Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/23/2008 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, July 23, 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 NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Welcome to our July meeting. My name is Jim King. For those of you who are not regular customers here, I would like to introduce the rest of the folks here. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; next to him is Peg Dickerson; next to me is Jill Doherty, she is the vice-chair; myself; to my immediate right is Lauren Standish. She works in the office for us. Next to her is Bob Ghosio. Next to Bob is Kieran Corcoran. He's our legal advisor for tonight, the town attorney. We have Wayne Galante taking what everybody says down so we can keep track of things. If you Board of Trustees 2 July 23, 2008 have any comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. And not that I would forget, Jack McGreevy is sitting here from the CAC. The C^C goes out and does the same inspections we do on our site visits and gives us their recommendations on what should be done. With that. I guess we'll get going. There has been a number of postponements. We'll go through those first because we don't want anybody here waiting for something that never comes up. So on the agenda page six, number 18, the application of Ray Nemschick on behalf of STEIN FAMILY RESIDENCE TRUST requesting a Wetland Permit to construct a one-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 19, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT requesting a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge an 80x480' channel to minus 20' ^LW. The resultant spoil (7,800 cubic yards of sand and cobble) will be disposed of at an island site upland disposal site. Located: Foot of Fox Lane, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number 20, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of RYAN STORK requesting a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling; construct new two-story single-family dwelling approximately 32x70' overall with full basement, at same setback from existing retaining wall; abandon existing sewage disposal system and install new sewage disposal system. Located: 3270 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, has been postponed. Number 21, McCarthy Management on behalf of BAYVlEW PACIFIC, LTD., CIO PATRICK MCCARTHY, requests a Wetland Permit to remove the enclosed porch attached to the existing dwelling and construct an 18'x34'9" addition in same location and a 15'x34'9" deck. Located: 1100 Pine Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. Number 22, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of MARJORIE PETRAS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 41"x37.5' fixed dock, 35"x14.5' ramp and 6x10' floating dock with two tie-off piles. Located: 700 Koke Ddve, Southold, has been postponed. Number 23, Mark Schwartz on behalf of RONALD & PATRICIA ZITO requesting a Wetland Permit to demolish walls and roof (foundation to remain) of existing 10.5'x10.3' pomh and extend the porch six feet to the east with a new concrete foundation. Located: 1185 Board of Trustees 3 July 23, 2008 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. So we will not be hearing those tonight. And also there is a few that there is no LWRP report on, so we cannot vote on those tonight. But we can open the hearings on them. That's number two, number five, number three I believe we can do. Number one under Wetland Permits, number two, number three and number 16 we have not gotten the LWRP review on those yet. We can't vote on them but we can open the hearing on them. We'll set the date for the next field inspection for Wednesday, August 13, 8:00 in the morning. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, August 20, six o'clock with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion on the minutes? I reviewed them. I looked through the minutes of April 16. I have not done May yet. I found a couple of typos. That was the only thing I saw. Anybody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read them both and I submitted changes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read both April 16 and May 21 and forwarded my changes to Lauren. They were all just minor typos and names, et cetera. TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of April 16, 2008, and May 21,2008. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would request, Lauren, now that they have been approved, that they be posted on our website. I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: Trustees monthly report for June, 2008. A check in the amount of $$8,017.34 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Board of Trustees 4 July 23, 2008 bulletin board for review. III. 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 July 23, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to fur/her review under SEQRA: Joseph Melchione - SCTM#86-2-10 Marjorie Petras - SCTM#-87-5-6 Matt-A-Mar Marina - SCTM#114-3-1 Ryan Stork - SCTM#128-6-8 Pine Neck Holding LLC - SCTM#70-5-40 Brick Cove Marina, Inc. - SCTM#57-1-38.3 Maria Trupia - SCTM#78-1-10.20 John Weber - SCTM#56-5-16 Joseph Zevits - SCTM#90-1-13 Shiu Ching Chen- SCTM#59-6-5.1 Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp.- SCTM#52-2-20.1 Elizabeth & David Branch - SCTM#98-4-23 Kevin & Alexandra O'Mara - SCTM#72-2-2.2 Kevin Faga - SCTM#31-14-8.2 James & Carol Mikelbank - SCTM#123-8-20.1 Kevin & Doreen Barr - SCTM#81-1-20 Vincent & Laura Manetti - SCTM#80-5-5.1 Robert Friemann - SCTM#104-3-8 Ronald & Patricia Zito - SCTM#123-3-16 TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve that resolution. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have number one. Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, JOHN & MARIANNE CLARKE request an Administrative Permit to replace the existing deck over the garage. Located: 56525 North Road, Southold. I looked at this. It's exactly that. It's a deck over a garage and has no impact whatsoever on the surrounding area. They are simply replacing it. It was in existence and they had to have Board of Trustees 5 July 23, 2008 it removed to re-do the roof. So does anyone have any questions about it? (No response.) I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, ERNESTO ADRIANO requests an Administrative Permit to construct an asphalt and crushed stone driveway and revegetate the cleared areas. Located: 2195 Edwards Lane, Orient. This is one of the permits for the application that has no LWRP. I will say that I went out there and I found the hay bale line that was previously existing is not really in good shape and we really should require to reset the hay bale line. There was an awful lot of water out in the street. It had reined for a couple of weeks. So there is runoff going into the street. At the time of the original permit it was also requested or suggested that a planting plan be drawn up and I would suggest that again. And because of the height of the house and the pitch of the driveway I would suggest that we require a pervious driveway rather than asphalt. So other than that I don't have any other comments. Is there anybody here who has any comments on that? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: Can we put drainage in it and use the hardened surface of the driveway to take care of it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was one of the suggestions the first time around because he would have to do whatever it takes to adhere to code. But it was just a suggestion on my part because it was a lot of standing water in the street itself. I don't know, you would have to have a pretty good drainage system there to hold all that water. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just looking for a planting plan. I looked at it when we were out there. I would suggest one that is a little more elaborate than what is noted on the site plan. Without an LWRP we can't move on this anyway. So I would like to make a motion to table this application at this time. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests an Administrative Permit to relocate the accessory storage shed on the existing gravel parking area. Located: 375 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. Board of Trustees 6 July 23, 2008 The Board did go out and looked at this. This was a situation where the applicant had put a storage shed within our jurisdiction and without a permit and is now applying for a permit to move it back on to a gravel bed. And we did have a couple of questions for the applicant, if you could just introduce yourself for the record MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Peconic Permit Expediting TRUSTEE BERGEN: One question, we noticed the shed was not there when we went out on our inspection. MR. LEHNERT: As per your letter, we were going to move it by the garage. The homeowner decided to have it removed completely for now, temporarily. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The size of the shed was not on your application. We need to know the dimensions of the shed because of the town's maximum 100-square foot on the shed. Do you know what the size of the shed is? MR. LEHNERT: The shed is approximately, I believe it is 6x10. But I'll get you the exact measurement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you feel it's safe to assume it's under 10x107 MR. LEHNERT: Yes. It's under what would be needed for a building permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's the only question we had on this. Beside that, everything else appeared to be okay with the Board. Are there any questions from the Board? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to approve application number three, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of Mr. Lomangino. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you mention it's exempt from LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, yes. It was exempt under the LWRP. The only condition I would have in there is the shed is under one-hundred square foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. LENERT: Thank you. V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING/STAKE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: What we try and do with these is we try and lump these together. If they are simple and without a lot of controversy, we lump them together and approve them all at once to save a little time. The first three we can do that way, unless somebody has a problem. I'll make a motion to approve number one, BRUCE GOLDBLATT requesting an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Arshamomaque Creek for an eight-foot jet-ski. Access: Private. Board of Trustees 7 July 23, 2008 Number two, ELIZABETH & TODD CANTRELL requesting an Onshore/Offshore Stake off their private property on West Creek for a 12' boat. Located: 2070 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. And Number three, MARK BAXTER requesting an Onshore/Offshore Stake off his pdvate property on Goose Creek for a 14.5' boat. Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, OLIVE HOWARD requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in West Creek for a 15' boat. Access: Public. Rescind Resolution dated 6/18/08 approving an Onshore/Stake in West Creek for a boat no larger than 12 feet. Last month we had this on our agenda and we approved a 12-foot boat. There was some discrepancy and he actually wants a 15-foot boat. And we also made a resolution to say that a 12-foot boat would be the largest in that creek. It's been discussed and we would like to rescind the resolution approving the onshore/offshore stake for a 12-foot boat and rescind the resolution saying no larger than 12-boat boat. I'll make that resolution to rescind that. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then I'll make a motion to approve the 15-foot boat for onshore/offshore stake in West Creek as applied for. TRUSTEE DtCKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On this one, if we can all sign the permit tonight. I'll pass it down. He can pick it up tomorrow. Lauren, can I write on this one that is rescinded, the old one? MS. STANDISH: She re-did it. That's the new one. Yes, that one, just wdte "rescind." Or just cross it out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll just leave it. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, ARTHUR & MELISSA BEISEL request an Amendment to Permit #6392 to include ground level decking around the existing boat basin. Located: 3760 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Jim and I went out and looked at this and they put -- the boat basin is on their own property and under the permit they had they put the non-tuff buffer around it. Now they just want to put some decking over that non-tuff buffer, and then they have plantings Board of Trustees 8 July 23, 2008 around it. It's really nice. They have not done the work yet but the non-turf buffer looks nice. I'll make a motion to approve this with the decking which is non-treated lumber as applied for, with at least half-inch spacing in the decking. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number two, ROBERT SKINNER requests an Amendment to Permit #1635 to repair the existing timber bulkhead using HDPE sheets. Located: 615 South Drive, Mattituck. I've looked at this. This is an older bulkhead. It's starting to show some leakage. The applicant wants to - this plastic is HDPE sheets. They are quarter-inch sheets of plastic that is fastened to the face of the bulkhead to keep soil from coming through it. It's a temporary repair. It's a lot less expensive than trying to replace the whole bulkhead. I get the feeling they probably can't afford to replace the whole bulkhead. We have done this in other areas. Does anybody have any questions on this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, WILLIAM C. GOGGINS requests an Amendment to Permit #6682 to allow for the installation of 4x3' steps. Located: 1780 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. It's very simple. It's just the addition of 4'x3' steps. We have seen it. I have no other comments. I would make a motion to approve the application as written. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of EDWARD FOX requests an Amendment to Permit #6878 to install two 8'x2' leaching pools, remove the existing septic tank and install a new 1,500 gallon septic tank, and relocate two 8'x2' leaching pools. Located: 2503 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. We had approved this at our May meeting, this project. It had been -- bear with me for a second -- it had been found consistent under the LWRP and the CAC had resolved to support it. Since then it's been reviewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health and they asked for a movement of the septic, which we had looked at and we thought was fine. Board of Trustees 9 July 23, 2008 So this is a simple amendment just to amend it for slight movement of the septic system. So I would like to make a motion to approve the amendment of Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Edward Fox as described. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number five, RO Barratt on behalf of SHIU CHING CHEN requests an Amendment to Permit #5051 to replace the deck boards on the existing 8x24' fixed dock and Transfer Permit #5051 from Richard Sansevere to Shiu Ching Chen. Located: 7433 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Is there anyone here for this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Board did not have any difficulties with the transfer, however, the existing dock is not in compliance. The existing permit, 5051, was a Wetland Permit for a 4x20' fixed dock with the conditions that the existing seven-foot wide dock be reduced in order to comply with the permit. And so we are going to be denying the 8x24 and asking that the dock come into compliance with the existing permit. I'm looking if we have any comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Barratt doesn't have any. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, then I'll make a motion to approve the Transfer of Permit 5051 from Richard Sansevere to Shiu Ching Chen and to deny the amendment to permit 5051 to replace the deck boards on the existing 8x24 and to make this an approval of this permit we would request that in 60 days the existing dock be brought up to compliance with the permit that is in place. TRUSTEE KING: They can use open grate or untreated lumber. It would have to be untreated or plastic grated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Architecnologies on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & ELIZABETH GRASECK requests an Amendment to Permit #6813 to include the demolition of the last section of the existing dwelling, due to structural concerns and inability to support the proposed second-story. Located: 1910 Leeton Drive, Southold. This is an application we all reviewed and approved back in February of 2008, and most of the house is applied to be demolished except for this middle section, these two walls. The Board did not have a problem with the full project and the applicant did the right thing, when they were in the middle of, when they started the project they realized the part that was not being demolished needed to be demolished, so they came back in and asked for an amendment, Board of Trustees 10 July 23, 2008 which is different than what we have been seeing. We have seen people just do the work without doing that. The demolition and reconstruction is in the exact same place so it doesn't alter the envelope of the building and we reviewed it and I don't think we have a problem with it. Are there any questions from the Board on this? (No response.) It was consistent with LWRP on the last approval. We found it consistent. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment as applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of EDWARD & CHRISTINE VOLINI requests an Amendment to Permit #6634 to construct a 21.5'x24.5' stone patio (in sand) and spa. Located: 8625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. We all went out and looked at this. This is just a very minor addition on to one corner of the house that is under construction. I don't think anybody had a problem with it so I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN & ANITA VASSIL requests an Amendment to Permit ~6816 to authorize the landward resheathing of approximately 168 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead in lieu of previously approved inplace replacement of existing bulkhead and to leave all existing bulkheading in place. Located: 495 Rochelle Place, Mattituck. This is certainly consistent with what we would generally approve anyway. Unless there is any other comment, I would make a motion to approve the amendment as requested. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next three, nine, ten and 11, are pretty simple, they are two One-Year extensions. Number nine is En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES & MARINA MITCHELL requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6159 as issued on July 20, 2005. Located: 470 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck; number ten is Mark Schwartz on behalf of MICHAEL & ROBIN DREWS Board of Trustees 11 July 23, 2008 requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6430 as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 7425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue and; number 11, Costello Madne on behalf of SARLOTT, INC., requests a Transfer of Permit #6767 from Carol Kafka to Sarlott, Inc., as issued on November 14, 2007. Located: 750 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck. They are pretty straightforward. I'll make a motion to approve all three. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: This is the public hearing section of our meeting. If you have any comments please keep them brief, if you can, and identify yourself for the record. COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: The first one is Docko, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT MEYER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 138 linear feet 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. I believe we started on this in April and it was held up because there was a question of eel grass in the area and we wanted to have a new survey done. This was found consistent with LWRP. There was one section in here I talked about with eel grass. There is eel grass in the area. I believe he wanted to put four piles. I think what we wanted to do here, we'll approve replacing the existing dock in place and I had some discussion with the applicant. They said they could maybe use less piles, but in my mind, take the old pile out and put the new one dght in place is doing less disturbance rather than doing new holes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the distance on center now? Is it on the plan? TRUSTEE KING: Looks like ten feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to approve re-building the dock Board of Trustees 12 July 23, 2008 inplace. Are there any comments here? Any comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve replacement of the dock in place and it will be untreated decking, and deny the addition of any additional tie-off piles because of the eel grass beds. The only thing we are approving is just exactly what is there to be replaced. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The stairs to the beach they included on this. I don't have a problem with that. A set of stairs going down to the beach on the side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we talked about that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not in the description. TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll just stay with the original, just replace what is there, because of the moratorium. You can't add anything to construction under the moratorium. It has to be strictly inplace replacement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can do that and come back to us. TRUSTEE KING: For an amendment for the stairs after we settle what is going on with the moratorium. So we'll move on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll need a new survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of KEVIN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate and construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and upgrade the sanitary system, Located: 12580 Main Road, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator has determined this to be inconsistent with the LWRP according to the following policies; 6.3, and notes the distance from the bulkhead to the proposed action is approximately 24 feet. