Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/27/2008James F. King, President Jill M D h t Vice-President ~aOF SO(/Ty~ O l . o er y, ~ ,~ Peggy A. Dickerson ~ l~[ Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio Jr N ~ %2' ~ . , ~y00UNT'1?cam BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, February 27, 2008 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 Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk-Typist CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 785-6641 RECEIVED Y 3 0~ G~ ~a'vap~ Southold Town Clcrk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 12, 2008, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone. Welcome on to our February meeting. For those of you who don't regularly attend our meetings, I see a lot of new faces here, my name is a Jim King. I have the honor of being chairman of this Board. At this time I would like to introduce the rest of the Board. The rest of the folks that are here, to my far left is Dave Bergen, Board of Trustees 2 February 27, 2008 Trustee; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; next to me is Jill Doherty, vice-chair; to my right, Lauren Standish is our office manager; to her right is Elizabeth Cantrell, she works in the office. This is her second meeting. We are training her so if Lauren decides to run away, she could take over. Next to her is Bob Ghosio, Trustee; next to him is Kieran Corcoran, assistant town attorney. He's our legal advisor for tonight. Wayne Galante is down here, he keeps track of everything everybody says. If you have comments, please come to the microphone, identify yourself for the record so he could get everything in his recordings. Don Wilder is with us from the CAC and we have a new member Glenn McNab. They are here, the CAC is the Conservation Advisory Council. They come out and inspect a lot of the same sites we inspect. They give us their input and their suggestions how we should take care of business. With that, I guess we can move forward with our meeting. I. MONTHLY REPORTS: TRUSTEE KING: The monthly reports: The Trustees monthly report for January, 2008. A check for $9,639.45 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. The next date for field inspections is Wednesday, March 12, field inspections. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Regular meeting, March 19, six o'clock, work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) We just talked about the monthly reports. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, can I just mention, first of all, you are not all going crazy. That's the wrong date. That's when the Power Point was being put together last night. We are trying to get it so that everyone can see the pictures instead of us passing them down from the podium up here. Everyone can have a look at what we are actually seeing on our field inspections. And our apologies to the CAC, we have not found the right place for that screen. Board of Trustees February 27, 2008 Ideally, we would like to have a little catch up with technology and press a little button and have the screen pop up here. But we are not there yet. So enjoy the slide show. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's good. A lot of people have commented. This is good. It gives you a little visual showing of it, which is good. Also before we go too far, the room, I thought I was in the wrong place when I walked in the room tonight. It's repainted, new chairs. It looks pretty spiffy. It's your tax dollars at work. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews. Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 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: Thomas Geise -SCTM#138-2-27&28 George Garbe -SCTM#35-6-27 Kings & Alphas, LLC C/O Richard Israel -SCTM#35-6-26 Hay Harbor Golf Club, Inc. -SCTM#9-12-8.1 Varujan Arslanyan -SCTM#53-5-10 Richard K. Johnson & Pamela Maino -SCTM#59-6-9 Yan H. Rieger -SCTM#27-4-6 Christian & Heidi Fokine -SCTM#70-4-18 Christopher & Elizabeth Graseck -SCTM#58-2-12 James Meskouris & Others -SCTM#106-1-36 Joanna Lane -SCTM#70-12-39.4 East End Harbor Lights Company, LLC -SCTM#71-2-17 Spiro Geroulanos -SCTM#104-9-13 Debra Lachance -SCTM#52-2-26 Gregory K. Johnson -SCTM#74-1-1 Joseph Zevits -SCTM#88-6-18.4 John Nickles c/o Beixedon Estate POA -SCTM#66-3-14&15 Richard & Ann Pizzicara -SCTM#90-3-1 John & Anita Vassil -SCTM#144-4-11 Henry Mazzoni -SCTM#22-3-18.15 Patrick Scollard -SCTM#123-10-3 Robert & Helen Keith -SCTM#123-10-2 Gardiner's Bay Homeowner's Association -SCTM#37-4-18 Isabelle Houlbreque -SCTM#37-5-16 Board of Trustees 4 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to accept that resolution? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Before we get into these, we have some postponements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Page five, number six, the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of KEVIN GALLAGHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct two stone revetments at the subject parcel to curb areas of substantial erosion. Both revetments will consist of cap stone and toe stone in the 50-100 pound range and will be backfilled with clean upland sand and vegetated with Cape American Beach Grass. Located: 40 Beechwood Lane, Southold, has been postponed TRUSTEE KING: Number 16 on page six, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAN JUNGBLUT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x53' fixed dock, 2.5'x18' ramp and a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold, is postponed. Number 20, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of RICHARD K. JOHNSON & PAMELA MAINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x10' ramp up to a 4x18' level fixed dock section with a 3x10' seasonal wooden ramp onto a seasonal 5x18' floating dock secured by two 4x4" posts. Located: 7617 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. Number 26, the application of JOSEPH ZEVITS requests a Wetland Permit to remove pilings and timber from east side of jetty, remove existing wood staving and replace with C-Loc 4500 series vinyl sheathing. Timbers of the east side and most seaward timber on the west side will be replaced with new CCA timbers. Existing pilings to be used again and jetty to be bolted with 3/4" bolts. Located: 1375 West Lane, Southold, has been postponed. And number 27, Sherman Engineering & Consulting on behalf of CHRISTIAN AND HEIDI FOKINE requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing steps and to construct a 4'x51.4" catwalk using transparent plastic oralam grated decking, a 4'x12'10" prefabricated metal ramp and a 5x12' floating dock. Located: 2505 Wells Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. We don't want to have anybody sitting here thinking they're Boazd of Trustees 5 Februazy 27, 2008 going to come up and they are not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Also, number two, under Wetlands, Vicki Toth on behalf of RICHARD AND ANN PIZZICARA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 45.5'x32' one-story addition, a 13.2'x8' one-story addition and a 10x15' rear deck extension to the existing dwelling. Located: 150 Lakeside Drive North, Southold, will not be a public hearing because it was found to be out of our jurisdiction. So that will not have a hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, in trying to move these meetings along a little quicker so we are not here all night, one through seven, there was no problems with them. They were very simple, so I make a motion to approve those in one lump sum. They read as follows: LAWRENCE HALL requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6542A to repair/replace rear foundation. Located: 575 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6677A to install an entire new and separate sanitary system with traffic bearing covers and further away from the high water mark and edge of the beach. Located: Founder's Landing Park, Terry Lane, Southold. Number three, HARRY BROOM requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 12.5'x11' sunroom and 6.75'x10.5' and 6.75'x6.75' flanking porches. Located: 1948 Peninsula Road, Fisher's Island. Number four, HP Broom Housewright on behalf of WL LYONS BROWN III AND SUZANNE BROWN requests an Administrative Permit to repair and enclose the existing porch. Located: 713 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. Number five, HP Broom Housewright on behalf of WL LYONS BROWN III AND SUZANNE BROWN requests an Administrative Permit to remodel the existing kitchen, relocate the stairs, add French doors to the dining room and remodel the second floor. Located: 667 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. Number six, Thomas Thompson/Fine Care Landscaping on behalf of ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests an Administrative Permit to install a fence approximately 56' long and six feet high along the eastern Board of Trustees 6 February 27, 2008 border of the property. Located: 375 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. Number seven, Frederick Weber, Architect, on behalf of SCOTT AND JENNIFER SCHULMAN requests an Administrative Permit to construct asecond-floor addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 1570 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: TRUSTEE KING: Applications for amendments, extensions and transfers, we'll lump together one two, four, five, six, seven and eight. MR. MILTNER: We have something to say about numbers one and two. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll take comment. MR. MILTNER: Do you want us to do that now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to open it. TRUSTEE KING: These are not public hearings but we'll take a comment on one and two. MR. MILTNER: Hi, I'm Richard Miltner, 3100 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. We have lived there at 3100 Deep Hole Drive for the last 12 years. The creek entrance to Deep Hole Creek has been the same for the last 12 years that we have been here and it was wide and the main channel and everything is the same. Now, for the last three-and-a-half years, since then, the creek has narrowed each year. I have pictures here now which my wife will bring up to you. You can't even get in and out of it anymore. It's blocked off. From 995 Willis Creek, when that breakwater went up, the bulkheading, it's changed every year since then. And it has gotten worse and worse and worse. Those pictures were taken the 14th of this month. That's Willis Creek as you come in. Those docks are completely out of the water on a moon tide. They were three-and-a-half foot of water in there at a low tide, normally, since I been there. My neighbor Ben on one side and Jimmy on the other side have been there since 1964. The creek entrance has not changed since then until the last two-and-a-half to three years. The dredge company, I talked to the foreman of them, they said that at the point where they normally dredge is out usually toward the end. It has moved back 150 feet. It doesn't get as long. It's shorter but wider and the majority of the sand is running the other side. That breakwater has made like, the bulkhead has made Board of Trustees 7 February 27, 2008 like a slues way and I have taken soda bottles, put the caps on them, throw them in the water there. You can't run as fast as they go down. I can't keep up with them in a kayak. If you go there on the changing, incoming tide, the sand and the bottles go down. If you are there when it's half tide or more, when it's starting to really run, it just goes right down the line. The sand has built that whole thing up and closed that entrance right off. MS. MILTNER: Effectively, the agreement to do this has closed off Willis Creek. MR. MILTNER: Now, there are 23 people between the Willis Creek side drive; they have seven and there is 15 on Deep Hole Drive. There is 20-something boats in there, up to 28 feet. We can get in and out half tide or better last year with the bigger boats and just about made it out getting the boats out of the water last year. I took these pictures the 14th of this month. You can't get in and out of there at all now. MS. MILTNER: And if you look at number two, Mr. and Mrs. Keith's request, they want a grade along the top the escarped embankment can grow on. The escarped embankment the they are grading now you had -- MR. MILTNER: I don't know if it's going to make it worse or what it will accomplish. What is there now has changed everything. TRUSTEE KING: This application is for stone to be replaced well inside those low sill bulkheads. MR. MILTNER: But what happens now, the water goes in under it and behind it. What happens if they stopped it off and make it more solid it will be more of a slues way going down. TRUSTEE KING: What they are applying for is way upon the upland on the toe of the bluff, along the top. It's no way near where this bulkhead is. I'm very familiar with this. These were low sill bulkheads that were a requirement from DEC. DEC required them to build these low sill bulkheads. They planted behind them with spartina, which we thought really came out be to be a nice project. MR. MILTNER: It turned out to be a nice project but it created a havoc for 23 families. TRUSTEE KING: But this application is simply for stone up inside to protect the toe of that bank. It has nothing do with what the problem is. MR. MILTNER: I just want you to know what is going on here. Because nothing changed since that last bulkhead went in. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what to tell you. This really has no, it will have no impact whatsoever on what is going on now. You are coming across now with a problem that you say has been created by Boazd of Trustees 8 February 27, 2008 these low sill bulkheads. MR. MILTNER: Right. Right. That's my problem. That bulkhead, you can keep that, if you want that. TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, this was a requirement from DEC. The Keith's and the Scollard's, I was on the Board then, they came in, I think they wanted stone revetment, if I remember right, and then it was a low sill bulkhead that was required by DEC with planting spartina. MR. MILTNER: Yes. And high tide sometimes goes over it. TRUSTEE KING: That's the idea of a low sill bulkhead. It's supposed to flood so the spartina can grow. It grows in the water. That was the whole concept of that was to stop that clay bank from falling off and at the same time get a wetland established in there. MR. MILTNER: But the jagged clay bank is keeping -- you are on the at the end of the thing and the sand bar is out here. So the water has to go through here. Now it's forced coming down that side. It's like running Shinnecock Canal. The water just goes right through there. It's just pulling all the sand up the other end. I don't know whether they can do something. The guy from the dredge company said if we get on the list, he'll do it when he does Deep Hole Creek. TRUSTEE KING: Quite frankly, I don't have an answer for you right now. But I do know what we are looking at now, there is no effect on that. MS. MILTNER: We couldn't tell from how it was written, that's why we came. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to look at the surveys quick? MR. MILTNER: Yes, please. MR. HERMAN: Jim, just to shed a little light on it. The conditions of this creek entrance -- well, I'll wait until he's done because I'm mostly saying this for his benefit. MR. MILTNER: (Perusing.) The problem is this, you can see with the other pictures it's running down and it's covered right over and it brought it all the way out. You can jump across this now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Yes. MR. MILTNER: Thank you MR. HERMAN: Just in quick response. TRUSTEE KING: I believe you were the consultant on these previous applications. MR. HERMAN: We were. And right, I certainly can't suggest that I know more about what is going on there than the gentleman that lives there. But I know the conditions of that entire creek entrance were changing long before this low sill bulkhead was built. That was the purpose of building a low sill bulkhead Board of Trustees February 27, 2008 because what was happening is as that barrier split across the way, it kept narrowing and narrowing and eroding and eroding, it was actually increasing the fetch in this entrance way and what was happening is you were actually, the entrance was maintaining itself at the expense not only of Scollard's and Keith's property but all of that marsh that used to provide flood protection for that entire area. But all of that marsh was being lopped off by several feet per year. So your Board, and Kenny was on the Board, at that time, there were a bunch of different alternatives that were suggested down there, most of which required hardening the shoreline, and it was deemed best by all agencies to not completely harden the shoreline but to have a low sill bulkhead where the flood waters will go over that so basically it not only retained the marsh that was there but enhanced it, and I think probably what is happening now is because the low sill bulkhead is there, as that water comes around and wants to widen the entrance in that direction, it can't completely widen it in that direction anymore because the bulkhead is there. The area needs to be dredged, but point of it is, it was not like everything was hunky dory for decades and they put in the bulkhead and everything went to hell. The bulkhead project was generated because that shoreline suddenly started losing many feet per year after having been a stable wetland for a hundred years. MR. MILTNER: In front of the one house, the two houses. MR. HERMAN: It's that entire point. Those houses happen to be on that entryway. But I think my point is that the thrust of the project that was to preserve those two dwellings was the stone that is upland. The thrust of the purpose of the low sill bulkhead was to preserve the wetlands. MR. MILTNER: It didn't work. MR. HERMAN: Well, sure it has. All those wetlands were lost and now you've got more wetlands than were there before. I'm not begrudging what you were saying in terms of something happening farther down the road. But what I'm saying is that was generated, as Jim said at the time, by the DEC as a way to preserve that wetland area. MR. MILTNER: It didn't work. MR. HERMAN: It sounds like it's working at the expense of somebody else. MR. MILTNER: At the expense of 23 other families. We all pay for waterfront property, taxes, our insurance, our docks and our walkways and now we don't have it. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, moving right along. We can group four through eight together also. So one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, we can lump together. They read as follows: En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICK SCOLLARD requests an Amendment Board of Trustees 10 February 27, 2008 to Permit #5701 to construct approximately 88 linear feet of 100-200 pound stone rip-rap atop landward side of existing rip-rap and backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American Beachgrass (12' on center.) Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT AND HELEN KEITH requests an Amendment to Permit #5700 to extend the existing stone rip-rap along eroded embankment by adding approximately 161 linear feet of 50-100 pound stone on filter cloth on grade along toe of escarped embankment. Located: 995 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. Number four, EMANUEL ARTURI requests aone-year extension to Permit #6322 as issued on March 22, 2006, and amended on May 16, 2007. Located: 7600 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Number five, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of CARLA STARCIC requests aone-year extension to Permit #6327 as issued on March 22, 2006. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. Number six, Fairweather-Brown on behalf of NANCY BRADLEY AND JEANINE MURPHY requests aone-year extension to Permit #6323 as issued on March 22, 2006 and as depicted on the revised plan prepared by Fairweather-Brown last dated February 12, 2008. Located: 550 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. Number seven, PECONIC LAND TRUST requests a Transfer of Permit #6326 from Love Lane Acquisition Corp., to Peconic Land Trust, as issued on March 22, 2006, and aone-year extension to Permit #6326. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk and; Number eight, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of SPIRO GEROULANOS requests a Transfer of Permit #684 from Howard G. Neinke to Spiro Geroulanos as issued on September 20, 1971. Located: 2130 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. I'll make a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: And we have En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT LEIGHTON requests an Amendment to Permit #1738 to construct approximately 72 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; construct +/-8' and +/-16' vinyl bulkhead returns immediately landward of existing timber returns to be removed; and backfill with approximately 20 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 335 Rochelle Place, Board of Trustees 11 Februazy 27, 2008 Mattituck. I think what we wanted to see there is a 15-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I think this is the one I talked to you about, there is a little dilapidated part of a groin. MR. HERMAN: You are thinking of East End. That's in the public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. So that was the only thing on that was we wanted to see anon-turf buffer there. With that being said I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: What was the suggested width of the buffer? TRUSTEE KING: 15 feet. MR. HERMAN: Is the Board switching from ten to 15 on these standard buffers? Because the house is less than 90 feet from the bulkhead. Usually you don't have a buffer that wide. TRUSTEE KING: We have been trying to do it according to the size of the lawn. It's about, we felt 15-foot was not overly restrictive. MR. HERMAN: All right. It's just, again, I'm trying to advise people what to expect and I told Mr. Leighton ten feet would probably be required as a non-turf buffer. So I would probably have to ask him. TRUSTEE KING: Tell him you lied TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To answer your question, since I have been on the Board, I think we have been pretty much starting at 15 feet and moving out from there. I don't think we have done a ten foot in a while. TRUSTEE KING: In the smaller yard areas we have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In extremely small yards we have done five and ten. TRUSTEE KING: We made some five and six feet when we only had 30 feet. You know, he'll be disturbing at least 15 feet there to do the work. MR. HERMAN: Okay, if it's a problem, we'll come back. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On number six, does the building department want it in the original -- MS. STANDISH: They want me to spell it out. They want to abandon this one and this is out of our jurisdiction. We are okay with what they are doing here with the sanitary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we just write the amendment stating as per survey dated bla, bla, bla with showing the revised location for the septic or should we make that part of the amendment? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just go back to number six. We'll go back to number six under amendments and extensions. Board of Trustees 12 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you need to make a motion to reopen. TRUSTEE KING: It's just a clarification, the existing sanitary system is to be abandoned. There is to be a new sanitary system installed landward of the pump house, which I think is out of our jurisdiction. Yes. Which puts it out of our jurisdiction. But the only septic system will be abandoned. Just to make sure that's in the record. With that I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion go on to public hearings? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) to go off our regular hearings and VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: This is the public hearings section of our meeting. If you want, if you have comments to make, please keep them brief. Limit yourself to five minutes. Sometimes these get a little out of hand and it goes on and on and we end up with pages and pages of minutes, which in my mind are not necessary. Number one, JMO Environmental on behalf of HAY HARBOR GOLF CLUB, INC., requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore approximately 550' of eroded shoreline by installing a "boulder slope" consisting of 2-4 ton boulders which shall be placed on filter fabric and a rock chip base. Any disturbed areas shall be replaced with Rosa Rugosa and Bayberry. Located: Beach Avenue, Fishers Island. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? (No response.) I take it Mr. Just is not here. I looked at this on Fishers Island with the DEC. This is on the south shore of Fishers Island, Block Island Sound. I wish Mr. Just was here because we talked about downsizing what they originally had wanted. I don't think there is anything here that really shows it. I didn't have a huge problem with what they want to do there. It's getting beat up pretty good. What it is, it's almost like a clay bank and there are a lot of clip swallow nests along the top of this clay bank. So we lowered the revetment so -- it's almost a vertical bank because it's clay, so they are going to put stones along the base of it and Boazd of Trustees 13 February 27, 2008 lower than what they originally wanted. I wish he was here to help go over some of this. Maybe we'll put this on hold and see if Mr. Just shows up. He has other ones on the agenda. He probably didn't expect to be up front. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to table it for later on? TRUSTEE KING: I think we should. Let's table this for later on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What did you want to go over with him? TRUSTEE KING: I wanted to make sure we are on the same page. It will be a little smaller project than what they wanted. If you want to move forward with it, like I said, I didn't have a problem with it. I would like to us be consistent with what the DEC wants because the two agencies, both agencies were there looking at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you don't have a problem with it, it's smaller, why don't we move ahead. TRUSTEE KING: It was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we can always open it up later if we have to. TRUSTEE KING: All right, we'll move forward. I don't think the CAC made a recommendation. They made no inspection so there was no recommendation. On my field notes, lower the top of the proposed rocks, plant behind this, it's a clay bank, cliff swallow nests. So, like I say, we were all pretty much in agreement with what they were going to do there. So we can go ahead. I'll make a motion to close the hearing on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the modifications that were discussed and agreed to in the field. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I want to make sure Glen has the new plans because I think they'll be a little different than these. These might be modified from what they wanted. