007, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are as follows: Jerry Callis - SCTM#81-3-19.3 Mary Pankiewicz - SCTM#1 0-11-8.1 Jan Jungblut - SCTM#70-6-20 Board of Trustees 5 November 14, 2007 Franeker Investments, Inc. - SCTM#3-1-3.3 Nikolaos Katopodis - SCTM#30-2-65 Annette Campbell- SCTM#137-4-27 Patrick W. Lohn - SCTM#87-3-57 Daryl Malter - SCTM#111-9-7 Noank Aquaculture Cooperative - SCTM#79-5-20.12 Yan Rieger - SCTM#27-4-6 Frank & Antoinette Notaro - SCTM#63-7 -30.1 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Next we'll be doing our resolutions and administrative permits. I think we have some we could lump together. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We had one, two, eight and ten, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: We try and lump some of these together. But they are problematic. I checked on this. I looked at this in the plans and I talked to Fishers Island today. It's a very simple thing. I don't want to hold them up on this. I was supposed to go over there two Friday's ago with the DEC and I couldn't make it. Looking at this, it's simple amendments, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You can lump one, two, eight, nine and ten together. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll do that. See what we are doing folks, is trying to move this along a little faster. On these administrative permits, these are not public hearings or anything, but if anybody has any concerns about them or wants to comment on them, you are more than welcome to come up to the microphone and identify yourself and make your comments. So one, two, eight, nine and ten we can lump together and approve in one lump sum. Those read as follows: Number one, NORMAN BERGEN requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12 inches as needed. Located: 1200 Oakwood Drive, Southold. Number two, WARREN JACKSON requests an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites to 12 inches, as needed. Located: 300 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Number eight, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of BETTY RUGG requests an Administrative Permit to replace existing windows and Board of Trustees 6 November 14, 2007 doors; upgrade insulation in attic and basement; and extend existing front brick stoop and replace with wood deck. Located: 1695 West Mill Creek Drive, Southold. Number nine, Samuel Fitzgerald on behalf of DAVID WILDERDING requests an Administrative Permit to construct a one-story addition and stone veneer addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. And number ten, ROBERT O'BRIEN requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6420A to truncate dormer originally proposed over porch replaced by open deck; relocate existing second-floor bath to rear of house over existing first-floor baths and bedrooms. Located: 1955 Truman's Path, East Marion. I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number four, five, six and seven we are not going to address because there was a violation issued and we usually don't -- when we have a violation issued on something, we don't address it. We don't move forward. We wait until it gets cleared up in the court and gets things settled. So four, five, six and seven won't be addressed. That leaves number three, WILLIAM & MARIE MYERS requests an Administrative Permit to remove trees near the dwelling and within the buffer area, and plant a garden. Located: 400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. We all went out and looked at this. This is the house. I think there were three trees that we said they could remove. That one is very close to the house. There is another one just past the porch. They want to plant a vegetable garden. That's up the side of the road. It's outside of the non-disturbance area so we didn't have a problem with putting the garden there. And there are a couple of trees in the non-disturbance area that we don't want removed. They are to stand. They are to be left there. I think there were three trees we said we could live with and plant the garden. Did he ever give us dimensions on the garden? MS. STANDISH: I wrote it here. TRUSTEE KING: 40x125. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there is a tree in the front of the house we also didn't have a problem with. TRUSTEE KING: So we can -- I think there are four trees we can let them take down. I'll circle the four trees. Because there is one in front of the house, one beside the house and two right close to the house. I'll circle those. And we'll highlight it and say Board of Trustees 7 November 14, 2007 those are the trees that can be removed. The other trees are to be left alone. And the garden is okay. So I'll make a motion we approve taking down four trees close to the house and the 40x125 foot garden. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS/STAKES: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under resolutions number one PAUL SENNETT requests an onshore/offshore stake off his property, along Arshamomaque Pond, for a 14-foot boat. Located: 450 Richmond Road East, Southold. I went and looked at that. That was fine. There was no problem with that whatsoever. I make a motion to approve resolution number one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: TRUSTEE KING: Applications for amendments extensions and transfers. Before I go any further, sorry, there has been some postponements tonight. I don't want anybody sitting here all night thinking something is going to come up and it's been postponed. We'll go through them now. On the agenda, page three, number eight, the application of MARIA KATSIGEORGIS, requesting an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6358 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6358C to remove and replace the existing concrete block wall on the west side of the basement and replace with a new concrete block wall; repair and level staircase to upper deck and support existing deck walkway to main entrance of house; replace 30 foot length railroad tie division on west side of property; cover existing dirt area landward of bulkhead with additional non-turf material; replace paving stone retaining splash pad; replace walkway along side of dwelling; and construct a 4x16 foot wide cobblestone apron to access asphalt or bluestone curved driveway. Located: 55455 County Road 48, Southold, is postponed. Page four, number four, the application of ROBERT G. BOMBARA, requesting 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: 1625 North Sea Drive, Southold, is postponed. Number five, the application of EMMANUEL & CATHERINE ZARBIS, Board of Trustees 8 November 14, 2007 requesting a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built splash pad approximately 6x1 02 feet with small stone approximately two inches deep over filter fabric; as-built retaining wall approximately 102 feet long by one foot deep by 15 inches high dry-stacked, constructed of one course of eight inch concrete pavers set two inches below grade, one course of six inch concrete pavers and one course 2.5 inches concrete cap; 8,000 beach grass plugs planted approximately one inch on center in mesh cloth over face of bluff, approximately 1 00x1 00 feet; and inkind/inplace replacement of pre-existing 4x72 foot wood steps and 5x12 foot wood landing (top), 5x8 foot wood landing (mid) and 7x12 foot wood landing (bottom) and six steps to grade. Located: 2505 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed. On page five, number ten, the application of SCOTT & L1A VITRANO, requesting a Wetland Permit to reinstall a 4x20 foot floating dock and 6x6 foot platform with six inch pile on either side of float. Locate: 3875 Main Bayview Road, Southold, has been postponed. On page six, number 13, the application of ROSE L. MILAZZO, requesting a Wetland Permit to remove a 40 square foot section from the seaward side of the existing one-story single-family dwelling; remove the existing wood deck and stairs located off the southern side of the existing one-story dwelling; remove a 72 square foot section from the landward side of the existing dwelling; construct a 144 square foot one-story addition to the landward side of the proposed two-story addition; construct a 192 square foot porch with stairs on the southern side, in the corner created by the existing one-story dwelling and proposed two-story addition; and install a sanitary system landward of the proposed additions. Located: 1165 Island View Lane, Southold, has been postponed. Number 14, the application of ROBERT MARSTON & JOHN GARDINER, requesting a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed dock, consisting of a 4x48 foot fixed catwalk (constructed with fiberglass-reinforce decking and elevated 2.5 feet above grade); a 4x14 foot ramp; and a 6x20 foot float secured by two six-inch diameter pilings. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk, has been postponed. Number 15, the application of MICHAEL MITCHELL, requesting a Wetland Permit to re-sheath 96 feet of existing wood bulkhead and 11 feet of return with vinyl sheathing on the seaward side, leaving existing sheathing in place. Remove only those existing three to four inch piles as necessary to accommodate the configuration of the vinyl sheathing. Excavate area behind existing bulkhead as necessary to place anchoring components. Reconstruct 88 feet of existing wood retaining wall landward of bulkhead inkind/inplace. Place an estimated 20 cubic yards maximum of clean soil/sand behind re-sheathed bulkhead and reconstructed retaining wall to replace Board of Trustees 9 November 14, 2007 material lost to washout before proposed operations. Located: 750 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number 16, the application of MARY PANKIEWICZ, requesting a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, abandon the existing sanitary system and well, demolish the existing garage, remove portions of the existing driveway and to construct a new single-family dwelling with gutters leading to drywells, sanitary system and new water service. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island, is postponed. And number 17, the application of FRANEKER INVESTMENTS, INC., requesting a Wetland Permit to construct a 15.58x16 foot addition onto an existing garden shed, to construct approximately 30 feet of retaining walls and a stone (pervious) parking area. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island, is postponed. So if anybody stayed here, I apologize. It's better than waiting until eleven o'clock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, these are not public hearings but we do want to hear if you have some brief comments on any of these. By that I mean these were amendments where there were already public hearings held on each of these and they have been already decided by the Board previously. It's more of an opportunity for public input. So number one, FRANK & ANTOINETTE NOTARO request an Amendment to Permit #6391 to increase the size of the proposed pool from 16x31 feet with a 56-foot setback from the top of the bluff to a 20x40 foot inground swimming pool with a 52-foot setback from the top of the bluff. Located: 625 Calves Neck Road, Southold. The Board all went out and looked at this. The CAC reviewed this and said they did not support the amendment to increase the size of the pool. There should be no further encroachment upon the bluff, no removal of the trees. And this was originally found inconsistent under the LWRP. We went out and looked at this and the Board in general concurred with the CAC. We did not see that there was sufficient room there between the top of that bluff and the house to justify increasing the size of the pool and decreasing the setback from the bluff. So this Board did look at this. Is there anybody here that wanted to offer any comments on this or are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think we all pretty much agreed on it. Enough is enough. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll make a motion to deny. MR. NOTARO: Can I say something? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, there is somebody who wants to speak. MR. NOTARO: My name is Frank Notaro. Is it possible to make it longer and not wider, so it doesn't Board of Trustees 10 November 14, 2007 encroach more on the bluff? There was a miscommunication between my wife and myself as to the size of this pool when we applied. TRUSTEE KING: Is there any way you could move it closer to the house MR. NOTARO: I could. It is possible. I have, I think about six feet. I have to look on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: When we went out there, I thought maybe he could just slide the whole pool closer to the house and keep the original setback. Would that work? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I mean that was part of the, obviously the issue was to decrease the setback from the bluff. We can keep the same setback. TRUSTEE KING: If we could move the pool closer to the house and maintain the setback, I think that would be doable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So my suggestion, if you revise the plans on this. TRUSTEE KING: I would say, it will go from 20X40 -- MR. NOTARO: No, it was 18 by-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: 16x31. And it wanted to amend it to 20x40. MR. NOTARO: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what you are saying is you want to make it longer and narrower, the pool? MR. NOTARO: I think I could accommodate it. I'll talk to the surveyor and we could probably set it further back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You want it to go from 16 to 20 and you said you could move it back six feet? MR. NOTARO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then we can -- TRUSTEE KING: That would increase -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are asking for four feet. MR. NOTARO: It would bring it back to the original approval. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm all right with that. It was a setback issue anyway. TRUSTEE KING: The setback has been approved. If it keeps the same setback, yes, just show it on the plans that the pool is four feet closer to the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to postpone it or approve it subject to new plans? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Subject to new plans. TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve it subject to new plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I withdraw my previous motion and I'll make a motion to approve this application under the condition that new plans are submitted that reflect the pool being setback a minimum of 56 feet from the top of the bluff, as it was originally. And in doing that it would help mitigate it under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to maybe clean this language up a little bit. It's not 56 feet back from the top of the bluff. I Board of Trustees 11 November 14, 2007 think from the top of the bluff it's like 30 feet or so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are absolutely right, Jim. MR. NOTARO: We'll put it wherever it was before. TRUSTEE KING: The language is wrong. I think 56 feet is probably from the high water mark. We want to measure from the top of the bluff. MR. NOTARO: All right. But we'll make it consistent with the previous application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it in the -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the field notes, 24 feet from top of bluff, it says. That's all it says in the field notes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what the original -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the original field notes from June, it was 24 feet to bluff. So as long as the proposed pool as reconfigured maintains the minimum of 24 feet from top of bluff. MR. NOTARO: I don't think that's possible. I have the survey here, if you want me to get it. In other words, we'll comply with the other approval. But the pool won't fit in there, I don't believe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we approved before. It was 24 feet from the top of the bluff back, it's 24 feet. On your survey you show mean high water. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to clean the language up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You get the 52 feet from mean high water. The top of the bluff is where your lawn ends. That's basically the bluff line there. It goes down toward the water. That's where we measure from. MR. NOTARO: You are saying the pool is 24 foot setback off of that line? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Off of the top of the bluff. MR. NOTARO: I have to look at the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what was originally approved. We are saying the same thing here, that we want to make sure the pool is no further seaward than 24 feet. MR. NOTARO: Okay, I'll check on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want us to table this until you check that out? MR. NOTARO: I'll make it comply with the previously approved site plan, basically, and we'll move it back to that line. TRUSTEE KING: You understand what I'm saying. I'm looking at the language in the application. MR. NOTARO: If I could get my survey a moment, I could get a better visual on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Go ahead. MR. NOTARO: (Perusing.) Okay, the bluff line is deceptive as to where I think the bluff line is at the house. But this is fine. You know, we'll go back to the 56 feet, which is the same, Board of Trustees 12 November 14, 2007 basically we are saying the same thing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we issue a permit on this? What did the permit read? Read the language in the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Granted a wetland permit to construct a covered porch with hot tub, install inground swimming pool, chainlink fence around pool in rear of the house with the condition of drywell to contain pool backwash, hay bales during construction, all as depicted on plan drawn by Architectologist 7/18/06. MR. NOTARO: We'll make it comply with that 56 foot and the other dimension. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What does that say? This is dated 7/7/06 (Perusing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just do the resolution today to be 56 feet from the mean high water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, here is the one stamped approved by yourself. 7/18/06. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think it's the same one he has. April 3. TRUSTEE BERGEN: April 3, 1988. TRUSTEE KING: It shows from the high water mark. It doesn't show it from top of bluff. We are looking at top of bluff. He's looking at the high water mark. By code, top of bluff is in the code what the distance of the pool should be. Not from high water. That's why we are looking top of bluff. So I'm just looking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Going by this survey, it's a marked measurement of 55'11" from the high water mark, mean high water mark to pool. So what we could say is as long as the pool doesn't go seaward of that distance. Correct. TRUSTEE KING: If you look at the 16 foot contour line, it looks like it's about 25 feet from the original application. MR. NOTARO: From the 16 foot contour line. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. NOTARO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: See what we are saying? It's confusing. MR. NOTARO: When I think of the bluff I'm thinking of just the flat area. That's why I'm, in my mind I'm saying where am I going to put this pool. TRUSTEE KING: If you can put this with the same dimension you have here. MR. NOTARO: I'll have them revise it back to the original. It will probably take a week-and-a-half with John. I'll get it. TRUSTEE KING: We can do it based on new plans coming in. MR. NOTARO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to approve this application based upon the receipt of new plans which depicts the pool will remain Board of Trustees 13 November 14, 2007 the minimum setback as per what was approved in the permit. MR. CORCORAN: You'll have to approve a new size pool, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The size will be mentioned on the new survey and then we can then put that in the permit itself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As with the original permit, with that action, it mitigates the LWRP inconsistency. MR. CORCORAN: You want to be clear, you are approving 20.40 in this resolution, correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's what he can fit in there. No larger than 20x40, whatever he can fit within the dimensions, within the setback. MR. NOTARO: It will probably go down to an 18 foot pool. I want to have some shrubbing there between the deck and that. Most likely it will be 18. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sounds to me like we better wait on this until we can get new plans so it's absolutely clear to everybody what we are voting on. It's too much inconsistency here. I'll withdraw my motion and make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: It will be tabled until we get new plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, ANNETTE CAMPBELL requests an Amendment to Permit #3961 to include a 5x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1185 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. I looked at that. I don't know if there is anyone here. I don't think anyone on the Board would have a problem with the 5x20 float. Unfortunately you are missing quite a bit of information. Do you intend to do a ramp down to the float? MS. CAMPBELL: I wasn't. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the purpose of the float-- MS. CAMPBELL: Was for a boat. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How are you going from the catwalk to the -- MS. CAMPBELL: I don't know. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When I was there, your neighbor to the west has a ramp with a float. Is that your intent to have something similar? MS. CAMPBELL: (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is what I suggest. Because I don't know how you go from the catwalk to the float. You didn't have pilings, you didn't have. a ramp. If you look to your neighbors, I was assume that was the model? MS. CAMPBELL: No, what we had before, we just stepped off on to the boat. We thought with the floating dock we would step on to the Board of Trustees 14 November 14, 2007 floating dock and then to the boat. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What would you attach the float to? MS. CAMPBELL: I guess to the poles. TRUSTEE KING: You could tie a ladder off the end of the dock. There is not much of a rise and fall of the tide there, is there? MS. CAMPBELL: I could do the ladder. