Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/21/2008James F. King, President ~~pf SOUTy~ Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President h~ l~ Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen u> >c Bob Ghosio, Jr. %~ ~ ~'~OOUNiY,~~ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Kieran Corcoran, Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECEIVED 1. e. _o ~Q 2o~a~lop-y, Southold Town Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 6:00 PM WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our May meeting. We are a little late. Sorry, but things get complicated sometimes. For those of you who are not regular customers, my name is Jim King, I have the pleasure of being the chairman of this Board. I would like to introduce the rest of the people here. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; Peg Dickerson, Trustee; Jill Doherty is the vice-chair; to my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren manages the office for us. What she doesn't know about this business isn't worth knowing. Next to her is Bob Ghosio, another Trustee and, next to Bob is Kieran Corcoran, he's our Town attorney. He'll be with us until around 7:30 or so, then the other Town Attorney will be here. Wayne Galante takes the minutes for us and if have you Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Boazd ofTrustees 2 May 21, 2008 any comments please come up to the microphone, identify yourself so he can get your name and get everything on the record for us. With that, we'll get going. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, could t just mention the documentary on channel 22. Some of you might have heard that over the last year-and-a-half the Board has been working on a documentary on Town Trustees' jurisdiction, rules and regulations and justifications for it. It just went on air last week. If you are interested and would like to know some of the background history of the Trustees, it covers the structures, very basic structures of docks and jetties and bulkheads, and it can be viewed on channel 22 at 10:00 AM, 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM. So if you like some interesting viewing on television, you can check that out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wanted to fill everyone in about the New Suffolk boat ramp. The Trustees applied for a permit to re-do that ramp. It was in pretty sad shape. We got the permit and we also negotiated with Belvedere Property Association who borders the New Suffolk ramp and they were very generous and they paid for the construction of New Suffolk boat ramp. They hired Costello Marine who did the job. There were some complications, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what was there. He finished it up today, just in time for the season. So we have a new boat ramp in New Suffolk. And in the two-and-a-half years we have gotten two boat ramps done. It's a slow process because we have to get permits, too. So I just wanted to let everyone know that job is completed and it's going to be hopefully along-lasting ramp. TRUSTEE KING: Like you said, I think it's an improvement over what was there. You are not going to keep everybody happy, I know. There is complaints about it already, but. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other item, just for the public. You might have noticed that the dredging has started for James Creek. We were able to work with some other elected officials to get the permits for two weeks only to dredge James Creek and so they are over there, the county is over dredging James Creek as we sit here. That's a huge accomplishment because that creek was in a real dangerous condition, it had filled in so much. So I'm happy we were able to obtain the permits and get that done. And the pumpout boat will start this weekend, hopefully. It's in the water and hopefully we'll start servicing boats this weekend. TRUSTEE KING: Bob? Anything to say? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just keep working on Chapter 111. We are still working on updating codes. We gave Bob the Coastal Erosion Code. We gave him a handful. TRUSTEE KING: We'll set the date for the next field inspection for Boazd of Trustees 3 May 21, 2008 the 11th of June, at eight o'clock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Next meeting, June 18th, 6:00; work session at 5:30. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor'? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve the minutes of January and February looked through them, I didn't see any major mistakes or problems with them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a couple of minor corrections. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a couple of minor ones I forwarded to Wayne, so I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of January 23, 2008, and February 27, 2008. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lauren, can you make sure they get posted on our website? MS. STANDISH: I will. I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for April, 2008. A total amount of $8,541.25 was forward to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews. Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 21, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. Board of Trustees 4 May 21, 2008 There is a list of them that will in the minutes. Don Jayamaha -SCTM#140-1-8 Lewis Topper -SCTM#123-6-12.4 William & Marissa Harney -SCTM#78-2-16 Steven & Sevgi Uyanik -SCTM#44-1-6 Sophie Latham & Priscilla Jamieson -SCTM#32-1-6.1 Ed Fox -SCTM#122-9-9.4 Gary Guja -SCTM#106-6-29 Thomas J. Apres, Jr. -SCTM#37-7-9.1 Stacy Sheppard -SCTM#123-8-28.5 Joseph Zito -SCTM#115-17-8 Thomas Perillo -SCTM#57-1-8 Michael Garrett & TRACEY KOKE -SCTM#63-7-31.1 Lorraine Wendt -SCTM#115-12-14 Daniel N. Kohn Living Trust -SCTM#111-14-12 Judy Teevan & Paula DiDonato -SCTM#56-5-26 Christian & Heidi Fokine -SCTM#70-4-18 Scott & Lia Vitrano -SCTM#78-2-15.1 Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association -SCTM#37-4-18 Jack Cipriano -SCTM#87-5-23.6 Elizabeth Siddons -SCTM#97-8-25 Spyro & Margarita Avdoulos -SCTM#44-1-5 Vincent & Eileen Flaherty - SCTM#92-1-8 2000 Broadwaters, LLC -SCTM#104-9-12 Stein Family Residence Trust -SCTM#37-4-10 John P. Kilgallen -SCTM#70-6-29.1 TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one, KRISTEN FROHNHOEFER & JOSEPH FROHNHOEFER III request a Transfer of Permit #4983 from Peter DeNicola to Kristen Frohnhoefer and Joseph Frohnhoefer III, as issued on November 18, 1998, and Amended on June 21, 2000, and an Administrative Permit to remove dead, diseased and overgrown or invasive vegetation and trees. Rake and level area, add compost and replant with trees, shrubs, flowers and grass. Located: 1505 Yennecott Drive, Southold. I have looked at this property. The area where the trees had fallen down during a storm had been removed. They are going to Board of Trustees May 21, 2008 revegetate with native species, and the only restrictions that this Board would like to put on this permit is that there be no removal of any vegetation between the freshwater pond and the house, which we discussed. Except the breyers that might catch in your eye as you are mowing the lawn. I think the full Board discussed this at our work session so, are there any other comments from what we previously discussed? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for transfer and the administrative permit. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sir? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Would it be possible for you kind people to speak into the microphones that are provided. I beg your pardon but I'm having trouble hearing people speak. TRUSTEE KING: That's why I asked before if you could hear me all right. Can you hear now? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want me to repeat anything I just said? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): You are doing a fine job, I imagine, but I don't know what you are saying. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve that transfer and administrative permit for Frohnhoefer &Frohnhoefer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: What we do sometimes, if we can, on these simple ones, these resolutions and administrative permits, if they are really very simple and there is no problems, we lump them together. So number two, three, four and five, we'll approve those all as one, in one shot, just to save time here. So I'll make a motion to approve two, three, four and five as they have been submitted, and they read as follows: SOPHIA ANTONIADIS requests an Administrative Permit to replace existing stockade fence with new aluminum style 3/4" pickets on four-inch centers in similar height, beginning at the bulkhead at 48" height for 30 feet and 72" height for the 70 linear feet landward. Located: 12500 Main Road, East Marion. Number three, FRANK & JOANNE GUMPER requests an Administrative Permit for the existing wooden upper deck, stairs, wooden lower deck and wooden walkway along the bulkhead. Located: 2400 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. Number four, GEORGE AND LAURA BLUME request an Administrative Board of Trustees 6 May 21, 2008 Permit to remove grass clippings, wood, and leaves that have been dumped in area, and prune large tree for safety. Located: 750 Clearview Avenue, Southold. Number five, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DONALD MURPHY requests an Administrative Permit to construct asingle-story screened-porch addition to the south side of the existing dwelling. Located: 9905 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Mark Schwartz, Architect, on behalf of PINDAR DAMIANOS requests an Administrative Permit for interior alterations to the existing dwelling and with new exterior doors, windows and siding. Located: 2030 Mill Road, Peconic. Is there anyone here concerning this one? This is number six. (No response.) The only thing I wanted to just mention on it, it's very simple, there is no problem, but there IS a fairly new split-rail fence that I don't believe there was any permit issued for. So I would like to add that to this through this administrative permit. It's asplit-rail fence. Also on the survey is a buffer area indicated. It has not been complied with. I just want to make a notation that there is a limited clearing on the survey and that's to remain undisturbed. So that will be taken care of in the administrative permit process. Other than that, it's very minor. I'll make a motion to approve with those two changes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) (Don Wilder of the CAC just entered the hearing room.) V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING/STAKE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, resolutions mooring/stake permits. We have eight of them. They are all replacing moorings that were existing that were either cancelled by the office or by the applicant themselves. So none of them are new locations. So I'll make a motion to approve all of the moorings, numbers one through eight as submitted. They read as follows: Number One, WARREN JACKSON requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Hole Board of Trustees 7 May 21, 2008 Creek fora 26' boat, replacing Mooring #002. Access: Private. Number two, GEORGE H. MONAHAN requests Mooring Permit in Town Creek fora 23' boat, replacing Mooring #448. Access: Public. Number three, FRED SCHOENSTEIN requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond fora 19' boat, replacing Mooring #19. Access: Private. Number four, FRANK BUONAIUTO requests a Mooring Permit in DeepHole Creek for a 15' boat, replacing Mooring #103. Access: Private. Number five, PETER AND LORI CIMINO request a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek fora 20' boat, replacing Mooring Permit #84. Access: Private. Number six, MAHLON RUSSELL requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake off his property for a boat 15-20'. Located: 2045 Long Creek Drive, Southold. Number seven, FRANCESCA ANDERSON requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake off her property on Richmond Creek. Located: 4910 South Harbor Road, Southold. Number eight, BRADLEY ANDERSON requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake off his property on Richmond Creek. Located: 4930 Harbor Road, Southold. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for amendments, extensions and transfers. TRUSTEE KING: One moment. I would like to recognize Don Wilder from the CAC. They go out and visit many of the same sites we visit and they give us their recommendations. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before I go further, we have not done postponements. There are a number of applications that have been postponed tonight. If you want to read them off, Jim. POSTPONEMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: It starts on page four. Page four, number seven, the Board of Trustees May 21, 2008 application of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requesting an Amendment to Permit #6437 to construct a fixed open walkway 4x70' with decking a minimum of 3.5' above vegetated grade, hinged ramp 3x20' and floating dock 6x20', and install two six-inch diameter (nominal) piles to secure the floating dock. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. Page seven, number 20, Patricia Moore on behalf of JUDY TEEVAN AND PAULA DIDONATO requests a Wetland Permit to replace wood decking around pool, wood deck, wood walkway and wood retaining wall with Bluestone pavers and eight-inch concrete retaining wall to pool deck level. Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold, has been postponed. Number 21, Docko, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT MEYER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 138+/- linearfeet of 5.7' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including ladders and four braced tie-off piles waterward of the high tide line. Located: Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number 22, Ray Nemschick on behalf of STEIN FAMILY RESIDENC TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct aone-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling new front porch and a half-story addition with utility (1) toilet, (1) sink to existing one-story garage. Located: 2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion, has been postponed. Number 23, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of DANIEL HUME, requests a Wetland Permit to construct beach stairs and related walkways and platforms. Located: 13945 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number 24, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of JOHN ELICK AS TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct beach stairs and related walkways and platforms. Located: Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number 25, Philip Anderson on behalf of GARY GUJA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a docking facility consisting of a 4x16' ramp to a 4x58' catwalk, elevated a minimum four feet above grade of wetlands, a 3x15' ramp and a 6x20' floating dock with three secure piles plus one additional ten-inch round tie-off pile. Located: 372 North Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed. So we don't want to have anybody sitting here waiting for something to come up that is not. Board of Trustees 9 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, NED HARROUN requests an Amendment to Permit #6549 to repair the entire length of the existing 154' bulkhead using vinyl sheathing on the inside of the old creosote. Located: 63745 Rt. 25, Southold. The Board had gone out and met Mr. Harroun about a year ago on this and there are pictures in the file. We are all familiar with the area from his drawings, and his application is pretty straightforward. So, Mr. Harroun, you are just re-doing the sheathing behind, putting it behind the existing. MR. HARROUN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you'll be cutting the rest down to grade. MR. HARROUN: Right. That's what Jim had mentioned. When we were there on the visit -- the meat and potatoes of it is we wanted to repair it totally. Jim did, and that's why I really have not gone anywhere and I saved some funds and I bought the C-Loc. I didn't realize it was so terribly expensive. My son-in-law has loaned me a vibrator to install it with, with a diesel engine. I seen it work. It's quite an instrument. It's very expensive, but I have great expectations. So I understood from many of the local contractors that there is a lot of clay there and you are not going to pump it and vibrating is the way to go. It goes down like it has eyes, 1 was told. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions on this? (No response.) I read the application the other day. I'll make a motion to approve the application of Ned Harroun as submitted. It's consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HARROUN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of DEBORAH DOTY requests an Amendment to Permit #6453 to re-use material used for the construction of the ramp and create three steps to grade. Located: 670 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. I went out and looked at this. This is listed as inconsistent under the LWRP. That was actually a consistency determination that was done based on the original application in 2006, so we addressed those inconsistencies when we granted the permit for this property. Now what she has done is asked, because of her disability, she can no longer use the ramp at the very end of the catwalk, so she wishes to take off the ramp and add three steps. Board of Trustees 10 May 21, 2008 It will not extend the structure any more out into the waterway. So I would, if there are no comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to approve this request. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LINDA BORDEN requests an Amendment to Permit #6835 to construct new 3.5' wide steps to beach, new 4x6' landing deck, 4x16' stairs with rails, four-feet wide, 18 square foot landing deck and new kayak rack landward of the AHWL. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. This is a downsizing. This is like the third amendment that made it even smaller so. So it's far less than what we approved originally. I have no problem with it. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of BOYAR/MCNEILY requests an Amendment to Permit #6556 to reconstruct existing timber bulkhead along the northern section of subject parcel, construct a flagstone patio (including dry-stack rock retaining wall, access steps and fire-pit), establish aten-foot wide non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead, and revegetate seaward of the reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 250 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. Again, this is an amendment to permit #6556. They are looking to construct a flagstone patio and to include aten-foot wide non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead as well as reconstructing timber bulkhead along the northern section of this parcel. I went out and looked at this. The only concern I had about this one is there was a roof runoff issue from the house going to the water approximately the middle of the northern side of the house and I would recommend approval of this with the condition that that roof runoff was taken care of. So the installation of a drywell on the north side of the house to contain roof runoff to prevent it from going down the bank into the creek. It's consistent under the LWRP. That would be my recommendation and I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Patricia Moore on behalf of JAMIE AND NANCY SANTIAGO requests an Amendment to Permit #6654 to install pavers Board of Trustees 11 May 21, 2008 around the proposed swimming pool rather than decking and install a 10x18' fish pond. Located: 3745 Nassau Point, Cutchogue. We all went out there and took a look at this as well, and I don't think any one of us had a problem with it. LWRP found the original inconsistent, so it's listed as inconsistent. But that was on the original permit. But as far as this amendment, there is no problem and I would make a motion to approve it as written. MS. MOORE: I had one quick question. I was out there today because the swimming pool has to get Zoning Board approval because it's in the side yard. The pool itself. I noticed that the pool, when it was staked, it looks very close to the house and I didn't know if ultimately the Zoning Board might want us to move it a little further toward the neighbor's property line, not so close to the house. Just in case, we would not go any further toward the top of the bluff but is there some flexibility ultimately on the final design? Because it's going to be pavers around the pool but the pool location may be slightly altered by the Zoning Board. I just don't know. I have a hearing coming up, I think next week. So is there, do you have any issues with that? TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to wait on us until after the zoning? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because you'll have to come back to us again. MS. MOORE: Why don't I ask that it stay open and when I get the final location then I'll submit it and it can be just done administratively, however you want, either next meeting or internally, however you would like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to do it as a resolution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a question, or another way is we can act on it tonight, and I don't want to make any assumptions, but if we approved it and then the Zoning Board had no problem with it, you could move forward with the project or if they had a problem, you can come back to us requesting an amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because if you don't move it, then you are waiting on us again. MS. MOORE: Yes, it's aCatch-22. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Either way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It doesn't matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a motion to approve it already. MS. MOORE: I know you are approving it. I know you are talking whether we go this way or that way. TRUSTEE KING: It's okay with us if it's no closer to the bluff. MS. MOORE: We are only talking where we are putting it laterally. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The one concern that we have with that side yard property is the runoff. We let both properties bring a lot of fill in and that's why the wall -- MS. MOORE: I saw a tremendous amount of the drainage that's been put in there. Board of Trustees 12 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So as long as the properties stay level with each other, then we shouldn't -- MS. MOORE: The reason this patio is being built is because it has to be raised up higher because of the difference between the elevation of the neighboring property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are saying, the elevation should be the same. MS. MOORE: The guy next door is much higher. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The elevation has to be as per the permit. Not level with each other. I feel we need to have the elevation as per the permit that was previously issued. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we made the elevation the same on both permits. MS. MOORE: No, I don't think so, because I was there and the next property, the Parks property, is about two or three feet higher than our property. Maybe this grade may offset that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying. I think we'll have a problem in the future with the elevation. MS. MOORE: Why don't we leave it open. I'll have the answer next time. The pool can be built as per the Zoning Board. It's just the patio we are talking about. That's just the -- I think we should leave it open. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll withdraw the motion and we'll table it then. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to table? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf of SCOTT AND LIA VITRANO requests an Amendment to Permit #6784 to include four six-inch anchor piles instead of the two piles as permitted. Located: 3875 Main Bayview Road, Southold. I believe the Board looked at this. I have seen it prior to this amendment and I believe the discussion of the Board was that they did not feel there was a need for the four anchor piles. MS. MOORE: The contractor, that was the recommendation to the owner by the person building it. You know, it means more money for the client but I think the concern is with the two piles, that because of the shallow nature and the stop gaps that are in place, that the four would keep a more stable --and with the two, remember, there is stop gaps, you'll have the tipping as the water goes down, the structure will stay, won't go down all the way, it will be stopped from going down to the ground. So you'll have the tipping going like this as the water level goes down. If I understand my physics. Board of Trustees 13 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would ask one of the persons on the Board who is more familiar with docks. TRUSTEE KING: The feeling of the Board is two poles are enough. It's a very sensitive area. We want to keep as much structure out of the area as possible. Two is enough. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I recall also. So I'll make a motion to deny the request for the amendment to permit #6784 TRUSTEE KING: Second. MS. MOORE: Just as a note of reference, you have about three other applications along here that are similarly designed with four anchor piles. You have one being heard tonight and then I think another one being filed shortly for the next meeting. So if you are going to take a position two anchor piles is it, then I would expect you to say that to everybody. You have other applications and they are all four anchor piles. That seems to be the appropriate design. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a motion on the floor. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DOROTHY DICKERSON PETERS requests aOne-Year Extension to Permit #6388, as issued on June 21, 2006. Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Jim and I reviewed the file and we took a look and there is really no changes. It's a vacant piece of land and there is no changes. It's getting ready to expire. 1'll make a motion to approve the extension. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ADRIAN SAPOLLNIK AND SHEENA ACHARYA requests a Transfer of Permit #4395 from Albert T. Profy to Adrian Sapollnik and Sheena Acharya, as issued on December 22, 1994. Located: 225 Lakeside Drive South, Southold. I went out and looked at this. It is as per the surveys and the permit in the file. So I will make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearing and go into the public hearing section. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 14 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the public hearings we do ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less as we have a lot of public hearings to go through tonight. If you can, please keep your comments to five minutes or less. Number one, SOPHIE LATHAM & PRISCILLA JAMIESON request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to rebuild the existing jetty and repair the existing bulkhead. Located: 2180 Peter's Neck Road, Orient. The Board went out and looked at this. It was found exempt under the LW RP, determined to be exempt under the LWRP, and the CAC resolved not to support to rebuild the existing jetty. They voted not to support the applications because they were incomplete. The CAC recommends additional information is submitted, such as type of material to be used, length and design of the jetty and a professional review of the effects of a groin. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application MS. LATHAM: Hi, I'm Sophie Latham. MR. LATHAM: I'm her grandfather. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anything you would like to say before we start moving along here? MS. LATHAM: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Now, the Board did go out and look at this. Let's start with the bulkhead. The question we had in the field about the bulkhead was the need for the entire length of the bulkhead to be replaced. Approximately two-hundred feet of the bulkhead going from west to east starting at the western point going to the eastern point appeared to be exposed. The last distance of the bulkhead, as you can see, from approximately whoever that person is who is bending over there, going east, is all buried. It is not exposed. So what we were recommending is not to replace the bulkhead that is completely buried there because there really is no need to replace that. It's well built up. The beach has been vegetated. It seems like the beach has built up since the original bulkhead was built. MS. LATHAM: So you are just saying the part of where the date is, would this be okay here? Because this is exposed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: From right there out to this end over here should be left just the way it is. Because it is buried. It really, it saves you money, there is no need to replace it because it's completely built up and vegetated there. It would not be functioning at all for you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And what we are trying to do tonight is recognize Board of Trustees water 15 May 21, 2008 that that structure is there so in the future if you have to come back and repair it, if you unfortunately lose that land, then we already recognized there was something there. It's on the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so we are starting with the bulkhead, that's the only recommended change we are making. Now, with regard to the low profile groin, and I'm sorry, I don't see any measurements here in the field notes, unfortunately. Groins now, we request to be -- I'm sorry. With this groin we had suggested the removal of this. It's completely non-functional. It's just extra structure that is not serving a purpose. So we had recommend the removal of that short groin that is to the western end of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a return coming in on the western end, too? MS. LATHAM: What part of the groin? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are talking about the western end, right there, we are talking about removing that. TRUSTEE KING: I think there is a return on the back side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a return there and -- hang on. I don't see the length of it listed on here. TRUSTEE KING: I assume you'll replace the return also. MS. LATHAM: I would like to. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And we are allowing that. I want to make sure it's included in here. There is a return on the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Seaward of the bulkhead, we don't want that structure. Landward of the bulkhead you can, that's what we are saying. MS. LATHAM: Can I choose to leave the groin as is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we are requesting that groin on that end be removed as part of this project. It is non-functional and it's just extra structure in the and it's actually impeding beach access and the public does have the right to walk down the beach and that's impeding beach access, so we would like it removed. Like I said, unfortunately, I don't see in the plans the length of the return that's on that end. Do you have a ruler down there, please? TRUSTEE KING: (Handing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looks like approximately afifteen-foot return, but it's hard to tell exactly. If we were to say no more than a fifteen-foot return there, would that be okay with the applicant on the western end? MS. LATHAM: I'm not sure how long it is. TRUSTEE KING: Unless you do a measurement and let us know what the exact measurement is. MS. LATHAM: I don't know what the measurement is myself. I could measure it. Board of Trustees 16 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, we can table this to get more accurate measurements and come black to it next month. MS. LATHAM: I could measure it. Can I do that and call you? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the survey, is that average low tide and high tide on the survey? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the other thing we usually like to see on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mean high water is on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the jetty extend out beyond mean high on the survey? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The short groin that we have asked to be removed, it does go out beyond mean high. Mean high is at the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about this -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have not gotten to that groin yet. MS. LATHAM: The groin is probably in the water about two feet at high tide. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, with regard to the other groin, there were no measurements taken. Our problem right now is no measurements are hereon the field notes as to that groin, the length of that groin. I'm talking about the groin to the east. And understand, I know it's marked down here as a wood jetty. Technically it's referred to as a groin when it goes out into the water. Jetties protect inlets. Everything else is a groin. I know it's an interchangeable definition. MS. LATHAM: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We do want groins today to be low profile, and what was existing there is 120 feet long, plus or minus, and it's not a low profile. What we mean by low profile is it cannot be more than 18 inches above grade at the lower side of the jetty. In this case, the lower level of the jetty is on the eastern side, the other side of the picture there. In other words the sand is building up on this side and it's the jetty takes away the sand from going around and going to the other side. When it's low profile, limited to 18 inches in height, what it allows for is for sand to build up to a certain point on this side and then flow over, go to the other side, so it doesn't completely rob the down drift side of sand. And all our groins that we are approving now are low profile. So the maximum allowed would be 18 inches in height above grade on the down drift side. Does that make sense? MS. LATHAM: Do you know approximately how high this is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I do not. And it's not on the drawing that was prepared here. But I can tell you, it will be lower as it goes out into the water. In other words, that is not a low profile groin Board of Trustees 17 May 21, 2008 what you are looking at in this picture. That's high profile. This will be lower. So what we are trying to work through now is the length. Any ideas from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there, I questioned Mr. Latham on where the low tide is and you can actually see it, it's pretty much at low tide at the end of the groin. But I would like to see that on the survey where the tide -- TRUSTEE KING: Does it show apparent low water on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, just high. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we want to see apparent low water on the survey. Does it extend beyond the high? TRUSTEE BERGEN: As you can see it extends well beyond the high tide mark. That was not even high tide and it is extending well out into the water. MS. LATHAM: We have lost a lot of beach and it's gotten recessed a lot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we maybe act on it subject to receiving updated survey with the information on it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: First I want to see if there are any other comments. Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience on this application? (No response.) Not seeing any, Representative Don Wilder from the CAC, if you could explain a little more about your motion not to support this? They did state in here it would be vinyl. I know there was a question the CAC had of what the material was going to be used and it is going to be vinyl. MR. WILDER: We didn't pick up on the vinyl. We thought some of the dimensions and so forth were not available. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Same question on dimensions then. MR. WILDER: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So I would propose tabling this until we can go back out and get appropriate dimensions listed here, and if we can get a survey that has the low water on it in addition to the high water it would certainly help us out. MS. LATHAM: Is that the only thing you need from me? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What you were suggesting, to get the dimensions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need to get back out there and measure the dimensions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think they need to put the dimensions on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Yes. The applicant can put the dimensions on the survey. We will also go out and measure to see if there is an adjustment we are suggesting to current dimensions. We already talking lowering the height. We may be suggesting making it shorter. I'm not saying we will. I'm not saying we will, Board of Trustees 18 May 21, 2008 I'm just saying we might suggest that. TRUSTEE KING: We'll time it to go out there at low tide. MS. LATHAM: I'll ask the surveyor to get measurements on the groin, both groins. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You might as well do both groins as long as he's going out there. And average low water. Sorry we didn't ask for it before, I don't know how we missed that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with the DEC on this? MS. LATHAM: Just beginning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this won't hold you up then. MS. LATHAM: No. I have one question. The reason we are doing this is to sort of save some of our beach because it's just being eroded extremely fast. If you approve this and the DEC approves it, is this going to help? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We find that the low profile, if there is already a groin there and when somebody wants to replace it, the low profile is what works. If you look, I don't know if you go in the water there, if you look further down in Gardiner's Bay, you'll see the difference, you'll see some higher ones and the low profile ones. Where the low profile is, is plenty beach. What happens is it builds up one side and then goes over, so it's not robbing from one side, so it's all even. MS. LATHAM: It's my cousin next door. I don't want to take her sand. If you make it a lot shorter I'm wondering if it will serve its purpose. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if we are looking to make it a lot shorter. MR. LATHAM: We would like to keep the length, even if it's low. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. It's just something we have to work out. That's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Generally we don't approve it further out than mean low water. You probably won't get anything longer that mean low water. TRUSTEE KING: That's a DEC requirement. I tried to work with them and tried to be wnsistent, rather than we well tell you something, you go to them and they tell you something different then you come back to us. We tried to some stop some of that. I've got some of the permit conditions I just keep in my head. The language is the authorized groin shall not exceed 18 inches in height over the existing grade of the down drift beach and shall not extend seaward of apparent low water. That's what they base their determinations on the groins, so. Board of Trustees 19 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you'll find it pretty close to low water there. We just need documentation. MS. LATHAM: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean, we can still ask for you to make it shorter than low water. MS. LATHAM: So I'll just give this back to Lauren, then? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. LATHAM: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Costello Marine on behalf of STEVEN AND SEVGI UYANIK request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove partial remains of existing bulkhead. Regrade existing bank to top of bluff. Construct 88' of new bulkhead in place; eight-foot return on west end and 16' return on east end. Remove all existing rocks encountered during construction and replace as armoring at base of new bulkhead upon completion. Remove existing platform and stairway to beach. Construct new 10x16' upper deck; 10x12' lower deck and three-foot wide stairways to beach in new location. Provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer zone behind new bulkhead. Revegetate with Cape American Beach Grass. Install erosion construct geometric design nylon matting "Enkamat" 7010 or equal from base of bluff to top of bluff and revegetate slope with a combination of Bayberry, Rosa Virginia and Beach Plum plantings. Located: 55055 North Road, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have anything, Mr. Costello, you would like to add to this? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. We are the agents for this application. And there was a bulkhead across the entire property. There is a piece that is protected by that small boulder, the two-hundred ton. And 1 was not clipping away the poison ivy or whatnot around the eastern portion of that bulkhead, but I could anticipate that by going down there with a shovel that you are going to anticipate that this bulkhead atone time, probably 50 or 60 years ago, was reinforced by native boulders in that general area. They are right there, they are piled up. They are smaller. And we'll encounter them. You have to excavate a trench in order to install the bulkheading, the vinyl bulkheading. And when we do we'll encounter some native boulders. That's not native boulders, the adjoining property to the east. But we'll encounter them and what we are doing is I'm recommending to the owners that the boulders be used as armoring in front of the existing bulkhead when put in for additional protection. It's well above high water. But they are there now and you can see the build Board of Trustees 20 May 21, 2008 up of sand and gravel that occasionally happens on above higher tides than normal. But after you excavate, you know, instead of buying rocks, instead of bringing them in, they are there, they are on the property, and they will afford additional protection. Any other questions that the Board has I'll certainly attempt to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say one of the concerns of the LWRP, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator comment and I think some of the interpretations from our inspection was that you were going to be using some of the rocks from the beach area. MR. COSTELLO: No, only what we encounter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Only what you come across as you remove. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because that was one of the comments here. The proposed action is not in compliance because of the removal of all the rocks encountered during construction and replaces armoring at abase. So I think that would still be covered by the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Can you go to the east again? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. (Viewing slide show.) TRUSTEE KING: Couldn't you do something like that, John, rather than bulkhead, just continue that same structure right to the west? MR. COSTELLO: You could, except I think you'll encounter enough rock, native rock. That is not native rock. That's plastic granite. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim is saying use that to construct. I think we would rather see this than the bulkheading, was the feel of the Board. I would just offer that CAC does not support the application because of the high energy shoreline resulting in serious erosion, the continued hardening of the shoreline will steepen the beach and accelerate erosion down the current protected bluff. LWRP is also inconsistent for the reasons I already stated but also the proposed action is not in compliance with the following 275 standards, which is construction of the two decks. I know that's another topic, but I think when the Board went out the conversation was they would prefer to see this type of protection -- MR. COSTELLO: Here's my objection for that. If you are going to do it right. You want penetrate the soil, because rocks sitting on top of the gravel, you can see on the one of the next photographs, it will show you the high resolution of gravel that can occur. It can disappear. There will be a disbursement of rock. Now, you see that berm of gravel, that berm of gravel right there comes and it goes. When you have a high erosion area or good northeast storm, that level will spread out on the beach, without the rocks penetrating down below into the soil. And there is clay in that area. You want to dig down into the clay area in order to Board of Trustees 21 May 21, 2008 put the base of rocks. It makes the job considerably more expensive. You have the rocks. And you'll only see a portion of this bulkhead when you take the rocks that are existing on sight, in the lime, and place them in front of -- there is a bulkhead there now. There is another bulkhead behind that rock. That is part of the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of the things I noticed when I went down there also is that this bluff area is quite vegetated already. It's got a nice thick natural vegetation in there and with the rock revetment in front of it there would not be need for the structure. Which is my way of looking at it. MR. COSTELLO: Well, until you get a storm. You could see there is one eroded area there now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, this would be very nice to have a buffer along here. That would help prevent that. You have the buffer here, you have the full vegetation on the bluff and you have a rock revetment, would be my preference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: From a construction perspective, I have a question. Which is easier to do, first off; the bulkhead as you are proposing or the stone, the rocks along the bottom as we are proposing. Which is easier? And my guess is if it's easier, it would be less expensive also to the applicant. MR. COSTELLO: Well, the less expensive is the bulkhead. That's the less expensive. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because of material or because of labor? MR. COSTELLO: Because of material and because you have to haul the rocks in. Trucking is not an inexpensive hobby now, particularly with the fuel prices and whatnot. But in order to get the rocks put in there properly, and I'm not recommending, and I'm telling you, the adjoining rocks that are in there, I don't know if they penetrate the bottom or not. I don't know if they are down in the clay. I don't know if they go down to low water. I do not know. Tom Samuels may be able to tell you, but I don't know. And unless they are, there will be some dispersion. Then it's a repair job. You can see they are slightly discombobulated now. But they are still in tact. They are still giving some protection. You can also see the bluff, on the bluff there, rain and water. And it's a steep bluff. The angle of repose on that bluff is steep. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What I'm saying with this rock revetment and this vegetation and the added buffer on the top, it appears to be working. So 1 think the feeling of the Board was we want to have something similar to that. MR. COSTELLO: It's not the proper structure for that location. That's all. It's more expensive and it doesn't, those rocks do not probably do not, probably do not penetrate the bottom of the low water mark anyway. So if that berm of gravel should erode, there Board of Trustees 22 May 21, 2008 will be some dispersion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But as of this inspection, this was working. MR. COSTELLO: There is a bulkhead on the property now, on both ends. There is also another bulkhead to the west of this property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the bulkhead you are referring to. MR. COSTELLO: Right. See the rock right there up against the wall, that would, that return right there, that's the east end return TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's actually a return rather than the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: That's the return. That is not on the -- you can also see a rock right there, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is two bulkheads there. There is one there and two behind it. TRUSTEE KING: It was terraced at one time? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm torn on this because what I'm hearing is that, from one vantage point, the bulkhead is less structure than the rocks, so environmentally, that would make sense. But I'm hearing from the contractor, in his professional opinion, the rocks are not going to hold as well or as efficiently as the bulkhead would. MR. COSTELLO: With the rocks in front of it, absolutely not. Absolutely not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I do respect Mr. Costello's professional experience here with this. So I know out in the field I also tended to go with just rocks down on the bottom, but hearing this point of view here tonight I don't know how other Board members feel but I'm inclined to go with the bulkhead with the rocks in front. That's just my own opinion. Others could disagree. MR. COSTELLO: Could I make one other comment on the rock situation. When I encounter the native rock, whether t was installing a rock or retaining wall or bulkhead, whatnot, the rock I encountered are native. First of all. They belong here. They look better than the blasted granite. Let me tell you. But they are round. To incorporate those in a granite wall, it is not going to stay. Round rocks by themselves -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Round rocks don't fit in square holes? MR. COSTELLO: No, not yet. But what happens is they move. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand what you are saying MR. COSTELLO: But that's all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think it might be beneficial to move on to -- you have a couple of different requests here. The staircase, I don't think the Board had a problem with, but there is a problem with the decks, which again is also mentioned in the LWRP. I believe the feeling of the Board from the field notes -- I look at it separately and the other four members went out -- that there should be no decks in the coastal erosion and also 275 Boazd of Trustees 23 May 21, 2008 mentions that no more than thirty-two square feet. So for those two reasons that the decks would not be allowed. MR. COSTELLO: Which deck, the ten foot one in the buffer? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Neither, I believe. The 10x16 upper deck nor the 10x12 lower deck because I don't know if one or both were in the coastal erosion and they exceed the thirty-two square feet of 275-11. So I'm saying to you that replacement of the staircase is not a problem but there would not be any decks allowed. MR. COSTELLO: Even having anon-turf buffer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are looking for the coastal erosion line on your plans. Is it on the survey? MR. COSTELLO: It's on the survey that was submitted as part of the process. Would you like to see it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Here it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are both totally in the coastal erosion hazard area. MR. COSTELLO: And no decks are allowed in the coastal erosion TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure. I'm trying to find out. I thought there was an exemption for small decks. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the thirty-two square feet exceeds 275 TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He just references 111. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Kieran, do you know the section on the 111 where it refers to the decks? MR. CORCORAN: Would the deck be in a bluff area, a beach area? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No decks or plattorrns shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs shall be larger than 32 square feet. But that's 275. (Reading). He has dash twelve but that's for the removing of the rocks. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Construction of non-movable structures or placement of major, non-movable additions to existing structures is forbidden. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's only -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's anon-movable structure, so you can't do that. MR. CORCORAN: In a bluff area you can have, it says specifically allowed are NEW construction modification or restoration of walkways or stairways. In accordance with conditions of coastal erosion permits or non-major additions to existing structures on bluffs pursuant to permit. The permit needs to be defined in the normal building section -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we reduce this to thirty-two square feet or under, can that fit into the coastal erosion? MR. CORCORAN: I believe so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have done that in the past. Board of Trustees 24 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 275-11 is no more than thirty-two square feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So together they can't exceed thirty-two square feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: It seems to me there is an exemption for under 200 square feet in coastal erosion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Coastal erosion, 200 square feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Still it exceeds. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm saying, if we match 275 under 32-square feet, then we could fit it into the coastal erosion and then we could allow it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would lake to ask Mr. Costello. I would not be inclined to approve this application considering the bulkheading and the rocks and the decking and the stairs. I don't have a problem with the stairs. I don't have a problem with reduced decking but I'm -- so I would like, Mr. Costello, to ask you if you would like to continue with this application as it is and I would make a motion or if the Board has any suggestions to alter this as it is, it being inconsistent with LWRP and some of our other concerns. TRUSTEE KING: I would almost like to wait and see if we could find this exemption, for starters, and I would like to go back out into the field. John, can you stake where the new bulkhead is actually going to go? MR. COSTELLO: It's going to go exactly where the other one -- point to point. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see in the field where it is in the bluff. MR. COSTELLO: I think it was staked. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why are there stakes in the lawn? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's for the deck. MR. COSTELLO: It's exactly where the existing is. TRUSTEE KING: We found it. Lauren found it. But I remembered it MR. COSTELLO: It must have happened long ago. TRUSTEE KING: It's considered an accepted activity which is not regulated by this chapter. It's non-commercial access to the beach, docks, piers, bluffs, similar structures, floats, columns open to the piles with a top surtace area of less than 200 square feet. So it's actually an exemption if it's under 200 square feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So for coastal erosion it's exempt, but not for 275. So shall we -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to go out and see if again, anyway. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go out and take another good look. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe even meet you there. Board of Trustees 25 May 21, 2008 MR. COSTELLO: I'll meet you there on site. I'll stake it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table number two, Costello on behalf of Steven and Sevgi Uyanik. Do I have a second on that table motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before I open the next hearing, number three, Pat Moore on behalf of Spyro and Margarita Avdoulos, can we, before I open the next hearing, can we straighten out -- do you have that? Can you straighten that out with Kieran, please? MS. MOORE: (Handing). MR. CORCORAN: It's straightened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Our policy is not to move on applications before a violation has been taken care of. And so now it's officially taken care of. Now I'll open the hearing of Patricia Moore more behalf of SPYRO & MARGARITA AVDOULOS requesting a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish the dwelling including all walls, flooring and chimney, retain full basement and crawl space. Reconstruct dwelling over existing foundation (7.5' original setback and 10' over basement -total 17.5') to chimney. Construct addition landward of existing foundation. Reconstruct foundation on east side and alterations of existing foundation where chimney was located and install gutters and drywells, as required. Located: 54985 North Road, Greenport. This is an application that came before us that was approved and it went beyond the scope of the application so the applicant came in to request an amendment, which last month we denied because we felt that it was a lot more than an amendment and now the applicant has come in with a full application and some changes to the plan. Briefly, the plan is to reconstruct a house that --demolish a house and reconstruct, and the foundation will be kept and the reconstruction of the house will start 18 feet landward of the foundation and that 18 feet will remain a patio. MS. MOORE: It's actually 17.5. There are some half measurements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just going by your plans. MS. MOORE: I know. So it's very close. We are measuring to the end of the fireplace. It could be 17.5, 18. Depends where you measure it from. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This end. MS. MOORE: Yes, so the foundation actually has to be poured where the fireplace leaves, so it's in that area. Board of Trustees 26 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured to the second window, approximately a little behind there, maybe. On this side. MS. MOORE: 1 didn't measure on that side. I just measured on the one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It starts back there and goes across here. MS. MOORE: It's a straight line, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, a straight line back. Also, when you look at this house here and the house on the other side, it does go in line, so it's in line with the neighboring houses. On an angle. The land goes on an angle and the proposed construction is in line. MS. MOORE: Okay. I would also point out that the other two houses are much closer to the stop of the bluff, because of the angle for of the top of the bluff, for the record. TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding the chimney is being taken down. MS. MOORE: Yes, in order to do this we have to actually demolish the chimney. TRUSTEE KING: What the about the flooring that is there now, is that going to remain or be removed also? MS. MOORE: We have to remove that. That was part of the first floor. What we have to do now is now we have to pour a new, we have to pour new walls. Mr. Avdoulos is here. He's in construction. So correct anything I say that is incorrect. When the foundation comes out, they have to pour a new foundation on that side. The flooring gets pulled up because they have to put in, in the area that is covered, the seven-and-a-half plus the ten foot area, has to get a waterproof surface on it because the basement is directly under it. So the top, which is a patio, or deck, will be a -- MR. AVDOULOS: Spyro Avdoulos. We'll probably put an "I" beam from where the chimney ends across to the second window on the -- MS. MOORE: Can I take that red thing; it's probably easier. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing you'll end up with now is a foundation, a hole in the ground surrounded by cement walls. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll read the description, for the record. Applicant requests Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish the dwelling including all walls, flooring and chimney, retain full basement and crawl space. Reconstruct dwelling over existing foundation (7.5' original setback and 10-feet over basement -total 17.5') to chimney. Construct addition landward of existing foundation. Reconstruct foundation on east side and alterations of existing foundation where chimney was located and install gutters and drywells, as required. MR. AVDOULOS: Our plan is from the chimney across here we'll put an "I" beam, remove this and probably, and put a metal deck and that will be filled in with concrete. The existing basement will Board of Trustees 27 May 21, 2008 remain. We are not touching the foundation at all. And we'll have a crawl space with ten foot we are actually removing from here and setting the house back. It will be not even a crawl space. It will be more of a vault space under the existing basement as it stands. We are not coming in either direction, we are just going landward and extending the existing structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's happening to the cement and the stairs of the old? MR. AVDOULOS: That was originally to remain which is remaining and it will just be filled in. It will be patio. MS. MOORE: So instead of seven-and-a-half feet, which is the original patio, we are now extending it. MR. AVDOULOS: It will be another ten feet. From here to here is about 17.5, 18 feet. MS. MOORE: Remember, there will be stairs. The design originally had the stairs that access from, we have three feet down so you have to put the stairs, so we don't want any issues of notice. Originally it was designed for stairs that went around the deck area. I don't think that's changing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's going all the way across. MS. MOORE: Exactly. That's not changing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the whole thing is stairs, not just the one portion. So the stoop will be removed and there will be stairs. MS. MOORE: Yes, put all around. MR. AVDOULOS: There will be uniform stairs in position where the stoop is and no further out from where the stoop is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only extension seaward is the stairs going to approximately to where the stoop is now. MR. AVDOULOS: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just a note for the record, the septic is out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: Yes, and the garage may be built out of your jurisdiction as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you going to be keeping the old garage or reconstructor; what are your plans? MR. AVDOULOS: Not reconstruct the old garage. Remove and build a new garage. MS. MOORE: If you recall, during the original hearing, the sanitary was moved back; moving the sanitary back because of the neighbor's wall required us to demolish the garage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even though it's out of our jurisdiction, what are your plans for the driveway? Are you keeping it pervious or are you going to asphalt it? MR. AVDOULOS: Whatever is necessary to do with the driveway, we are going to probably keep it in the same position. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. It's a rather long driveway. I'm just Board of Trustees 28 May 21, 2008 thinking of our new drainage code, if you are going to have asphalt runoff, because it's right on the property line. I would like to see pervious more. It says broken asphalt there, so, I don't know. MS. MOORE: No, I think the architect plans had originally -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's there now is broken asphalt. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw that it is, so. Jim was just saying we would like to see the houses on either side so we can see that it is in line with them, but I think it was pretty obvious when we were out there that it is, so. Any other questions from the Board? Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response.) Hearing none -- MS. MOORE: Just for the record, if we could incorporate the record from the previous hearing. It had testimony regarding engineering and so on, rather than come in and have you rehear everything, we'll just incorporate that, for the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. CAC recommends the bluff is stabilized and ten-foot non-turf buffer is maintained landward of the top of the bluff. CAC has no comment on the proposed dwelling. And the LWRP report is inconsistent. (perusing.) For the distance of the top of the bluff. That's what it is. And moving the house back will bring it into consistency. And what kind of buffer did you want to see; ten-foot non-turt buffer from the top of the bluff back? Is that okay with the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a small front yard. I'm comfortable with a ten-foot, non-turt buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application Patricia Moore on behalf of Spyro and Margarita Avdoulos as submitted plans dated 4/29/08, with gutters and drywells as stated, with aten-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff to be maintained and that the patio remains a patio and does not become a structure, in other words you can't come in for an amendment years later and say can I enclose this. MR. AVDOULOS: I understand. MS. MOORE: There are already covenants file from the previous application with aten-foot buffer, the drainage, all of this was done. It was already done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to reiterate. MS. MOORE: That's fine. Because I think we are anxious to get a Board of Trustees 29 May 21, 2008 green light to start, to reactivate construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MOORE: And sometimes the delay is covenants and permits. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, are you comfortable in signing these plans? TRUSTEE KING: I have not been comfortable with this whole project from the get go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see these transferred to the survey? We should get a new survey on this, right? Subject to putting it on the survey? MS. MOORE: But the plans are actually more accurate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just asking how the Board feels. So I'll make that motion. Do we have a second? And I find it consistent with LWRP by moving the house back 17.5 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee King, nay.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note for the record, Trustee King says nay. MS. MOORE: As I said, we have a stop work order but, that we would like to have that lifted. If you could send a communication to the Building Department. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure MS. MOORE: The next step is foundation work. They are ready to start any time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As soon as Lauren can type a permit and get it out, that's when you'll get the permit. MS. STANDISH: Do you want that, that's the permit you are approving? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we have, if you can, the buffer, these are the plans I'm going to sign, I want to see the buffer on these plans. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't know which ones you are looking at. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: These are the plans you submitted with the new application. The ten-foot buffer is not on there. MS. MOORE: Right there. That's the hay bale line. The ten foot buffer is here. I think. If I'm reading it correctly. Just as a matter of knowledge, I have covenants and restrictions that have actually been filed, so we have enforceable covenants that I have a non-turf buffer. So, I may be mistaken as -- I looked at it quickly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want the plans completed even though you have them. So the hay bale line you are saying is ten feet? MS. MOORE: I believe so. I believe that's how it was designed originally. I'll just double check. (Perusing.) Maybe not. Hold on. I'm looking at the survey. He took it from the surveyor. MR. CORCORAN: JUROR: Pat, even though you have existing covenants, the non-turf buffer has to be part of the new permit or else you Board of Trustees 30 May 21, 2008 can make the argument that the Board has overridden that. MS. MOORE: I could easily add -- by tomorrow you'll have "non-turf' written in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because according to, comparing the survey to your drawing, the hay bale line is on the 19' elevation and the ten-foot non-turf buffer is more like -- it's around there. It's pretty close. MS. MOORE: It's not a problem. It can be done tomorrow. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm in the office all the time so whenever it's done I'll sign it and we can get it out. MS. MOORE: Fine. Thank you. Thank you, very much. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one under Wetland Permits, STACY SHEPPARD requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 49' jetty. Located: 710 Park Avenue Ext., Mattituck. Ten park avenue extension, Mattituck. Is this a plan to replace this jetty? Is the game plan here to rebuild this existing jetty as a low profile? MS. SHEPPARD: No, I was told to file the permit as is. That I replaced -- I didn't even replace the board, the previous owner did. TRUSTEE KING: So you are coming in after the fact then. MS. SHEPPARD: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have pictures we took in the field and we have aerials in our file. TRUSTEE KING: The reason I'm asking is these Costello plans to build aloes-profile jetty. I would like to know what we are doing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Jim is saying, you are requesting a permit for what is there now and you are not doing anything else to it. MS. SHEPPARD: I'm not doing anything else to it. TRUSTEE KING: So I just ignore these? Plans per Costello, I ignore these? MS. SHEPPARD: I was told I have to get plans drawn up and I was referred to Costello Marine. TRUSTEE KING: Sorry, it's just confusing to me. MS. SHEPPARD: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plans drawn up appear to us like you want rebuild this jetty and what you are saying right now, so it's clear for the record, you are not looking to rebuild the jetty, you are only applying to permit what is already there. MS. SHEPPARD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Basically it's just -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just acknowledging what is there is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's your plan for the future once it Board of Trustees 31 May 21, 2008 deteriorates more? Are you planning to come in and get a permit to replace that? MS. SHEPPARD: Yes, if it deteriorates, yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's not doing much good the way it is now. Do you have it showing further out? I'm wondering if -- that's it. See the problem here, I think the violation was because those pieces were added to the stop of the jetty. That's why initially a violation was issued. The one we can't see back here to the west is Mr. Drums. MS. SHEPPARD: I only have one. TRUSTEE KING: He removed those structures off the top and that was the end of that. Is your intention to leave what is there now? MS. SHEPPARD: I would like to. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only issue I have with that is it's a safety issue. In that one section, somebody is going to get hurt. And that is on public domain area. MR. WICKHAM: Jay Wickham. In a week and half it will be covered up like it is here. And in two weeks it will be the other way. What if we leave the permit in to build a new one. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the better wake to way to go for it. MR. WICKHAM: It's low profile, which it is pretty much anyway. TRUSTEE KING: 1 think that's the best thing; apply for a low profile groin. You know, we just had a discussion about groins a little while ago. I don't know if you were here or not. To my mind, that's -- MR. WICKHAM: That's pretty much what is on there, isn't it, on the application? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That's what he's showing. He's showing proposed rebuild existing jetty, inlike/inplace. But then he says it's low profile. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How far out does it go? We couldn't really measure it. TRUSTEE KING: Apparent low water. He stops it there. Sixty feet. Stop at sixty feet from the deck of the cottage. TRUSTEE KING: He's showing C-Loc here. Proposed low profile jetty. Its a little confusing because he shows rebuild existing jetty inlike/inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John's out in the hall. Do you want him to come in? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That would be helpful. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Stacy, can you go in the hall and get John Costello, please. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go for a permit for a low profile jetty. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. Again, this is totally up to the applicant, but since we have plans before us for building a low profile jetty, my suggestion is to go forward with this proposal. Board of Trustees 32 May 21, 2008 You don't have to build it, obviously, but this way you'll have a permit in place should you decide to build it. MR. WICKHAM: I just want to get away from the safety hazard here. If you want us to do something with that, that can be done. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: The main problem I have was there was an addition but on top, there was a violation for it. Now permitting that it's like you are permitting a violation. I would rather stop it there. MR. WICKHAM: Whatever is best. How about that, at this point. TRUSTEE KING: John, we have -- are you familiar with this here? MR. COSTELLO: I wasn't participating in the first part of the conversation. (perusing.) What a beautiful set of plans. TRUSTEE KING: Kind of small. TRUSTEE KING: My point, John, the application was for a request for a wetland permit for an existing jetty, which is there now. But when I see the plans for a new jetty I would prefer them to just apply for a new low profile groin rather than go through this nonsense with this whole thing. I'm just asking you, this will be low profile in vinyl, right? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, this constitutes almost a low profile, as it is. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I know. MR. COSTELLO: Whether it's functional or not, to a degree it's functional. But I don't know what the request is for. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at page five. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where the confusion is. TRUSTEE KING: Inlike/inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After the violation Ms. Sheppard was asked to apply for what was there, to make it legal, and we really are not comfortable with that. So we are saying let's replace, an application to replace the whole thing inplace. TRUSTEE KING: That's what these plans reflect. MR. COSTELLO: 49 feet, yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I think they should, but the economics of it, what they can do, I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not saying she has to do it right way, we are saying instead of coming back later when she is ready to do it, we have the plans. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's just a straight forward way to go. It will save you a lot of aggravation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know the dimensions of the groin, the proposed groin? MR. COSTELLO: It's not groin. TRUSTEE KING: 49 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 1 didn't hear you say that. 49 feet. Sixty feet from the cottage. Board of Trustees 33 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: We are not going to be able to move on it tonight anyway because we don't have the LWRP yet. And it's not non-functioning enough to replace. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was the application put in thirty days prior? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. I talked to Scott Hilary today who is our new LWRP coordinator -- I don't know what his title is -- but he requested more time to review this. Mark and Scott's concerns are the protection of your house and generally we, when somebody comes in for a replacement of a groin orjetty, we like to reduce it as much as possible or get rid of it totally. In this case it's a whole groin field and where the houses are built on a peninsula, you have water on both sides, it's a matter of protecting the future of the house. MS. SHEPPARD: I'm assuming that's why the owner repaired what was there in the first place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. This is what the LWRP is concerned with and they want more time to review, the LWRP, to try to find it consistent with LWRP because the concern is the protection of the house. MR. WICKHAM: To do all of those? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just talking about this one. MR. WICKHAM: Why would you just do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Only because we are dealing with one now. When Mr. Celic comes in for his, we'll deal with his. That's why we don't have the LWRP report tonight and we can't act on it until we get the LWRP report. So we'll--- MR. WICKHAM: What would your recommendation be if you were to leave it the way it was right now, as filed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be the same thing. We don't have the LWRP request. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't make a decision until we have that. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I would be uncomfortable to permit a structure that in reality is a violation. MR. WICKHAM: Okay. But that is exactly what the town told Stacy to do. Just so you understand. MS. SHEPPARD: Some of the members up there, I was in the office many times and this is what I was told to do. TRUSTEE KING: To apply for what was there? MS. SHEPPARD: And I don't understand what is different tonight. And I was told to file as is, too. I was not told to take the boards down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the normal procedure, is to file, that's why you were told that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What happens is, after that, then the Board goes out and looks at it. Since the Board seen it -- TRUSTEE KING: Did you pay a fine on this? Boazd of Trustees 34 May 21, 2008 MS. SHEPPARD: No, I didn't. TRUSTEE KING: But there was a violation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it was resolved MS. SHEPPARD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Usually what happens, when a violation is issued there is a fine and it's restored to the way it was before the violation. That's -- MS. SHEPPARD: I had a lawyer and he did nothing for two years. MR. WICKHAM: It looks like it was restored the way it was, if you look at the pictures. I don't think in two years what was put on there -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other issue with this is most of it is not functioning. That's another thing we look at. We usually don't let you replace what is not functioning, so -- MR. WICKHAM: So we'll table it then. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to. We have no choice. The thing is the location, these aerials are great, you can really see what is going on there. I mean it's obvious. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think maybe you are getting a bad taste in your mouth about this -- MS. SHEPPARD: It's been two years. It's not just you. It's my lawyer, too. I was not told anything. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll tell you. My feeling is there is not going to be an issue here. You'll walk away happy a month from now. We want to just get LW RP resolved. They just want to take a look at it. From the aerials I saw, my opinion is the groin is functional to the point where we could issue a permit. I think once, thirty days from now, after the LWRP is done, you'll get a permit to rebuild the structure. That, therefore, gives you the permit for the structure. So you'll walk away happy. This is just technicalities, this stuff here. TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes we get lawyers involved, things get real complicated, when they don't have to be complicated. Really. MR. WICKHAM: Also it costs a lot of money with no need. TRUSTEE KING: 1 keep seeing this more and more, when there is no need in the first place. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Personally, I think you'll be happy in thirty days. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, LORRAINE WENDT requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing docking facility and replace with a 3x47' catwalk with six-inch piles centered ten feet apart, the Board of Trustees 35 May 21, 2008 landward end of dock shall be no more than 55' from the dwelling with one handrail three feet above grade, install a 3x12' ramp, a 6x20' floating dock in a "T" configuration with two six-inch piles. Located: 980 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Before I ask if anybody is here to speak to this, the history on this is they had a grandfather permit for a much smaller structure and they replaced the structure with a much larger structure and a violation was given from the town and also from the DEC, and the plan that is in here tonight reflects the DEC plan of conditions that they have on it. Jim and I went out and looked at it and we took the measurements and we are satisfied with the measurements. The LW RP finds it consistent and the CAC does not support the application and recommends the docking facility is removed and the area restored. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE KING: One other note, too, all the decking to be non-treated material. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any comments from the Board? MR. WILDER: On this, if you change three feet, you do more damage than you have already done. You'll quadruple the damage to the wetland. TRUSTEE KING: Any damage will be restored. It will have to. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The DEC is making them do this. I don't know if you saw the structure yourself but it is way too big. MR. WILDER: 1 didn't personally see it. TRUSTEE KING: If you saw it you would understand why they want to down size. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have pictures. Take a look at these pictures. It's way too big for the area. Did she give a copy, Lauren, of the completed DEC permit? We only have a partial in here? MS. STANDISH: That's all she had. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Lorraine Wendt as stated previously with the condition that we get the set of plans, DEC-approved plans and also the proof of notification to the neighbors to complete the application. TRUSTEE KING: It may not be an approved set of plans from DEC because this is a consent order. They need to draw this on the survey showing what we want here. Board of Trustees 36 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then a set of plans showing these changes. I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And a note that we also find it consistent. TRUSTEE KING: We should all make a notation that any damage to the wetland area has to be restored. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Because they are going to do some damage when they pull everything out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll add that to the motion, restore any damage to the wetlands. Non-treated lumber on the decking to the catwalk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To make it clear, the motion is to apply as stated before with the condition of drawing on the survey, proof of notification to neighbor, using non-treated lumber on the decking and restore any area that has been damaged through construction. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We should put a timeframe on this because -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How do we do a timeframe when you have contractors that are two years out. TRUSTEE KING: They can be quick enough to come build it. They can be quick enough to take it out. It's not a local contractor, so that's some of the problem. A local contractor would not have done this. I say ninety days is plenty of time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How about six months. TRUSTEE KING: That will be the whole summer again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's true. TRUSTEE KING: So the structure has to be removed within ninety days. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Starting from the date of the permit. MS. STANDISH: The permit is tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we'll do it that way. TRUSTEE KING: They don't need plans to remove the structure. They can do that without plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They just can't put the new one in until all the plans are -- TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you second that? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I did. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ELIZABETH SIDDONS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3x16' Board of Trustees 37 May 21, 2008 low-profile open grid dock, minimum two feet above grade, with a PVC kayak slide and steps at the seaward end. Located: 712 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue. This application was reviewed originally when it was submitted under the LW RP and found inconsistent. The CAC also at that time, we are talking back in November of 2006, voted to support the application as it was originally submitted. What the applicant has done is downsized the project from what was originally submitted to include, it was a 4x24 low profile dock with a 4x12' foot platform at the end. They reduced this down to 3x16' low profile, open grid dock, two feet above grade with steps at the end and a PVC slide. So the applicant has done what we had requested. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. There is just two things I would like to add. We need to correct the address. It's 715, not 712. And the DEC has approved the plan as it's submitted to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I'm looking at a plan dated 4/24/08. From the DEC --that's attached to the DEC permit. The plans are attached to the DEC permit that shows the application as described MS. MESIANO: Yes, that's the one I'm referring to. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did have a question for the applicant. Right now I notice in the location where it's presently staked, in other words where the old dock location was presently staked, had it going through it looked like some bacharus and approximately ten feet to the northeast there was no bacharus, just phragmites. If there is an opportunity to move it ten foot to the northeast so we are not disturbing any bacharus, all we are disturbing is the phragmites. MS. MESIANO: I think the answer to the question is this was the optimum location to get some depth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. 1 was just asking if it's possible. MS. MESIANO: It's my recollection that this was the only point that gave us enough depth to float a kayak. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And I notice this was built on 4x4 posts, which is what we would like, and it's using open fiberglass grating, which is also what we would like. MS. MESIANO: It's the minimal structure we could build and still allow decent access. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, any other comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to comment that one of my major concerns was the narrow point of this creek that I'm very familiar with and my reason -- I'm very happy with this plan because the catwalk is going just to the edge of the grassy area and the steps Board of Trustees 38 May 21, 2008 are going down, so there is really no intrusion into the waterway except for the steps. MS. MESIANO: We have not been even able to enjoy the one-third of the way across the waterway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. It's such an extreme narrow part of the creek. I just want to make sure that point was made. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions from the Board? Any questions from anybody in the audience on this application? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number three, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Elizabeth Siddons as described on 715 Monsell Lane, Cutchogue, as per plans dated 4/24/08. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge an 80x480' channel to-20' ALW. The resultant spoil (+7,800 cy. of sand and cobble) will be disposed of at an island site upland disposal site. Located: Foot of Fox Lane, Fishers Island. We all went out and saw this. This is consistent with the LWRP provided it meets sub policy 6.53 as outlined below which is asking the proposed dredging activity will require the component of a silt net that will retain all suspended sediments within the water column in the immediate project area. CAC did not make an inspection. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, I'm Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for Fishers Island Ferry District. I just listened to your comments as far as the silt curtain. I'll be happy to entertain that. One has to realize that we are trying, the existing deaths are anywhere from 11 to 17 feet. We are asking to dredge to 20 feet and it would be hard to incorporate a silt boom at that depth. I think the other thing that should be taken into consideration is the type of material being pretty heavy material because of the current there, so if there is any sedimentation it should really drop to the bottom. I don't anticipate any turbidity, but I'll look into a silt boom. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a location for the spoil? Board of Trustees 39 May 21, 2008 MR. JUST: We are discussing it right now with three different contractors. It will be upland on Fishers Island, on either side of the Mount Vesuveral Cove (sic) is property owned by the Town of Southold. Right now we now we are in discussion with the ferry district perhaps using some of the town property to place the spoil on to it until it de-waters and truck it down to the airport on the west end of the island where they normally store dredge spoil over the last few years that I have been doing this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want that site mentioned in the permit, Jim; is that what you are looking for? MR. JUST: Actually, I would not feel uncomfortable if you table it tonight as far as where the final destination is. We have not determined that yet. We have to make the DEC aware of that as well. TRUSTEE KING: I was just looking at the cross-section, Glenn. Is there any thoughts about narrowing this up a little bit rather than going out to the side, particularly on the south side. MR. JUST: There was concern about going too close to the docks there, undermine them, and Dick Strauss is actually looking into that. TRUSTEE KING: Because I know there is some habitat right along there and we had concerns voiced to us about keeping it away from there a little more. MR. JUST: Another reason, just to let you know, we are asking to go to 20 feet low water, nearest is 18, they have a bigger boat and we talked to the ferry district as far as the heaviest load that could possibly be on that boat. We are looking for two feet of extra space on the bottom. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you are implying that tabling it would give you time to get those details. MR. JUST: Whoever wants to table it is fine with me. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And also consideration of the width. Is the Board inclined to table it, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because it's like -- I think it could be narrowed up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That way he doesn't have to come back to us. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. JUST: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nancy Dwyer Design Consulting on behalf of ARIELLE S. GEROSA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new full second-story addition to the existing one-story dwelling, reconstruct existing deck and increase the size of the existing Board of Trustees 40 May 21, 2008 septic system. Located: 415 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. I believe we opened this up last month, and during the discussion there was some questions, one of them was we were looking to get an engineers report certifying the foundation can hold it. We have a letter from James Deerkoski who is an engineer, letter stamped. The letter certifies the foundation at the above address is of sufficient size, structurally sound and in good working order to support the addition of a second story above the existing wood frame structure. Just to summarize, CAC resolved to support the application. We did ask for some revised plans, that we do have, that show the ten foot non-turf buffer, also shows the drywells and where the septic is going to be going, and everything seems to be in line. LWRP does find this to be consistent and I think with those questions answered we can probably move on this. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application, any further questions for comments? MS. DWYER: I'm Nancy Dwyer on behalf of Arielle Gerosa. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody on the Board have any questions? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve this application as described and as described on the plans which include the non-turf buffer and the drywells as stipulated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Richard Feehan on behalf of JOSEPH ZITO requests a Wetland Permit to construct asecond-story addition and deck onto the existing dwelling, and install new windows and doors. Located: 3600 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Jim and I went and looked at this. This is pretty much a straight forward addition. It's within the same footprint. LWRP finds it consistent. CAC supports the application with the condition gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. CAC also recommends an engineers report to determine whether or not the first floor can accommodate the addition. Jim and I spoke to Mr. Zito and he has engineered-stamped plans because we asked that question as well. And we also talked to him about the gutters and drywells. So, with that, is there anyone who would look to speak on behalf of this application Board of Trustees 41 May 21, 2008 MR. FEEHAN: Richard Feehan on behalf of Joseph Zito. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had any questions. Are there any questions from anybody else? MR. FEEHAN: It's straight forvvard. No impact. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's in the ZBA for the setback. MR. FEEHAN: Yes. And we are heading to the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: It's not going to be demolished down to the foundation. MR. FEEHAN: No, they come at us with all guns blazing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, there is a sufficient buffer. We didn't mention that buffer. What's the width of the buffer of the stones that you have from your bulkhead back? MR. ZITO: Ten feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, hearing no other questions or comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. MR. FABRY: I would like to speak. John Fabry, 3700 Deep Hole Drive. I received this certified letter as the proposed structure on the house next to me. In the past, I have gotten many petitions for this house, things to be done there, and I want to go on record, I don't oppose it and I don't support it, but I would like to say that I have some pictures of the house, of things that were done; fences, sheds and some gate work and I just would like to know that the work is done and done properly. Forget about my view being interrupted or noise that it's going to create, and asecond-story patio. I would like to leave these pictures and if you went there then, Jill, you're usually there. That's all I really have to say. You could pass it or whatever. Thank you, very much. (Handing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, the shed is not on your survey. MR. FEEHAN: It's under 10x10. I don't believe it needs to be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren tells me it was researched and the previous owner had anon-jurisdiction letter -- Mr. Zito has a non-jurisdiction letter for the shed. MR. ZITO: And the fence is on the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the fence is on the permit as well. Okay. MR. FEEHAN: Mr. Zito is very careful about doing everything the correct way. That's why we are here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing, and I don't think it's worth making you get it on the survey to go through that expense, is the shed and fence is not on the survey. And since they are already permitted I don't have a problem with approving it on there. But in the future when you re-do your survey, you may have to re-do it for Zoning Board, add them on. MR. ZITO: Can I comment on that? When the town, when I was putting the shed up, they asked me to move it where they wanted it to be and where it is, is the only place I can put it without getting a Board of Trustees 42 May 21, 2008 variance, so, that was designated by the town to where that shed would be. For the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Just when you re-do your survey just have your surveyor put that on there, for the record, so you have it there. Are there any other comments on this application? (No response.) Hearing none, 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 to the application of Joseph Zito as submitted with the condition of gutters, leaders and drywells and to maintain that ten foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Polywaters Permits LLC on behalf of CHRISTIAN 8~ HEIDI FOKINE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x64' fixed catwalk and 4x8' stairs, using six-inch treated wood pilings and transparent plastic oralam grated decking. Located: 2505 Wells Avenue, Southold. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. POLYWATERS: Yes. I'm Ken Polywater, Polywaters Permits as agents representing this application as submitted. if you have any comments or questions, I would be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KING: Did we talk about shortening this up at all? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. POLYWATER: I did speak with the owner regarding the 4x4s in the marsh and we are acceptable to that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we talked about five foot shorter. You wanted ten foot and we were compromising. MR. POLYWATER: That would be acceptable. We looked at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's very narrow there. MR. POLYWATER: And for other reasons, if we did tie up the canoe afterwards, we would not be going beyond the third into the channel. So it would be without creating a violation. TRUSTEE KING: Is this the latest measurement, Ken? MR. POLYWATER: Yes. Which one are you looking at? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your drawing. MR. POLYWATER: Is it the project plan or the cross view? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's looking at the cross view. MR. POLYWATER: One to ten is the measurement on it. TRUSTEE KING: My eyes must be going. Do you have a drawing with you there, Ken? Board of Trustees 43 May 21, 2008 MR. POLYWATER: What do you have? Do you have a ruler'? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it's two feet per block. You have five blocks and ten. I'm checking the piles. MR. POLYWATER: Since it's a thin plastic decking we put the pilings eight feet part. TRUSTEE KING: What kind of plastic is that? MR. POLYWATER: Thin plastic oralam. TRUSTEE KING: It's the gray colored stuff, comes in like a 1x4, 1x3 width? MR. FOKINE: Christian Fokine. You can get it up to five feet wide by three feet deep, lets about 85% light through it. TRUSTEE KING: We are talking shortening it to five feet. That would make it lower by 67, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. MR. POLYWATER: Overall length would be 67 feet at that point. TRUSTEE KING: So the catwalk will be 59. The catwalk itself would be 59. MR. POLYWATER: Yes, 59 foot fixed catwalk with eight foot of stairs. TRUSTEE KING: So we'll have to change that, or change the description. And the width is four feet. So 4x59 catwalk. MR. POLYWATER: And we'll end up having ten 4x4 posts in the marsh and the remaining eight will be 6x6. By shortening it up we'll probably lose a set of piles. That's the way it looks, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have to list the number of piles. MR. POLYWATER: Just the overall length. TRUSTEE KING: It will be 34 posts in the marsh area with six-inch piles in the water. So we know that. I think I got it. This was found inconsistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By shortening it up, we find it consistent. MR. POLYWATER: We were actually three feet shorter than the dock to the east already, as far as consistency. TRUSTEE KING: At the time it was reviewed by CAC, they supported the application. They recommend the use of grated materials and the docking facility does not exceed one-third of the way across the creek. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this was a smaller structure from when they reviewed it. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? (No response.) Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Boazd of Trustees 44 May 21, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: 1'll make a motion to approve the application of Christian and Heidi Fokine for a fixed catwalk 59 feet in length, with 4x8 stairs at the end, and it will be supported with 4x4 posts through the marsh, to edge of marsh, and six-inch piles in the water area. And they are using transparent plastic oralam grating for the decking material. Anything else? (No response.) I'll make a motion to approve that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: If you can just modify the plans to reflect what we are doing MR. POLYWATER: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, McCarthy Management on behalf of JOHN P. KILGALLEN requests a Wetland Permit to extend the existing dock eight-foot seaward by installing a new 6x8' section and relocate existing float and ramp eight-feet seaward. Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to the support the application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. MCCARTHY: Good evening. Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management. I just want to add for the record, through my research, I have become recently involved in this project, but through my research I went back and found a 1972 permit from the Trustees that permitted the structure at the exact same length that we are looking for today. It was approved under dock permit #700, at 58 feet in length. It doesn't appear it was ever built to 58 feet in length and at that time it cost a whopping 31 dollars for the permit. But it was approved at 58 feet in length and your Board previously approved it in 2004 to the same length. We presently have an existing DEC permit that we would like to be able to use prior to its expiration in January of 2009. The previous applicant passed away. The house was held up in estate. Your permit was never acted upon, so we are looking to just reinstitute the application that you had previously and I just happen to note while I have been sitting here for the last two and half hours, that we did have 58 feet back in 1972 as it was previously approved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And we have a copy in the file of permit #5898 dated April 21, 2004, where the description there matches the description of this application. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Board of Trustees 45 May 21, 2008 (No response.) Not seeing anybody, are there any other comment from the Board? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number eight, McCarthy Management on behalf of John Kilgallen as described, at 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll take afive-minute break now, folks. (After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, we are ready to continue, on number nine, Vicki Toth on behalf of JACK CIPRIANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct atwo-story, single-family dwelling, driveway, sanitary system and public water. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. This is a permit that has expired and they are reapplying. Everything is the same as the original permit. CAC supports the application. Under LW RP it is inconsistent for the 100 feet. But I just would like to make a comment from the survey, the deck is ten feet so actually it is only the deck's ten feet that makes it inconsistent for our 100 foot jurisdiction for the house, so 1 don't see any problem with it. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. TOTH: Vicki Toth on behalf of the property owner. I was also advised to give you a survey with the line of hay bales drawn on for the file. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No. We looked at this before. There is no changes, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We don't have any problem with it. I'll make a motion to close -- TRUSTEE KING: The drainage to meet the new drainage code of 236. And the inconsistency, as I said, is ten feet that is the proposed deck, so with the sewage, drywells, hay bales, we feel it brings it into consistency with LWRP. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll approve the Wetland Permit to construct a Board of Trustees 46 May 21, 2008 two-story dwelling as per plans stamped May 21, 2008, and that stipulates that the drainage, drywells, hay bales, brings this into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x124' fixed catwalk, a 2.5'x12' ramp and 6x20' floating dock. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. We have the application. There is no LWRP report on this at this time and the CAC has resolved to support the Wetland Permit with the condition that open grate decking is used on the catwalk. The Trustees were out there. We have seen the property, we have seen what the plan was. There were some suggestions made at the time and we do have a letter here dated May 16, 2008, with a new plan. I will read it. Dear Mr. King, Members of the Board. This is from Garrett Strang. In accordance with the outcome of our site inspection on May 14, we have amended as discussed; the following changes have been made. The float has been rotated so as to be in alignment with the dock; the ramp has been increased to 16 foot long; the dock has been reduced in length to 106 feet; reduced inlet to three feet and lowered to be two feet above mean high water. The six-inch piles in the marsh area have been changed to 4x4 posts. The landward end of the catwalk has been shown to be 15 feet off the property line. I have copies of the plans here. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application at this time? MR. STRANG: Yes. Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of 2000 Broadwaters LLC. As you read and have the copies of the amended map in front of you, I think we addressed the concerns that the Board shared out at the site and if there are any other questions or comments I would be happy to address them at this time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This doesn't extend any further than the dock that was approved next door, right? MR. STRANG: Actually the original proposal was behind the other dock. Now it's even further in, having been reduced by 16 or 18 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to clarify an ownership issue. This property, my understanding, is owned by the same owner of the lot to the south of Crabbers Road; is that correct? MR. STRANG: It's held as a corporation but the corporate officer is the same as the owner on the lot across from Crabbers Road, yes.. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we have two separate pieces of property. We don't have a situation with two docks on one piece of property. Board of Trustees 47 May 21, 2008 There are two separate pieces of property, one dock on each individual piece of property. MR. STRANG: That's correct. Crabbers Road in fact defines the separation between the two lots. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other questions from the Board at this time? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the purpose of the dock if there is not a dwelling on the piece of property? MR. STRANG: Good question. The purpose the of the dock is preemptive to an application that will be before you probably by next month for a single family dwelling to be built on that lot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It has just a garage at this point? MR. STRANG: There is a garage there presently, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Interesting. A garage, a dock, then a house. MR. STRANG: The house will replace the garage. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I remember correctly, this was subdivided by Howard Meineke before he sold everything. He tried to maximize the monetary output from his investment. Seeing no other comments at this time -- come on up. MS. MIKULUS: Robyn Mikulus. MR. MIKULUS: Richard Mikulus. MS. MIKULUS: We are the owners of 1900. We own the property right next door where they are proposing that this dock is fifteen feet off our property. We were not made aware of the changes. We just got something in the mail not too long ago, so we have the original plans, so we would like to get that information sent to us before anything is decided. But we have many reasons why we are concerned about the location of this dock. We don't understand really why it has to be, number one, where it's being located I understand there has been some changes to the size. That was a major concern for us. We own this property out there because of the tranquility, and to have this huge dock going in is a little absurd. But. MR. MIKULUS: We are concerned that there were two docks, as you folks said. Obviously, we knew Mr. Menche was trying to divide the property before he sold it and apparently he was successful in doing that. But should we apply for a permit to put a dock on our property, which there was at one point -- MS. MIKULUS: There is the remains of a dock. MR. MIKULUS: We would be concerned about the placement of this dock in relation to where ours would go. The half of the property that is adjacent to us has approximately 125 feet of water front. Our property has approximately 100 feet waterfront and to put a dock that close to our property line, ultimately we think it would cause a problem if we tried to put in a permit far a dock in terms of the Board of Trustees 48 May 21, 2008 spacing between the docks. MS. MIKULUS: Right. If we want to move our dock over a little bit you are not really giving us any room at all to make any changes to ours. We have not been notified about a house going in there, which is I'm sure going to be another issue because we are also looking into building out there or building more out there. We owned this land for quite some time now so it's not new, it's not a new investment. It's something that we have maintained as natural as possible, so this is a little shaky for us. TRUSTEE KING: You have a vacant lot there? MS. MIKULUS: It's a small cottage on the lot now. TRUSTEE KING: There is a dock that we see, looking at the one to the right, so you are between that dock and this proposed dock. MS. MIKULUS: We are between the two. And our dock was destroyed by a storm, so you can see that we were told when we bought the property that that would be grandfathered in because it was an existing dock that was there. We have not done anything, at this point, for many reasons, but we weren't even sure if that's exactly where we would be asking for a permit because it's smack in the little of our property. Obviously we would like to move it over ourselves. Not to fifteen feet from somebody's property line, but maybe a little bit over. So, you know, there is a lot of issues. We can't move it the other direction because the other people already have their dock there so we would not want to do that and infringe on them. But this is, you know, there is no reason why this dock can't can be put on by Crabbers Road; 15 feet off that. MR. MIKULUS: It's actually a right of way. MS. MIKULUS: It's a right of way. It's not really the line. It's a right of way. MR. MIKULUS: Unless that was changed. MS. MIKULUS: It couldn't be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the things we look at when we look at locations of dock, particularly on pieces of property, one is setback. The Town Code says 15 foot is the minimum. So this meets the minimum setback for the dock, as 15 feet. The other issue, and this came into place with this one, is we also look at the extent of the wetland that will be covered and this piece of property, the marsh area is narrower toward your side the property line than it is toward Crabbers Road. So it's more environmentally friendly to put the catwalk where it has been proposed. So, you are asking why. That's the reason why. Because to put it farther toward Crabbers Road, the catwalk will now extend even farther over a marsh area, which is not environmentally friendly. MS. MIKULUS: My question would be how much of a difference is this, number one. The second is, if you look at the plans, the catwalk goes way past the wetlands. It's not starting at the wetlands. It Boazd of Trustees 49 May 21, 2008 keeps going, the way it appears to us. This is not our specialty, we are -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you mean upland or out into the water? MS. MIKULUS: Upland. It's way up. It's like in our back door. It's just, where is the house? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, where we looked at it where it was staked, it was not going too far upland from the wetlands. I don't have a set of plans in front of me. But it was not that far. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's right at the edge of the flagged wetland. It only comes in a couple of feet at most, and that's just to step on to. MR. MIKULUS: The original plan as we looked at, it looked like it was about 125 feet long, which I understand has been reduced. MS. MIKULUS: We were not informed of any of this. We just got this stuff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just so you know, we did our field inspections last Wednesday and we met Mr. Strang in the field and that's when we discussed these changes. So the changes were just made. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original plan actually shows the same termination or beginning point of the catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't realize there was a separate lot between that dock and this proposed dock. I thought that dock was on the adjoining property myself. MS. MIKULUS: We really have no place to go with our dock. Even if we put it in the middle of our property, if you look at the angle that it's on, too, it just doesn't make sense. It should be in the middle of their property, too, if that's how everybody's is going. TRUSTEE KING: It would be a great place for a shared dock. MS. MIKULUS: Absolutely. Depending who our neighbors were. TRUSTEE KING: There is a few in town. Not many. Where they are, on the property line, and they actually share. MS. MIKULUS: And I'm not sure, does everybody have to have a dock? I mean, is that, does it say that this property has to have a dock on it? What constitutes that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is do they have a right to have a dock in front of their house? Myself, personally, yes. Just like you have a right to have a dock in front of your house. MS. MIKULUS: But with the new concerns about the wetlands and stuff, any new dock building. I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there. We have been sitting here since six o'clock so we are hearing over and over these concerns, these concerns, then it's like we'll throw this dock up so close to -- I know it's within fifteen feet, I understand that, but it just doesn't fit everything else I'm hearing about using natural, you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It all depends on the construction and the mitigations that we make. Most docks that are going in today are Board of Trustees 50 May 21, 2008 fairly environmentally friendly so, you know, they don't have as much of a native environmental impact as they once did. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll just comment on my thinking that I was sharing up here is that it's a dock on a piece of property without a homeowner requesting it or the need, and I would not be for permitting it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before a house there, you mean? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Unless the homeowner -- MS. MIKULUS: They are building it for a garage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I look at that differently. If you have waterfront piece of property, you can't afford to build a home, but you want to access the water. Maybe you live upland. You still own that property. You can still use it for a boat. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What I'm hearing is this is in speculation of someone buying this property with a future house on it. There is no way of knowing that that homeowner would want that dock. Maybe somebody would like that piece of property without that dock. So if you are permitting something, you are putting the horse before the cart. MR. MIKULUS: The existing property owner owns both pieces property, one of which already has a dock. TRUSTEE KING: We have to table this anyway because of the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll table it and think about it next month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: At this point we do have to table it because there is no LWRP report on it and we can't move until that's done. But we did want to get some testimony in and introduce this tonight and get some discussion on it. So this won't be the last hearing on it. We'll continue next month, I believe, and by then the LWRP report should be finished. MS. MIKULUS: Will we be notified by the town? We were notified by your office about this otherwise we would not have even known this was even going on. So I thank you. MR. STRANG: That's part of the requirement. TRUSTEE KING: That's part of the process TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can be considered notified it will be on for next month. MS. MIKULUS: And the date is? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: June 18. And Mr. Strang I'm sure will mail you, send you a copy of the new -- MR. STRANG: I'll send you a revised plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have plenty of time. And for that time, if you want to put something in writing, you can do that as well. MR. MIKULUS: It's a six o'clock meeting? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, same time. MR. STRANG: Before you table it can I address a couple of items? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Board of Trustees 51 May 21, 2008 MR. STRANG: As was said accurately by Mr. Bergen, the placement of the dock is in such a location that it is the less intrusive on the wetlands. And also, if you noticed, and it works to our advantage and also to their advantage, the dock is not parallel with the property line. It's actually skewed askew to the property line so as it goes out into the water it gets farther and farther away from their property, which gives them a little more latitude from where they may want to place their dock. If it were parallel with the common property line I could see where it could create a little more of a problem for them, but we are helping that a little bit by making it askew. And to address the Board's comment on, about, or Ms. Dickerson's comment about looking for a permit for a dock without a house, next month when we, hopefully, anyway, when we continue this hearing, we'll also be hearing the application that has been filed, that should be in front of you at that time for the house on that lot. So it's, we are trying to get everything going at the same time, we just jumped ahead a little bit with the dock application. So. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Strang, can you get a drawing for us showing in more detail the properties, their property. On the survey I see, you show the dock after them but maybe if the property line is on there so we can -- MR. STRANG: The dock after theirs was the only one I could find as a matter record. I don't have any documentation as to their dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I mean the property lines dividing. Showing that. MR. STRANG: I can do that. I can show on a map where their property line is. They have no idea where their former dock may have been. It was, as they said, by a storm. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't need their former dock. Just the property lines. You have the other dock there. So just a little more detail on it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We might see the remnants of that dock in the aerial. MS. MIKULUS: It is still there. MR. STRANG: It could be. But I'm not a surveyor so I have no way of documenting precisely where it is. If there is a survey that could be made available that shows where the dock was I would be happy to plot it on the same map so we can look at the relationship. I don't have a problem with that. We all want to work together. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or concerns at this time? (No response.) I'll make a motion to table this until we get an LWRP report or get some other documents we need to get. Board of Trustees 52 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eleven, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of ED FOX requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions to the existing residence and modify the existing sanitary system. Located: 2503 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The whole Board went and looked at this. CAC supports the application with the condition gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and the LWRP is found consistent. Are there any comments from anybody on this application? MR. SAMUELS: No comments, but I'm Tom Samuels representing Ed Fox. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. The LWRP report, even though it's found consistent, does state some mitigation during construction. The applicant is proposing grading or filling operations will be required, submit a drainage plan for the entire site at the discretion of the Trustees and; and erosion control structure shall be determined by the Trustees or designee. All intertidal construction and excavation requires installation of silt boom that will retain all suspended sediments within the immediate project area. That was the LWRP comments. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Check that against what's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had adeck -- that's why I said that's the LWRP comments. Maybe he meant on the dirt road on the north side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. That's obviously a mistake. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Isn't the darker, he's stating the policies and then this is his recommendation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All intertidal construction. He just cut and pasted it. He's just referring if there were intertidal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the audience? MR. TIFANO: My name is William Tifano. I'm the neighbor of this proposed site plan for Mr. Fox's additions to his existing home. Have you received the same impressive sheet that I have here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. TIFANO: Fine. This thing has been almost self explanatory but there is some items here that have been left out and I would like to bring it to your attention and maybe they can get back and give me an answer. The way they propose this addition or these two additions here, the garage and the room; the room on the west side of the property and the garage on the east side of the property. If you go on your map there or your site plan, approximately where the Board of Trustees 53 May 21, 2008 garage is on the east side of the plan there, to the right of it you'll notice on the property line between Mr. Fox and my property, there is an existing tree line there that they do not show on this site plan, as that I show it on the west side of the plan. Okay? Now, you understand there are trees there on the west side. There are similar trees on the east side of it. I think you are looking at the east side there. That would be the -- yes, that's the east side. That's fine. That's a nice picture there because let me just state this. The trees that are on the east side of the property line, and it's not shown on the site plan, will they remain? Or does he have plans to eliminate them? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if I could answer that question. I don't see anything on the plan to say either way, so I can't answer that question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Samuels? MR. TIFANO: All right, we have someone here to represent Mr. Fox. I'm sorry. MR. SAMUELS: Those trees which are Mr. Fox's property do provide screening between his property and Mr. Tifano's. The idea here is to provide enough area to get into this garage. The house is favored to the west, so there is more space on the east that allows that little bit of area to turn into and back out of a garage. We certainly don't want to take any more screening than we have to but we just have to make sure we get into that garage. And so I would say if it's necessary to remove those trees in the background, Mr. Fox wants the screening as much as Mr. Tifano does, and we'll find a way to replant, let's jut put it that way, a way to provide that screening instantly. They were planted as large trees and Mr. Fox would definitely replace them with something fairly large. Even if they have to be moved back. But only if we absolutely need to take them down would we do that. MR. TIFANO: In other words what he's saying they'll remain. MR. SAMUELS: I'm saying we would like them to remain. MR. TIFANO: I'm in agreement with you. MR. SAMUELS: We would like them to. I'm not representing now that we can't keep them. I'm not sure yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are saying you would replant for the screening. MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If they were removed, they would re-plant. If they had to remove them, they would replant for that screening effect. MR. TIFANO: Who will guarantee that? Here with my exposure to the house that has been built there, things have gone on where I have no objection to the way this improvement that he's planning to make and he is entitled to make it. That's his property. That's the Board of Trustees 54 May 21, 2008 way I feel. And it should be legal, whether it's up to you or the Building Department, I don't know. I can't control that. However, I'm bringing up these small items here that if these trees were marked on the west side and they intend to keep the trees that are on the east side, why weren't they on the map? MR. SAMUELS: The surveyor just didn't draw them. MR. TIFANO: Is that an omission? MR. SAMUELS: Maybe on the part of the surveyor, but those trees are not -- MR. TIFANO: That's an important part there, those trees. MR. SAMUELS: Maybe, but they are not fundamental to the work -- MR. TIFANO: But they are there for privacy and now I'm enjoying it and I want it to stay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Tifano, please address the Board. MR. TIFANO: Excuse me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm hearing what Mr. Samuels is saying is there will be a screening there. If they don't have to move the trees, remove the trees for construction, they won't. But if they do, they'll replace them. MR. TIFANO: If he is going to remove them, the trees, he needs to get a permit to remove the trees. According to the Building Department rules if you remove a tree, you need a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't answer that. That's the Building Department. MR. TIFANO: The other thing, in the picture that is there, there is an existing shed that is there. It doesn't show it on the map or on the site plan. Now, the shed that is on the east side of the proposed site plan, is the shed going to stay there or do they have intentions of moving it. And if they are going to move it why don't they show where they are going to move it? MR. SAMUELS: That's a less than 100-square foot structure. It's not really on a foundation so I think looking at that photo I would say it will have to be moved to another site, another conforming location. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's saying it will remain on the property but it will probably most likely be moved. MR. TIFANO: But he doesn't know where he's going to put it. MR. SAMUELS: I'm not sure. Like I say, it's not on a foundation. It's just a little tool shed. It doesn't need a building permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe what Mr. Samuels is saying is the structure doesn't need a building permit. MR. SAMUELS: And it won't be placed into your jurisdiction. I'll say that much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not an issue for the Trustees. It's a Building Department issue. It's not an issue for us. MR. TIFANO: Here's the Building Department and here you people are Boazd of Trustees 55 May 21, 2008 and you people are getting the brunt of all the responsibility because you issued the permit. You issued the permit as requested. Now, I go and make a request or a complaint to the Building Department, they say you got to go back to the Trustees. So I called, now this is not to indicate the present people that are in your office today, but way back then when the house was being built and we did bring things to the Trustees Department, of things that I felt were not correct, we were told, finally, Mr. Tufano, when are you going to stop and allow this house to get built. Not but the present office people that are here. They are gone. So this is what I'm saying. Here is the Building Department, and here is the Trustees. You issued the permit. So you, they claim, should be responsible, and you are not responsible. Because all you did was allowed him to do what they say they are going to do. Now, if they are not doing it, who is going to enforce it? Not me. You won't get one phone call from me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have overlapping jurisdictions. So the permit that we issue we are responsible for but the permit that the Building Department issues are responsible for their jurisdiction. And it's overlapping. MR. TUFANO: I'm quite aware of responsibilities and the issues that are there and I'm only sorry I was not able to attend that meeting that Mr. -- The supervisor had where I should have came there and explained to him all these problems that are existing. The other thing here, again, with that picture there, where I believe the expanded parking area is going to be, do you see that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. TUFANO: Okay. Now, does he have to adhere to the ten-foot setback? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That ten-foot setback you are referring to is a Building Department setback. So again, it's not in our jurisdiction. MR. TIFANO: But you are approving this as is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For our jurisdiction. But if the Building Department makes changes he may have to come back and amend our permit. MR. TUFANO: That's my next problem. MR. SAMUELS: I'll state for the record there is no setback problem. MR. TUFANO: The last problem I have with the site plan, if you look at it, in the middle of it. Besides the property line on both sides, there is a box that goes from south to north, from west to east, and then again from north to south and then across the southern part where it says 100 feet of setback from wetlands. Could you please ask them to tell me what wetlands are there. Do we consider the Peconic Bay a wetland? Board of Trustees 56 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. TUFANO: Okay, so in other words that line indicates it's 100 feet from the Peconic Bay? MR. SAMUELS: From the high water mark on December 7, 2007, as marked or flagged. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's 100 feet from the mean high water mark. That's where they are saying is the wetlands. MR. TUFANO: So there is wetlands and that's where it is. So that area will is 100 feet from the Peconic Bay or the high water mark? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MR. TUFANO: Okay. Now, my last request is, although I have asked these questions and I am partially satisfied with the answers that I'm getting from Point A to Point B, to me, at this time, what I see, on this plan, I do not have any objections except for these items here. However, and I want it in the minutes, if there are any revisions to this accepted plan here where Mr. Tufano relaxes and says it's okay, I don't give you permission to include my, you know, decision to say it's okay. I want to be here when any revisions are issued. Because as you can see under the key over here, under the notes, his original building plan when he put the house up, was revised three times. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately, under amendments, our policy under full permits our policy is required to notify the neighbor, but under amendments, the applicant does not have to notify the neighbors for small amendments. MR. TUFANO: Sorry. Under the amendments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Under a full application, the applicant has to notify the adjacent neighbors. Under an amendment application, the applicant does not have to. MR. TIFANO: Thank you. So whose watching the cash register to let you people know that something is -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has to come into us but he doesn't have to notify you. There is no provision for you to be notified under an amendment. MR. TUFANO: Correct. And that's a big loophole. I thank you for your patience, and I have been here since six o'clock also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response.) Any comment from the Board? (No response.) MR. TUFANO: Excuse me. Is this finished or? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are still working on it. MR. TUFANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The trees that Mr. Tufano mentioned, according to Board of Trustees 57 May 21, 2008 this survey, are most of them might even be out of our jurisdiction, but I'm satisfied with Mr. Samuels' word that the applicant wants to keep the screening and will do whatever is necessary to have that screening there. MR. SAMUELS: Good hedges make good neighbors. Yes, we do want them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing no comment, I would like to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to make a motion to approve the application on Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Ed Fox, of course with the condition of drywells, leaders and gutters. And it is consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number twelve, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of THOMAS J. APREA, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to remove 106' of existing bulkhead, boardwalk and 286 cubic yards of soil fill from behind existing bulkhead, Truck removed soil off site to an approved upland disposal site. Construct 10' of new bulkhead at rear of basin. Located: 3140 Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. MR. COSTELLO: John Costello. TRUSTEE KING: On behalf of the owner, Gardiner's Bay Estates. TRUSTEE KING: So this is removing that box? MR. COSTELLO: Just taking it out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question for Mr. Costello that we talked about in the field. The Board would like you to remove 286 cubic yards of soil. I had called your office and asked Jane to have you tell us the approximate depth it was going to be. MR. COSTELLO: Depths are on page three of four and four of four. They are going to maintain the same depth that is in the basin now, which is five feet. And just offshore of that it's approximately six feet, you know, in the association's channel. So they'll try to maintain that. Why he's removing that is basically it's spending the money to try to rebuild it, it's in deplorable shape. The deck is in deplorable shape and the economics are he was just remove it in instead of -- TRUSTEE KING: That's going to be done down to the depth of the basin five feet, right? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we call it dredging? MR. COSTELLO: Well, because it's, it was, if you look at the Board of Trustees 58 May 21, 2008 surveys, that was the prevailing depth before they filled it in, which you allowed, or the Trustees allowed in the past. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So redredging. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. MR. COSTELLO: That bulkhead is leaking now and they do have a dredging permit anyway, from the Trustees, to dredge that basin. TRUSTEE KING: And you'll just replace ten feet of the bulkhead; is that the deal? MR. COSTELLO: The only ten foot place is the inshore end, to seal it off so he doesn't lose the upland. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we were kind of interested in, I don't know what to do with it, that whole blacktop area is draining right down into the creek. MR. COSTELLO: The whole roadway is. There is sort of a launching ramp outside. I mean with the roadway it's a short race. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we were talking about is maybe putting a French drain at the end of the asphalt there where he has all the bags piled up. Is that something doable? MR. COSTELLO: It's association type of roadway so I don't know the ownership. But it should be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that part of the property, is that association or is that Aprea's property at the end? We are talking about the end of the driveway where the bulkhead on Mr. Aprea's property, if he could put a French drain. MR. COSTELLO: It would be way upland. You have a copy of the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: The roadway -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me show you where I'm talking about. Looking right across here, and you are saying it's all coming from up here as well. MR. COSTELLO: The majority of it is coming outside of his property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he would be taking on not just his property drainage but association property drainage, if he did that. MR. COSTELLO: He's higher. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so we are thinking a French drain might work for him. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it would be pretty easy to put a French drain in because we are going to be putting in a bulkhead here. As part of the backing system, he's got to excavate it. TRUSTEE KING: Because right now a lot of water is coming down here, you have a little pipe going off, catching it here at the corner. MR. COSTELLO: It could easily be done. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a good move. MR. COSTELLO: The other thing is, instead of blacktopping where the new ten-foot bulkhead goes, I'm not so sure they should not have a Board of Trustees 59 May 21, 2008 gravel top on that so the water does percolate down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How much of the blacktop do you anticipate taking up in this? MR. COSTELLO: I would probably have to take up almost twenty feet to get the tie back for the ten foot piece of bulkhead. It isn't very big. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we put a pervious surface at 20 feet. MR. COSTELLO: That's what it should be. It should be gravel. It's good, sandy material and it should percolate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that would work. TRUSTEE KING: It will be better than what it is now. If we could improve it. MR. COSTELLO: No question about it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll just make a condition to replace the blacktop with a pervious surface. TRUSTEE KING: CAC supports the application with the condition the driveway is completely removed or partially replaced with pervious material to absorb the runoff. They have the same thing we have. Did we get an LWRP? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says it's consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody the in the audience? (No response.) Any other Board comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation the excavated area behind the new bulkhead section, approximately 20 feet, will be left as gravel for drainage and not be hard surface. That will help take care of some of that runoff problem there. I think that's all we need. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to give us new plans, John, or do you want me to just mark that area as pervious? MR. COSTELLO: Just mark it and what I'll do is I'll supply a set of plans indicating that anyway. Just so you have it for your file. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, Costello Marine on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove one 4x48', two 3x14', one 6.2x16' existing floating docks and two existing anchor pilings entirely; remove existing 3x13.5' Boazd of Trustees 60 May 21, 2008 wooden ramp; extend existing 3x25' fixed dock ten feet; reinstall floating docks and pilings that were removed 15' further west and ten feet further south than previous; reinstall existing 3x13.5' wooden ramp; and install one new 4x30', one 4x20' floating dock section and one new anchor piling on the east end. Located: Gardiner's Bay Estates. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I would like on recuse myself from this. Here is my disclosure form for the file. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC supports the application with the condition that measures are taken to control storm water runoff. LWRP has found this application to be inconsistent with policies. Under Policy Six, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem because floating docks may, according to 275, may be no larger than six feet wide and twenty feet long and the proposed action includes a floating dock significantly larger than that. Also shows that it doesn't meet all the dock standards. To reduce the dock potential adverse effects on marine environment, preservatives are prohibited. So they are looking not to use pre-treated lumber. Is there anybody who would like to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Again, my name is a John Costello, and we are the agents for the Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association. And I believe that this is just a small improvement to the whole association. There is many homeowners in this association and instead of individuals applying for docks throughout the whole association property, by putting them in one location and keeping it, I think, environmentally, you are stepping in the right direction and doing an improvement. We are also basically moving it slightly offshore ten feet, in order to accommodate the boats so they don't create the turbidity that the boats being on the bottom or closer to the bottom are. And all it does is accommodate two additional boats. And I think it's a big improvement to have them in one location than have several smaller docks throughout the association properties. This is private property and Spring Pond is owned by the association. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were all out there and took a look at it. As I recall, one of the questions that we have is whether or not there would be any interference with the ramp that is there. MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because we're moving it out a little bit, right? MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response.) It's fairly straight forward, really. TRUSTEE KING: Any anticipated, further expansions of this facility or will it stop now? Board of Trustees 61 May 21, 2008 MR. COSTELLO: That question came up the last two or three times. There are homeowners, you know? Some do boat, some don't. I can't tell you there is not going to be -- they have a couple of moorings out there and they are trying to eliminate them and they did eliminate a few moorings by the expansion of the last dock and I think that, again, improves the whole situation by having them at the floating dock instead of at the moorings. And whether there would be, I can't tell you the answer that one, Jim, it's only because if another home is built there and they are younger people and into boating -- I'm talking younger people. TRUSTEE KING: When you give up your boat, I'll keep away from mine. MR. COSTELLO: But there are several of the older people, slightly older people, that are into boating and into fishing and it's the enjoyment that they have. And I would not deny them. But they have only been expanding, like this is a two-boat expansion and they are trying to minimize it themselves. They don't want to clutter it up either, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the issues I heard brought up by the CAC was non-treated lumber, and I just wanted to make sure that I didn't know if there was an opportunity here to use grated material on these extensions or not. MR. COSTELLO: The floatation, the treated material will not be in the water, you know, I mean, we'll try minimize that portion of it. But in the structural portion of it, the economics, it doesn't hurt the environment. They will be using real floatation, which is high density polyethylene. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm talking about the decking of the dock. MR. COSTELLO: The decking will be untreated. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That's what I was addressing. MR. COSTELLO: Southold Town recommended that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just trying to address one of the questions that came out of the CAC. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: John, once this new finger is put in you won't be able to do anymore expansion because you are too close to the property lines, right? MR. COSTELLO: I think you are getting too close to interfering with neighbors. They are not going to do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a concern about the size of the float because I guess it's 4x30 and not 6x20. TRUSTEE KING: We've allowed them before because it's the same square footage. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. That's what I'm thinking. TRUSTEE KING: We have allowed them before because coverage is the same TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because that's what the LWRP was saying. It is the same square footage. MR. COSTELLO: I understand that position except where there is Board of Trustees 62 May 21, 2008 hundreds of homeowners in this association and we are trying to accommodate them. They don't all have a dock. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I bring it up just to get it on the record. It is the same square footage so I think that kind of mitigates the issue, and they are not using the treated lumber. MR. COSTELLO: Not using it in the water, only on the deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anyone else have a comment or questions on this? (No response.) If not I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Having pointed out the square footage on the floats is the same square footage as a 6x20 would be and noting that the usage of the non-treated materials was going to be done in the course of this project I would like to make a motion that we approve the project as written with those stipulations. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Doherty, recused.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I could make a note again, one more time, Jill Doherty recuses herself from that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of WILLIAM 8 MARISSA HARNEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove the remains of existing dock structure entirely and replace inplace by constructing a 3x11' ramp onto a 3x30' fixed dock section with a 32"x12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 6"x25' anchor pilings. Located: 4015 Main Bayview Road, Southold. The Board did go out and look at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. And the CAC looked at it and resolved to support application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is still John Costello. We represent the Harney's on this application and it is basically designed by my son and he tried mitigating as much as possible by using the flow-through decking, the smaller piling and elevating the dock slightly because the existing dock is right down on the wetlands and elevating it and using the flow-through decking would certainly, hopefully, be an environmental improvement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, the Board did go out and look at Board of Trustees 63 May 21, 2008 this. We do have a question. We noticed that the existing float is 4x16 and we were wondering if the replacement float could also be 4x16 so it matches what is there existing now. MR. COSTELLO: The existing float is quite unstable on the four foot width, for sure. And, you know, typically, this Board allows for the 6x20's. It's a more stable structure. You know, I would certainly recommend that. The end of this float is exactly the same spot that the previous float was in. Except it's 4-foot longer. The offshore side is the same spot. And as you could also see on the plans, it's a minimal encroachment. The fixed pier portion is cut back and we are putting a longer ramp. And one reason for that is because the 4x4 posts will be less prone to ice damage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and I did notice you used 4x4's through the wetland. As you might have heard earlier tonight, we looked at a dock very similar to this location and we did not feel that there was a need for two six-inch anchor pilings at the floating docks. This is very far back in this creek and so we would like to change that to single six-inch anchor piles rather than dual six-inch anchor piles. MR. COSTELLO: The plans, there is two, single, six-inch piles. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I was not sure in the plans here. Thank you for clarifying that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the last one, the one we referenced there, wasn't that four piles? TRUSTEE KING: They wanted four, we denied it. I think that's also got a smaller float, too. That was one of my concerns. TRUSTEE KING: Vitrano, I just checked, is 4x20 float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those are all the comments we had from when we were out there. Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment on this application? (No response.) Questions from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: You say, John, that doesn't extend any further than the original float? MR. COSTELLO: It doesn't. The offshore side is exactly where it is. What we did is just put a longer ramp on. And we cut, the existing dock there, they cut it back four to eight feet so they could occupy it with a ramp instead. Because the 4x4's are more prone to ice problems, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I see here on the plans is this is extending approximately 14 feet beyond mean low water, and the distance across is approximately 70-and-a-half feet. So it is well within the third. Now that does not include the width of the boat on here. We know that will increase it, but still, I don't think Board of Trustees 64 May 21, 2008 you'll fit a boat that large back there to equal a third of the way across. MR. WILDER: Is this the old float? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's the old float. MR. WILDER: Sitting on the wetlands? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's being removed. MR. WILDER: What method will be used to remove the other seasonal float to get it off? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We pose that question to Mr. Costello. MR. COSTELLO: That's typically -- a lot of times they say everything is seasonal. What is does, the float in position shades the bottom the whole year. If you remove the float and tie it off to a stake on the end piling and leave it the water, particularly the real floatation system, is better in the water because freezing water does not hurt the real floatation system. What it does, it still will be shading, but a different area, once it's in. We typically remove probably a hundred floats a year that are seasonal, and you tie them, usually from the end piling to a stake, just driven into the ground, so it stays out of the wetlands and over a different spot in the water. That's typical. MR. WILDER: Okay. Just curious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was one other item that we did mention to the property owner when we were out there that he has a goose fence that goes along the upland property line of the water of the wetlands and we told him he has to remove that goose fence and he agreed to remove that. That will be part of the application requirement that the goose fence will be removed. MR. COSTELLO: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no further comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of William and Marissa Harney as described at 4015 Main Bayview Road with the only addition to this is the goose fence be removed that runs along the water line. And it has been found exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number fifteen, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of VINCENT 8~ EILEEN FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing stairway to beach and kayak rack. Remove 63 feet of existing west bulkhead and replace inplace. Construct 33 Board of Trustees 65 May 21, 2008 feet of low-profile bulkhead on west end. Located: 177 Inlet Way, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. I'm the agent for Vincent Flaherty on this application. And I can express a couple of opinions on it. First of all, that the beach elevation along that shoreline has been migrating into that Fairhaven Inlet for a period of time. And about a year ago, you can see the beach elevation, that lower 6x6, basically at one time was the beach area. And I think there is one of the trustees doing a lot of dredging. All the sand is there but the sand there, you know, with the weather conditions and the rising tides, the elevation, that was the beach elevation when the bulkhead was constructed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Here? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. The beach was more toward the point on the other side, the inlet, atone time. And what the inlet is migrating toward the shoreline. And you can see that the amount of debris and the trees that he's lost in recent years. We pulled two or three cedar trees out of that area on the shoreline. They just fall in. That bulkhead right there, the reason to replace it, that section right there, that has the little dip in it, the sheathing does not penetrate the soil about afoot-and-a-half. You could dig underneath it with a shovel and if you look at the top of that bulkhead there is some fairly decent size depressions. You want to be careful walking alongside the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application for the stairway and the removal of 63 feet of the existing west bulkhead but does not support the application of the 33-foot low-profile bulkhead. The LWRP is inconsistent, only inplace replacement of existing functional bulkheads are permitted. In addition, the proposed 33-foot low-profile bulkhead on the west could potentially alter sand deposition and tidal regime in the channel. There is also a major concern from the LWRP review person, has recommended that in the event that the proposed action is approved, that the scheduling activities are within New York State designated significant coastal fish and wildlife area should be avoided during nesting and fledgling periods, which is March 15 through August 15, of shore birds inhabiting Cedar Beach, since this is a significant coastal wildlife habitat. MR. COSTELLO: Here is my position. I'm the one that recommended to the owner that a low sill bulkhead be placed there because he's losing a lot of that, whatever soil is being lost at that point is migrating right out to that point on the Fairhaven Inlet. Last year you guys and ladies gave me a permit on dredge that point off. It almost closed up that Fairhaven Inlet. And that's where Board of Trustees 66 May 21, 2008 that migration of fill, and I thought that that low-sill bulkhead would minimize; it's well above the high water mark. If you look at page four of six you'll see that it's, I don't want it to be a bulkhead. 1 just want it on a storm tide to not take the sand and take it right down to the inlet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm looking at CAC, no 33 foot. LW RP, no 33 foot and Trustee field notes, no 33 foot addition. So the comments also from our field inspection is to clean up and put clean sand and plant behind the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: I would not agree to that because it's just going right into the inlet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are thinking put a stone wall in front of it instead of the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: You could do that, absolutely. You could put filter clothe and stone along there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would rather see that in place of the 33-foot addition. MR. COSTELLO: That would be fine. I just don't want to see sand go there and have it just wash into the inlet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we were discussing in the field maybe you can put like an eight-foot return here and then proposed small stone all along here and clean up all this. MR. COSTELLO: I want it back as far as possible. I don't want it to be, all I want to do is not have the fill wash into the inlet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So wherever you think is the proper place for the stone and bring fill in and put some plantings. MR. COSTELLO: There is a couple of trees there they could possibly save. They are cedars. They lost six or seven of them already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's doable for you, I think that's the Board's feeling is we would rather see that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we want to consider rewording this tonight and get new plans? MR. COSTELLO: I'll give you new plans for it. It's just -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can do it subject it receiving new plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's pretty straightforward what we are asking. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor'? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland application, to move the existing stairway to the beach and kayak rack, remove 63 feet of existing west bulkhead, and replace Board of Trustees 67 May 21, 2008 inplace. We'll have 33 feet of small stone retaining wall. Are you going to put the eight-foot return in? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I'll need that now. I'll put it on the drawing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Filter clothe behind the stone with plantings. MR. COSTELLO: And revegetation, it will probably be American Beach Grass, but he'll probably want Bayberry and a few other things. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This activity, are we going to avoid that nesting time? MR. COSTELLO: There is not much nesting on this side of the shoreline. On the other side there is, because the high water mark is hitting the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The scheduling activities of the proposed action will not be during nesting period. MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. I'll adhere to that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which would be March 15 through August 15. And agreeing to that will bring this application into consistency with LW RP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before you leave, Mr. Costello, I wanted to thank you for your participation and help and work with the New Suffolk boat ramp in working with -- MR. COSTELLO: I just wanted to hang in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I appreciate your help in working with Belvediere and the Trustees and getting the job done. MR. COSTELLO: Hopefully it's done to a majority of satisfaction to a majority of people. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Extend your thanks to George. He's the one who had the wet suit and was under water all day in the cold water. MR. COSTELLO: Anybody have a problem with that, call Jill. If you need her phone number. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number sixteen, En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS PERILLO requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 139 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and up to ten inches higher than) existing timber bulkhead; and backfill with approximately 65 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Located: 730 Tarpon Drive, Southold. The CAC tabled the application because the plans don't match what exists on the property and requests a clarification. The property is very heavily vegetated and the plans show a proposed access, and the proposed access is not there. We actually went on the other property and looked around, so that's how we got to it. And the LW RP is found consistent. Is anyone here who would like to speak on this application? Board of Trustees 68 May 21, 2008 MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of Tom Perillo. I don't understand the CAC comment only because if we now cleared what is a proposed access route for the project, we would be in violation because we don't have a permit to do it. The reason that is shown is because we have had occasions with the Board and the State DEC in the past where they want to make sure there is a defined access route through which machinery can get to the site and then down to the bulkhead. And that we acknowledge that it will require clearing of the existing vegetation. And what we have done is shown that upon completion of the bulkhead reconstruction, all of the area that would be cleared within 50 feet of the bulkhead would be revegetated as part of this project. Because if this property were proposed for development it would be this Board's usual practice probably to require a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer. So we would seek to replace that at the completion of the project. Otherwise it's pretty straight forward project. It's just replacement of the existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead ten inches. Just a step up to better match the neighboring elevations. Other than that, if the Board has any questions I'm happy to address them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The comment on the LWRP, even though it's found consistent, is a silt boom during construction around the property MR. HERMAN: I'm glad you mentioned that actually because one of the questions that the applicant raised to me before the hearing, and I guess he was speaking to another homeowner who had previous work permitted down here, asked about the idea of, because you have had some loss of material behind here to do incidental dredging in front of the bulkhead and then use that material as backfill, which would then necessitate the use of some sort of a silt boom outside. So it's not in the plan because it was asked later, but would the Board have any objection to that here; it has apparently approved this on other properties along this canal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with that. MR. HERMAN: It would be the standard, no farther than ten feet, no deeper than four feet, and I would just amend the plans accordingly. And assuming both you and the state would approve it, then we would just use that and that would actually save some of the need to bring in truck loads of fill. Which might, on that little roadway, be preferable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions? (No response.) Anyone else have any comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 69 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: COURT: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Thomas Perillo with the use of a silt boom and actually updated plans as discussed to do incidental dredging and backfill. And the proposed 25-foot access path and to replant 50 feet as indicated on the plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seventeen, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL GARRETT 8 TRACEY KOKE request a Wetland Permit to place over filter cloth on grade along toe of eroding embankment approximately 175 linear feet of 25 to 150 pound stone rip-rap. Located: 875 Youngs Avenue, Southold. MR. HERMAN: En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This project is more or less a carbon copy of what the Board approved for Richard and Karen Seelig, just up the road, if you remember it. There are several properties, we discussed this with the Board in the past, that had been hit along this stretch of Town Creek over the past five or ten years. This site looks better as it gets deeper into the growing season because the vegetation tends to grow down over the eroded lip. But we did submit some photos with the application that you should have. It shows almost a vertical escarpment. So we are looking to use pretty small stone here. The Koke's want to actually do this in a way so they don't really need machinery in a way to do it. It will be hand-held equipment type job, really, just to provide some sort of toe at the base there. You can see the way that is just sheared off at the bottom, and we would be just looking, the same way that Latham did at Seelig, to just fortify that toe. TRUSTEE KING: I knew it was familiar but I couldn't remember the name. MR. HERMAN: Seelig. They are not adjacent but they are up the road. And also similar, I can't think of it his name now. It was, if you remember, you looked at Jim, with Chris Arfsten years ago, there was a little beach house out on the beach and there was a small, we built like a real kind of mid sill vinyl bulkhead around the shed, then it came back and he did stone along the rest of it. I can't -- Luke Licalzi (sic). It's sort of the third of its type along this stretch. And they've worked out, both worked out pretty well, actually. TRUSTEE KING: CAC does not support the application. They recommend the area is revegetated with native plants. So much for the Board of Trustees 70 May 21, 2008 neighboring property. MR. HERMAN: Any area where there is fill placed with the stone, I mean it's really not much of that to do here, but I mean anything that was disturbed would of course be revegetated. That's the idea is not lose the vegetation that is there and it keeps basically just stripping back and back. And eventually you'll have the situation there where the slope gets steep enough that some of those trees are going to start lopping off the top, so. TRUSTEE KING: They've done some clearing two years back, probably. I think I found some stumps in there. Somebody whacked that a while back. It may have created some of the problem. MR. HERMAN: I don't know. I just know when I looked at it, it was the whole shape and appearance of it to me was consistent with the other properties, and we really tried to design it so that it's the minimal, really minimal possible structure that we can propose. 15 to 150 pound stone is pretty small stone, actually. TRUSTEE KING: It's inconsistent with LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Just for the record, Seelig was found consistent. Inconsistent consistency decisions. TRUSTEE KING: Recommend using vegetative, non-structural measures. Non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of limiting floating and erosion based on the shoreline characteristics. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capabilities of natural protective features. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siding. There will be no clearing or anything. MR. HERMAN: No. And again, we run into this over the years with the idea of using non-structural measures. This is not an area that is on open, sandy area where we really could plant vegetation but instead we are just taking, the applicants or choosing the expensive way out and building a bulkhead. This is a very, very well vegetated embankment and has been a well vegetated embankment for a very long time. They are not clearing the embankment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what Scott was referring to in the report, and also I think I heard the CAC note, we also noted, somebody cut down some small trees on that bank. You could see where vegetation had been cut down. So I don't want to speak for others, but I think what we are trying to say is that we are asking the property owner or telling the property owner they can't continue that practice of cutting down trees on that bank. MR. HERMAN: I honestly can't respond to it, Dave, because I don't know whether it was a tree that was a live tree that was in somebody's view so they cut it or it was a tree that was dead so they cut it. I have no idea. But what I'm looking at here, normally what happens when you see this on the Sound, if you have a site where people start clearing from the top you start to get an Board of Trustees 71 May 21, 2008 erosional pattern from the top down because you don't have the root system up top hold be the soil. Here you get toe escarpment where everything above the toe is really in great shape. So whatever the case may be, you are not getting a shoreline toe escarpment as a result of a tree being cut down at the top. But having said that, you are correct. The point of this is to keep the bank vegetated and not strip it of vegetation. So that should go without saying, as part of the permit, that there would be no removal of vegetation on the bank. The intent is the opposite. TRUSTEE KING: I would say they did some clearing for view. Because the stumps are like this (indicating.) There is new growth this high off the stumps. It's one of those deals. MR. HERMAN: So that's probably --okay. Well, if there is a concern, we could add sort of some sort of shrub plantings up along the top. Again, that's not where the problem is coming from, but I mean certainly as an added benefit to the project as a whole. I mean, Idon't -- TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty well vegetated the way it is. MR. HERMAN: That's why Isaid -- I hadn't noticed the other. TRUSTEE KING: Just trying to figure out ways to bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, were you saying plant Spartina into the rocks? MR. HERMAN: Won't last. It's too sharp. The high water line is too regularly up. You can see where Dave is standing, that's really, I think we showed on the plan, you know, spring high water is pretty much almost at the toe and high water is not much farther off. That shoreline is inundated almost all the time. I mean, patens wouldn't work. The only thing would be to try to put Alterna Flora in the intertidal zone, but usually in a bottom that is that sharply and narrowly sloped, with bulkheading, pretty much, I don't think it's going to take. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see a scrap anyplace, so. You would to have more shoreline to work with. I mean, the inconsistency determination, we can get into that, as I said, Seilig was deemed consistent and basically LWRP doesn't say you can't use hard structures. It says that it discourages it unless there is no alternative and then when there is no alternative to use the minimal possible structure that you can. So we are not coming in with a bulkhead or rock revetment. We are just proposing a minimal structure possible which we indicated in our LWRP application is the intent of that is to be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anything that I read in the literature has, recently, has preferred this kind of approach to what I would call a hard structure being a bulkhead. You can have habitat between these rocks. Board of Trustees 72 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the question also is from our, the person we have doing the reviews of these LWRP is possibly he's correct in that it should remain a vegetated shoreline. MR. HERMAN: It is a vegetated shoreline. The substrate of the shoreline itself is not vegetated, but the bank is vegetated. Right now, I have the pictures, but if you go back to the picture you had, you have a sheered, unvegetated face as it is. That's going to continue to move closer and closer until the angle of that bank is so sharp that you'll lose all of that. So what we are trying to do is to preserve -- I mean, I understand where it comes from but it's like a dog chasing its tail after a while. If you just, if the idea is completely let it go natural, this will eventually naturally denude itself. If that's what you want to see, then leave it alone. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's not what I want to see. That's a natural shoreline that is a natural shoreline that is naturally eroding. It's a natural process, and what I'm interpreting the LWRP to say is that is what his review is, that's the way it should remain. And I'm saying that's one of our choices is to agree with that. MR. HERMAN: That's right. And if you were talking about property that was hundreds of feet deep and the house was 100 or 125 feet away, or you were just approving the development of the property today, certainly that's the way you want to go. But the reality is it's part of a developed shoreline. So you have the choice to either let nature have its course or have the homeowner try to preserve what is there. Other than the stone that is proposed, we can't do any better than that structurally. And you have issued permits for the same exact thing for two other properties within the past flue years. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have of a huge problem with it. The other project was found consistent. It's almost identical. MR. HERMAN: There is actually, the stone is slightly smaller on the upper range. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand where LWRP is coming from. They are looking at the whole creek and picturing this happening in the whole creek. If it does, it changes the dynamics of the creek. At the same time I feel the homeowner wants to protect his property. MR. HERMAN: He also wants to preserve the embankment. In other words, from my interpretation of it, the LWRP encourages homeowners' undeveloped shorelines to preserve, protect and enhance to whatever degree is possible, the natural features that protect the homes. As opposed to, as Bob said, you know what, let's cut the embankment down, billed asix-foot high bulkhead and backfill it with sand. That's what would have been done 15 years ago. As I see it, we are doing exactly what the LWRP tells us to do. If ones interpretation of the LWRP, which of course is hotly Board of Trustees 73 May 21, 2008 in debate now, is really just let nature completely have its course and never mind who gets lost in the shuffle, that's a different way of interpreting the LWRP. That's not how I interpret it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with what you are proposing. You said, it's the least invasive approach. And, like you said, it will protect the top part. Is there a possibility, I know that yard is small, maybe do some more planting right on top? Maybe five feet? MR. HERMAN: That's what I mentioned a few minutes ago. In addition, as part of the project, we could try to enhance the leading edge of the top of the bank. Again, that does not have anything to do with what is going on here, but it would be a way to have a net increase in the vegetation at the site, if that helps the Board with the overall philosophy of the approach here, because that's consistent with what we are trying to do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As for myself, I support this application because I agree, you could tell by, on the site visit, you could see the erosion is happening from the bottom, from the waterfront. It's not a matter of water cascading down from the top. It's a very well vegetated bluff up top and it's not erosion being caused from runoff from above. It's cutting out of the bank by the creek. So I think this is the right way to go with the rocks and support it. There was one question I did have with regard to the dock. It looked like the dock on this property had replaced the lumber on the catwalk and it used treated lumber. And it's just something that we had a concern about. We didn't go out and look at it closely but I did have a concern about that, that if it was treated lumber, obviously, it would be a violation of the code. But I just wanted to bring that up here tonight. But as far as this application goes, I support it as it stands. MR. HERMAN: I don't have anything else I could add. We tried to do it in a way that is consistent with what the LWRP states. We have done it in a way that was consistent with another project on the same street that was deemed by the Planning Department to be consistent with the LWRP and that this Board approved. I can't do any better than that. TRUSTEE KING: Is there going to be any planting right along with the rocks being installed? MR. HERMAN: As I said, other than what would be disturbed naturally as part of the implementation of the project, but again this is not a backhoe-type project. This is a project where literally the stone is being used to fill these denuded voids just to plug a line in the sand so you don't have this constant deterioration of the toe. So anything that would be left bear would be planted. You should make that a condition of the permit. We can certainly add specifics about that to the plans to make sure that is done. I Board of Trustees 74 May 21, 2008 just didn't want to create the appearance that this is a job where we are coming in and tearing apart everything that is there and then trying to re-do it. They really are trying to do this with as minimal disturbance as is possible. And maybe you should set some sort of pre-construction meeting with the contractor or, I think the homeowner, if they'll try to do it themselves, to just meet with them to make sure that you are clear when the project starts. Something like that as a safeguard so it doesn't turn into something else. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor'? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. I think it's a minimal way to stop the erosion that is going on there. Like I said, I remember reviewing almost an identical one and it was found to be consistent with the LWRP. So there may be some questions. I find it consistent, myself. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. I would make that motion. It's consistent. There will plantings in and amongst the stones in any bear spots. And maybe we can do more planting on the top of the bank, to give us a little more vegetation up there. I think the size of the stone we are looking at is pretty minimal. And it's all being done by hand. No excavation by machinery. It's pretty minimal. MR. HERMAN: And write that into the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Before any activity takes place there will be an inspection so everybody knows exactly what is going on there. I'll make that motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to support the CAC comments and LWRP review and vote no. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Dickerson votes no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of DANIEL N. KOHN LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct +/- 164 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and 12' higher than) existing timber bulkhead (including +/- 31' of bulkhead/retaining walls forming step-down platform and stairs to be replaced inplace and 12" higher); construct +/- 47 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead on Board of Trustees 75 May 21, 2008 landward side of existing timber bulkhead to be removed; construct +/- 16' westerly return; remove and replace existing steps, decking and walkways adjacent to bulkhead (inplace, except 6x55' section of easterly walkway to be reoriented to align with easterly property line); backfill area landward of new bulkheading (including 7'x14'x15" concrete stepdown to be eliminated) with approximately 20 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and raise existing shed (inplace) approximately 27" onto newly established grade. Located: 500 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. The Board did go out and look at this. It was found consistent under LWRP and CAC voted to support the application with the condition that the present non-turt buffer is maintained. Now, I do want to note two letters that have been submitted, that I'll read into the record. One is from, I believe it's a Lorraine Dunhuber. I'm looking for a return address. I don't see it. Sirs, hopefully some of you were likewise present at the marine environmental meeting recently held at Peconic Landing. To reiterate some of the points made and espoused by the Department of Environmental Conservation, public waters are not private waters but public waters. Shading prohibits marine life. Structures should not be built so as to prohibit a straight line of navigational passage. I appeal: Manmade structures inhibit natural vistas. Seemingly, there is a formula for building a dock. No mention was made regarding extending and building a bulkhead out and over public waters thus increasing one's land and altering the ebb and flow the water is amazing. Landfill. Why? If permitted to raise land over public water by yet another foot wouldn't a retaining wall be required? Kindly have the applicant indicate the size of the guest house and also the distance from the property line and if the current zoning setbacks should apply. Enclosed are some photos from the neighboring property, bulkhead and lands, also the applicant's which is built way out into Wunneweta Pond's public waters. Prior to granting approval may I request an on site inspection be given. Thank you, respectfully submitted Lorraine Dunhuber. MR. HERMAN: Can I ask a quick question. That letter was written in association with this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERMAN: Because it mentions a guest house and building a dock and building a new bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I could tell you from the pictures attached she is referencing to the property here. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second letter I have here is dated 5/19/08 from Thomas Cavanaugh. I'm the adjacent property owner at 600 Little Board of Trustees 76 May 21, 2008 Peconic Bay Road directly east of the property for which the wetland permit is under review and consideration. I have concerns for the approval of this application as I enumerate below. Also enclosed is the existing site plan of the property for which the wetland permit is being requested. This is a substantial renovation that, if approved, would perpetuate existing conditions that are not consistent with our current wetland ordinances. There appears to be little attempt to adhere to current codes. The existing bulkhead is located entirely beyond the property line and infringes on Wunneweta Pond in a narrow section of the pond. In addition, part of the existing bulkhead was constructed on deeded underwater land that I own and have title to. Any approval of the application should require the bulkhead be reconstructed without infringement on my property. The existing shed requested to be maintained as a pump house according to the site plan, the need for the structure now as county water has provided service is questionable at best. The shed is currently less than six feet from the water and would not be an allowable use to meet the minimum setbacks under the current code. The current application calls for the structure to remain inplace and raised 27 inches. This would create a visual eyesore on the pond and increase runoff from a structure directly into the pond. The application would change the grade elevations of the bulkhead by one foot. I would like an understanding as why this grade elevation is required. If approved and constructed, this work would place the grade at the shared property line at a higher elevation than my adjacent property. Proper means of controlling surface runoff and a method to keep runoff on the applicant's property should be indicated on the application. The application calls fora 6x55' of timber decking to be replaced and re-oriented to place the structure directly on the property line with no setback. In addition to adding structure within 75 feet of the water that decreases water surface absorption and increases runoff onto the property the location will create an access concern. Workmen maintaining the walkway will need to access my property and an elevated timber walkway will require additional yard maintenance and edging. This walkway is deemed an accessible use. I would like to see it relocated and set back from the property line at a reasonable different. Thank you, for your consideration, efforts and reviews for my concerns. Should you require additional information or information or clarification I could be reached at the above address and phone number. Attached to it appears to be a survey. Attached to it is a survey that doesn't have any date on it. I'm trying to -- it is not identical to the survey that Rob just provided us. What Rob has provided us here is a survey dated May 9, 1972. And, like I Board of Trustees 77 May 21, 2008 said, the one attached to this is not identical and there is no date on it. So, is there anybody here to who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant Dan Kohn. Just quickly in response to what Dave just said, I actually have this 1972 survey which does show the shed labeled as a pump house. So it may not be identical to what you have with the letter, but I assume it serves the same purpose because I assume the purpose of attaching that to the letter was to demonstrate it's labeled a pump house. So we don't argue that. In response to the letters, frankly, I can't make sense of the first letter so I won't respond to it. Mr. Cavanaugh's letter touches upon a number of issues and to try to make efficient use of the Board's time I'll try to respond to Mr. Cavanaugh's letter as a means by which to explain the application, and I'll kill two birds with one stone. First off, as noted in the LW RP review, this is an application, with the exception of the raising of the bulkhead, to remove and replace all legally pre-existing structures that date back to the 60's and in 1972, basically what I just handed up, does show the same configuration as what is there today, more or less. In terms of the structures it appears to be virtually identical. I also handed up a copy of Trustees Permit 4047 that was granted by the Board in 1992 and that permit was granted at that time to resheath the existing bulkhead in their current configuration. Again, the configuration they have been in since before 1972, and also to remove and replace all the decking and framing associated. So these are not only legally preexisting structures but they are legally existing and permitted structures under your code. In response to Mr. Cavanaugh's letter, I'm going to skip to the part that discusses the shed because t'm, again, perhaps Mr. Cavanaugh is here and he can explain it. I don't understand the deeded underwater land part of it. My understanding is Wunneweta Pond, and, Matt, correct me if I'm wrong --and please let me finish --that Wunneweta Pond is owned by the association. Is that contract, Matt? MR. KARR: I don't know. MR. HERMAN: Either it's association or public bottom. Anyway, we are not proposing to change any of that, only to replace it in place. The existing shed was called a pump house not because it had anything to do with well water but because there was a gas tank in it. As part of the Board's 1992 approval, in fact, it was part of the CAC's recommendations at that time that in order for all of Board of Trustees 78 May 21, 2008 these structures to be legalized and replaced, et cetera, that one of the conditions would be that that gas pump was removed. And this is the time that Anderson owned the property now owned by Cavanaugh. And that was done. So it's always been a shed. It is a shed and will continue to be a shed. It's just a shed that will not have a gas pump in it. It has nothing to do with well water. As far as the raising of the shed, and there was some comments also in the first letter about runoff. What we are doing, and Mr. Kohn spent quite a bit of money to have a topographical survey done of this property to avoid this exact kind of misunderstanding as far as what was being done with the elevations. When the Cavanaugh bulkhead was permitted to be reconstructed, it too was raised. It was proposed to be raised six inches on the approved plans. I don't know how much it was actually raised. But the existing top elevation of the bulkhead now is at 5.4 feet and the elevation of the Kohn bulkhead is 4.3. So in response to why the bulkhead is being raised, we are actually raising, and you can see the area that dips. We are raising the elevation only back to the five foot contour line, which the plan clearly shows. So in terms of the raising of the structure, it's being raised to match the elevation of the existing bulkhead on the letter writer's property, and the backfill will only go back to meet the existing five foot elevation, which, again, if you look at the plan, occurs entirely seaward of the letter writer's bulkhead. So it will have no impact whatsoever on the neighbor's drainage or runoff or whatever. The grades back there that you see at five foot and above remain the same. It's that area that is coming up, backfilled, and everything you are looking at will be raised as it is accordingly. The gravel non-turf buffer will remain. The shed now sits in a concrete pit that is about 15 inches deep. Which we are going to fill in. So instead of just having a concrete pit there you'll have the material will now basically become gravel over it. And because you have the foot bracing on the bulkhead, the net result is that that shed comes up 27 inches. It's the same shed, same height, same dimensions, et cetera. It just gets raised in place. The issue of the walkway along the property line, the way it exists now and has always existed is that it angles sort of to the northwest toward the applicant's house, so what you have is this triangular wedge of the applicant's property that occurs between the walkway and Mr. Cavanaugh's property line. So what Mr. Kohn, ironically, in light of the letter, is trying to do, is actually to eliminate any potential issues about the property line excuse. So in other words instead of having to maintain this strip of lawn that narrows into a sharp triangle between the property line and the walkway, he's just going to align it. And it's not an elevated walkway. It's on grade, same as it is, so that it runs along with Board of Trustees 79 May 21, 2008 the property line and doesn't leave this kind of no man's lane in between. If that is highly objectionable to Mr. Cavanaugh we can simply replace it in its current location as the Board has permitted before. We thought we were helping the situation but if that's not the case then we can leave it. That's really it. I mean it's a pretty straight forward project. Again, with the exception of raising the bulkhead, it's really maintaining what has existed for decades. And if anything, when you raise the bulkhead, and the Board has discussed this before, if you take some of that slope away coming off the lawn and lift it up, you are actually decreasing the rate of runoff to the pond. You can't possibly increase the rate or volume of runoff to the pond by raising the grade in such a way that it pitches away from the pond. If we were sharpening the pitch to the pond, that would increase runoff. Or if we were proposing to do away with the non-turf buffer, that increases runoff. What we are proposing will actually decrease runoff in all directions. And that is really all I have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a couple of comments before I get to you, sir. One of the items that the Board looks at when we look at adjoining properties with bulkheads and somebody comes in to re-do a bulkhead is to, if necessary, raise one bulkhead so it matches the other one. And in doing so it raises the elevation and now you have matching elevations of the two bulkheads. And you also fill in and it does exactly as Rob describes it. It helps decrease the chance of runoff issues and it helps assist us with runoff issues. So when we looked at this, the first thing we looked at was are they raising it up to the neighbor's bulkhead and we noticed it was and we supported that. So, if you just introduce yourself for the record and feel free to comment. MR. CAVANAUGH: My name is Tom Cavanaugh. And Rob, thank you for your clarifications. And I agree with the point about raising the bulkhead 12 inches. My bulkhead was raised six inches because it was going over some existing bulkhead material that needed to remain in place. So if you are telling me the bulkhead will be raised exactly one foot, it will line up with my bulkhead that was raised six inches and there won't be any elevation change between the two property lines. I'm comfortable with that. Concerning point number two, the title of the land and the land under water is in my possession and there appears on my neighbor's bulkhead they are actually on that property line, on the water under the land that I do own. It's not in possession of Wunneweta Pond. It's a parcel that was deeded to me ten years ago when I purchased the property. I do have a site plan that indicates the parcel and the deed of the water under the land. And Board of Trustees 80 May 21, 2008 we did have this conversation when I came into have my bulkhead, we worked and modified and we discussed the water under the land and that parcel. And I do have a plan that indicates that parcel. So I would, again, request, that that section of bulkhead, that approximately about 18 inches wide and maybe seven feet long that is on my property be removed and put behind Mr. Kohn's property line. MR. HERMAN: Can I see a copy of that. I don't see it on the Suffolk County tax map (perusing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I have in front of me is I have several surveys now. I have one dated January 22, 2007. That was a survey done with this application. And it shows the property lines going down to the bulkhead. It doesn't have any, it doesn't indicate at all any issue with underwater land and who they belong to. I have a survey here dated May 9, 1972, that, just like this survey dated January 22, 2007, doesn't show an issue with the underwater land as to who owns it. Now I have a survey dated September 23, 1997, that I'm having a very difficult time understanding. It definitely shows property in front of the high water marker into Wunneweta Pond. MR. CAVANAUGH: One parcel is clearly called out to my deed as land under water, and it's parcel number two. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That shows parcel number two. And I can't understand from this who it belongs to. I'm just saying I just don't understand in looking at this. MR. CAVANAUGH: That is my survey of my property. It belongs to me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can you come up and point out to me where you are talking about in relationship to your neighbor's property? MR. CAVANAUGH: Absolutely. The point we are discussing is the plan not drawn correctly, is this wood bulkhead is not in this location. My neighbor's bulkhead is approximately out to here and it angles this way. So it's actually infringing about 18 inches into this area; the parcel of land under water that I own. And I would like that put back over to the other end of the property. That's all. MR. HERMAN: Just one second then I'll be quiet. The only thing I could offer, Dave, on the copy of the Suffolk County tax map which is the current tax map and the subject property is highlighted in yellow, Mr. Cavanaugh's property is adjacent lot thirteen. This survey certified to Tom Cavanaugh and Dina Frank by Tony Molendowski (sic) shows a deeded depth from Peconic Bay Road to the bulkhead of 304 feet. The tax map that represents lot 13, owned by Mr. Cavanaugh and Ms. Frank shows the same distance of 304. The tax map does not show any such underwater parcel that is shown on this Molendowski survey. So I can't verify that that lot exists. MR. CAVANAUGH: I have the written deed that indicates the meets and Board of Trustees 81 May 21, 2008 bounds of the two respective pieces property that I could send to your attention that accurately describes the property location. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, you may continue. MR. CAVANAUGH: That's one request. I would like to make a point. The Town of Southold Building Code has a provision that if you are doing a substantial renovation of a building and the course of renovation is more than 50% of the total replacement cost, that you are responsible for bringing the insulation up to current code. I think the environmentally responsible course of action is to try as much as possible not to grandfather existing conditions but try to bring them into general conformance to the actual codes and it's the easiest way to ensure that we safeguard the environment in the North Fork. That's just a statement I wanted to make to this Board for to you take under consideration. In regard to the existing shed, I do feel that raising it would create a visual eyesore. I feel its location six feet away from the water is problematic in terms of the coastline and even though it's a hard bulkhead, and I would request that it be removed and located upland to a more suitable location. In regard to the walkway that extends from six to 55 feet adjacent to my property line, I made the statement that I feel aligning it on the property line creates access and maintenance problems. I would like to see the walkway put a reasonable setback of five feet from the actual property line. If it's deemed an acceptable use and acceptable structure within 100 feet of the water MR. HERMAN: My only response, again, with respect to the portion of the building code and I know this does not concern the Trustees but just going down the line, again, we are not proposing to reconstruct the shed. The shed well be moved. The property will be filled. It will be put back where it has existed for 40 years. Again, it's legally pre-existing structure. It is where it is. It will continue to remain there. Again, with respect to the walkway, it's a legally existing walkway. This Board has permitted its replacement before. If the Board would prefer we simply replace it exactly in kind, Mr. Kohn is happy to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, if you'll let Mr. Cavanaugh please finish his presentation. MR. HERMAN: I'm sorry. I thought he was. I'm sorry. MR. CAVANAUGH: That's fine. The reason I reference the Building Department there is a spirit how codes are enacted and being responsible to the public and the public interest in terms of adhering to codes. And I'm an architect by trade and I believer that codes are there to protect the life, health, safety and welfare of people and you are on this Trustee board because you believe in the environment and the future of Southold and the Board of Trustees 82 May 21, 2008 township. And, again, I believe as much as possible if you are doing a substantial renovation, consideration should be given to bringing conditions that are grandfathered because of existing use up to present code. And I would strongly recommend that to the Board as a position they should take. I think that's an environmentally sound decision to take. In regard to the sections of pilings and bulkhead on the property I own with the land underwater, I would just request that the piers be removed off my property. If I need to produce additional documentation indicating the meets and bounds of the ownership of that property I'll be happy to submit that to the Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this application? MR. KARR: My name is Matt Karr. I live on the other side of Cavanaugh's property. I border their property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the east or to the -- MR. KARR: East. As you all know, Mediterando (sic), myself, the Cavanaugh's, we have all redone our bulkhead in the last two or three years. We all went to up to 12 inches. We were allowed to go up to 12 inches. I'm glad the Cavanaugh's have no problem with that. I think that's great. As for being the president of The Pond Association for five years I speak on behalf of the Pond Association saying we have no issues with the application. And I love to hear the Cavanaugh's talking so much about the environment and this and that. We do have a pond association that they paid one time into that is very, we have to pay this money to keep the mouth of the creek open, which is very important. So I find it kind of funny they talk about the environment yet they don't participate at all in the pond association so we can keep this pond open and running for everybody. Thank you, very much. One other thing. Sorry. The distance that Mr. Kohn's bulkhead comes out into the creek, where I live it really dips in, okay, so when you are coming from my property to go out the lagoon, the Cavanaugh's property, the distance from the corner of their bulkhead over to the other side of the pond is a lot shorter than the distance from Mr. Kohn's property over to the other side of the pond. So it's shortest at Cavanaugh and it's larger at Mr. Kohn's property. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUNHUBER: I'm Lorraine Dunhuber. I'm sorry you had difficulty understanding my letter. I'll try better. Thank you, Mr. Cavanaugh, for speaking the way you did and, Mr. Karr, too. I'm Mr. Kohn's neighbor to the north, I guess. And I would just request that the size of this shed be indicated. I mean, it says nothing. Also I would request that the distance from the property Board of Trustees 83 May 21, 2008 line be indicated. It says nothing. Also I would request that if the Board approves that they raise their property, that put in some sort of retaining wall that I don't have the flow off or runoff from their property. Also, if we could go back a little bit on the former slide, I think it was, please. You see where that, what do they call that, dead man, they call that bar. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a tie rod probably going to a dead man. MS. DUNHUBER: The last time the Kohn's had their bulkhead area re-bulkheaded, the area that juts out to the right is my property, and they very conveniently, to accommodate their own needs, had their bulkhead just out into my bulkhead, to the detriment of my bulkhead. You see where the bar is that comes from the bulkheaded area, now go a little further to the left, say eleven o'clock. That there. The last time they had their property bulkheaded they extended it out so it negatively impacted my bulkhead area and shoved it out into the -- so I would request that they remove that area and restore mine. TRUSTEE KING: I thought there was going to be a return come in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a return on here and I'm looking at the different surveys that I have, and it looks like obviously on this survey that was submitted with the application, this return is totally on the Kohn's property. MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As well as the stairs there. MS. DUNHUBER: That's on their property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And the survey dated in '72 also shows that return totally on their property. MS. DUNHUBER: That's incorrect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm saying I have two surveys in front of me showing it's totally on their property. MR. HERMAN: There's two things, so you are clear. The existing, this return, is on Ms. Dunhuber's property is existing but it's in such bad repair that we are proposing a 31-foot return completely on Mr. Kohn's property so that this area -- in other words, the fact that this bulkhead has basically been let go to the point it's non-functional will not injure Mr. Kohn's property. So Mr. Kohn is proposing a 31-foot return along his property and that will seal off any"X" interaction between Mr. Kohn's property and this area TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Will that structure be removed or will it be left alone? MR. HERMAN: It will be left alone. It's not Mr. Kohn's. I'm sure he would love to see them fix it, but I would be surprised if they could get a permit to fix it. TRUSTEE KING: Where would be the seaward end of the proposed return? MR. HERMAN: This way. The proposed return is over here. TRUSTEE KING: In further. That's what I thought. Board of Trustees 84 May 21, 2008 MR. HERMAN: You could see it's along the property line. Otherwise the lawn area there belongs to Ms. Dunhuber. So if that is allowed to continue to fail it will eventually pull property away from Mr. Kohn and threaten the frame building near the property line. So we are just, in order to avoid any conflict here, we are just proposing a return along the property line. And just the shed as indicated on the plan is 6.6 feet by 8.3 feet, and that will remain the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I saw on this set of plans it has the size of the shed, as indicated. MS. DUNHUBER: There we are. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) A couple of items we noted in the flield, one was that there is a drainage pipe running down through this bulkhead. We are not sure if this comes from all the way up from the driveway or from the house or where. MR. HERMAN: It does. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will have to be eliminated as part of this project, which means some place upstream will have to be a correction made. MR. HERMAN: I discussed this with Mr. Kohn. What we'll do when the bulkhead is replaced is entirely cut and eliminate that and he'll have to put storm drywells closer to the house. If we can keep them out of the Board's jurisdiction, great, if not, we'll have to add them to the permit. But I want to talk to the surveyor just to see how the drywells would work with the contour. The land does eventually move up so sharply almost around ground elevation 17 around the house, so you could probably put a couple of eight-foot drywells and work it. This is just the way it was always done, so as they come across your table we get them fixed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the application we didn't see any mention of the flag pole that is there. We didn't know if you wanted to eliminate that flag pole or include it in the application. MR. HERMAN: The flagpole? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERMAN: I know it's there. I don't think I have ever included a flagpole in a Trustees application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been doing it. We have people have come in and requested permits for flagpoles because the flagpoles are within a hundred feet, within ourjurisdiction MR. HERMAN: Do you intend to keep the flag pole? MR. KOHN: Yes, I did intend to keep it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very simple addition. We can just add it in. We just want to make sure this is correctly done. MR. HERMAN: That's my mistake, Dave. The flagpole pole is on Board of Trustees 85 May 21, 2008 there. I think when I was showing the backfill area, I think it just got deleted. That's my mistake. Sorry, Dan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another issue we were concerned about is that the buffer that is a very generous buffer here that goes along the front of the property, but as you get to the new return that we have just been discussing, the buffer continues sweeping around that corner so that buffer continues. MR. HERMAN: Fine. And again, I probably should have shown that proactively. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think a 15-foot buffer along that return area, potential return area, would be appropriate. MR. HERMAN: By the time you tie the arch, it will -- because it ends at the walk. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We wanted to make sure with the decking that it's non-treated material to be used on this. And that we wanted spacing to be maintained and decking of at least 3/8ths of inch. Again, we are addressing water runoff issues. So we want to make sure the decking is at least 3/8ths of an inch wide to make sure the water that lands on there percolates down to the buffer, the non-turf buffer that is underneath. MR. HERMAN: So you are looking for slightly more than quarter-inch spacing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been asking for 3/8ths in other projects. MR. HERMAN: The only question, it's going to be kind of a strange one. This is now coming up in a lot of jurisdictions, about the spacing on decks, and I had clients who actually do it and then have complaints of shoes and all sorts of things getting caught in the spacing. Has the Board actually looked at if you do spacing of such is such, whether that creates some sort of impediment? I hate to talk about something so silly as women in high heel shoes in a Trustees hearing but the reality is these walkways are designed for people to walk in and I understand the idea with the spacing but I don't know that you really need spacing quite that wide for a decking to act as an impervious structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It is what we asked for. MR. HERMAN: I don't doubt that. My question is since this will be a form of mitigation that the Board is going forward with, do we have any reason we came up with 3/8ths as opposed to 2/8ths or 1 /8? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the thought process behind that is that is certainty a lot smaller than you would find in a grated walkway. So you have the same issue with a grated walkway as well, so. MR. HERMAN: I'm literally asking the question. I don't know the answer so I'm not pushing the agenda one way or the other. But for the people who don't follow the conditions, it doesn't matter, but I have clients following it and then complain the spacing is so Board of Trustees 86 May 21, 2008 wide and have shoes stuck to the decking. As I said that's why I'm reluctant to bring it up. But if 3/8ths is working. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we were to go with this, would the applicant be willing to reconfigure on the property line with the Cavanaugh's, the bulkhead coming out so it's pulled back so it doesn't extend beyond what is depicted as the property line here on the survey that is dated January 22, 2007? MR. HERMAN: Yes, I mean you are talking about such an incredibly inconsequential alignment that I can't entirely figure out the motivation behind it. It's really up to the Trustees, because we would make no claim to own underwater land here. According to the tax map, that is your bay bottom. So if the Trustees are willing to grant that Mr. Cavanaugh and not you owns that bay bottom, then we would have to do so. I'm reluctant to have you forfeit that underwater land without showing me something from Suffolk County that recognizes that it exists. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me make it clear. I'm not saying we are going to forfeit that underwater land. All I'm asking if there is an opportunity here in the reconstruction to move it back that minimal amount so it follows the property line and does not encroach on the Cavanaugh's property, because they requested that. MR. HERMAN: That's your decision. MR. KOHN: I have to look at the survey to see what you are talking about. Because I don't understand. MR. HERMAN: I'll show you. MR. KOHN: Which of the walkways is he claiming is on his property? MR. HERMAN: We'll come up here and look at it. Do you see this triangle. That's the triangle in question. Its outer most point, it's 1.2 feet to the east and it goes back maybe, I don't know, six, seven feet. It's inconsequential one way or the other. The difference is when the bulkhead is replaced instead of this point running to there and then coming back, it would run to there and come back and end in the exactly the same place. MR. KOHN: If it does not affect the cost of the replacement work that I'm doing, I would not make an issue of it. MR. HERMAN: I can't answer that question but in theory it would only affect the cost to the extent that -- it could only affect the cost to the extent you are slightly changing the alignment of it MR. KOHN: This survey does not show -- my name is Dan Kohn. I'm the owner of the property that lies between the two commentators. This survey does not show the piles. I did not expect to have to replace the piles. I don't know whether saying yes to you now means I have to pull -- MR. HERMAN: You would have to fully pull the pilings out and move them landward. MR. KOHN: And I would not want to do that. Board of Trustees 87 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a good point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that would increase the cost. MR. KOHN: Also it would seem to me if this is a matter of surveys and title and so on, a court of law would be a proper place, proper venue to have this argument. Not before the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. One other question I have for consideration by the applicant. This walkway that has been discussed that goes along the property line, I'm just -- MR. KOHN: The north/south walkway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. The north/south walkway. What is the reason for this walkway? I mean another than maybe convenience. I'm wondering if it would help if we eliminated this walkway and that just takes another issue off the table all together. I'm just asking the question. MR. KOHN: The walkway has been there since the house was built and I'm accustomed to seeing the walkway there and to using it. I don't know how comfortable or uncomfortable it would be to eliminate the walkway. However, if Mr. Cavanaugh objects to moving the east edge of the walkway a little bit to the property line, we'll leave the walkway where it is now. That ought to satisfy everyone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to ask the question. MR. KOHN: You got an answer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comment from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we need to table this and resolve the issue of ownership and things of that nature. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I think given the fact we have surveys that depict different boundary lines and there is a question of ownership out in front of the water, that I think we should get legal assistance on an interpretation of the property lines. And so I would recommend tabling this. I just wanted to at least get as many of the additional issues on the table to see if any of them could be resolved tonight so that next time when we come back to this hearing to see if there would be fewer issues to be resolved. MR. CAVANAUGH: Is there any documentation concerning title you would like me to submit that would help you in your decision? 1 would be happy to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any documentation you would like to submit, feel flee submit it to our office. Both sides. All parties. And what we are going to do is have legal look at this. MR. CAVANAUGH: Okay, I'll submit the meets and bounds of the two parcels of the properties and property descriptions that are in my title when I purchased the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And since we have a copy of this, this September 23, 1997, I'll give this back to you. I don't know if this is an Board of Trustees 88 May 21, 2008 original or whatever, but I want you to have that back. MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: The only question I would have for the Board if the Board can ask of Mr. Cavanaugh, would be just do provide anything, like the Suffolk County tax map number, for example, that would describe the deeded piece of underwater land, because if it's a legally recorded piece of land, we would want to know when it was created and how and when it was recorded with Suffolk County. Because the current Suffolk County records do not indicate that such a piece of land exists. MR. CAVANAUGH: Excuse me, that's not the case. It was transferred as title. Suffolk County title search -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, hang on, just a second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That I think will be a question for the attorney to see because that is leaning toward a title search, which I don't think the town in their review would be prepared to do. I think the onus would be on the applicant. MR. HERMAN: I only ask the question because in the years I've dealt with this Board where would otherwise be bay bottom, that is publicly owned underwater land in your stewardship, is privately owned, it has always appeared as a tax map parcel on the tax map. In my experience. So I'm not challenging Mr. Cavanaugh's claim at all. I'm only asking the question it be provided to us so I could satisfy my client that he's actually intruding on -- in other words, we are not arguing, our survey shows that, as a seaward extension of this property line shows this bulkhead 1.2 feet to the east at the corner. But that's not unusual. But that's on your bottom and has existed that way for four decades, to me, I would at least want to know what the purpose of this exercise is. MR. CAVANAUGH: I do need to correct a statement that there is no legal title to that piece and parcel of land. There was a title search done when I purchased the property and both parcels of land were titled and searched and I could provide the information and the title search on those two parcels of land, and I'll be happy to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So I'll make a motion to table this application. MS. DUNHUBER: May I have Mr. Kohn's representative reiterate what the size of the pump house is, please, and also the distance from the property line. MR. HERMAN: The size of the shed is 6.6 feet by 8.3. And the question is the distance from what property line; yours or Mr. Cavanaugh's? MS. DUNHUBER: Closer to the property line. MR. HERMAN: Well, there are several. MS. DUNHUBER: Well, I'm not a Cavanaugh. I'm Lorraine - Board of Trustees 89 May 21, 2008 MR. HERMAN: That's why I'm asking which property line do you want to know the distance to? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, to her property line. MR. HERMAN: Approximately 91 feet. MR. KOHN: She means the shed. She means this (indicating.) MR. HERMAN: She said the pump house. I assume she means the shed MS. DUNHUBER: The little building close to the water. MR. HERMAN: Can she show me what building she is pointing to? MS. DUNHUBER: This one. MR. HERMAN: Oh, I understand where you are confused. There is nothing to do with this that is proposed. This is the shed that is proposed to be raised. This is not being touched. I could give you the answer to your question. I just wanted to make sure you were not thinking we are proposing to replace the building next to your property. We are not. It's nothing to do with that. MS. DUNHUBER: I'm just looking for the size of it, sir. MR. HERMAN: The size scales to approximately 14 feet -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: 14.5x18.5 is what I have. MR. HERMAN: That's about right. MS. DUNHUBER: And the distance to the property line, again? MR. HERMAN: The distance to the property line scales to approximately two feet. Again, that has nothing to do with this application. MS. DUNHUBER: That's on the land side. MR. HERMAN: The nearest distance is two feet and the farthest distance is about four feet on the seaward side. MS. DUNHUBER: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, there was a motion to table. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of LEWIS TOPPER requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 90 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead to be removed and backfill with approximately five cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and construct approximately 74 linear feet of low profile, vinyl groin in place of existing +/-78' timber groin to be removed. Located: 3605Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. CAC has resolved to support the application, however, they resolved to support the application to construct 90 feet of bulkhead and backfill with clean sand, but does not support the application to construct 74 foot low-profile vinyl groin to replace the existing groin. The CAC supports the application to replace the bulkhead with the condition that drywells are installed on the Boazd of Trustees 90 May 21, 2008 dwelling; that the pipe is removed from the bulkhead and aten-foot non-turf buffer is installed landward of the bulkhead. CAC does not support the application to replace the jetty and recommends the jetty be left to deteriorate. The LWRP has found this to be exempt. Is there anybody who would like to address this issue? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I really don't have much to add beyond what the application shows. Of course we have the perfunctory pipe that needs to be eliminated, which we can do. I have to start looking for these pipes, guys. I have glaring pipes on every application now. Again, we are just really proposing to replace existing functional structures. The applicant has provided me with lots of pictures that show that low tide really goes out quite a bit farther than the end of the existing groin. I have been down there a few times at low tide and have consistently found that the last four feet of this groin during most low tides does not do much. So we are proposing to -- it's a 78 foot groin now. We are proposing to eliminate the outer four feet. But other than that it's just a typical groin replacement replacing the existing timber groin with low profile vinyl in place, shortening off the section that is arguably not functional. Because in those photos, the width of the beach has nothing to do with the groin. It's that low. It looks like you were there. Do you have any pictures, Peggy, that shows the groin all the way out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think so. MR. HERMAN: Those are pictures from the applicant and pictures we submitted. You can see what I'm talking about. The outer. You can see what I'm talking about, Jim. You can see the elevation of the beach. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does show it. We have a picture in the file. It does show it at low tide. MR. HERMAN: That's it. Nothing unusual about it. Except we have to move that stone out of the way. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, do you know if that shore guard comes in different colors? MR. HERMAN: We have not seen anything yet for any of the vinyl materials other than gray. Or that sort of -- TRUSTEE KING: I went by one the other day, a low sill bulkhead, looked like it was a brownish color. MR. HERMAN: I was going to say, except for the tan. TRUSTEE KING: This is fairly dark. The reason I bring this up is, show the bulkhead again. He asked me -- you are going to replace it with shore guard, right? MR. HERMAN: We showed vinyl. I don't know if I indicated -- Board of Trustees 91 May 21, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: But shore guard. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I didn't know if you were asking me about that specifically. TRUSTEE KING: He wanted to know if he could fasten wood to the front of it, because he doesn't like the look of plastic. I said I have no problem with it, as long as it's untreated lumber. MR. HERMAN: John Costello is like the master of this. TRUSTEE KING: That bulkhead I looked at looked very much like wood from a distance. That was the question in my mind. If you get dark brown, would he be happy with that. MR. HERMAN: This, I mean this is the type of thing that I probably ask you to, talk to Chuck if you were on a field inspection or something, because the DEC considers the width to be out to the outer side of the corrugated vinyl and the corrugations are filled. So if you had wood on the outside, the impact would be the same. Except depending on the width of the wood. I mean if it was two-inch wood, you are talking about stepping out another two inches. You may think that's silly but it's an a little encroachment. TRUSTEE KING: I told him, you know, you're going to put this stone back in front, you won't see much of an exposed bulkhead anyway. MR. HERMAN: There is Lou there. He didn't tell me. This is off the record, is his application pending for next door? Does Cathy Mesiano have an application that's current for next door, for the house? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was approved last month. MR. HERMAN: It was. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We sent it to the zoning board first. And she'll be back. MR. HERMAN: Because we are, depending on the timing now, we have been retained to do, he's going to do the whole bulkhead at once. So we'll be back probably either to modify Cathy, just give her plans to make part of her application or submit an application to amend whatever you mayor may not approve her for with the bulkhead. Just to make you aware of it. Same exact project. And it will all be done at once. I'm only mentioning that because if there is anything you are thinking special here, I would know that ahead of time and save us ten minutes next month. MR. WILDER: Whose sign is this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll address the sign in the moment. But he needs to remove the sign. MR. HERMAN: Is it his sign? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We assume so. It's pointing to what he considers is his private beach. And as far as I could tell, it's along his property line. MR. HERMAN: There is a little piece that -- there is like a public Board of Trustees 92 May 21, 2008 access way there. So. TRUSTEE KING: It's a right of way. MR. HERMAN: So that may be, I'm just, he's never discussed it with me and I don't think I noticed the sign. But it's probably there is an access there and it's probably one of those things to make it clear that even though that's an access way to the beach that it's not like a public bathing beach, which, really, it is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it is. Unfortunately the sign is on his property, it has to come down. MR. HERMAN: I could pass that long. That's an easy condition for you to enforce, isn't it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, questions, concerns? TRUSTEE KING: Non-turf buffer, I believe. MR. HERMAN: But ten feet, I mean we have to try to limit that here because there is only, you know, 17 feet back to the deck, so we have to look for one of those five footers here.. This is similar to the one, Jill, that we had a storm damage application a while back and I think it was like seven feet, something to limit it, because it's just not that much on there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, I had a question regarding the groin and the length of the groin. On the survey does it depict mean low water there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I asked that in the field. MR. HERMAN: Our plan depicts low water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I felt that groin could be pulled back. But again, I know that normally what is discussed is it can go as far as mean low water and I just want to make sure it does not go beyond mean low water. Myself, personally, when I looked it at it, I felt three, four foot sections could come off the end of it. In other words 12 foot back could come off. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The plan shows it mean low water out to the end of the groin. Maybe back a couple of feet. MR. HERMAN: I literally have been there at low tide twice myself. And it was at different low tides, it was four feet off the end. As I said, I had this discussion with Mr. Topper because he was of course insistent that we propose to replace the entire thing and of course he had the photographs showing low water is actually beyond. But what I wanted to see was where was low water when the groin is actually interacting with it. So I checked it and checked it twice. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have photographs here, too, that shows low water just about four foot off. MR. HERMAN: It's been pretty consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions? (No response.) Board of Trustees 93 May 21, 2008 I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion that we approve the application for Lewis Topper as described knowing that LWRP does have it as consistent and stipulate that we remove, during the project, you remove the drainage pipe that goes through the bulkhead, add seven foot non-turf buffer and remove the illegal sign that says it's a private beach, if it is indeed on his property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RECEIVED t ~ a~~0 VY~. ~u~~ z a zoos P~ Q. ~~ Southold Town Clerk