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Wetland Permits, YAN H. RIEGER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing attached deck, steps and platform located on the seaward side of the dwelling. Located: 370 Harbor Road, Orient. Jill and I both inspected this a couple of weeks ago. We have an LWRP recommendation that the proposed action is inconsistent and Board of Trustees 14 February 27, 2008 it's inconsistent with LWRP based on protecting restoring tidal freshwater wetlands. The document does say that in the event the application is approved, that best management practice is recommended requiring a minimum 15-foot non-turf buffer between the top of the slope and the deck. I can say -- we have all seen it. We saw it for a different application. Basically that non-turf buffer does exist already and it's all beachgrass and rocks and cactus and stuff. So I think we are pretty much covered there based on what we saw. The Southold Town CAC resolved to support of application. I will say for the record that I did get a phone call from a neighbor who was concerned about this for various reasons, most notably there was a question as to whether or not this deck was actually building materials from a platform that he's showing the on the survey that used to be out more toward the beach and he's saying he's relocating it. There is noway for us to quantify whether or not this was made from materials that were moved from that platform or not, but it's clear to me and Jill that the deck has been there for a while. It's setback further than other decks from a high tide mark, from some of the neighbors, and we really didn't have any objection on this pre-existing deck. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on this application? MR. RIEGER: My name is Yan Rieger, I am the owner of that property. Part of the substructure was used for the platform and also part of the upper structure to the storm at that time. So some parts have been replaced. Now, can I ask who is the neighbor who submitted the question? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know. MR. RIEGER: Another question I have. It's my understanding Mr. Hamilton came out last month to inspect the shoreline in reference to some other projects, and I was wondering if the problem on Harbor Road, Narrow River Road and Harbor Road, has been addressed, because there is adjacent to my neighbors and the blacktop is sort of moving really very slowly into the bay. And I have pictures of that which I just took today and I'm curious if that is anything, if that has been addressed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you talking about the road -- MR. RIEGER: End of Narrow River Road TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were not sure if that was the end of King Street or Narrow River. I have a storm water runoff committee meeting tomorrow night and I plan on bringing that up. It has gotten worse in the past year TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We noticed it when we parked there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it is on our long list. But I'll try to move it up on our list in priority. Board of Trustees 15 February 27, 2008 MR. RIEGER: It definitely affect my property because it actually does erode more of my property. I have two photographs, one from 1990, an aerial picture of the shoreline, and also I have some pictures from Google Earth showing the shoreline. So it definitely has an impact on my neighbor's property and also mine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you bring those pictures into our office tomorrow and I'll pick them up and bring them to the meeting? MR. RIEGER: Sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anyone else here who like to address this application? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion we close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application of Yan Rieger for wetland and steps and platform as described Harbor Road, Orient. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) permit for the existing deck on the survey located at 370 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I find this consistent based upon having already seen that the practices, the best management practices have established a 15-foot non-turf buffer. I want to include that as part of the motion. MS. STANDISH: You want one or is there already one? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is one already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to number iwo, RICHARD & ANN PIZZICARA, as Trustee Doherty announced earlier, we are not having a public hearing on this. I don't know if Vicki Toth is here tonight. The reason being we went out and looked at this and this is all outside our jurisdiction so there is no need for a public hearing. We'll issue a letter of non-jurisdiction letter and refund 200 of the $250 charge. MS. PIZZICARA: Great. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, Architecnologies on behalf of CHRISTOPHER 8~ ELIZABETH GRASECK requests a Wetland Permit for the demolition of the existing roof, demolition of existing waterfront exterior wall and partial demolition of existing side/waterfront walls; proposed addition of first floor with crawl space with Board of Trustees 16 February 27, 2008 second floor above; proposed new septic system and installation of drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 1910 Leeton Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? Come up please, and state your name. MS. GRASECK: I'm Elizabeth Graseck. I'm here representing my husband and myself. My husband couldn't be here. We are requesting changes made basically for two reasons, one is we are a growing family; my daughter is three, my son is one. It's a two bedroom. That configuration won't last forever. And there is some structural issues with the house. And I just wanted to give you a little bit of color and flavor of who we are and why we have this spot. Basically, you know, I have been coming to Leeton drive for 30 years. My best friend lives across the street. She has been coming for 40. Her father built that house. It's a special place for us. I was in Japan from '92 to'98. When I came back I really wanted to reestablish some roots for a variety of reasons and when this house went up for sale it was a great opportunity for me to be right across the street from my friend. When I had been looking starting in '98 on the North Fork, I looked at a lot of places that were bigger; bigger space, bigger house, and I didn't go for any of them basically because they were not there across the street from my friend. So when this came up, like I mentioned, I jumped at the opportunity. And I met my husband in 2000 on the beach. It's kind of you funny because his parents met on the same beach in front of the camp that is down the block from the beach, as you probably know. Both his maternal and paternal grandparents owned on the block. So he really spent his whole life growing up here in the summers and if he were here he would tell you all about spring peepers and when they start and all that stuff. But I'm sure you all know that anyway. It's more than a summer place, his dad lives in town, his uncle Bob White, retired cop of Southold lives in Cutchogue and his mom still lives down the block. I want to give you a sense as to who we are and why we are looking to expand and the reason for that, as I mentioned is, there are some structural issues with the house and there is a need to increase the space given the fact that we have two kids, a three-year old girl and one-year old son, and with two bedrooms, it's a little tight. We did spend some time talking with our neighbors during the summer with the designs and we moved the house back quite a bit. The front of the house is being moved back close to 19 feet away from the water to help deal with some of the questions and concerns Board of Trustees 17 February 27, 2008 that were raised on the part of our neighbors and so I leave it there. And my architect here Frank Notaro, can answer all the bits and bobs on the structural questions that anybody might have. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we all went out to look at this. I had to go out on a separate day but I don't believe there are any problems since most of it is landward, as you said, of the shoreline. I had one question. I didn't go out to the front. The wood walkway goes to a wood deck? MS. GRASECK: Yes. That's correct TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was my question because on the survey i~ says "deck" and I didn't know what kind of deck. It's just a flat wooden area? MS. GRASECK: Correct. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The field notes from the entire Board say okay. CAC supports the application and it is consistent with LWRP. There are no issues as far as the Board is concerned. Is there anyone else here to speak; anyone else with any concerns? (Negative response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve for Christopher and Elizabeth Graseck for the proposed demolition and additions and renovations as stated in the application for 1910 Leeton Drive. And it did have, the plans do have the drywells to contain roof runoff. I didn't see anything else. We also agree and recommend it's consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of SPIRO GEROULANOS requests a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool, terrace, retaining wall and new lawn area. Located: 2130 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. We all went out to inspect this. The surveyor had marked on the surveyed wetland line and we had, Heather was not with us that day, our environmental technician, we had her go out and mark the wetland line where she thought it was and there is a little by the of a difference. And I believe Mr. Strang is here with a survey showing the two different lines and he would like to talk about how we can try to reconfigure the pool and see if we could fit the pool in there. Because as marked, the wetland lines by our Boazd of Trustees 18 Februazy 27, 2008 environmental technician as they have applied for it, it's not 50 feet beyond the wetland line. So with that, Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: Gary Strang, Architect, on behalf of the Spiro Geroulanos application. I would like to bring this map up, if I may. What I did today, as Jill mentioned, there is a discrepancy between what was originally noted on the survey to the edge of the wetlands and what the Trustees have determined. And what I have done is, with the help of a surveyor, this is the original line of the wetlands. The black line, is the original wetland delineation. Now, when I spoke with my client earlier today, and he apologizes for not being able to be here tonight. He just got back from being out of town and was not able to be out here tonight. He made me aware he paid special attention to retain a qualified environmental consultant to plot this line. That was En-Consultants. Rob Herman plotted the line. This is what the client tells me. So he's a little disturbed by the fact that there is such a discrepancy between the red line, being the line that the Trustees had plotted, the black line being what En-Consultants had plotted. The 50-foot setback line from the Trustees line, this orange line, which as can you see really cuts through and almost makes it basically impossible to do what we have proposed. Obviously what we had proposed did maintain the 50 foot setback and the orientation is such that we were trying to work the contours of the land. So it made the most sense and was the least intrusive. So the question we are at, at this point, is I had to explain to him why the consulting that he hired and plotted the line is not in fact accurate in the eyes of the Trustees. TRUSTEE KING: 1 don't know if it may be in line the eyes of the Trustees. It may not be in line with the eyes of the second flagging. I have not gone out to compare the two. I think we need to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think so. Because we went down there as a group and when we looked at it as a group we thought the wetland boundary was down here lower also. MR. STRANG: I recall going with you and I think we all believed that was the case. So this is a big shock, not only to me, but obviously also my client. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we have where the line is. TRUSTEE KING: I think we wanted it verified. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We wanted the environmental technician to go down there and look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since it's so close. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also, as I recall, the pool was not staked, so would help us the next time we are out there the pool could be Board of Trustees 19 February 27, 2008 staked and that way, as well as the applied for a retaining wall, if that could be staked so that way we can see everything exactly where it's meant to me. MR. STRANG: We were planning on doing that. The reason we didn't is because if it was going to become moot based on the new wetland line being less than where we are. But we would be more than happy to have that staked as proposed on this map so the Trustees can visualize it better. Are there any other questions? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the pool here and the elevation as steep as it obviously is, this will be a lot of fill for to you bring it up to -- MR. STRANG: We'll put the retaining wall here as shown. The excavation spoils from the pool will be used to fill this area in, okay, and I think part of the application is the calculations, part of my application is the calculations with respect to how to accomplish that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I asked that question in the field because it does shows a retaining wall. I believe you said it will be four feet up. MR. STRANG: What we'll do also at the suggestion --Jill, you may have suggested this -- is we'll have the surveyor place the stake like at the middle of the wall flagging the actual height of the wall so it becomes quite clear what you are going to be looking at. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, any other comments on this application? (No response.) MR. STRANG: I could leave this with you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Hearing no other comments, I would like to leave this public hearing open and go out on the next field inspection day and look at the stakes and look at the wetland line. Everybody wants the proposed pool staked? (Trustees respond in the affirmative.) TRUSTEE KING: Table this, that's the idea? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keep it open. Yes, table it. MR. STRANG: We'll have it staked before the 18th field inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The 12th. MR. STRANG: Sorry. The 12th. Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you make sure it's staked at least a week prior to because CAC goes out at a different time and then this way we make sure it's done when we go out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A week prior to the 12th. MR. STRANG: Okay, by the 5th. The surveyor I know is out of town. He's due back Monday or Tuesday so I'll leave a voice message or E-mail him. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is a problem, let the office know. MR. STRANG: It shouldn't be. Thank you, for your consideration. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table the application on behalf of Spiro Geroulanos. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. Board of Trustees 20 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go back to what I said in the beginning of the meeting; keep your comments to five minutes. Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN NICKLES C/O BEIXEDON ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit for the reconstruction/replacement of the existing eastern/inner bulkhead within Petty's Pond and the entrance to Southold Bay (note: The northern return will be reduced by two feet; the existing docks and ramps are to remain); reconstruction/reduction of the existing eastern/outer "box" jetty, from adouble-walled structure measuring 308'+/- overall, to a single-walled jetty measuring 278'+/-; removal/cutting at underwater grade the remnant pilings situated seaward of the outer "box" jetty; reconstruction/replacement of the existing western/inner bulkhead within Petty's Pond and the entrance to Southold Bay; and reconstruction/reduction of the existing western/outer bulkhead/jetty, eliminating the 34'+/- of "box" jetty and the 113'+/- of the outermost jetty. The resulting conditions of the project site would include an eastern bulkhead/jetty system measuring approximately 564+/- linear feet comprised of fiberglass sheathing, including the single-walled jetty extending into Southold Bay and the western bulkhead/jetty system measuring approximately 159+/- linear feet, also comprised of fiberglass sheathing. Located: Arshamomaque Avenue and Petty's Pond, Southold. There is a lot of history to this. I would like to just kind of preface everything I have to say about it. This is an extremely difficult application at its time. We should be weighing the files, it's probably 20 pounds of file here on it. What happened here, we had numerous public hearings on this application. We approved it. DEC also approved this and on the engineers, there were lawsuits from opposition against this. The lawsuits were reached in favor of the town and in favor of the DEC. And what happened, the applicants kind of dropped the ball, they failed to extend their permit. And the policy of this Board is that if the permit expires or if you fail to extend it, you have to go through another public hearing. And that's what this is all about. Were it not for the applicant kind of dropping the ball and being careless, we would not be sitting here tonight going over this. So for me, personally, this is procedural. I have been out there on numerous occasions. I'm sure we'll get into some discussion on this. I'm sure the opposition will be discussing this. Like I said, this is not going to turn into a real long drawn out thing like it was before. Board of Trustees 21 February 27, 2008 So with that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to say one thing -- TRUSTEE KING: And I should bring up the fact, too, myself and Peg Dickerson were the two trustees on the previous board that approved this in, I think it was 2004. The other members were not here. They have reviewed these files and gone through everything. They have all been out to the site. So I think everybody has a pretty good knowledge of what is going on. With that, I'll turn it over to Jill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I wanted to say. MR. CORCORAN: May I suggest that you consider incorporating the record from the prior hearings and submissions on this application so we don't rehash too much of the factual stuff that was discussed over and over again previously. And I would also just implore everybody to try and focus on new information or new factual information since the time of the grant of the prior permit. I know it's hard to parse things out completely, but that would be the most crucial information this Board would need to hear tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I know there has been several letters written and I was just going to suggest that in place of reading every letter in its entirety, if we could, if the letter writer is here, ask if they could stipulate that we have accepted the letter as written so there is no need to read every letter into the record here. It's a practice that the Board has used in the past. TRUSTEE KING: We have a couple here that we received today. I have not seen these. They came in today. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to mention, on a couple of letters there seems to be some mis-facts here. This application is proposed for exactly what was approved previously. There is no additions, no extensions of anything. A couple of letters suggested that they are asking fora 150-foot extension on the jetty. It's not. They are applying for exactly what was approved in 2004. MR. CORCORAN: My only advice on that, do what you will, but if you are going to submit items into the record, which is perfectly appropriate, but you should read them before you take, and consider them, before you take any action on this. Whether out loud or separately. TRUSTEE KING: The thing that troubles me is the earliest date of any letter is I think the 22nd of February. 21st of February. We received it on the 25th. These others on the 27th, this is really, this is really late in the game on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read through some of those letters. What I have read in them, they are reiterating what was said before in the prior letters. Board of Trustees 22 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: I know. There is a lot of repetition here. It's already been heard and already been looked at. Quite frankly, it's very difficult to go through all this at this time. MR. CORCORAN: I would suggest you take your oral comments and then we can discuss how you want to proceed. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Anderson, go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk County Environmental, for the applicant. You really sort of took my thunder away and what I was going to say, you pretty much said. So I don't think there is a need to repeat that. The only thing I would add that I didn't hear you say is throughout the hearings that this Board held on this application, it rendered a decision shortening the northern or eastern jetty over actually what was the objections of the applicant. And that jetty was shortened by 30 feet. Historically, the jetty was probably twice as big, and that information is in the file. This box out was originally developed in the'20s and the eastern jetty actually extended 480 feet into the bay. And there was, part of this was the removal of the box jetty which is also not the preference of the applicant because the box jetty is the strongest structure of what we've have there. So it was originally built in the '20s. It was redeveloped in the '40s. The jetties were, and bulkheads, were replaced in the '50s, and then again in 1977 after a storm event. So these have been maintained throughout the years. So what I'm here to say is it's important to note that that significant reduction already occurred as a result of the prior proceedings here. We are not asking for anything more or anything less than what was already debated, studied and regulated. When the jetty was, when you caused the jetty to be shortened by 30 feet, it also caused us to go back to all other agencies and modify the permits accordingly. Which we did. And the other thing that is worth while noting is that this was a regulatory process for us that began in 2002. That's when the initial applications were filed. And 1 will tell you that the Army Corps of Engineers granted the permit on June 1, 2006, which is almost three years after this Board acted. So we have been in a regulatory process here for many, many years. And if not, had the request not been made earlier, this would have been treated administerially. You should also know that a previous request to extend the permit was made by us in 2005 and that was treated administratively. Administerially. I have asked Tony Pasca -- TRUSTEE KING: I believe it was made in 2006 because I have the original permit was, the approved plans were stamped 12th of April, 2004. So that would have been valid through April of'06. So I know there was one extension and then I don't know who dropped the Board of Trustees 23 February 27, 2008 ball, but somebody dropped the ball. MR. ANDERSON: Well, my point in all this, we have a lot of agencies involved. We have the courts involved. I must tell you, in my practice, we do so many permits, I can't keep track if one permit, you know, expires. There is too many that we've handled over the years. Having said that, we followed your policy, we filed a new application, which is apparently your policy, and that's why we are here. I have also asked Mr. Pasta who is the applicant's attorney to say a few words because part of all this regulatory process that I was involved in, there was also quite a bit of litigation that occurred and not only you folks, your decision was challenged in court, as was the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, keep it short. I want to keep these five minutes or less. MR. PASCA: Anthony Pasta; Essex, Hefter & Angel. The only thing -- I'll pay attention to your warning to just deal with some new issues. The only thing I want to talk about is what happened after your permit in connection with the litigation, just to complete the record, since that really was not part of your original record. The first thing that happened was that we had to deal with the DEC permit. The courts upheld that permit. The reason it's kind of noteworthy for this Board is the DEC permit was for a bigger project. It was before this Board had cut down the project even farther from the DEC. The courts felt that was inappropriate -- even the DEC's decision was appropriate. The second thing that happened, of course, was that this Board's permit was also challenged. Now, we were, as Bruce said, we were aggrieved by the permit to the extent that it was not what we were asking for. It was cut back, we thought substantially, but we decided to abide by the Trustees' discretion and we didn't challenge the permit. We defended the permit. It went to court side-by-side and the courts upheld the permit. What I just wanted to hand up for the record was a couple of things. I made just a packet of the court decisions. It's just a few decisions that were rendered in the DEC case and the Trustee case. The only other thing I want to hand up is a copy of an affidavit that your then President Mr. Krupski had prepared in connection with the litigation. And the reason it's kind of an important affidavit is because Mr. Krupski -- you don't have to take my word for why you approved the permit before you. You have his word why you approved the permit. And for the benefit of the few board members who were not here, he goes into detail as to the process that occurred. He talks about all the evidence that was Boazd of Trustees 24 February 27, 2008 heard. They have photographs, the experts, he talks about the reasons why the Trustees thought that this was an appropriate project. And you'll notice one of the things he talked about was the fact that the Trustees looked at the aerial photographs and they looked at the evidence and they decided that this jetty system was actually stabilizing the coast line, contrary to some people's claims that it was causing the erosion. The Trustees back then decided that was not true and the jetty system is actually stabilizing the process. So I want to hand those up just for the record. I made six copies, for whatever it's worth, and that's really all I have to say. Thank you. (Handing.) TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman, are you taking comments in opposition? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. BRESSLER: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, my name is Eric Bressler; Wickham, Bressler, Gordon & Geasa. I'm here tonight to speak against this particular application on behalf of Barbara Ball and John Kuschner, Vivian Eyre and Edward Graham. Let me state at the outset that this is a new application. Mr. Chairman, in response to the suggestion of counsel, is the previous record incorporated by reference or not? TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me? MR. BRESSLER: Your counsel made -- MR. CORCORAN: He's asking whether you would like to take my suggestion of incorporating the record of the prior hearings. MR. BRESSLER: I want to know whether you did that or not. TRUSTEE KING: I think so, yes. Yes. MR. BRESSLER: You did that. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: All right. This Board has the opportunity tonight in reviewing this application to address an issue that is crying out to be addressed, which, in our view, was not dealt with properly by the first Board. And let me say in that regard, and correct the record, that the court challenge to this particular determination by the prior Board, it is true there is a decision in the Supreme Court, there was a notice of appeal filed from the judgment entered therein. The time to perfect same has not expired. Now, what that means procedurally for what this Board does tonight on this new application, is another issue. But this Board should be aware that there is a live appeal on that particular permit that can and was intended to be perfected depending on what this Board does. Now, tonight counsel for the board points out that the focus, in at least his view, is what has changed. Is there anything new. Board of Trustees 25 February 27, 2008 And that is certainly one of the relevant questions. Has anything changed. Was there anything that the Board didn't consider. Is there any reason why it should change its mind from what I have heard to be the current thinking of at least several members of the Board. The answer to that question is plainly, yes. Not only were there things that were misconstrued, there were things that were not considered the first time around on this particular application that militate very strongly in favor of arriving in this new application for a contrary decision. And the reasons are relatively simple and straight forward and what I'm going to do is talk about, for a moment, list what the global issues are, and then address the specific points and hand up to the Board what it is that supports these arguments. This Board has a unique opportunity to address what is proposed, which essentially is building a jetty as long as a football field out in the Southold Bay. Something that I'm not aware in all the years I have been before the Board that it has ever approved. So the first issue is: Where is the science. Where is the science at arriving at the length of this particular jetty? Is it merely because it was there before? There was no science supporting that length, whether it would work, whether it was more than what was needed or whether it was less than what was needed. There was no science to support it. There was certainly no science to support the issue of lopping off 10%. While we certainly appreciated that, to a certain extent, there was no science, there was no reason, there was no engineering to support that. Now here we are, four years later. What has changed? Has anything changed? Does the Board know whether anything has changed? Has the Board been presented with a survey, with the soundings, which it didn't have the first time around in accordance with its rules within one year of the application. Has it been presented with that this time around to determine whether anything has changed with respect to the topography of this particular project? The answer is no. It's difficult to fathom, if you pardon the pun, as to how one can consider something in the absence of what this own Board's code requires. So has anything changed? Well, in that respect, it's impossible for this Board to say whether it has or whether it has not. And for that reason and that reason alone, this Board can say no. And I think this Board would be remiss in carrying out its responsibilities if it did not require that which is required by code. Now, I'm handing up five packages -- TRUSTEE KING: Five minutes. MR. BRESSLER: (Continuing) five packages of documentation which I'll address very briefly since you'll have the documentation Board of Trustees 26 February 27, 2008 before you. Exhibit One is a survey from 2008 and it shows the general area. And Exhibit Two is a survey in 2004 that shows the area. It shows up drift and down drift, which we'll get to in a moment. And the important thing to note there is that the beach to the east of the existing structure is stable. It has been stable despite the non-activity with respect to this construction project. The other thing to note is that the canal remained navigable throughout the boating season with annual dredging, even with this project in its current state. The second issue to be noted is the littoral drift. And the position that the town took, that's Exhibit Three, in defending this possession and the position the Board took was, that the drift is from west to east. Now, of course that is belied by the aerial photographs. It is belied by Exhibit Four, which is the DEC letter from Laura Scivazzo to Bruce Anderson, that this project would impede littoral drift from the east to the west. Exhibit Five is the coastal engineering report. It indicates -- TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Bressler, I don't mean to cut you short here. But everything here, we have already seen. This is all stuff in our file. It's already been looked at. MR. BRESSLER: Everything here -- Mr. King, if you would permit me -- TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I'm not going to let this meeting turn into a debate. You have already gone over your five minutes of testimony. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. King, this is a new application and I'm pointing you out to things that you have not seen, or new things. And preparatory thereto, I have laid before you -- TRUSTEE KING: I see nothing new. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. King. I have laid before you certain things that you have seen to be contrasted with certain things that you have not seen. And if you would permit me to finish my presentation, I think you will see what I am -- TRUSTEE KING: You have another have another five minutes. And I'm being generous. And at the end of five minutes, that's it. Now go. MR. BRESSLER: Extraordinarily democratic of you. Exhibit Six is the Southold Town LWRP. That shows, that demonstrates that the loss of sand to my client's property was probably due to the jetty. Now, most importantly, moving to Exhibit Seven, and this is something that you have not seen. In contrast to all of that, you go to Exhibit Seven, and what do we see in Exhibit Seven. Exhibit Seven is a survey that was submitted by the applicant to the Department of State. And if you look closely at Exhibit Seven, you'll see the notation on there is contrary to the positions that have been taken. The drift is from east to west. That is what the Board of Trustees 27 February 27, 2008 drift is. That was not available at the time. That has been discovered since that time, and that is new. So what is before the Board now is the position of both the proponent of this project as well as the objectants that the drift is from east to west. TRUSTEE KING: Do you see that aerial from there? MR. BRESSLER: Now -- TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me. Can you see that aerial from there? MR. BRESSLER: Of course I can see the aerial. TRUSTEE KING: What does that indicate to you? MR. BRESSLER: It indicates to me that the drift is from east to west. Just like the DEC says. TRUSTEE KING: It indicates it to me also, so what are you talking about? What's the argument? I can see that. I have other aerial photographs that show the same thing. If you want to get into it -- MR. BRESSLER: If we agree that the drift is from east to west then I'm satisfied with that particular point and I'll move along. TRUSTEE KING: It's actually quite obvious. MR. BRESSLER: Okay. Good. TRUSTEE KING: And I would also like to mention, it depends on the weather conditions. Because I'm very familiar with Long Island Sound. I don't know as much about the bay. I would defer to Mr. Bergen about the bay, but I'm very familiar with the Long Island Sound and the predominant littoral drift in Long Island Sound is west to east. When you have a northeaster come along, the drift is east to west. And the same thing happens in the bay, if you have a strong southwesterly wind or westerly wind, the littoral drift can change. MR. BRESSLER: As long as we agree the drift is generally, as everyone has said, from east to west, then I'm satisfied with that point. You'll also see in the package Exhibit Eight which is the OCC report. You'll see Exhibit Nine which is also a portion of that report. Exhibit Ten which is also, which is the Chuck Bowman report, and you'll see as Exhibits 11, 12, the diagrams of the drift. Exhibit 13 is important because it shows the longterm erosion of the properties to the west and it demonstrates that that erosion was long before any bulkheads were put in. Exhibits 14 and 15, we refer to that particular area. Exhibit 16, which I'm not certain was in front of the Board, was the SEQRA review in 1987 when Mr. Bredemeyer formerly of this board recognized that the bulkheads of my client's property were necessary. Exhibit 17 shows that that bulkhead was for erosion control. Exhibit 19, again, is from the proponent's own expert that talks about the impact of this particular project. Board of Trustees 28 February 27, 2008 So in short, what we have here is an application that has no science behind it in terms of how long it ought to be, what the configuration ought to be, what the longterm impacts of this project would be, and now we have a distinct change in that we now know that the drift is generally from east to west and that this jetty, you have only to look at the photographs, is piling up sand behind it. Those things have to be taken into the account by this Board and a decision made based upon science as to what is reasonable and what is necessary, and I submit to the Board it is a total dearth of evidence before this Board. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to comment, please? MR. KALMAN: My name is Howard Beixedon. Kalman, I'm at 235 Rogers Road in I find it disappointing that you feel this is a procedural issue. It is not just a procedural issue. The reason why it's an emotional one is there are a lot of folks in Beixedon whose quality of life is directly affected by this jetty and the lack of science and study associated with the jetty. Not to mention our property values, which will be directly negatively affected if the jetty does impact the beach and the sand continues to erode and the beach is washed away. This is not just a procedural issue. This is very important issue for those of us that live there. I'm disappointed that it says in here on behalf of, in care of the Beixedon Estate Property Association. The reason there are so many emotions associated with this is because that does not represent the homeowners. This application does not represent the homeowners. It is a new application. You have to look at it and view it that way. It is your obligation to do that. First of all, I think that there should be a study done, a coastal engineer study on the affects of this jetty. The size of the jetty, it's a football field. It's a danger. There are people that use that bay for boating. There are kids that go out there on jet skis. You do not expect to see a football field size jetty jutting out into the middle of the water when you are out there towing your kid on a rope. You just don't. As a matter of fact I think maybe the applicant should also pony up insurance so that when somebody gets hurt they can get paid for it. I think a study should be done of the wetlands. If you take a look at that picture, at the east end of Beixedon Estates there is a very delicate coastal wetlands ecosystem that supports a number of species of fish, crabs, waterfowl. It has not been taken into account as far as I could tell what the impact of the jetty and the sand erosion will do to that very delicate ecosystem. I doubt if anyone knows if there are endangered species there. Boazd of Trustees 29 February 27, 2008 I think that should be looked into. So I want it noted that the request has been made to this committee, to the Trustees, that an environmental impact study be done on the affect of that ecosystem prior to the approval of this new application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me just, for my own understanding, you are testifying that those crabs and such and that wildlife exist there now? MR. KALMAN: They are there. I know they are there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You realize the picture we are looking at is 42-years old. We are talking about the same structure now as 42 years ago. So those species and those wetlands have been there with the jetty in question now for 42 years. MR. KALMAN: We don't know and you don't know, unless you have a study in front of you you can present to me right now what the impact of this jetty is going to be. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are testifying that they exist. This jetty has been there for 42 years. TRUSTEE KING: It's been there more than that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, as far as the picture. My point being is that you are testifying, in reality, that materially, things have not gone south or, in other words, if these things you say, the wetlands and species that you are finding there, have not really been affected by the jetty that has been there for 42 years. MR. KALMAN: My understanding is there has been erosion over the years. My understanding is the beach house -- MS. EYRE: I was going to say -- Vivian Eyre, 200 Rogers Road, Beixedon Estates -- that the jetty has been in disrepair over these years and it's actually, you can see air and water through those planks. So I think that his point is well taken because it's not actually a solid structure any longer. MR. KALMAN: And it has not been for many years. So the affects and the living ecosystem that is there today is not the same as it was 40 some odd years ago. And a study should be done to know what the effect of this new jetty, this new application, this new structure, this new football field in the water, what effect that will have on that ecosystem. Again, I'll reiterate one thing. This is not a fait accompli. It's not simply procedural. It's a very important issue to the homeowners, to the people who use that beach. It's a quality of life issue in Southold. It is a bellwether for other applications that will come up in the future. So far as I know there is no structure that large out there. So what you do today, when you take into consideration the requirements and requests of the homeowners and folks that live in Beixedon Estates, not the single individual or small group of individuals who do not represent the whole, I think you should take into account what you are doing. It is a very serious issue. It Boazd of Trustees 30 February 27, 2008 is not procedural, as Mr. King said. It is a new application and must be viewed that way. You commented, Mr. Ghosio, that I'm testifying. I'm not accustomed to speaking in these kinds of environments. This is not something I do. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a speaker. But I'm a homeowner there. I bought that home because of the beach. And other folks bought their homes there because of the beach. And I bought that home because of the value of the home. I expect it to appreciate over the years so that my children and grandchildren can use it. I don't want to have to, you know, walk away from the neighborhood because you folks determined that a few small groups of individuals, the canal people that use that canal, don't want to dredge anymore. I don't have anything else to say. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I think the thing that convinced the previous Board and also this Board, when you look at the aerials from 40 years ago, 40 some odd years ago, it was more structure there at that time and yet there was plenty of beach. Now I went through a lot of testimony from the hearings we had, there is 25 or 30 pages of testimony. I also went back to some of the applications for the bulkheads that were put in place. And the testimony of those, the former Board of Trustees, now this is going back a lot further than myself or the previous Board, they were afraid of putting bulkheads in there would cause beach erosion. And apparently it seems like that's what is happening. MR. KALMAN: I'm not a coastal engineer, but are you trying to say -- are you a coastal engineer that you can state -- TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm not. MR. KALMAN: So how can you state that the bulkheads or the jetty or the combination of the two are what eroded the beach? An engineer should do a study. TRUSTEE KING: We have seen in the field on numerous occasions and I'm sure there are studies that have been done that show hardening of the shoreline, usually when you put a bulkhead in, you lose your beach. That's almost a given. MR. KALMAN: Same thing with a jetty. So you cannot say one over the other without scientific evidence and proof. TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of scientific evidence against hardening of the shoreline. MR. KALMAN: You have two significant structures now that you are referring to; the jetties and the bulkheads. We have the bulkheads in place. The jetty is in disrepair. It should be looked at and viewed. When you guys went to inspect the site, did you go down to the end of Rogers Road? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. KALMAN: So you saw the erosion at Rogers Road? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Boazd of Trustees 31 February 27, 2008 MR. KALMAN: That's not Rogers Road. That's Arshamomaque. Did you go to the end of Rogers Road? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not sure. Where is Rogers Road? MR. KALMAN: So the answer is you did not go to the end of Rogers Road. TRUSTEE KING: My question is, is it further to the west? Where is Rogers Road? MR. KALMAN: Rogers Road is one block to the west of Arshamomaque. TRUSTEE KING: No, we didn't go to Rogers Road. MR. KALMAN: So the Trustees didn't do a full inspection of the beach. TRUSTEE KING: That's not true. MR. KALMAN: But you didn't go to Rogers Road. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far west -- MR. KALMAN: It is one block. It is the community beach. It's where folks walk to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: Is it west of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you help us out, is it this area up here? MR. KALMAN: It's approximately right here. (indicating). Give or take. I can't tell exactly. It's here. There has been trees -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Here? (indicating.) MR. KALMAN: There were two trees that were up here. One of them is almost totally uprooted now. The other one is becoming uprooted because of the sand erosion at that point, at the end of Rogers Road. Keep in mind, in Beixedon there are two streets that go down to the beach; Arshamomaque where you said you went to look and Rogers Road is one block, one block west of Arshamomaque. It's part of the exact same system there. It's the same beach. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to start cutting this off. MR. KALMAN: Mr. King, I understand you want to cut it off. I don't respect that though. The fact is this is a huge issue for us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what we would like to do is we would like to limit everybody to five minutes so plenty of people have the opportunity to come to the microphone and give their comment. MR. KALMAN: That I respect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not saying we are cutting off the discussion. We're saying we want to give other people the opportunity to speak, who wish to speak. TRUSTEE KING: We have other people sitting here who don't want to sit here all night and listen to this. MR. KALMAN: The reason it's a big issue is because it's an important issue. We knew that up front. You wanted to avoid this. But it's a fact. It's there. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? MR. KUSCHNER: I'm Eugene Kuschner and you all received letters from me during the past week. I think one of the criticisms about the 150 feet may have been aimed at me. During the past week I've had several conversations with Board of Trustees 32 February 27, 2008 people at the DEC and the Department of State, and there is at least one procedural irregularity which has taken place which may have afforded us an opportunity. The permit requester has actually proceeded with construction in the absence of an active permit, so that even though the permit expired last March, there actually is construction which has been done. The bulkhead has been rebuilt and some of the jetty coming off of the bulkhead has been rebuilt. This is an incontrovertible fact. Now, I spoke with the people at the DEC and they actually said that Mr. King has been in touch with them also, and I certainly encouraged him to do this and if his spending a lot of time talking with them reflects my letters then my letters were not a waste of time and I appreciate all the effort Mr. King has put out. The DEC has a policy that they would not, and actually, I have a direct quotation. And when I spoke with this gentleman, he said you would know his name and don't hesitate to use it. It's George Hammarth. And he was in the office of granting permits. And he said, and I read this back to him and I told him I would be quoting him at the meeting tonight, and he agreed. Quote: I would be very surprised if the DEC issued a permit which would allow any construction below the low water mark. The jetty is already at or just below the low water mark. So we have been afforded the opportunity to see what a jetty which stops at the low water mark does. Any permit that is granted in the near future, I may suggest, should specifically say in accordance with DEC requirements that construction not be further out into Southold Bay than the low water mark. The proposal which Suffolk Environmental Consulting has presented to the DEC, shows it proceeding 150 feet beyond the low water mark, and that's where my figure came from that Trustee Doherty raised her eyebrows about. And I would be glad to show her stuff which came from his office. Now, something which the Board may not be aware of is that because this has actually been constructed, they are planning a post construction conformity visit. And I couldn't pin them down as to when that would be. They said it would be by a relatively high level person, such as Chuck Hamilton. I don't know enough about the hierarchy at DEC but the person with whom I was speaking said this is big stuff. That he is planning a visit to come out here for a post construction, because if you have already reached, he knows you reached the low water mark. If the construction has already reached that, as far as the DEC is concerned, their permitting has done it all. And what I'm asking, they are supposed to get back to me. They couldn't tell me exactly when this inspection was taking place, but they said they would get back to me within three weeks. Board of Trustees 33 February 27, 2008 So that at the very least, I'm asking the Board of Trustees to not vote on this today but to wait until we get the final report from the DEC, which will be, in the words of Mr. Hammarth, I would be very surprised if we issued a permit allowing any protrusion into the bay beyond the low water mark. And I think this is new information. I don't know if anyone else has this information. And Mr. Hammarth said that you would be familiar with his name, the Board of Trustees know him. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, absolutely. MR. KUSCHNER: He's a very precise person. He has also said -- TRUSTEE KING: I have not had too many dealings with Mr. Hammarth myself. MR. KUSCHNER: You dealt with Mr. Andrews and the people in Albany? TRUSTEE KING: I know Mr. Andrews, yes. I have had a long relationship with him. MR. KUSCHNER: And I have spoken with Barry Pendergrass. He also works in the same office with Fred Andrews. TRUSTEE KING: Fred Andrews is Department of State. MR. KUSCHNER: So what we want is to have the law observed. I'm here, and I said jokingly at the end of my conversation today with the DEC, it sounds like I'm working for the DEC. And that's what I want. I want the letter of the law to be observed. The DEC is in the business of evaluating the science that we should look to and their science is not what it was four years ago. They are increasingly convinced of the role played by jetties. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Didn't the DEC, did they not grant a permit to extend the jetty out beyond the low water mark? MR. KUSCHNER: Mr. Hammarth himself said that right now, because this is under intensive review, they are aware there is a problem and there may have been an error made and that because of that he did not have access to the whole file. It was under review by other people. But that in the abstract -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Currently, at this time, there is a DEC permit extending out below the low water mark, correct? TRUSTEE KING: They have a valid DEC permit. MR. KUSCHNER: They are not sure of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have it in our file. MR. KUSCHNER: If you have it, I asked him specifically if you have it, do you have the multicolored version of it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have copies of the DEC -- TRUSTEE KING: When did you talk to Mr. Hammarth? MR. KUSCHNER: Today and yesterday. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. KUSCHNER: That, if so, it may have been a mistake and that I'm conveying this for the record, and on the record. Board of Trustees 34 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: For the record, to the best of my knowledge, there is a current DEC permit. There is a current Army Corps of Engineers permit on these jetties and on February 14th I did a field inspection at the site with Mr. Hamilton. MR. KUSCHNER: With all due respect, Mr. King, I know you are trying to enforce the law. But neither you nor I is a coastal engineer. TRUSTEE KING: What I'm saying is I did an inspection with Mr. Hamilton from the DEC at the site on February 14th. He came out on the 14th because there had been so many phone calls, so many problems with people saying there are 11 different violations of the DEC permit and so forth. He came out. He called me, he was coming on out. He said I'm coming out, I want to take a look at this. MR. KUSCHNER: He's coming out again. As of today. He's coming out again because there have been so many people, there have been a lot of concerned citizens, his office is getting a lot of letters. TRUSTEE KING: Quite frankly, I doubt it. MR. KUSCHNER: Well, I don't see how in light of all this information either I or Mr. Hammarth is totally faking or it would not hurt to wait a month. TRUSTEE KING: There is mixed signals going on out there because I was at the site with him. MR. KUSCHNER: There are. There are mixed signals. TRUSTEE KING: The only problem he found, there was a dumpster that was within 75 feet of the high water mark. It was a minor violation. I believe he wrote a notice of violation on it. He could find no other violations on the site. And there was a valid DEC permit and I think that was the end of it. MR. KUSCHNER: Mr. Hammarth pointed out to me that he did not have the full file, but that on the summary which he did have possession of, the permit was entirely for a bulkhead. Not for a jetty. In his own words. And that to somebody who works for the DEC, that this is a big distinction. And he wanted to get to the bottom of this as well. He was disturbed by the absence of the word "jetty" in the permit. Do you have a copy of the permit that uses the word "jetty"? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This hearing is about the Trustees application, not a DEC application. This is about a Trustees application for the town law. We are not here to debate the state law. That's where it seems it's going. MR. KUSCHNER: Okay. Mr. Hammarth also said that SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review people, also would not smile upon, and that the Trustees are required to present things to them. But they would be upset by the idea of having a jetty which goes beyond the low water mark. Has this been presented to the SEQRA? MR. CORCORAN: It's not our requirement that it be presented. SEQRA is the name of the law. Okay? And SEQRA was complied with at the time of the original application. Board of Trustees 35 February 27, 2008 MR. KUSCHNER: All I'm doing is being a mouthpiece for Mr. Hammarth. He's the one that said he's sure you have to run this by them. MR. CORCORAN: There is no SEQRA to send something to. You have to follow the law by following the regulations, which have been followed. MR. KUSCHNER: What he said to ask you, how did you see to it that the requirements, I should ask you that, but you can't answer that in five minutes, I'm sure. MR. CORCORAN: No, but I think the DEC itself found to it to be a Type II action three years ago. Which means it did not require a review under SEORA. MR. KUSCHNER: We have a jetty which was built, you are actually asking for a retroactive permit for something that is already up. And one of the things that we might want to do is ask Mr. Nickles if he's willing to stop with the construction the way it is now to see how that works. That's one reason, since that seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, I suggest at this point in time we not vote on it in its current form. It's built. His house and his property is protected by a new bulkhead. It's there. He has some jetty. And new construction, I have seen a copy of the letter which he wrote to Mr. King saying that he's suspending construction but that he's planning on constructing more. TRUSTEE KING: I see what you are talking about on the reference to a bulkhead or jetty, but it says "bulkhead" but it shows the location of where it is and what it is. MR. KUSCHNER: That's one reason why they are reviewing this. This is a storm for the DEC, which is why I'm asking that you wait until they come out with a more crystal clear -- Mr. Nickles' house is protected by his new bulkhead. We don't have to worry about Mr. Nickles. MR. CORCORAN: Whether it has a DEC permit is really the domain of the DEC. They'll decide if they have an issue with it. This Board does not make decisions for the DEC. This Board can issue a permit and the DEC can decline it and the project won't be able to go forward. This Board needs to decide whether it's going to issue a permit. MR. KUSCHNER: Okay. I was hoping that the Board, I'm sure its interest and concerns are equal in statute as that of the DEC, but I'm not sure that its scientific expertise is quite up to that of these people who do this all day long after having studied to prepare them for their jobs. So I think that if they say they are reevaluating it and that they are going to be sending somebody out here again, that we should give them at least a month. They said they'll get back to me within three weeks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, for your comments. MR. KUSCHNER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MR. BRESSLER: Mr. King, to complete the record, I want to state for Boazd of Trustees 36 February 27, 2008 the record that I make objection to the fact that on behalf of my clients I was not given a full and fair opportunity to speak and that the time allotted to those other than myself exceeded the time allotted to me and I object on statutory -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Everybody has been doing about 15 minutes. MR. BRESSLER: (continuing) statutory and constitutional grounds. This is a new hearing. It's a project as long as a football field and to say you have five minutes to speak to it I think is unreasonable and unconstitutional. And that having been said, I have nothing else to say and someone else will review how you have chosen to conduct the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. MCALLISTER: Good evening, my name is Kevin McAllister, I'm the Peconic Baykeeper. I'm a biologist by training, not a coastal engineer. But I would like to share with you my credentials. I hold a Masters in Science in Coastal Zone Management and some of the course training certainly involved coastal processes and shoreline structures. Prior to returning to Long Island to take this job ten years ago, I was employed with Palm Beach County in the Shoreline Protection Section. I have a great deal of experience working with engineers, performing the biological end of things, everything from inlet dredging, sand bypassing, drawings, jetties, revetments, geo-tubes, bulkheads, beach nourishment. Relative to the impacts of jetties, and this is quite academic, on the up drift side there will be a accretion. On the down drift side there is erosion trend. And Mr. King, you are correct, relative to, there is variability in the drift. In this case, east to west, depending on the prevailing winds and wave energy. But the net drift is clearly from east to west. That is without question. Relative to the site in consideration through jetties and structures in general, but particularly jetties, this requires complex engineering analysis. Such things as sand budgets, tidal prisms, bathymetric profiles, closure depth. That term is the depth at which sediments are no longer encapsulated in littoral drift. Again, these are details that really need to be considered and part of an analysis to be properly engineering this type of structure. If you recall, I know a number of your Trustees were in the room when I appeared in December and addressed the Town Board relative to the changes to the wetland code, and at the time made reference that over the course of the last 25, 30 years, and that's random, in our level of understanding relative to coastal principles, has increased substantially. We know a lot more now than we knew 20 years ago. And relative to many of the mistakes that were made, in this case, Board of Trustees 37 February 27, 2008 hearing Mr. Anderson, I guess the initial structure was built in the 1920s. We were not as smart back then. We are now. And I implore the Board to take the opportunity, seize the opportunity, to rectify past mistakes when those opportunities present themselves. Relative to this structure itself, and I would argue that certainly prior to the recent reconstruction, this is clearly a failing jetty, there is substantial leakage and bypassing that was occurring. In this case, perhaps a trend or movement toward equilibrium of that beach. I guess the last point I would like to make is really, you have this opportunity before you, this is in fact a do over. This structure, at least initially and what was perpetuated over the course of the decades, was over built. My analysis and review of this, I mean this looks similar, you know, Petty's Pond to the coastal pond further to the west, it probably had a narrow stream once upon a time and was dredged open. Now we have navigation, and I'm not suggesting that we forego navigation, but let's reconstruct this jetty to meet the needs, and that's reasonable access in and out of the creek, of the pond, allowing for reasonable navigation. What we can't give up and what really needs to be an expectation of the residents that utilize this area for navigation is the need for periodic dredging, bypassing. That's something that was actually not mentioned relative to any jetty structures certainly on the larger scale. They built in bypassing systems, whether it's a roving dredge or pump house, but the notion is that they need to flip the sand over to the down drift side to ensure that the beaches are maintained and stabilized. I asked the Board and again, Mr. King, your comments about procedure, I too, am disappointed in hearing that. I know I'm weighing in on this on a certainly eleventh hour, but we have the opportunity to get it right here and I implore the Board really to require that thorough analysis, the thorough engineering. Again, the end of the process, what we build is something that satisfies needs relative to navigation and also protects, again, an important coastal habitat, the intertidal zone and sandy beaches to the down drift side and ensures protection of private properties and public properties. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a question for you. I appreciate the fact that you came down to address this. In your estimation, with what knowledge you do have, what do you think was the affects of the installation of those bulkheads, based on what you see now. MR. MCALLISTER: Initially, the jetty I think certainly interfered with littoral drift. It sand starved the down drift beaches. I think the bulkheads that were probably subsequently built exacerbated the problem. I will say there is an opportunity here, the deathnell has not been rung necessarily because the walls are Board of Trustees 38 February 27, 2008 in place. If in fact sand is allowed to accrete on the down drift side and perhaps build up in front of those walls, opportunities arise for redeveloping dunes and plantings and restabilizing the shoreline. But ultimately we have to try to enhance that sand flow and that accretion process that may occur with a properly engineered jetty. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think my concern is the fact when that came up, based upon what I read in the files, had those rock revetments been built rather than those bulkheads we would not even be addressing this issue now. MR. MCALLISTER: I disagree with that. I think the rock revetments although perhaps don't have the same direct impact or wave reflection, they nevertheless harden the shoreline and they do reflect wave energy and ultimately cause a loss of fronting beaches. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So in retrospect if we were to apply for these bulkheads today, your recommendation would be not to do anything. MR. MCALLISTER: In certain instances, and this is a key point, and I'm glad you just triggered this thought, because I know Mr. King, you made mention of I guess considering aerial photographs of the past, relative to placement of bulkheads, et cetera. We are in a different stage right now, with sea level rise and I would argue the depletion of actually sand sources for that matter. You know, do we still have the same sand budget that we had decades ago. Perhaps we don't. But that needs to be certainly considered. In instances where there is eminent threat to erosion to private properties, you know, in a best case scenario if we could stabilize the shoreline in a natural way and actually retreat and maintain our natural shorelines, allowing them to migrate as necessary, that's what we should be striving for. But I'm also a realist. When we have conditions that require armoring under certain circumstances. And that's unfortunate. But I do thing the Board in being progressive in their thinking and with vision, certainly be looking forward to try to prevent those instances when this goes relative to permitting structures that are within harms way or potentially within harms way in ten or 20 years from now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The funny thing is, in response to that was, it seems to me the Board back in the '80's when the bulkheads were being applied for, were doing exactly that, and their comments they were trying to be proactive and to try to keep this from happening and recommending the revetments and plantings instead of the bulkheads. Unfortunately the bulkheads were built and I think when you look at the aerials, it's clear, the drastic changes in the shoreline occurs after the bulkheads were built, not so much because of the jetties. The jetties have been there since the '20s. MR. MCALLISTER: I think there is all of these structures at play. There is extensive groin field or groins within our bay waters Boazd of Trustees 39 February 27, 2008 within this town. Certainly there is a number of jetties and shore parallel bulkheads, and all of them have problems associated with them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could make one comment. I agree that the drift does go from east to west here. I have determined that just from site visits as well as all the aerial photographs, and one thing that can assist, when you talking about the dredging of the inlet is that the spoil, the material from the dredging goes down drift, where it should go, that will help to replace sands that you are saying are lost. It will help rebuild those. So I'm hoping whatever happens with this whole project, that when dredging does take place, the material will be placed down drift, down to those beaches to help support those beaches. MR. MCALLISTER: That's the appropriate location. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. MR. MCALLISTER: Thank you for listening to my comments. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. SHINE: Hi, my name is Sharon Shine, I'm a resident of Beixedon. I don't live on the beach so I don't have a bulkhead and I'm seeing that it's becoming a neighborhood thing between bulkhead people and jetty people and if it were all up to me there would be no bulkheads and no jetties. That's what they know today and what they knew back then is far different. So right now there is not an application in to rebuild the bulkheads. It's the jetty that they are looking at now. So like Kevin was saying, there is an opportunity now to do something proactive. If there comes a time where people are going to put in new bulkheads and we have new knowledge that says wow, instead of putting a new bulkhead in, do it this way, and it goes back to preserving the sand of the beach, I would say we would want to support that too. Be proactive toward the future with the new knowledge we are getting. But what concerns me is I feel like there is more of a battle between who has done what damage to the beach. We have all done damage to the beach. But we have an opportunity now and I'm just hoping that, if nothing else, that you just take some more time to review more of the new information that is coming forward. I don't see there would be a rush to make a decision tonight with all the emotion and all the lawyers and DEC questions coming up. I don't think it would be a smart thing to just stamp approval on it tonight. Thank you. MS. KUSCHNER: Good evening, I'm Joan Kuschner. I wanted to suggest that you have really an historic opportunity here that you are missing. You are representing the Town of Southold. The Town of Southold is not only the ecology of the shoreline. The Town of Southold involves the people of Southold. And what you have, what has been created in this discussion is something that is Board of Trustees 40 February 27, 2008 destructive of the social fabric. My understanding is that we currently, there is currently a bulkhead that has been reconstructed and protects John Nickles' property. Everyone here, there are people that grew up with John Nickles, people that know him well and certainly would want to have that property protected, and our understanding is that the bulkhead that is in place protects that property, indeed sand that has accrued. There is currently a piece of an extension that is clearly being recognized as a jetty that goes to the low water mark. If it stays at that position then there is not, it is no longer necessary to worry. We can look at this opportunity to see what will happen to the coast. We can see the opportunity to build up a beach, a beach that is a community beach, which unfortunately the town board did not get a chance to view, and I would like, could you possibly point out the view that shows the beach at Rogers Lane? That is a beach that has always built community. That is where the Community of Beixedon gathers. It is a place where we have our regular community suppers and share the summer together. And that is a part that used to, if you see photographs, and I know I have seen photographs of an area that where that beach extended out, it is sorely eroded and the erosion has sped up over this time. Now, the town has an opportunity to heal not only the waterfront but the community. And if it is, if this construction is stopped where it is, you will be able to monitor the flow of sand and actually be able to do the kind of research that would be necessary. And you are going to need, by the way, in a lot of other areas down the shoreline, this is not, this is the type of problem that repeats itself. And so if you can gather the information about an area that has a limited structure, this will be very useful in your future analysis of the area. So I would really implore you to focus on this as a positive movement for the town and to really take progressive steps to make a decision that will really help Southold move in to the future. Thank you. MR. ATKINSON: Member of the Trustees, my name is Matthew Atkinson. I'm general counsel with Peconic Baykeeper. And I just want to emphasize again, that this is a new application, so there should be new SEQRA determinations, anew coastal consistency with the LWRP, that you can't just rely on the old file, although you can incorporate it, you have to follow your own procedures with a new application. The other thing I would like to say is I'm unclear about how you may even authorize this jetty. As I look at the wetlands law, it seems to be that only low profile jetties will be permitted at all. And looking at this profile here that I have of the approved drawings, we seem to have jetties that is as much as eight feet above grade. Boazd of Trustees 41 February 27, 2008 Also, only replacement of existing functional jetties is permissible. And "functional" is defined in the definitional section as being 75% physically intact. If you go down to the water there now and you look seaward of where the existing illegally built jetty is, there is only a couple of sticks out there. There is no functional jetty out there. So I'm unclear how this Board can authorize the reconstruction of a jetty that doesn't exist at all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Functionality had been determined when the application first came up. MR. ATKINSON: The application is just up now. You have a new application before you. And the other thing that sort of relates to that is how do we know that there is an existing jetty previously here? Because now it's gone. It's not built there. And I will note one thing, because there is one little bit of confusion here. Is the local law number 23 of 2007. Which defines, creates a new item in the definitional section. I don't feel as though I should ignore it. It says: "Functional" is any structure that has essentially retained its purpose and use within the 24 months preceding the operations or activities at issue. If this is attempting to modify the definitional section that exists, as for a functional jetty and functional bulkhead, which are treated as terms of art, it's very unclear that it's doing that. Nor does it in any way seek to amend the provisions concerning the fact that you can only replace functional jetties. And so even if it did apply, you would have to go back then to see what the condition was two years ago. I don't think it does apply, but if it did apply, you would have to look at the situation two years ago. And in that regard, and here I'm afraid I'm a little late to the party, but I do have some aerials that are taken at angles that show the whole end of the jetty as it was is basically gone. Just some sticks. I can provide these. I also have these aerials on my computer in color which you can zoom them which makes it a little more easy to see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the date of the aerials? MR. ATKINSON: These are March, 2006. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. ATKINSON: So we have a low sill jetty replacing what is basically anon-existing jetty. And I realize it's not directly on point but it is sort of a bit of evidence that is worth looking at. When the DEC was first reviewing this application it responded in May 8, 2003 -- and I know this is in your materials -- saying that the 215-foot section on the east side of the jetty is completely dysfunctional. It's not functional at all, and they would not be able to approve it. And their permit says that you Board of Trustees 42 Februazy 27, 2008 can't rebuild 215 feet at the east end of that northern jetty. I would be very curious to see the staff plans, which I have not yet seen, and it sort of begs how can you shorten it 215 feet and still end up with a 278 foot jetty. So I would argue that the approval of this application would be multifarious of this Board and it should strongly consider denying it on those grounds. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were just looking at the pictures in the file and it was a functional jetty going out into the bay. And on your pictures it's hard to determine in a picture where it's functional and where it's no longer functional. That's something you really have to determine on site, by looking at all the factors there on site. You are absolutely right, and the end of what is in your pictures is sticks and it's not functional but some place out into the bay is what appears to be a solid structure there. So, again, looking at this aerial photo it's hard to tell exactly where it was functional and where it's non-functional. That's just my opinion. This is something that is, it's important as a piece of the entire puzzle of what we need to look at. More important to me, and this is just myself, is going out there on site and looking at it on site, looking at the beach and the accretion of beach on one side versus the other side, looking at the littoral drift, looking at all the different factors, that's more important, just to myself, than just aerial pictures from years ago. MR. ATKINSON: That's for you to authorize it. As you see, as of today, go down and look at it, there is no jetty seaward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We were all there at the site visit, whatever day is on the record, Tuesday the 12th. So we have seen what is there as of the 12th. MR. ATKINSON: I actually have one last point, if you would indulge me, is that, as you concede that the drift is from east to west and you concede that the jetty as it is built will deprive sand from going to the west, and we all know there is a loss of sand. This jetty does contribute to coastal erosion. And this is contrary to the stated policy in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan as well as state coastal policies. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MR. GRAHAM: My name is Ed Graham, I'm a longtime Beixedon resident. I've been there since the late '60s. Over that time there was a tremendous amount of erosion before the bulkheads were ever built. I think there is a lot of documentation that would show that. The other thing I wanted to mention, and I'm not a coastal engineer, but further east of the bulkheads closer to the canal, Board of Trustees 43 February 27, 2008 there is a section of the beach that is not bulkheaded. That beach has suffered enormous erosion. Now, I don't know if the bulkheads would affect more than just the immediate vicinity where they are or further west, but to the east there is no bulkheads between, there is no bulkheads between where the bulkheads are and the canal and the beach is tremendously eroded in that spot. So I don't know if the bulkheads have something to do with that or not, but as I say, there is a lot of erosion that took place long before the bulkheads were built. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Originally, this, I believe, was not reviewed under LWRP. It has been reviewed and it was found to be exempt. Replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structured facility in kind in same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building fire code. It goes on. Except for structures and areas designated by the coastal erosion hazard area. It's been found to be exempt from LWRP. MR. KALMAN: Can you explain what that means in layman's terms? MR. CORCORAN: There is an exception from review of our local consistency law for rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement in kind/inplace, in the same place. MR. KALMAN: I'm not sure I understand. You have a nonexistent jetty that has been destroyed and is not usable, and this is exempt from review? MR. CORCORAN: If this Board determines that it's inplace/inkind reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement, it's exempt from the LWRP review. It's not exempt from the Trustees' review or anything else. MS. EYRE: That's if it's determined inkind/inplace. MR. CORCORAN: Correct. This Board must make that decision. TRUSTEE KING: This was the recommendation from the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a CAC in there? TRUSTEE KING: Is there any CAC comments? CAC resolves to support the wetland application. And it's basically just a description of what is going on. They do support it. All ayes was the motion. Motion carried. Are there any other comments? MS. ALESSI: One last. My name is Joy Alessi, I live at 620 Rogers Road, which is where the communal beach is. My house is not on the beach. It's the second one in. I'm the lowest house in all Beixedon. And my backyard is one a wonderful little estuary that goes from Hippodrome Pond, there is a little creek that goes right out to the beach. I bought the house ten years ago. There has been tremendous erosion over this period. Now, at a high tide with a good wind and full moon, I have water coming up to my back door. It has broken over a berm, through the bushes, up to my back door. This was never this way before. And I think we had, there is a great opportunity here Boazd of Trustees 44 Februazy 27, 2008 since, we have part of the jetty rebuilt, if we could hold things as they are, see if that keeps the canal open. I loved it over here because it was a community. There was not the canal people with the beach people. We are all using the beach and there was a wonderful sense of community and I hope that we can find that again. And if you take a little time to review this. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to note the letter we got today was from Ms. Alessi and that's basically what it says. MR. CORCORAN: May (suggest -- the Board works as it chooses, obviously, but I suggest you close the hearing and reserve decision so you can review the materials that have been submitted tonight and take any other action you deem proper. TRUSTEE KING: You're reading my mind. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, I just want to make a comment that there has been a couple of comments tonight about your comment about procedural. And I would like to say in defense of this Board, the past Board and this Board have, I could think of multiple examples of times where we have gotten new information, we have gotten applications to come back, and this Board puts in time. These new board members, although you are not new anymore, spent hours with these files. We, in our last Board, spent hours making these decisions. And they are not easy decisions. And 1 just want to make a statement for the record that we do reconsider new information and we do go over and we spend a tremendous amount of time. So the comments that, you know, it's not right, we are not following correct policy; we do spend a lot of time with all the information you put to us tonight, with information from the past, with all of our available aerials. I mean, so, and we have at times in the past, reconsidered and changed decisions. So it's not something that we don't do. But we do look seriously at these applications. We do realize it's a new application and we do make our best decision. I just wanted to make that point. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A point I wanted to make also, I heard a lot tonight a lot of discussion about beach erosion and particular erosion in this area to the west of this jetty. This Board probably, and some of the regulars out there in the audience that come before us quite regularly, we, mother nature has beaten up on us the last ten years. There has been tremendous erosion all through the Town of Southold. It's not unique to this one area. In the work session tonight we had a discussion that included an area of beach where the dunes were washed out in that April storm, probably washed 15, 20 feet back in the Cutchogue/New Suffolk area. That April storm wreaked havoc with many property owners, particularly people with exposure such as the exposure that Boazd of Trustees 45 Februazy 27, 2008 this area has. So we are aware that erosion has taken place here as it has throughout a lot of the beaches in the bays and Peconic Bay. So I don't want you to think that yours is a unique situation here. There has been erosion problems all throughout Southold in the bays. MS. EYRE: Even more reason that they bay has to be carefully considered. MR. CORCORAN: Is there a motion? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion reserve decision on this. I have a lot of reading to do. I want to go through a lot of things here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, the application of VARUJAN ARSLANYAN, we have been asked by the representative to postpone this application. That will be postponed to next month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of DEBRA LACHANCE requests a Wetland Permit to rebuild the existing steps to the water inkind. Replace existing deck at top of stairs with new 30 square foot deck. Located: 630 Ruch Lane, Greenport. We have an LWRP report that concludes that the proposed action is consistent with LWRP. CAC sports the application with the condition that open grated materials are used on the decking, a ten-foot non-turf with natural vegetation is installed landward of the top of the bluff and measures are taken to control erosion at the bottom of the bluff during construction. Jill and I did get out there. We looked at this. It looked like a pretty simple project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It all fits in the with the square footage of our code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is really nothing out of sorts in this. Is there anybody who would like to speak for or against this? MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Peconic Permit Expediting. You guys basically have it right. We are looking to replace what is there and rebuild the top deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you feel about using an open-grated material on the decking MR. LEHNERT: You mean like a metal or plastic? Board of Trustees 46 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, the Board has been fairly consistent with that lately using open-grated materials rather than decking. MR. LEHNERT: The proposal is for cedar, which is what is there now. I'm sure the homeowner won't have a problem with that. It's more important to get down to the water. But can we use the cedar for the top deck and not the, you know -- if we use open-grate can that be for the steps only, because he would like to keep the look of the top deck consistent with the rest of the decking on the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see a problem with that. Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a question on the lawn there, there was a cement cover. What is that? MR. LEHNERT: I think it's an old drywell. That's something that predates all this. I really, I'm guessing it's an old drywell. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall it was pretty decent semblance of a buffer there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was one bush in front of where the platform is going to be built that I don't think -- MR. LEHNERT: There is plantings all around the existing platform that will remain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The construction I don't think will interfere with the bushes there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comment or questions? (No response.) I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application for Debra Lachance as described on number eight, noting that the LWRP finds this consistent and with the only change being that the stairs, the steps will be used, the material in the steps will be open-grated and that the top platform could be in cedar. And we also find it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine. Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of JOANNA LANE requests a Wetland Permit to install privacy fencing along the northern property line. Located: 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold. I went out and reviewed this. It has been recommended to be consistent under the LWRP. The CAC resolved not to support the wetland application because they would like to see the use of natural vegetation as fencing instead of a structural fence. Boazd of Trustees 47 Februazy 27, 2008 And just for clarification, the plan that was submitted here showed a split rail fence on the southern side of the property and a privacy fence along the northern side of the property. We are just working tonight on an application for the fencing on the northern part because the southern part is completely out of the Trustee jurisdiction. With that, is there anybody here who would like to comment for or against this application? MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert for Peconic Permit Expediting. The privacy fence that we are asking for, you could see in the application only a small part of it falls within the Trustees' jurisdiction. My client has tried to use plantings before, for privacy, I don't know if any of you are familiar with the story, but the neighbor takes down all the plants down below those trees that are currently there. So I think it's their last resort to go for afence; asix-foot fence, keeping the existing trees that are there behind the fence. The trees fall between either property line, so we can't touch the trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to say, there are some very mature trees there between the house and the neighbor's property to the north. MR. LENHERT: And we don't want to remove any of the trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. What I'm asking is, is there an opportunity though to continue that line of trees toward the water line so that it's natural vegetation instead of a fence. MR. LENHERT: If you look at the survey, the trees actually go past where we are proposing the fence to go. But if you also, from the site visit you guys were at, if you looked at the trees, there is a gap between each tree. You could walk through it. One part, the neighbor drives his boat through. On the trailer. Through my client's property. Which is something they are trying to stop. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, according to this there is a pretty good size section of this fence that is within the Trustees' jurisdiction, according to your plans here. MR. LENHERT: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, as I measure it, it's between 100 and 120 feet. Is there an opportunity here for a post and rail fence for the first ten, 15 feet, let's say ten feet of this proposed fence to help establish a wildlife corridor? MR. LENHERT: We could do post and rail for the first ten feet. What we are trying to stop is looking from the house directly on to the neighboring lawn. So we would not have a problem with ten feet of, you know, post and rail fence and then a privacy fence in the locations that we proposed. I mean if you are also looking at a wildlife corridor, the phragmites go down to the water. There is a huge piece of space -- we are not even going into the phragmites. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. Your fence stops just about at Board of Trustees 48 February 27, 2008 that, I guess there is a platform there. MR. LENHERT: Yes, at the neighbor's platform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else that wants to speak for or against this application? (No response.) Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would make a motion to approve the application of Joanna Lane and with the last ten feet of the ten feet closest to the water of what is planned on here as a privacy fence to instead be a post and rail to allow for a wildlife corridor, and with that we would determine it consistent under the LWRP. And what I would ask is if you would be willing to just note on the plans here -- MR. LEHNERT: I could resubmit new plans to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, JMO Environmental on behalf of MARY PANKIEWIC2 requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, abandon the existing sanitary system and well, demolish the existing garage, remove portions of 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. One question, I just want to back up a little bit now that you are here. On the Hay Harbor Golf Club, new plans were submitted tonight. Those concur with what we discussed in the field with DEC MR. JUST: We have met, you, myself and the DEC on the 29th of January and those plans reflect that the wall has been shortened, I think only a ten foot or 14 foot contour. TRUSTEE KING: I think the elevation had been lowered and we are doing some plantings behind it. MR. JUST: Exactly. Exactly what we discussed in the field. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so we could move forward with number ten, now. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. JUST: I'm Glenn Just of JMO Consultants, if there are any questions from the Board. TRUSTEE KING: I was out there and looked at it with the DEC. We had some discussion. We talked about 30-foot buffer. MR. JUST: The plans don't reflect a 30-foot buffer. I thought Board of Trustees 49 February 27, 2008 that's something we can discuss tonight but there were some other issues that we had discussed at the site. Actually, I think the first thing was LWRP had suggested that the house does not conform, the proposed house does not conform to the 100-foot setback and what I did, I had the surveyor -- you have not seen this yet -- (handing) there is a freshwater stream on the bottom part of the property and tidal wetland at the top. What you see that is highlighted, that's the 100-foot setback from both the freshwater wetland and the tidal wetland, so it would also meet town zoning setbacks off the street. That is the only area, that small triangle, by Town Code, that we would be allowed to build in. It's a very small house and no place to put the sanitary system. So I just thought I would bring that up to show you. We tried to move the house back according to the LWRP request but that is what we were left with. TRUSTEE KING: That's impossible. MR. JUST: I think also on site we had discussed there was a small cottage that sits right on the edge of the tidal wetlands there. And I spoke to the owner and she is agreed to -- there is two sanitary systems on the property of the bulkhead about 30 feet away from the tidal wetland, one for the main house, one for the cottage. She agreed to abandon, fill, and not use the two systems anymore, and the existing cottage she will remove the bathroom and seal off the, I guess the sewage pipes for lack of a better term so it cannot be a bathroom in the cottage. Just to be used for like a boat house with storage. TRUSTEE KING: Are there kitchen facilities in the cottage, too, Glenn? MR. JUST: There is a little tiny stove but that's it. But there will be no water in the cottage, so you couldn't use it for basically cooking or washing or washing your hands or anything like that. So, no water, no sanitary. They also agreed to relocate the drywells for the roof runoff to grade them 75 feet back from the wetland. And there was also another note when we were on site, there is an old dock behind the house. There are some old doors from the otter trawls. People know what those are, lobster pots. Jim, if I lived there, that's what my yard would like look. Jim, I think you would have the same thing, all the fish and tackle stuff that's back there. They've agreed to move a lot of the debris that's out there, the wench and stuff. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. There is a lot of stuff. And it's out in the wetlands. I was thinking about the guest house. If you are going to disconnect the whole septic system from it and abandon it, was there any thought of maybe a pump type system where they could still use that and pump the waste up into the new septic system? MR. JUST: Ms. Pankiewicz agreed to just use it just for storage. The new house will have a bedroom for guests if they want to come. Board of Trustees 50 February 27, 2008 There is no need to use that for sleeping quarters anymore. We did look into it, though. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, just a thought, to have some use for of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is for us to keep, right, Glenn? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I think we covered everything we talked about in the field. MR. JUST: We just have to have a buffer zone, settle on something. We talked about 30 foot which is just maybe on the landward edge of the cottage that is there now, and perhaps leaving afour-foot wide path down to the old dock there. She would be willing to let it grow passively, not to do any plantings but just let nature take its course and let it grow back in. That's a 30 scale. Where the hay bale line is 30 foot. That's freshwater wetlands as well. TRUSTEE KING: So we could make that the buffer zone. MR. JUST: Because that will be the limit of construction here and nothing down there. So we can have that be the buffer zone. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to leave the hay bales in place? MR. JUST: After construction they'll take them out but there will be a physical marker where the bulldozers working on the job won't be able to cross. When the job is done, take the hay bales out and that will be the line. TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any questions? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: It's an improvement. MR. JUST: Did I send additional photographs to you on that, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have them. If you have photos, that would be great. We'll put them in the file. MR. JUST: I thought I had. I'll send some over tomorrow. TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent, that's because of the setback to the pond, and by abandoning both septic systems and moving one out of our jurisdiction and we put in the 30-foot non-disturbance buffer, we are also cleaning up all the debris in the wetlands, I would make a motion the Board finds this is now consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the septic system to the small cottage is abandoned and filled and not to be used in the future at any time, Board of Trustees 51 February 27, 2008 and the 30-foot non-disturbance buffer be put in place which coincides with the hay bale line, and remove the debris from the wetlands. And afour-foot path down through the non-disturbance area to the shoreline. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. JUST: I could have the plans revised to show that's a buffer. TRUSTEE KING: All right, that would make it easier. TRUSTEE KING: Number 11, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FRANEKER INVESTMENTS, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15.58'x16' addition onto an existing garden shed, to construct approximately 30' of retaining walls and a stone (pervious) parking area. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. This is another one I looked at on the same day. MR. JUST: These are the photographs of the existing shed they want to expand and what we initially thought was a freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here wish to speak to this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting for the applicant. As you may recall when we went there on January 29, we went there with the folks from the DEC Freshwater Wetland Unit and I flagged a small area of what I considered freshwater wetlands that are considered just arrowwood, which is viburnum, and when the DEC came to the site and inspected it, they thought I was a little too conservative and they considered that not a freshwater wetland. It was a small kettle with very sandy soils that don't support freshwater wetlands vegetation that was completely surrounded by black cherry, mature black cherry, maybe four or five viburnum bushes in it. The closest regulated water wetland is more than 300 feet away. So the 50 meter rule goes out the window as far as the DEC's freshwater wetlands. I have reviewed the Southold Town Code on freshwater wetlands. I don't see arrow arum mentioned in it. That doesn't mean it's not a species that is associated with freshwater wetlands. But again, inspecting the site, that was the only species, and only a couple of plants, and it didn't really lend itself on the second inspection as freshwater well. TRUSTEE KING: I believe one of the comments, I think Mr. Marshal was there -- MR. JUST: Rob Marshal TRUSTEE KING: Did not find it significant. I think that's the determination he made, to not regulate it. MR. JUST: Reading throughout Town Code I didn't see how it was Boazd of Trustees 52 Februazy 27, 2008 regulated either. I should have probably gone a little further into the brush when I flagged it, but it was summertime. TRUSTEE KING: How much fill will be brought in? It's pretty expensive fill to do that around the retaining wall. MR. JUST: I don't have an extra copy of the plans here. But he usually spells it out. He did not state it on the plans how many yards of fill. It will raise the level. I'll have the plans revised to show the calculations of how much he'll need. TRUSTEE KING: It has here no fill on this application. MR. JUST: You're looking at the contour lines now (indicating.) TRUSTEE KING: When I was around there, the depth they'll have to fill. We need to see that. MR. JUST: All right. TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter in the file in opposition to this from Mr. Warren Devanter. We'll just make sure it gets into the record. I don't want to read the whole thing. (INSERT). MR. JUST: Is that the person concerned about the increase amount of traffic? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. In this particular area. MR. JUST: It's in the private end of Fishers Island. It's a little garden center for the estate that it's on. TRUSTEE KING: I can't imagine a lot of traffic in there. MR. JUST: If there is, who is going to hear it? TRUSTEE KING: We'll make sure the letter goes into the record. It was found inconsistent. I think it's because of the location of the wetlands. We discussed it and it's really not a wetlands. Require a 30-foot non-turf native vegetation buffer landward of the freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are we determining it's not freshwater wetland? MR. JUST: I know it's something they inspected when they were over there earlier this year, but if it's not a freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE KING: If it's not a wetland the question is does it need a permit. MR. JUST: In retrospect after being to the site the second time with the DEC, we feel it's not a wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can determine it's not in our jurisdiction. MR. JUST: If you don't regard this as a freshwater wetland, there is no other freshwater wetland or tidal wetlands within a hundred feet of the site. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying. MR. JUST: That was based on the information I gave that was incorrect. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you get that in writing from DEC? This letter is dated November 7, 2007. Re: Franeker Investments, Inc./Judith Corrente Dear Mr. King and Members of the Board: On November 5, I received a copy of the attached notice that Franeker Investments, Inc., and Judith Corrente are applying for a permit for a proposed addition to an existing garden shed on their property on Fishers Island. The permit application will be open for public comment on November 14. the proposed addition includes a 15.58' by 16' addition to the shed, the construction of approximately 30' of retaining wall, a pervious stone parking area, and roof gutters and a drywell. I own the adjacent lot (#25-11) to the west of their property and I am writing to request that no permit be granted for any addition or expansion to the present structure, since it will allow for more equipment to be brought into this residential area, creating more traffic and noise. Since this property was acquired several years ago, the owners have cut down an area of brush and undergrowth which, for years, had served as a habitat for animals and a buffer zone between our two properties. They then erected the present structure without notifying me. What is quaintly referred to as a "garden shed" has become, in fact, a maintenance facility for the entire estate, with more than one person working there each day. As you will see from the site plan, the proposed addition will almost double the size of the present structure in close proximity to the property line. The building serves a large estate with a large area of lawn and gardens which require much maintenance. The constant noise generated by this facility is disturbing. Most weekday mornings at 8:00 AM the noise begins as the workmen start up the lawn maintenance equipment and neighbors hear noise from a lawn tractor, lawn mowers, weeder/trimmers, leaf blowers and an occasional chain saw, backhoe and other power equipment. When the machinery is not running we also can hear noise from truck engines, the conversations of workmen and, occasionally, a radio. My requests to the workmen to lessen the noise have been ignored. This has got to stop and the activities of the present shed should be moved further away from our property line. My family and I come to Fishers to enjoy the peace and quiet it affords. In order to help defray the high costs of living there, I have had to rent out the house for a few weeks during the summer and the tenants have complained to me about all of the noise from this shed. It just seems to get worse each year and we feel nothing is being done about it. Any further additions will only make matters worse, so I must object to this project for several reasons. It would be another step in changing the peaceful nature of this residential neighborhood. It would become a garage or storage area for all of the maintenance equipment on the property and would allow for more equipment to be parked in the area. Work starts early in the morning and neighbors are subjected to the noise. This is especially annoying during the summer months when people have their windows open. This activity disrupts the peace and tranquility of the area. During the last few years there has been constant construction and traffic from renovations being made to the main house, grounds and an adjacent residence which once was a windmill used to pump water for the property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Obviously I dislike having to write a letter like this but feel there is no other recourse. Please do not grant a permit for any further construction on the property as it will only lead to more noise from all of the equipment. If you have any questions. Please call me at the telephone number above, as I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with you directly. That's signed by Mr. Warren Van Deventer. Board of Trustees 53 February 27, 2008 MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we get a copy of that in the file. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we do that and just consider it non-jurisdiction. It would make it a lot of simpler. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And refund $200. TRUSTEE KING: That's a good point. It's valid. It's minuscule. So why don't we go in that direction. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion based on the new findings that this, in reality, is not a freshwater wetland, that this proposal is out of our jurisdiction and we'll give a letter of non-jurisdiction. We'll want to see a letter from the DEC reaffirming that we there is basically not a wetland there and we'll refund the $200 fee. MR. JUST: I hadn't thought about that. TRUSTEE KING: That goes to the applicant, not the consultant. Second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. If I may, on a very quick note, 30 seconds or less, the pond at the Guimaraes site where the violation is, on Fishers Island, the Guimaraes property and the house next door, from what I understand is a pending application, perhaps submitted by the town to re-do that pipe that is under Equestrian Avenue to lower the level of the pond. The two houses adjacent to it, as of today, both the septic tanks are filled right to the top, same level as the pond, and we are just trying to find out if the town has an application, I called the DEC to try to move it along, to try to remedy the situation. Because as soon as that pond level drops, everything in the septic tank will go into Hay Harbor. So if there is anything the Trustees know, let me know next week or so, I would appreciate it. TRUSTEE KING: I know. I was there a long time ago now. I had to be nosy and go and lift that cover. And it's right up to the top MR. JUST: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12 and 13 are two separate applications but we have to discuss them together because they are right next door and there is some confusion. So, number 12, Patricia Moore on behalf of MICHAEL BEHRINGER & VESHA KUMAR requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead within 18' using C-Loc vinyl sheathing, Boazd of Trustees 54 February 27, 2008 and install two new 12' returns, fence at the top of the bulkhead Greenport. and for the existing split-rail . Located: 1755 Shore Drive, Can you come up and show us which file this is that I just read? MS. MOORE: Which drawing or which file? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Both. MS. MOORE: It's easier with a name. The bulkhead is only Behringer and Kumar. That's lot 31. That's where the split-rail fence is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the dock is not on that property? MS. MOORE: The dock is straddling that property and the Gardner property, which is lot 30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's on the property line. MS. MOORE: Yes. I mean for practical purposes it appears to be exactly between the two. TRUSTEE KING: So we have adock-and-a-half on one piece of property. MS. MOORE: Half a dock on one and half a dock on the other. TRUSTEE KING: Is the dock further down on the property line, too, the dock on the east? MS. MOORE: I know it's really confusing because I went out there. I went up and down and I had to call the client to find out exactly which house. Because it looks a couple of docks in that area are not quite, they look to be straddling some property lines. But this one for sure is the one that I believe you are at. That looks like the right one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the dock to the east, is that on the Gardner property or -- MS. MOORE: No, the one to the east is on the adjacent property. It's not Gardner. It's other property east of Gardner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where the confusion is. MS. MOORE: I can appreciate that because it look me a while to figure out which dock I was looking at. In fact I went to the one next to it, between Gardner and the other guy first. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's on number 13's application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the dock application is under the Gardner. MS. MOORE: Well, I did it as a joint application referring to both tax lot numbers since it was a joint application TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so it's number 13. TRUSTEE KING: Two properties share one dock. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's the goal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we'll go back to number 12, is the bulkhead to reconstruct 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead. MS. MOORE: Yes. I have John Costello here in the audience. He's the contractor on the project so if there are specific questions I'll bring him up and he can answer them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just looking at the field notes, so this is -- I'm Boazd of Trustees 55 February 27, 2008 just trying -- so this is the property with the split-rail fence. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In reference to the violation that was issued on this property -- MS. MOORE: That was resolved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. What does the client, your client, what is he prepared to do about the drainage issues on that property? MS. MOORE: He'll put in drywells as needed. That's not a problem. If you want to put it as a condition of the bulkhead, that is not a problem for us because it would be done all at the same time. The equipment would be there. He just bought the house. I have a feeling that's how it was when he bought it, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that issue is resolved. Okay. LWRP finds it consistent. And our Board finds it consistent because it is replacing the existing, in the same manner. We would like to see a 10-foot non-turf buffer behind that. MS. MOORE: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is smaller than the yard. It's consistent with the neighbor, that white house, has a ten foot buffer there. I measured that, if I'm remembering correctly. Does anyone else remember that? MS. MOORE: I know one of the houses I saw had a buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just made it consistent with that. TRUSTEE KING: The property to the east has the plastic bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MS. MOORE: Gardner's property, the one to the east, you did that, didn't you? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. MS. MOORE: Was that for Gardner or the prior owner? MR. COSTELLO: Prior owner. TRUSTEE KING: John, the new one that you'll build for this project, is going to be the same construction? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Because I see this old bulkhead has batter piles. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello, and in all likelihood I'll probably do -- TRUSTEE KING: Identical construction. And it will be in place? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. And it will be in line. Because we left one additional connection on each of the other two bulkheads. We built both adjoining bulkheads and left a connecting piece there so that whoever did it in the future could get it done. There was a previous permit on this site, but -- TRUSTEE KING: It's basically going to be all the same. MS. MOORE: Miller, Wilson, I'm trying to remember the name. MR. COSTELLO: But the mother passed away and the kids sold the Board of Trustees 56 Februazy 27, 2008 property. That's what happened. But it will be, I would probably use the same type of materials. It may be a different type of material on the sheathing because the materials that we used, the C-Loc 4500 on the other two adjoining pieces, they no longer make it of the same quality, but they have a similar type of material. That's all. MS. MOORE: Last time we were here you asked the question of whether or not we needed the returns. I think you asked that and John is here, now he can answer for you. MR. COSTELLO: I would probably leave -- there is a connection. You can either put a return in or extend the bulkhead in the same line. What I would do is recommend leaving the connection in there so if one bulkhead failed in the future, whether it's a hurricane or storm, you can go in and put a return in at that time. There would be no need, for the cost, of putting a return in at present. TRUSTEE KING: That was my question. MS. MOORE: So we don't need a return now. MR. COSTELLO: No. But I'll leave the connection there should that happen. TRUSTEE KING: One other question, John, while I have you here. This is plastic, right, the sheathing? MR. COSTELLO: Vinyl. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a fiberglass sheathing? MR. COSTELLO: There is a composite, which is 90% fiberglass. TRUSTEE KING: We had a previous application a while back they said was going to be fiberglass. I just wanted to get it straight in my mind. MR. COSTELLO: It's stronger and slightly more expensive. But if you have to drive it into hard bottom, it's a good material to use. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, John. MS. MOORE: Would you need this permit to include the 12-inch returns for purposes of constructing it? MR. COSTELLO: No. You would have to go through the process should one of the adjoining bulkheads fail. MS. MOORE: Would it make sense to keep it in there? Because if he builds it, we don't need to build it out, but because the permit has it if there is a failure we can just put it in because it's part of the original permit. MR. CORCORAN: It's a repairthen. MS. MOORE: But your code allows a repair for a permit for an issue -- my understanding is, if you have a permit the code allows to you make a repair to an existing structure without renewing a permit. MR. CORCORAN: If you are going to go out and just build it straight and not build a return then your permit is going to be expire. MS. MOORE: No. MR. CORCORAN: If you don't build your return. MS. MOORE: You can choose not to build the return at this time but because it's shown on the permit if there s a problem you don't Boazd of Trustees 57 February 27, 2008 have to go through the delay of an application to do an amendment. MR. CORCORAN: I don't think you do that. I don't think you could get a permit for something now and not build it and come in 20 years from now and say I already have a permit. MR. COSTELLO: If I could address that. I would probably, we are going to excavate behind this bulkhead. Because you have to excavate so the material doesn't go out into the bay. While you have it excavated, the only cost involved will be the material, to put a return in, whether it's one foot or two foot or three foot. Makes no difference. But it does give you, I mean I wouldn't buy it because it's additional money. But if the person wanted to put in, because the hole is excavated, there is nothing to put the material in. The other thing is when we backfill this bulkhead, most of the bulkhead up there is all clay. It's going to be clean sand brought in for drainage purposes. Because the clay, wet, is too heavy. That's why half these bulkheads are rotted out and failing. So at the same time you put the dnrrvells in, for the simple reason, sandy material will percolate the water down better than clay material will. So by putting the return and allowing the return on the permit, the owner wants to build it, build it. It's only money. But it's not my money. TRUSTEE KING: If they don't build them, they would have to come in for an amendment for when they want to build one. Because you have two years to complete the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus two one-year extensions. MR. COSTELLO: So get the permit. MS. MOORE: The question is are we more likely to put them in or not put them in. MR. COSTELLO: I don't know what his bank account looks like, but I'll gladly take it. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to give you the plans with the drywells and ten foot non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't get to that point yet. MS. MOORE: If you are, then I can let you know at that time whether the client wants to spend the couple of bucks to put in a return versus not. I don't want to make the decision without the client, giving him the benefit, do you want the extra protection at a couple of more dollars. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to us table this? MS. MOORE: No. I don't want to delay it any further. I'm requesting with a return. We are just reducing it, if I don't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can approve it with it and you can let us know. MS. MOORE: Exactly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does anybody have a problem with approving with a return? (No response.) Board of Trustees 58 February 27, 2008 Any other comments? (No response.) Hearing none, 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 Patricia Moore on behalf of Michael Behringer and Vesha Kumar at 1755 Shore Drive, Greenport, to reconstruct 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead as applied for with the conditions that drains that are coming out of the bulkhead are to be removed; aten-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead shall be in place and gutters, leaders, drywells for the house to be in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I add a condition here for the existing split rail fence that it will just remain split rail fence and won't re-install the wire that they had in front of that fence. MS. MOORE: They removed it right away. He didn't even know there was wire installed. I think the contractor just, you know, was trying to do it right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Another condition is to be in line with the neighboring bulkheads. MS. MOORE: Bulkhead in line with the neighboring bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, in other words not further out, but in line with the neighboring bulkhead and with the return -- is just on the one side or both sides? MR. COSTELLO: I would just leave the application as it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the return on one side as noted on the plan. MS. MOORE: It's showing on the west side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the west side. MR. CORCORAN: Do you further resolve to find it consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. With mitigating runoff and putting the non-turf buffer. MS. MOORE: It was already consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But the Trustees are finding it consistent also. TRUSTEE KING: This will be in place, not within 18 inches, right? MS. MOORE: It says within 18 inches. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I made the condition in line with the neighboring, so it's not going to be -- MS. MOORE: I think they have all been replaced within 18-inches so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not even 18 inches further out. I forget what we measured it. It's not even 18 inches further at this point. It was right up against it, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 59 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia Moore on behalf of MICHAEL BEHRINGER 8 VESHA KUMAR AND ELIZABETH GARDNER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing stairs, repair/replace the existing timber dock and add a new 32"x20' ramp and 6x20' floating dock and construct stairs from the dock to the beach, running parallel to the bulkhead. Located: 1755 & 1665 Shore Drive, Greenport. MS. MOORE: I know last time we were here you questioned the length and I checked with Bob Fox and I checked with John and I said did we extend this, without my knowledge, and they said no, no, it's exactly what is there. TRUSTEE KING: We measured it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to mention on the previous application, the CAC supported that application. And the CAC supports this application. And it is inconsistent with LWRP. And we did go out and measure it. And the notes were put in the other file, so I'll just transfer the notes. We went out on 2/12 and the fixed dock we measured to be 51 feet. And that's what you have on your plan. MS. MOORE: I have 52. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1 have in my notes 52 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I know the measurements were the same. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So 52 feet. The one question that the Board had is in keeping with our policy of having structures 15 feet off the property line, is there any way we can, if you are redoing this whole structure, can you move the dock 15 feet off the property line? MS. MOORE: No, then it would be one person's or the other. It's actually eliminating the possibility of a second dock. TRUSTEE KING: We thought the other dock to the east was on that property, which it isn't. So that straightens that out. MR. CORCORAN: They both have rights to use it? Is that stated anywhere? MS. MOORE: We created it. I did it by way of both of them giving me consent. They both agreed they'll share in the cost and everything. So they'll set up an agreement, once obviously this is approved, we'll set up something in writing. MR. CORCORAN: Was there anything pre-existing or is this something that was there that shared? MS. MOORE: Nothing was ever in writing and as it turned out, my client bought this property, the Gardner's bought the property and neither side had an idea which side this dock belonged to because there was a permit for this dock but you couldn't tell from the record, I know Lauren and I took a long time to try and figure it out. We couldn't identify whose application it had been. So it actually worked out very well. Both parties are satisfied they'll share it. TRUSTEE KING: I'm surprised they are willing to share. Boazd of Trustees 60 Februazy 27, 2008 MS. MOORE: Yes. I was so pleasantly surprised that people are being nice. MR. COSTELLO: I could clear this up, for the record. I mean, again, both docks were owned by one family group. A daughter owned one dock and a mother owned the one to the east. Monique Boris and she had two other kids. They own three homes in a row. They also owned another house down at the corner which has a small dock. So it was in the family of four or five people at one time and that's why the dock was -- they agreed to put it on the property line to eliminate a dock. That was the family that had it. TRUSTEE KING: That's unusual. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP says the proposed action would extend existing 52-foot private dock another 40 feet into public waters which could impede public access and/or use of such waters; total dock structure is proposed to be 92 feet. When we were out there, we saw this would not go out any further than the neighboring structures. And I don't think it would really impede navigation in that area. And they needed the depth. TRUSTEE KING: Any thought of that being a seasonal float? MS. MOORE: Well, the float will be seasonal. It's actually now, I don't think some of the neighbors have theirs up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The neighbor just has an aluminum ramp that is lifted up and held on the pilings and the float is not there. So it basically the ramp is not -- TRUSTEE KING: They pulled the ramp up on the dock. MS. MOORE: I think they have the same idea in mind. Mr. Costello seems to have the exclusive here on this street. He does all the work. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: Do they want stairs down to the beach? MS. MOORE: Yes. There IS no access down to the beach on this property so we need to have from the dock access to the beach. So we are going from the stairs to the dock and then the dock parallel to the bulkhead down to the beach, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So if somebody is walking along they would be able to go around? MS. MOORE: We could put two sets. I thought you would not want two sets. We could one on either side. TRUSTEE KING: We have done it before. If you can't walk under the dock what we usually do is put a set of stairs up and over. MS. MOORE: I don't think anybody has a problem with that, so. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we want. I don't think there is any traffic along there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The stairs are not reflected on the survey. MS. MOORE: No, because that was something that my clients mentioned. I put it in writing to you. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend stairs on either side so people can Board of Trustees 61 February 27, 2008 walk by, they don't have to go up on private property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Michael Behringer, Vesha Kumar and Elizabeth Gardner for a dock as applied for on 1755 and 1655 Shore Drive, Greenport, with the stairs going on either side of the dock for access across and I would note that this proposed dock structure does not go out further than any other structure in the area and the Board finds this consistent with LWRP and that the float and ramp are to be seasonal. TRUSTEE KING: In the water no sooner than April 1, out of the water no later than December 1. MS. MOORE: Okay. We are just talking about the float, obviously, because the ramp, you have nothing to lean it on. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And, Pat, if you could give us new drawings showing the stairs and the new drawing on the other showing the ten foot buffer and the drywells. MS. MOORE: I'll have John probably install the drywells in the area of disturbance so that's it with one, just put it -- TRUSTEE KING: Make sure the pipes set. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I said that. We need to show all those conditions on there. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAMES MESKOURIS & OTHERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a covered porch, alterations to the existing dwelling including a proposed addition on the landward side of the dwelling and new sanitary system. Located: 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. Sheila and I went out and looked at this. MS. MOORE: Okay. Let me clarify, because I gave you a survey, two surveys. You have the original survey that shows the area of the patio along on the seaward side of the house. There is one survey that I had that shows the patio a little bit cut back from where the existing deck is. If you went out there, there is now a presently an existing deck. Do you remember? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MOORE: That's going to be, it's going to be on grade and it Board of Trustees 62 February 27, 2008 will be a patio, not decking. The portion that is covered, I gave you a second survey that shows it cut back. I can show you. TRUSTEE KING: You don't happen to have a copy of the new one. MS. MOORE: It was in there. I gave it to you. I delivered it. Where it says proposed new patio pavers, that's actually the covered portion. All right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had this when we went out so that's why we were a little confused. MS. MOORE: Sorry, new to me but it was in time for your inspection, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You revised this survey prior to -- MS. MOORE: I gave it -- yes. What the contractor gave me was this cut back portion and I thought the whole thing, all the pavers were going to be cut back to this line. I'm correcting that because in fact they are going to continue to have patio where the original line was that I gave you. Only the covered portion, the roofed over portion, is the cut back because -- it's with respect to the zoning board really. Nothing to do with you. The zoning board only considers lot coverage for areas that are roofed over. So if it's on grade, it's not an issue. So. And we are trying to limit the amount of lot coverage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the file, the one thing we have is the beach grass in front of this house. It needs to not be disturbed. It needs to be left alone, to grow back. They can have a four foot wide path. But they have -- MS. MOORE: Seaward of the bulkhead you are saying? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that will be anon-disturbance with a four foot wide path. It's obvious they are cutting that down. If you look, and the neighbor also is, and all the other neighbors is beautiful grass in front and it's been that way for a while, so. TRUSTEE KING: And it's really hurting them because they have drifting sand coming up almost against the house, which would not happen if you have the beach grass in place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's really there to protect the property and their house. The other houses don't have that. MR. WILDER: Will the beach grass reestablish itself? TRUSTEE KING: If you leave it alone I think it will reestablish itself. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were there, it was about that. If they leave it alone, it will come back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I show them the picture you have? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You don't need to show it. I didn't see it. But I'm just saying, would it be too much to ask them to put a few plugs in there?. TRUSTEE KING: It's interesting, the CAC supports this application with the condition the beach grass is revegetated and roof drainage conforms to Chapter 236. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think it's too much to ask to re-plant. Board of Trustees 63 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's all, it's really hard to tell from these pictures but all these are shoots. If they just let them go, they'll all come back. The whole thing was filled. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't see it, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to put a condition to maybe check it in a year. TRUSTEE KING: I think it will grow back. MS. MOORE: Actually you guys have to do a post construction permit inspection at the end of it. So if that's a problem, let us know. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just make a notation to check the stability of the beach grass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would also like to go back in a year, too. If they're done in a couple of months, I want to the go back next year and check it also. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt from the LWRP because the conditions are all landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically we can do the non-disturbance area seaward of the coastal erosion line. MS. MOORE: Well, you have a bulkhead there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're right. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? (No response.) 1'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the area seaward of the wood bulkhead be anon-disturbance area and there will be an after-construction inspection of that area to see how the beach grass is doing. And we'll have afour-foot access path through that area to get down to the water. We'll also do aone-year follow-up to see if the beach grasses come back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I'll mark this with a --just put an arrow with a non-disturbance area with a four foot path. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's good. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, Patricia Moore on behalf of GREGORY K. JOHNSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct asingle-family dwelling and new sanitary system. Located: 2870 Henry's Lane, Peconic. We went out and looked at this. It was found consistent. Boazd of Trustees 64 Februazy 27, 2008 Recommended consistent under the LWRP. The CAC voted to support the application with the condition that trees above eight inches in diameter, I believe, are left in place. I think that's a little difficult where you are putting, where the house was staked. I'm not sure where the house was staked if there were trees greater than eight inches in diameter -- okay, great. This is a little unique in that the proposed house was all entirely outside our jurisdiction but the building envelope is quite large and it is within our jurisdiction and the proposed well is within our jurisdiction. So there is activity within our jurisdiction but the actual house and septic is all outside our jurisdiction. Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here to answer any questions. MR. KEDENBURG: My name is Fred Kedenburg. I live with my wife Linda at lot number seven which is the lot directly northwest. We came here and spent the whole night to wait to make a short point about a couple of hay bales, I guess. The hay bales are great because they protect the stream. But the stream curves to the northeast and comes back along where Dickinson Street is, which is not a real street, and it feeds Autumn Lake, which is a lake which is directly west of Goldsmith Inlet. It's a freshwater pond. And the neighborhood people are just concerned that if construction does eventually occur there, that silt will work its way down to the northeast and get into the stream and start to fill up the pond. And we just wanted to make sure or see if it was possible to have as a stipulation as part of when construction begins, you not only have hay bales and this fence protecting the stream, but there should be hay bales and a fence protecting the northeast and northwest corner of the property, which would protect any silt or construction debris from working its way toward Autumn Pond, which is a very fragile pond. It's kind of shallow as it is. There is king fishes there and great blue herons, and it's a viable pond. It has fish, freshwater fish, stuff like that. This is Autumn Lake. (indicating.) Second Avenue comes down and ends just about where the lake is. This is Salt Marsh Lane. These are all the McMansions up there. My house is about right here. I live on Henry's Lane. The end of Henry's Lane. This is the PLT property is right next to my house, so we were just concerned if there is construction here it would work its way down into the pond, which is why we would like to have hay bales here and a little here. But I'm so much higher than this area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that a road (indicating)? MR. KEDENBURG: This is a stream, actually. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We kind of noticed a kind of a road. Board of Trustees 65 February 27, 2008 MR. KEDENBURG: That's the old abandoned road for the Axeen (sic) property. There was a cottage colony in that area. That was the end of Henry's Farm was the abandoned rode runs through the woods behind where this house is proposed and behind our house and heads toward the PLT road. That's an old abandoned road that has not been used in so long. TRUSTEE KING: This is Autumn Pond. Does that drain into Goldsmith Inlet? MR. KEDENBURG: There is a pipe running under Second Avenue into Goldsmith Inlet. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know when the pipe was put in or who did it MS. KEDENBURG: It was replaced. TRUSTEE KING: Just curious. It looks like a bit of 18, 20 inch pipe. And there is a lot of water coming out of it going into Goldsmith Inlet. MR. KEDENBURG: Not only from that stream but Autumn Pond is spring fed. TRUSTEE KING: So that kind of keeps Autumn Pond at one level? MR. KEDENBURG: Yes. MR. ROTHMAN: Ron Rothman, I live at 755 Salt Marsh Lane, which is directly north between this property and Autumn Lake. And that culvert had been crushed and broken about five or six years ago and had been totally replaced on Second Avenue because it's, there is an actual gate that opens that controls the level of Autumn Lake which if it's not controlled will back up in the Spring and I'm downhill from where this construction is and the thought of what has happened in the past when they start taking trees down, which was a concern, it's good to hear that that is in the record as far as them not taking down big trees, but when they clear-cut and there is more runoff it will tend to not only go into Autumn Pond, it will go into Autumn Lake, right through my living room, which I really don't care for. So the concern of, my concern, the runoff and being down hill aside from somebody upsetting the rural setting where I have been for the last 25 years, we'll deal with that, but the concern of the runoff and the pond and that culvert is very important to keeping the level of that whole ecosystem because that water system feeds from a pond upstream through that stream down to Autumn Lake, then out to eventually Goldsmith Inlet. TRUSTEE KING: I was surprised at the volume of water coming out of there. MR. ROTHMAN: The water level is pretty high. MR. KEDENBURG: It's a huge ecosystem. It's a huge amount of wetlands. MR. ROTHMAN: Is goes across Henry's Lane to the other side of Henry's Lane. I think there is a pipe under Henry's Lane atone point. MR. KEDENBURG: There is a whole path underneath Henry's Lane. Board of Trustees 66 Februazy 27, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could just reel this conversation in so the conversation directly pertains to this application. I appreciate all the discussion about the area but I would like to get back on track. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. I'll have hay bales. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant be willing to put a hay bale line along the 13-foot contour line that is there along the northwest side that way it would address the -- MS. MOORE: Yes, I just was drawing it as a triangle along the property line, but the 13-foot contour makes sense. That's fine. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the audience; any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there an issue with the drainage through Mr. Rothman's living room? MS. MOORE: We have to have drywells. Nowadays you can't build a house without it. You are supposed to have zero runoff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There are going to be conditions attached to this to meet Code 236 of the Town Drainage Code, so that will be done. MS. MOORE: That's actually part of the building permit you have to do a certification, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And the applicant is willing to leave any trees greater than eight inches in diameter within that building envelope in place; in other words not within -- MS. MOORE: It's a beautiful piece of property. It's my client's not the one to develop this. I think that realistically you can't do anything on the east side of the property because of the 100-foot setback from the wetland. So that only really gives you the west side of the property and given the fact that that will be the only area can you comfortably develop, I hate to put extensive limitations here. I think that we should, you know -- I would hope that people don't clear cut a beautiful wooded piece of property because you can go buy a farm field for that. MR. KEDENBURG: We saw it across the street. Henry's Lane across the street. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could keep the comments toward the Board, please. Outside, what is designated as a building envelope, if we could just limit no trees greater than eight inches being brought down outside that building envelope. Because the building envelope includes a great deal of that area that you are talking about. MS. MOORE: I don't have philosophical problem with that, it's just my concern is with people coming in and k, you know, imposing unreasonable conditions. So I just don't know how many trees you are talking about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1 don't think it's an unreasonable condition from Boazd of Trustees 67 Februazy 27, 2008 the Board to ask trees greater than eight inches in diameter to remain outside the building envelope. MS. MOORE: I'll say yes and what will happen I'll have to come back for a permit from you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to come back for an amendment, they'll come back. MS. MOORE: If it was me, I would not do that, but if somebody wants to build a pool or something like that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Gregory Johnson located 2870 Henry's Lane, Peconic, with the stipulation that there will be no trees greater than eight-inches in diameter that will be taken down outside the building envelope; that appropriate drainage will be provided for the house to comply with Chapter 236 of the Town Drainage Code, and there will be, in addition to the hay bale line depicted on the plans, there be a hay bale line on the northwest side of the property along the 13-foot contour line. And we also find this consistent, with these modifications, it will also support the consistency recommendations, so the Board will find it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of HENRY MAZZONI requests a Wetland Permit to clear to a distance no closer than 50 feet from the filed bluff line and landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Boundary Line, for the purpose of improving the vacant subject parcel with atwo-story dwelling and appurtenances located no closer than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Located: Stoney Beach Road, East Marion. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of applicant, Henry Mazzoni. Mr. Mazzoni is here. It's a pretty straight forward application in a major respect in that all the proposed structures are going to be located outside of the Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Mazzoni's original intent was just to file for a letter of non-jurisdiction but he consulted with me and discussed the fact that we should obtain permission from the Board for the clearing that would occur within the Board's jurisdiction. So that's really all that is before the Board tonight. The unusual aspect of the project is the fact there is a deed of conservation easement over this property that was granted by the Board of Trustees 68 February 27, 2008 original subdivider to the Peconic Land Trust. That deed of conservation easement establishes certain, mostly private but also some public, restrictions that govern how the property can be developed. I have carefully read this easement, I must say many times before I could completely get all of it, but in hoping that, well Kieran is not here but what I have culled from it is there are certain restrictions that will ultimately effect Mr. Mazzoni's ability to build on the parcel but none that should really affect this proceeding. Under section 4.06 of the easement, the individual owners of these parcels are allowed to construct asingle-family dwelling and appurtenances but not without the written consent of the Peconic Land Trust. Since the proposed dwelling and appurtenances are outside of the Boards's jurisdiction, that really renders that sort of a moot restriction as far as the Trustees are concerned. It's still something Mr. Mazzoni has to address before he can ultimately build but, again, it's not within this Board's purview. Under 4.04 of the restriction, clearing cutting or grading that would occur within 50 feet of the top of the bluff, has to be limited just to the removal of diseased or noxious vegetation and any clearing proposed within 50 feet would actually require not only the written consent of the Land Trust but also approval from the Town Planning Board. In order to avoid coming up against those restrictions, Mr. Mazzoni has agreed to limit all of the proposed clearing to a distance greater than 50 feet from the top of the bluff. So while the proposed clearing between 50 and 100 feet is definitely within your purview and definitely within the scope of our application, your ability to grant permission for that is basically unfettered by the easement because as long as we stay outside of that 50 foot area there is no express written consent required from the Land Trust or from the Town Planning Board. So with that, what you are left with really is a proposal to clear within that 50 to 100 foot area that would be associated with the construction of the dwelling. So if the Board has any questions, I'm happy to address it. And again, Mr. Mazzoni is here as well. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Before we get to that, CAC did support the application and LWRP is inconsistent as your comments just said for the conservation easements. MR. HERMAN: Inconsistent? What is inconsistent about it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, as I was saying, he goes through the conservation easements and notes the cutting and the grading within 50 feet. MR. HERMAN: There is none proposed. Board of Trustees 69 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the recommendations are to maintain a 50 non-disturbance buffer landward of the top of the bluff. MR. HERMAN: Oh, Peggy, I know what happened. Sorry. The original application -- it's been so long since we filed --when we originally filed the application, I was not aware of that restriction inside the easement. So we had originally proposed 25 feet. I spoke to Mark and Mark made me aware of the restriction that I just outlined and so Mr. Mazzoni in response to that altered his application and we submitted those plans with a letter to the Board before its field inspection. So what you should have is a plan that proposes a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff as Mark is suggesting. That's the plans you should have in front of you now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But this is his review as of February 27 that is inconsistent. MR. HERMAN: Then he's looking at the wrong plans. We refiled -- we filed the plans, in fact I gave them to Lauren -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe Mark is reiterating. That's my feeling, he's saying inconsistent and saying there needs to be a maintained 50 foot non-disturbance which I would say would then make it consistent. MR. HERMAN: That's what I'm saying. But we would not have to change the current plan to provide that because you already had them for a couple of weeks. MR. CORCORAN: He's probably making it inconsistent first of all because it's within 100 feet. MR. HERMAN: But it's not. The structures are more than 100 feet. The only thing that is proposed within a hundred feet is clearing, but it's not proposed any closer than 50 feet. MR. CORCORAN: It's semantics. It's activity within a hundred feet so he's calling it inconsistent and noting that recommendation. And you are right, this is a private easement. Once you get past the Planning Board issues, which it seems like you are past it. MR. HERMAN: Right. Mr. Mazzoni wanted to proactively comply with that in part because he really -- he doesn't plan on clear cutting the whole area we are getting permission to clear. He just has to have permission to do selective clearing without ending up with a violation. So unfortunately we have to cast an umbrella over the area that we want to clear within, but that doesn't mean he'll cut down every single tree. MR. CORCORAN: Rob, there are also parts within the private easement that are more general in terms of the type of clearing and grading that should be done. I don't know how one would judge those. MR. HERMAN: Yes. I saw that. That's what I was going to ask you. MR. CORCORAN: But it's clearly Peconic Land Trust's rights to do something if they didn't like the way you proposed to clear and grade and disturb the environment. Board of Trustees 70 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Kieran, I have a question. There is a stamped letter from Denise Market for Peconic Land Trust stamped today and it says we have not received neighbor notification regarding this lot, although it goes on and on, but it says they would therefore like this delayed because they have not had a chance to review it. But then Lauren said she came in and she obtained the file. But does that mean she reviewed it? MR. CORCORAN: There is a few issues there. They are not an owner of record so they didn't really statutorily need to be notified. Now, they have an interest in the property because they are an easement holder, and they have rights. So, I mean, as a Board you just have to decide what you want to do about that. They had a chance to look at it but they are asking you to wait. MR. HERMAN: My question is, Kieran, as I read this under Article 3 and 3.01, it looks to my eye like it says before a dwelling can be constructed, even one allowed in the later section, the dwelling has to be presented to and receive, in effect, permission from the Land Trust to be constructed. So Mr. Mazzoni cannot sidestep the easement obligation to get permission, at least as I'm reading this. If you correct me and I'm wrong, I'm sure Mr. Mazzoni will be happier than the interpretation that I have. But it looks to me like they have to go to them anyway, but I don't think they have to go to them for what is in this Board's jurisdiction, is what I'm saying. MR. CORCORAN: They don't have to. As a legal matter you don't have to once you get past the issues of the Planning Board. You don't really have to pay attention to this document, quite frankly. You know, but you may want to. I don't know. The Board has a lot of dealings with Peconic Land Trust. The town has a lot of dealings with Peconic Land Trust and their activities made the subdivision possible. So as a strict legal matter you can say that's up to the applicant and the Land Trust to worry about their own rights and this easement. If you want to do that, it's really kind of an issue of comment. MR. HERMAN: That's my point. We certainly respect the Land Trust not only as an easement holder but as an organization. So the point of my calling out that first section is just to say that if the Board, even if the Board tonight or whenever approves the clearing that is proposed, Mr. Mazzoni still has to go to the Land Trust before he can build on this parcel at some point down the road and make sure that he's not in any way violating the easement. What we have done here tonight, we tried to comply with the hundred foot plus setback under zoning, under LWRP, under Wetlands and put all the structures out of yourjurisdiction. So had Mr. Mazzoni just come in and ask for a letter of non-jurisdiction, he would have gotten that and the Land Trust would be none the wiser. I suggested he not go that route, that we Board of Trustees 71 February 27, 2008 take the public route, we go here for a permit and we structure the application in a way that didn't offend any portions of this. I hear what you are saying, the Land Trust is still an interested party but I don't know -- MR. CORCORAN: How would you react to closing the hearing and giving the Land Trust a week to submit written comments. And if there is no objections, then issue a permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As a person doing this, I would be more comfortable with what you are suggesting than to ignore this letter or make a decision to address the application with this letter in my hand. MR. HERMAN: I agree. The only thing I would ask, I can't be here in March and I just hope not to delay Mr. Mazzoni's plans for iwo months unnecessarily. So if it's possible to close the hearing except for written comment and assuming there are no objections you can then grant the permit. I have no problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can't we just close the hearing and if we are okay with it, can we approve it subject to getting approval from the Peconic Land Trust? MR. CORCORAN: The thing is, you don't need their approval. So you may disagree with their comment or you may think they are going overboard. They bargain for approval for certain things. MR. HERMAN: Prior to what Jill just said, we absolutely agree that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm thinking this is basically the first lot, we'll have other lots we'll have to do the same thing, so we should -- MR. HERMAN: If there is a problem we'll have to come back and reopen it. I don't want to lose two months of his time. MR. MAZZONI: My name is Henry Mazzoni. I really don't want to lose more time because I spent quite a bit of time with the Planning Board on other issues. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are talking about a week. MR. MAZZONI: I know, it's not just really the time it's also a matter of the legal fact they don't really have the right to say anything. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion. TRUSTEE KING: We need to address the grading and filling. MR. MAZZONI: The grading and filling, I want to keep it that way. I like it. I don't have an issue with grading. MR. HERMAN: Can I ask a question before I talk to my client? Kieran, if you read 3.01, what does that say to you whether this is a private easement or not? Under 3.01 structures, it's just this paragraph, if you wouldn't mind reading that and interpreting that. MR. CORCORAN: While I'm doing that, you have to make sure you read 4.06(a) and (b). MR. MAZZONI: Let me ask you a question. If we give them another week, I really like representation. He'll be back in April. So it's not really a matter of a week. Boazd of Trustees 72 February 27, 2008 MR. HERMAN: But it is. What they are saying, they'll close the hearing except leave it open for a week for written comment. That way the Land Trust can review this and if the Land Trust says they don't have a problem with it, your permit will then be issued, just as if they resolved it tonight. MR. CORCORAN: Or even if they are not shocked by what the Land Trust has to say. The Land Trust may say we have a problem with this but they may ask me, do they have a right, I may say no. The way I see this happening is if they are all satisfied, they'll vote to give you a permit at the next meeting. If they are not, if they are considering not, I think they would clearly give you an opportunity to rebut anything. MR. HERMAN: So I won't need to be here, is the point. I don't think it behooves you to ask the Board to ignore the Land Trust because you are, like it or not, inextricably bound to a relationship with them on this parcel. MR. MAZZONI: I'll give them another week. The only objection I have, is they have a week they could personally be here. They could have went to the property and we could have settled this tonight. MR. HERMAN: I agree with that, but I don't want to pick a fight if it's not necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other issues to be addressed? MR. HERMAN: I think that's fair, Henry. I think we should -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We had, I don't know when to do it, but the concern of the Board was this area. And the recommendation is that there be no grading, and you already said you have no intention of doing any grading or filling in this area which we said -- no grading and no fill within 25 feet landward of the clearing limit. MR. HERMAN: So no grading or clearing within 75 feet of the top of the bluff. That's fine. We already discussed that. It's within 75 feet from the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: That clarifies it. MR. MAZZONI: And 1 have a question. If I want to transplant some of the trees on the property, can I do that within your jurisdiction? Within this 50 feet? MR. HERMAN: Yes, you'll be issued a permit to clear between 50 and 100 feet, so what you do within that area is up to you. Probably the more you transplant, the more you plant, the happier they'll be. MR. MAZZONI: So I could transplant some of the trees if I want to put them to another part of the property. MR. HERMAN: In that permitted clearing area, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has the first 50 that he's not allowed to touch. The second 50 -- he wants to take the second 25, take those plants and put it in the first section? MR. HERMAN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's getting confusing. Board of Trustees 73 February 27, 2008 MR. MAZZONI: I'm not going to just clear cut the property. Some of the trees are nice but I want to move them. MR. HERMAN: Within the first 50 feet of the bluff, you can do nothing. You can't transplant, you can't cut. After that, you'll have a permit to do whatever you want. MR. MAZZONI: Fine. MR. HERMAN: Except fill or grade in the next 25 feet. MR. MAZZONI: I don't want to fill or grade. I happen to like it that way. MR. CORCORAN: I mean, since you need their approval this is really not going to delay anything. It should be concurrent with getting their approval. MR. MAZZONI: In the event they say no, when do we review this? MR. HERMAN: You guys will let me know in a week or so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. So I'm going to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second MR. CORCORAN: I would propose you close the hearing for oral testimony, leave it open for written submission for one week, and reserve decision. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing, keep it open for written comment for a week, and reserve decision. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of EAST END HARBOR LIGHTS COMPANY, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace inplace approximately 153 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 30 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 905 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. The Board did go out to see this. The LWRP coordinator is finding this to be consistent with LWRP. The CAC has resolved to support the application with the condition that the new bulkhead abuts the existing bulkhead to the northwest. I'll say that while the Board was out there, there was a couple of things that we noted. I'll bring them up now so you can address them. There was one return there that we questioned if it was going to be replaced. MR. HERMAN: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I think we wanted to see that removed. MR. HERMAN: You are talking about the bottom of the photo, yes. There is no plans to replace that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were recommending you make the buffer 20 foot. I think that coincides with that. There is a CCA 6x6 or something Board of Trustees 74 February 27, 2008 down to the right, I think that's going to be in line with what we are talking about. So we are looking at a 20-foot non-turf buffer and also just, and Jim was the one who caught this, and we looked at it. There was an additional cement wall. It's not shown. And did we find that cement wall was within our jurisdiction or outside? Do you remember? MR. HERMAN: Are you talking about the upland? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. There was a cement wall that was an extension of the foundation. TRUSTEE KING: That was outside of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because we didn't make a field note on it. TRUSTEE KING: I think I might have. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was pretty much it. MR. HERMAN: I would like to let this lady speak before I respond. She's been waiting all night. MS. MARTIN: I'm Dorothy Martin. I represent the Paradise Shores Association. My main concern is that the new bulkhead, which I think you did say that it would connect with our existing bulkhead. That was mainly what we were concerned about. We know in the past when we have done bulkheads, Mr. Costello did them and they were always connected with our existing bulkhead and I just wanted to make sure that's what this is going to be. MR. HERMAN: So you are talking you are the property, the association is to the east, and the bulkhead comes across, then there is like a 31-foot return that comes back. You want to make sure that ties in and doesn't leave a gap. MS. MARTIN: Correct MR. HERMAN: That's the plan. Because the association bulkhead actually extends just a little on to this property, so it will tie into that same corner MS. MARTIN: That's good. That's my only concern. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other problems, comments, questions from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion that the Trustee Board also concurs with the LWRP coordinator that we find this consistent with LWRP and that we approve the application for East End Harbor Lights Company as written in number 18 with the stipulation there be a 20-foot non-turf buffer and that the remnants of that return be removed during the construction of the new bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 75 February 27, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN & ANITA VASSIL requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 168 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; construct +/- 20' and +/-14 feet vinyl bulkhead returns immediately landward of the existing timber returns to be removed; and backfill with approximately 30 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 495 Rochelle Place, Mattituck. This is right next to the amendment we did earlier, Leighton. And on this we would also like to see a 15-foot non-turf buffer. I don't have, I don't know about the rest of the Board, but I don't have a problem, do you want, in front, and taper off to maybe ten feet on this side but 15 over here, on the wall side. Matching up with the neighbor? MR. HERMAN: Actually, I didn't want to get into this in the part that was not really the public portion. I would really like to see a ten-foot buffer on both because it's going to be difficult for me to go back to these two clients, who are going in on this project together and say, well, you know, we walked away with ten-foot buffer for you but you have to have a 15-foot buffer, and I think the reality of it is on the east side of this parcel, I mean 15 feet brings you up almost right to the corner of the dwelling. You would not even have an area to walk through here. I don't think either -- I mean both parcels of these houses have been around for a long time. The bulkheads have been in place for a long time. I really think that the ten-foot buffer is going to be sufficient. I would like to keep them uniform for these two properties, if it's possible. Unless there is something really pressing in the Board's mind that the additional five feet is going to impact something here. I would like to just do ten on both, keep them continuous and go back. The work will all be done at the same time, same contractor. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Certainly better than what is there now. MR. HERMAN: Yes, it's a hell of a lot better than what is there now. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, it's tight. MR. HERMAN: Even ten feet is tight but I'm saying if we could do ten feet for both, it may be a little tight for one but a little less on the other. But overall you get a good buffer and we end up with the same thing for both people and we don't have to come back fighting over five feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the rest of the Board feel? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it being consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to go back and re-do the amendment on the other amendment. Boazd of Trustees 76 Februazy 27, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application with the condition that non-treated lumber is used and anon-turf buffer 50% of the distance from the house to the top of the bulkhead. MR. HERMAN: That might get me smaller than ten. Actually, the distance is about 19 feet, so let's stick with the ten. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP. MR. HERMAN: It should be exempt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe the Board finds it consistent as well; adding the non-turf buffer makes it consistent more. I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of John and Anita Vassil, 495 Rochelle Place, to replace the bulkhead as applied for with returns and ten foot non-turt buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before you move on, do you want to amend the other one? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we continue with the public hearings and then when we go off public hearings we'll go back. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. Good night. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 21, Costello Marine on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 382 feet of existing bulkhead, walkway and catwalk dock sections. Relocate 166 feet section "A" and "B" six feet landward to provide straight alignment with existing adjacent bulkhead, walkway, dock structures at northwest end and remaining 216 feet to be reconstructed inplace. Construct new low-profile bulkhead below sections "D" and "E", provide six foot wide non-turf buffer area and revegetate with Cape American Beach Grass. Located: Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I would like to recuse myself on this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board went out and looked at this and it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And CAC resolved to support the application. I'll read this. CAC supports the application with the condition sections "A" and "B" are replaced in the existing location, not landward, and doesn't support the new bulkhead in "D" and "E" because there is no need shown. CAC also recommends the use of open grate materials on the decking of the dock on sections Boazd of Trustees 77 February 27, 2008 "A" through "E." The area between the pavement and the dock shall remain natural and planted with native vegetation. That's the CAC's recommendations. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agent for the applicant, and the applicant is trying to replace and maintain their existing structures. And to the benefit of the entire community they are going to try to pull back a section of the bulkhead further back inland to widen the waterway out and straighten out the line as best they could. All these structures exist and they are aged and in need of repair. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple of questions or things we found. First off, along this length we found three drainage lines that are coming through the bulkhead and so we are going to ask that they be closed off as when, during construction of this. Also, on the, what I look here as the northern end of this, which is, bear with me for a second. I'm looking to see -- it's sections "A" and "B", at the northern end, if it could be brought in line with the other neighbor's bulkhead that runs to that. Right now there is, it would have to be pulled back slightly to be equal with the neighbor's bulkhead. It appears as though on the drawing it's drawn to be that way. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. The other question we had is the second access ramp, why a second access ramp is requested there because while you show the paved roadway going down there, it didn't appear as though there was access to that proposed second access ramp. In other words it would have to be vegetation cut down in order to create apathway/driveway to that second access ramp and given its proximity to the first one, what the need was for a second one. MR. COSTELLO: Okay, if you look at page three of nine, they are both along the roadway or what is a roadway that is used by vehicles. The second one, they also have people that pass this area from the beach area, and neither one is a ramp but they are walkways just for access. This is a narrow roadway, someone comes down there with a car, you certainly don't want to wait. You can get access. They both exist now so it was just that the foot traffic that is in that area, it would just be handy. But it's there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have any response to the CAC's recommendation, first recommendation that "D" and "E" are not needed, so no need for replacement of those. MR. COSTELLO: They need to be replaced. Unfortunately, underneath there is wetlands there and we want to try to maintain those wetlands. And I think the open grate decking would only suggest Board of Trustees 78 February 27, 2008 improving that. I mean, but the age of them, I can tell you that if they are not replaced now, they will be replaced in the very near future. It's unfortunate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you would agree to their other recommendation on the use of open grate material on the decking? MR. COSTELLO: I think, because there is vegetative wetlands in that area, so I'm sure that would help. A lot of spots it doesn't help but where the sun does rise over the top of it, I'm not a big fan of the open grating but, because it does shade, but where it's running east and west, there will be more sunlight penetration because of that. So I mean it would only help the wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who wanted to speak with regard to this application? MR. MCNAB: The sections "D" and "E" is not a dock. It's not a bulkhead now. MR. COSTELLO: "E" is a dock with a bulkhead underneath it. It's a low sill bulkhead underneath. High tide it would be difficult to see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right. He pointed right to it. You can see the low sill, right along there. That's all "E". MR. MCNAB:. We must have been there at high tide. Because we noticed a lot of grass growing in the back side. But the grating was pretty high tide that day so we didn't see anything below. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You didn't know you were supposed to wade in? MR. MCNAB: It was one of the colder days. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any comments from the Board with regard to this application? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you address the drainage situation? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we addressed that. If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association as described and location in Gardiner's Bay Estates, Tax Maps 37-4-18 with the condition that the three drainage pipes that are presently going through this bulkheaded area will be closed off to address the road runoff issue and that there will be open-grated materials used on the deck, and with those amendments to this permit, it will support the consistency recommendation, so the Board would find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Doherty, recused.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: We would just ask for a revised plan showing open Boadd of Trustees 79 February 27, 2008 grating being used. And the pipes are not on this plan, so. MR. COSTELLO: Can I get one clarification a little bit. The open grating is only going to be used in the area where the vegetated wetlands are, right? That's what you are requesting? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which are sections "D" and "E." MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you for clarifying that, with the open grating being used as shown on the plans as sections "D" and "E." TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 22, Costello Marine on behalf of ISABELLE HOULBREQUE requests a Wetland Permit to remove 56 feet of existing bulkhead and 52 feet of existing 3.5' wide wooden walkway and replace same inplace using C-Loc vinyl sheathing for bulkhead. Located: 210 Knoll Circle, East Marion. The Board went out to see this and the Board made a comment in the field to move back the bulkhead to match the next door neighbor and establish anon-turf buffer. The LWRP coordinator has found it to be consistent with a condition that the following practices be followed: Minimize the use of CCA in the construction; highlights using encapsulated pilings and native non-chemically treated, untreated lumber only should be used in these sensitive areas requiring installation of a silt boom and to provide adequate buffers. CAC resolved to support of application with the condition of the new bulkhead is matched to the existing bulkhead to the south and ten-foot non-turf buffer encompassing the gazebo is installed behind the bulkhead. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, again, John Costello, Costello Marine. We are the agent for the applicant. The only difficulty, I could certainly, it will join the bulkheads on both sides. As you know, there is a curvature to the existing bulkhead. And if you tray to get the bulkhead straighter, you are still going to have to have a point. It can't be a straight line. I mean, I don't know how you could make it a straight line at that location. I mean you would have to excavate straight back almost to the house in order to get a straight line from one point to the other. If you looked at the survey, the survey will indicate that the bulkhead is not as curved as it is. It goes from point A to point B to point C to make it. We will attempt, and we talked to the owner. They have no problem on trying to get it as straight as possible by pulling it back to some degree. It would just be difficult to get it totally inline with one point to the other. You would be taking a lot of fill out there. It would only improve Boazd of Trustees 80 February 27, 2008 the waterway by pulling it back whatever degree you can. To go straight from one adjoining bulkhead to the other adjoining bulkhead would be a little on the difficult side. They do have deeds on the survey. You'll see. But there is two junctures. You've seen the photographs we submitted, right? It's quite curved, and you can straighten it out to a major degree but whether you can get it to go from one adjoining bulkhead to the other adjoining bulkhead, I don't know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would imagine you could still join at the two ends and still have a curvature. MR. COSTELLO: You can correct a major portion of it but I don't know if you can correct it in its entirety in a straight line. I'll try. We can try to do it as much as we can. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Comments, questions from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It makes sense what John saying, connect the two, but you still have a curve in there. That's kind of what I was picturing anyway. MR. COSTELLO: It won't be a curve. It will be straight to a point and then from that point to the other bulkhead. I could pull it back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our intention is not to cut out this person's property. MR. COSTELLO: No. And I don't want to try to sneak 200 or 300 yards of fill through the property because that's, I don't want a lot of material to come out of there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are we recommending a silt boom? I heard you read it. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I have no problem with a silt boom. It's muddy material. When we remove this bulkhead, you know, we'll try to save it. We'll have to truck fill out, but that's, you know, it would be, a silt boom would be wise in this area. I'll probably incorporate the silt boom on the last permit that you gave us for the Gardiner's Bay, only because when we pull that bulkhead back it would be wise to have it. That's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you remember, I forgot to look in the Milns file, is that a ten foot buffer. Milns is the one right next door. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You want to match that buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: It will go around the gazebo. It's not grass to any degree. We'll revegetate it with native species. Whatever. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 81 Februazy 27, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion that because the applicant is going to use a silt boom, not use treated wood wherever possible, and provide aten-foot non-turf buffer to match the neighbor and go around the gazebo as well, that the Board will find this to be consistent with LWRP, and I further move that we approve this application for Isabelle Houlbreque as described in number 22 of the agenda with the stipulation that we have that ten foot, non-turf buffer and that we match at the point of connect with the neighbor's bulkheads. I think that's it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of KINGS 8~ ALPHAS, LLC, C/O RICHARD ISRAEL requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood walkway to allow construction of 136' of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing bulkhead using vinyl sheathing. Replace wood walk inkind/inplace, and provide ten-foot non-turf buffer zone behind bulkhead. Located: 745 Osprey nest Road, Greenport. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: We are the agent for Richard Israel on this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have CAC support for this application. LWRP review indicates it is inconsistent. Its comments are about the bulkhead being put in front of. It asks that the proposed action will project further seaward of the existing wood bulkheads to the west and east of the property. It's also recommending encapsulated pilings and is also recommending silt booms. The Board, also, I believe, looking at the field notes, were not in favor of being placed in front of and we are recommending that it be in place or behind. What's the Board's feelings? MR. COSTELLO: I'll address those questions in a moment. If there are any other questions, 1'll try to address them all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see a ten-foot, non-turf buffer but I thought the lawn was big enough fora 20-foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My notes show ten. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On this property we felt ten was enough. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ten on this and 20 on the one next door. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's ten here and, yes, I'm thinking of the neighbor. So it would be ten foot buffer. Those are the only comments. MR. COSTELLO: Could I ask you whether the ten foot buffer could be, there is an existing wooden deck on the Israel property, not that one, but the next one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is Israel, correct? Board of Trustees 82 Februazy 27, 2008 MR. COSTELLO: That's the connection. But it has the wooden deck. How much of the wooden deck can be part of the non-turf buffer? He doesn't want the lawn particularly but he wants to keep as much of the landscaping. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To include the decking part as the buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that could be. MR. COSTELLO: That's all. Because he wanted the deck area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The deck is being replaced? MR. COSTELLO: I'm going to replace the deck anyway. The other comment that you made about the bulkhead not going out, again, offshore, I think in order for the DEC permit, that I will have to do it in place. I mean they are not going to allow to go outside. That's the comment we got. TRUSTEE KING: I think if it's done in place it brings it more into consistency. I think that's why he has the inconsistency is because it's going seaward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I understand from the comments. MR. COSTELLO: Basically it will be in place. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I'll say 136 feet of bulkhead in place. Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Kings & Alphas C/O Richard Israel requesting a wetland permit to remove existing walkway, to allow construction of 136 feet of bulkhead in place using vinyl sheathing. The replacing wood walkway would be inkind/inplace and provide aten-foot non-turf buffer zone behind the bulkhead. So is this walkway ten foot? So that's the buffer? MR. COSTELLO: That's part of the buffer. What we are doing in the non-turf buffer is probably replace all the decking and, you know, landscape with. He also has some heavier vegetation just to the other side of that he wants to try to avoid tearing out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Also I would like to add that creating this bulkhead in place and giving it the buffer would deem this consistent now with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 24, Costello Marine on behalf of GEORGE GARBE requests a Wetland Permit to construct 117' of new bulkhead and 16' south return immediately in front of existing bulkhead using vinyl sheathing and provide aten-foot non-turf buffer zone behind the bulkhead. Located 685 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. CAC supports the application with aten-foot non-turf buffer Boazd of Trustees 83 February 27, 2008 installed landward of the bulkhead however has a concern with the present location of the bulkhead as its inconsistent with the public trust doctrine. Can you elaborate? MR. WILDER: The public trust doctrine says you must have access between high and low water for the public. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. That's why I'm confused. Because there is really no access there. And LWRP finds it inconsistent for the same exact reasons as the previous. So with George Garbe would we also be doing it in place, Mr. Costello? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll change that and it would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. And on this one, the property is larger, so we are thinking of a 20-foot non-turf buffer. We would like to see that. MR. COSTELLO: Well, I have one comment on that. Only because the gentleman spent one heck of a lot of money on the zoysia grass. It's total zoysia grass so he doesn't have to fertilize it. So, I mean, and he even asked me if I could take that grass up and put it back, and 1 told him that there is no way that they were going to allow grass, whether it's -- so, I don't know. I mean, I don't want to expand the buffer area anymore than I have to because I told him he'll have to probably use like American Beach Grass, native plantings, and he's my zoysia is going to be destroyed? He says I do no fertilizing, but I do water it. I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How much do you disturb doing bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: I'll probably disturb 12 feet there. I mean, I have to dig it up in order to get the backing in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the Board feel; is it all right to do a ten-foot non-turf buffer or 12 or 15? What are your thoughts? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would rather go to 15. MR. COSTELLO: Does anyone on the Board need zoysia grass? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Zoysia serves a really good purpose, unfortunately it's listed as an invasive species. But it is very salt tolerant. MR. COSTELLO: It is. This has been under water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It requires minimal -- MR. WILDER: I had it in Georgia. I didn't realize it was up here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with 15. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a compromise with a 15-foot non-turf buffer. MR. COSTELLO: I'll just blame you for taking the zoysia grass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions or concerns on this? (No response.) We did have comments about connecting with the bulkhead to the south and I did speak to John and he was reluctant to not put the Board of Trustees 84 February 27, 2008 return in because he doesn't know what that person is doing, plus, as he explained earlier tonight, if one fails or whatever, he would like to have the return in there, so that's why we didn't ask him tonight because we already asked him that. Hearing no other comments, 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 Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of George Garbe for requesting a Wetland Permit to conduct 117' new bulkhead and 16' south return immediately in place of existing bulkhead using vinyl sheathing and provide a 15-foot non-turf buffer zone behind the bulkhead. Located at 685 Osprey Nest Road. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And by putting this bulkhead in place I find consistent with LWRP. The board determines it to be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 25, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of THOMAS GIESE requests a Wetland Permit to remove 58' of existing bulkhead "A" and replace inplace using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Backfill area behind new bulkhead with clean trucked in soil approximately 26 cubic yards and revegetate areas with Cape American Beachgrass 12" on center; remove 18' of existing bulkhead "B" and replace inplace using C-Loc vinyl sheathing; remove existing marine railway and replace inkind and inplace with new and approved materials; remove remains of existing wooden dock and construct a new 4x10' fixed dock with a 32"x20' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating dock secured by four six-inch diameter pilings. Located: 5860 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine. We are the agent for Mr. Giese on this application. And the original application as read, after discussions that in finding out that there was previous litigation with one of the neighboring properties where the Trustees won the litigation not allowing a floating dock, I was unaware of that litigation and we are willing and are changing this into a fixed structure without the floating dock, without the seasonal ramp and not extending any further out than the adjoining poles that are tying up existing boats of both adjoining properties; one to the north and one to the south. And allowing the dock to be constructed inset 12 feet from Board of Trustees 85 February 27, 2008 that line so that a boat could be tied up there and no boat will be projecting out past the existing lines. It will be a fixed structure in an "L" shape in order to try and stay off the property lines. It goes across the railway. I think, I don't know, plans were submitted to the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: I thought they were delivered, but what we are trying to do -- TRUSTEE KING: It shows an "L" shape, open grate. MR. COSTELLO: We are putting open grating on because there is some vegetation, again, running north and south, gives it the most sunlight for the vegetation. You'll see on page three, I believe, page three, you'll see where the existing, adjoining docks project. One does have a seasonal float and ramp and one doesn't. But the pilings are out there any we tried to stay within. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are looking at here is what you are proposing does stay within the pier line of the other two. The poles that go out farther than the other two docks but it's more structured than the other two neighbors' docks. MR. COSTELLO: They tie a boat to those pilings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. They put the bow to the catwalk and the stern to the poles. And I think that's, when we went out and looked, if you had a similar structure to that rather than the "L" shape. Because the "L" shape creates more structure. MR. COSTELLO: It's more structure but I could secure a boat better and having the open grating, I mean it's less shading on the bottom. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does it have to be 24-foot long on an "L"? Because that's -- MR. COSTELLO: It could be 20 but I would have one additional piling, that's all. It would make no difference. What we did was narrow that 24 foot. I'm recommending three foot in width. And decking it with a four foot, basically. So it is a narrower structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were talking after the field inspection and John asked what about if we do that. And I said fine, but I wasn't picturing something that big. MR. COSTELLO: Well, I narrowed it up to three foot. I put it in front of the railway, but the railways actually, the DEC said the railways are anon-functional thing. I don't believe that. I believe that the railways are used by the private owner to put a boat in, to put a boat out. It's not used as a commercial operation and it only serves him. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any evidence of there of that being used recently, John. MR. COSTELLO: It was used a couple of years ago. There was a boat on it. Board of Trustees 86 Februazy 27, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what I'm hearing is we want this staked and go out and the look at it again. MR. COSTELLO: Sure. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm thinking I would not want more than 20 feet. I wouldn't want smaller. I don't know what the rest of the Board thinks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's see it staked and go from there. We can address some of the other parts of this application also. MR. COSTELLO: Can I explain that 24 feet? Because the 24 feet incorporates the four foot width on the dock going out. You see how it's drawn. I mean, if I extended the existing dock to four feet -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a 20 foot "L." MR. COSTELLO: I just tried to narrow it up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll need to see it staked. MR. COSTELLO: I could stake it, and the bulkhead is going to be removed, basically. Actually the DEC recommended that that bulkhead come out because it's non-functional use. I would also, my feeling is I would rather cut it off at the dirt line. The material in the bottom is still holding back some degree of dirt. I mean, then it's a super low sill bulkhead. I would certainly would not want that to erode into the bay. I don't. So what I would do instead of removing it all, I'll try with the DEC just to cut it off at the mud line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: This has been found inconsistent, but this has been reviewed also with the ramp and float and everything, so what we'll do is when we hash out what we'll look at, we'll have him do another evaluation. MR. COSTELLO: I think you should. Only because the plans have not changed a little, they changed a lot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to put in another description, too? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's not even close. The whole description has to change. TRUSTEE KING: The CAC is not supporting it. It recommends existing bulkhead be removed and the area be cleaned up and re-vegetated. Shoreline should be left in its natural state. These are kind of my thoughts, too, on this project. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What happens if you withdraw this application and just close the hearing and everything and get rid of it. MR. COSTELLO: As described it won't be approved anyway by any agency, probably. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why not just deny it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then he'll have to totally reapply and everything else. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just table it and let him make the modification. MR. COSTELLO: Maybe I could get moved up in the agenda. Board of Trustees 87 February 27, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we table this application and we'll revisit it at our next field inspection. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MR. COSTELLO: I'll provide a better description. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Before we finish up, we have to go back, under amendments, Robert Leighton. I believe we said a 15 foot non-turf buffer. We were going to make ten instead of 15. Number three, ROBERT LEIGHTON, under amendments. We approved it and we approved it with aten-foot, non-turf buffer rather than 15-foot non-turf. MR. CORCORAN: So somebody make a motion to amend the prior resolution. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to amend the prior resolution on Robert Leighton changing it from a 15-foot non-turf buffer to a 10-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we have to do is set a meeting to go over our Reserve Decisions. We have two Reserve Decisions. We'll do both of them then. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure if I want to do both. I'll gladly do one. The one that was controversial I want to spend some more time on that and possibly find out what is going on with DEC as far as that application is concerned. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to recommend March 10. TRUSTEE KING: That gives me enough time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was thinking. MR. CORCORAN: You don't have to notice what you are going to be doing. Just notice that it's going to be a work session and a regular meeting, regular meeting of the Trustees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What time would you like it, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Daylight savings time begins the day before. MS. STANDISH: Does Monday the 10th? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can do 5:30. MS. STANDISH: Where are we holding this meeting? I'll try for the conference room at the annex. 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion we go off the public meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Board of Trustees 88 Februazy 27, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2008 ela:o~Pm 0 0 0~ er