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC also had some reasons, they tabled it because they said the proposal was unclear. It required a detailed plan. They questioned how far out the proposed dock would be out in the water because there was no stakes there. Where will the seasonal dock be stored and what size pilings will be used. So there was a lot of questions. MS. CAMPBELL: When I asked what I needed to show, they said the size of the floating dock. I came to the Trustees office. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why we do this. So you know and we know. MS. CAMPBELL: But I would have had that prepared if I knew then. TRUSTEE KING: If she wants to have a float just at the end of the dock -- MS. CAMPBELL: The stakes are there. My husband put the stakes in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it would be attached to-- TRUSTEE.KING: To a couple of piles to hold the float in place. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When I was down there, I just felt there was information lacking but, again, if that's what you want, I don't have a problem with it. Was your previous permit -- MS. CAMPBELL: Was for the catwalk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's existing? MS. CAMPBELL: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's there already? MS. CAMPBELL: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's not a four foot. MS. CAMPBELL: It was approved many years before. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I would just stipulate that the dimensions be changed. It's fine, there is no problem with it. It's just not a four foot. TRUSTEE KING: How wide is it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Three foot. It's a wonderful, it's a good size catwalk. I have no problem with it. We just want to make sure it's in the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we may want to amend that as well. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Does CAC want to make any comments or have any questions? MR. YOUNG: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends that the present catwalk be replaced with open grate decking because of the observation of dead grass beneath the catwalk because it's a fairly old catwalk that has been there for quite a while. Board of Tmstees 15 November 14, 2007 MS. CAMPBELL: What are you telling me to do? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC is recommending an open grate catwalk. You don't need to do this. This is a recommendation. Your catwalk as existing is fine. I wish we had more of them that size. And I have no problem with the floating dock, as long as that's all you want. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With two pilings. TRUSTEE KING: It could be fastened from the dock with a couple of piles on the end or a couple of piles on either end of the float. I don't know how she wants to hold it in place. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How do you intend to hold the float there, to keep it there? MS. CAMPBELL: I guess with some kind of piling. Whatever you tell me I would be able to do, I'll do. TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest a pile on each end of the float. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want that on the plans? TRUSTEE KING: It should be shown, sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll ask you to bring a survey into the office that shows six-inch piles and as long as you are fine with not having a ramp, that's fine. I just want to make sure it was not something you wanted to add to it. MS. CAMPBELL: If we did want a ramp, we start over with the ramp? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We need it to be on your plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have to apply for another amendment. MS. CAMPBELL: I didn't know. When we came to ask you what we needed, you know, it was just the floating dock. So we could do that with the piles. I would have put the ramp in, whatever way it was supposed to be done, I would have done it in whatever way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the future, whatever structure you are going to put there, we need to see, whether it's a piling or whatever. We can't just be as vague as a floating dock. We need to know. If you want to add stairs going down, I don't know what the drop is. MS. CAMPBELL: It's not necessary. It's so low. It's just stepped off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it low? Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Different people ask for different things, so for our office to say this is what you want, there are different choices. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have to tell us what you want. MS. CAMPBELL: What do you want me to do now? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You'll bring a plan into the office that shows two six-inch piles that can secure your floating -- MS. CAMPBELL: A simple sketch? TRUSTEE KING: It should be on a survey, drawn on the end showing the location of the float to the dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because right now your floats, we want to see Board of Trustees 16 November 14, 2007 how -- MS. CAMPBELL: It's floating, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to see exactly what it's going to look like. MS. CAMPBELL: You said draw a picture of the floating dock at the end of your property and that's what I did. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I'll make a motion to give you what you are asking for, with the stipulation that you bring us in the survey to show what you are actually going to have. MS. CAMPBELL: So I could come in and I could sketch it on a copy of my survey. Is that all -- TRUSTEE KING: You don't have a newer survey? This is the only survey you have of the property? MS. CAMPBELL: I have something with me. TRUSTEE KING: This is a survey from 1983. Do you have anything newer than that? MS. CAMPBELL: This I got from you, I believe. And this is what I had. This belongs to me. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we have a copy of. MS. CAMPBELL: You want me to come in and then draw poles -- TRUSTEE KING: Let me show you what I would like to see. If you can take them and expand this up so it's a bigger picture. You know what I mean. Put it in a copy machine and blow it up so this takes up more of the size of the paper. We need to know, if you put the dimensions of the dock, the length of the dock, that dimension there, whatever that dimension is, show your float at the back, at the end of the dock like that, a pole here and a pole here. That's what we need. Dimensions, 5x20, the length of the dock, the width of the dock. Get that all on a drawing and that's what we need. MS. CAMPBELL: And a larger size. TRUSTEE KING: Because it's so small to look at. It's very hard to scale. MS. CAMPBELL: This is yours. That's what I did there. TRUSTEE KING: That doesn't indicate where the float actually is. MS. CAMPBELL: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So we need a drawing like that and give us those dimensions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I just ask, what are your intentions of the boathouse or the shed that you have here? MS. CAMPBELL: What's my intentions? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you using it, are you not using it? It's right at the end of the garage. MS. CAMPBELL: Right. It's just there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you using it as storage? MS. CAMPBELL: Sometimes we do. But it's been empty for years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My question is if it's not being used it would Board of Trustees 17 November 14, 2007 be beneficial for this area for it to be removed. That's my only comment. It's sitting there. It's falling down and it's a structure where it would benefit if it was not there. So if you are not using it, I didn't know if you had any intent of removing it. MS. CAMPBELL: If you want me to remove it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just a recommendation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would benefit the marsh area if you are not using it. MS. CAMPBELL: It's been there since the house was there for 80 years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's old practice. It's something we would not permit now. If you are not using it, the marsh area would benefit from it not being there. It's just a comment and a recommendation. Then when you do the survey you can show that's being removed, which would be a good thing to do. MS. CAMPBELL: All right, so I would end up back in the Trustees office where I started out from. Okay, whatever time I come out here, it doesn't matter, right, because I won't be out for another month to my house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You won't get the permit until you show us what we need, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Annette Campbell's request to amend permit #3961 with the stipulation she bring in new plans showing six-inch piles, dimensions of the catwalk and what she is going to do with the shed. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. CAMPBELL: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: PAUL LONG requests an Amendment to Permit #6229 to include the one-foot high wood tie walls along the east and west boundary property lines. Located: 3945 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. This was a permit given in 2005 for a house and which included drywells, French drain, it had hay bales during construction. They already had their compliance checked and met everything in there. And this is just a minor change and I don't see a problem with it. So I'll make a motion to approve the application of Paul Long as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comment from the CAC or LWRP? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP. And CAC approved the application with condition of 50% non-turf buffer. That was back in 2005. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second your-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't say what kind of buffer is here. Board of Trustees 18 November 14, 2007 Okay. So I make that motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Docko, Inc., on behalf of AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY requests an amendment to permit #6675 to construct the previously approved hinged ramp immediately adjacent to the west face of the concrete bunker on the top of the bank above the pier to be rebuilt, which will require an elongation of the pier approximately ten-foot landward in order to make a 50-foot ramp fit. located: North Shore of Great Gull Island. Again, this is just a simple change in order to make it work we need to extend it landward ten feet. And it's been found consistent by lWRP. So I would make a motion to approve this amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests an Amendment to Permit #6244 to extend both the east return and west return 20 feet, and a one-year extension to Permit #6244, as issued on November 16, 2005. located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold. I went out and looked at this. I have a couple of questions on it. I didn't have a problem with the returns but when I looked at the permit, it was supposed to be a 20-foot non-turf, non-fertilization buffer planted with beach grass, bayberry and other seaside plants. Evidently, they went and planted sod instead. And there's a little, tiny, small fringe of beach grass right along 'the edge of the bulkhead. Most of the sod is dead because I think there is some overwashing problems with that bulkhead. But we need to see that. And I wanted to have some discussions. Is there anybody here? John? I have a couple of questions. MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello. We are making the application for Mr. Zang. TRUSTEE KING: Are you doing the work there? MR. COSTEllO: No. TRUSTEE KING: Because I saw some strange equipment out there. Have you been out there? MR. COSTEllO: We have not been out there. TRUSTEE KING: Have you been out there recently? MR. COSTEllO: I have been out there to photograph it and find out what is going on there. Board of Trustees 19 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Did you see the boom and mast and winter arrangement? MR. COSTEllO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's not your equipment, right? MR. COSTEllO: No, it is not. It would have been better than that. Or a bigger violation. TRUSTEE KING: Anyways -- MR. COSTEllO: He did, when we finished the bulkhead, we did plant beach grass at that time. And you can see the elevation of the material is down about six or eight inches. TRUSTEE KING: But the sod almost right up to the bulkhead. Most of it is all dead. MR. COSTEllO: He just throws rye grass seed on there. TRUSTEE KING: My only suggestion was the house looking seaward to the left, it has like a stone apron, splash apron. MR. COSTEllO: He'll have to, because it's, it goes over there. TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't have a problem with stone apron there in place of a non-turf buffer. He'll have to do one or the other. MR. COSTEllO: Or he'll continue losing the fill. TRUSTEE KING: But the equipment that I saw -- MR. COSTEllO: I didn't see the equipment there. TRUSTEE KING: It's priceless. He has some sort of little handmade -- everything is out of wood. MR. COSTEllO: He'll also build the returns himself. It's a money issue. TRUSTEE KING: He already started. The one pole is in place. MR. COSTEllO: He said, why do I need a return. Because of the erosion that is occurring in the last three years. And we tried to sell him that in the beginning but for reasons, whatever, we told him we would come back to try to get the extension. But if you want to put, correct anything that he thinks he's attempting. God bless you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Like I said, I didn't have a problem with the returns. But I don't know how to do this. He's going to have to either put the non-turf buffer in the way it's supposed to be or come in for an amendment to put a stone splash apron. I think it would be just as good. But it's up to him. But we need to see the buffer in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we approve a conditional -- TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make a motion to approve the returns with the stipulation that the 20 foot non-turf non-fertilization buffer, planted buffer, be installed. And -- can we put a time on it? Do you want it give him six months? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before the next planting season. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He would have to have probably until June, so. would say seven months. He can probably plant in May. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we give him six months. Board of Trustees 20 November 14, 2007 MR. CORCORAN: Is this in condition of a prior permit; the buffer? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. CORCORAN: I wouldn't issue the new permit until the prior condition is applied with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then he can't construct the return. TRUSTEE KING: He can't do the returns until he puts the buffer in. MS. MOORE: Maybe I can remind you of this. This is one I'm familiar with it. We did the permits for the house, then the neighbor sued because the variance was granted. So I think that delayed the whole process. The permit they are talking about is the permit for the house. TRUSTEE KING: The permit we are talking about is for the bulkhead. This is for 164 foot new C-Loc vinyl bulkhead. MR. MOORE: I was under the impression it was for the house. TRUSTEE KING: No, this is strictly for the bulkhead with a non-turf buffer. MS. MOORE: All right, then. MR. CORCORAN: And the issue was you can't, he needs to put it in now to stop the erosion, put the returns in now to stop the erosion and can't plant now because the planting season is over. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has to come in for a compliance check. If it's not done then he has to do it. And we can violate him if he doesn't do it. MR. CORCORAN: If you feel there is a risk of erosion that you don't want to run, then that's the way to go. TRUSTEE KING: He definitely has a problem there. So I'll make that motion, to approve the two returns and with the condition that the non-turf planted buffer be in place. Let's make it by June 1. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, DENNIS KORD requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6267, as issued on December 21,2005, and amended on October 17, 2007. Located: 295 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. He's just asking for a one-year extension. I make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven, PHILIP & MARIA BUFFA request a Transfer of Permit #3894 from Francis Frisbie (current owner is Spicer) to Philip & Maria Buffa, as issued on January 17,1991. Located: 8050 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was discussed inhouse. It's on 8050 Nassau Point Road. Board of Trustees 21 November 14,2007 I believe everyone on the Board spoke about this. We didn't have any problem with it and therefore I'll make a motion to approve the request for transfer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: Before we go into the public hearings, I would like to recognize our newly elected Vinnie Orlando. Vinnie was elected to the Town Board. He's to take office in January. He's getting an idea of what we are doing here. MR. ORLANDO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: We have one town board member that is pretty familiar with what goes on here. It's good to see someone else, too, to have some knowledge of it. Thanks for coming. So these are our public hearings. We try and keep the comments to five minutes or less if possible. If you do have comments, come up to the microphone, identify yourself, please. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, YAN RIEGER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a low-profile bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, a 12x32 foot platform and 4x18 foot catwalk. Located: 370 Harbor Road, Orient. This application has been found inconsistent by LWRP. Where it says erosion of the bank where the bulkhead is proposed is low and slight scouring of the toe of the bank at lower elevations. The bank is currently vegetated with American Beach Grass, Montauk Daisies, prickly pear and is stable. However do the effect the waterway and exposure, the Board may consider a low rock revetment application to stabilize the toe of the slope. CAC supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer; the catwalk be constructed using through flow grating and 4x4 posts. The deck is limited to 2x4 foot and the bulkhead is low profile and kept in line with the neighboring bulkhead. Now, in looking at it, that platform, 12x32 foot platform and the catwalk is not permitted by coastal erosion. It's not removable and it's rather large. There is no other structure down in that area. There is no other structure down in that area. If Board of Trustees 22 November 14,2007 you look at the aerials, the structure is, none of the structures right there have platforms. We have been to the site. We have seen the one house next door has a small bulkhead. It's two lots down from the road end. LWRP is recommending a rock revetment but if you look at some of the pictures that we took, I have pictures here of the stairs that are kind of dangerous. Sorry, that's a different file. See these stairs, they were the ones, these are the pictures that we took. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's so low. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is low. And we saw there was some erosion and we felt the low profile bulkhead would be all right and in fact they had a permit to do that back in, I believe back in the '80s. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We met with them out there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We met with them out there on a previous inspection. So putting the low profile bulkhead in, like I said, he had a permit previously. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: For the low profile bulkhead? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Now, that permit went back to -- TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to take another look at this whole thing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here it is. They had a permit back in 1987 to construct a low profile retaining wall in that same spot. At the time, what he did is he resubmitted the same plan, except he changed the date on it. Because if you see the plan from back in '87 -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need an updated plan, is what you are saying. TRUSTEE KING: Apparently he wants to do the same thing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But apparently they didn't approve the deck back then either. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think this would be considered a low profile bulkhead. All the low profile bulkheads we have done, they flood at high tide and the plantings behind the bulkhead, you actually get a little wetland established behind the bulkhead. I don't think this is going to happen here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Being able to put the plantings behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't flood. It's a lower than normal bulkhead but not what I would call a low-sill or low-profile bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There very little of it actually exposed, really, as a matter of fact. It just adds more of an erosion deterrent, really. TRUSTEE KING: It's two-and-a-half feet exposed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is it that much? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. If this drawing is accurate. Eighth inch is a foot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking at the rock revetment as part of it, Board of Trustees 23 November 14, 2007 also. TRUSTEE KING: It's just about a little less than two-and-a-half feet. It's got quite a bit of stone out front. I doubt very much, I mean, you are looking at stone nine feet seaward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Coming out nine feet? TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a little much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here's the side view. This is a side view you may not have. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I wouldn't mind tabling it to take another look. Is there anybody here to address this application tonight? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: This shows four feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did he have this staked? TRUSTEE KING: I think we should take another look. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe we could ask him to stake where the seaward limits of the wall would be and explain to him why the platform is not doable the way it's set up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I placed a phone call today. I left a message that we want to talk about that, but he didn't come tonight. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think this is as simple as we first thought. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. So I make a motion to table this until we get a chance to look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of PAUL KEBER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install a bluff access stairway and bulkhead with stone armor to curb the bluff erosion. Located: Oregon Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we get to speaking to the application -- and there is a picture on the screen of this location. Just to give you some orientation, it's a picture from the top of the bluff looking down toward Long Island Sound. CAC resolved to support the wetland permit and coastal erosion permit. This was not reviewed under the LWRP and they did have it for 30 days so they had the opportunity to review it and they did not review it. So we can go ahead and move forward with it tonight if we so desire. So, with that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Paul Keber. This is a severely eroded bluff. It is directly to the east; the adjacent property is bulkheaded and as Board of Trustees 24 November 14,2007 shown on your picture there. I don't think given the existing bulkhead next to it that we have the usual concerns here regarding the loss of beach. Because that has not occurred, despite the adjacent bulkhead. I think the design we have here though is superior in any event because it contains a toe armor that would refract wave energy in the event that big storms hit this area. The erosion and the steepness of the bluff and the erosion is so severe that no one would be able to really sustain any stairs from there to the beach. So we have been back before this Board and received a permit to construct stairs and there were stairs actually adjacent to next door that were since washed out. So we think this is really the only alternative the applicant has. Having said that, we have given you, on page two, diagrams as to how the stairs will work with the bulkhead, which I think it's done properly. And finally, the question came up as to how material would be delivered to the site given the steepness of the bluff. The answer is our feeling is it will have to be barged in. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KING: You are going to try and bring stuff in by barge? MR. ANDERSON: We don't have a good way of getting the material to the site. TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of boulders along there, as far as getting a barge in. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. It's not an inexpensive undertaking. TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with DEe on this, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: We are filed and waiting to hear back from them. Wherever it is, it's there. TRUSTEE KING: Because I know we had a couple of stone armoring, they cut us back to one row of stone, if I remember right. MR. ANDERSON: We'll do what we have to do. I think it's best, you know, I don't know what the problem with rock on The Sound would be. TRUSTEE KING: I think they are still going round and round with another one not too far from there as far as the armoring goes. MR. ANDERSON: I know Rob is working on one two doors down. My responsibility is to try design it correctly. If that's not acceptable for some reason, then it's unacceptable. TRUSTEE KING: In looking at this, we've run into this before in that area, the property lines go right down, really on a strong diagonal across the face of the bluff. This bulkhead is actually in front of the old house that's to the west of this property. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. At this point, yes, because it slices. TRUSTEE KING: You are standing at the house looking north. This new bulkhead is in front of that old house. Board of Trustees 25 November 14, 2007 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. I'll also say to you, when we get through -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm surprised those people are not here. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are here. TRUSTEE KING: Oh. Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We may come back to you at some point. I want to do this later, because as everyone finds themselves in the same position here, I anticipate that we may come back to you and just simply tie the bulkheads together to eliminate the returns. But I don't know how the adjacent neighbor necessarily has been treated in the regulatory process. Not so much by you folks, but with DEC. TRUSTEE KING: I know from my experience with joint inspections I have done, usually when there is a return coming in, very seldom do they let you go out past the landward end of that return. I haven't seen them let one go by yet. If you return coming in to the toe of the bluff. MR. ANDERSON: No, my point is it's probably best at the end of the day that the returns be eliminated and the bulkheads simply be connected. TRUSTEE KING: I see what you are saying. I don't think that's going to happen. Because the bulkhead to the east is further seaward, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: But that's okay. I don't mind connecting to the return; in other words, the landward return of that bulkhead, if that's your point. TRUSTEE KING: That's the point I have been trying to make. I have not seen them approve anything where there is a return coming landward. I have never seen them approve a bulkhead seaward of the landward end of that return. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Because it lays out perfectly to do that. That's not going to hurt us. TRUSTEE KING: That's just my comment. My experience is along The Sound. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I questioned that in reading the project narrative. I have gotten a good feel for the structure itself. Was there any plan for planting, because we do have comment from the environmental technician to restore bluff vegetation. MR. ANDERSON: We are required to do that in any event and we brought that to you under a prior application. The question had become what is better, and my thought was, well, it's probably not to go in and plant it, then disturb the planting by doing the work. It's probably best to do the structural work and follow that by the plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak either for or against this application? Board of Trustees 26 November 14, 2007 Do the neighbors want to make the comment? TRUSTEE KING: The adjacent property owners are here. MS. STEUBER: Cathy Gallagher Steuber. We are adjacent to the Keber's. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the west? MS. STEUBER: Yes. The old house you are referring to. We really do need some kind of help here because the erosion is extremely severe and we are almost on the verge of another duck pond with the holes and everything. We are getting really terrific erosion, you know, and this is a picture of the bulkhead on the other side of Mr. Keber's property. And it does seem to be holding, you know, the cliff and as well as the beach is not disturbed by it. So we are hoping that they get approved for this because it will affect all of us. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak either on behalf or against this application? TRUSTEE KING: I have a question for Bruce. Bruce, how far is it from the end of this bulkhead to the bulkhead to the west? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, it's a couple of feet. Sorry, to the west? TRUSTEE KING: Is there a bulkhead to the west? MR. ANDERSON: No, to the east. There is a gap of about a foot-and-a-half. TRUSTEE KING: There is no bulkhead to the west of this project? MR. ANDERSON: No, Gallagher's are unreveted, right, and next to them is O'Mara. And I know-- TRUSTEE KING: Does O'Mara have a bulkhead there? That's the one they were just going to put a row of stone, I think. MR. ANDERSON: No. If they are, it's not being done correctly. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just curious of how much is there of a gap there between bulkheads to the west. If there is no bulkhead, then is a big gap. MR. ANDERSON: There is no bulkhead. The hope is, eventually, that this be tied together. Because it would be the better way to do it. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are running into on the north shore. We are just connecting the dots now. Basically that's what is happening. MR. ANDERSON: It is. But I have been down there. I suppose you could look at some old photos, but it seems to be the system that just protects those bluffs under the most severe conditions. There really is, during the summer, and throughout most of the year, a pretty wide beach there. But what happens is probably three or four times a year it gets slammed, and that's the damage you are seeing. TRUSTEE KING: I know. It was just a question. Board of Trustees 27 November 14, 2007 MS. MOORE: If I could just add -- Patricia Moore. I had spoken to two other property owners. We were actually waiting for O'Mara to find out what the DEC was going to approve there. Because to the, I'm trying to remember if it's to the west of O'Mara, from Corso east, that row of properties would like to extend the bulkhead as well but nobody seems to know what is going to happen with the O'Mara piece and the DEC's, what they are suggesting. So, there is just a line that they also would like to have a continuous bulkhead. So if there is some direction from the Board, I think that you have just about every property owner that is there along about a thousand feet of Sound frontage, that is interested in this similar bulkhead protection. TRUSTEE KING: I have it in my mind, in my head that we issue a permit for O'Mara with stone armoring. A Trustee permit. MS. MOORE: The DEC is the problem. TRUSTEE KING: I know. I'm trying to remember what we issued. I thought we issued a bulkhead permit. MS. MOORE: I guess Rob is not here tonight. But we were talking to Rob about the fact that we wanted to connect and we didn't want to mess up his application process. But, whatever you guys can do. MR. ANDERSON: We will probably be back. But I think, I'm just saying, you know, from our understanding, we think it's designed correctly. TRUSTEE KING: I think they'll have to take a hard look at coming in there with a barge. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we'll deal with that when we get to it. Because who knows if all of these things, really, what should happen is there should be a coordinated plan for the whole stretch. TRUSTEE KING: The only land access would probably be from Duck Pond Road. MR. ANDERSON: That's right. TRUSTEE KING: We just went through a nightmare with that issue there, so. MR. ANDERSON: But one way or the other you'll have to get there. You know. I suppose some material can be sort of, you know -- let me put it this way. That's what we are proposing at the moment. We'll be talking to, we'll have contractors down there. And I personally am, and I like to leave those questions to the contractors. They know more about it than I do, how to mobilize the equipment and all that. TRUSTEE KING: We need to know the access because if they are going to use a road in, then there IS certain things we have to do. MR. ANDERSON: For purposes of that, I'll say a barge, but I'm sure I'm coming back to you, in any event. TRUSTEE KING: I don't doubt it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments on this application? Board of Trustees 28 November 14, 2007 (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Paul Keber as stated in the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. CORCORAN: You need to include in that a finding of consistency. Even though the LWRP coordinator didn't give you a recommendation, you as the agency still need to make a decision as to whether it's consistent. I assume you are finding it consistent since you are approving the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no evaluation done. MR. CORCORAN: As a Board you can still make a finding. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to make a resolution no matter what LWRP says. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, given the construction standards as listed here and the description of the proposed work in the project narrative, I find this -- I'm open to any suggestions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll just look up the policy that we are going to be -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we made a motion. It's been approved. Excuse me, it's been seconded. MR. CORCORAN: It's a little different. It's not the situation where you have an inconsistent recommendation and you need to declare why you are disagreeing with that recommendation. You need to make a finding that it's consistent with the policies. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about this? TRUSTEE KING: Isn't there one policy that considers property? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm looking for now. TRUSTEE KING: This will prevent any further storm damage, loss of property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here you go. I have policy number four, minimizing loss of life, structures, natural resources from flooding and erosion. TRUSTEE KING: It conforms to that policy. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It furthers policy number four which concerns, which is looking to minimize loss of life, structures, natural resources from flooding and erosion. That's what I would suggest that we use. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The fact that it supports policy number four and there is plantings that are going to be included, this would be Board of Trustees 29 November 14, 2007 deemed consistent under the LWRP is the opinion of the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that would become part of the -- that would be a part of the motion to approve the application of Paul Keber as stated with the understanding that this would address policy number four under the LWRP review process and would, combined with the plantings that are going to be installed after construction, the Board would find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, Patricia Moore on behalf of STEVE TENEDIOS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate the existing dwelling, new second floor, replace decks and convert existing dwelling to garage. Located: 1625 North Sea Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Pat Moore. Hot off the press. You wanted some surveys. We got them. I know, Jim, thank you, you made an inspection. I don't know if the others were able to get there. If you don't mind sharing, I only have a certain number. (handing.) I have Mr. Tenedios here. I also have Mr. Higgins who is the architect on this project. Before I start, I do want to want to wish you, the board members, congratulations, as you mentioned, Mr. Orlando who was here, and Mr. King and Mr. Ghosio who will also be with us for another four years. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. MS. MOORE: What we have here is, on North Sea Drive, is a house that needs renovating and any renovations here will have to comply with FEMA guidelines. I don't know if that's the picture of the -- I don't think it has anything to do with this. What we did is we had the area staked out. You can see from the surveyor superimposed the architect's design so you could see what is existing. We are taking this existing structures and combining the existing structures. We have, essentially two separate livable areas and we are going to combine them and then just add decking that surrounds the property and connects -- not going -- the furthest out toward the water is the existing decking that is behind the lefthand structure, the westerly side. That's a, it's called a frame garage with living space above. It's the newer of the two. There is existing decking behind it. What we Board of Trustees 30 November 14, 2007 are doing is continuing the decking and then cutting it back and allowing for essentially a walkway around the house. As I said, I have Mr. Higgins here. He can describe it for you. I know the last time you saw this on the survey, it was a very small scale and we hope that this will be clearer. MR. CORCORAN: Pat, can I ask you, is all this seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line? MS. MOORE: No, the entire house, the street is the coastal erosion hazard line. MR. CORCORAN: So it's all seaward. MS. MOORE: It's all seaward of the -- MR. CORCORAN: So this Board has another application which was postponed tonight, which is Bombara, which is on the same street, so I think you are undertaking to find out what the natural protective feature is for that proposed location, proposed development is located. Some earlier indications it may be a primary dune, may be a beach. Or not -- MS. MOORE: If I could clarify. We have a very different situation. MR. CORCORAN: I know. I'm about to do that for you. Be that as it may, if this is a primary dune, a non-major addition is allowed. I don't think any conclusion has been made as to what the natural protective feature is here. That's the first thing we need to decide. MS. MOORE: On this piece of property. MR. CORCORAN: On this piece of property as well. What's the natural protective feature, because the coastal erosion chapter is very clear as to what you can do depending on what the natural protective feature is. The beach, you can do very little. Primary dunes, you can do different things. You have an existing structure. That's your major sounding difference here. You can have a non-major addition. A major addition is 25% or more ground coverage. MS. MOORE: Correct, it's not based on lot coverage. MR. CORCORAN: Not lot coverage. Ground coverage. You take your existing structure and see what the ground coverage is and you compare it to what you are doing to do and see if it's going to be more than 25% increase. You can only do 25% MS. MOORE: That's how we calculated this here. We were very careful to take the existing structure, figure out what the ground coverage is for the existing structures. That's why we have shown you the area of existing. Then taken and essentially all we've added is decking, for the 25%, I think. Because the existing is right now two structures connected by all the decking area. So. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Am I understanding you to say is there is no LWRP, we are beyond the 30 days, however we are waiting for a determination from the state to state this -- Board of Trustees 31 November 14, 2007 MR. CORCORAN: I think that's what you are doing on the other application. I think you'll need to get some comfort for yourself what is the natural protective feature on this application as well. I'm guessing they will be pretty similar. But you'll need to make a decision as to that and probably be consistent on both applications. MS. MOORE: I think you have a very different topography between this property and the adjacent property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's for the Board to decide. MR. CORCORAN: Someone will need to go out and look at it and make a determination, and if you are seeking the state's recommendation on the other one you should probably do the same on this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have. That's where we are right now, waiting for the state's report. MR. CORCORAN: On this one as well? MS. MOORE: No. That's what I was told. You don't have it for this one? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bombara. MS. MOORE: They looked at it. I don't know if your report is going to include it because I specifically asked for a copy of whatever the report was and I was told verbally when there is no report, I don't know if you are going to get a report or not, and to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have a report as yet. MS. MOORE: I know you are dealing with Bombara which everything is very natural here. You have an existing house. There are no natural, it doesn't appear that you hvae natural protective features within a certain distance of the area of disturbance. It appears that we have some separation between what looks like natural undisturbed terrain and the area where the house is and kind of the living area around the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Peggy is trying to say is we requested the state to review that and give us those answers. And we have not received that yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I would feel more comfortable receiving that information. Even though I understand your point that it's different because it's existing, but I myself would rather see that report. MS. MOORE: I understand, I'm just saying that even assuming -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just telling you. MS. MOORE: (continuing). That that report comes in. If it gives you the worst case scenario, which is we are in the exact same condition as Bombara, we have limited our application to 25%. So we have actually tailored our application to be within the worst case scenario of the 25%. MR. CORCORAN: No, because the worse case scenario -- and I have no reason to believe it's the case for this application, I haven't Board of Trustees 32 November 14, 2007 been there -- the worse case scenario is it's a beach and you can't do anything MS. MOORE: We know that's not the case. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't, that's why we want to wait. MR. CORCORAN: This Board needs to make a decision; is it a beach, is it a primary dune, is it a secondary dune or is it none of the above; is it nothing. It just happens to be behind the line. MS. MOORE: Well, I staked it and I know Jim went out and looked at it. I don't know about anyone else. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We all have been there twice now. MR. CORCORAN: If it's a primary dune you are certainly allowed to have non-major addition, which is 25%. If you've done your calculations and you are within that, then depending on the will of this Board, you might be in good shape. But they need to find out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I personally don't have a problem calling it a primary dune. It's certainly not a beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not going to make that call. MS. MOORE: It's an existing house for 50 years. TRUSTEE KING: This will be a two-story home? MS. MOORE: Yes, on piles. It has to meet FEMA. Any house over there, you can see from the neighborhood, anybody who is at the level we are at, can't stay there. You hvae to raise the house. TRUSTEE KING: So the old house has to be raised. MS. MOORE: Raised. Yes. Not razed. MR. TENEDIOS: Why am I being treated like Bombara? MR. CORCORAN: This is state law. You can only do what you are allowed to do in these areas. MR. TENEDIOS: My name is Steve Tenedios. I'm the property owner. Bombara's case is totally different from mine. This is a 50-year old home. It's two structures. We are joining the two structures. Why even make reference to next door when we are talking about my property? MR. CORCORAN: They happen to be handling another application under the same law and they are following procedure. MR. TENEDIOS: Next door. What does that have to do with my application? MR. CORCORAN: Because it's governed by the same law. MR. TENEDIOS: New construction and renovation is governed by the same law? MR. CORCORAN: Yes, Chapter 111 of our code is the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law we are mandated by New York State to apply. MR. TENEDIOS: I think you are having a problem next door and it's affecting me. MR. CORCORAN: We need to follow the law and find out what the natural protect feature is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are saying is we don't have the Board of Trustees 33 November 14, 2007 information that we want. MR. TENEDIOS: Is this typical, if Bombara wasn't next to me, would I have gone through the same process? MR. CORCORAN: Yes, Mr. Betsch sitting in the back of the room went through the process two years ago. Same thing. On North Sea Drive. He got his decision. MS. MOORE: Exactly. He got his. Everyone on this street has been renovating and going through this process. I guess our concern is there has to be some kind of a timeframe involved because we don't know how long the state might take to give you the recommendation. We are more equivalent to the homes that already have been renovated than we are to Bombara. MR. CORCORAN: Actually, the other case and the Betsch case was actually denied by this Board and went up on appeal to the Town, which then gave it a variance. So in that instance it was a much greater process than the stage we are at right now. MS. MOORE: Then we don't want go through -- MR. CORCORAN: If you want to be treated like everybody else. MS. MOORE: I had two or three applications on North Sea Drive and I know, in reading the regulations, the way I read it is, with the existing structure, there is certainly a difference between that and a new dwelling. MR. CORCORAN: Absolutely. And you can do more when there is an existing structure but it clearly depends on where you are. If you are in a beach, in you are in a dune, if you are in neither. So this Board needs to first decide what area is this proposed project. MR. TENEDIOS: I have one more question. Wasn't that determined when you did Bech's house? Why do we need to re-determine if it's a beach or a dune. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a different location. MR. TENEDIOS: Even though it's the same house five houses down. MR. CORCORAN: You just told us we couldn't look at next door. MR. TENEDIOS: You could look at whatever you want. I just don't want to be inadvertently affected by somebody else' situation. So if it's a beach here, it's not a beach five doors down? MR. CORCORAN: It depends where the property is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not comparing you to Bornbara. That's why we need a report. MR. TENEDIOS: I'm not comparing myself to Bombara either. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want us to use Bombara's report for your property, we don't want to use Bombara's report for your property. MS. MOORE: We are not trying to be adversarial. We just want to get an idea of the timeframe. TRUSTEE KING: You are going in that direction. MS. MOORE: That's why I'm stopping it. Board of Trustees 34 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We also want to make sure we have all the information we need to make our decision. That's where we are. MS. MOORE: I understand. Has the state given you any idea how long it might take before they can give you a recommendation? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could call and keep on top of it. MS. MOORE: It's been about a month-and-a-half now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was just a month ago, I believe. Not even a month. TRUSTEE KING: There are a ton of questions I would like to ask. Out of my curiosity. The house is going to be raised, am I correct MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be on piles? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I think the question was asked before, how are you going to put piles in place with the original house there? MS. MOORE: You have to actually pick the house up, get it out of the way. TRUSTEE KING: And that structure will stand being lifted? MS. MOORE: Ideally, demolition is the best, but we have to be careful with that. TRUSTEE KING: That's one of my questions. What happens if you start to lift it and the whole thing falls apart and you have to demolish it? Does that change what can be done? Because structurally, I mean I'm not an engineer, believe me, I have been around houses a long time. The structure of that house will be very difficult to lift up in one piece. MS. MOORE: It will be very expensive -- TRUSTEE KING: And where are they going to put it when they put the poles in? On the beach or out in the street? They have to move it someplace. MS. MOORE: We have about 40 feet, 35 feet to the front. For example, Bonzubin (sic). That's one that I had after we had all the permits here, the DEC insisted that the house be raised because the client did not really want to raise the house. They actually had on shift it over. It doesn't need to get off the property that far. It gets shifted enough so that they can drill the piles and then they shift it back. I believe that's how it was done with Bonzubin (sic). It's not actually picked up like a domino and moved over here. It's lifted, moved out, they set the piles, push it back, set the other piles and it's shifted around that way. It's a very expensive process. It's unfortunate we have to go through but we have to do what we have to do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But, as Jim asked, if it doesn't structurally hold up then there would have to be a demolishing or rebuilding, which mayor may not change -- MS. MOORE: I have not researched it to that level to know what -- Board of Trustees 35 November 14,2007 it's a disturbed property. I mean, everything is disturbed there. So. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think at the very least you would have to come back to us at that point; stop what you are doing and come back to us. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's usually the case for that. Right now we are anticipating the lifting retaining -- certainly, we have a lot of new construction because the two buildings actually have to be connected. So. TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure, Pat, you have seen other instances where there was a second story addition and the whole house was gone. It's happened in the past. MS. MOORE: I have been here, yes. If you ask any builder, that's the recommendation they make because it's very expensive. The builder gets a price to win the bid and then they don't really talk to us before they go ahead and take the thing down because it's a lot less expensive to demolish and rebuild completely new wood. This is going to be much more extensive and I warned the client it will be a much more expensive way of developing this property. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the sanitary going? MS. MOORE: The front. We don't have the sanitary on this plan. TRUSTEE KING: This it will be between the road and the house? MS. MOORE: Yes. It's definitely in the front yard. We know that. It will probably need upgrading. Any upgrading will be in the front. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know where the present one is? MS. MOORE: We think it's in the front. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to know and see that on the survey. MS. MOORE: We could. That's not a problem. Understand, I tried to get this to you as soon as possible. There is more information we can provide. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a question. Would you consider bringing, on the side where you have the new deck going seaward, would you consider bringing that back to the existing footprint? MS. MOORE: I'm not sure I know which deck you are talking about. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you brought the new deck back to the line of what is currently the garage, that gets us, I think, into the existing footprint. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where the stakes show when we were out in the field. MS. MOORE: No, the stake was this. It's only 16 feet in total. When you are there, it's very small, so -- do you want it cut? Are you talking about this portion cut back? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. The reason I ask that is because if I'm not mistaken, if you stay within the original footprint it's irrelevant if it's beach or primary dune because they are not adding anything. Board of Trustees 36 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not what Kieran is saying. They may have to do that anyway depending on what the findings of the state are. MS. MOORE: I mean, if you are going to hold off until the state comes back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's your call. MS. MOORE: If we could get the approval today just by cutting back the deck some, I think my client will go with it and get started. Because we have other things to do, sanitary and so on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would want to see the sanitary and wait for the state. MS. MOORE: We can provide you with the survey showing sanitary. We know it's in the front. It has to be in the front. We won't get approval with the DEC to put it in the back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it's in the front, it's out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: It's in coastal erosion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I keep forgetting that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Due to the fact that the full Board of Trustees have more questions and more information we would like to get to review this application, I would like to make a motion to table this application. MR. BETSCH: Could I say something, please. My name is John Betsch. I live on North Sea Drive. I don't know if the Board remembers, Kieran Corcoran wasn't here last month but in the October meeting you mentioned that the DEC, both Eric Starr and Rob McDonaugh were there at the site and at that time they determined it was a primary dune. That was stated at the October meeting. So it's a primary dune. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have that in writing yet. We have to formally request a report from them, which we did, I believe, like three weeks ago, and we are waiting for that report. MR. BETSCH: If it's based on it being a primary dune couldn't you make your decision tonight? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't. We don't have that in writing. That was just a verbal. MR. BETSCH: Based on his statement, based on getting a written report that it is a primary dune? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to see the report and the findings and the backing of that so we can have the information in front of us. MR. BETSCH: But it has been determined? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was a verbal discussion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was with two Trustees. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't attend that meeting. MR. CORCORAN: Was that for Bombara or this application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We discussed both. But Jill and I were the only Trustees there at the time, so that's not something we would make a Board of Trustees 37 November 14, 2007 decision on. MR. BETSCH: Just that it was mentioned. I don't think you remember, you mentioned Robert McDonaugh and Eric Starr were there. MS. MOORE: I hadn't heard that he had given a opinion it was a primary dune. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he wanted to research some of his maps back in his office before he made a final decision. That's why we are waiting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a motion on the floor to table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Can you let me know when you get the report, if you would? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are now moving to wetland permits. Number one, PATRICK W. LOHN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and rebuild inkindlinplace, the existing wood frame deck (including footings), and to construct a 12x15 foot wood frame deck extension to the northwest side of said existing deck in order to square off the structure. Located: 2480 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent providing materials used on the deck to be specified. And that there is a turf under the deck to be removed for drainage purposes. And the CAC resolved to support the application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LOHN: I'm Patrick Lohn and I want you to pass it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to say this on the record. MR. LOHN: I'm the applicant. If you have been to the site you know that the deck is, it's just falling apart. It's a hazard, actually, to even walk on it. And it needs to be replaced anyway. And what we want to add to it is away from the water and I don't think that it should present a problem to anybody. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was the material that you proposed to use for the deck MR. LOHN: I don't really know if we had gotten that far. I would take, you know, whatever the recommendation of the Board is, you know, we would conform to that. We just want something that is going to look nice and last a while. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In we could, if you could, we would prefer you not use CCA. MR. LOHN: We were not planning on doing that. I was hoping with for something substantially nicer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looked like there was an attempt behind the Board of Trustees 38 November 14,2007 bulkhead to do a non-turf buffer at one point because I went out and looked at the property and there was some Rosa Rugosa's planted in there but then it looks like it was maybe seeded or whatever, the bulkhead that is existing on the property. MR. LOHN: Okay, that's not anywhere near the deck, though. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. But what we would like to see is a non-turf buffer created along there. MR. LOHN: That's what we are trying to do. We put in some planting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I noted. It looks like you attempted to do that. MR. LOHN: We don't want grass. The grass that we have, we don't even feed. We don't water it. If you went around the other side of the boat slip, you'll notice we did other planting there just to try to hold everything together. That's a work in progress. If you notice, all the vegetation around the little bathing slip, off of the existing deck, it's completely grown in and mother nature did that. We did none of that. So, we kind of wanted to make it consistent along the other part and when we had that one big storm this winter, we it lose some soil, you know, where I planted, so, yes, that's the full intention. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you be willing to remove the turf under the proposed new deck that will be constructed? MR. LOHN: Oh, under where the extension is? Yes, absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. And just so we can quantify a non-turf buffer, we would like to recommend it be ten-foot wide in total there. MR. LOHN: Okay, where are you talking? Show me on the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll show you. It's right along here. MR. LOHN: So in other words along -- yes, that's not a problem. We'll just need to leave a pathway because of the ramp that is here. That's not a problem. I mean, all we need is to stagger some plants in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just like some of the plantings you already sta rted. MR. LOHN: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fine. We just didn't want to have grass in there. Are there any other questions from the Board? (No response.) Is there anybody else here in the audience who wanted to speak to this application? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 39 November 14,2007 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number one, Patrick Lohn, as stated in the application with the condition that there be a non-turf buffer placed along the bulkhead/boat basin running approximately north to south and; that the turf be removed under the new deck extension and; that CCA would not be used with the material for the deck. MR. LOHN: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make that motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. LOHN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How much of a buffer? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ten foot. MR. LOHN: What's the procedure? Will you issue a permit? It's been a long time before I was before the Board. Is it like a week, two weeks? Do you call me to pick it up? What happens? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can just draw it in the plan there. I don't think we'll need a revised plan. I'll just draw it in. If that's okay with you, what I would like you to do, Mr. Lohn, is come up and you can initial this. MS. STANDISH: We'll be in touch with you. MR. LOHN: (Initialing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Perfect. Thank you, very much. MR. LOHN: Thank you, guys, appreciate it. TRUSTEE KING: One the resolution that we did is it included we found it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mentioned it was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to make a resolution saying it was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was not aware. I thought if it was found consistent -- MR. CORCORAN: No. This agency must make a consistency finding for every decision it makes. Unless it's exempt. The recommendation is just that, a recommendation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So I have to then withdraw the resolution and do a new resolution? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we just make a new resolution on this. MR. CORCORAN: You can do a separate resolution, just finding it consistent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, then I would like to propose to the Board a new resolution on the Patrick Lohn application, number one, as stated, 2480 Minnehaha Boulevard as we have approved, stating that we found it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 40 November 14,2007 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: MICHAEL BUNKER requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing 41 foot section of the existing dock as required. Construct new 3x32 foot catwalk on offshore end with a 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x2D foot seasonal floating dock secured by two ten-inch diameter by 3D-foot pilings, revegetate disturbed area on the seaward side of the dwelling and reshingle shed/boathouse roof. Located: 3392 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. The CAC supports the application with the condition a drainage plan is submitted for runoff, ten foot buffer installed and appropriate material are used on the dock. It's found inconsistent with the LWRP because the applicant has not demonstrated that the action follows stipulated policies; material proposed to construct at the end of the dock, it shows in the area is submerged aquatic vegetation. (Reading). TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to speak up to get it on the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is a long report, so bear with me. Okay, the structure extends beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters. The proposed action impedes public use. This is all the LWRP report. Assure public access to public trust lands and navigable waters. The Board, in reviewing this, feels that this, the dock, if you shorten it by, according to your drawing, by six feet, shorten the catwalk, that will put it in line with the neighboring docks and that will also address some of the questions in LWRP and it will get you out of that area that LWRP feels there is some vegetation in the water. I don't really know if that's vegetation or what that is. It's kind of hard to tell from the aerial they have in here. Do you have any objection to shortening it? MR. BUNKER: I'm Michael Bunker. No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the pile sizes, is there any reason why you request a ten-inch pile? MR. BUNKER: Costello Marine did it. I have no idea how to build a dock. That's what they suggested. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I think in that area we can probably get away with six-inch pilings. It's not a heavily stormed area. TRUSTEE KING: Eight inch in the float is all right. Six inch on the catwalk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, eight inch on the float and six inch on the catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: Is it open grate? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. We would request an open grate catwalk and no CCA MR. BUNKER: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This would bring this all into consistency with LWRP. Board of Trustees 41 November 14, 2007 With regard to the vegetation of the front, you had a violation there. Was that included in this? MR. BUNKER: They actually didn't give us a fine. It was dismissed. MR. CORCORAN: I have a note from Lori it's been taken care of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a planting plan in place? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a planting plan. There is no, I don't think there is any grass that is going to be planted there. MR. BUNKER: Not at the moment, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the shed is something that has existed for a long time. They are just removing that. There is plenty of vegetation and buffer in there. So I would recommend that all that buffer stay. Are there any questions from the Board? (No response.) Any other comments for or against this application? TRUSTEE KING: It's a seasonal float? MR. BUNKER: Seasonal. TRUSTEE KING: It can't be in the water no earlier than the 1st of April and out by December 1. Those are the dates we have been using that is consistent with DEC seasonal. The 1 st of December out of the water, back in the water no earlier than the 1 st of April. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Michael Bunker for the 3x26 catwalk, which is different than what he applied for, so we'll need to see new drawings. So 3x26 catwalk on the offshore end with a 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp on to a 6x20 seasonal floating dock, secured by six-inch pilings with two eight-inch pilings on the float. Eight inches on the float. Six inches on the catwalk. And revegetate disturbed area and keep that as a non-turf vegetated area on the seaward side of the dwelling and reshingle shed/boathouse roof. And the catwalk should be made of a open grating, no CCA. And the shed should stay also as a storage shed, no electric, no plumbing. That is one of the conditions. And I think that covers it. Doing these changes will make this consistent with LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. BUNKER: Thank you, very much. Board of Trustees 42 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Craig Larsen on behalf of DARYL MALTER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 110 feet of existing CCA bulkhead, construct 4x80 foot set of stairs to beach and install 100 cubic yards clean sand fill. Located: 4425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was found inconsistent -- part of it was found inconsistent with LWRP. I believe it's because they wanted to use CCA sheathing. That we can address. The stairway was found consistent with LWRP. And they recommend no CCA treated lumber to be used during construction of the stairs and a revegetation plan is provided for the bluff following construction for erosion control, and the existing vegetation on the bluff is protected during construction. The applicant limits the clearing of vegetation to the area necessary to construct the access stairway. We looked at this, Dave and I went down and looked at it more closely on the bulkhead and it looks like the piles and the wailers are all in good shape. It's the sheathing that is all shot. MR. LARSEN: The sheathing is failing. TRUSTEE KING: Can you go behind, take out the old sheathing and just go behind the wailers and existing piles with plastic? MR. LARSEN: I have some pictures of some of the pilings they have replaced with CCA pilings, the original wall section, I guess, to the south side, is failing pretty badly. I checked some of the pilings and some of the wailers and they are fairly rotted from behind. I don't have a picture of that but they are in pretty bad shape. I have an approved plan from the DEC to include vinyl sheathing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was one of the requests we had. TRUSTEE KING: This will be a complete replacement then? MR. LARSEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: All piles and wailers? MR. LARSEN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question we had is right now you have a proposed jog in the bulkhead. You have 40 feet and it goes into 62 feet. MR. LARSEN: That's the original structure, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were wondering if that could be pulled in so it's all in line with the 62 foot section. In other words the 40 foot is pulled in so it's in line with the 60 foot, so it's a straight line bulkhead rather than -- MR. LARSEN: The only issue there is the neighboring bulkhead to the north, it would be attaching to the return and they would probably have to repair the whole return because it's failing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a good point. TRUSTEE KING: Now, is that -- I see this gray vinyl sheath, is that just a flat tongue in groove type board? It's not like the Shore Guard? Board of Trustees 43 November 14, 2007 MR. LARSEN: Shore Guard 9000. Nine inches deep. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. So the whole thing, I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was just a hope that some of the pilings could be saved to save the applicant money and save the additional work, that's all. MR. LARSEN: With putting in the whole vinyl sheathing and everything else, they may as well go with a new wall, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: So by using the plastic, that takes the inconsistency out, because he was concerned about the CCA. That was the only -- so by using the plastic, that brings it back into consistency. It should. The stairs, I don't think anything had a problem with the stairs. At the top, we were going to ask for a buffer at the top of the bluff there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, 15 foot buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Let me read the CAC. CAC supports the application. We want to see vinyl sheathing, which we are doing. Provisions are made to stabilize the bluff. 20 foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. Open grate decking on the landings of the stairs and support bracings along the bottom of the stairs. Elimination of lawn chemicals. Did we specify a size? We specified a 15 foot planted buffer along the top. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we felt 15 was in line with some of the existing vegetation and also the neighbors. TRUSTEE KING: Right. MR. LARSEN: There is existing vegetation, Rosa Rugosa, a couple of trees on the north side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, I believe it was on the corners of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like they tried to do some plantings on the bluff face itself, too. It still needs to be addressed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The lawn needs to be replaced. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe even cut back a little, the way it slopes down. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see a planting plan? TRUSTEE KING: It probably wouldn't be a bad idea. MR. LARSEN: Do you want to go fifteen feet from the top of the bluff? That's fine, I'm okay that. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have any pictures of it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was raining. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to think what was behind the bulkhead behind the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Down there it was mostly eroded out. It was pretty much empty behind there, hence the need for -- TRUSTEE KING: That can be filled and planted with beach grass. Board of Trustees 44 November 14, 2007 MR. LARSEN: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And on the top, we want to see a 15-foot non-turf planted buffer. So 15 feet of lawn has to be a planted buffer. If you could show us a plan. MR. LARSEN: From the top, for the dwelling. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Give us a set of plans showing a 15 foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff and non-turf behind the new bulkhead with American Beach Grass plant the there. MR. LARSEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: And maybe some plantings on the face of the bluff where it comes down. You need something there. MR. LARSEN: That section that's failing. Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Show us some plantings in there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would recommend natural vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, native vegetation. MR. LARSEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: We don't want ornamental stuff. If we could do that, I think that would pretty much satisfy us. Are there any other comments on this? MS. MALTER: I'm Daryl Malter, the property owner. I just have some questions about what you said about the 15 feet. Is that, that's between the height of the bluff and the house? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. MALTER: 15 feet of non-turf plantings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You started it. You have the beach roses you planted there. MS. MALTER: Because we are worried about the erosion, too. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That 15 foot buffer will help to strengthen that. TRUSTEE KING: Every time we see sod right to the end, first thing you know, you have a problem. And it just gets progressively worse. MR. LARSEN: Point of failure, I guess. MS. MALTER: So I'm clear, behind the bulkhead, you want beach grass, American Beach Grass? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would help when you get a storm. MS. MALTER: We really have plans to do the whole thing in beach grass to prevent erosion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever native plants you want to do on the non-turf buffer, you tell us. MS. MALTER: You can approve it? TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve it based on the new set of plans, sure. Any other comments from the Board? Board of Trustees 45 November 14, 2007 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 based on a new set of plans showing the non-turf buffer at the top of the slope, 15-foot buffer. A buffer behind the bulkhead planted with American Beach Grass. We'll use vinyl sheathing for the bulkhead. And I think that will bring that into consistency because the original application was for CCA. For the construction of the stairway be limited, activity limited just to what you need to build a set of stairs. And any vegetation that is removed is to be replanted. MR. LARSEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: And I think that would bring it, I'll make a motion that brings it into consistency with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application as stated with the other requirements. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. LARSEN: Thank you. MS. MALTER: Thank you, very much. MR. LARSEN: Can I get a copy of the DEC plan? TRUSTEE KING: Here you go. MR. LARSEN: Have a nice evening. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Karen Rivara on behalf of NOANK AQUACULTURE COOPERATIVE requests a Wetland Permit to install aquaculture gear; deploy four additional FLUPSY's on the aquaculture dock for nursery cultivation of shellfish seed and floating bags and cages off the aquaculture dock, for the growout of shellfish seed; place cages and racks with trays in the renovated shellfish barn to cultivate shellfish seed and to hold market shellfish for winter harvest; and add two additional land based upweller tanks 4x12 feet in the shellfish barn. Located: 10273 North Bayview Road, Southold. The LWRP coordinator has reviewed it and finds it to be consistent with LWRP. CAC looked at it and inspected it and they have resolved to support the application. I don't see any stipulations. And we received a letter that I need to read into the record. This letter is dated November 10,2007. Board of Trustees 46 November 14,2007 Dear Board of Trustees, we are members of the Pluck Shellfisher Homeowners Association and we oppose the project requested by Noank Aquaculture Cooperative. As members of the homeowners association, we have the right to use the west side of the dock. If the east side of the dock will be filled with FLUPSY systems and cages, we can only assume that the permanent dock will consumed with the equipment related to this project. We would like the dock to be free and clear of any objects so that our guests can dock their boats on the west side and not have any safety issues. Secondly, we do not approve of the project since it no longer seems to be a small research project but a commercial project that is getting bigger and bigger. We all have a right to use the area as a dock as a homeowners association member and we all also have our own dock. Noank Aquaculture Cooperative brings unwanted traffic, noise, safety issues and potential liability issues to our homeowners association. When we purchased the lots from the Pluck Shellfisher Homeowners Association we were told that the shellfish project being run by the Peconic Land Trust through Cornell Cooperative Extension would be kept as is and only maintained. Now there are two corporations, Noank and Aeros, operating on the property leased from the Peconic Land Trust. An educational center is being constructed and bus tours of the property. This property at the dock is not for the exclusive use of the Peconic Land Trust or its lessees. It's a common area for all the homeowners association members to use and enjoy. Currently this area is a mess and has been for months, and this area is filled with potential dangers for us, our children and our animals. Please consider our position to halt any further development of the property and stop commercial projects at the property. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Lorraine Cornell, secretary for the Pluck Shellfisher Homeowners Association. The phone number is there. Thank you. Regards, Lorraine and Cliff Cornell, Ruth and Cliff Cornell, Ginger and Rick Principi. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. RIVARA: Yes, I'm Karen Rivara, Noank Aquaculture Cooperative. I also have the return receipts from the, that was sent. The west side of the dock has been used for aquaculture since the Land Trust took control of the property. I'm a representative of Noank Aquaculture Cooperative. That is the only lessee at the property. There are three other members here as well. There has been commercial aquaculture gear there. There was a former tenant that was there. So that dock has been used since I believe 1995 for aquaculture gear. It predated the requirement for the wetland permit. Board of Trustees 47 November 14, 2007 The permit that you have in front of you is for the additional gear that would accommodate the other members of the co-op. My gear received a permit, I believe in 2005, if I'm correct. And then the other gear that we are talking about would go in the building that is being constructed presently and would not be on the aquaculture dock. So there's two areas that we are referring to. So I'll take whatever questions you have. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody on the Board have any comments or questions? TRUSTEE KING: I just have a question on the ownership. Do you have anything from -- Peconic Land Trust actually owns the property? MS. RIVARA: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have anything from them authorizing you to apply and get a permit in your corporation name from them as property owners? MS. RIVARA: Yes, I believe I included a letter from the Land Trust saying that we have permission to use the property. It was -- I do have one. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE KING: Because usually the permit is issued in the property owner's name. That's just my question. MS. RIVARA: Okay, last time I did the permit for the, wetland permit for the gear that is already there, it was with the permission of the land owner. But I think so. That's how we did it. But at and rate, if you need it to be done that way, that's fine. MR. CORCORAN: You'll need a written consent from the owner of the land for this project. MS. RIVARA: Yes, I believe there is one in there. We do have a letter saying they consent to this. It's in this pile somewhere. I don't know if you want me it give it to you after I find it. It will take me probably five, ten minutes to look through here and find it. But I know we have it. TRUSTEE KING: We should have something like that in the file. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm taking a look here. Who is the owner of this property? MS. RIVARA: Peconic Land Trust. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have it here. I John Halsey, residing at 296 Hampton Road, Southampton, hereby authorize Karen Rivara to apply for permits. And he's the president of Peconic Land Trust. So we do have that letter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only comment that I have, when we inspected it, it does seem a bit of a mess down there and I do, I was actually surprised, I think. I didn't expect it to be as messy as it seems to be. So I mean, I think that the homeowners association has a legitimate reason for concern in that regard. MS. RIV ARA: Are you talking about the aquaculture dock or the site Board of Trustees 48 November 14, 2007 in general? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the site in general, to be honest. MR. RIVARA: Maybe I could speak to that. I'm Greg Rivara, the preserve manager for the Land Trust. I have nothing to do with the cooperative. I work Cornell Cooperative Extension as well. A lot of the material that's left there, that is quite honestly a mess, was left by a former tenant and the Land Trust attorney told us that we can't we can't just scrap the stainless steel and other things around the property. Because theoretically he could sue the Land Trust. If it was up to me it would have been gone months ago. This individual is long since gone but unfortunately the stuff is there still there. I can answer any questions about the site in general, but really nothing to do with this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the plan for whether you can touch this to remove it? MR. RIV ARA: It's a good question. The owner of the material in question told the Land Trust last week he was going to send a truck to remove it. He has not. We have been calling him every week to do so. Quite honestly, I would like to see it disappear. I don't think he'll sue and I'll try my best to get rid it by the end of this month. Which is two weeks. TRUSTEE KING: Greg, what's the plan on how the dredge spoils are spread out. What's going to happen there? MR. RIVARA: We are going to revegetate that. Grade it. The has got a grant from a foundation to do just that. And they are going to put together a plan with their landscape architect in Southampton to do that. In fact Pam Greene spoke to someone at your Board earlier this week asking if we could have a meeting with you and she was told no, just come up with a plan and we'll go through it. So there is money in the budget and, again, I kind of apologize and I beg the patience of the Board and the homeowners association because it's a private, the Land Trust is a private organization, limited budget with a long history here. But I think everyone will be pleased with the outcome. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a recommendation to put some hay bales along either side of that driveway there. MR. RIVARA: That's been done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we made that recommendation in the field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Karen, what material, that will be stored on the site, beside what is in the water? Do you have other material stacked there on the land or anything? MS. RIV ARA: What we would like to do, there will be some cages that may be kept on land. One plan is to, because we have the plan to revegetate, we basically need to put a green fence so the homeowners would not see the cages if they are left out of the Board of Trustees 49 November 14, 2007 water, down near the water. We also have space next to the green garage which could be used which is totally out of the view the of the homeowners. So the intent is certainly to keep it in a much neater condition. We are just, with all the construction, that needs to get done and then we can tidy up the spot. The tanks that are on the aquaculture dock will be removed. The plan is to take that culling machine off the dock and put it on a floating dock. That will be removed from the view shed, pretty much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this point do you know if you'll do that fence and where you'll do it? MS. RIV ARA: That I think would be part of the revegetation plan. One proposed spot would be near where the electric meter is on the property. Because there is a driveway that goes to the homeowners side of the property and that, I think, would solve that problem. And perhaps some more on the adjacent property. Not on his property, but on that side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need the dimensions of the fence and location. MS. RIV ARA: It would not be an actual -- when I say green fence, I mean cedars or something like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was thinking of the fences with the green things, but you mean plantings. MS. RIVARA: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Plantings are fine. That's better than a structure. TRUSTEE KING: Did that letter say that one dock is a common dock? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It says as members of the homeowners association we have the right to use the west side of the dock. If the east side of the dock will be filled with FLUPSY systems and cages, we can only assume that the permanent dock will be consumed with equipment related to this project. We would lake the dock to be free and clear of any objects so our guests can dock their boats on the west side and not have a safety issue. TRUSTEE KING: That was my question. Which dock are they talking about? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks like they are talking about the west side. They have the right to use the west side of the dock. TRUSTEE KING: They want the FLUPSYs on the east side. So there is a west side that is supposed to kept open for the property owners? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks that way. MR. RIV ARA: I don't have a copy of the HOA agreement with me. I'm not sure on that. They have their own docks, smaller ones, to the south of this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see. They also state in the letter they have the right to use that area of the dock as an HOA member but they also have their own dock in that area. Board of Trustees 50 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to get that clarified; who gets to use what dock and what percentage of the dock they can use. We need to get that clarified, so there is no dispute. MR. RIV ARA: Even if they do, this application is on the east side of the dock. TRUSTEE KING: So we might need a little more information. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or ideas from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say we probably need, what Jim is saying, to clarify that. I don't want to approve something that takes away from something else. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concerns mentioned in that letter, that's the only one I feel still needs to be addressed. I feel they addressed all the other concerns, at least in my opinion. But that one, as far as what the agreement is, legally, for the use of that dock. I'm also a little confused because that dock is north on one side and south on the other, if I'm thinking of the same dock, and it keeps getting referred to as west and east. So I'm confused with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I been living in my house for ten years and I still can't figure which direction it's facing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You've got to have a compass, Bob. MS. RIVARA: Actually, the dock runs pretty much north/south but do you need a copy of the HOA, is that what you are looking for, that addresses the rights? It's referred to in the HOA as lot five. So what you would want to see is what the -- TRUSTEE KING: It's nice to see it on the survey exactly what is what and what they are claiming they have use of. MS. RIV ARA: I'll also, if it's okay with the Board of Trustees, notify the land owner. They may want to weigh in on that issue, if it's okay with you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that being said, I'll make a motion to table this application so we can get the additional information. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you for coming. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JERRY CALLIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new, smaller single-family dwelling with attendant sanitary system. Located: 2350 Paradise Point Road, Southold. The Board did go out and look at this. The LWRP was evaluated. LWRP was found to be exempt. And the CAC resolved to support the application. The entire Board went out and I went out Board of Trustees 51 November 14, 2007 there separately. This was a house that was destroyed in a fire, I believe, last spring, winter, and the applicant now wants to rebuild it, and the new structure will be smaller than what is currently there. Is there anybody here who wants to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental on behalf of the applicant. My name is Bruce Anderson. I think it's so straight forward, I don't think I have to add to that. Other than I do want to mention a couple of quick things. We are going to have to address drainage. You don't see that on the plan. I want to submit that on a separate plan. I'll need that for a building permit in any event. And on that plan I'll also specify a hay bale line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the comments I made was the inclusion of gutters and drywells on the site because I didn't see that on the plan here. MR. ANDERSON: We are doing these sort of drainage, for building permits that the engineers seems to like, we give the whole calculations. TRUSTEE KING: You need to meet the new drainage code. MR. ANDERSON: We have sort of a format for doing it. TRUSTEE KING: Because we have to address it also. MR. ANDERSON: But I would rather do it the way we do it because the survey is so small. I don't think you'll be able to see anything. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other item was the hay bale line and I'm having a little difficulty reading this on the survey. Looks like the 20 foot contour line. Looks like it's approximately at the top of the bluff there. MR. ANDERSON: Right. What we would probably do is, we'll probably set up a hay bale line 20 or 25 feet seaward of the seaward face so equipment can get around it easily. Obviously the building will have to be demolished and removed. There will be some disturbance associated with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No, it's just unusual to see somebody go smaller. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. It is. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing then. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Jerry Callis as described with the only addition to the description is there will be included Board of Trustees 52 November 14, 2007 gutters, leaders and drywells with the construction of the new house and that there be a hay bale line established at the 20 foot contour line as depicted on the survey. Hang on. MR. ANDERSON: It's really much easier just to do it, because the 20 foot, the hay bale, you are going from the bulkhead all the way up and sort of cutting across the lot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm having trouble reading this. This was not from the bulkhead. This was well above the bulkhead where I was reading. The 20 foot. MR. ANDERSON: The 20 foot, in other words, I would simply just rather do maybe 25 feet seaward of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Of the existing home that will be demolished. MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine with me. So the hay bale line will be 25 feet seaward of the home that will be demolished. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: There was a question, will it show the drywells on the plans? MR. ANDERSON: I'll give you drainage plans showing hay bales, drywells, and that plan will note gutters and downspouts. TRUSTEE KING: Was there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Being this is exempt from LWRP, do we still have to a make a determination on it? MR. CORCORAN: No, you do not. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. I appreciate it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number six, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of VICTOR J. & MARY S. ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a 40x60 foot two-story dwelling in its place maintaining the existing wetland setback of 75 feet and to install a new sanitary system and abandon the existing sanitary system. Located: 365 Basin Road, Southold. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Messiano on behalf of the applicant. The Board tabled this matter last month because the LWRP had to revise their report. We submitted additional surveys hoping to clarify any ambiguity that the LWRP might have found. So, we are here for you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC supports the application with the condition gutters and drywells are installed. MS. MESIANO: That's part of the plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And to contain the roof runoff a line of staked hay bales in place before any activity begins. And the revised LWRP Board of Trustees 53 November 14, 2007 also makes the recommendations that, again, they mention the hay bales and silt fencing to protect the wetland system during construction. They are looking for a 20-foot non-turf buffer of native vegetation, planted buffer landward of the existing non-turf buffer and require that native disease resistant and drought tolerant landscaping to minimize irrigation and fertilizer applications. MS. MESSIANO: I'm sorry, could you repeat the last one? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In other words so they don't have to be irrigated or fertilized, more native species so they are tolerant to the conditions and they don't need irrigation or fertilizer. It also says the distance for the proposed reconstruction from the wetland boundaries, 75 feet. The minimum setback distance is 100 feet. This Board realizes that it's an existing building and the majority of the construction is within the footprint. MS. MESIANO: And I would add, too, that the majority of the construction that is outside of the footprint is outside the limit of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just asking because-- MS. MESIANO: I'm just answering because I wanted to clarify. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there any consideration to move the reconstruction any farther landward? MS. MESIANO: There is no way to accomplish anything beneficial by doing that. And I think -- I tried to make that clear at the site visit. If we were to move the house landward, we would then be moving it into an area where the building envelope is greatly diminished. If you look at the surveys we have, the building envelope diminishes to zero. So this is the only opportunity within which to get something reasonable on the site without having to go for a variance. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the proposed driveway is pervious? MS. MESIANO: No, the proposed driveway is asphalt. There will be minimal disturbance to the driveway and the drywells, as we had discuss the last time, there are ample drywells proposed because the calculations for the runoff have been made and there is adequate containment for the roof runoff. Storm water runoff, excuse me. TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, isn't there a fairly substantial buffer behind the bulkhead now, if I remember right? MS. MESSIANO: Yes, there was a non-turf buffer that was put in in accordance with the bulkheading permit that was issued a number of years ago, and that's maintained. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just not shown on the survey. MS. MESSIANO: They didn't do the landscape items on the survey. Did you say it's ten, 12 feet. MR. ZUPA: I would say over ten feet. They specify ten but I Board of Trustees 54 November 14, 2007 believe it's more than ten feet. And we don't irrigate the lawn at all. The lawn is not watered. MS. MESSIANO: Also what is not shown on the survey is the heavy vegetation along the northwest area of the property where it says wood tie wall. It's heavily vegetated in that area. Nothing will be touched in there. There will be minimal sight disturbance because the new house will be built where the existing house is. And I think, I've tried to make the point to the Board, that mitigation, I believe, is substantial in that, number one, we are taking a nonconforming septic system and creating a conforming septic system. We are containing all runoff, where there is minimal disturbance to the site. The house will be tremendously more energy efficient than what is there now and if the Board has any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me ask if anyone else is here tonight who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) Do any Board members have any comments? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the Board had a huge problem with it last time around. It just had to be re-reviewed. And that's because there was an addition to it? If it was exactly the same footprint, it would have been -- MS. MESIANO: Right, it's because the footprint of the new house is different than the footprint of the old house. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I wanted to make. I agree. think the present buffer is an excellent buffer that is there and I don't see the need to extend that buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for Victor and Mary Zupa to demolish the existing dwelling as per the plans. And that this Board deems this consistent with LWRP with a mitigating septic system that is out of our jurisdiction; that the driveway has drainage; that there is an existing buffer and that drywells and gutters and hay bales are going to be used in the plans. MS. MESSIANO: That's correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We need to declare it consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She did. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I missed it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 55 November 14, 2007 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was actually trying to look up the policy that the house would actually further the policy. MS. MESSIANO: From an efficiency and energy usage -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It furthers policy 13. MS. MESSIANO. Yes. Thank you. And I would just like to congratulate the Board members on their re-election. Glad to see you both back. MR. ZUPA: I would just like to say, thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven. Catherine Messiano on behalf of HOPE SCHNEIDER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition to the existing dwelling, renovate the existing first floor, reduce and replace the existing deck, replace and extend the front porch and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1960 Mill Lane, Peconic. This is exempt under LWRP. MS. MESIANO: Excuse me, can I ask one thing? Could you check your records. I know you proposed a resolution but I don't know if the Board actually voted on the resolution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we did. MS. MESSIANO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When Bob interrupted it might have confused you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On Hope Schneider, the CAC supports the application with the following conditions: Gutters, drywells are installed to contain roof runoff; open space on the deck, ten-foot non-turf buffer and a pervious driveway. TRUSTEE KING: Is this the one we looked at down by Goldsmith's Inlet? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MS. MESSIANO: This is the third house north of Soundview. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We looked at this last month. It was a pre-su bmission. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me read our notes. (Perusing.) We need to know where the sanitary system is going to go. MS. MESSIANO: I think I addressed that last month. The existing sanitary system is on the east side, the northeast corner of the house, right next to that bulkhead. There is just a ring there. And we propose a new septic system in the southwest corner of the property. The test hole has not come back yet so I don't have the details of a septic system. But number one on the list was get the cesspool out of where it is and get a septic system up in the southwest corner of the lot. I ask, because Mr. Metzger didn't have the test hole data back yet, I asked him just to denote that area was being reserved for the new septic system because we can't do a design without a test Board of Trustees 56 November 14,2007 hole. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's public water there, too, right? Or is it well water? MS. MESSIANO: No, it's well water. So we have a ways to go on this because I'm, I only picked this up at about 4:30 this afternoon. So I'm just getting the benefit of finding out where the neighbors' wells and septic systems are and so on. And this is not something we are expecting to start constructing next month. But we have to start somewhere and we wanted the Board's input on this. Because it is a second story addition, there will be substantial renovation to the first floor. The deck on the seaward side of the house will be cut back so that everything proposed will be seaward of the coastal barrier zone. But I should make mention of the fact that the existing deck does have a CO. So it was built legally some time in the 80's. But nonetheless, the applicant proposes to cut the deck back, reconfigure it, keep the footprint of the house and create a second story. It is presently a two-bedroom house. It will be a two-bedroom house. So they'll will remove a bedroom downstairs, open the downstairs up, put bedrooms upstairs. TRUSTEE KING: The footprint will remain the same? MS. MESSIANO: The footprint will remain the same except that they would like to extend the porch. Right now there is a small covered front porch by the stoop and they would like to extend the porch to the corner of the house, and that also would be on the southwest corner of the existing structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you anticipate going to the Zoning Board for any of this? MS. MESSIANO: Oh, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what we were kind of waiting for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the feeling of the Board, correct me if I'm wrong, on this application, we would like to see you go to the Zoning Board first and then come back to us. By then you'll have the septic a little more worked out and we'll know where the all the wells are on the neighbors. MS. MESSIANO: I have the wells and neighboring information but it's just our test hole we are dealing with. Can the Board make its comments so that I'm not shooting in the dark here? I would like to know what your comments are. Because I think we are improving the situation in that we are upgrading the septic. We are cutting back the deck. But from an environmental perspective, the deck is less detrimental than the lawn would be. Ms. Schneider would certainly be amenable to doing additional plantings. TRUSTEE KING: We probably want to see a buffer long the water side there. A non-turf buffer. You have the DEC to go through too, right? Board of Trustees 57 November 14,2007 MS. MESIANO: Oh, yes. It's strange, you know, you mention that -- and as an aside -- some of the things I submitted to the DEC and never expected to prevail, have sailed through. We maintained our setbacks, we've maintained our setbacks, we improved the septic systems and they have gone through. So I'm always surprised as to what is approved without any difficulty and then what is questioned. So because of the nature of this project, I did want to get the Board's input. Whether or not you made a decision at this point, I would like your input. TRUSTEE KING: I personally don't have a huge problem with it. The footprint is the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. It's just the buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Now, if this was completely bulkheaded property and that was an old bulkhead then the DEC would lose jurisdiction, correct? MS. MESIANO: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: But the Zoning Board now considers rip-rap or bulkhead as the line. MS. MESIANO: This does not conform to the current zoning in any way and even though we are not intending to change any of the existing setbacks, by virtue of the fact that we are going up, the Zoning Board takes the position that is an increase in the degree of nonconformity. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I didn't have a huge problem with this. The sanitary is being moved, it's not a bigger footprint. If we can get a little buffer in there, that would be helpful. MS. MESIANO: She's amenable to all those thing. Again, this is a situation, I feel I'm entitled to take a position, with so many young people having to leave Long Island, my only family moved to Arizona in August because of the problem facing so many young families. And this is a situation where this house has been in the family since the 50s. The parents have given it to the daughter and now she is able to have a house and she wants to make it a habitable year-round house and not a nice summer camp. So it goes along with keeping young people on Long Island as well. Which a bigger issue. But that's my soap opera. TRUSTEE KING: I notice this is exempt from LWRP. MS. MESIANO: Probably because we are maintaining. TRUSTEE KING: Because it's the same footprint. But if you put a four-foot addition on it, it would be inconsistent, correct? MS. MESIANO: That would be the way I would read it. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we talked about in the field was cleaning up in front of that bulkhead, but we decided it was heavily vegetated and not to disturb it, to leave it as is. Whenever you come in to replace that bulkhead, at that time we can Board of Trustees 58 November 14, 2007 clean it up. MS. MESIANO: I want to clarify, because you mentioned that before. The area that is noted on the survey is wood edging. That's just one course of ties. TRUSTEE KING: It's like a 6x6. MS. MESIANO: Yes. That's not structural. Then that rip-rap, if you will, has been placed there over the years. It looks like that is vegetated. But I don't think that pond gets that much tidal activity that you are going to see a great amount of erosion there. TRUSTEE KING: No, there is no wave action there. MS. MESIANO: Even in a storm, because of the width of the opening, you are not going to get tremendous action. So I don't expect anybody to touch that because nothing happens there. But, you know, a buffer is no problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a letter in the file. It's very small writing. I don't have my glasses so I'll wing it. It's from Sonya Cortone Stein, it looks like. I'm the owner of the adjacent lot 36 and I emphatically object to the request to have the structure next to mine enlarged via a second story from the existing 20 foot height to 31 foot height. Since its location to my cottage is only a few feet, the result would deprive me of light and air. Furthermore, to convert the 10.48 square foot point structure size to a desired 16.79 square foot structure on a 53.5 foot wide lot bordering a coastal waterway is prone to coastal erosion and wetland problems, et cetera. The desired four bedroom house is completely out of place in all respects. As to the request, reduction and replacement of the existing deck, I find as per the sketch, that the new, desired deck is considerably larger that a than the old one it is to replace and that the proposed three to four foot above ground next to my backyard would completely deprive my property of privacy, rendering it useless for living and consequently near -- I don't know what that word is. I put my trust in the review by the caring people, the Trustees of the Southold Town, as well as the people from the Environmental Review Board while considering Chapter 111 and Chapter 275. I don't believe this is under chapter 111. It's not in coastal erosion zone. MS. MESIANO: The activity is outside the coastal erosion zone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought. Sincerely, Sonya Stein. think we answered some of these questions. MS. MESSIANO: I think most of the issues she raises are other than environmental concerns and it would be the venue for the Zoning Board and I want to note, too, there is a ten-foot right of way between the subject property and that person's house and it looks to me, because I was not able to find the marker, that her house is Board of Trustees 59 November 14, 2007 probably very close to her lot line. I don't know what kind of setback she has but there is a right of way between the properties. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Are there any other comments from anybody? The Board? (No response.) MS. MESSIANO: I just have a question. How do you want to handle this? Are you going to table it? Are you going to make a decision? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just going to make a motion to table it until we receive Zoning Board -- MS. MESIANO: You can't make a decision subject to the Zoning Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, because we want to know what the Zoning Board's decision is before we make our decision. MS. MESSIANO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can certainly do this resolution to table. We'll copy the Building Department and Zoning Board on that resolution. MS. MESIANO: That you are not objecting to the project but -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me do the resolution and I'll -- MS. MESSIANO: Good idea. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The application of Catholic Messiano on behalf of Hope Schneider is exempt from LWRP. I make a motion to table this application until we get a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals and further information on the septic. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MESSIANO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a five minute break, folks. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAN JUNGBLUT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x53 foot fixed dock, 2.5'x18' ramp and a 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This is a reopening of a hearing that we already had because we had some correspondence come in from the neighbors. MR. CORCORAN: I think it was because there was an issue with the notice. So it was re-noticed. MS. MOORE: It's re-noticed. What happened is apparently there are co-owners with different interests in the property, and we'll go over that. My client, Mr. Jungblut, knows the family history so I'll defer to him what with he knows. But we didn't realize there was a Board of Trustees 60 November 14, 2007 secondary address. So what we did is we re-noticed so that we could come back to the Board and now have given everybody that has any interest in the property next door has notice. So you received a letter from the neighbor but I want to put it into context. So, you know, that's where, you if you are ready, can start. I'll leave it to you. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. MS. MOORE: I'm going to defer to Mr. Jungblut because he knows the family dynamics there and he can explain how these people, the people that you heard from, which are Matthew Werner and Meredith Werner, how they are related to this property. If you could share that with us. MR. JUNGBLUT: My name is Jan Jungblut. A while back, well, the owners of the property were Mr. and Mrs. Geikel. That was Mrs. Chris Geikel. And she had two children from a previous marriage, which was Matthew Werner and Meredith Werner. TRUSTEE KING: Is this the property to the east of yours? MR. JUNGBLUT: This is the east property. MS. MOORE: In your file from the last meeting, and I would ask to incorporate what we have already in that hearing minutes, and the correspondence, we had an E-mail from Mr. William Geikel who is a captain in the Navy. So he's very familiar with navigation and the circumstances here. He lives at the house year-round. And it's his boat that you see there docked, that is docked there. So you heard from him. And he was in support of the application. We actually, my client did meet with him, talked to him, and designed the dock in such a way that it would not interfere with his use of his dock. Go ahead. MR. JUNGBLUT: Okay, when Chris Geikel passed away, she left the property, it was 50% in Capt. Bill Geikel's name; 25% went to Meredith Werner and 25% to Matthew. But at the time Matthew was a teenager so his guardian was James Taylor, who is Mrs. Geikel's brother. The son, Matthew Werner, really never stayed at the house at all. He apparently was staying mostly with his father and not his stepparents. The daughter was in school and would only be home periodically. And so they really never stayed at the property. Since Chris Geikel's passing, Bill Geikel has remarried and lives in the house year-round. Presently he's in Washington, he's in the Navy, he's a captain in the US Navy and he's down in Washington for a few weeks. He owns a sailboat and, like he had said in his letter, after looking at the dock, after seeing where the actual stakes were, he felt that he has no problem with the navigation in and out and with the provision that we remove our mooring. He has more problems with the mooring and we agreed to remove the mooring on getting approval for the dock. Board of Trustees 61 November 14, 2007 In this letter, I don't understand, the children are not there. And Mr. Geikel will -- MS. MOORE: We believe he has the life estate, the right to live in the house, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe we can read the letters into the record, Jim. MR. JUNGBLUT: And the children, like I say, don't stay there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But they have a vested interest. MS. MOORE: They have an interest in the property so they certainly have a right to be heard. But we also want to point out as to the parties that actually use the dock, we have the owner of the boat and the person who actually in the house using the house, had no objection. And you have Mr. Jungblut and Mrs. Jungblut, are year-round residents there. It's his boat and his dock. They are going to be, they are full-time residents here. So the people that are most intimately familiar with the waterways and the navigation there, I think have already provided you with testimony that the project that is proposed will work. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. But my comment last time was, you know, things change, property owners change, and this is an example. Now you have two other property owners we didn't know before. I don't know what their letters say, I didn't read them. But you can't, just because one property owner agrees, doesn't mean it's always going to be that way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with Jill. I mean, down the road, you don't know what's going to happen with this ownership and the possibilities of one of these people -- MS. MOORE: Let me read the letter to you. I'll put it on the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make one more comment, then I'll read it. MS. MOORE: And I know if somebody brand new comes in, they can see what they are buying before they buy it. TRUSTEE KING: What letter are you going to read? MS. MOORE: The one you sent me stamped November 13, dated November 12. TRUSTEE KING: Who is it to? MS. MOORE: The Town Trustees. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you let me read it? Who is it addressed to? MS. MOORE: I was going to offer to do that. TRUSTEE KING: I can read. MS. MOORE: Go right ahead, have fun. You have your glasses, you can read. TRUSTEE KING: This is for a proposed dock for 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York. Dear Town Trustees, we are contacting you regarding the permit being sought by Mr. Jungblut, owner of 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold. It is our understanding there is a public meeting being held on November 14, 2007, on the subject of Board of Trustees 62 November 14, 2007 Mr. Jungblut's permit application to construct a new dock on his adjacent property. Unfortunately we are both unable to attend this meeting however we would like this opportunity to voice our concerns about this proposed dock. Some of our concerns regarding this proposed dock are that it may encroach upon our right of free passage to and from our dock. Because the configuration of Mr. Jungblut's property at and beyond the shoreline is narrower than some of the adjoining properties, his boat and dock come too close to the property line, converse to the Town Code and may infringe on unfettered access to the waterway and navigation of my boat. Additionally, access in and out of our slip poses a navigational hazard to both Mr. Jungblut's boat and our own. Lastly, should we desire to purchase a larger vessel than the current 25 foot sailboat utilizing our dock, that boat would be perilously close to the edge of Mr. Jungblut's dock. We very much appreciate your time regarding this matter and please feel free to contact us at (732) 693-5071 or via E-mail at mwerner79@hotmail.com. Sincerely, Matthew Werner and Meredith Werner. We have another letter today. This is from Capt. William Geikel. Here is the imagery of my dock and the dock of my present neighbor, Mr. Berkowitz, formerly Ed Coster. Mine is the "T" dock. The open area to the left is where Mr. Jungblut's proposed dock will be constructed. This should give you an idea of the position I will be placed should Mr. Jungblut construct a new dock adjacent to mine. This would support the objections brought by Matt and Meredith Werner. Sincerely, William Geikel TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Who is that person to -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's the person who lives there. MS. MOORE: He gave the support last time and he's pointing out whose dock? That's what I'm confused on. The neighbor on his right? TRUSTEE KING: He goes on to explain Google Earth and what it is, the imagery it presents. He has an aerial. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it's east of the east dock, he's referring to? TRUSTEE KING: He's referring to an east dock. MS. MOORE: Not our dock. He's referring to the east dock. TRUSTEE KING: So he's saying, he has the "T" dock. The open area to the left is where Mr. Jungblut's proposed dock would be constructed. So he has this here and this is where Mr. Jungblut wants to build his. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So is this the same gentleman that wrote the E-mail last month in support, he's now saying he's against it? TRUSTEE KING: He's not too happy with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is the captain? MS. MOORE: This is the captain. That was his original. Then he Board of Trustees 63 November 14,2007 reviewed it and thought it would be a better plan so he approved it. Now he's back to his original thinking. MS. MOORE: I guess he's -- he's not saying he is opposing it. He's saying that the Werner comments, he supports the Werner comments. Alii can tell you is at this point, we modified, if the Werner's wanted a bigger boat, then the best thing would be if they change their dock and made it straight. Because that's really the best way to have the dock. What they did is when they built theirs and they moved their dock into, parallel to the shore, they are only fight feet from our property line. So they are not conforming. They are creating the problem. Sorry, one foot from the property line. We pushed it as far over as we can. You have everybody's dock there close together. That's the way those properties were developed. I also would point out Mrs. Jungblut is here. She does have a disability. She can't get to her boat anymore because there is no way of accessing. So. TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure? Is there any other change of opinion on this? In light of this new information? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I understand, you know, what they are saying, but as they know, I support the need for their access because of the disability. I'm not inclined to change my mind because of that. I'll admit that is a tough one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a tough decision. I struggled with it last month. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to reserve decision and talk about it more later? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, there were two items I specifically remember mentioning last time. One was exactly what Bob just talked about. That was item number one. Number two, in my mind, we had in essence been given permission from the property owner next door that in a way it allowed for an easement or whatever word you want use. I should not use easement because that's a legal term. But the property owner next door was giving us permission to approve something that allowed a dock closer than 15 feet from the property line, which is what our code says, the docks have to be 15 feet from the property line. So this really throws, in my mind, a monkey wrench into it because that same person now, that same property owner now is opposing it. And that was at least a good part of my decision, of the yes vote last time, or approval vote, was because of the permission from the property owner. Now we don't have permission from the property owner. So I would change my vote because of that. And I hate doing it because I recognize their need for a dock. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should take a re-vote then. Board of Trustees 64 November 14,2007 MS. MOORE: Well, is it possible -- we have already placed our fixed dock toward Burnham because Burnham has not withdrawn his permission from before. And you can see that the float was not going any closer than -- what's the distance here. Well, there is 30 feet between our float and the neighbor's float. So we certainly have enough room between floats. We could shift our fixed dock over, or even the ramp, I think your suggestion was the ramp and the float even more of an angle toward Burnham. Because Burnham has no issue. There is really no problem with Burnham. We can modify to that extent and increase the distance, but keeping in mind that it's, Werner is creating the problem for us. It's not so much the distance, because the code says yes, ideal world you should have 15 foot clearance. But we just, not if the property can't accommodate it. Werner has built a dock that the float is parallel to shore and is essentially a foot from our water line. So he's, by his actions, he's essentially telling us what we are going to build is going to interfere with him. So that's the problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that point of view. But again, I go back to, and I could only give my own rationale behind my own decision making, is that, you know, the code says 15 feet on either side and the property line. MS. MOORE: Where possible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And last time we in essence had approval from both property owners on both sides. That's why I looked at it as okay, we have approval from both sides, I'm willing to vote the way I did. Now we don't have approval from both sides. Now one side is not approving any longer and, you know, the code says it has to be 15 feet, and it's just impossible there. And I'm sorry. You know, but -- MS. MOORE: Why don't we do this. Why don't we table it and let my client contact Mr. Geikel. Because it came out of the blue. It seems completely contrary to what he's told and us why he would make such a, we don't even know if it actually came from him, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Regardless if he turns around and approves it now, I'm thinking I'm changing my vote, too. Originally I was going to vote no but because of the disability and because of the neighbors, I mean, I just feel it's too tight in there and even if the neighbor changed his dock to go straight out, you are only going gain a couple of feet. MS. MOORE: But he's operating right now with as close a distance to the neighbor to the east of him. That's what he's pointing out in his Google, which is see how close my other neighbor is, and he's managing a 23-foot boat coming in. So environmentally, we are not dealing, there are no adverse environmental conditions here. We Board 0 f Trustees 65 November 14, 2007 are trying to address tight properties. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you put a structure on it -- MS. MOORE: Well, there is a boat there already. And there is a boat there that is on moorings and we are, we have designed something that is as low impact as we can design. I mean you had me re-notice it and you had me come back twice. So give us the adjournment so we can at least find out what the story is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What are you going to find out? We have communication that is coming from this person. I don't understand how tabling it is going to -- MS. MOORE: Well, it came in today. We had no notice of it. We are under the impression we had a contrary E-mail that came in. So I think in fairness to my client he should find out what was the problem. Is he just going along with the kids because he doesn't want, you know, a fight between the kids or what? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's up to the rest of the Board. But my opinion is I don't think it's going to change much if he turns around and says that he wants the dock there. It's getting too complicated. MS. MOORE: Maybe he can redesign his dock. He is in violation TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make one other comment, if we are going to a motion at this point. I personally have no objection to the tabling of it because of the fact that this E-mail only came in today and, as I recall, we had set a procedure a long time ago that communications, written communications, had to be submitted by Monday of the week of the meeting in order to be accepted into the record. And if this was just received today, that is a potential issue. So I don't have a problem with tabling it so that these issues can be addressed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only question I would bring up is whether or not Mr. Geikel's change in heart had any bearing on folks changing their mind. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know how we could determine that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could ask. MS. MOORE: I think for Jill it did, because of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not solely because of that. Now there is more people involved; the other two owners of the property. MS. MOORE: But they are minors and they don't use the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have an interest in it and have the right. MS. MOORE: I understand that. But it could be 20 years before they even have use of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who says? MS. MOORE: Mr. Geikellives there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You don't know what is going to happen. You can't predict it. MS. MOORE: They are using the fact they might want a bigger boat as Board of Trustees 66 November 14, 2007 a justification, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question for Kieran first. If these two individuals are minors, does that make any difference legally? MR. CORCORAN: No, I mean you are taking the comments of the owners. First of all, you are not bound by the comments of the owners. You are just taking them for their relevance. Then you have to make your own decision. The fact they are minors -- MS. MOORE: They were minors. MR. JUNGBLUT: They were minors. They are not minors now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, then I withdraw the question. I thought it was presented that they are minors now. MR. JUNGBLUT: They were, last year or two years ago. He mayor may not be a minor now. MR. CORCORAN: Now, they expressed their point of view. You have to determine whether it's a worth while point of view. Just because neighbors agree with a project doesn't mean you have to advance a project or authorize a project. But it's relevant. Now you heard it and you have to make your decision. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat's requesting us to table it and I don't have of a problem with tabling it, based on what Dave said, this information came in today, if Pat wants time to review it, it's her application. If she won't request it. I'm not going to say whether it's going to change our decision or not. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Patricia Moore on behalf of NIKOLAOS KATOPODIS requests a Wetland Permit to install an 18x36 foot inground swimming pool 70 feet from the top of the bluff and plant evergreens along the east/west side of the property. Located: 1540 The Strand, East Marion. This has been reviewed and considered by the LWRP coordinator to be inconsistent and it's inconsistent because the proposed setback to the top of the bluff line, he says is 30 feet. MS. MOORE: I think it needs clarification. This application was submitted first to you, then you adjourned. It went to the Zoning Board. The LWRP coordinator reviewed the 30 foot setback, which was the original application. The Zoning Board granted a more consistent application, which was 70 feet from the top of the bluff. So I don't know that you have another inconsistency review where it was already issued. MS. STANDISH: I did check with Mark on this. He said he didn't want Board of Trustees 67 November 14, 2007 to re-review it because it's still inconsistent. He didn't want to re-review it. MS. MOORE: Right. But it was made more consistent. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC, did inspect it and they support the application provided the proposed pool is moved another 20 foot landward. This has got to be the old one. This is from April of 2007. I don't see anything that indicates that they re-inspected it. There is the Zoning Board of Appeals is in here acknowledging the 70 feet; new accessory swimming pool should be located at least 70 feet from the top of the bluff. And we all went out there and we took a look at it. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore. I have Mr. Katopodis here as well. As I said, we went to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board had us relocate the pool so it increased the distance from the top of the bluff to 70 feet. The placement of the pool was put there because we have a buried underground propane tank and that was the furthest back it could go without interfering, keeping a safe distance, buffer, from the buried propane tank. So it has been placed here with a lost consideration and a public hearing. And we did have, or actually the Zoning Board had obtained from Soil and Water Conservation District a recommendation and they felt that the bluff was stable, everything was fine. I'll give it to you. I have three copies for the Board. Just for your records. You may have it already in there. It says underground propane tank on the right-hand side or on the east side of the house. I also have, this is the most recent survey, just to be sure it was conforming with the Zoning Board. So, I have two copies of those. I also have construction drawings from the pool company, if you would like those. I don't know if that was originally made part of your packet, so I have it just in case. That's the problem with an application that starts here and then goes and comes back. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if there is any required separation. MS. MOORE: There is -- are you asking about NFPA? Generally, we had Joe Fischetti that was actually an expert during the Zoning Board hearing and it was recommended to keep, I think I ten foot separation from the end of the tank. So we called and confirmed the size of the tank and we measured out ten feet and that's, that was kind of with a little bit of a buffer in between for construction. So. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In general, NFPA will ask you to be ten feet away from anything that has a spark to it. That would include the Board of Trustees 68 November 14, 2007 filter. MS. MOORE: Yes. If you have any questions, we would be happy to answer them. The plantings -- I'm remembering things as we go -- the plantings were at the request of the Zoning Board to mitigate neighbor concerns. So that was included in this application so that you would know that we were doing the plantings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was the Zoning Board of Appeals decision? MS. MOORE: 70 feet. With plantings on either side for privacy. And I think we have the pool filter was going to have a box for any noise abatement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a note in the file from the homeowners association? MS. MOORE: I don't believe there is an HOA here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, there is. There is covenants. MS. MOORE: We conform. The covenants have nothing to do with-- the pool, the covenants do not deal with the pool as an accessory structure. That's asked at the Zoning Board. We provided copies. I read them and there was no issue, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have the Zoning Board of Appeals determination here if anybody wants to see it. I think in general Pat is pretty much described it to us. I think when we were out in the field, the only recommendation we really came up with, was we would like to see it just moved to 75 feet, bring it back another five feet. MS. MOORE: I don't think, quite frankly, it started at 30. And we have relocated it on a horizontal. So to push it back another five feet, I think we are really pushing it kind of close to the propane tank. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That may be the case. MS. MOORE: It's only 12 feet from the house right now. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how the tank is situated. Is it north, south, east, west? MS. MOORE: It goes toward the water. It's on a linear -- TRUSTEE KING: It's north and south? MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE KING: Right now it's probably about 20 feet from the pool. MS. MOORE: But it's only 12 feet from our rear patio or living area. Right now, at 70 feet. Keep in mind the 70 feet is at the shortest point. We have about 80 feet on the east side. So. TRUSTEE KING: It was originally proposed here, this way, and they rotated it that way. MS. MOORE: This helps. This was what the original proposal was. It was north and south and 30 feet from the top of the bank. So we really pushed it very far back. And as I said, Soil and Water gave you a recommendation that bluff is not at all effected by this, so. Board of Trustees 69 November 14,2007 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience? MS. MOORE: I think the adjoining neighbor is here. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: Good evening. My name is Alex Koutsoubis. I'm the adjoining neighbor on the west side of his property. I have a couple of recommendation over here. Can I bring them over to you? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: He is asking 70 foot. They can make it 100 foot, if they can squeeze the swimming pool into this spot here. I have the first one and second one they tried. TRUSTEE KING: That's where the underground propane tank is. That's why we tried to get it back. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: Move the tank. It's very easy. It's a couple hundred dollars. MS. MOORE: It is connected to our mechanical systems and it makes it very close -- actually, it would create a problem. You would be putting his pool in a side yard and that would be the Zoning Board and that's what the Zoning Board -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: One at a time. I just want to make sure we get all this on the record. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: I'm entitled to talk? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Go right ahead. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: The way I picture over there, you can make 100 foot from the bluff if you squeeze it into the back the of the lot there next to the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where the propane tank is. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: Pipe is cheap. MR. CORCORAN: Sir, what's the nature of your objection to it being 70 feet? MR. KOUTSOUBIS: My experience is I have two swimming pool issues east and west. One person is perfect. Nice guy, swimming daytime. The other one, in my west side, he makes a lot of noise. 10:00, 11 :00 at night time, they have a party. Kids, they screaming. I want to go to sleep. And I'm not able to. So I don't want to have the same thing. I don't want the swimming pool in reality. But if you got, if he's got, if he's win, let him have it, God bless you. Main thing -- let's put this on the side. The main thing is the chemicals are going into soil. It's a very killing situation. I own this property about ten years and I been drinking water from well. I don't want you sympathize but I got to tell you the God honest truth. In the position that you taking, it's a very high, very risky. Six months ago, as a matter of fact nine months ago, I drink from this water and there is about five swimming pools in the street. It's about 30 house the entire street. I had a cancer. And I had operation. They cut a piece of liver, piece of the stomach, piece of pancreas plus my gall bladder. I don't want to happen to my worse enemy, whatever I went through. But please, I Board of Trustees 70 November 14, 2007 really appreciate if you can take a deep, take a look. Do not throw any poison chemicals into the water, into the soil. You killing other people. Excuse me, I don't want to make it very hard for you. But I'm talking with experience. I ask my doctor where this tumor came from very simple, he say. Chemicals, the atmosphere. Anything can happen to anybody. God knows. But this thing is very, very, very serious thing. Death can happen like that. I turn yellow two weeks later. I went operated. Yellow and green. This is signs of a cancer. So I really appreciate if you look into this for health of other people. Not only me. Not only my family. But the rest of society over there. Atmosphere is really bad. Please take a look in this. Thank you. I really appreciate it. TRUSTEE KING: Are you using well water now or public water now? MR. KOUTSOUBIS: Yes, I use well water, but I'm looking into this to change it to the town water. TRUSTEE KING: Because you said you own the property to the west, correct? MR. KOUTSOUBIS: I'm the property to the west, right. TRUSTEE KING: It shows on the survey, lot 118, dwelling with public water one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They all have public water. When you build the house you have to put the meter in but you don't have to hook up to it. So it has the public water, but he's using the well. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: I have the well water. If I knew it was so dangerous, I would change it immediately. A lot of iron run into the water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a letter here from Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District that does talk about, basically the bottom line is if installation of a pool is allowed within 100 feet setback of the top of the bluff, it is recommended that the existing grades be maintained, pool be located closer to the dwelling and the pool be rotated ninety degrees to increase the distance from the pool to the top of the bluff. That was the response to when it was 30 feet away. So. And seeing how it came from Soil and Water Conservation, and that was really the only concern that they had, I'm not so sure there is a health risk here involved. MS. MOORE: I would also point out the pool company advised me we have, we will not be draining this pool into anything. It's a pumpless system. So, it's -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Screens and filters and replenishes itself. MS. MOORE: That's how it was described. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you understand that, sir? So it's not going to be going into the ground. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: I understand that's what they said. What they Board of Trustees 71 November 14, 2007 doing is a different thing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My pool, for example, I use salt in mine. So if it's a salt water type situation, there are no chemicals. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: Now we are talking in general. We talking in general. It's about 30, 40 house in The Strand. Everybody is going to have a swimming pool over there. Do you think everybody is going to follow the same rules and regulations? TRUSTEE KING: When they come in for a permit. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: I know a couple guys there. They let it go to the ground. Chemicals, 30 gallons of this chemicals, goes to the ground. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: And I have to drink this. The next guy. I was talking with a good friend of mine today, Jerry Martoshin. (sic). I don't know if you know the name. His father has a cancer. His mother had a cancer. He has a tumor. I mean that's why he tell me I have to go check myself because. A lot of people they have cancer today. Can we ask ourselves how that happen? Maybe we are not careful in general. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are making a lot of good points, sir. You are making very good points. But for this application and from what they offered to do to take care of that problem and also for you to pursue getting the town water, I think you are going in the best direction you can. And I, this application doesn't appear to be adding to that problem. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: You have all the right to do anything you want it. I'm just bringing my experience for the safety of the rest of the people. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why we are here for. TRUSTEE KING: We appreciate that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you, very much. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments; questions or comments from the Board? (No response.) MR. KOUTSOUBIS: May I bring you something? See this. This is on different house. Look what they put over here. It's four-story building over there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That, unfortunately, that is not in our part of our code. That's the building code. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: They tell me. It's in my driveway. Do you want to take a look at this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have been out there. We visit the sites. MR. KOUTSOUBIS: You are in my driveway. You see four stories. You say where am I. Thank you, I appreciate it. This is a copy. You can keep that copy. Board of Trustees 72 November 14, 2007 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So, with that, I would like to make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: There is no backwash for this? MS. MOORE: Can you provide for it. It's a condition if you don't use salt water. But I think the Zoning Board has it. The Zoning Board already included it as a condition. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application to permit the 18x36 inground pool, 70 feet from the top of the bluff, planting evergreens along the east and west side of the property with the stipulation there be a drywell installed for backwash and stipulate that the pool maintenance be done with a salt water filter system. TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, by moving the swimming pool to the 70 foot from the 30 foot originally proposed, makes it consistent with the LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of EVE SEBER, AS CONTRACT VENDEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x16 foot ramp onto a 4x50 foot fixed dock with a 32x20 seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock with a 4x4 foot access platform, and install two eight-inch diameter anchor pilings. Located: 3025 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This application -- we all went out and looked at this site, now, twice. This was found inconsistent under the LWRP. One of the issues was turbidity caused by construction, so it was requesting a silt boom or floating turbidity screen during construction. It will mitigate that inconsistency. Construction materials for the proposed dock have not been identified. So that a grid material would mitigate this inconsistency, the use of a grid material would mitigate this inconsistency. The proposed action as proposed is private, non-commercial, does not support a pattern of development that enhances community character, preserves public access or provides a public benefit. The CAC voted to support the application. But the CAC notes that the project was not staked. So they support the application with the condition that the docking facility does not impede navigation and doesn't exceed one-third of the way across the water way. And as I said, we have been out now to see this property Board of Trustees 73 November 14, 2007 twice. last month we went out to see it and it was not staked, so we went out to see it this month. And while there were stakes, there was, we couldn't see anything marking the end, the seaward end of the structure. So, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agents for the applicant, Eve Seber. And I did stake the end. I staked the end with a bamboo pole. It is nothing but mud at the end there and, let me tell you, the pole was probably six or eight feet into the muddy bottom. I staked it twice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We saw a white float both times. MR. COSTELLO: That white float was part of a dock that they had a permit for previously. And that marks the end of an old stake that held part of a float. That float is actually up on the upland part of the land right now, blocked up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was your bamboo stake -- MR. COSTEllO: It was right from in line, offshore. I'll show you pictures of it. And I tied some ribbons in it in order to -- they all had the same color ribbons. And if you look at the drawings, if you look at the drawings, you'll find out that promenade to the east of this property, that somebody was out, they were in the wetland. If you walk out into the wetlands, this dock only protrudes past the edge of that wetlands approximately eight to ten feet. And I mean, that's why we put it, first of all, in an "l" shape, and we put no offshore pilings. I would like to also tell you, you can not walk out to find the end. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I already read the lWRP. While they found the inconsistencies, they offered opportunities that can mitigate the inconsistencies, except for the one saying it does not support a pattern of development and embraces community character or preserves public access. And as depicted in the plans, I do not see where this protrudes out into the channel or goes out farther than the, I only see one existing dock on one side. So I'm not sure how it's interfering with public access. MR. COSTEllO: The other thing is, along the shoreline, we only started just above the high water mark so people could walk along the shore. We tried to design it so. And the distance across the creek, the Bob Fox Sea level Mapping survey, are not taking up anywhere near one-third of the waterway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other item I want to mention now before we forget it. There is a chain link fence that goes down the east side of the property all the way to the water. And so we are recommending that two sections of that fence be removed as part of Board of Trustees 74 November 14, 2007 this project. MR. COSTEllO: I don't believe it belongs to this property. It belongs to the neighboring property. You could walk around it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there any consideration for a grated catwalk? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Peggy had asked, in order to address the inconsistencies, is there a consideration for using a grated catwalk? MR. COSTEllO: I would agree that in this particular place. Even though it is running north and south, the vegetated wetlands in this area are good. They are good. Even the high marsh, it looks like it's trampled down there a little bit with all you guys walking through it, but I can see where they walk to the water now and that they, it would be better to have a little bit of sunlight, even though the north/south direction, you are going to have sunlight under it anyway, but I think just having that grating will probably promote some growth. TRUSTEE KING: John, this is 4x4s going to 6x6? MR. COSTEllO: Yes. Or there will probably be six-inch diameter piling at the end. Only because you can't get the 6x6 timbers in the proper length. It's as muddy as the devil. I went out there in a dry suit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about the catwalk now. MR. COSTEllO: Yes. I had trouble getting out. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want these back? MR. COSTEllO: No, put them as part of the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because the plan does indicate also there be 2x8 diameter pilings on the float. Would you be willing to entertain the use of a turbidity screen during construction around the construction site to help mitigate lWRP? MR. COSTEllO: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other questions from the Board? Is there it anybody else here to speak for or against this application? (No response.) If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of Eve Seber with the conditions that a turbidity screen be included during the construction project and that an open grate catwalk, open grate material be used for the catwalk, and the fact that you have left room for public access at the landward end of the dock, that we have addressed the inconsistencies and hence would deem this to be consistent, the Board deemes this to be consistent under the lWRP. I Board of Trustees 75 November 14, 2007 make a motion to approve as stated. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 12, Costello Marine on behalf of CAROL KAFKA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x16 foot ramp up to a 4x60 foot fixed dock with a 32"x24' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock with a 4x4 foot access platform and install two sets of two eight-inch diameter anchor pilings for float. located: 750 Holbrook lane, Mattituck. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTEllO: Yes, again, my name is John Costello. We are the agents for Kafka's on this dock application in Mattituck Creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since you were here last, we thought we could do a few extra pictures. MR. COSTEllO: The pictures are good, particularly, they are better in the beginning because it educates the people. It certainly educates them as to what will be allowed and not allowed. And it shows the location. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was a rainy day and not all of us -- let me back it up. We have a consistent report from lWRP. And water dependent use. lWRP recognizes that Mattituck Inlet and Creek is a regional maritime center in addition the intent of policy ten is to protect the existing water-dependent commercial, industrial, recreational uses and to enhance the economic viability of water-dependent uses by ensuring adequate provisions for water-dependent uses and their efficient operation. CAC supports the application with the following conditions. The dock facility and vessel do not exceed one-third width of the waterway; dock does not exceed the alignment with the neighbors; relocate dock to center of property and; existing buffer is maintained. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for this application? (No response.) I did notice, I mean, I don't know what buffer the CAC is referring to but the area itself is quite barren between the east and westerly and I would like to see some re-plantings of some of the spartina, simply because it seems to be denuded, and I'm not pointing fingers or accusing anybody, it just seems to be lacking for no other reason when you are looking up and down the waterway. So since we are considering permitting this dock, we would like to ask some re-plantings be done. MR. COSTEllO: I'll try it and see if they can keep them spreading. It's a good possibility. They are on the other shore and I don't Board of Trustees 76 November 14,2007 know why, and adjoining neighbor-- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying how or when, I'm just saying on both sides, looking up and looking down. TRUSTEE KING: A couple sections along that section of the people tend to pull the grass out so they maintain the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You can look to the west, you can see how heavily vegetated it is. MR. COSTEllO: It's beautifully vegetated, but it's certainly is a buffer that is needed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Just a question like with lWRP. Why is this not an environmental impact because it's a maritime district? The impact's the same, isn't it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: These questions have to be asked at the lWRP committee meeting so if you have question you don't understand they can be answered by someone who is there that can answer them. TRUSTEE KING: Just a comment. MR. COSTEllO: I'm not a big fan of the lWRP. I have been involved with writing a couple of them -- TRUSTEE KING: You did the one in Greenport. MR. COSTEllO: I did the one in Greenport, had to re-do it because they outlawed most everything in Greenport. You cannot have a business on the south side of Front Street that is not water related. You have the movie theatre, you have the merry-go-round. You can go on and on. You can't have it there with the lWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Hearing no further comments from the audience or the Board, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit as stated with the stipulation that replantings of spartina be planted in the area of the proposed dock. MR. COSTEllO: Can you just put a square footage number on that? Because I think spartina alterniflora, probably, there is patens to the east of this, slightly, which are much harder to grow. Within a year or something, have an "X" amount of feet planted along there. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just do a couple of sections on either side of the catwalk and see if it expands out the other way; just do two small areas on either side. Just to see. Because it just might not survive there. I don't know. I hate to see you have to replant the whole thing up and it doesn't take. MR. COSTEllO: We have done some plantings and we've had some pretty good luck. All we did is leave a silt fence in so the waves don't knock it down, and they took off. As a matter of fact, I tell you, Board of Trustees 77 November 14,2007 one of them, and I got congratulated, with the DEC, was the one in New Suffolk. I mean, I can't believe how well that did. But the bulkhead, low sill bulkhead around there breaks the wave energy. And we used a silt fence and put it behind it until it roots. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have a recommendation? TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about ten foot on either side. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ten feet of spartina on either side of the catwalk. MR. COSTEllO: Put it 200 feet. Ten feet on each side. 1 Ox1 0 and we'll see how we can get it to go. See how it goes. TRUSTEE KING: Ten by ten foot area on either side of the catwalk. MR. COSTEllO: That's a good environmental investment for anybody TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Therefore we deem it consistent with lWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (All AYES.) RECEIVi:O f- ~ //:,/0 11tJ'l . .., . "OC'o ,.1":(. JJ !' Sot.lbld TV;'11 Clerk