Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/23/2008James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. ~o~~pf SOUIyo~ ~ • ~,0~ ~y~OUNT'1 ~.,~' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk-Typist Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) ?65-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 S~~ lerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our first meeting of 2008 already. My name is Jim King, I have been reelected to this Board and I have also been reelected as the chairman. I'm not so sure if it's because of my abilities or just because I stood there and everybody stepped back. But we try and run a pretty good meeting if we can. Board of Trustees 2 January 23, 2008 I would like to introduce everybody here on the Board of Trustees. To my far left is David Bergen; next to him is Peg Dickerson, and; this is my co-chair, Jill Doherty; myself; Lauren Standish runs the office for us, and tonight we have a special guest here, Elizabeth Cantrell. She is also in our office, and I wanted her to come tonight to see how we run these meetings, in case something happens with Lauren, she goes on vacation or unfortunately gets sick or something like that. I don't want to bring Elizabeth here out of the blue, so she will get an idea what she has to do if Lauren is not here. Next is Bob Ghosio, another Trustee. Lori Hulse is our legal advisor. Jack McGreevy in the front here belongs to the CAC. The CAC is the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do similar inspections that we do. They give us their input and what they would like to see done at the property. And we have our court reporter Wayne Galante. If you have any comments, please be brief. We try and move the meetings along if we can. We don't want to get into a lot of dialogue if it's not necessary. It makes life easier for him and for all of us. If you do have comments please come to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. If you have trouble hearing me, please let me know. Just yell or something. I have been told I tend to mumble. I try not to, but I guess it happens. With that we'll get going with the meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to mention, I have been working on trying to get more visuals for our public hearings. Usually we are up here passing pictures along the podium and I'm stepping way out of my comfort zone because I'm not a tech person but I do know how available it is for everyone to be looking at the same thing. So I attempted this in November and December, sort of partially, and we spent a lot of time going back and forth and searching for pictures. The idea is that we can get to you and in fact I want to mention Jill, hopefully maybe I can get a list of maybe projects and things we are working on with the storm water committee and get some pictures which I have not been able to pull up for tonight's meeting. But again, the idea being not for every project because sometimes we'll have an agenda of 40 items, which is a bit of an overkill, but for some of our more major projects it will be helpful for all of us to be able to see the same thing and also in the interim when we come across some really good examples of some of our best management projects, I was hoping, I had one up there earlier, some of the structures that work best, some of the things we found that are the best environmentally for our town and also as new things come into our office where we are really promoting our grated walkways now, which I don't have now but I will get so that we can sort of show you visually some of the current techniques and methods that we are trying to promote from our office. So tonight should go a little more smoothly except for the fact that after I dropped off my memory chip this morning I got a phone call that there was nothing on it. TRUSTEE KING: Sounds like my memory. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I had to make a fast run down to our town tech person and we got it on. So enjoy the show. TRUSTEE KING: Just to give you have a brief rundown. Last year we revised the Wetland Code. There was a lot of controversy with it, I know, and I think a lot of it was just misunderstandings about the code. We'll be reviewing it again this year and probably be making more amendments to it. And the same thing goes for the Shellfish Code. We rewrote the Shellfish Code and had that approved last year, I think it was December, and there is a few things we need to Board of Trustees 3 January 23, 2008 look at with that, particularly the aquaculture situation, we need to address it properly in the code. I want to be looking at that. And road runoff is my, what I really focused on since I been a Trustee is trying to get some of these projects done so we can clean up the waters. We just completed one on Westphalia Road in Mattituck. That's done. Right now we have a set of plans for a rather large drainage project in New Suffolk that I'm in the process now, we have to start getting the DEC permit for that. So that's going to be a project coming up very shortly. Dredging, we had a lot of dredging done this year, thanks to Trustee Bergen. I think we were very successful in getting the creeks dredged and just recently Goldsmith Inlet on The Sound was dredged. That's about it, I guess. We'll get going with tonight's meeting. Before we start, I keep getting reminded we have postponements. I don't want anybody, we don't want anybody sitting here thinking something will come up and it doesn't come up. So we don't want you here all night for nothing. Number one under the Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of EMMANUEL 8~ CATHERINE ZARBIS requesting a Wetland Permit & Costal Erosion Permit for the as-built splash pad approximately 6x102' with small stone approximately two inches deep over filter fabric; as-built retaining wall approximately 102'Lx1'Dx15"H dry-stacked, constructed of one course of eight inch concrete pavers set two inches below grade, one course of six inch concrete pavers and one course of 2.5" concrete cap; 8,000 beach grass plugs planted approximately one inch on center in mesh cloth over face of bluff, approximately 100x100'; and inkind/inplace replacement of pre-existing 4x72' wood steps and 5x12' wood landing (top), 5'x8' wood landing (mid) and 7x12' wood landing (bottom) and six steps to grade. Located: 2505 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number two, the application of YAN RIEGER requesting a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct slow-profile bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, a 12x32' platform and 4x18' catwalk. Located: 370 Harbor Road, Orient, has been postponed. Number three, LISA GILLOOLY requesting a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a bulkhead along 103' of shoreline using vinyl sheathing, a 12x24' platform and 4x10' catwalk. Located: 450 Harbor Road, Orient, has been postponed. On page six, if you have an agenda in front of you, number 15, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAN JUNGBLUT requesting a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x53' fixed dock, 2.5'x18' ramp, and a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed. Number 16, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARY PANKIEWICZ requesting a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, abandon the existing sanitary system and well, demolish the existing garage, remove portions of 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, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 4 January 23, 2008 Number 17, JMO Environmental on behalf of FRANEKER INVESTMENTS, INC., requesting 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, has been postponed. And number 18, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of KEVIN GALLAGHER requesting 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 Beachgrass. Located: 40 Beechwood Lane, Southold, has been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight. I would like to set the meetings for the next field inspection. Why do we have Wednesday? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Tuesday is a holiday. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with it. Maybe you guys can contact my wife. It's her birthday. You can explain to her why I have to go there on Tuesday. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, if it's helpful to Dave, that week -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had talked about it in a work session. That's a day I have off and it would be one day earlier than we would normally be doing it. TRUSTEE KING: I'm in the doghouse again. Do we have a motion for that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you make it up Thursday? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting, Wednesday, February 27, at 6:00. Work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Anybody think maybe we should start our work session a little earlier? Tonight we ran out of time. Do we think half hour is enough? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We got some last minute stuff on tonight. TRUSTEE KING: All right. It was a thought. Motion to approve the minutes of July, August and September. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since I was not at the September meeting, I could be a part of the approval of the July and August meetings. But since I was not there for the September meeting I don't know that I could make an approval of those minutes. TRUSTEE KING: Then we'll do a motion to approve the July 24 and August 22 minutes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion to approve the September 19 minutes? I was not there either. Board of Trustees January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve September 19, 2007, minutes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, Trustee Dickerson, Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee King, Trustee Bergen, abstain.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll abstain on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll abstain also. I. MONTHLY REPORTS: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly reports for November 2007 and December 2007. A check for $13,815.86 for the month of November and a check for $10,393.19 for the month of December were forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of state environmental quality reviews. RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 23, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. We have a number of them listed here: Michael Behringer &Vesha Kumar - SCTM#47-2-31 Michael Behringer &Vesha Kumar and Elizabeth Gardner - SCTM#47-2-30&31 Nikolaos Katopodis -SCTM#30-2-65 Summit Estates Homeowners Association -SCTM#38-7-12 Belvedere Property Management, LLC -SCTM#117-8-19 Belvedere Property Management, LLC -SCTM#117-8-20 Belevedere Property Management, LLC -SCTM#134-3-5 William F. Billman/William F. Gillman Revocable Trust -SCTM#31-11-6 Eve Seber -SCTM#70-6-18 John & Valerie Kramer -SCTM#70-4-45.3 Robert Friemann -SCTM#104-3-8 Pamela J. Williams Revocable Living Trust -SCTM#90-2-20 Martin Regine -SCTM#13-2-8.19 Richard & Mary Lou Manfredi -SCTM#54-1-29 Henry Traendly & Barbara Cadwallader -SCTM#31-14-11 Yvette Lang Einczig -SCTM#70-4-11 TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion to approve on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve. Board of Trustees January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the resolutions we had to do independently. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just go through them. Number one, Dave? IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: One, under Resolutions, GRETA SCHILLER requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 12x12' deck. Located: 53557 Main Road, Southold. I went out and looked at this. And it was, under the LWRP it was found inconsistent because the proposed deck is 55 feet from the shoreline and there is a minimum distance of 100 feet required in the Town Code. This was a very small project just to construct a 12x12 deck. It's within the -- it doesn't extend closer to the water than the structure of the house does. So I think with the inclusion of, if we had gutters put on that at least that rear part of the house -- when I say the rear, the closest to the water or the pond that is down there, with drywells, which would incorporate that area where the proposed deck is, that that would mitigate the inconsistency under the LWRP. Are there any comments from the Board on this? TRUSTEE KING: It's just inconsistent because of the setbacks? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because of the setback. The whole house is less than 100 feet, so this deck, again, is just within the same, it's no closer to the pond than the current structure is. So with that one amendment to include gutters and drywells, along the, let me just get this straight here, along the eastern side of the house or the seaward side of the house, I would make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Polywatars Permits, LLC on behalf of CHARLOTTE MULLEN requests an Administrative Permit to extend the middle of the existing sunroom 4x20' and convert into afour-season room. Located: 1775 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. I have looked at this. It's a very minor addition between an open patio area that they want to make living space for the full year. It's very minor. The only thing I would condition it with is that the drainage -- they had gutters and drywells on the existing patio area and that the drainage be as per our new code 236. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 7 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Peconic Permits on behalf of DEBRA LACHANCE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a studio addition to the front of the dwelling. Located: 630 Ruch Lane, Greenport. We had done an Administrative Permit in October to add a garage in this same area and they decided to make it a room attached to the house in that same footprint. So I think we should rescind the previous amendment of October 23 before we approve this. It's the same, like I said, the same footprint, so it's really just a different structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Instead of a garage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a proposed studio addition. Instead of a detached garage, it's an attached addition. So I'll make a resolution to rescind the amendment of October 23 for the proposed garage. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the only thing that we have, I'll make a motion to, there are no LWRP comments in here and there was not from the previous. I think it doesn't have to go to, didn't have to go to LWRP for some reason. I make a motion we approve the proposed studio addition with gutters, leaders and drywells as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Before we move on, I just want to indicate for the record, Mr. Polywaters was a Trustee. He was on the Board with me. On a Board. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Sherman Engineering & Consulting PC on behalf of WILLIAM & BARBARA CLAYTON requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 36'4" groin on east side of property; the 39' groin on the west side of the property; a 6x39' dock over west groin; 115' of bulkhead to the beach, and remove the remains of old dock seaward of stairs. Located: 12832 Main Road, East Marion. We looked at this last month. We have a couple of pictures of it. It was a little confusing because there was so much structure there. We just kind of went over it and cleaned up the description. (indicating.) That's the eastern groin. And the existing dock and groin underneath the dock. It's minor repairs they are making to it. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We also wanted to note that the rock groin that is existing there is not part of this permit. TRUSTEE KING: There are some rocks that extend beyond the groin but they are not part of this permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can leave them there. TRUSTEE KING: They are fine. We just don't want them adding more rocks to it. What's there is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 8 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: GW Koch on behalf of ALBERT MOYSE requests an Administrative Permit to raise the dwelling and replace foundation posts and lower building back onto new post/girder arrangement. Remove/replace existing deck surrounding building, as necessary, to facilitate work. Located: 120 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. I went out and took a look at this. The building does need to have these posts put in. There is really no other changes happening. Lifting the house putting the posts in, putting it back down. The only thing I recommend is we approve it and have the drainage updated to code 236. And it's exempt from LWRP. So I would make a motion at this time that we approve this Administrative Permit and stipulate that the drainage, they bring the drainage, gutters and drywells up to current Code 236. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE KING: The next one is SUMMIT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Amendment to Permit #453 to relocate the four pilings from the outside of the "T" dock to the inside of the "T" on the west side. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. We all went out there and looked at that. There is a lot of history with this, if I remember right. This was even before I was on the Board, I guess there was a lot of history behind it. As you could see it's about 30 pounds of file here. It was originally a private residential dock with two permanent spaces and two guest spaces. This is from the LWRP. It was found inconsistent. He just wants me to see the report on it from them. They've had so many restrictions. When we went out, we feel that what is there is there and what is there should remain the way it is. To move the four pilings inshore, I don't think there is enough water. I think it's going to create problems for the swimming area that is to the west side. I had a problem with them moving it. I think they should just leave things alone and be happy with what they have. I think that was the general consensus of everybody. I would make a motion to deny this. The facilities remain in its present configuration. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. DANISI: Excuse me. I'm William Danisi. We are from Summit Estates. We would like to speak on our behalf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was a motion made and carried. You can have a brief moment but, it's not a public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: These are not public hearings, but come up to the microphone. MR. DANISI: There is no sense talking about it if nothing can be done. You are saying you made the motion and it's accepted. That's as far as it goes. Is that how it works? TRUSTEE KING: What was the reason for this? MR. DANISI: The two slips are not usable where they are. The two guest slips where the pilings are, are absolutely not usable where they are. Board of Trustees 9 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Why is that? MR. DANISI: Because it's confronting the main body of water and they are so far apart there. They are 30 feet from the dock and 30 feet across. You can't even tie a boat there if you tried to. We want to bring them to the inside so we could utilize them. We are not asking for more slips, just to relocate them so they are usable. I have a picture if you would like to see it. An aerial view. MS. HULSE: If you could just identify yourself for the record. MR. DANISI: I'm William Danisi. I'm the president of Summit Estates Homeowners Association. TRUSTEE KING: We have done a lot of research on this and looked at the restrictions on that. We feel it should just stay the way it is. MR. DANISI: Why is that? TRUSTEE KING: For one thing, depth of water I have a problem with. As you come in there, there is not that much water. MR. GOLDSMITH: My name is Richard Goldsmith, I'm also on the Board of Summit Estates. What about the fact that on either side of us there are boat slips from Crescent Beach and Cleeve's Point, numerous boat slips. We are talking about the same water. We are right in the middle of all those other slips. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, there has been a lot of controversy over that dock. It started out as just a small dock with a couple of floats, couple of boats and it expanded over time. Which it never should have. MR. DANISI: We are homeowners. We understand that. I know the big file you have there. We understand all the problems in the past. That was with the builder's concern. Then it was turned over to the homeowners association which is now comprised of all the homes in the subdivision. And we just, we are looking to get what our neighbors have, for one. We are not even asking for more than what we have. We have permits for four slips. We just want to make them useful. They can be used the way the poles are set there. There is plenty of water there. Their boats, both sides of us boats are way inshore where we are putting it. We are putting it in against the end you are looking at there. It's only coming out 32 feet from that point. Which is next to nothing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it would help, in the file dated September 28, 1999, there was a Planning Board decision on this piece of property listing conditions and under one of the conditions listed, specifically item number one, on this document, it says that the Planning Board is requiring the docking or mooring of boats be limited to the area of the existing "T" portion of the dock. In other words, in the original resolution they are saying that was it, that's all they are allowing. MR. DANISI: That's not saying the inside or the outside. The two existing are inside are there now, presently there and presently being used on the inside of the "T." TRUSTEE KING: I think that's what that is referring to, those two slips. MR. DANISI: So we want two more on the inside. The outside is totally not usable and dangerous. If someone tries to use it, it's impossible. TRUSTEE KING: That's one of my arguments for not having docks on the bay because sometimes they are not really functional. MR. DANISI: On both sides of us, we have condos on both sides of us. Board of Trustees 10 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: What your neighbor has doesn't effect our interpretation of what is right or wrong. We have neighbors sometimes have a 40 foot dock and the neighbor has 25 foot and he wants 40 foot and doesn't get it because it was put in a long time ago. MR. GOLDSMITH: Right, but he has a dock. TRUSTEE KING: You have a dock. MR. GOLDSMITH: It's unusable. MR. DANISI: The two slips are unusable where the pilings are. TRUSTEE KING: How long have they been there? MR. GOLDSMITH: I believe as long as the dock has been built. MR. DANISI: I don't know. We are new homeowners. MR. GOLDSMITH: Most of the homes in the development have been built within the last five or six years. MR. DANISI: This is turned over on the homeowners association three years ago. We are only involved with it in the past three years. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's still zoned residential. TRUSTEE KING: I don't really want to debate this anymore. We made our decision. If they want to reapply for something -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's denied without prejudice, so if you want to come up with a different plan, I suggest if you come up with a different plan, come in and talk to us through apre-submission. I mean, we are working with the conditions that were put on by the Planning Board and by the Trustees, and that's part of the basis of our decision. So it's kind of, you know, there is a lot of restrictions on this area. MR. GOLDSMITH: In other words, basically anything on either side of us that's been done who knows when, whether it was grandfathered in or whatever you call it, you don't have a problem with anything there now but you have a problem with us. TRUSTEE KING: We don't like it but we can't do anything about it. It's existing. It was put in years ago. MR. GOLDSMITH: I understand that. I just don't understand the logic why we are being denied something that is no more than anybody else has in the same row. TRUSTEE KING: Your dock there now would not be permitted there today by our standards at all. Not the way the wave breaks and the "T" at the end. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a pretty expansive dock. It's more than what you got next door. MR. GOLDSMITH: But there is nothing there. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we want to move things along. I suggest we move along now. Who has number two? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: On consensus of the Board we can do numbers two through 13, all as one resolution. Number four was originally inconsistent with the LWRP. That was in its original form, and the amendment is reducing the whole structure, which brings it into consistency. All the other ones are either exempt or consistent. TRUSTEE KING: There are two others that was on the original application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are all being reduced, which brings it into consistency. So I make a resolution that these are consistent with LWRP or exempt. And I'll make a resolution to approve numbers two through 13 on the agenda under Amendments, Extensions and Transfers, and they read as follows: Board of Trustees 11 January 23, 2008 Number two, Stuart L. Disston on behalf of JOANN WALKER requests and Amendment to Permit #6470 to install an inground swimming pool with an attached patio at 1'6" above grade. Located: 290 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold. Number three, Robert Basolino, RA, on behalf of JOHN & MARIE SHACK requests an Amendment to Permit #6431 to reduce the size of the proposed extension from 3,147 square feet to 2,454 square feet, increasing the distance from the bulkhead from 40 square feet to 46 square feet, eliminate the proposed second floor addition on the garage and remove the shed at the east to increase the size of the side yard. Located: 1265 Shore Drive, Greenport. Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES & MARINA MITCHELL requests an Amendment to Permit #6159 to reduce the length of the approved catwalk from 53 feet to 46 feet; reduce length of stairs from six feet to 2.5 feet; use open-grate, fiberglass decking and reduce the elevation of the walkway from four feet to two feet and clear four foot access path to catwalk. Located: 470 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. Number five, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests an Amendment to Permit #6565 to construct a 6x6 cantilevered platform, install a 42"x14' aluminum ramp leading to a 6x60' floating dock to be secured by four anchoring piles, relocate an existing shellfish float, remove two existing two-pile dolphins, remove two existing pipe anchors and install two new greenheart anchor piles. Located: Robins Island, New Suffolk. Number six, JAMES & SUSAN SWEENEY requests cone-year extension to Permit #6288 as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 2950 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. Number seven, B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests aone- yearextension to Permit #6298 as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Southold. Number eight, B. Laing Associates on behalf of MICHAEL CARLUCCI requests aone- yearextension to Permit #6299 as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 865 Island View Lane, Southold. Number nine, B. Laing Associates on behalf of VIRGINIA BONTJE requests aone- year extension to Permit #6301 as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 802 Island View Lane, Southold. Number ten, B. Laing Associates on behalf of JOHN MULHOLLAND requests aone- yearextension to Permit #6300 as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 725 Island View Lane, Southold. Number 11, RICHARD BREN requests a Transfer of Permit #6328A from Frank Scavone to Richard Bren as issued on March 22, 2006. Located: 430 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. Number 12, RICHARD BREN requests a Transfer of Permit #1855 from Frank Scavone to Richard Bren as issued on August 31, 1984, and amended on January 18, 2006. Located: 430 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. Number 13, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of MARTIN REGINE requests a Transfer of Permit #4367 from Peter McHugh to Martin Regine and an Amendment to Permit #4367 for the inkind/inplace replacement of the existing stairs and decks/platforms. Located: 675 Hillcrest Drive North, Orient. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 12 January 23, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into our Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits. Second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: In the Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits section, those have been postponed. We'll go into our wetland permits. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: HENRY TRAENDLY & BARBARA CADWALLADER request a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing beach cabana and garage and install afour-foot wide path through the 100' non-disturbance buffer for beach access. Located: 13000 Rt. 25, East Marion. First let me say this was reviewed on January 16 by the CAC. They resolved not to support the application to demolish the existing beach cabana and construct asingle- family dwelling and garage further landward. And I'm looking at LWRP evaluation saying it was found inconsistent to demolish the cabana and construct asingle-family dwelling. It's inconsistent for a number of reasons, appears here. We have been looking at this one for several months now and the applicant has worked with us and has taken the proposed construction of the new house and moved it outside ourjurisdiction. So actually it is now, as designed, it is going to be more than 100 feet, the house, the septic, will all be more than 100 feet from the wetland boundary. So it is now outside ourjurisdiction. What is inside our jurisdiction is limited to the demolition of the old facility and then a narrow path that will be required just for construction access to the site for the building of the new facility. So is there anybody here to speak to behalf of this application or against this application? Please step up to the mic. MR. TOWNSEND: Joe Townsend. I live directly across the road from the proposed project and today at one o'clock I was notified of this hearing by the applicant and I made a call to the office and got the scope of the hearing and so forth. Frankly, I have no objection to a permit to destroy the cabana and garage, although I think it's rather an elaborate description of that building. It's been in a state of increasing - Board of Trustees 13 January 23, 2008 - it will be destroyed by nature within the next year or two, as you probably have seen. It's pretty well falling down. I do want to point out a couple of things on the drawing that may affect this. He mentions here that his plan is to put some fill in. I think he says he has to put two-and-a- half feet of fill to bring this up to ten feet. I believe he's putting the cesspools where the garage is, just I'm not 100% sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually where the existing cabana is, structure is, that's where the proposed septic is. MR. TOWNSEND: One thing I might point out. That property at that location is depressed so it will be more than two-and-a-half feet to bring that up to ten feet. The way the property is graded, from the beach up to the garage, over the years I guess has been an accumulation of sand and things that raised up the elevation right in front of the garage, and where the garage itself, it sits down another two or three feet, so I have no doubt it's seven feet in front of the garage. At the garage it's below. There will have to be more fill brought in there to bring it up to ten-and-a-half feet. The other thing, I noticed he said the width of the property, I don't know if this has any bearing on your decision, he said the width of the property is 38 feet at the water line. Is that where it is? Anyway, I measured the width between the two bulkheads and that is 30 feet. So it's narrower at the front than it is, I mean it's narrower at the waterfront than it is at the road. 1 was here before where he said it was equivalent to the other properties and the other properties, the two small properties in that area, to the west, are both 65 and 66 feet at that same location, so it's not an equivalent property. But having said that, I mean I would have some problems with the house, but as far as your action, it has been water access since for the prior owner. That's what that lot was for. It was for the water access for my neighbor, for the Muse's. And it was offered to me for sale for that purpose and to the Traendly's who owned the house next door, for that purpose. So I was surprised to see an application for a house. But as far as maintaining the property or destroying this, leveling the garage, I have no objection to that being allowed except as the first step toward building a house on that property. TRUSTEE KING: I think there were a couple of other issues he has to address. One is zoning and the side yard setbacks and also the Health Department, they require the septic to be a certain amount of feet above ground water. He may have to put a retaining wall around that. We seen them put the concrete retaining walls around the septic systems, so. He has a way to go. MR. TOWNSEND: I know he does. As far as investing money, he doesn't have much now. I know what he paid for it. It was too much for me to pay for it. But my concern is he gets invested in this and it creates an incentive to go on. TRUSTEE KING: What we have seen also is to get the permits in place and they sell the property with the permits in place. That happens. MR. TOWNSEND: That happens. TRUSTEE KING: I've seen that quite a few times, it's going to be my retirement home and as soon as the permits are in hand, they sell it. MR. TOWNSEND: He had the place next door on a half acre of land. Very nice home. Thank you. Boazd of Trustees 14 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Seeing none, again, what makes this a little confusing, when it was reviewed under LWRP and reviewed by the CAC, it was, it appeared to be an application for demolition of one structure and construction of another structure and septic, and what it's been is it's been moved outside ourjurisdiction. So really we have non-jurisdiction over what is proposed for the new structure and the septic. What we would be approving tonight is the demolition of the old structure and then the opportunity for an area for construction equipment only. Because the entire structure will be outside our jurisdiction. On the plan that I'm looking at that is dated December 21, it shows the proposed septic, the closest, 108 feet with the structure beyond that. The structure is 120 feet. So what I would propose is to approve this -- the old structure was the 101 feet. So if we had it 101 feet, between 101 and 120 -- in other words a 20-foot area there for construction equipment to get in that is outside the 100 foot mark between 101 and 120, that that would suffice for construction, which, again, technically is outside our jurisdiction. But that's what I would propose. TRUSTEE KING: And a row of hay bales seaward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. A row of hay bales at that 100 foot point to keep debris in place, again, right at our jurisdictional line. That gives them 21 feet. 100 would give them 21 feet of room there, which would be sufficient room for them to work. Yes, sir? MR. TOWNSEND: Would this permit you are giving him allow him to put the septic in that 20 foot area? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's outside yourjurisdiction. MR. TOWNSEND: Where the garage is now is outside your jurisdiction? That's over -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Where the proposed septic is, is outside our jurisdiction. It's proposed to be 108 feet away from the wetland boundary. It will be under what is currently, where the current structure is, he wants to tear down. It's within that footprint. Inside that footprint is where he's proposing the septic to go. MR. TOWNSEND: It seems it's a bit close to the beach. You looked at it and saw the types of things growing there. I took pictures. There is a lot of driftwood up around in front of the garage. I didn't know whether it was outside of -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you like, you can step up for a second. I'll show you the plan we are looking at. MR. TOWNSEND: Sorry, I know you have a lot on your agenda. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. Here is the current structure. So he's going to tear this down and up in here is where the septic is going. So it's all outside. MR. TOWNSEND: Where is the wetland? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Farther down. MR. TOWNSEND: That's the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We took our measurement from -- MR. TOWNSEND: There is a grade here. There is vegetation in front of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We understand that. MR. TOWNSEND: I guess the wetland, you looked at that. Board of Trustees 15 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we all looked at that. TRUSTEE KING: If you read the description it reads like there is two buildings. There is not two buildings there. It's one dilapidated building. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Call it a garage or cabana. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is just how the applicant explained it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To demolish existing garage is what they are saying. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just take that out and make it a garage. And scratch the, in the letter of non jurisdiction, the garage will not be included in there. MS. HULSE: Jim, are you doing an amendment to that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's proposing a new garage? TRUSTEE KING: Where will he put a new garage? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Either or. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought he was telling me -- TRUSTEE KING: He hardly has room for a house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments. MS. HULSE: Jim, are you making a motion to amend for that purpose, to clarifying that language? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. We have to clean this up. Reread the description and delete beach cabana. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to do that in the approval resolution. TRUSTEE KING: He'll do that in the resolution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that okay? MS. HULSE: If that's the way you want to do it. That's fine. As long as everybody marks it up and Wayne gets it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve a wetland permit for Henry Traendly and Barbara Cadwallader to demolish an existing garage, install afour-foot path through the 100 foot non-disturbance buffer for beach access with a condition that will allow a construction area -- an area for equipment to go through from the 101 foot mark on the survey dated January 3, 2007. There will be a hay bale line requested at the 101 foot line. This way all activity and all construction will take place outside our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just make it at the 100 foot line, the hay bale line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This will be per the survey dated 1/30/07. January 30, 2007. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you say hay bales? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it includes the hay bale line, includes the construction area, we cleaned up the language so we are demolishing existing garage and installing afour-foot wide path. TRUSTEE KING: There is a garage there now being demolished but he'll build a home. A house, not a garage (Perusing). MS. HULSE: So scratch that out (indicating.) TRUSTEE KING: Reading the letter of non-jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't get there yet. Board of Trustees 16 January 23, 2008 MS. HULSE: Aren't you making a motion to pass this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you including the letter of non-jurisdiction in this resolution? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was stating that the proposed residence and septic system is all outside our jurisdiction so we'll do a letter of non-jurisdiction to address that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which does not include a garage. MS. HULSE: I want to make this reflect what his motion is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You want this in the motion? MS. HULSE: If you read it, just clarify this is in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The resolution that has been proposed to be voted on is Henry Traendly and Barbara Cadwallader requesting a wetland permit to demolish existing garage and install four-foot wide path through 100 foot non-disturbance buffer for beach access. We are requesting hay bale lines at the 100 foot mark, all construction activity to be limited to between the proposed residence, which is at the 120 feet, as per the 120 foot mark as per this site plan survey dated 1/30/07. It will issue a letter of non-jurisdiction for the construction of the new dwelling and sanitary system, which is, as previously stated, is outside our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm confused, Dave. Are we stipulating the construction area outside our jurisdiction? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there is a construction area with a hay bale line at 100 feet right at the limits of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there is hay bale at 100 feet, I don't care what they do outside of ourjurisdiction. How can you stipulate something that is not in ourjurisdiction? MS. HULSE: The hay bale line is within your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the hay bale line is at our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where is the construction area you are talking about? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just making it very clear the construction area will be limited to outside our jurisdiction from the 120 foot mark to the 100 foot mark so it's clear for the applicant that he can't utilize the area seaward of the 100 foot mark for construction or construction activity. TRUSTEE KING: You are going to limit him to 20 feet then. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How can you say 20 feet to 120 is outside -- TRUSTEE KING: He did clear the rest of the lot that is outside our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. I'm trying to make it clear that the activity cannot, the activity is limited to outside our jurisdiction as per this survey from the 100 foot mark landward. That's all I'm trying to clarify. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In other words anon-disturbance of the 100 feet is non- disturbance, nothing can be disturbed. All activity is 100 feet beyond the 100 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So why are we mentioning construction zone from 101 to 120? TRUSTEE KING: That's my question, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just trying to make it clear. That's all I'm trying to do. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's muddying the waters more than it's making it clear. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would somebody like to propose a new resolution? TRUSTEE KING: Just do the resolution and disregard the 20 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just say all activity to be beyond 100 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Line of hay bales at 100 feet and letter of non-jurisdiction for the construction of the new dwelling. Keep it simple. Board of Trustees 17 January 23, 2008 MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, can we still keep the CAC recommendations even though it's outside your jurisdiction but it is within the CAC jurisdiction? Can we still keep our wording in there and our recommendations on this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's part of the record. Yes. MR. MCGREEVY: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll withdraw that resolution and I'll try one more time. I'll make a resolution to approve Henry Traendly and Barbara Cadwallader requesting a wetland permit to demolish existing garage, install four-foot wide path through the 100 foot non-disturbance buffer for beach access, row of hay bale line is at the hundred foot mark as per the survey dated January 30, 2007, and a letter of non-jurisdiction for the construction of the new dwelling, garage and sanitary system -- sorry, non-jurisdiction for the construction of a new dwelling and sanitary system. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Architecnologies on behalf of RICHARD & MARY LOU MANFREDI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing wood deck around the existing pool; remove decking and deck framing as necessary; install new motorized pool cover and install new 48" estate fence around pool area, house and garden area. Located: 170 Hilltop Path, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro, I'm here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Manfredi who are also present this evening. I would like to answer any questions you may have regarding this proposal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have our LWRP review it as consistent. CAC did not make an inspection however recommended all drainage be contained on the property, and I would add to that as per our new Drainage Code 236. Our environmental technician made a comment that the fence be kept out of the wetland area and that there be a buffer to the wetland area, but I believe on our inspection there is a road that would prevent that from happening MR. NOTARO: Yes. The intent -- I didn't prepare the landscape plan itself and the fence but I believe the purpose is, people can drive all over that open area right now and the Manfredi's are only trying to get a little privacy, a little identity to the property at this point and, again, the fence serves as the fence around the pool enclosure, too, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just noticed there was a gas tank underground there. Is that permitted and was it installed recently? MR. NOTARO: I honestly, I'm feigning ignorance on that at this point. On the survey, where exactly is that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll add it to this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll add it so it's permitted in. MR. NOTARO: All right. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak? (No response.) Any Board members? (No response.) Board of Trustees 18 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland application for Richard and Mary Lou Manfredi for their deck around the pool, motorized pool cover and 48" of estate fence, and we'll include an existing buried gas tank. Second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Craig Larsen on behalf of JOHN 8~ VALERIE KRAMER requests a Wetland Permit to install a 103' long armor stone wall revetment on filter fabric, backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards clean sand from an upland source, and plant beach grass 10' landward of stone wall. Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. This is found consistent with LWRP and the Board agrees with that. And the CAC supports the application. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to speak to this application? MR. LARSEN: Craig Larsen on behalf of John and Valerie Kramer. I do have a plan. I received a call just the other day to get you this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that the planting? MR. LARSEN: No, this is the whole thing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The DEC thing. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you MR. LARSEN: You're welcome, Jim. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is this for us to keep or do you want it back? MR. LARSEN: Actually, I have another I found. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is an original stamp, that's why. We'll photocopy it and give it back to you. We just want to make sure that we are approving the same plan. MR. LARSEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: We'll copy it right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Board went out and looked at this. I don't think we had any questions or problems. We were satisfied with the ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the rock wall. I didn't know if you were doing any other plantings within the rocks. Did we talk about that? Does the Board have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does anyone else have any comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to mention at the beginning of the Power Point there was a revetment that was shown as a stabilized improvement to the shoreline and it was actually just south of this property, so it would be a nice improvement to continuing that along the shoreline. TRUSTEE KING: I think this new one will be landward of that. It's coming in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because he's lost so much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. All right, hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Board of Trustees 19 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before you get to your motion, I'll recuse myself from this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Craig Larsen on behalf of John and Valerie Kramer as applied for with the note that, with the ten-foot non- turf buffer behind the wall, planted buffer, and note for the record that Dave Bergen recused himself. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: PAMELA J. WILLIAMS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 101 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace (inplace) approximately 16 linear feet of existing timber retaining wall and remove remaining portions of wall; construct a 10x16' deck and afour-foot wood walkway along bulkhead; backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and reconstruct existing deck and stairs (inplace) as necessary. Located: 1110 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. This is except from LWRP. How is this exempt, Lori? Most of it is being proposed inkind and inplace, but there is a new structure. MS. HULSE: I think this was inconsistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's existing. TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt in my notes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's existing and being replaced but there is one portion of the deck that is -- TRUSTEE KING: This has been as exempt but there is a lot of addition going on to this, right? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants for the applicant. The only new structure that is proposed is the 10X16 deck on the landward side of the bulkhead, and afour-foot walkway along the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did have a question on the decking. TRUSTEE KING: The question was on the size of the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: First of all, you are planning on keeping the existing decking, right? MR. HERMAN: There is an existing deck that is shared with the neighboring property to the east. In order to facilitate the replacement of the bulkhead, that deck will have to be cut at the property line, the standing portion on the flip side will be braced and saved. There is no proposal by the Williams' to make any alterations to the Flick property. TRUSTEE KING: Will that section be replaced? MR. HERMAN: Not the Flick section, no. The section on the Williams' property will be replaced inkind and inplace. In other words it will look exactly, other than newer, it will look exactly at the end of the day as it does now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The deck area? MR. HERMAN: The deck that is shared with Flick, correct. Then there is a proposed 10X16 expansion to that deck behind the bulkhead for recreation. I mean it's not much different. Board of Trustees 20 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Will those be attached? Basically what you are saying is there will be 25 feet of decking behind the bulkhead when it's all said and done. MR. HERMAN: Where do you get 25 feet from? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The existing deck we measured to be about nine feet. We estimated on his property. MR. HERMAN: Okay. I can give with you that, what that number is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you are adding 16 feet. MR. HERMAN: Yes, it's about eight feet to the property line, so it would be a total of 24 feet to the property line. Now that, the new portion of the deck, though, would be set really at grade as an extension of that side. That now really provides primarily access down to the water. I mean there is a sitting area there but the platform as you could see in the pictures comes out and provides stairs to the beach. So that has to be replaced no matter what. But the expansion is really within that existing flat area. There is a retaining wall that exists now. Only the portion, only the 16 foot portion that would be behind this deck will remain. That area otherwise will remain as a non-turf buffer up to the top of the slope. So it's purely a recreational deck. I mean there is no other purpose for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We usually don't like it that big. MR. HERMAN: It's similar to what was approved for Kitt, Bahr, that's what I based it on. I kept it around basically the same dimensions. Pamela Williams is here if you want to ask her about the size of the deck or what the use will be. She would be willing to cut it back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just thinking a couple we approved; along Nassau Point, we made someone reduce their decking when they were replacing it. MR. HERMAN: There has been no consistent standard that I know of from the Board as far as what the deck size of something like this can be. I think it varied between applications and, as I said, I based this on a couple of others that we had approvals for in fact reduced from what they originally asked us to propose hoping it would be in line. Again, Ms. Williams is here if you want to speak to the Board and discuss the size of the deck, I would rather you ask her than me because it's for her use. MS. HULSE: Just to respond, it would seem to me a new deck would trigger review under LWRP. I don't agree with that but I'm not sure why he would consider that a replacement, because it's not. That's an oversight. MR. HERMAN: Is it square footage? MS. HULSE: It's not a true replacement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any new construction -- MR. HERMAN: Anything that requires the Trustees permit is by law inconsistent with LWRP. Any landward work anyway, any work landward of the wetlands, unless it's more than 100 feet away, will be inconsistent. MS. HULSE: He's indicating an exemption. I'm not really sure why that would be if there is no decking. TRUSTEE KING: He indicates he said it's exempt because it's all being replaced inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can find it, you know, we don't have to agree with his exemption. MS. HULSE: But you are not going to unilaterally review it on your own if he exempted himself, I would imagine, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you saying it has to go back to him? Board of Trustees 21 January 23, 2008 MS. HULSE: I'm saying he needs to review it. If you want to send it back to him for review, he determined it's exempted, so you are not making a recommendation. So if you want to have him reconsider it because you think there is an oversight, I would send it back to him for review. MR. HERMAN: I would grant if it goes back to him for review it will come back inconsistent. So let's pretend that's what happened and let the Board use its head. TRUSTEE KING: These are some of the sticky points that has been going on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can either accept his exemption or send it back. That's our choices. MS. HULSE: Exactly. That's your choices. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think it's fair to the applicant that he gets put, they get put off for a month because of the error on the town's part here. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think we would mitigate it by reducing the size of the deck and finding it consistent. MS. HULSE: I don't think -- my point to you, if you want to bring to their attention again and you think they really do have review power over this, I think they do. 1'll look at this. I believe they do. That's, you know. It would be appropriate, from the town's perspective. MR. HERMAN: Jill, did the Board have a size in mind? I mean if we cut the length of that back down to say 14 feet or 12 feet? Reduce it by 25%, is there some, I mean, I think probably the depth of it is more important to the owner than the length of it because you have to have some depth there in order to have chairs or whatever, you know, what people typically do on a deck that is on the bay front. But understandably, Imean, it's almost arbitrary how long the thing becomes. So if you wanted to reduce that say back down to 10x12 and get it down to 120 square feet instead of 160, it's about a 25% reduction from what is proposed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be happy with that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to give my thoughts on this. We are continuously trying to reduce structure and I think some of the conversations that we had out there was the need for the decking and the need for, I'm not clear on the wall that is there, retaining wall that is there, will it be removed and replaced? MR. HERMAN: There is a retaining wall that runs -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, it ties into my comment, when we were there, there was a lot of the discussion I recall it is right now a very well vegetated area. It might not be the vegetation you would prefer but it is a very well vegetated area. I would be very hesitant to add any new structure to that since there is already access and could see replacing where replacement is needed but I would not be inclined to see any further structure there because it is a well vegetated bluff that we are often trying to encourage property owners to have. So that's from my perspective. MR. HERMAN: I guess my only response to that would be that the Williams' have, unlike many homeowners along the Peconic Bay front, have left that area natural and to be vegetated as opposed to clearing it and keeping it sandy, which is what a lot of my clients do. So I would hate to see them punished for that as far as to say well, if you always kept an area cleared then it's okay to put back whatever but if you did a good job and kept it vegetated we won't let you have a deck like half your neighbors have. So from a philosophical perspective I would argue for their ability to put something back there. I think Board of Trustees 22 January 23, 2008 if you disallow any new deck there, that would be wildly inconsistent with what you've approved on many, many, applications where homeowners are allowed to install not just replacement decks but new decks behind bulkheads. I mean every month I sit here and watch applicants get approvals for new decks behind bulkheads that are in non-turf buffer areas or areas where there is maybe even a ten foot non-turf buffer. Here you basically have a generally 30-foot wide non-turf buffer going up to the top of the slope that, as you point out, is well vegetated. We are really not proposing to change anything except to provide this, you know, recreational sitting deck next to the access deck that is there. Again, I think we are willing to reduce the size of it if that makes it more palatable to the Board. TRUSTEE KING: I just looked at this, Rob, and if that seaward edge of the deck is 15 feet, including the original part, that gives you a 10x15 deck and that reduced the proposed deck by just about in half. MR. HERMAN: Say that again, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: Give yourself 15 feet on the seaward edge, including the old deck. That knocks the new deck just about in half. Right? MR. HERMAN: I see what you are saying, extend it to the property line. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because that will be replaced anyway, right? That gives you 10x15. MR. HERMAN: Keep that basically at grade behind the bulkhead and then extend that, which creates a 10x15 total. Pam, let me show you. Jim, what if you say then it would be the expansion, the new portion would be 10x8 instead of 10X16, which cuts it in half. TRUSTEE KING: You are trying to get me confused. MR. HERMAN: I think I just said differently what you said. If I cut eight feet. In other words, forget the ten feet. That's the depth. But the 16, if we cut that in half and made that eight feet. TRUSTEE KING: Fine. I see what you are saying. Okay. MR. HERMAN: Then the width that is there now varies. It's around eight feet, so you would have, you would have 10X16 total rather than 10X16 new on top of what is there. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't either. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm comfortable. TRUSTEE KING: That's reasonable. MR. HERMAN: In other words, we are chopping in half the proposed expansion. TRUSTEE KING: Right. Now can we get into this retaining wall? MR. HERMAN: The retaining wall runs along -- TRUSTEE KING: It looks like it's all railroad ties, creosote railroad ties. MR. HERMAN: Yes. It will be removed. The area that was disturbed will be replanted. The only portion of that wall that would be re-installed in place will be immediately on the back side of this deck that we just cut in half. So it would also reduce that 16 foot retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: You'll remove those ties and they won't be replaced? MR. HERMAN: Correct. Because it's not really necessary. The way the slope is. TRUSTEE KING: That was my thought; why not just leave it alone. MR. HERMAN: The way the cliff is vegetated, it's a gradual enough slope you don't need a structure. But it will be needed on the back side of the deck otherwise every time you Board of Trustees 23 January 23, 2008 have a rain it will spill all the soil on to the deck. So there will a short retaining wall. You can see it in the plan. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a planting plan for that area? MR. HERMAN: Yes, the entire area that, because remember we ran into this on Bahr, where there was no replanting worked into the permit, then the site was worked and then left. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. HERMAN: So the entire area that is disturbed would be replanted and in the notes it says non-turf buffer to be maintained on presently vegetated slope, areas disturbed during construction to be replaced with native vegetation; example, beach grass, bayberry, Virginia rose, etc. It won't be replanted with phragmites. Although that may -- TRUSTEE KING: I would hope not. What about the black pines, will they be thrown out or replaced, the healthy ones down the end there? MR. HERMAN: If they are immediately in the back fill area they'll get lost. The ones further up the slope and over to the side, I wouldn't think they would want to disturb that area. But I don't remember the exact locations of each of the pines. It shouldn't take a lot of disturbance to pull out that old retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: That was my only concern is so much disruption of taking that wall out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave was just mentioning that the 16 foot, to replace 16 foot existing timber retaining wall, now that we reduced it, we reduced that to eight. MR. HERMAN: Correct. That's all we are saying is the only purpose to replacing any of the retaining wall would serve is to stabilize the back side of the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure here? Any other concerns? MR. HERMAN: Now you have your new deck less than a hundred square feet, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think with the reduction of the deck and reduction of the retaining wall, we reduced the structure in there. I think it's acceptable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. MR. HERMAN: Lori, isn't there some kind of square footage threshold in 268 for exemptions even for new structures if it's below a certain square footage? MS. HULSE: I'm not sure. I have to look. MR. HERMAN: I only mention it because if it's the case then the Board will have modified this so under 268 it would not have to go back regardless. TRUSTEE KING: I just want to make sure that that bluff is really planted up and well vegetated. You know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have LWRP in your code book? (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP is chapter 268. Is that what you are questioning? TRUSTEE KING: Is this non-jurisdiction for DEC? MR. HERMAN: We've asked for it. It should be. The bulkhead predates 77. The permit for the bulkhead replaces. You need their permit. But we've asked for anon-jurisdiction for everything behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we keep this open and move on while he researches that? MR. HERMAN: I know where it is. MS. HULSE: If you could go to the next one, I'll go look. Board of Trustees 24 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keep this hearing open and just set it aside for a few minutes, all right? TRUSTEE KING: We'll go on to the next one and come back to this one. We'll set this aside. We'll keep it open but move on and do some of these other ones while we are waiting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT FRIEMANN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 18.3'x10.2' one-story addition on east side of existing dwelling, a 30'x20.1' two-story addition on the north side of dwelling, asecond-story addition on existing dwelling, new two-car garage with mudroom, porch and deck additions to an existing one-story, one-family dwelling; remove existing concrete patio; install a drainage system of drywells; and remove an existing sanitary system to be replaced with an upgraded sanitary system located a minimum of 100 feet from wetlands. Remove and replace (inplace) an existing timber retaining wall with a stone retaining wall to be raised 18" to elevation 9.5' MSL; place approximately 60 cubic yards clean sand landward of new retaining wall to decrease the slope between the dwelling and shoreline; and establish over same area a 23-40 foot wide and approximately 3,126 square foot non-turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation in place of the existing lawn. Located: 2935 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. It sounds a whole lot more complicated than it is. CAC's comments on this, they resolve to support the application. And they are supporting the application with the condition that a plan is submitted for all trees above eight inches in diameter and efforts are made to remove as few trees as possible. LWRP finds it inconsistent for the following reasons: The distance from the retaining wall to the proposed deck is 24 feet. The distance from the retaining wall to the proposed two-story addition is 37 feet. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet from wetland line is required as per Chapter 275. If the application is approved and to further policy number five under LWRP, they are requiring, they suggest we require a pervious driveway to increase filtering capacity for runoff; require non-chemically treated lumber for the deck; require a planting plan that specifies the plants in the proposed buffer. The Board went out there and saw this during our inspections. We were happy to find that the place you are proposing the cesspools is out of our jurisdiction. I see that on the plans. I think that we saw there was a shed that was actually sitting on the other side of the retaining wall in the wetlands. MR. HERMAN: That's being taken out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's being taken out, as I understand. That certainly helps mitigate the project. I think that putting that proposed deck that you see there, which is basically replacing the turf, in that particular area, I would suggest perhaps if you can make sure that we have ahalf-inch gap between the boards so we are increasing our permeability in that area. It's better than having turf. That will help mitigate this for LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Non-treated lumber is okay for the deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's my comments at the moment. Any other comments, anybody who would like to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is one of these, again, that is inevitably inconsistent with LWRP because it proposes additions and Board of Trustees 25 January 23, 2008 renovations to a house that is already less than 100 feet from the wetlands. However, to me it, again, it's a strange way to implement this code because what you are getting as part of this extension is an upgrade of the existing sanitary system and a landward relocation of same. You are having a drainage system of drywells installed that does not currently exist and a pretty nice non-turf buffer. I have worked with the applicant who has the luxury of being related to a local plant master and we have come up with a plan where basically that entire rear yard which is and has always been turf, for decades, will be replaced with a really nice looking native planting scheme for the entire yard. In my mind that's what the LWRP should be telling people to do. So I'll say for the ad nauseam time the fact that this project is considered inconsistent with LWRP befuddles me. I think the end product will actually be a pretty good one and you are really getting a lot of environmental mitigation with the project which is basically really just a typical expansion of an existing structure where the only expansion on the water side, again, as Bob mentioned, is the deck. And I think certainly the implementation of that buffer, which would not otherwise be implemented except for this renovation, certainly mitigates whatever impact that might have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, I know that the LWRP mentioned the pervious driveway. Is the driveway going to be changed at all? MR. HERMAN: The driveway is actually out of the Trustees' jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just asking if it will remain the same. MR. HERMAN: It will remain an impervious driveway. The driveway will be changed but it will be an impervious driveway. But the other suggestions for mitigation that relate to work that is actually within the scope of the permit application in Mark's report I think is fine. The gapping of the decking that Bob mentioned should be included in the permit. The use of non-treated materials for the deck should be included in the permit. The plantings plan, I think maybe I can come up with a planting plan. I think I'll have to come up with a planting plan for that scope of a buffer anyway so that I could certainly provide that to you before it's done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, concerns? (No response.) I motion that we close the hearing. MR. HERMAN: If you want, I could notate your plans that the shed is to be permanently removed. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second closing the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application as is spelled out as to number five, Robert Friemann, and that we add the following stipulation to the driveway. The new driveway is to be native and pervious material. MR. HERMAN: Yes, it will, but it's not part -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's out of our jurisdiction, sorry. We'll make the stipulation the decking on the new deck will be non-treated lumber and there will be half-inch gaps between the deck slats to increase the ability for water to drain through. That the shed is being removed, and that by doing these things would really help to mitigate the project so Board of Trustees 26 January 23, 2008 it would be acceptable for LWRP and that we'll find it consistent with LWRP. And a planting plan will be submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Was there a CAC? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC approved it. They wanted to see plans submitted for all trees above eight inch in diameter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. HULSE: So we addressed the prior question that Rob had. There is no minimal amount of building that would trigger an exemption under LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Maybe there should be one. Have you closed Friemann? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we approved it. TRUSTEE KING: We'll go back to the PAMELA J. WILLIAMS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST issue. MR. HERMAN: My sense is that if it were, I mean it sounds to me that despite the LWRP coordinator's determination that it was exempt, this Board deemed that it was not and that you felt as proposed, it was inconsistent, and with the reduction in the deck that then you could deem it consistent. I mean, you, as I keep being told, you are the Board that makes that formal determination so I would rather not lose a month because of an oversight that we know -- I guess what I would ask is, assuming that he will say it's inconsistent, and he wouldn't. But say that he did, is that going to change what you have already discussed tonight? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was my point. But from what I understand from with what Lori is saying, he legally has to review it. Is that -- MS. HULSE: It's his recommendation to make and thus far he's considered it exempt, so either you go with the fact it's exempted and make your decision and not -- TRUSTEE KING: Even though it's exempt, we can still downsize the deck. MS. HULSE: You can do whatever you want if it's exempt. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just move forward and go through with this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: We'll worry about the nitpicking later on. MR. MCGREEVY: Can CAC make a recommendation, if it's applicable, on the surfaces on the deck, if it serves a positive purpose, to be vinyl graded. If it serves the purpose. I haven't seen the property so I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. I don't think there is any vegetation in there to be concerned about under the deck area. It could be untreated lumber. MR. HERMAN: If you want to use untreated lumber, that's fine. It won't be in the water so it shouldn't in theory matter, in practice, but. TRUSTEE KING: CAC did recommend approval as submitted. Like I said, my big concern was all that retaining wall being removed and all the disturbance going on there, but if it's going to be done properly and replanted. Board of Trustees 27 January 23, 2008 MR. HERMAN: Pam, is Steve doing the work? ff you want to set up apre-construction inspection, Jim, Steve Pollack is doing the work. TRUSTEE KING: Who is doing the planting? MR. HERMAN: That, I don't know. We discussed, you understand, that after the work is done, that whole slope that is disturbed has to be replanted. TRUSTEE KING: I think we want to see a planting plan detailed. We'll approve this but subject to bringing us something. MR. HERMAN: The only problem with that, I don't know that I could bring that before the construction work is actually done because I don't know what, that's why I was suggesting the inspection because you could get a sense of what he's going to mess with and what's not, so. TRUSTEE KING: We could do that. MR. HERMAN: So I suggest to stage it in some way. Obviously Steve won't do the plantings. Once he does the bulkhead replacement, you could require that -- TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we, we'll do an inspection of it after the bulkhead is repaired and put in place. We'll go back and look. MR. HERMAN: I'll suggest a couple of people to Pam that will do the plantings. TRUSTEE KING: You understand my concern. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that's why I showed it on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: All right. Are there any other comments from anybody else? (Negative response.) The Board, anybody? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 1'll make a motion to approve the application and there will bean inspection after the construction of the bulkhead to determine what needs to be planted in that disturbed area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are approving it with the changes? TRUSTEE KING: The proposed deck will be downsized, as we talked about. It will be 10x8 will be the new section of deck. Can you give us another set of plans showing that, Rob? MR. HERMAN: I also don't think I show that boardwalk on the plan view. I have to add that. It's on the cross view but -- TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, reduction of the retaining walls also, by eight feet. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that will all be indicated on the new plans. MR. HERMAN: I'll change the plans and submit a cover that details each of the changes. TRUSTEE KING: I'll motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. Boazd of Trustees 28 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Bill Gorman on behalf of EVE SEBER requests a Wetland Permit to construct asecond-floor addition to the existing dwelling and shift north foundation wall back toward the south to square off the new construction. Located: 3025 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent with the provision that gutters, downspouts, drywells to contain roof runoff be included and that a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bluff to protect the bluff and creek be included. And it was reviewed by CAC. They resolved to support the application as described. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. GORMAN: Bill Gorman on behalf of Eve Seber. I'm a little surprised that I got a call from Jill yesterday, so I had a whole thing. That won't be necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have any comments right now? MR. GORMAN: You support it, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, CAC supported it and LWRP found it consistent. We have not talked about what we saw while we were out there yet. I'm just asking if right now you had any comments to make. If not, you can hold your comments. MR. GORMAN: There is a slight variation here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Mr. Gorman yesterday with regard to our comments on the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wasn't part of those comments, so -- MR. GORMAN: If you look at the site plan, that's the overall, that's a long term plan of the project. You were all out at the house and saw the wedge-shaped structure. And maybe I was hoping you would all agree that something needs to be done. It's an awkward house. The question mark on your third bullet there, is that, you are wondering why we didn't square it off going forward rather than into that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's simply a comment that came from the inspection. It's not a determination. MR. GORMAN: I understand. But you are implying that perhaps you might be agreeable to us pushing the foundation forward rather than backward? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, we were a little confused is what it was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The request here is to shift the north foundation wall back toward the south and that is shifting it actually landward rather than seaward. So you want to move the foundation landward, we understand. MR. GORMAN: That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: And the seaward expansion on the other side of the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. That's the confusion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What he's moving landward is on the seaward side. His description, he's talking about here the deck is being bumped out but the foundation is being put in. TRUSTEE KING: Isn't this the house that is there now? This configuration? Isn't that the front of the house? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's the seaward side of the house. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe I'm missing something. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The front meaning seaward. Is that what you are saying? TRUSTEE KING: The red cross hatched area. MR. GORMAN: The red cross hatched area, but let me show you. That Board of Trustees 29 January 23, 2008 is a little confusing. I did that for an area calculation. This is the house right here. TRUSTEE KING: The existing foundation. MR. GORMAN: That's the existing foundation. TRUSTEE KING: So I'm saying there will be an expansion seaward on the seaward side of the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Go to the next one. You are right. This is going closer to the water. MR. GORMAN: But we have a seven square foot positive again to the foundation going seaward. TRUSTEE KING: You are taking it away from this side and added it to this side. MR. GORMAN: Right. But I should say first, initially we wanted to square it off to the seaward side. But because now we made the house that much smaller, right, so we had to add the length, you know, the clients agreed, by moving the foundation wall landward that they would go through the additional expense to add to the foundation on the other side of the house, on the south side of the house, to make up the difference in the square footage loss. We were doing that in hopes that you would accept a deck that didn't go any farther than the point that the deck already existed. We are just adding -- more of the deck hits that closest point. More of the deck is seaward, but we are not going farther than that. And there is a structure that is more seaward anyway, the platform that the two stairways come down on. So this is not even the closest structure to the wetlands TRUSTEE KING: Are you moving that one big tree there, Bill? MR. GORMAN: It's hollow, a good part of it. Not that tree. Not that. The one in the back. TRUSTEE KING: The one in the back you'll lose. You'll maintain the one big one, though. MR. GORMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about building around it. That will be maintained, it looks like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, because I mentioned that to him. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what we are doing, in essence, is squaring off the house, and to do so we are moving in part the foundation back landward and then also in another corner it's actually going a little seaward, so the whole thing is squared off as per this site plan that you submitted tonight dated December, 2007. MR. GORMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. GORMAN: And this deck, of course, all the sod will be removed and they are agreeable to removing the rest of the sod and planting it with native grasses. So there will be no sod in the backyard at all. Except on the side where, it would actually be the east side where the pool side is, on that side lawn, will still be sod. But Board of Trustees 30 January 23, 2008 from the new deck, from the new deck north toward the wetland, that will all be removed and planted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because in the LWRP recommendation there was a 15-foot non-turf buffer and what you are saying is essentially that will all be non-turf buffer in there, it will just be natural plantings in there. MR. GORMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So anything to the seaward side of this proposed squared off house will be non-turf buffer with the exception of that area you had said it's actually to the west, the pool side is of the house is to the west side. MR. GORMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would meet the LWRP's recommendation, along with the use of gutters and drywells to bring us into compliance with Drainage Code 236 MR. GORMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions or comments from the Board on this one? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking at the field notes, I don't see anything else in the field notes that we have not addressed. TRUSTEE KING: It will be sod on the west side of the house, where it's showing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He'll keep the sod here and this will all be non-turf here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maintain the lawn that is on the west side you are saying. MR. GORMAN: On the west side up to the retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He'll maintain this lawn. What about making ten feet behind the retaining wall to do non-turf. MR. GORMAN: Certainly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are willing to do that? MR. GORMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the west side? MR. GORMAN: West side, ten feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the west of the walkway that is already established there that goes down to the water, to the property line. Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with saving those trees and doing the whole lawn non-turf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with the one tree -- MR. GORMAN: The one tree. The other tree in the corner is hollow. That's got to go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. When what about the other tree behind that, landward of that? Board of Trustees 31 January 23, 2008 MR. GORMAN: We'll either build around it or behind it. We won't remove that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are just removing the one in the middle. MR. GORMAN: I don't think actually, this tree, when I saw this, I just didn't have time to change it back. But I think it's in the wrong place. It's actually in front, it will be in front of the deck. That one is gone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So basically you are anticipating removing one tree. MR. GORMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is drainage addressed in there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I already said. There will be drainage, gutters, leaders, drywells to address drainage under Chapter 236. And there are no other comments from the Board. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number six, Bill Gorman on behalf of Eve Seber as described with the additional conditions of gutters, leaders leading to dnrwells around the house to comply with Chapter 236 Drainage Code and the inclusion that there will be, it will be a non-turf buffer between the proposed house and seaward to the top of the bluff with the exception to the west of the structure, that will remain a lawn, except we'll include a ten foot non-turf buffer on that western side piece of lawn that is there to the west of the current pathway going from the house down to the water to the property line, the western property line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. GORMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll ask for revised plans showing the, noting the non-turf buffer and the ten foot buffer and the drywells. MR. GORMAN: We'll do a site plan when that comes for the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, submit that and we'll sign it. MR. GORMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven, I JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of YVETTE LANG EINCZIG requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace, inplace, 128 linear feet of existing smooth faced bulkhead with 128 feet of navy style bulkhead, backfill with five cubic yards of sand to be trucked in from an upland source and establish aten-foot buffer area extending the length of the Board of Trustees 32 January 23, 2008 bulkhead to be kept in a natural state. Located: 3055 Wells Road, Southold. MR. JUST: Glenn Just, agent for the applicant. Any questions from the Board or the public? TRUSTEE KING: I have a question, Glenn. What's the difference between a smooth faced bulkhead and a navy bulkhead? Navy style has the piles out in front MR. JUST: Piles and the whalers on the seaward side. And smooth face, everything is on the landward side. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought. The Board doesn't quite understand the difference. That's the difference, just the style of the construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You didn't either. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what we said it was. Navy style is what we usually see. We just don't have it identified as navy style. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we never -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's using technical terms on us. We have LWRP that has it exempt and CAC observed that wave reflection off the bulkhead has destroyed the tidal marsh. You see a few structures in the picture. However it supports the application with the condition the marsh is restored and a 30-foot non-turf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead. MR. JUST: I think the last time this permit was, this permit had been issued by the Trustees a couple of years ago and it expired. The last time the Trustees asked for aten-foot, non-disturbance buffer. If you look at that property, the way it pitches down to the top of the bulkhead, it's pretty tough to even have a lawn in there to begin with. The picture doesn't do it justice. But it does drop off from the house down. Again, 30, I would have to go back to the client with. The ten that was approved last time was acceptable. It's just a repeat application of a permit that has expired. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the feeling of the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with aten-foot buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't either. MR. JUST: And as far as that marsh there, I would have to question, I want to go back and take a look. This is the first time it's pointed out. I could see the big expanse with no vegetation on it but I would like to take a look at it. If it means throwing a little toe armor to break up the wave energy, we could probably do that. I would like to take a second look at it. TRUSTEE KING: That's going to be replaced with vinyl, Glenn? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want me to include that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was well inside the creek, right? MR. JUST: Yes. About three or four houses up from the bridge, if Board of Trustees 33 January 23, 2008 I'm not mistaken. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know whether there will be that much wave energy in there if it's that narrow of an opening and way up inside the creek. MR. JUST: Except for boat waves. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, personally, I don't see the need for toe armor in there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about some plantings along the toe of the bulkhead after replacing it and see if it would come back naturally. See if it takes. Just a strip of alterna flora. MR. JUST: Okay. Let me go back down there and take some measurements. We could do some plantings down there. MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, I do question that ten-foot, non-turf buffer. You have a pretty steep grade there. I didn't inspect this property but looking at the topography of it, and I think the depth on the seaward side of the property from the top of the present bulkhead back to the house, which you can't see, is a good piece of property and I think a little more than ten foot would serve the purpose of being able to filter runoff of water. That's a pretty steep grade there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to see a compromise myself also. Increase it to -- MR. JUST: I'll be more than happy to take a look at it, go back and take a look. It's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: How far is it from the house to the bulkhead? MR. JUST: 60 feet on one corner of the house. 75 on the other. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually here it says -- TRUSTEE KING: How much will be disturbed during construction; 15 feet? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 15 feet. So why don't we do 15. Half of what you wanted. 30 would be half of the existing lawn. MR. MCGREEVY: CAC has been pushing for some time for half, as you know, but we'll get what we can. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you think your client will be willing to do 20? MR. JUST: Let me take a look at it. I'll talk with them and ask them. MR. WILDER: 20 would take you right to the top of that grade there would be good, you know. 20 would just, judging from what I see there it's approximately 20 foot to the top of that bluff TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to table it so you could talk to your client? MR. JUST: I would like to, if you could approve it and 1'll come back with a modified planting plan and I'll try to go fora 20 foot buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You want us to approve it with 20 foot buffer or Board of Trustees 34 January 23, 2008 rather we approve it with a 15-foot buffer? MR. JUST: How about 15 and I promise I'll try to get you 20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He said he'll promise to try. He didn't say he would do it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Yvette Lang Einczig request for a Wetland Permit to replace the smooth faced bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead and to --did you say -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we say 15 to 20 foot non-turf buffer and whatever he comes back with the plans, I mean because then you could go between 15 and 20 if you don't want to do straight across, you can do, is that -- MR. JUST: I want to see where the trees and stuff are. I want to put a tape on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That way we don't have to amend it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Back fill with five cubic yards of sand and establish 15 to 20 foot non-turf buffer and also to reestablish the alterna flora in front of the seaward side of the bulkhead. Establish two rows on that, Jim, or just -- TRUSTEE KING: It's a tough call. MR. JUST: That's the reason I would like to return to the site and pull a tape on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe reestablish spartina alterniflora. We are not saying an amount. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to install approximately 120 feet of single row rock wall utilizing 2-3 ton rocks. Rocks shall be placed on top of filter fabric and 25-50 pound hardcore stone foundation. Wall shall then be covered with approximately 85 cubic yards of dewatered and dry spoil from adjacent dredging project. Area will then be revegetated with Cape American beachgrass 12 inches on center and Rosa Virginica planted five feet on center and bank shall be maintained and replenished annually as needed. Located: First & Jackson Streets, New Suffolk. I'll note that the dredge spoil that they have a current permit to dredge even though that's town owned, that was given to Board of Trustees 35 January 23, 2008 Belvedere Corp., years ago, and they have a town permit to dredge that area. So the spoil will be coming from an approved site. It's exempt from LWRP and CAC supports the application with the condition provisions are made not to adversely affect the neighboring property and coordinate efforts with the new property owners. TRUSTEE KING: Check that. It doesn't make sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent. Okay. Sorry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's consistent because -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It meets the policy standards, minimum loss of human life, structure from flooding and erosion hazard. Construction of hard structure is the only practical design consideration and is essential to protecting the principle use. The proposed hard structural erosion protection measures are limited to the minimum scale necessary based on sound engineering practices. Practical vegetative methods have been included in the project design and implementation. Adequate mitigation provided and maintained to ensure there is no adverse impact to adjacent property or to natural coastal processes and natural resources and if undertaken from by a private property owner does not incur significant direct or indirect public cost. That is why it was found consistent. MR. JUST: I think part of that argument may have been because we did sand and plantings three or four times throughout the years that had failed, and if you read the LWRP, that's the soft structure of what they would look for first and in this case that doesn't work, it's hardening, and that's exactly what happened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any comments from anybody? The Board? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to reorganize approximately 540 feet of existing jetty rocks and supplement with 1-3 ton rocks as required to raise elevation to six feet above mean low water. Restore beach area with dewatered Board of Trustees 36 January 23, 2008 and dried spoil from maintenance dredging project. Area will then be revegetated with Cape American beachgrass planted 12 inches on center. Located: First & Jackson Streets, New Suffolk. This is on the south side of the property. Again, it is consistent with LWRP for the same reasons and, Glenn, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe softer mitigations have been tried there in years past, plantings between the rocks and what have you. TRUSTEE KING: Breakwater. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Along the beach. Is it going along the beach also? It's going along this way, too. This is where I'm talking about (indicating.) MR. JUST: At the end of Jackson, that dune has been built up a few times and replanted. Initially when they first dredged out the basin that's where a lot of dredge spoil went and that was planted there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then the other, the east side is the breakwater part you were talking about, Jim. CAC supports the application. Is there any comment with regard to this application? MR. JUST: Just to explain the project; a lot of that sand that is constantly ending up in that basin is coming over west to east, going over the top of the wall between the spaces of the dock and we are trying to raise the elevation so the sand won't be depositing there. Hopefully it will continue down the beach to the east with the normal process and that basin won't have to be dredged. That's all we are trying to do is restore that. God knows when that dredging was built there. It's just a lot of dysfunction. We are just trying to get it straightened out. That's the only thing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions? (No response.) Anybody want to see the plans? (No response.) Seeing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of JMO Environmental on behalf of Belvedere Property Management as applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE KING: Let's take aten-minute break. Board of Trustees 37 January 23, 2008 (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Patricia Moore on behalf of GREGORY DADOURIAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct asingle-family dwelling with covered porch and garage. Install an inground swimming pool and sanitary system. Located: 695 Petty's Drive, Orient. MS. MOORE: You have all been out to the property, I hope. As you recall, Petty's (sic) is by here on Long Island Sound is a very flat piece of property. I think the misconception is there is a top or bottom of a bluff here because it's actually quite flat and if you see the topography, you are going from ten feet to the 14, but then it goes and it's flat, the entire length, so what we did is we did a conservative setback from the landward of the ten foot contour. I was going to say 14 foot slope but I think that's what we brought here; 14 foot elevation, and we pushed the structures at least 100 feet from that point. We have the problem here on this property in Petty's piece where there is no public water. It's private wells. Both houses on either side have been developed and we really started with this survey Petty's piece on the sanitary and designing sanitary because we had to maintain, we had to try to reach 150 foot separation between the neighboring wells and sanitary and our own well and sanitary, so we were able to get the structures at least 100 feet from the, what is described as top of the bluff or bank, but the sanitary system cannot. There is no way of moving it. We tried. 1 had Joe Fischetti the engineer design the sanitary here and try to meet as many of the Health Department regulations as were feasible. So. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have pictures? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have pictures but because it was not this inspection I couldn't get to it yet. MS. MOORE: If you recall, the house is -- do you recall how it looked, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. MOORE: Okay. I was going to remind you. TRUSTEE KING: This is the one the notice was stuck on a little bush. MS. MOORE: There were no trees to stick it on, so. It was quite a challenge to try to post this property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The next one shows the picture. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC review? TRUSTEE KING: It's found inconsistent. I know it's because of the setbacks. MS. MOORE: Right. The sanitary. TRUSTEE KING: The project was not staked, however the CAC supports Board of Trustees 38 January 23, 2008 the application. MS. MOORE: tt was staked, actually. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The first time around MS. MOORE: The first time, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are saying the septic can't be moved farther because of the existing wells? MS. MOORE: Correct. If you could see, we have to place our well -- TRUSTEE KING: I see it here. There is one here that is only 121 feet. MS. MOORE: Exactly. Actually, in order to make it compliant we really have to push it toward the water and Joe Fischetti tried to design something that would be approvable with the Health Department but also keep it away from the bank, so. TRUSTEE KING: Do they issue like a variance for that? MS. MOORE: They would, yes. They would probably want to see the permits from this Board first, so. TRUSTEE KING: I see. MS. MOORE: Technically it needs a variance because, but because this is a subdivision that was approved under the old regulations and you have the neighboring properties I'm hoping they would do what is called a screening and they would not require a full hearing but review it internally. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the distance this way? TRUSTEE KING: It comes in with that. But still. MS. MOORE: Maybe it's another five feet. It doesn't look to be that much. TRUSTEE KING: You are looking at 80, almost 90 feet. To the top of the bluff is over 80, if you go that way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's between 70 and 80 feet away from the top of the bluff MS. MOORE: Keep in mind there is really no bluff here. TRUSTEE KING: I understand that. MS. MOORE: If the surveyor had not identified it as a bluff and you went out there, you may not consider it a bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We agree. TRUSTEE KING: One of the things I want to look at down the road here is to maybe tie an elevation into a bluff definition. That's one of my goals. MS. MOORE: Yes, that would be great. TRUSTEE KING: Because the original intent was for the high bluffs on The Sound and running into our areas, it meets the description. But in my mind, it's not really a bluff. MS. MOORE: Right. It's no precipitous slope. That's what the term is. MS. HULSE: Pat and I had this discussion before. TRUSTEE KING: We can't really do a lot about the septic. MS. MOORE: If you want to get me closer to the water I won't have Board of Trustees 39 January 23, 2008 to go for a variance, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not like if we reduce the house you could move it. It has nothing to do with the house. TRUSTEE KING: One of the recommendations on the LWRP is to require a 30-foot non-turf native vegetation buffer landward of the bluff. MS. MOORE: I don't think that's a problem on this property. TRUSTEE KING: It should not be a problem. I would recommend that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 30 foot you said? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Landward of the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we make that anon-disturbance with a four-foot wide path. TRUSTEE KING: Sound good. TRUSTEE KING: And you indicated drywells for roof runoff. MS. MOORE: Yes, we have drywells everywhere. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I seem them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are behind that. It is what it is. TRUSTEE KING: It's fairly straight forward. Are there any other comments from the audience? Board comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation of a 30-foot non-disturbance buffer along the top of the bluff with afour-foot wide access path to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And I find in doing this it is consistent with LWRP. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 11, Patricia Moore on behalf of NIKOLAOS KATOPODIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct stairs from the top of the bluff to the beach. Located: 1540 The Strand, East Marion. This was found to be inconsistent by LWRP for the following reasons. There is evidence of severe historic erosion on the bluff indicating that the soil characteristics of the bluff are unstable. Two large gullies occur from the top of the bluff to the toe; the first adjacent to the western adjacent property line, the second to the eastern property line. The lawn near the eastern property line slopes toward the top of the bluff. There is evidence storm water discharges down the face of the bluff in this area and Board of Trustees 40 January 23, 2008 if the proposed action is approved, the slope should be corrected through the establishment of a natural buffer to comply with Chapter 275 and 236 of the Southold Town Code. It does make note that the applicant currently enjoys access to the Long Island Sound beach in the Pebble Beach Farm subdivision, which maintains a bathing beach, parking area and a path to the beach. CAC resolved to support the application with the following conditions: That the outcome is consistent with LWRP and best management practices and to provide erosion control during construction and thereafter. The Trustees went out to look at it. At least by the plans, looked like it was a pretty involved stairs, however, it was following the contour of the bluff at that point. We were looking to explore the possibility of using grading for the steps rather than hard wood. And we were looking for perhaps anon-turf buffer area landward of the bluff which was also mentioned in the other report. And we would like to see a planting plan for the bluff after construction. Are there any other comments or any comments that the audience would like to make? MS. MOORE: I have Mr. Katopodis here with me. Any objections to those recommendations? MR. KATOPODIS: What was the first recommendation? MS. MOORE: Replacement of the grating, the platform material with grating material, I'm assuming it's the same thing you use for the docks? Is that the same material? TRUSTEE KING: Same idea, Pat. Just different brands and everything. What we are looking at, in a lot of these stairways you lose the vegetation and we are trying to see maybe if this is the way we should go to get the vegetation to grow under the stairs. It might work. MR. KATOPODIS: I definitely don't have a problem. MS. MOORE: It's almost like it's trecks with an opening. TRUSTEE KING: They make it out of plastic, they make it out of fiberglass now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's really sturdy. It has better traction, too. MR. KATOPODIS: I don't have a problem with it. Anything to preserve vegetation, I would do it myself. TRUSTEE KING: It's much less slippery, too. MS. MOORE: Non-turf buffer landward of the bank. I think, didn't you, because we needed permits from, I think it's this Board, it may already be in one of the permits. I'm trying to remember. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You came for the pool last time. MS. MOORE: I did. I came for the pool and I think you already imposed anon-turf buffer there. I have the file. In fact, he was Board of Trustees 41 January 23, 2008 here and I just had the covenant signed, so. Okay. Here we go. Do you want me to read it to you, or? Here it is. The relevant section is grant the wetland permit for construction of 18x36 inground swimming pool with a salt water filtration system 70 feet from the top of the bluff and plant evergreens along the east/west side of the property, shall be conditioned upon continuous line of silt fence backed by hay bales, maintained throughout the period of construction. I guess you didn't have -- no, you were talking about evergreens on the sides. Okay. I know that we had during the pool application, we showed our topography is actually going away from, sloping away from the top of the bank back toward the house, so you don't, the drainage problems have actually been occurring by our neighbors with their grass that goes all the way to the edge, so. MR. KATOPODIS: The reason we are choosing that also is because it slopes back and preserves the most vegetation possible. That's why we decided to do it in this area, only because it preserves all the vegetation in this area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only other comment I would make is we did consider that the association does have access and our code does say that if there is access as part of an association. But it's within reasonable distance. It has to be within reasonable distance. We did drive the distance and we looked at it and the Trustees felt it was a little further than would be considered, you know, good access. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? MR. MCGREEVY: Bob, as we talked about earlier occasion, if it's okay with the Board, one of the plans that the CAC submitted, a diagram of designing the base of the supporting structure, that it be designed in a way, if applicable and allowed, to prevent or control erosion. We submitted a drawing on it and that's recommended very highly. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I brought this up. We were talking about this the other day in our work session. The question that we had or that came up was that while we understood what your drawing was, I don't think that we can recess it into the ground but we could certainly put something at the base, like a 3x6 that comes across to help mitigate any erosion that might occur. MR. MCGREEVY: The original design as submitted, that was the idea, to touch the surface of the ground so that if there was erosion, it would build up behind that and act like an embankment. MS. MOORE: I don't know that the DEC would approve it because they actually specifically asked for cross sections that have the steps going at least three feet above grade, taking the natural grade, so Board of Trustees 42 January 23, 2008 whether or not they would allow would be almost like a, the back end of, I think what you are describing is like the back end of stairs so the sand would kind of create almost a back filling behind it. Um, I mean it makes sense but I don't know that the DEC would allow it. MR. MCGREEVY: How would we handle that, Jim? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did put it down on one application. So far we haven't heard anything back on it. MR. MCGREEVY: The design does make sense, talking to different people in the construction field, but it might be just a bureaucratic obstacle. How would the Trustees handle something like that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jack, can I suggest from your organization, from the CAC, could you write a letter to the DEC? MR. MCGREEVY: I would rather make the recommendation to the Trustees and the trustees on their letterhead present it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why can't you from your organization? From the CAC? MR. MCGREEVY: We'll do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I think the Trustees could also. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could support that, I think. MR. WILDER: If we could agree to the wording and design, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the rationale for it. MR. MCGREEVY: Rationale and acceptable design that they could consider. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So have your group write the letter and give it to us and we could write a supporting letter to go with it. MR. MCGREEVY: Good enough. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I won't put that in as a condition at this point. MS. MOORE: Right. If it turns out it's approvable and we have not finished, it sounds like a minor modification. And the DEC, if they get it in time, they may make it a condition of our design anyway. So we are right now we are waiting for their response. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's one of those inexpensive good ideas. MS. MOORE: It is. And it makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: I'll be going to Fishers Island within a week and I'll bring it up and mention it to them so I get a sense of what we should do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I would like to comment. My concern always with the stairs on the bluff is the bluff vegetation obviously is extremely important for erosion control and everything I read on the environment is to a reduction of structures when at all possible and one of the ways that it can be possible is if there is an association stairs, and to be consistent with my own Board of Trustees 43 January 23, 2008 voting in the past, because there is an association stairs in this location, and there is different opinions as to whether it's convenient or not, I will be not be approving this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or concerns? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Nikolaos Katopodis for a Wetland Permit to construct stairs as is shown on the plans with the changes, with the stipulations that stairs are built rather than using hard wood, using grated stairs and decks, that there be an establishment of a non-turf buffer, 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff, and that erosion control is implemented during construction, and that the area be revegetated as is appropriate after the construction on the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The use of grated stairs would certainly mitigate it so it would be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. (Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Trustee Dickerson voted nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Patricia Moore on behalf of WILLIAM F. BILLMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM F. BILLMAN REVOCABLE TRUST, requests a Wetland Permit to construct asingle-family dwelling with sanitary system and retaining wall. Located: 10220 Rt. 25, East Marion. The Board did go out and look at this. The CAC reviewed it and the CAC resolved to not support the application because of the negative impact on the wetlands to the southeast. The project is proposed in a natural drainage area. The LWRP application was submitted and there was no review within the 30-day period of time. So we can move forward with this without the review, at the discretion of the Board. The Board, like I said, has gone out to look at this and we have received several letters that I'll read. And just bear with me. The first letter is dated the 14th of January, 2008. It's from Daryl Kost with the Department of Transportation of the State of New York. Dear Mr. Ritner (sic) references made of our recent telephone conversation regarding the proposed application submitted to the Town of Southold for the property identified on the tax map as Boazd of Trustees 44 Januazy 23, 2008 1000-31-11-06 located on in the southeast road of Route 25 in Hamlet of East Marion. As discussed, the New York State Department of Transportation had has been corresponding over the past year with Ms. Patricia Moore, attorney for the owner of the property, regarding drainage issues, freshwater wetland issues, storm water runoff, future highway permitting the proposed development of the site. Discussions are continuing regarding the above noted issue with no permanent solution arrived to date. I then have a letter dated January 21, 2008, from Robert and -- this is handwritten, so it's tough. It looks like Patterson. Dear Board of Trustees, this is in reference to the Gillman application. There are certain concerns we have regarding the proposed building of asingle-family dwelling across from our home on Rt. 25. One, there are four culverts on Rt. 25 that drain into the ravine that runs through the proposed building lot. When it rains or melting snow the ravine becomes a rushing stream due to the huge amounts of water that drain into this ravine. If the ravine is filled in for any reason during construction of this single-family dwelling, what happens to the runoff? Where would the water go if the property is filled in? We have experienced flooding on our property due to clogged culverts from the debris not remove from the drains. Two, this is a heavily-treed lot. We are concerned about the trees and especially the trees adjacent to the main road. The trees not only absorb water, they are esthetically pleasing. Three, last but not least, we should be concerned about the potential environmental damage to our wetlands. Not knowing the scale of the proposed dwelling or the position of the dwelling, possibly infringing the wetlands, the town should review the building plans with great care. Perhaps an environmental study should determine if it is wise to build a house on this lot. What will become of the endangering black salamanders that live on this site, the wetlands, and will the single-family dwelling be constructed to complement the homes surrounding this property. Will the driveway be staggered so as not to cause problems with the driveway opposite property. Hopefully this single-family dwelling can be put in place in a way that does not harm the fragile environment of this site. Then I have a letter dated January 20, 2008, from Mary Elizabeth Berry, of Bradenton, Florida. And it says: As a follow up to Thomas Brown's letter -- which I have not read yet -- Thomas Brown's letter regarding the property, I have the following concerns: Wetlands preservation, woodlands preservation, drainage, size of the house that will be Board of Trustees 45 January 23, 2008 built, noise, water pollution, driveway access. Currently the access to 10120 is a danger. With another blind driveway being placed next to the church it appears the dangers would even be higher. There was an application filed for blind driveway status that was denied by the town. Is it legal to approve a building permit without having the actual building plans available for review by all parties? Typically a plan is submitted with the specific size of house, septic and well placement, which was provided, but how do you know how many are needed without having the house plans with the number of bathrooms. If this is approved I would ask we be able to have a construction company review the plans specifications to ensure it does not deter from the value of our home. I would also like it to be limited to two stories. As indicated above, the area is now a woodlands and wetlands property and it would be beneficial to the town to limit the number of trees and the amount of landfill placed on such property. Then, I have here a faxed letter from Thomas V. Brown, dated January 16, 2008. I, Thomas V. Brown, along with Mary Elizabeth Berry, the adjacent property owners on the west side of the aforementioned property. We reside in Florida in the winter months and are not able to attend the hearing or certainly we would. So we are sending this letter. We received a packet along with the survey from Mr. Billman's attorney Patricia Moore, which we understand is proper protocol. We have the following concerns we wish the Board to be aware of. The survey states that we use public water. That is incorrect. We use a well. I'm sure the placement of the septic system is in compliance with town and county health regulations as far as distance from our well if the Board should approve this application. Two, where would the runoff water from the road go as it is currently at the curb of Mr. Billman's property. Three, obviously it would have to be fill placed on the property and how would that effect our property to the east side? The proposed retaining walls; would they be enough so we will not experience erosion in the future? I understand the Board of Trustees goes out physically to inspect the property. I'm sure it will see our concerns are valid and take all necessary steps to ensure we continue to enjoy our time in East Marion as we have done for generations. Former owners of Brown's cabins, which is now the Hellenic Snack Bar. I'm sending a copy of our property survey for the Board to review with regard to the placement of septic system the Board should approve Mr. Billman's application. Board of Trustees 46 January 23, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns. Let me just check to make sure that's -- yes, those are all the letters that have been received. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I would like to just start off by saying that I have Mr. Billman here. His family has owned this property since the '50's, I think you mentioned. '50's, '60's. We began the process by flagging wetlands, making sure that we had accurate location of the freshwater wetlands. So we have that shown on the survey. I also had, because of the uniqueness of this property, I had Joe Fischetti as engineer consider the placement of the house, the placement of sanitary and the appropriate locations of where the grading would go obviously to take the driveway on to the property what Mr. Fischetti recommended was that this house would be, this property actually is ideal for a walkout basement. So we are actually attempting to use as little fill as possible because the house will be, the basement will be at the level where the finished grade or the grade is currently. And then the house will be obviously first and second floor above that. So it will, the concern they had about architectural or esthetic features, to begin with, the house is going to be setback quite off the road, so I don't know how much of it will be seen, but if it is, it is going to be a walkout style basement. So it is actually tucked in there. That is how it was originally designed. We were in touch with the DOT because when we began this process we did notice there was a catch basin that drains all the water from the highway on to this property, and there is no easement. So we were in contact with the DOT and we said, listen, what do you want to do about it. We are prepared to grant you an easement so that you could relocate your catch basin, pipe in one direction or other, but properly address it. Every communication to the DOT takes months of response. So what we did is finally when we didn't get a response we said, all right, we'll assume you are taking it off our property and we'll design accordingly. However, we did have one design which we dealt with the DOT and Mr. Fischetti actually looked at that one with the DOT and designed drainage that would, the drain would connect and it would pipe to the back of the property, away from the front so it doesn't flood out my client's property. The final design is going to be up to DOT. They have to determine which they way is easier, whether to put catch basins along the road to catch the water or to pipe it but with putting the appropriate filtration system to get it piped out to the back of the property and toward the wetlands. So it's a complicated issue and we really have to leave it up to the DOT as far as their budget and what they propose to do as far as resolving this issue. Board of Trustees 47 January 23, 2008 We moved forward and everything here was designed by a professional engineer near, not by a surveyor but by a professional engineer so we make sure everything is done properly from day one. I'm here to answer any questions. As far as the location of Mr. Brown's well, that is very important because apparently the water authority, we usually get our information directly from the water authority, we thought that they were connected to public water so if there is a survey there, that would be very helpful. Our obligation, as you may or may not know, under the Health Department regulations is when there is public water in the street and a neighbor could be potentially impacted by the location of our sanitary to their well, we must offer them to pay to connect them to public water. We call it the black mail rule but that's the way it works. If you are the last one in, you have to offer both sides or whatever side is affected, the ability to connect to public water. So that would be --the solution here would be the only alternative to my client. Then Mr. Brown would have to decide for himself does he want to keep the well that he has. MR. MAFFETTONE: Actually I'm here to speak for myself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you'll get a chance. MS. MOORE: So he will know that the offer would have to be made that we have to offer to pay for the Brown's, Berry's to connect to public water. That's the process with the Health Department. I'll answer any other questions you may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we get to that, there is one more memo here in the file that I did not read. I'm sorry. This is one dated January 22, from Heather Cusack, our environmental technician to the Board. As per your request of January 16, I have reviewed the above-referenced application site. The site contains storm water infrastructure with a street drain on Route 25 attached to a concrete pipe, rocks and a swale running north to south on the property from the road toward Marion Lake. The survey submitted to the Trustee office on December 17, 2007, was surveyed by Nathan Corwin II, dated December 17, 2007. This survey does not show a correct wetland line and the Swale area as described above. During a field visit on January 11, 2008, I found indications of wetlands in this area. Indicators include the many mature red maple trees throughout the swale and wetland soil types. In order to fully evaluate the swale part of the property for a more accurate wetland line, a complete evaluation will need to be done in the spring. A complete species list of soil indicators can be completed at that time. I do have one question, then I want to ask for more comments Board of Trustees 48 January 23, 2008 from the audience. Just for clarification. On this survey of the property dated June 29, 2006, Pat, there is a lot of circular indicators on this that are numbered, looks like one through approximately 14. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Between the driveway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What are those? MS. MOORE: Those are actually grades, I believe. That is, Joe Fischetti did the final grade. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's different grades? MS. MOORE: Yes. It has to show what the final grade is going to be so you are going -- let's see. At elevation eight is where the entrance to the house will be. You have to, based on the flood zone, it has to be at elevation eight. Then you go from seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and at that point you are at the flat part of the property. So it's, I'll confirm that, but that's the finished grade that, as I understand those rings to show. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's very confusing. MS. MOORE: I can appreciate that. I hadn't seen that before. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is eleven -- MS. MOORE: You go from eleven and then the property is at eleven so that's why you reach the plateau. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before I get to the comments from the Board and questions from the Board, are there any other comments from the audience? MS. MOORE: I want to put one more thing on the record, based on that comment, only because Ms. Cusack, her commentary, I would just point out that Rob Herman of Environmental Consultants, he actually flagged, delineated the freshwater wetlands on June 12, 2006. So we did it in June, which would be, you know, the summer month that she would be considering so, those are -- TRUSTEE KING: Pat, it says here Suffolk Environmental Consulting on June 12, 2006 MS. MOORE: Sorry, you're right. I got the two confused. Suffolk Environmental is Bruce Anderson. Sorry about that. I apologize to both of them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any comments from any audience members? Feel free step up to the microphone. MR. MAFFETTONE: Bill Maffettone, East Marion, Long Island. I live two lots west of the proposed building site and I live one lot west of the Thomas Brown and his sister Mary Beth Berry. They have asked me to state they do not wish to be connected to town water. They are not here long enough to enjoy the benefits of that. They are only summer residents. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have anything here in writing authorizing you and signed by them -- MR. MAFFETTONE: No, just a phone call I received earlier. Boazd of Trustees 49 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just understand we need something in writing states you are an agent for them and representing them and they have to sign and have that notarized. MR. MAFFETTONE: Okay. Just for your information, that was the only thing, if they did come back, they don't want to be connected to the water. Some of the things we did find on that site, while you were talking about other peoples' building, you mentioned these hay bale zones where construction won't go past. According to one of these 15-foot high cement walls, it is at the exact 100 foot mark, I think, and that would place construction to build that in the zone considered the wetlands. It would be the southeast corner of the wall south of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We found it on the plans here, yes. MR. MAFFETTONE: Is that permitted to build in that zone? They have to put a footing in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's within 100 feet from the wetlands they would need permission from us to do that. They would need a permit to enable them to do that. MR. MAFFETTONE: Also I noticed on the same wall to the west side there is less than 15 feet adjacent to cemetery property. Would they need a variance to dig all that soil away from a cemetery? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If they are going to do any work within 15 feet of the property line on either side, yes, that's an issue for them to take up with other agencies within the town. MR. MAFFETTONE: Okay. Let me see what else. One other thing. I pulled a map from the DEC that shows a rare plant zone on the north fork and that particular property is covered by the rare plant zone, if anybody wants to do see it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. MAFFETTONE: Actually most of East Marion is in the rare plant zone except for a little corner in the north. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is this from? MR. MAFFETTONE: This is from the DEC. I think the web page is also on there. And if you notice, there is also East Marion Lake is green in that photo and there is all that gray "X" marks around it. They consider that -- let me see what it says here. The check zone. And it says New York Fresh Water Wetlands may show the approximate location of actual wetland boundaries. They are not precise and it says lower in this paragraph, if necessary, they may have a biologist come out and perform a field delineation. Will that be necessary? Also, there are black salamanders, as have been mentioned in that other letter. While scavenging for fire wood you can see them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you mind if we keep this for our file? Board of Trustees 50 January 23, 2008 MR. MAFFETTONE: Not at all. And I think that concludes -- I have one other statement. Ina 15-foot high retaining wall, will there be a fence on top of the retaining wall or will people be able to come down the grade, stand on the retaining wall and eventually jump off, fall in. That sounds very unsafe having a 15-foot high wall on top of a grade and then all of that drop off below it. That's not on the site plans and I don't see how that can be approved. It sounds a bit dangerous. And there would be two of them. They would be facing west and east. And there are some small children at the park right across the street and it just looks like a great place for kids to be playing. Let me check my notes for anything else. Is there an alternative use applied for for this property other than a single-family home? Or is it just for asingle-family home; is there any back up? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nothing that we have in the file here. MR. MAFFETTONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else like to speak to this application? MS. POOLE: Nancy Poole, East Marion. I just wanted to add that my well is right next to the sidewalk across the street. I doubt if it's 100 feet away, and I certainly, I'm not willing to have that changed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to help me out, is your property located directly across Rt. 25 from this property? MS. POOLE: Yes, my well is right next to the sidewalk so I think it's, I think it's a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. POOLE: I would love for you to disapprove of this whole thing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this application? MS. MOORE: I just want to clarify, this proposed wall, the top of the wall is at elevation 15. Not that the wall is 15. The elevation is 15. Just for the record. I'm sure you all have read the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: That was one of my confusing parts here. The top of the wall is elevation 15, but the contour shows 22, 23, 24 feet. That means the wall is buried. In my mind. MS. MOORE: Yes, most of it is buried. Well, on the one interior portion it's buried. On the other side it's somewhat exposed. The elevation is going to be inside the wall, between the wall and the house. It looks like it will be finished at grade 14, so it will be exposed by a foot on the inside part and then on the outside part will -- TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't make sense to me. When I look at these contours you have a 24-foot contour that runs across the southwest corner of the wall. If that's only 15 feet high then the top of Board of Trustees 51 January 23, 2008 the wall is nine feet underground. It doesn't make sense. MS. MOORE: I don't have an answer for you. That's Joe Fischetti's design and Ican't -- I'm sure it makes sense, but -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The same would hold true for the wall running basically north to south, in other words on the western side of the property, that's all 15 and all the contour lines in there are in the 20s. MS. MOORE: That means that it will be pitched to the 15. If they are at 20. They are up here. So it will naturally slope down. The wall will be right there and that's the tapering point so that the house on the -- there is no seaward side of it but on the other side of the wall it will be walkout basement. I think that's how he designed it. He has to catch the hill, catch it so it doesn't, you stop the hill, then you have the flat area for where the house is. That's the way -- you have to visualize it kind of backwards. TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't make sense. MS. MOORE: All right, I could ask Joe to come here next time or give you a little cross-section. TRUSTEE KING: You have a 23 foot contour five foot inside of a 15-foot wall. MS. MOORE: Sorry, where? TRUSTEE KING: If you look where it says top wall elevation 15 feet. On the north end of that, there is one contour that is 23 point something. And it's five feet inside of the wall. MS. MOORE: No, inside the wall it is 12 and 13. See those circles, that's why he gives you the circles with the elevations. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But between those circles and the wall, I'm looking at the same thing that I believe Jim is, that there is a contour line that measures likes like 23.6 feet. TRUSTEE KING: There is another one to the north MS. MOORE: That area would have to be graded so that it's at 15. So you have the hill stops at a point, like a retaining wall would be, similar like any other retaining wall, then on the other side of it, is again the --. TRUSTEE KING: He's gouging out, building a wall then gouging out against the wall on the inside of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's re-configuring the land. MS. MOORE: He's reconfiguring the slopes because everything has to be flattened out and filled in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just my initial evaluation when I first drove up on this and looked at it was this would be an extremely challenging project for that very reason. This is a very deep gully/ravine, whatever you want to call it, where it would have to be a lot of -- MS. MOORE: It will be an extensive design, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There will have to be a lot of site work done to support any type of home placed in there. And at the same time, Board of Trustees 52 January 23, 2008 we've got this other major issue and that is the drainage from the road, from the state highway that drains into that area where the Department of Transportation is saying right now there is no remedy that has been proposed or accepted to deal with that situation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My question is where is that water going to go when the house is there? MS. MOORE: The DOT I actually met at the site with Mr. Kost and so did Joe Fischetti. They have two options. One is take the pipe and just divert it, take it and run it on my client's property and run it along the side and divert it along the property line under what would be the driveway. We have our driveway overtop the area that we would grant to them as an easement to carry the pipe. That would be one option. I don't know the success that they would have. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where would the pipe lead? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Let her finish. MS. MOORE: Option iwo they are considering is if they got rid of the outflow pipe there all together then they would have to place drywells along the state road and catch basins, excuse me, along the state road to capture the water. So those are the really the two most logical engineering options. But they have not decided because we have to price it out to see which way to go and we have not yet determined whether or not we would have some say in it and suggest one alternative over another. Again, we had a communication but it takes sometimes four or five months to get an answer back. So my client was getting impatient waiting four months for an answer which way do you want to go. So we assumed the relocation route but it's easy enough to divert the pipe if that's the solution they want. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Option A, the relocation route, it looks like it's indicated here on this survey, if I'm looking at this, I see proposed -- it says proposed water line. Is that what you are, where it says proposed water line is that the water line to the house or is that the pipe? TRUSTEE KING: I think that's potable water. MS. MOORE: That's potable water. I was just going to look because we had drawn up some alternatives. TRUSTEE KING: They don't show anything from the catch basin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's why I'm going back to your Option A which is if they put the new pipe down, they are redirected, where that water would all go to is what I'm looking for MS. MOORE: I can show it immediately to you because I remember. But I can find the drawing in my file. I just have multiple pages in my file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. If you could just show us. MS. MOORE: They were taking, if 1 remember correctly, it was taking the pipe, directing it along the property line and taking it along Boazd of Trustees 53 January 23, 2008 under where the proposed driveway is and piping it out as far as the DEC would allow. So whether it would be right at that spot or further in, it would be up to the DEC at that point, because it's within the 100 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so the Board understands what she is indicating, the proposed pipe would run close to the boundary of what is the East Marion Baptist Society property as well as the Billman property, running down past the proposed location of the house, again, along the East Marion Baptist Society property to a point where the DEC says that's as close as it is could go to the wetlands. I'm just indicating what she just showed us. I see another comment, if you would like to come up to the microphone. MR. MAFFETTONE: I have two comments on the proposed drainage system. One, if it goes past the house toward the lake, that puts direct road soil, oils, all that stuff that is on the roads, closer to a freshwater lake. Currently it kind of filters through what is very sandy into the ground, into the aquifer, and then to the lake and then to our wells. Because I also have a well. Secondly, if they decide to do away with that, that water that that particular drain handles keeps the main road from flooding. Whenever that drain gets clogged, I go out and clear it because I live right up there, so traffic doesn't have to go through the center of Main Road. And the Patterson's also mentioned in their letter that their property floods because that drain handles so much of the storm water there. The grade of the road actually bends down as it makes that turn and the water just piles up. If we get a fast rain or long rain and the slightest amount of debris hits that drain, the road is completely covered. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's also fair to say if the DOT elected the option of the catch basins there would be significant engineering work that has to be done in the development of those catch basins as well as what is going to happen with that water beyond the catch basins. MR. MAFFETTONE: There is a catch basin 100 feet forward of that in front of my property and it just can't handle the amount of rain that comes down because the road bends and it goes to that drain and that drain can usually handle it because it has no stop. Everything just rolls down the ravine. Thank you. MS. MOORE: I found, and it's my only copy so I would be happy to share it with you and if 1 could get a copy back I'll pick it up tomorrow from Lauren, if that's all right. Or I'll make a copy in the hallway. This was actually designed by Joe Fischetti, which was sent to the DOT as an option plan, and the DOT said, well, you know, again, if they were to put the piping option, there are possibly Boazd of Trustees 54 January 23, 2008 filtration systems that would be mandatory. So they have to weigh the cost benefit analysis of either proposal. We offered this from day one but didn't get a response, as I said before. It's not off the table with us but we just have not had a meaningful dialogue since the last time we talked about this. Months. So. But this one actually shows a much more simplified plan of the elevations, which is probably easier to follow than the survey you have because it shows you the grade. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you just handed me indicates the DOT right of way of ten feet to the west of the East Marion Baptist Society. MS. MOORE: That would be right of way we have to grant them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. Obviously this is a very complicated application and proposed project. Are there other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I have a comment. I think after having seen it and having looked over it and having heard the testimony during the hearing, I don't know about the rest of my fellow brothers and sisters up here on the Board but I have to tell you, I'm apt to vote not to approve this. I think there are big time environmental issues here. I think there is just way too much that would have to be done to the contours and the natural state as it exists. And I'm sorry, at this point I'm, I would vote not to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm wondering, and 1 put this out to the Board, if we should table this application until such time as the Department of State can come forward with some type of -- Department of State and the applicant -- come forward with some type of agreed upon mitigation of that runoff issue first to include in this request so that it's a more complete request for us to consider. Because, I agree with you, Bob, without that drainage issue being addressed with the Department of State's approval of it, I am not apt to approve this either. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I much rather would, there are some unanswered questions, not just with the drainage but with other things. I would rather deny this application without prejudice, let them go to the Department of State and work that out and come back with a new plan. Because I don't think the wall is going to work. MS. MOORE: Well, I would actually request an adjournment and have a full record from Joe Fischetti to describe the design of the wall because I think that that drawing pretty much shows it's not cutting into the bank; the gullies there, you are cutting around it and squaring it off for purposes of an area of construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not just the wall. It's, you know, the whole wetland issue. I would like -- TRUSTEE KING: I question this flagging. I never seen this in a wetland. That doesn't look natural at all. Board of Trustees 55 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which particular one? TRUSTEE KING: There is a "V" here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the southeast side, sort of. TRUSTEE KING: I have never seen a wetland like that. Flagged like that. Things don't grow like that. They just don't grow that way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's indicating the southeast portion of the flagged area, southeast of the East Marion Baptist Society property line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not southeast of the wetlands. MS. MOORE: Where there are two flags. There is flags closer where we are taking our measurements from and down further into the property. I know what you are saying. I could have Bruce Anderson come explain. He obviously knows what he's doing. It's just the wetlands here are developing based on drainage, the water runoff that is coming off from the state, from the road, so it's feeding this area and creating wetlands where none would otherwise exist except around Marion Lake. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It exists even if the road was not there and it's just of a patch of dirt. It goes down hill. MS. MOORE: It may not look this way. It looks different. MR. MAFFETTONE: I have a picture if it may help. It's the southeast corner flag for the wall. It will show you the topography of the land. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have been out there. We have pictures. MS. MOORE: There is a topographic survey here, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll speak up as well while we are sharing. I agree with Bob and I also agree with Jill. I think this is something we have major concerns with when we looked at it. I think the area is very questionable as to whether it's buildable at all and I would be inclined not to approve this permit also. MS. MOORE: I don't want a condemnation proceeding. That's why I would rather keep it open rather than have a denial that I'm then obligated to bring an Article 78 and condemnation of this property. I would rather keep it on hold, go back to the state, work it out with the state. We were close and I don't know what happened to them. They kind of just fell off the earth, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the point may be, and certainly the applicant can spend his money anyway he wants, but if this Board is opposed to it whether or not the DOT works out the drainage, doing all of that could be all for naught. And I have to tell you I don't think this is an appropriate place to build a house. That's how I feel about it. Whether or not the DOT comes up with a drainage plan, I don't think that's going to change. MS. MOORE: Well, give me the chance to have Joe Fischetti convince you otherwise and Bruce Anderson present his testimony. I want to create a record so that in the event that we have to go other places, we have a full record. So, you know, in fairness to my Boazd of Trustees 56 Januazy 23, 2008 client. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. MR. MCGREEVY: A concern with the CAC members, after we looked at it very closely, I inspected it with Peter Young. Our major concern, overall concern, is East Marion Lake. We have done inspection of property around East Marion before and each and every one has an impact on that small freshwater lake or brackish lake. Any additional impact will have a substantial effect on it. So looking at the bigger picture, and looking at the topography of that land, it seems like it was a natural stream bed that would extend north on to the property on the other side of Rt. 25. So, being a natural drainage area for going into the lake, I don't know how it would be possible, without a tremendous amount of money expended on the state part, to resurface that road, put catch basins in, because you would still have a natural old stream bed coming from the north side, all impacting East Marion Lake. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Again, I'm leaning toward tabling this until we can have the DOT and the applicant come up with a plan to address the DOT issue. But I'll bow to the majority of the Board. TRUSTEE KING: I think I'll go along with Bob. MS. MOORE: I'll object and request an adjournment. In fairness to the client, that is what he's entitled to get. There have been issues raised here I think in fairness to the applicant should be on the record and should be responded to. So I would request that this matter be tabled and I'll have, I'll contact the state, see what their reaction is, but in the meantime I'll have Suffolk Environmental and Joe Fischetti come in and put testimony on the record. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move it along myself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other comment, or another comment you have to make. MR. MAFFETTONE: One quick one. The north road is a national scenic byway. Are there any provisions, plans, recommendations, for construction of new homes on a national scenic byway? Because these walls that are on this proposal just don't seem like they are going to fit into our neighborhood. The church was built in 1886, my house is 1797, two houses across the street are very old. It really doesn't seem like it's going to blend into a scenic byway, all of these huge walls. I don't care how much you'll see, you'll see some wall. That's my last comment. TRUSTEE KING: Hang on just a second. Pat, there is a woman coming up behind you. If you just, ma'am, introduce yourself. MS. SCHMIDTCHEN: Ruth Schmidtchen. We are on the other side of the other Gillman house on this map here. We have approximately 200 feet on the lake. My concern is the wildlife. We have deer. We have egrets. We have every bird. We have nightingales that sing Board of Trustees 57 January 23, 2008 in the middle of August nights there. We have swans, turtles that come up on our property and lay all the eggs and we put little things around so that they are protected from the raccoons which are around; deer, red fox. It's unbelievable what that tiny little lake has around it in the summertime. It's worth it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. If you would please step up to the microphone. MS. POOLE: East Marion is not legally an historic district but everyone who lives there knows it is historic and it's a gem and we all care about it and we just feel very wrong about this project. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. With that, I would like to first make a motion to table this application. Do I have a second? (No response.) Hearing no second, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Sorry, Lori, you are wrong. We have a right to respond to this testimony, to have Joe Fischetti describe the plan that apparently half the people here can't read, including myself, to understand. And there have been issues raised regarding whether the flaggings are accurate or not and I think Bruce Anderson deserves to have his reputation placed on the record that in fact he flagged it accurately. So given that, we are entitled to have a full hearing. You are not supposed to railroad this into a denial because that only brings on an Article 78 and the court would determine whether or not we had the opportunity or the ability to put in additional testimony, given the points that were raised here that I did not -- these letters were never sent to me therefore I have no idea that they were in the record. They are here and they have presented arguments. So I think in fairness to my client we are entitled to a full record. Therefore I think we are making a big mistake by closing this hearing and forcing a denial because they already, the head count is, at this moment in time, it's denied, certainly, thank you, without prejudice, to bring it back in, but I think I deserve a full hearing because otherwise I'm dealing with the DOT with a denial from the Trustees, which gives them no reason to cooperate with us. At least in this instance, the DOT, which had put a drainage system on my client's property without an easement, on a property that my client has owned since the 1960's and has, in 1960, could have filled it in completely and put a house on there, but they preserved it. And so 2.2 acres in this instance would be 90% of it would be preserved. So in fairness to my client having a Board of Trustees 58 January 23, 2008 full record, I would insist that this hearing be tabled. MS. HULSE: Pat, my comment on this is this hearing has been going on at least 40 minutes you have the opportunity to present whatever you want to present. I'm not nor or the Trustees railroading this application in any shape, manner or form. It's up to the Trustees whether they want to close this public hearing after many comments both by the public, by the applicant and by the Trustees themselves. I think there has been quite a bit of discussion. MS. MOORE: They raised issues with respect the experts that I have about the data that is on this map. The experts deserve to be here to explain it because we are basing it on a survey that there have been misstatements as to what this wall, how it will look -- MS. HULSE: There are questions the Trustees have. That's up to the Trustees to decide if they would like to continue this hearing. MS. MOORE: I think an applicant has a right to continue a hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe the motion was made to second and close the public hearing. At this point the public hearing is closed. And I would like to ask another member of the Board to make a resolution if they wish to make a resolution on the matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion that the application for William F. Gillman requesting a wetland permit to construct asingle-family dwelling with sanitary system and retaining wall located at 10220 Rt. 25 East Marion be denied at this time without prejudice. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay.) TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen voted nay on the resolution to deny. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 13, MICHAEL BEHRINGER & VESHA KUMAR requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead within 18' using C-Loc vinyl sheathing and install two new 12' returns. Located: 1755 Shore Drive, Greenport. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore. I have, there are iwo. They are neighboring properties. Do you want to open them both at the same time or one at a time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One at a time. MS. MOORE: Which one do you have? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have number 13, bulkhead replacement, C-Loc vinyl sheathing. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Yes. Obviously you have been to the property, you saw that the bulkhead is in need of repairs. Mr. Costello detailed it for us and we are, in this instance, I'm filing exactly what he told us he wanted to do here, which is the bulkhead within 18 inches of existing bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Board of Trustees 59 January 23, 2008 I think I gave you a survey that this bulkhead and dock and so on were all built in the 1960s, so it's in need of replacement. I believe the Williams', who may have been a prior property owner, had received a permit and that expired long ago because nobody did the work. So we are ready. My client is ready to do the work. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have an LWRP consistency review and CAC supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer and a site drainage plan. We also have a concern, we saw three pipes coming out of the bulkhead we would like removed when the vinyl bulkhead is put in. We'll make that a condition of the permit. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The split rail fence, there is a summons in the file. Are you aware of that? MS. MOORE: No. As to who? Who is it against? MS. STANDISH: That's an incident report. MS. MOORE: Who was the owner at the time? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is current. MS. MOORE: Okay. Because he just bought the property this January 16. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The split rail fence is new. For the split rail fence, it doesn't have a permit. MS. MOORE: I was just there. I didn't see a split rail fence. TRUSTEE KING: Right along the top. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So any permitting would have to be subject to addressing this issue. MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll check with the client. He has young children so maybe he wants to keep the kids off. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, it doesn't have a permit. Regardless. MS. MOORE: I would incorporate it. If he wants to keep it, could I incorporate it into the work, if the Board has no objection to it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can amend it later. You'll have to remove it anyhow to replace the bulkheading, because it's kind of close, t would think. MS. MOORE: It probably will have to be --doesn't it makes make sense to include it into this if he wants to put it back? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not at this time if there is a summons that will be written on it. We have other issues with the fence as well. MS. MOORE: Why don't you tell me now so I'll tell him to take it down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I will admit, you can't see this from here, but it does have wire fencing all along that would have to be removed. MS. MOORE: Like mesh inside? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can see it in the picture we have in the file. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In the hard copy we have, it's all lined up. MS. MOORE: Like chicken wire. Boazd of Trustees 60 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Well, bigger than that. MS. MOORE: I was just there when I posted it. And I walked back there. So you want him to take it down? He'll need to remove it for purposes of construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can talk to Lori about the summons part of it and go on to other issues we have with the property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we noted there were three pipes that when the vinyl bulkheading is put back they would have to be removed. The chicken wire has to be removed and, you know, we'll have to deal with -- do we want to put the split rail fence in with this or amend it as Jill mentioned? TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll address it later. MS. HULSE: If you want to include it and they want to consider it you can include it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Even with the outstanding summons? MS. HULSE: You won't be able to give her a permit tonight for it. Your client has not been served, so. MS. MOORE: I didn't really realize there was this thing and who even put it up. So I'll check. He just bought the property. TRUSTEE KING: It's brand new. It hasn't been there very long. MS. HULSE: If you are willing to service your client we can get this done quickly, it's just a matter the getting it done. MS. MOORE: I don't have a problem accepting service. It's a shame it has to go to a violation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there is no further discussion, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought it was going to be addressed with this one. There was a lot of roof drainage all going right down to the property that heads town toward the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: His leaders are rather long and leading right down to the water. They are like 15, 20 feet long. MS. MOORE: We'll install drywells. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Leaders, gutters to the drywells. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And what was the buffer we wanted? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC asked for 15. MS. MOORE: It's a small piece of property. This property was bulkheaded in 1960, so I think the property in total is, we only have 48 feet to the corner of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten foot. That's what I thought we said. MS. MOORE: Non-turf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: My question is why do they need two returns? MS. MOORE: Costello did this specifically. It was his recommendation. I just took the lead from him. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we were thinking of is just connect to the Board of Trustees 61 January 23, 2008 neighbors and not go any further, you know -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The neighbors on either side so it's one straight bulkhead instead of having a slight indentation now. MS. MOORE: I understand. I don't know why he, because actually my original thought was that it's connecting and he said, no, no, no, we have to have those returns. TRUSTEE KING: Strange. MS. MOORE: You are keeping the permit open. You are not issuing it tonight? Or you are not releasing it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We won't release it. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to ask Costello about this? Because I don't want to modify something if he's insistent on there's a reason for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we table the whole thing. MS. MOORE: But tell me everything so I can discuss it with the client. TRUSTEE KING: We want the new bulkhead to be inline with the neighboring bulkheads, connected to those bulkheads so there is not a bump out. And we questioned why do you need returns if the bulkheads are actually connected to each other. Just a question. Usually you have a return where the bulkhead comes and ends and goes to a return. If you have two bulkheads right together, what do you need it for. It's absolutely no need for a return. MS. MOORE: Unless he doesn't necessarily trust the construction he's connecting to. TRUSTEE KING: He did it himself. It was his work. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Remove pipes, install dniwells, remove the three pipes, install drywells on the house, ten-foot non-turt buffer, remove the chicken wire and I don't know if you want to, if we are going to table and you'll be able to deal with it. MS. MOORE: Why don't I answer why he has a fence. TRUSTEE KING: It's to keep the geese out. That's what it's for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The neighbors have the same thing and the third neighbor down with none, all the geese are on his lawn. That's why the fence is there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All the geese are partying down the road. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the neighbor. It has the same thing. I actually have a picture of the geese but I didn't include it. MS. MOORE: Doesn't that makes sense to keep pollutants out of the water? In a sense, it actually, environmentally, makes sense, doesn't it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Being no further comments, I'll make a motion to table Vesha Kumar and Michael Behringer, 1755 Shore Drive. I need a motion tabling it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Boazd of Trustees (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll table it. 62 January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 14. 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 6'x20' floating dock. Located: 1755 and 1665 Shore Drive, Greenport. MS. MOORE: Right. It's actually been worked out between the two neighbors. When this dock was originally issued a permit, it was placed here, and I don't know why but that's where it was placed, and it made sense to continue a sharing, the relationship between the two properties. So they have agreed that they are going to share in the cost and share in the use of this dock so that each side of the float will enable each property owner to put a small boat, so. That's the goal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application with the condition of appropriate materials are used, the dock extends no further seaward than the neighboring docks; provide public access across the bulkhead. As far as we can tell, it doesn't go any further seaward to the than the neighboring docks. MS. MOORE: No, it doesn't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could we, I guess you can walk, can we do stairs up and down? I don't know if people really walk across. MS. MOORE: No, it's a rock jetty there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the public access would be on top of the bulkhead rather than the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is inconsistent for the ramp and float. The proposed action would extend existing 52-foot private dock another 40 feet into the public waters which could impede public access and use of such water. Total dock structure is proposed to be 92 feet. We measured the existing dock to be 40 feet, I thought. 34. It's 34 feet existing dock and you are adding 20 foot. It's not going to be 92 feet. TRUSTEE KING: What did measure it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 34 feet is the existing dock and 20 foot -- TRUSTEE KING: They have 3x52 feet. MS. MOORE: Yes, that doesn't make sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I wanted to measure that dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is there is 32 right now? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 34. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus another 20 for the land. And six. So that's 60 total feet. TRUSTEE KING: Something is wrong. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're basing this on a 34-foot dock. That's what Boazd of Trustees 63 January 23, 2008 is existing there now. The drawing shows a 52' dock. That's where LWRP is getting 92 feet, I guess. So that, 52 feet is not -- MS. MOORE: I'll double check. Keep in mind we are smaller than our neighbors' dock, so, as far as -- TRUSTEE KING: I have 90 feet. I just scaled it off at 90 overall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the 52 foot dock. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In other words, from what is out there to what you proposed, you are requesting an extension of the dock itself. According to our measurements MS. MOORE: Okay. I have to go back and look because -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we were all fine with the ramp and float, with the 34-foot dock. But when you have a 52-foot dock, we would have to reevaluate that, I think. MS. MOORE: The problem is we have to get to the proper depth of water, so I just want to go back and double check. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table this also? MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll double check the 52. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you are going to extend the dock, if you are going to request that, and change this, then we need the seaward end staked and we need to go out and look at it again. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the description does not call for an extension of the dock. It just calls for a ramp and a float and if you are going to add it in, so you have to re-do the description and re-stake and we'll have to go -- MS. MOORE: Let me check. There may have been damage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think there is an existing permit for that dock. Is that -- MS. MOORE: I thought there was, right, Lauren? I thought there was an old permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll pull the old permit and see what it says. Actually, you are right. There was one in here. We just have a permit just for the bulkhead. An old permit for the dock, I'm not sure MS. MOORE: It may have been repaired over time without permits. It's been there since, as I said, since the 1960s, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually now we have to add the whole description of the dock to it. MS. MOORE: Actually I have a photograph. It was staked at the point -- it's staked out now. Because I have it staked. That is the end point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's with 52 feet? MS. MOORE: Bob fox staked what he drew. TRUSTEE KING: I was out there. It looks like it was 25, 30 feet off the end of the dock. MS. MOORE: I'll clarify and give you a call and verify it. But he Boazd of Trustees 64 January 23, 2008 usually doesn't stake something differently than what he has drawn. I never had that happen. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application to re-inspect. MS. MOORE: I'll confirm it's staked as drawn. MR. MCGREEVY: Jill, just a question, for clarification for the CAC, on the comment there about public access, how would that be addressed? I don't know what the height of that dock going out from the bulkhead is. Would that have room? TRUSTEE KING: If you look at the picture, you have about six feet, a little over. So it goes straight off the bulkhead. You could walk under it. MR. MCGREEVY: In this situation there is enough clearance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Jill, what did you measure as the existing measurement? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 34 feet. From the bulkhead to the end. MS. MOORE: I'll double check with Bob Fox. TRUSTEE KING: Did Fox do the drawing or did Costello do the drawing? MS. MOORE: Bob Fox did the drawing. But it was based on measurements Costello gave him. As far as the length of the ramp and float, the rest I thought was -- all right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The meeting is adjourned. RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2008 Q i~~0a P"" So old To~ Ierk