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required. Also building setback requirements are adjacent to water bodies and wetlands which show that this needs to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He notes that if the action is approved, use the following best management practices required: Ten-foot, non-turf buffer. And that's pretty much of the bulk of that report. CAC supports the application with the condition that the proposed addition is relocated away from the water as far as possible and drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof Board of Trustees 13 July 23, 2008 runoff. All the Trustees were there. We have seen this. There were a couple of questions as far as exterior walls being removed, whether or not this is going to be a demolition. We have, the application mentions, the plans show a pomh but we don't know where the porch is. And with that, I'll open it up to comments. Would anybody like to make a comment on this? MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler here with the applicant Kevin Faga. I brought with me, Jill had asked me that question about the existing versus proposed conditions of the dwelling. You can see from the photograph, the exterior walls of what is there and some of the interior walls there are to remain. There was an existing, t believe it was a covered porch on a slab on the water side of the structure. That's what is being proposed to be cut back so it is landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. It also has to be built to be flood compliant because of the FEMA regulations that are required. The existing foundation will remain. The addition that we are proposing is further back than the existing structure that is there now. The documents I'll hand up to you now show the existing conditions within the house and the proposed conditions which explain the porch above, which is proposed on the second floor. We also at this point have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC for the proposed work and we are into the Suffolk County Health Department for the new sanitary system now. We are awaiting comments TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On what you just gave us, on the first floor plan, you are showing a deck on there now? MR. BUTLER: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOStO: That was on the original set of plans that we saw when we were out there. MR. BUTLER: At this time that is not proposed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The deck is not part of the plans? MR. BUTLER: Correct. Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There are also a couple of letters that came in yesterday and today which I'll read into the record. To the Board of Trustees and Southold Town. This is from Amelia Bueckle (sic), 23 Meriden Avenue, Key Largo, Florida. My main concern about the Kevin Faga property addition is my water view from my home at 12580. I will be a full-time resident as of September 1, 2008. I have a limited view of the bay from my kitchen window, which is very important to me and my family and adds great value to my home. Thank you, Amelia Bueckle. From Sophia Antonidas (sic) at 12500 Main Road, East Marion. She writes: Greetings. I am in receipt of the notice to adjacent property owner and as the owner of 12500 Main Road I have concerns Board of Trustees 14 July 23, 2008 with the renovation and upgrade of the sanitary system. I respectfully request that in my absence of the scheduled hearing July 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM, that my concerns be documented and made public. Although I did not have adequate time to review the site plan provided with knowledgeable authorities I'm concerned that the proposed three pools shown close to the property line are too close to my existing drinking water well. Thank you. Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Sophia Antonidas. Does anyone on the Board have any comment or questions? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, the addition, the most seaward side where the small bump out is, the new addition is not going any farther seaward than what exists? I can't tell from what is in front of me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks on the site plan that we had out in the field, it shows it is actually extending, sorry, is actually retreating by about a foot, two feet. I can't tell. MR. BUTLER: About three feet less, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the footprint will be, at least on the existing residence, will be a foot farther away from the bulkhead. MR. BUTLER: At least, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments or questions from the audience on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did we talk about the house being moved back? I missed the first part of the conversation. Is it possible to move the structure back at all some? MR. BUTLER: Mr. Faga had a conversation with the contractor since, Jill, you and I spoke, and the difference is about $200,000 in cost to demolish and rebuild versus make use of what is there, which represents a substantial pementage of the project. MR. FAGA: If I may, with all due respect, I can't afford that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand. We just try, whenever possible -- MR. FAGA: I understand completely. TRUSTEE KING: Is that well water there? MR. BUTLER: There is well water now. TRUSTEE KING: Is it county water in that area? MR. BUTLER: I was told county water goes just past the property by the Suffolk County Health Department based on the address I gave them. I still have to verify that in the street. I don't know for sure. We are hoping it is. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE GHOStO: I can't find it listed here. MR. CORCORAN: Has the application been made with the ZBA yet? MR. BUTLER: Not yet, no. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The file says they have to go to ZBA on this anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe they should go there first. Board of Trustees 15 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To clear everything on the septic and all TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's, the additions are all landward of the existing. If they have to come back to us for something, then come back to us. TRUSTEE KING: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not like some of the other ones. There is another one tonight that is major. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Say again? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This one doesn't seem that it matters whether it goes to us first or ZBA first. To me anyway. That's how I look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I would like, since this structure is landward, the proposed addition is landward rather than seaward, I would not want to send the applicant to ZBA first, then have to come back here again. I think we should go ahead and act on it and if we approve it and ZBA tells him to change it, they come back to us, if not, they have both permits and approval and they are done. It saves the applicant time and it may be easier. MR. CORCORAN: It may be exempt from ZBA if everything is landward. MR. BUTLER: I have not had that discussion with them. I know they are going to want, unless I do something with the second floor on the western side of the property, where there is a ten foot setback, my second floor. MR. CORCORAN: If it's landward, it's not landward of the back of the property. Are you going up? MR. BUTLER: In that portion I'm going up. I have a second floor there now but I'm putting, it's a cape design. I'm putting more mass. So they want to look at it. MR. CORCORAN: I see TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It may not seem like much but when you raise the configuration of the second floor and it's significantly larger. So, any other comments or questions? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have all the drywells and all that on the plans? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Everything is here. Nothing out of the ordinary. It was found inconsistent. One of the main reasons it was found to be inconsistent is it's within the 100 foot setback from the wetland boundary, which is in case is the bulkhead. But I don't think it's practical to be able to move it back that far. MR. FAGA: It would put me ON the neighbor's property, almost. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Typically we may not allow this as a new permit today. Basically it's a renovation staying mostly within the footprint, extending a little bit, but not out of the realm of -- so if there are no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion - TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to put a non-turf buffer in there in Board of Trustees 16 July 23, 2008 front of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, one comment, just to make sure, the project complies with Drainage Code Chapter 236? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this application of Mr. Butler on behalf of Kevin Faga to renovate and construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling and to upgrade the sanitary system as per the plans noting that we are requiring a ten-foot, non-tuff buffer along the bulkhead and that all drainage be brought up to Chapter 236 code. ,And by adding the buffer and noting that it is not practical to move this home beyond 100 feet, that the Board finds it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: They should have a row of staked hay bales during construction on the seaward side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And add a row of hay bales along the seaward side of the project during construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. BUTLER: Thank you TRUSTEE BERGEN: En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN & ALEXANDRA O'MARA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6248 and Coastal Erosion Permit fl6248C to reduce and modify the scope of the previously approved rock revetment to a double row of quarrystone; and reconstruct (inplace with open-grate decking) and extend the existing bluff stairs over the stone to beach. Located: 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. The C,AC did not make an inspection, so there was no recommendation made. There was no LWRP report done on this, but given the fact that the project is actually a reduction in size from what was previously approved and the project as described looks like it would be consistent under the LWRP, I would first ask is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman, Eh-Consultants on behalf of the O'Mara's. Very briefly, Dave, your description is correct. This Board had originally, in 2005, late 2005, issued a permit for a traditionally designed rock revetment. We have been back and forth with the DEC for a very, very long time. I think Jim was out there with Chuck Hamilton at one point. To make a two-year story in 20 seconds, what we ended up with was a very similar structure but Board of Trustees 17 July 23, 2008 with only two rows of quarrystone set on a hard core foundation rather than the larger scope project where we are excavating stone into the beach and making a larger pile of stone, et cetera. So we really are just looking to modify the Board's permit to make it consistent with what the DEC has finally approved. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the access for that, Rob? MR. HERMAN: It shows on the original permit and on the plan, it's going to be access from Duck Pond Road and, depending on the contractor, I don't know if it's Costello, if they are going to try to come in from The Sound at all by barge with some of the materials, but what we had showed originally was primary access would be from Duck Pond. It's not coming down the bank. Well, I shouldn't say that. They may be able to crane some material over the top of the bank. So I shouldn't say that. The other part of it is also that we are amending the permit to reconstruct the stairs because in the two years that we have been going back and forth with the DEC, the lower section of stairs have crumbled apart. Those stairs were previously permitted by the Trustees. But we are not seeking to revisit that permit, we are looking to include it as part of this more recently-issued permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As far as the access goes from Duck Pond Road, you'll need to work with the Highway Department and leave a bond with the Highway Department for that. MR. HERMAN: They are aware of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. I was looking at a comparison of what was approved and what you are applying for here, and the stairs appear to be identical between the two sets of plans, the one from back in 2005 and this new one that you submitted, Rob, in '08. MR. HERMAN: The only difference is the extension of the stairs over the stone at the end. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Over the stone at the end, which is what you described in here. Also, to address, just LWRP thoughts, I noticed in here you are talking about revegetation. The bluff to be replanted with native vegetation including beach grass, Bayberry Rose and Virginia Creeper and American Beachgrass at the toe of the bluff behind the proposed revetment, which would again, in my mind, bring this into consistency with LWRP also. MR. HERMAN: The section, and we did submit an LWRP application, there is a section in the LWRP that speaks in great detail on how to design hard stabilization projects where it's a last resort, and this project really follows those guidelines very closely. And in this case the O'Mara's, as we have previously documented before the Board, had invested tens of thousands of dollars in the soft approach on this bluff when they originally got Planning Board approval. So in fact you could see some of the erosion control Board of Trustees 18 July 23, 2008 matting and those other plantings were really being sheared off the bottom of the bluff. So even to the extent that this appreach is being preposed again subsequent to a non-structural appreach is again consistent with what the LWRP requests. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments frem anybody in the audience on this one? (No response.) Any comments from the Board? (No response.) Then I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would make a motion to approve number three, En-Consultants on behalf of Kevin and Alexandra O'Mara at 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, as described, with the stipulation there be a bond left with the Town Highway Department to address the access via Duck Pond Road. And the fact that this is a reduction from the previously approved permit and with the inclusion of the vegetation here, that the Board would find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Under Wetland Permits, number one ARNOLD BLAIR requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built log gazebo and to revegetate a cleared area. Located: 4660 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here this evening what would like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) I looked at this a while back. The gazebo I have no problem with. There was quite a bit of area that was cleared, and Mr. Blair has done some vegetation, but in response to the CAC, they did not support the application because there has been extensive excavation and clearing of the vegetation and there is a potential for eresion. The CAC recommends the area be restored. I agree with that to some extent. There is no LWRP, however this application came in in June so we are well beyond the 30-day time limit that the LWRP coordinator has to review it. Are there any questions from the Board? Any comments from the audience? (No response.) Board of Trustees 19 July 23, 2008 I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit for the as-built log gazebo with the condition that a planting plan come in within the next 30 days. The plantings that he has are very sparse. He has planted native vegetation but I would like to see that almost doubled so that he needs to get that planting plan in within the next 30 days, and I would also like to make it a condition that the plantings be done by the end of October of 2008. Obviously it's not a great time for planting right now. And that would be my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With that revegetation it will make it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, JOSEPH MELCHIONE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x20' fixed dock using fiberglass "FIo-Thru" decking and six-inch diameter piles, install a 3x14' seasonal ramp and a 6x20' seasonal floating dock with a six-inch diameter anchor piles. Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. We do not have an LWRP and it's still within the 30 days, so we can hold this hearing but we cannot make a determination tonight. We don't have anything from the CAC. Yes I do. Sorry. CAC did not make an inspection, therefore, no recommendation. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. MELCHIONE: Yes. I'm Joe Melchione. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As we spoke in the field, we talked about the pilings on the float. Jim did speak to DEC and they said if you are doing a lesser project, you don't have to go back to them for an amendment. MR. MELCHIONE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And what we have consistently been approving is two piles on a float, not the four. MR. MELCHIONE: Sol understand, if you ultimately approve two on the float, I don't have to go back to DEC, they're okay. So that means to cross -- okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Less is okay, more is not okay. MR. MELCHIONE: That's fine. Sorry, one other question. The lack of LWRP, I'm not sure what that means. I apologize for that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, LWRP is our Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. MR. MELCHIONE: I'm aware of that. I'm not sure who has to come Board of Trustees 20 July 23, 2008 out, the CAC -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP coordinator has not made a report and given us a report. He has 30 days to do that. If the 30 days were up then we can move ahead, but 30 days is not up. MR. MELCHIONE: It's not the New York State Consistency, that's somebody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. They have to give us a report and then we determine if it's consistent or not. We make a determination. So we can hold the public hearing and close the public hearing but we cannot vote on it tonight. So it would be voted on in the August meeting. MR. MELCHIONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's the only comments we have. Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reserve decision to our August meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number three, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. This was a previously-approved application and I believe the permit expired and that's why they are back. And there is no LWRP on it but I'm not so sure that we can move forward. Is there anybody here to comment on this project? MR. DROUZAS: I'm George Drouzas. Good evening. I'm here for the Drouzas residence. We are just reapplying so we can get permits and approval. That's it. TRUSTEE KING: The original one was found inconsistent because of the setback, 100 feet from the freshwater wetland. This is well out of tidal wetland jurisdiction but there is a small freshwater pond there. So that puts it within our jurisdiction. MR. DROUZAS: Sorry, say that again. TRUSTEE KING: I'm saying it's well out of the tidal wetland jurisdiction of the Trustees but it's within freshwater wetlands because of the little pond in the west corner. The only question we had, it looks like the house has been moved closer to the wetland. MR. DROUZAS: There must have been a mistake with that. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to come up here and I'll show you. MR. DROUZAS: Please. Board of Trustees 21 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: (Indicating.) This is the odginal one we approved. And it shows 56 feet. And on this one here, the one submitted -- MR. DROUZAS: That was a mistake. TRUSTEE KING: It shows 48. MR. DROUZAS: We are going on the original. We are not changing anything. Do you want me to submit it now and maybe you can give me something with the approval? TRUSTEE KING: So we'll ignore the new one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you are saying is you want us to review the previous survey that we approved. MR. DROUZAS: Yes, the original. We are not changing anything. This must have been a mistake because we did so many. We must have just handed in the wrong one. Because we had to get an updated survey. So that was something that just didn't get -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So just for the record, you are looking for an approval on survey dated as last revised 4/3/06. MR. PROVENCHER: Good evening. Jim Provencher. We had a problem with the drainage on that because it's a Iow collection point for water in the area and it was filled in. Is that coming back to anybody? Because that seems to be missing for all of the verbiage that is being thrown about here:. It was tabled for that reason. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was the previous, what were the conditions? Why was it tabled? TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was approved later. MR. PROVENCHER: There was a Iow collection point for water that was filled in. TRUSTEE KING: This is for an amendment to fill, this last one, 148 cubic yards. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It has to comply with the drainage code. MR. PROVENCHER: There was a concern with drainage and they were talking about something with French drains or something like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a Chapter 236 is the drainage code and that basically says you have to contain your own runoff on your own property. MR. PROVENCHER: These are pre-existing houses that have been there since 1957. It's not the houses, it's the street that is in the back there that pitches down toward that area and all the area that is there, if you look at the pdnt, it all comes like to a -- actually, the print that is shown here is not consistent with the Department of Public Works topographical maps. May I approach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. PROVENCHER: Here is the add on. It's five foot here and four foot here. So that is not what that shows. Is this proposed, raising the land, to accommodate this driveway? Because if that's the case then this proposed raising of land is going to do away with this 4.4 foot Iow collection point for water, and that's my concern. Board of Trustees 22 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We understand that. But the new code will not, they will have to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What he's saying -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know what he's saying. MR. PROVENCHER: My concern is the basement of these three houses here will get flooded when the water has nowhere to go and the water goes back the other way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They have to address that as per the code. MR. PROVENCHER: And they have one drywell here, which won't cut it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In our code, whatever drainage they do has to conform to a two-inch rainfall. They are responsible for that TRUSTEE KING: What's the elevation here compared to over here? MR. PROVENCHER: If you look here, it's a lot higher. TRUSTEE KING: So it's actually draining into this property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this is not the runoff from their property. It's runoff from this property going on to there. MR. PROVENCHER: It's from this whole area and this whole area and this whole area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately, we can do -- MR. PROVENCHER: This is being elevated, correct. And if this is elevated, then that water that used to go there, where will that go; in my basement? You know? That was my concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You might be forced to do drywells, too. MR. PROVENCHER: I'm not paying for this man's new construction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The new construction is causing that problem. MR. PROVENCHER: If this driveway is moved here it would not have to elevate this area and it could be left alone and it could do what it's been doing for hundreds of years. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You should go to the microphone so everyone can hear what you just said. TRUSTEE KING: Basically what he's saying is if you raise where that driveway is going, if you raise the grade, then he'll have a flooding condition on his property. MR. DROUZAS: How would that happen? From us? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it used to drain on your property. MR. DROUZAS: Basically what he's saying is we have pictures of everyone's pipes running to our property, obviously all the surrounding property piped from theirs on to ours. But we are not creating any water. That's number one. We are not going to take, it's not like we are taking our roof drains and shooting them out to people's houses. We are containing everything that we have. So what would be the problem? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The water is just being diverted back that way is what he's saying. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right now, without the elevation increase for your project, what he's saying is the water is draining in 3art from Board of Trustees 23 July 23, 2008 your property into that area, and then from the neighbors' properties to the west are also draining down into that area. What I hear the gentleman saying is with the raise in elevation for your project, you are addressing, as is appropriate under 236, in your proposal, the runoff from your house to go into a drywell that is there. His concern is now that water that was running from the properties to the west into that area now can no longer run into that area because you have raised the elevation, and his concern is back for those house that are along the west-hand border. And what we are trying to say here, and I'm only speaking for myself, not all the Trustees, is that I don't consider that a problem for you as the property owner of the proposed project because according to the new Chapter 236 it's the responsibility of everybody to contain water on their own property and if part of the problem now that this project is creating is that water that is right now draining on to your property from others, that's the responsibility of those others and not yours, in my opinion. Now, the question has come up, though, that Peggy mentioned was, that the project you are doing is exacerbating this problem, so is there some responsibility here. I don't want to speak for you, Peggy. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, go ahead. MR. DROUZAS: Can I say something? I think that the houses pumping their water toward our property is creating this, not our project. I mean, it comes down to everyone containing their own water, number one. My property is not a pool for everyone to throw their water in. It doesn't make sense. You know it, I know it. Everyone knows we should be responsible for our own water. Piping on to my property, sending water on to my property should not happen. The same way we are not piping on to anyone else' property. If you have a piece of property and everyone is like, oh, what are you doing, my water is supposed to go there. That doesn't make sense. MR. PROVENCHER: That was a natural collection point for the water in the area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gentlemen, you are to address the Board, not each other. Feel free to address the Board. MR. PROVENCHER: That was a natural collection point, as I stated. That's why it was never built on, okay. That's why. I mean it's a beautiful piece of property, yes, I agree. I commend you on your purchase but, you know, it's as it is, that's why it was never built on. I don't know how that got missed. And first of all, I don't also pipe any water on to anybody's property. There is no pipes going on to his property. I don't know what that means, but. MR. DROUZAS: I have pictures of surrounding houses piped toward my property. But is this a real concern for my permits, that this gentleman is saying that I'm not collecting his water anymore? Is Board of Trustees 24 July 23, 2008 that something we should really be talking about here? I just came for renewal of permits that we originally got approved for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a public hearing where anybody has a right to bring their comments to the Board. MR. DROUZAS: I understand. But he's talking about his water on my property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he has a right to speak about it because we have a public hearing here. MR. DROUZAS: I understand that. But we are talking about other houses' water on my property and I should leave it there because it's a pool. That doesn't make sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you give us a moment. He's looking something up in the code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How much fill are we bringing in? I don't remember. TRUSTEE KING: They have, in the new application, they have not requested any fill. That's a little bit of a problem here. We had given them an amendment to bring in I think it was -- hang on. They came in for an amendment in September of 2007 to amend the permit to include 148.3 cubic yards of fill along the southwest corner of the property. That has not been included in this new application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any reason the fill was not included in your new application? MR. DROUZAS: I thought originally we just came back to renew the existing. That's all. Not changing anything. Whatever was already approved, we want to just update our permits. That's basically it. It's not that we omitted anything out. It's the same approval, same package, we just want to get it reapproved. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So you want the fill? MR. DROUZAS: Yes. Same existing everything. We are not changing anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In this application you did not ask for the fill. The application we are reviewing right now, there is no fill. MR. DROUZAS: Whatever we are missing we'll bring back. Everything that was existing, we'll bring back. We are not going to add or take anything out. TRUSTEE KING: This new application they are asking for 800 cubic yards of fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They had asked for some fill on the old one around the other -- TRUSTEE KING: A lot of it was not in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: These issues I would be more comfortable waiting for LWRP on this and have it reviewed by them. We have questions that it was the same, now there is no fill and we still don't have LWRP from Scott Hilary, so I'm inclined to not approve anything tonight before the review is done. TRUSTEE KING: Was some of this activity from digging a foundation? Board of Trustees 25 July 23, 2008 Is that what I'm reading here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me see. I'll look the other one up. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just move on to the CAC recommendations also. CAC does not support the application because trees over eight inches DBH have been cut down and the proposed dwelling is too close to the freshwater pond. And I think somewhere-- (perusing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the first application it's about 16 cubic yards to be excavated and it says all excavated soil to remain on premises to level around the structure. And I think all of that was out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, a lot of it is out of our jurisdiction. That's why they came back for the amendment for the 148 cubic yards because that's the amount that was in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does it show on the plan there, the 148 cubic yards? Has that been approved? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because there was an amendment after that. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) In the old permit it was expressly said all trees over eight inch DBH diameter not in the building envelope will be preserved. I don't think that happened. I think all the trees, everything was cut down, I believe. We also gave a four-foot path down to the wetlands to be cut by hand. That was all on the original permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the plans submitted with the new application they have the fill area of 148.3 cubic yards on this plan. So that was applied for, based on that. MR. DROUZAS: Excuse me. Can I ask a question? What are we reviewing now?.. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is happening is you are saying you are applying for a same exact thing but in actuality it's really not. From what you wrote in your application it's not the same exact as the previous one. So we are just trying to compare what you applied for now to what was approved previously. We have these plans that we received June 24, 2008, and we are trying to figure out if that's what is on these plans, if that's what we approved last time, if it is in deed the same application MR. DROUZAS: Can I approach. I want to see what you have. I have the approved plans. I want to see if that's what we are working with. (Handing.) Is this it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Last revised 9/17/07 MR. DROUZAS: No, this is the entire plans. You are working with the actual fill in this corner. Once again, we just want to stick to what we had. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's very confusing because we have so many different plans. We want to make sure what you are applying for now is what you applied for and got approved for. MR. DROUZAS: So we are dealing with the issue now if my paperwork is correct and you want to go with the existing and not this Board of Trustees 26 July 23, 2008 issue? Or we'll come back to his issue after?. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are still discussing that as well. MR. DROUZAS: It's confusing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I want to wait for LWRP because we have one more professional opinion review. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I would like you to re-submit the application with all the details and right set of plans so as not to confuse everything. MR. DROUZAS: Didn't we re-submit everything in double? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it's different. MR. DROUZAS: The only thing that is conflicting is my application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We really need to have you step back to the microphone so the comments are on the record. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What was the difference between his set of plans and what we approved? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are trying to figure out. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What's the approved set of plans? TRUSTEE KING: This is the problem we had before. There was a drainage problem. We have never addressed it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if we wait for the LWRP, we have one more professional's opinion of that site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the way we addressed it last time is we had him do some plantings and replant that area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Exactly. What I'm saying before is Scott Hilary can look at that and in his professional opinion if that would take care of it and we would be able to tell this man that that has been looked at and reviewed it and Scott thinks it's okay. TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, but I don't think -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob's comment is to have him re-submit and wait for the LWRP on that re-submission. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we are finding out there is too many discrepancies in the different maps that you've applied for and we really need to take the time in another, not tonight, and review this and maybe you re-submit the correct plans so everything -- because we have a smaller plan and this bigger plan and they are not the same. And we can get the LWRP and take care of it next month. It's getting too confusing. MR. DROUZAS: Okay, but can we just go with the last stuff that I handed in, the last approved? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes MR. DROUZAS: Can I see that. I'm also confused. I have so much paper. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't you stop in the office and you can look in the file and determine what it is you wanted to go with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's the best way. MR. DROUZAS: We want to go with what we originally were approved for. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We don't have that. Board of Trustees 27 July 23, 2008 MR. DROUZAS: You don't have that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not what you applied for this time. And the paperwork -- if we approve -- MR. DROUZAS: Can I approach and see what you are saying? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what we are saying. It's taking up too much time. If we approve something tonight on this, the file is not going to reflect anything that we approve. It's going to be too confusing. We like to build a history in the file and so when somebody looks back they know exactly what was done. And if we do that they'll say what was approved because there are three or four different maps here now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original permit expired? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they didn't come in for an extension and now they have to reapply. MR. DROUZAS: I believe we did. Let me ask you a quick question. When we reapply, how much time before it being expired do we have to come in? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A permit is good for two years and then you have two one-year extensions. But you have to apply for the extensions before the first two years are up. MR. DROUZAS: Say it was expiring in March, when would I have to come in to reapply? TRUSTEE KING: You would have to come in a month before it actually expires. You can't come in two days before and ask for an extension. MR. DROUZAS: Okay, maybe that's what, I think we didn't leave ourselves enough time. Do you guys have the actual plans with you that we got approved on or is it not in the file? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have that but the application that we are looking at is not reflective of those plans. That's what we are saying. We need to straighten out the paperwork and right now is not the forum. MR. DROUZAS: So you have all the paperwork, it's just not in order. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have to come in the office and we need to go over this. TRUSTEE KING: What you are telling us, we got this June 24, this set of plans. This is different than what was approved. That's the problem. Now you are saying you want to go back to the original approval. MR. DROUZAS: That's what we gave you just now? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. DROUZAS: Can I see that? TRUSTEE KING: With this application. MR. DROUZAS: Can I see that so I know which one I'm looking at? TRUSTEE KING: This is what was submitted with the present application. MR. DROUZAS: Which one was approved, so I know. Because I have all this stuff in my file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you need to come in the office and look at it. That's what we are saying. It's confusing, because we have these other plans. MR. DROUZAS: Isn't there one stamped that says "approved"? Board of Trustees 28 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: This was is stamped "approved here. MR. DROUZAS: This is what I got my permits for. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. DROUZAS: So I don't even need this. I could just hand that back in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, because it's different than what you want to do. MR. DROUZAS: I didn't change anything. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That doesn't show the retaining wall in the amendment. MR. DROUZAS: How did that get approved? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It got approved with the addition of one of these plans. MR. DROUZAS: That's what I'm asking. I didn't change anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's different. You need to come tomorrow in the office. You can see it. MR. DROUZAS: Who will be in the office tomorrow? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The girls. MR. DROUZAS: Are you sure, because I'm taking like two hours every trip I'm coming out here. I don't even know what I got approved with. TRUSTEE KING: Get a copy of the original permit. That's what you got approved for. If that's what you want to reapply for, reapply for it. MR. DROUZAS: Is there something that I'm missing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. DROUZAS: Really. You guys know what's going on? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. DROUZAS: Okay, so can I see the original what I got approved on? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not tonight. MR. DROUZAS: No way. But if I come tomorrow, I'll be able to see it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. I would like to make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We need an LWRP report on this, too. MR. DROUZAS: You guys are done with me, that's it, I can't ask anymore questions? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just tabled the application. MR. DROUZAS: You told me to come tomorrow. I don't know where to go, who to see. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just go to the Trustees office in the other building and speak to Lauren or Liz. MR. DROUZAS: What time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The office is open 8:00 to 4:00. MR. DROUZAS: All right, thank you. MR. PROVENCHER: Thank you for addressing my concerns. TRUSTEE KING: I'll be in the office Friday morning if you would rather come in Friday and we can hash this all out. MR. DROUZAS: If I could get a number and contact you so I definitely Board of Trustees 29 July 23, 2008 know someone will be there to handle this. Because this is just getting crazy. TRUSTEE KING: I'm there on Friday. MR. DROUZAS: Do you have a card or something; can get your number?. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have the office number on the top of all the applications and permits. It's 765-1892. MR. DROUZAS: Do you have a card? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. (Handing). MR. DROUZAS: I guess this is off the record because we are done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we are still recording. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, 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. Is there anyone here to represent this application? (No response.) I went and looked at this and what is shown on the survey and what is actually in the field is not even close, in my opinion. I wish there was somebody here. I went out with the boat and the stakes -- we asked them to indicate the seaward side of the float with two stakes and they are very close to the neighbor to the north. Yet this shows there is a lot of clearance. It's not there, sorry, not in the field. So I think we should table this and maybe we should contact him and we'll get this straightened out. It's doable, but not the way they want it. It's way too close. I'm surprised the next door neighbor has not complained because it's a really good-sized sail boat tied up just north of him and that was ten or fifteen feet from the sail boat. I couldn't even get in there with my boat. I didn't want to. I think the best thing is table this. I'll meet him in the field and we'll get an accurate plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of RICHARD JOHNSON & PAMELA MAINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x10' ramp up to a 4x18' level fixed dock section with a 3x10' seasonal wooden ramp onto a seasonal 5x18' floating dock secured by two 4x4" posts. Located: 7617 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This hearing was opened up last month and we tabled it. The LWRP report has been made and it has been found inconsistent with the following policies and with the following comments: This project is on Great Pond also known as Leeton's Lake. Board of Trustees 30 July 23, 2008 This is a unique, natural and recreational resoume unlike no other in the Town of Southold. Great Pond is a natural resouree that prevides benefits including open space habitats for fish and wildlife, water quality enhancement, flooding and eresion pretection, scenic value, recreational and environmental educational opportunities. The town recognizes the ecological, economic and esthetic values Great Pond has to offer. Other comments also include that the preposed action would impede navigation of small watereraft, interfere with public use of the shoreline such as wade fishing. It goes on to give us envirenmental reasons concerning plants and animals, food webs and how this would have a negative effect on the habitat. Also causing habitat fragmentation. It does mention, the LWRP report does mention the cumulative impact of docks on Great Pond could adversely affect the viewsheds and vistas important to the community, and that this also has cumulative impact associated with the build out of docks on the shoreline. It does point out that this action will project appreximateiy 43 into public trust waters. The applicant enjoys a reasonable recreational use of Great Pond via a cleared path already there to the water's edge. The path is sufficient for launching and retrieval of manual-powered watercraft. There is also, as it points out, the LWRP report, again, the applicant enjoys alternate means of access to Great Pond via the town's right-of-way just off of Lake Court. So it's a pretty extensive report of inconsistency frem the LWRP review. Just to review, does CAC have a report on this. MR. MCGREEVY: I didn't make the inspection, but there is a report. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here is it. CAC did resolve to support the application with the condition threugh-flow decking is used on the fixed dock, and the ramp and floating dock is seasonal. There is a letter here in the file that was received on July 11. Do you want me to read this into the record. It's a two-page letter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could summarize it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't read it. I'll read this into the record. It's frem John J. McGlinchey, Jr. and Eleanor M. McGlinchey of 9 Wagon Lane, Glen Head. Ladies and gentlemen we write again to express our interest and concerns about the Johnson/Maino application to construct various remp and dock sections of the preperty described in the various application documents at 7617 Soundview Avenue, Southold. As previously noted, the applicant has applied for a permit for construction on the preperty subject to our deeded right of way over and the right to use of such preperty described in our deed of 7480 Soundview Avenue and the applicant deed is a private beach. We appreciate the fact that the Trustees have worked with the Board of Trustees 31 July 23, 2008 applicant to reduce the size, scale and scope of the construction contemplated by the application and we note that further appreciation of changes to the project is evidence in the revised plans and drawings received by the Trustees on June 17, 2008, and discussed at the meeting on the following evening. We still, however, believe that this construction even as described in the revised plans can and will block our access to Great Pond and can and will violate our rights to the quiet enjoyment of private beach unless the applicants agree to certain stipulations. We recently measured the distance covered by open water between the phragmite beds on either side of the proposed ramps and docks and depending upon where you determine the border of the beds to be, we found that distance to be between 18 and 20 feet deep. The proposed ramps and docks are three-feet wide. The proposed canoe rack is four-foot wide and the applicants already have a small boat on the shoreline which is six feet wide and the total of these is 13 feet. So between 72% and 57% of the space between the beds of phragmites. In the original application, in the discussion following the recital of developed coast policy nine, applicant states the proposed construction will not inhibit others' abilities to access these same waters. We disagree. Utilization by the applicants of up to 72% of the available space for water access certainly limits the access of others having rights to the property and access to Great Pond. A small part of the public water but a part of it nonetheless. Please note that we do not wish to unduly restrict the ability of the applicant to utilize and enjoy the private beach and access Great Pond. We do, however, wish to preserve our same rights in accordance with our deed and with public policy. We believe both ends could be achieved if the applicant would agree to a stipulation that the permit be granted be granted in this manner: If the proposed construction not be accompanied now or in the future by the construction or any addition of any pens, gates, chain lock, landscaping or other structure device, temporary or permanent that restricts access to the private beach for the contemplated construction bordering Great Pond. In summary, we respectfully request that this application be made pursuant to the stipulation just outlined or absent such stipulation it be denied. Very truly yours, the McGlinchey's. Okay. We all did go out and look at this again out in the field and the Trustees have various comments or had vadous comments out in the field. And I will now open this up to comment from anybody in the audience. Would anybody like to speak on this application? MR. D'AUGUSTA: Vincent D'Augusta. The trustees have already seen the property in question. We have no access other than traversing Board of Trustees 32 July 23, 2008 through a driveway to get to the path that is doubled in size to get on the water's edge. Off the right of way you could have a path, environmentally approved path or trail where you can carry a canoe or kayak down there. As it is right now you are going to have to step on private in order to have access to our right-of-way or if you traverse through the right-of-way that already has plants planted on it, you'll do damage to the growth of the plants. And in the past it's always been a problem with the property owners or people that have been renting the house from time to time to deny us access to Great Pond. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you saying the right-of-way that is cleared now is not the true right-of-way MR. D'AUGUSTA: The right-of-way that is them now, before it used to be a regular path or trail where you used to be able to walk from the right-of-way of the road right to the pond. The path has been changed over to the back of the house that exists there now at the end of the driveway. In order to get to that path I have to walk on the gentleman's driveway to get down to the beach. If I go through the right-of-way, the road, that was originally proposed, which went to the water's edge, I have plant life there now. And that's just been recently planted. So I can't go to the beach. I can't carry a kayak there anymore or use a canoe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the right-of-way existed that was blocked by plants -- MR. D'^UGUSTA: The right-of-way that used to be them, we had problems with kids drinking beer and having all kinds of parties and stuff, so we left it alone and went off to the side. Right now, with everything growing back, it's denying us access to get to the water's edge. On top of this that, if you look at the right-of-way now as it exists with the plants growing and also the additional plantings that have taken place, we can't, without doing damage to someone's property, use our right-of-way, our deeded access to enjoy Gmat Pond. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about up landward of the water, correct, where the road -- MR. D'AUGUSTA: If you follow the private road straight to the north, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So where the road goes, the road that the cars travel on comes down and goes to the left, you are talking about that intersection of the right-of-way there. You are not talking down at the water. MR. D'AUGUSTA: No, I'm talking about walking through that to get through to the water through. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Okay. That really doesn't have anything to do with this project. The gentleman is bringing up a very legitimate issue but it's an issue that doesn't have anything to do with the project we are considering tonight. The issue is a problem that has been created up at the start of the right-of-way that is well outside of the Trustees' jurisdiction. Board of Trustees 33 July 23, 2008 MR. D'AUGUSTA: Allow me to elaborate on that, though. As of now, if I was to take a boat down there, we have beach chairs, we have boats. We have a hammock. You can't use, we can't partake in Great Pond, access to it, without moving the gentleman's furniture out of the way in order to launch a boat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not disagreeing with your concern. What I'm saying is that is a property owner's concern between you and the people that have the property there. It has nothing to do with an application for a dock down at the end of the right-of-way. What you are saying is there is a problem at the beginning of the right-of-way and it's a civil matter between yourself and those other people. It really does not have, it's just my perspective, doesn't have anything to with what we are here to look at tonight which is an application for a dock down at the lake. I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate issue, I'm just saying it's an not an issue for the Trustees, in my opinion. MR. D'AUGUSTA: With the deeded rights, if you are going to put a dock there, you are taking better than half of the beach away and denying access. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That piece, yes. Your assertion that we are taking away with this, if we are to allow this structure, we are taking away some of the deeded beach area, that's a legitimate issue for the Trustees. What I'm saying is your access to the right-of-way up at the start of the right-of-way, which is well outside our jurisdiction, that's, in my mind, is a civil matter between you and the other family. MR. D'AUGUSTA: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But your other concern is very legitimate for us down on the beach where we are considering the structure. That's a very legitimate issue. MR. MCGLINCHEY: John McGlinchey. I just note, the agenda for this evening, the description of the project does not match the drawing that was submitted June 17. You were talking about a 4x10 and 4x18, all of which in that drawing is shown as three. In the agenda it talks about a 5x18 floating dock. In the drawing is 4x8. So I don't know if there is, if that's something that needs to be addressed, the discrepancy between the agenda and what I think is supposed to be under consideration here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just explain. This was what was originally applied for this basically what happens whatever was in the paper stays on the agenda and if we change it in between, it doesn't change on the agenda because that's what it was advertised as MR. MCGLINCHEY: I understand. The only other thing that was on my mind goes back to your last meeting. That had to do with whether or not, what they have a legal right to construct. And on reflection I was not particularly satisfied with it's kind of Board of Trustees 34 July 23, 2008 it-is-what-it-is kind of explanation that we have, the right is there and the town attorney or whoever the attorney was said so. I would certainly think that we should have open for your discussion whether or not there is any principle of law there, whether or not there is any statute, whether or not there is any precedence in common law, because that would eventually come to the civil mattere that you are talking about as to whether or not we would have access to whatever is built on that preperty. So, at any rate, I appreciate your forbearance, consideration and your patience, thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll say that in here, the folks, Mr. McGlinchey, submitted a survey that with a map showing this on the map, frem 1951, and it does indeed reflect what he was talking about with a straight right-of-way and this beach area. There is one more letter that I just found that only was received on July 7 from Robert and Dennis Martin from Montauk. Sirs, as property owners of the adjoining lot we have been notified of the request to have ramps, a dock and a floating dock constructed on Great Pond. We have many questions regarding these plans. We would like to know if an envirenmental impact study has been completed and if so can we be sent a copy. We also would like to know if the plans for the docks call for construction of webbed plastic which allows sunlight to reach the pond, or regular lumber, which restricts sunlight from entering the pond and would have a negative impact. We would also like to know what the CAC thinks of this project. Absent evidence that the project is envirenmentally sound, we have concerns about Iongterm impact in Great Pond. That's pretty much it. Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you just for the record read off what the changes were or what is being considered right now? TRUSTEE KING: That's the actual proposal now?. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You might have to refer to the current survey or drawing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks to me, based on a letter from Costello Marine of June 16, you'll find revised drawings illustrating a 3x10 ramp, a 3x27 fixed dock and 4x8 end section, including a storage rack for canoe and ladder, and 4x4 posts. That was received back in June, and it shows on the site plan exactly that, going out to the water in what looks like a "T" but it's a 4x8 platform at the end of the catwalk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On what side of the preperty? Where is it located on the property? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's off to the side on the eastern side of the property. According to the site plan I'm showing here, it comes straight off the existing path that is there. But that is on the east side of the property. I don't see if there is any measurement to the side line. Board of Trustees 35 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can ask them to move it to the side to leave room for pedestrians. MR. MCGLINCHEY: It looks like 40 foot if I'm look the at the same one, above the phragmites bed to the left. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 40 foot from the western end to the dock. MR. MCGLINCHEY: When you say eastern end, I think that's incorrect there. It's closer to the 40 foot side. Because that entire private beach jokingly said because it's all phragmites, extends. TRUSTEE KING: If you are going to comment, please come up to the mic so Wayne can get everything. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Sorry. The 40 foot is from the western end, as just said. So it is way to the western end of the property, which I think runs, doesn't it run about a hundred, one-hundred some odd feet along Great Pond, but most of that is covered by phragmites with the exception of this very small area where they are putting the dock, which when I measured on that, they are showing it's 25 foot of space there and I found it to be less, with a tape measure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it's substantially different from what we received in January. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We reduced it to three feet from four feet wide. I thought we asked them to remove it to one side so there will be room in the majodty of that clearing open. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But the path is only a few feet from the edge of the wetland anyway. MR. MCGLINCHEY: It's impossible to leave it, as drawn, to leave the majority of it open because it takes up 72% of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what it's showing here. MR. MCGLINCHEY: So it doesn't matter which side you put it on. I guess it's worse if it's in the middle. But if it's on either side it will still take up 72% of the available open water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to comment on that too, Jim. I'm sitting here with a six-page report from the LWRP and I'm just looking at page over page of overwhelming environmental justification for denying this application. The LWRP coordinator has made no recommendations. He has listed page after page of rationale for not accepting this application; unique natural habitat, impeding navigation, habitat fragmentation, cumulative impacts; this activity will not support a pattern of development that enhances the community of this area; it impedes the public use of such water. To me it's very overwhelming that this absolutely effects the environment of this year. He goes in length about the diverse fishing opportunities. When fishing Great Pond shoreline corridor is a primary means of access to navigating small watercraft and wade fishing, therefore the proposed action will impede and obstruct open access to the shoreline. He makes a point that the applicant already enjoys access to this pond. It's just to me very Board of Trustees 36 July 23, 2008 overwhelming the rationale for not having a dock in this area and I would be inclined to agree with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm of the same opinion. It is a rather extensive report and it is quite a bit of evidence leaving me to lean toward not approving this either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I reviewed the LWRP report and I have to be honest and say I'm a little troubled with the report. It's not that I disagree in its entirety with what is listed in the report but I don't entirely agree with all the things stipulated in the report. There are other docks and other structures within Great Pond. Within the last few years the camp constructed a massive dock in there. And I have a problem with all the information contained in this report that it will impede on the public's access to that shoreline. I don't see it. This is another case where people are saying if the dock being proposed is 50 feet, then it's going 50 feet out into the lake. That's not true. It's starting on the land and going out and is probably not impeding far beyond the phragmites that are there. So I don't think it's interfering with the fishing or the ability to fish. I don't think it's interfering with navigation at all. Bull there are some legitimate issues brought up in the LWRP. Saying that, what troubles me with this is we went out in the field with Mr. Costello and what we described to him that we would like to see is not what is submitted, as my memory serves me. So I'm not comfortable with this application because it doesn't match what we had talked about with the applicant out in the field saying this is something that we have more of a tendency to at least give serious consideration to than what has been previously submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we table it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think we have to necessarily table it. I'm uncomfortable -- I don't really see the need, to be honest with you. You can launch a canoe from the shore there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say, I want to make some comments to what Dave said when I read through this. I think one of the comments was that Peconic Dunes does have their dockage, but I believe the information that I have is that the county owns that cove, so it's their property, and I found it very interesting that the fishing is mostly along the shoreline so that when we are considering fishing with the docks on the bay, you go out in the bay to fish whereas the fishing in these lakes, and I didn't know this from experience, I learned this from speaking to Scott, is most of the fishing in freshwater is along the shoreline. So I think there are differences here that are very different from docks on our bays and is what makes it very unique. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. Board of Trustees 37 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I would like to make a motion that because of the inconsistency and the findings of the LWRP that we deny this application for this dock on Great Pond. Do I have a second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a comment, Bob. And I appreciate what you are saying, but I'll vote to deny also. Not based solely on the LWRP but also based on the fact that the applicant did not submit what we talked about in the field for us to give serious consideration to it. TRUSTEE KING: There was a second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to make a comment that I'll deny also for reasons that Dave stated but also I understand this property for sale and the new owner might not even want a dock. So it's not, to me it just doesn't make sense, if it's not the right thing to do it just to make the property, increase the property value. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, the application is denied. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of JAMES & CAROL MIKELBANK requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, framed covered porch and storm leaching pool for roof runoff. Located: 3190 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Jim and I went out and looked at this. This is a very small addition on the road side. It's out of our jurisdiction from the bay side but it is just within our jurisdiction from the creek side, which, in between the house and the creek there is a road and another house. But it's still within a hundred feet. So it's just in our jurisdiction. It's a minor addition, and it's exempt from LWRP. And CAC did not make a recommendation because they didn't inspect it. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler on behalf of the applicant, with the applicant, Mr. Mikelbank, here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any comments? Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 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 this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Is this a full permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was applied for as a full wetland permit. It's small enough to be administrative. There is drywells on the plans, already on the house, attached to the house, so I don't have a Board of Trustees 38 July 23, 2008 problem with it. Motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Polywaters Permits on behalf of ELIZABETH & DAVID BRANCH requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 881.44 square foot one-story addition to the existing dwelling, a 177.42 square foot deck and screened porch addition onto an existing deck, to be reconstructed, install drywells and construct a new 4x16' concrete pad. Located: 5160 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This was reviewed by the CAC and they resolved to support the application. It was reviewed under LWRP and found inconsistent because of the minimum setback of 100 feet. And this project is within that 100-foot setback. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application MR. POLYWATERS: Yes. Ken Polywaters on behalf of Elizabeth and David Branch. I'll be happy to address any questions you may raise or anyone else may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out to review this application and I just have a couple questions or observations. I really didn't have any problem with the application as far as the one-story addition and the porches. There is a screened-in porch that is being applied for that, again, I didn't have any problem from the Trustees perspective, but I have a feeling this will require ZBA approval because of the side yard setback, which looks like about less than seven feet. So that's just something to consider. I had a question of the need for a concrete walk rather than a pervious walk from the steps off the porch going down to the beach. I'm trying to address the LWRP inconsistency and I'm wondering if there is any ability of the applicant to consider changing the concrete walkway to a pervious walkway. MR. POLYWATER: To address that, I believe the current steps and decking is exactly two feet beyond where this is proposed. So we are actually pulling back a structure. They chose concrete because of the last step, they want to step on something solid and hard and not create a mud scenario. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concrete pad, I understand. It's the concrete walkway that is depicted on the plans going out past the post and rail fence almost looks like 6.3 contour line. I'm wondering if the concrete path -- in other words, "pad," I understand. I'm wondering if the "path" can be pervious to address the inconsistency under the LWRP. MR. POLYVVATER: I'm sure they can turn that into pavers or something that would work. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Super. I'm noticing drywells here, so the project will comply with Chapter 236 and there will be leaders and gutters Board of Trustees 39 July 23, 2008 going into the drywell to contain roof runoff. MR. POLYWATER: Yes, everything will be self contained. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those are the only questions I have. Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience on this project? (No response.) Not seeing any other comments, are there comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve Polywaters Permits on behalf of Elizabeth and David Branch as described on 5160 Indian Neck Lane with the stipulations that gutters and leaders will lead to the proposed drywells to comply with Chapter 236 and that the concrete walkway is changed to a -- that a pervious material is used for that walkway rather than concrete. In doing so we will determine it is consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. POLYW^TER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Waters Edge Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN WEBER requests a Wetland Permit to install 85' of new vinyl bulkhead landward of an existing and functional bulkhead. Located: 750 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. MR. PASCIUTTI: Larry Pasciutti from Waters Edge Consulting. The one thing I would just like to address to Ms. Doherty. Earlier, you had stated you measured 73 feet as opposed to the 85 feet. I apologize. That was a typographical error on my part. I have on my field notes from the day I measured 75 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually we have 76. So we'll meet in the middle with 74. MR. PASCIUTTI: So I'll amend the plan and get that out to the Trustees. And I'm here to address any other questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC did not support the application. Again they are an advisory board. The application, because the existing bulkhead appears to be in good condition, that replacing the bulkhead would cause unnecessary damage to the environment. C^C recommends a ten-foot non-turf buffer, which we are also recommending. Have you considered that? Have you had it in your plans? MR. PASCIUTTI: (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The ten-foot buffer just would allow for drainage. MR. P^SCIUTTI: Yes, I understand that is a standard with all repairs of the docks. Board of Trustees 40 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also want to state that in this bulkhead area was existing water and electrical lines, which is fine, we just want to get it into the permit so it's stated that it was there at the time and it will be replaced and included. And there is also an existing light pole and lamp. Again, we put that in so if you ever come in for amendment and change something, it says you already have that. MR. WEBER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to also state that this project is consistent with our LWRP and I will make a motion to approve Waters Edge Environmental Consulting on behalf of John Weber to request a Wetland Permit to install 75 foot of new vinyl bulkhead landward of an existing and functional bulkhead. There is also recommendations through LWRP for a silt boom MR. PASCIU'I-I-I: That's not a problem. Would that be on the plan or a condition on the permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be a condition of the permit. MR. PASCIUTTI: Not a problem. I'll make the contractor aware of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the condition would be of a silt boom and also ten-foot, non-turf buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to have an inspection or phone call when the silt boom is set? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we need to do that. Contractors know, in that area, I know it's not like a high tidal area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. PASCIU'I-rI: Thank you TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of PINE NECK HOLDINGS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install 85' of new vinyl bulkhead landward of an existing and functional bulkhead. Located: 750 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. MR. LEHNERT: We are basically proposing a catwalk and a floating dock into Jockey Creek. There is also a rear deck proposed for the house. TRUSTEE KING: I think what we talked about the in the field is trying to maintain that field line. MR. LEHNERT: That's the existing dock we are planning on taking down. Board of Trustees 41 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Was there a stake in the water there? MR. LEHNERT: Yes, that's the orange stake you can see in the water. TRUSTEE KING: That appeared to be quite a bit seaward of the other two docks on either side. MR. LEHNERT: It was a be seaward of the other two docks on either side. But if you look at the plans we have hydrographic work and the dock is in two feet of water at Iow tide so if we move it any closer that dock will be on the bottom in Iow tide. And we are still keeping 90 feet from the dock directly adjacent to it on the other side of the creek. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is currently proposed as a finger or straight out dock, correct, Jim? On the plans? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to make it a "T" dock to bring it back slightly to make the pier line but yet still have the depth for the dock and a boat. MR. LEHNERT: We would consider the "L" shape a lot more than the "T" so we could use both sides of the dock. If we have to go for the "L" shape, there is reom, if you are looking at the plan, to the, I'll call it the left of the plan, to the west. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, you still have two feet. MR. LEHNERT: You still have two feet. But you are still taking into account, if you do that, one side of your dock will not be that useful. I mean, Jockey Creek itself, we are on the inside of the bridge, so you are not going to get any big boats in there. It's really only small boats. So the 90 feet between our dock and the dock directly cross is, that's a lot of reom. ,And the channel for boats is toward the other shoreline. In the configuration it's in now, if you pull in a boat with an engine, the bow will be toward the bulkhead. The engine will be in the deep water. If we go for an "L" or a "T", while it might work to the two-foot depth, you are going to be chewing up bottom coming in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you consider shortening the catwalk slightly? The engine can still be in two feet of water. MR. LEHNERT: Yes. We have to keep two feet of water. That's also per the DEC. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How long is the catwalk? MR. LEHNERT: The catwalk is 46 from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we -- can you shorten the catwalk by six feet, make it 40 feet? Because you have the ramp is five feet and then keep the float in a straight out line. You would still have the engine. MR. LEHNERT: If we shorten it, can we move the dock into deeper water?. I have it in the location of the existing dock now, trying to take into account the neighbor's dock on either side. If you look at the plan, it shows deeper water to the west. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That entire structure is being removed, right? Board of Trustees 42 July 23, 2008 MR. LEHNERT: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there is no vegetation to the west? MR. LEHNERT: No, it's nothing. It's hard shoreline. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would consider that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you could can shorten it and have it end here, and then it's kind of in line with that one. And keep it 15 feet of the property line. MR. LEHNERT: You maintain the 15 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you re-stake it out in the new position. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. How much would you like to see it shortened? TRUSTEE KING: As much as possible. MR. LEHNERT: I have to maintain the two feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So end it at the two feet. MR. LEHNERT: I mean, just looking at it now, without scaling it, the proposed catwalk is five feet. That's about all we can shorten it to maintain the two feet. In this position. Even if you moved it over you are still talking five feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's take a look at it. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that the aerial? TRUSTEE KING: It's kind of small. MR. LEHNERT: But it does appear. That's from Google Earth. It does appear there. TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer it in this direction and have an "L" shaped float going to the west. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you also want to shorten it a little or keep it the same way as proposed and then an "L." TRUSTEE KING: There is more water inside here. He could shorten it up and get it in that two feet of water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Inside he won't have the two feet. Outside he will. Will that work if you shorten it a little and an "L", leave it there? MR. LEHNERT: Shortening it and leaving it straight will be do the least amount of damage to the bottom. TRUSTEE KING: Stake it out. We'll look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The question is how should we have him stake it out, in an "L" or straight. TRUSTEE KING: Do both. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That way it gives us options. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see the spacing on the piles stretched out, too. Six feet is overkill. You can get away with eight to ten. MR. LEHNERT: You want eight feet on the piles? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Stretch them out. That's another thing we should think about, some of the spacing, even a small skiff can't get under the dock because the piles are too close together. If you stretch them out, eight to ten feet, then the average small skiff -- MR. LEHNERT: You have to go 20 feet out before you get at least six inches of water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I guess what I'm hearing is you have to have it Board of Trustees 43 July 23, 2008 restaked. You can do it in the new location. Stake it in an "L" and also straight out. If you want we can meet you in the field at the next field inspection. MR. LEHNERT: So I'll make an moment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we'll call you. MR. LEHNERT: It would be on the next field inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be automatically on the next field inspection and we'll call you as we are getting close. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And as you are staking it, just take into consideration our strong stance has been in the past to try to maintain that pier line. So as you are staking and looking at options, keep thinking about that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And of course the 15-foot setback from the property line. MR. LEHNERT: Yes, the 15-foot setback, but the two foot is kind of giving me a tough time here. TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent but I think they are referring to the deck and the distance, not so much the dock. MR. LEHNERT: Yes. The LWRP is referring to the deck. We are proposing a ten-foot buffer in our application. TRUSTEE KING: They want 20 feet, but we'll go out and look. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a deck on the side? MR. LEHNERT: No, there is no deck on the side. TRUSTEE KING: That's a different application. I'll make a motion to table this. We'll go back out and take another look when it gets restaked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. LEHNERT: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of BRICK COVE MARINA, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge within the existing channel (4,000 square feet) to a maximum depth of six feet during Iow tide. Estimated amount of spoil dredged from this area is anticipated to be a maximum of 200 cubic yards and will be transferred to onshore trucks for removal to an approved upland location. Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Southold. The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent and provided that the proposed action requires the deployment of a silt boom. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that the pipes that lead into the bay are capped off. It's also observed that the French drains and leaching field appear to be plugged and should be addressed. Would anybody like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk County Environmental Board of Trustees 44 July 23, 2008 Consulting, for the applicant, Brick Cove Madna. I know you have all seen it and I just want to make a couple of points. Back in the late '80's there was, the permits were issued for the dredging of approximately 2,900 cubic yards in the marina and also at the mouth of this, the inlet to Sage Basin. This application, these permits were expired and that's why we are back in front of it. I tried to model it to bring it back into consistency with what was previously approved, which is the 40x200 foot channel. As you saw in your field inspection, really what we are talking about here is the spit that has formed that sort of bisects this channel and that is shown on the plans before us. So, what we are really talking about doing is removal of that shoal that is formed in this. The clients tell me that they never had this problem in the past because it's their belief the northeast storms that typically occur, that didn't occur last year, served to push that material out into the bay. The predominant drift is from east to west but I think there is probably, I think they are probably correct about that. So the hope is just remove that spit and the channel will remain pretty stable has it has over the past 15 years or so. We have, the original permit proposed to take the material and put it up where the bulkhead is, the steel bulkhead to the west, which is just about filled. And we put that on our plan. There is also a slice of beach to the west of that that is owner controlled by Brick Cove Marina. We subsequently heard from the Southold Shores Association, which is the neighborhood association to the west, and they presented areas of concern that they wanted explored, which I'll read to you. And it showed at point one that the plan showed dredging will be deposited into the area immediately to the southwest of the dredging area noted at page one of three, page two of three and it creates a project description that 200 cubic yards will be transferred to onshore trucks and removed to an approved upland location. And their question was this seemed to be inconsistent. Where was the approved upland location. In this area indicated quote, southwest of the dredged area. End quotes. Question mark. Would the trucks go over Southold Shore's land and beach, which would substantially be destroyed. And this is environmentally fragile and sensitive with beach grass. If so, what are the restoration plans? Point two was the plan indicated 200 cubic yards would be removed and the question is if this is to be placed in an indicated area southwest of the dredged area and this area is not fully enclosed and is only bulkhead three-quarters around and any overflow would run off the back side north and go back into Brick Cove or flow southwest down along Southold Shores Association beach fouling the beach. The follow-up question then becomes the existing bulkheaded Board of Trustees 45 July 23, 2008 area appears to be filled up to the top and any additional dredging in the amount of 200 cubic yards would overflow the bulkhead and cause further deterioration of the already deteriorated bulkhead. The president is Bob Schiavetta who is here tonight and I discussed this with him. I'll give you his concerns in writing so you have them for your records. So the concern really is the placement of the spoil. As I said, we modelled it under the previously approved permits. And so what I'm hearing tonight is, having spoken with Mr. Schiavetta and, by extension, the association, their concern is that if you put it even on the beach on that sliver of land that we own, that it will disrupt what is there today. To the east is a rocky beach. It's actually most of the rocks are actually the old bricks that were mined in Brick Cove and the folks who used the marina will come down and they use that has a bathing beach. And I have just completed a survey of Brick Cove Marina which, I was compelled to do by DEC. I just have copies of it today. On that survey, I have indicated the location where, alternatively, spoil could be placed. I discussed that with Mr. Schiavetta whose preference is that the spoil be placed to the east of the inlet. I also discussed that with Brick Cove. They are amenable to the idea and I'm sure the patrons of Brick Cove would likewise be amenable because it's basically deposited bricks and sharp stone and so forth and they do use that as a beach area. So there does not seem to be any dispute as to the need for the dredging. There seems to be universal support by all users that the dredging occur. I should tell you we have already obtained an Army Corps of Engineers permit for this work. We are waiting only for a DEC permit and my reddest is we consider depositing of this material as beach nourishment on the Brick Cove side, which I think will make everyone happy. I've come back with plans to document that. I drew that today because I only received a copy of that survey today. But I would like this Board to consider that as alternative spoil site. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When you got the Army Corps approval, was this spoil site proposed or the other one? MR. ANDERSON: The one that I sent in I would just modify and let them know. They are telling us they are going to cover it under their general permit. DEC, frankly, they've asked us to flag the wetlands, which caused the survey work to be done. Now that that's done, we would adjust our application to them as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, the littoral drift, I thought you had mentioned is east. MR. ANDERSON: What it is, it's predominantly from east to west. We went through this issue when we looked at Beixedon, if you remember. So it does squirrel thero. The applicant thinks though Board of Trustees 46 July 23, 2008 that there is a bar that just forms just outside the inlet and in their usual conditions it is sort of blown out to sea when you get a northeast. Which hasn't occurred. Our winter storms last year were really out of the southeast, as you recall. That's what caused all the shoreline damage that we saw at Cutchogue Harbor and Rottermacher (sic) who is a couple of doors down. That was a southeast storm. I think that occurred in April of last year, a very powerful storm. So we are not talking about a lot of material. If it does move back into the channel I think it will be so disbursed I don't think it will make a big difference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I bring the question up is where that spit happened would normally demonstrate a west to east drift. In other words the sand coming around and forming that spit there. Not an east to west. So I thought the drift was west to east, and then what you are proposing, to move the material up farther to the east, would make even more sense because it would not drift back into the creek. With the west to east littoral drift, it just makes more sense with what you are talking about here. MR. ANDERSON: It may be. This is really a very small amount of sand, and if the applicant, if the owners are correct, that may be the case in just this particular area. I don't think there is much risk of it filling in because we are talking about scooping this material on a barge, towing the barge over, placing it on the shoreline there, about almost 200 feet away from the inlet. So to the extent that you get any movement back the other way, it's so disbursed by the time it gets there I don't think it will amount to much of an impedance to navigation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other questions or comments? MI:{. SCHIAVE'I-rA: Bob Schiavetta, President of Southold Shores Civic Association. I just want to make a few things known. When we first got this, we were very unclear about what the site plan was trying to say, and I got all kinds of phone calls, picturing bulldozers and trucks going down our path and destroying quite a bit of stuff. With that in mind, we got a hold of Bill and Dianne from the Brick Cove Marina, who was very gracious, and we talked about the situation and it resulted in the changes that Bruce gave you tonight, which pretty much alleviates all the concerns that we had, of, you know, destroying the area. With these changes in mind I just would like to be on the record that we are in favor of granting the permit for this dredging. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response.) I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Board of Trustees 47 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application as described with the stipulation that a silt boom be used during the dredging and with the stipulation as discussed tonight that the spoils would go to the east side of the property. I'll ask that plans be submitted reflecting that, and be submitted before being given the permit. It's been found to be consistent with LWRP. MR. MCGREEVY: CAC recommendations, Bob? MR. ANDERSON: About the pipes, you mean? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to open the headng again? What are the comments? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The CAC apparently saw pipes that lead into the bay but I don't know if they had anything to do with this particular application. They were just observed when they were there, right? MR. MCGREEVY: I was not personally. But this was an observation made. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: And they had French drains that were clogged. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't know what the comments were. That's why. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second on the motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we walk away from this, CAC does say while they were there they found pipes that led into the bay and they suggested they be capped off and the French drains and leaching fields appear to plugged and that should be addressed. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Let me explain. There are two old culverts that lead to the bay. One is located on, call it the southerly property line, which is actually a swale, and it drains from a freshwater wetland that runs up in that area. There is a second culvert that runs as an overflow to a grate that was, that's in the back of the area behind that metal building where the boat storage area is. I can point approximately where they are on the survey so you have a point of reference. (indicating.) One is here and the other is approximately here. Now, the two culverts are regulated by DEC under their newly adopted storm water management regulations that came down from the EPA. And the madna was required to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan, which we prepared for them, filed with the state. And the effluence from those culverts are being monitored and tested by a licensed laboratory and sent to the DEC. Pursuant to that program. And every marina is now subject to these storm water pollution prevention plans. So that you know, I have been doing a similar one for Mattituck Marina. I have another one for Surf Side Marina. I have several of these out. So we are Board of Trustees 48 July 23, 2008 preparing these plans. And for now, the consensus from DEC, the marina association, is to monitor to see what effect these are having. Because the alternative of capping them results in what is called a notice of termination of that permit program. The problem seems to be is that when we do that, we are subject to a sheet flow phenomenon that we can't really measure. So this and pretty much every marina that you see out there is operating under these permits to determine what effect these culverts, on a point by point basis, are being evaluated. So what I would say for now is it's not part of our application. It is likely that this Board will be addressing this issue on this project as well as all other marinas in the Town of Southold. So what I would just say for now is to leave it be because it is being regulated and we should see how this program unfolds. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm good with that. I know they have been looking at storm water infiltration and its effects. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH ZEVITS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story wood frame dwelling with attached deck and attendant sanitary system. Located: 1945 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. The Board did go out and look at this project. The CAC resolved to support the wetland application to construct the new dwelling with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer remains, including the area of mowed phragmites and all drainage is graded away from the water. The CAC does not support the proposed stone revetment that was mentioned in the application. I just looked at the application and I didn't see any proposed stone revetment. So I don't know if you could help us out at all on that, Jack. Or was that just an error made? MR. MCGREEVY: I have to be honest with you. I really don't know. It was added in there by the two gentlemen that did the inspection. I can only go on what their observation is. I don't know if it's applicable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hold on, folks. (Perusing.) MR. ANDERSON: Just to clarify, there is no proposed stone revetment TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at page three on the bottom of the application. Situate wetland degradation will be minimized by the use of siltation fencing and hay bales during installation of the stone revetment. So there is no stone revetment. MR. ANDERSON: No, there is no stone revetment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP reviewed this found inconsistent under the LWRP because the proposed action is 45 feet from the wetland boundary where the minimum wetland boundary is 100 feet. So, is Board of Trustees 49 July 23, 2008 there anybody here to speak on behalf of application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant Joseph Zevits. This is obviously a constrained property. It's true constraint is that if you look at the northern side lot line, the distance from the street to the wetland boundary is 94 feet. So there is no circumstances where a one-hundred foot setback could be achieved on this parcel. Your front yard setback is a setback from the street to the house, that minimum setback is 35 feet. And that's why the house is placed there. The septic system was placed in the highest part of the ground, on the southwest corner of the site, and that distance would be, the nearest leaching pool would be 105 feet from the wetland boundary and that's because the property becomes deeper as you move south. So we have taken the deepest part of the property and the highest part of the property to place the septic system on. It's a three-bedroom house and the septic system is sized for that, which is the minimum septic system approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The bottom of the leaching pool would be, for the septic pool, would be a minimum of three feet above ground water, which provides for the most protection in terms of aerobic decomposition from the bottom of the pool to ground water. So, the desire of this is really driven by the septic system. The property also, the proposed dwelling, is 1,248 square feet. There is going to be a slight revision to this because the plan here is to put a modular house on this lot, which will make the construction impacts very minimal and very temporary. As some may know, a modular home will be erected on this site in less than a day. The project features drainage control that would comply with the town's drainage requirements. We would try to use the highest and farthest portion of the site from the wetlands to the site of this house. As I said, I do anticipate coming back before you for an amendment for something very similar to what you see here. Because we are going to utilize exact plans from the modular home. The next point I would like to make is that this property does have a bit of a history on it and in early, 1988 to 1990, the Zevits' who owned this property approached this Board, the DEC and the Health Department for a house and a dock. In those times the paperwork is lot less precise and lot sketchier than what we do today. But it appears that those projects were applied for and for some reason the Trustees ruled that the house would not be within 75 feet of the wetlands, which was the jurisdiction at that time in 1988 to 1990, and so gave them an approval for a dock with the understanding that a house could be built on this property. The DEC, likewise, came in and approved a house where they judged the house to be some 55 feet from the wetland boundary, which was drawn across a survey, it doesn't appear to be a surveyed Board of Trustees 50 July 23, 2008 line, and issued a tidal wetland permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling. The house was not built because at the time there was no public water available to the site and they got stopped at the Health Department because they couldn't put the well down by the water because they didn't have sufficient fresh water aquifer to support the single-family dwelling, which forced the well to be put up by the read next to the septic system. And so the entire project was suspended until such time as public water was extended to the property. That took about 15 years, during which time the environmental permits that had been issued had expired. So now we are back in front of you. You should know that. That's part of your actual file that is probably in the basement of this building or some other building. I think you should know that. Beyond that, I'm really here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There has been a break requested by the stenographer. So we'll take a short recess. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can get back on the record, please. Thank you, Bruce. A couple of questions we have, then we'll open it up for the other comments. When we measured out the house, we measured it out, the edge of the house to the edge of the marsh is 45 feet. And we noted that you have a ten-foot side line distance to the edge of the property, to lot 130, it this is ten foot there. That's obviously already going to have to go to ZBA for that issue. MR. ANDERSON: No, ten feet is, I believe, is the setback. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Obviously what we wanted to do is to see if we could move the house farther landward; the proposed house, farther landward. And when we went out and measured, we are also looking at the line between the neighboring houses, because we also try not to have any new construction of homes go forward of the line between the two neighboring homes. And so we were wondering if the house could somehow be moved back approximately ten feet, landward, approximately ten feet, so that it is in line with the homes, and in doing so we realize it will have to go to ZBA because of the front line 35 feet reduced to 25 feet. But if it's something the applicant would consider. MR. ANDERSON: The answer is yes, provided we go there with your support. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, that's just phase one. We'll keep going here. With regard to the buffer itself, is there any problem with it being a non-disturbance buffer. Hang on just a second. Let me see. (perusing.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was an ongoing discussion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To a ten-foot, non-disturbance buffer there. It's currently being mowed, which we don't like, as you know. If we could have a ten foot non-disturbance buffer down thers, with a Board of Trustees 51 July 23, 2008 path through to the dock. MR. ANDERSON: The answer is yes, although I would go back to my client and encourage that we plant rather than let phragmites just overcome the lawn. So I would come back with maybe beach grass or Rosa Rugosa or something of that nature. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. That's what we were talking about, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, are there other comments from the audience on this? Yes, sir? MR. ROGALSKI: Tom Rogalski I live on Peconic Bay Lane. My concern is about the sewer system. What kind of system is it that he's talking about that he's going to install and how deep is it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to go ahead and briefly describe the septic and cesspool system that will have to be compliant with the Suffolk County Health Department. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is a minimal system to accommodate a three-bedroom house that would consist of a 900 gallon septic tank, sorry, three leaching pools, they are labeled LP on the plan with an expansion pool. They are placed on the highest part of the lot. The pools themselves are four-and-a-half feet deep, eight feet in diameter. They are covered with a foot of fill. The depth to groundwater at that location is ten feet, which means that they would be elevated from groundwater actually, about four feet above groundwater, which is higher and more protective than it even has to be. That leaching pool and septic system should not have any effect on the surrounding environment, including this gentleman's property. It probably has something similar or more likely, probably what he has as a septic system that is between his house and the water. Because the houses that were developed in this area initially, they always put the septic system near the water. They put the wells up by the road because that's where the most, the thickest the aquifer was, it provided for a very good, gravity-fed system. So in sum and substance it's because of this changing wodd of regulations where we place the septic system away is why, up toward the road and higher elevations is what is driving this thing. So I'm sure it will have no impact on your property. You told me your drinking water is, that you have city water, that you use a well because there is an existing well that you use for irrigation and there is nothing in this proposal that upsets any of those facts on your property. MR. ROGALSKI: What I'm concerned about is I have the well. I'm worried about the tanks, how close are they from my well to his house and the sewage, the distance. Can there be a problem, leakage of something, say something happens to the sewer system and it runs, it runs into the ground, right? MR. ANDERSON: It would go into the groundwater. MR. ROGALSKI: And it will go right into my well water. Board of Trustees 52 July 23, 2008 MR. ANDERSON: The groundwater will migrate toward West Lake but your well continues to draw groundwater as it does today. MR. ROGALSKI: But mother nature does crazy things. Water can run anywhere. My concern is about if it does happen and with that sewer system and it goes to the well water, what happens then? TRUSTEE BERGEN: First off, this is going to have to comply with Suffolk County Health Department standards and Suffolk County Health Department has very stringent standards when it comes to septic systems and cesspools. And so I think when the applicant gets to that stage, they'll have to satisfy some very strict standards. I think that will probably address any potential for what your fear is. I really do, sir. MR. ROGALSKI: And it will be two-story, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. ROGALSKI: I'm concerned about the runoff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we'll address that. Because the applicant will have to be, if this is approved, the applicant will have to comply with Chapter 236 of the Town Code that addresses runoff. So there will have to be gutters, leaders, drywells to handle all the roof runoff from the structure. MR. ROGALSKI: So it doesn't run on my property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, it would not be legal for him to have any runoff from his property go onto your property. It would be a violation of Town Code. That would be part of the condition, if this is approved, it would be part of the permit. MR. ROGALSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else from the audience here who wishes to comment on this? (No response.) Bruce, where are you with DEC right now? MR. ANDERSON: We are filed and waiting to hear back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Questions from board members? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is the report from LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP found it inconsistent because it's 45 -- just the distance. That's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see the house moved back. That makes you go to the Zoning Board, but. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He already said yes. MR. ANDERSON: i'm happy to do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In other words, he wants us to approve it first, then go to the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, it has to go to Zoning Board if we move it back. It has to go to Zoning Board. MR. ANDERSON: Because you are the reason I'm moving it back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We are addressing the inconsistency under the LWRP. Board of Trustees 53 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't know what the other houses are set offthe road, do we, the houses on either side? MR. ANDERSON: No. They are a lot closer to the road. We'll be setback further because we are a product of modem regulations. TRUSTEE KING: I thought there was something on zoning where you average the distance of the adjoining houses. MR. ANDERSON: That's for commercial properties. TRUSTEE KING: Only for commercial? I thought it was residential, too. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not uncomfortable with going to the Zoning Board. Because the Zoning Board is also, although it's not their primary mission, they are going to be supportive of moving away from the water and if the house winds up behind, slightly, or maybe significantly behind adjacent houses, there is no sort of view impact from the adjacent houses. So i'm very happy with it. Plus you still have DEC out there and although DEC previously granted a permit for this house some 45 feet back from the wetland boundary, I expect some resistance from them. Because my argument will be, wait a second, you already ruled on this. But I expect some back and forth on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR. MCGREEVY: Dave, is there any application, is there any mention of a construction of a driveway and is if so will it be pervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a pervious driveway shown, a proposed pervious driveway shown for this plan. MR. MCGREEVY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to note, Bruce, you talked about a three-bedroom house for the septic but on the plans it says four-bedroom. TRUSTEE KING: On the septic, under septic system. It says four bedrooms, use a 4x8 septic tank. 1,000 gallon tank. MR. ANDERSON: My understanding is it's supposed to be a three-bedroom house. I'll have to get back to you on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Peggy was saying maybe the septic can hold up to four-bedroom. Not that you are building a four-bedroom. MR. ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the application of Joseph Zevits at 1945 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold, with the stipulation that the proposed construction will comply with Chapter 236 so there will be appropriate gutters, leaders leading to the appropriate size drywells; that there is a Board of Trustees 54 July 23, 2008 ten-foot non-turf buffer with a four-foot path going to the dock included in this project and that the house be moved back so instead of approximately 45 feet it would be approximately 55 feet give or take a foot from the wetland boundary. That way it will keep the house at least in line if not behind the line of the two adjoining houses and in doing so would find this consistent under the LWRP TRUSTEE KING: And that buffer will be planted with natural plantings, native plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll expect that planting plan on that and we'll expect a new plan for the structure showing the new setbacks and that buffer included in it. We'll also request during construction that there will be a hay bale line and silt fence line given the contours of the property. I'm just trying to determine where, Bruce. On here it looks like the six-foot contour line. Would that work for you? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be landward of the buffer that has been proposed. MR. ANDERSON: I'll show that on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And even though the plans show it, make it a stipulation that the driveway should be pervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, stipulate that the driveway be pervious MR. ANDERSON: Right. Ten foot buffer with plant. We have 55 from wetlands; we have hay bales, silt fence and we have a planting plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And four-foot path and pervious driveway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of KEVlN & DOREEN BARR requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new two-story dwelling and appurtenances, swimming pool, attached deck and pool enclosing fence and gate (at steps to beach.) Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of applicants Kevin and Doreen Barr. This is, as described, a house reconstruction project. One we hope the Board will like. It demolishes an existing single-family dwelling located less than 100 feet from the wetlands and proposes to construct a new dwelling to meet the wetland setback 100 feet from the bulkhead. The Board had seen an application to replace this bulkhead previously. One of the concerns after that project was the revegetation of the bank, which has come in very nicely. Board of Trustees 55 July 23, 2008 I'm sort of prepping Peggy to show a picture of it. Most of the project is, well, the new work, anyway, is in fact outside the Board's jurisdiction, but of couree the demolition and the existing structure is within your jurisdiction and the new structure will line up with the 100-foot setback. Septic system will be replaced, the new sanitary system located more or less as far from the water as physically possible on the property, well beyond the Board's jurisdiction. The driveway will be pervious. There is a dreinage system of drywells proposed in conformance with Chapter 236. That will also be out of the Board's jurisdiction. If you have any questions I'm certainly happy to try to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You covered everything. I just want to point out, that front sun room and that end shower are actually going to be removed, so in essence the house is being moved back, which adds to our compliance with LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Correct. This is not like a partial re-use, etc., etc. This is a total demolition, similar to the Polmani (sic) application, note that for the amendment. The existing house is being demolished and the new house is being entirely reconstructed. The new, landward of where you see those structures. Those structures there will be gone. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In essence the house will actually be stepping back. MR. HERMAN: Moving back. Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You mentioned 100 feet. However, we measured from the top of the bank so it explains the LWRP inconsistency because we measured from the top of the bluff to the existing northeast corner 53 feet, which is the inconsistency with LWRP. MR. HERMAN: This kind of comes back to one of these nagging questions that keeps coming up on these convereations, is for property like this where there is not in fact a bluff present, should the Trustees be using a setback from a quote unquote crest of bluff. We represented the Kitts (sic) to the west, somewhat recently and there was never any discussion of a crest of bluff setback on the Kitts' project. I realize the interpretations of these things are evolving and changing, et cetera but, again, from our position here, properly defined, the wetlands setback here is what the Board should be concerned with. In fact, Jim, I had this convereation with you a few weeks ago where I think even if we define the Board's quote unquote jurisdiction as stemming 100 feet back from the top of the bank, the wetlands setback is still from the wetlands as defined in Chapter 275 and the wetlands boundary here would be the bulkhead. So whether the entire house is completely within your jurisdiction or out, we are not going to argue. However we want to view that is fine but we just want it to be clear on the record that as far as 275 defines setbacks from the wetland boundary, the house will be setback 100 feet from the wetland boundary. Board of Trustees 56 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And you actually covered quite a few of the LWRP concerns which would bring it into compliance. With the staked hay bales, you mentioned compliance with 236. You have a pervious driveway. The house actually will be rebuilt landward of the existing house. So with all of those I think we are doing a good job of bringing it into compliance. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on this application evening? (No response.) CAC supports the application with the condition of a 20-foot, non-turf buffer. The Board would actually like to see a ten-foot buffer that would start at, there was an existing flag pole. We didn't get a picture of it, but -- MR. HERMAN: One thing, remember with the bulkhead application, there already is a 35-foot buffer on the property, and we are starting from the bulkhead. So whatever the buffer would be, would in effect be a continuation thereof so given the way the plantings have come in, I did discuss this with the Barr's and they would like to try to minimize how much further that continues up. I think it makes sense to have some sort of plantings continue up over the top of the slope a little bit but I think five or ten feet from the top of the slope would be more than sufficient. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Board felt ten feet would be fine. Which again, was approximately where the flagpole is. MR. MCGREEVY: Peggy, in the application is there any addressing of overflowing from the pool, any kind of a catch? I don't know if it's on the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there, Rob? Backwash for the pool? MR. HERMAN: I'm chagrin to admit we don't seem to have a pool drywell shown on here, but we can certainly show that. We always like to get all the stuff on here, but there is not a pool drywell. But we can certainly, I mean one will have to be added, so that raises a good point. The other thing I also wanted to note, that we would have to give your advice, I plan to show this anyway, in speaking with the Barr's since we filed this in this moment, they would like to, in effect, take this entire house and shift it five feet to the west, which would set it actually five feet closer to the Kitt property. That's not how the application was noticed but we conveniently brought the Kitt's so they can indicate that they have been noticed and hopefully have no objection. Right, John and Patrice? (Mr. and Mrs. Kitt responded in the affirmative.) MR. HERMAN: So in other words we give you a revised site plan, which would also then create a nice little spot for the pool drywell over on the east side of the house and for the non-turf buffer. And again, unless the Board felt differently, I think they would probably want to do some sort of combination of continuing the beach grass plantings and perhaps having like a gravel path or Board of Trustees 57 July 23, 2008 something that runs just, in other words, to eliminate the lawn within ten feet of the slope and have where the access would come like to the steps and so forth, be gravel in place of turf, and in other places that are not going to be traversed, just continue the beach grass. Because the beach grass has come in really nice. And the answer to your question, Jim, is they have not fertilized it. They just established it, watered it. Irrigation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's it, when I saw it, I figured it had to be irrigation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Eh-COnsultants on behalf of Kevin and Doreen Barr as described with the condition that we get revised plans to show the pool backwash and that the house is being moved five feet to the west, and ten foot buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, for bring the Kitts in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, thank you for noticing that. Good pick up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of VINCENT & LAURA MANETTI requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto existing 1.5 story dwelling a 1.5 story addition and covered porch addition in place of existing sunroom and portion of attached deck to be removed; reconstruct (inplace) portion of existing attached deck to remain; construct new gabled roof with dormer addition over existing one-story portion of dwelling; install drainage system of drywells; abandon existing sanitary system and construct new, upgraded sanitary system more than 100 feet from wetlands; and establish an additional six feet of non-turf buffer adjacent to the existing naturally vegetated slope with native coastal plantings. Located: 150 Wet Shore Drive, Southold. The CAC supports this application. And it is found inconsistent with LWRP, basically because of the 100-foot setback and the sanitary system. But you are moving that out of our jurisdiction, so that brings that into consistency. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the Manetti's. This is a project for renovations and additions. As you can see, there is an existing sunroom that is on the seaward side of the house. That structure is going to be replaced partially in the same location but the structure in effect will be shifted to the west and replaced with one-and-one-half story addition to match with the existing house. Board of Trustees 58 July 23, 2008 To the east of that will be a covered porch also built partially within the area of the existing deck. There is parts, most of the existing wood deck will remain, but there are parts, well, I should say the parts, all of the existing deck will be reconstructed but parts of it will be replaced with dwelling and the rest of it will stay in place as it exists now. If that didn't make sense, we can go back to it. There is going to be a gabled roof and dormer addition. The roof will essentially cover the entire second story. But on the east side of the house is where there will actually be the dormer additions that will bump out the physical space on the upper story. The existing first story is to remain. The roof will be coming off because there will be a new gabled roof placed on. Again, on the east side of the house, it will just be dormer additions. There is a one-and-one-half story addition on the landward side of the house which is more than 100 feet from the bulkhead. Again, I don't know how we want to get into the definition of jurisdictional area here. There is a slope, but as far as the wetland setback, the additions on the landward side of the house do exceed the 100 foot wetland setback. There will be a sanitary system upgrade, again, on the landward side of the house, well beyond the 100 foot wetland setback. And we have proposed in and around the area of the wood deck on the bank a six-foot wide non-turf buffer. There is not much yard here so we are trying to some extent limit the non-turf buffer. The existing bank already serves as a non-turf buffer, so similar to the Barr application we just discussed, it is not formalized but we could formalize it through this permit, already about a 25 foot buffer behind the bulkhead, and if we were to continue that up to where we show it on the site plan, you would end up with about a 30-35 foot buffer behind the bulkhead. And you would be left with about 15 feet of yard between the plan where we limited the buffer and the existing deck. If the Board has any design questions, the architect is here in case I'm not articulating this cleady enough. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The buffer, six-foot buffer, I think was fine. That would be in line with that tree, basically. MR. HERMAN: Yes, it's really that area and it would back up a little bit around that deck. It would really have to be gravel or something immediately behind the deck to maintain access. But the rest of it really could be planted. TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: That's the next thing. That deck, what are the intentions of that? That's not something we would approve today and it's in need of repair. Truthfully, we would like to see it disappear and go away, or to be put into compliance. MR. HERMAN: The application is not speaking to that deck now. It would seem they would probably have to come back in and to something with it. Probably some thought will have to be put into what is -- it's, I don't believe that it's an illegal deck. But Board of Trustees 59 July 23, 2008 the plan would be really to address this as a separate matter because they certainly would not, as long as it is not illegal, they would not forfeit their rights to it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the thought is that they have this faidy large deck and they are doing a lot of construction on this piece of property and asking for a lot and it's not something we would permit and it is sitting on that bluff. So I think quite a few of the members felt it should be removed as a condition of this permit. MR. HERMAN: I don't think I could agree to that though. I mean, unless the Board could demonstrate that it's illegally existing, I don't think you can arbitrarily say they have to get rid of it. I mean I certainly could not commit to it without may client's consent. We deal with a lot of properties like this on Peconic Bay and frankly, these kinds of decks that existed prior to the time that you could get permits to build them, act really as big selling pieces and centerpieces for these properties. So I certainly could not, without the Manetti's being here, give up their rights to it. I can't imagine why they would want to do that. I should also I have never heard that request from the Board before. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know that we ever had a situation where there was an existing large deck and then there is another small deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying I don't recall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we noted is some yard clippings have been dumped over the bank, and there was a section there that was all dumped. So if you could inform your clients to stop doing that. It's only harming the property. MR. HERMAN: Right. That's not helping them out. I think, Peggy, maybe the, I think we'll have to come before you at some point to deal with that deck. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty much in disrepair now. And my feeling is we are going to do all this construction, now is the time to take care of that. Maybe move it back, move it back off the bluff. MR. HERMAN: Well, and we have done with that with other applications where there is a deck like this that is existing and somebody comes in for a permit to reconstruct it and part of the discussion with the Board is to cut it back or reshape it or move it back. I think they were just not ready to address that at this point. I mean -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not inclined -- on the survey that we have here, showing that deck, so if there are no approvals for that, if we approve this survey the way it is then we are in essence approving the size of deck and I don't want to do that. MR. HERMAN: I don't think so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are approving this survey. Board of Trustees 60 July 23, 2008 MR. HERMAN: You are only approving what is being proposed. You are not giving, for all you know there could be some illegal shed, there isn't, but there could be an illegal shed on this property and you not could not be legally bound to it by giving it a blessing otherwise you would be creating an incentive for people to deceive you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interject for a second, Rob. Chapter 275-11 paragraph six, decks and platforms. No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. And this is clearly in non-compliance, in my opinion, with that section of Chapter 275-11, paragraph six. MR. HERMAN: But we are not proposing the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, what I'm hearing the Board saying here is the Board feels with all the decking that is going to be included in this project with the house, we do not see the need for this deck that is in disrepair and what I'm hearing is the Board suggesting that as a condition of this permit that that deck be removed. MR. HERMAN: I'm hearing the same thing, I'm just not agreeing to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Fair enough. MR. HERMAN: I mean I have a permit here from the Trustees in 1994 to build a deck but I don't know whether it's this deck or the big deck. I have a survey from July 8, 1993 from Peconic Surveyors that shows that deck existing in 1993. So I would have to go back. In other words, there are some structures that were constructed pdor to the time, as you know, when they would have required your permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. MR. HERMAN: So what I'm saying, and of course you don't have counsel now, so it's not particularly helpful, but, if our application does not speak to this deck then I don't see how the Board can require that it be removed unless you can demonstrate that it's illegal. I can't at the moment demonstrate that it's legal. But you can't at the moment demonstrate that it's illegal. So I don't know how we can speak to it at the moment unless it's part of the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not necessarily saying it's illegal. I'm saying to conform to what we now practice and with what you are asking for, which is a very nice upgrade of a very lovely home, I'm saying past practice has been that we take the opportunity, if someone is doing a dock, we ask for a buffer; if someone is doing a deck and we see there is no drywells or gutters, we ask for drywells or gutters. So from my perspective, I would not be inclined to approve this unless this condition were met. Because you are asking this Board for a lot of structure and, again, I have no problems with any other part, but this is not something that would be approved today per our code and it's the opportunity that we often try to take to improve and upgrade our shorelines. Board of Trustees 61 July 23, 2008 MR. HERMAN: I hear what you are saying, Peggy, and I think at some point perhaps sooner than later they are going to have to address this deck, but this application doesn't address the deck, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying we should. It's just my opinion. MR. HERMAN: There are thousands of structures in the Town of Southold that don't conform to what you would approve today. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But this one we saw. MR. HERMAN: Well, that's not like a look-what-they-have argument. I'm saying on any given application that we are in front of you for a structure that is less than a 100 feet, that is theoretically not something you would approve today. But it's not the Board's practice to ask everyone with a house less than a 100 feet from the wetland to knock down the house and move. So there has to be some balancing in terms of -- in other words, I think for both parties we have to figure out what the status of this deck is. Was it built illegally without a permit? Because if it was, you can tell me to remove it and I can't say boo. But if it's a legally pre-existing deck, I can't sit here and agree to get dd of it because I'm not sure you are totally within your rights to make that request. I have to at least explore it with the client and explore what documents. I mean for all you know you may have issued a grandfather permit for this deck in 1988, which means it's a legally permitted structure by the Trustees. I just don't know because it's not part of this application because I have not looked at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As much as I would like to see the deck gone, I agree with you. I think more research needs to be done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I do not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think more research has to be done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we stipulate that if any work is to be done on it, it has to be done per permit. MR. HERMAN: Of course it does. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, if you have a current permit, you are allowed to repair. But what Bob is saying that we stipulate, don't even repair. You have to come back in for a new -- MR. HERMAN: I agree with Jim, I don't think the condition of that deck is you are going to replace a couple of boards and get ten more years. We have to come back in. What I'm saying is the history I have had with this Board, what would be a likely result of an application to replace this deck is that if it's legal or legally pre-existing you would allow some version of it to continue to exist, maybe smaller, definitely farther, perhaps off the bluff in some way, maybe they end up with a little platform or something, I don't know. But I'm, I would be loath to just say, okay, we'll remove that structure in exchange for getting a permit for other renovations which frankly should stand on their own merits. We'll be back. I mean -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with what Bob just suggested. Board of Trustees 62 July 23, 2008 MR. HERMAN: What I'm saying, Peggy, is if you purchased a property and you had some structure like this which, to all your knowledge was legally existing, and then had to file an application with whatever town you were in for some other work and they said, oh, and by the way you know that deck which is like 30% of why you bought the property, if you want to do this, you have to get rid of that. That would be like a little bit of a shock to you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have your opinion. I have mine. It's one of five. And I think Jill can move on because that's two opinions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments on any other aspects of the application? TRUSTEE KING: To be honest, I would like to know if we could cause this to be removed as part of this permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it goes back to what Rob is saying, that we could request it, but I don't think we can make it a condition if it has a legal permit on it. TRUSTEE KING: To me it's a legal question. I wish Kieran was here. Can we make it part of the permit. That's the question I ask. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it depends whether it has an existing permit or not. We would have to research it. TRUSTEE KING: Table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would prefer, myself, to move forward with the application and with the stipulation that no work is to be done at all on this deck without application to this Board for some type of permit and we can address it at that time. MR. HERMAN: Which I think is what the law requires anyway. I don't have any problem with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we want to reseamh whether or not we can do this as a procedure for future applications. We can do that. It's a good question. Whether we can or can't do it. I agree on that. TRUSTEE KING: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? GHOSIO: Aye. BERGEN: Aye. DOHERTY: Aye. KING: Aye. DICKERSON: I'm going to vote no for the reason I stated earlier. BERGEN: To close the public hearing? DICKERSON: No, I vote aye to close the public hearing. DOHERTY: Let me make a motion first. I'll make a motion to Board of Trustees 63 July 23, 2008 approve the application of Vincent and Laura Manetti as applied for with the condition that the deck that is approximately 15xl I that is on the bluff, before that gets repaired or anything that they have to come in and apply to this Board for any work to be done. TRUSTEE KING: There is no be no work done on it without a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No work done on it whatsoever without a permit. Other than that, I don't think there is any other conditions because we have drywells, the sanitary system is out of our jurisdiction, which brings us into consistency with LWRP. And that's my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE earlier. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. KING: Aye. GHOSIO: Aye. DOHERTY: Aye. BERGEN: Aye. DICKERSON: I'm voting no because of the reasons I stated KING: So that's one nay vote. TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT FRIEMANN requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto existing one-story, one-family dwelling a second-story addition over the existing first story (to be demolished and reconstructed inplace over the existing foundation to remain) a 10.2'x18.3' one-story easterly addition; a 20.1'x30' two-story northerly addition, a 20.8'x43.5' westerly attached garage addition and an 8x37.5' westerly porch addition with steps, construct attached waterfront deck; remove existing shed and existing southerly concrete patio; install a drainage system of drywells; and remove an existing sanitary system to be replaced with an upgraded sanitary system located a minimum of 100 feet from wetlands. Remove and replace inplace an existing timber retaining wall with a stone retaining wall to be raised 18'to elevation 9.5' MSL; place approximately 60 cubic yards clean sand landward of new retaining wall to decrease slope between the dwelling and shoreline; and establish over same are a 23-40' wide and approximately 3,128 square foot non-turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation in place of the existing lawn. Located: 2935 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants. I'll try to keep this short because the Board has, as I understand it, has looked at this many, many times. The application that is before you including the project description is identical to what the Board approved under the existing wetlands permit, which is wetlands permit 6801. The difference is whereas the original permit application read to construct a second-story addition on to an existing first story, Board of Trustees 64 July 23, 2008 because the first story was predominantly demolished during the beginning of construction, we have had to amend our description to indicate that the second story will be constructed over a first story to be rs-constructed inplace over the same foundation. As the crow flies, the project is exactly the same. With respect to the wetland setbacks, it's exactly the same. With respect to all of the mitigation outlined and required in the prior permit, it's exactly the same. The difference, as the Board is already aware, is that the existing walls of the first story ars being substantially to completely reconstructed. That's why we ars back before the Board today. I understand that the contractor has spoken to the Trustees, that he has visited the site with the Trustees. He asked me to submit current plans for the house. Thers is a one slight disparity from what was on the site plan notwithstanding everything else I just said, thers is a stairwell foundation bench which the Board has seen. I understand you don't have any concem with it but it should be shown approximately right thers on the survey. It's just the stairwell bench which is -- it's on the water side just to the south of that bump out. So it's farther from the water than the rsst of the house. It's there and essentially is adjacent to where this stoop was removed. In other words this stoop and steps was existing. That's gone. And this bench comes out pretty much in line with it. So just given all that has happened, I want to make surs everything is completely consistent. We ars asking the Board to approve these plans. They reflect what you have seen but just to be consistent I want to ask John Ehlers to make surs that the bench is shown. Other than that, it's exactly the same as what the Board had approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, with respect to the violation. We don't have the attorney hers now. Do you know if that has been taken cars of and the fine has been paid? MR. HERMAN: Yes. I asked the Friemann's to get in touch with Lori Hulse so that we can answer that very question affirmatively tonight, and it is yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So she received everything and it's closed? MR. HERMAN: Do you want to state on the record, Bob, that you did. Rob, do you have something you can submit from them? Yes, he has something to submit. MR. FRIEMANN: Robert Friemann. I have hers a copy of the agreement with the town attorney which I signed last Friday and a copy of the receipt of the payment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. We'll just take a look at it. We ars just trying to be consistent with all our cases. Thank you. (Perusing). Thank you. MR. HERMAN: A couple of details that ars not included in the Board of Trustees 65 July 23, 2008 project description but are included in conditions of the original permit is that the deck would be constructed of untreated lumber. I think there was, was it three-eighths inch spacing or some spacing condition on the permit. And also submission ultimately of a landscape plantings plan by the time they got to that point. So at that point we would probably, I don't know, either just ask the Board to review and accept a plan or could administratively amend the permit to formally accept the plan. However you want to handle it. TRUSTEE KING: It's just one of these issues that became very difficult. It's something we have to address in the future as far as what a second-story addition is, what is a demolition. Because it's become a problem. MR. HERMAN: As we discussed briefly and I'll try to keep it short. The intention here, expressly stated intention, even in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals, was the maintenance of the existing first story. Again, I know you spoke to the contractor, it was a one thing lead to another sort of deal but it should be put on the record that there was no intention by us, by the Friemann's, by the contractor or architect to deceive the Board. I think Jim is right, there is one problem here is that in the past we have not spoken to the vertical element of construction. I mean if you all took a trip for a year and came back and saw the finished product, you would say, yes, that's exactly what we approved. So what is happening here is there is an element in demolition and reconstruction part that for any number of reasons has to be expressed more clearly, particularly with the new construction codes, Because there are new requirements for ceiling heights, for sizes of studs, for insulation, et cetera. So it's getting to a point where from a practical outlook after we are all done philosophizing and shuffling papers, the builder has to go out and actually do the work and by the time he's done trying to turn something existing into something that meets the building code, you know, it's almost an exercise in silliness. So for these kinds of projects -- and it doesn't apply to everything. I mean, dormer additions are dormer additions. Sometimes the first story can truly hold it. I think really just a problem here is when something like this happens, work really has to be stopped and we have to come in and revisit this. So, again, there was no mai-intent here. I think the Board knows that. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as Board of Trustees 66 July 23, 2008 submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do you want these back, Rob? MR. HERMAN: We would like you to keep those if the file because it reflects what you've looked at, and on behalf of all the parties, we appreciate your patience in dealing with this. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS & ANDREW ZOITAS request a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool, patio and landscaping within 100 feet from the top of the bluff, retain a 30' non-turf buffer and construct beach access stairs. Located: 6255 North Road, Greenport. MS. MOORE: Good evening. It's good not to be on that side this time because it felt like deja vu for Rob. This application. We actually, this is a new house with a new pool and we actually had the owner build a hundred feet back from the top of the bank. So what is in your jurisdiction is the patio area that just extends slightly beyond the hundred feet on the setback from the top of the bank. I have a lot of paper here. I don't know if you have questions or do you want me to just go over it one by one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me just go over it. LWRP finds the proposed action consistent with LWRP provided that the proposed action, the beach stairs and the pool, require, as long as they meet the following: Require the applicant to maximize an 80-foot perpetual non-disturbance buffer, maintain the existing indigenous vegetation. MS. MOORE: What? They want 80 feet of buffer?. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It says 80 on what I have. MR. MCGREEVY: We have 30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the LWRP. CAC, on the other hand, resolves to support the application with a condition of a 30 foot non-disturbance buffer. And any plan be submitted to control erosion underneath the proposed beach stairs. We were all out there. We are familiar with it. It was noted that the stairs are not staked. MS. MOORE: They were staked, actually. My client is here. It is just so thick, I don't know if you could see it or not. TRUSTEE KING: It was so vegetated we couldn't even get in there. MS. MOORE: Because he staked it. I know he went through there. I didn't, personally. TRUSTEE KING: I tried to get to it, I couldn't. MS. MOORE: All right. They are there. With respect to the stairs, let me go through item by item. When we reviewed the DEC specifications for beach stairs, I noticed that the drawings did Board of Trustees 67 July 23, 2008 not have the elevation -~ the DEC requirements are that from the grade to the stairs, the platform and so on, you have to maintain a minimum of 3'6". So with that we redrew the stairs in order to meet the DEC requirements with respect to clearance for vegetation. And I have that drawing here. It is essentially the same drawing except at the end it has to, because of the slope that runs along the bank, the stairs have to turn toward the west. So what I did is I have the drawing here. It's dated, last dated 7/17/08 prepared by Angel Chorno. He's the architect that designed it. We obviously had to meet the DEC requirements. Everything else with respect to your requirements on platform size and width was met originally, but the elevation, as I said, had not been met. So I wanted to be sure that was corrected right away before the DEC got it. So I had John Metzger show the stairs with the revised placement and the, it really affects the bottom more than anything else because as you raise the height, you get to a certain slope and then you cut it back. So I'm giving that to you tonight. As I said, it still meets your requirements with respect to size of stairs and tread width and all of your, the requirements. You don't have the specific requirement on the elevation from the bank, but DEC does, and that's what we are trying to make the two conform. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far from the eastern property line do the stairs start? MS. MOORE: The stairs start, it's very difficult. The scale is very small here because of the size of the property. It looks to be about, the start is about maybe six feet from the property line and then it angles away from the property line. Let me give you the survey that I have, the John Metzger last dated survey with the stairs revision because the original beach stairs were placed on the February 14, 2008 survey. He revised just the stairs on this survey and it's dated July 18, 2008. So let me give that you to you. You see on the cross section it shows 3'6" minimum elevation above grade, natural grade. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Board did notice, there was mention they felt the stairway should be at least 15 feet from the east property line. MS. MOORE: 157 I can that they were just trying to pick the more -- an area that was already somewhat, a passageway that has already been somewhat used. But I don't think anybody has any problem moving it 15 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Another comment the Board made in the field was just clear the choking vines only and only perhaps only have a four-foot path for the stairs. Those would be the conditions we discussed. MS. MOORE: We do have issues with that, obviously. I did get, I had Briarcliff provide me with a native planting plan that has a significant, the non-turf buffer rather than as a generic non-turf buffer. I did ask them to Board of Trustees 68 July 23, 2008 be very specific with the plantings and they provided this for me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see on here you have a fence proposed. MS. MOORE: We have to have a fence for the pool. I believe that they were considering keeping the fence to keep activity off of the bluff. So that was why it was recommended at that point. I think that was a recommendation by the landscaper. We do have to have, as I said, a fence around the property for the pool. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: While the Trustees are looking over those plans, we have a few letters here that were received last week. The first letter is to the Board of Trustees and comes to us from Ronald W. Surprenant. I won't read the whole thing. It basically talks about his experiences at a 62445 North Road, the lot which is on the western boundary of the subject property. It began more than three decades when I pumhased Sunset Bluff from Mr. EJ Warren. According to the surveyor Roderick Vantile's (sic) record, the pavilion and stairs to the beach and my property were built in the late 1800s. Reportedly it was from this beach that the first surveys of the area were done. I have noted since my arrival to Long Island in 1968, I noted various topographical features which inhibit or contribute to bluff erosion, having been a former geology student. The properties on both sides of the Zoitas' location consists of a deep, more than 100-foot clay soil which has attributes that varies with the season and the weather. He's basically talking here about runoff and how the moisture accumulates and there is built-up pressure and how it could blow out the bluff. A few hundred feet to the east of the large portion of the lawn, deck and stairs has slumped down requiring extensive repairs. Summer is usually fine when the property is dry and firm at the surface. Since a person dug the trenches from the North Road more than 400 feet into my property to accommodate the electrical and water services I have intimate knowledge of the soil. The prospect of an inground pool and surrounding patio within the 100-foot no-build zone is horrendous. After all the only indigenous bluff protection the subject property has is the vegetation that is presently there. He did submit copies of E-mails and letters back and forth to the Zoitas', which are in the file. All neighbors along the edge of this bluff depend on each other to responsibly and correctly maintain the bluff's integrity. It is up to each of us to build properly where permitted and to avoid all construction when there are reasonable doubts about its ethicacy There is also a letter here from the neighbor to the east, which is Dorothy Young, who I see is here with us. If you plan on speaking I'll just not read the letter. MS. YOUNG: I would like to you read the letter, please. Then I may speak, depending on what I hear. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll summarize it along, if you don't mind. Board of Trustees 69 July 23, 2008 MS. YOUNG: Yes, of course TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The concerns about the destruction to the land next door and its effect on the bluff. The bluff is a very beautiful yet fragile part of our landscape. It is sensitive to every change in wind, weather and tide and is particularly sensitive to groundwater runoff. Since the clearing, excavation and regrading of the topography and construction have begun on the neighboring property, I've experienced groundwater runoff which deposited silt in my garage, potting shed and basement of my home. This has occurred on three separate occasions; on the 8th, 18th and 23rd of June, after a particularly heavy rain. This is something which I have not had to deal with in several years. Groundwater runoff is particularly sinister and produces unseen damage in the form of undermining. Its effects are cumulative. If unchecked it will in time devastate the bluff. In 2005 and 2006 I invested a great deal of time and money on my own property. I did this after noting erosion and damage to my other neighbor's property east of mine after eight days of heavy, soaking rain. With the help of the Trustees and Comell Cooperative Extension my land was stabilized by the restoration and replanting of the bluff, eliminating the effect of the groundwater runoff. We consider this to be of the mutual interest of all of us here along the shoreline. My concern for the bluff is very real as my home was built on this site over 80 years ago. I'm sure the property experienced much erosion since then. It has. And it's my desire to stop this erosion while I'm a resident. I can only speak of the experiences I have seen since the construction began. I do not know what additional unseen damage has been done. Basically, this letter is concerned with the runoff and it's, the possibility of doing damage to the bluff. I believe that's all the letters that I have in the file. Any other comments, concerns, questions? MS. MOORE: Well, I'm here to answer more questions thank I think -- I have been trying to clarify things as we go. Just with respect to the neighbors, I would point out that the neighbor to the east, Mrs. Young, her house, you can see it on the survey is about ten feet from the top of the bluff. We have made efforts to keep the property from -- having the construction interfere with their property. There was a fence that was installed to be able to keep their privacy, to keep all activities on my client's property. The elevation of the Young's property is actually higher than our property and the vegetation is still in place. You can see there was no disturbance in the area just to the west of the fence. And the fence, in addition, when we are getting comments from the neighbors, I suggested Mr. Zoitas might extend the hay bales Board of Trustees 70 July 23, 2008 further along the property line rather than just along the top of the bank or -- actually they put the hay bales farther landward of the top of the bank to make sure that we were retaining all activities as far away from the bank as possible. So I believe that we have addressed during the construction, after the construction, obviously, the property will have proper drainage to comply with the new code requirement. So our efforts are to be good neighbors and not to disturb existing conditions of our neighbors. MS. YOUNG: My name is Dorothy Young. I'm neighbor to the east of the Zoitas' property. And as I stated in my letter, I do wish the Zoitas' much happiness in their new home. I have been there 23 years and I have enjoyed my bluff-front property. Yes, they have put straw bales up and I think this is after having the silt and everything. This was done later. I do have to say also my property is lower than the Zoitas' property. I'm quite -- anyone can come to my property and actually see where I come lower down, than the property neighboring. So there you have the topography a little incorrect. Yes, as I said, another point is, and I'm really worried about is, as I stated in my letter, runoff. And I'm seeing a large patio of stone. All through the meeting this evening you have been asking people to put gratings in the get the water sort of going into the ground. We are on a lot of clay. Huge amounts of clay. And, you know, with the runoff, if this is all the stone work, and I notice on this, I'm noticing that there is like a stone patio going right up to my little, wooden fence. I have a sort of wooden fencing all the way along the side and the Zoitas' property has put up a chainlink, one higher than my mice wooden fencing. But I'm noticing the stone patio and that definitely will cause runoff. Stone causes runoff. And everywhere through your evening, I have noted everywhere where you have said, you know, you have to put in gravel or things or things that take the water off. So I'm very, very concerned because my home was built years and years ago. I met an elderly lady who was born in my house over 80 years of age. And that was 20 years ago I met her. So, my home is there on the bluff. I'm a bit more than ten feet away from the bluff, thank God, but I believe when you came out to see my replanting, I had to get permits and everything and the replanting and I did lots of replanting on the bluff and bringing the planting all the way back and probably from all the planting I still have about 20 feet. Thank goodness, because I'm concerned my house is too close to the bluff. But all this was done many, many years ago. It's all pre-existing on my property. And I think that's it. And just the weight of the pool, I don't understand, I never had a pool in my life, so I don't know about the, I'm told that there will be drywells and things, but I see just one on the left, but overflow of the weight and the way it's anything to be Board of Trustees 71 July 23, 2008 backwashed and everything I'm very concerned that this, in this short distance from the bluff, that we are going to incur damage to our bluff. Thank you. That's it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The pool is 100 feet from the bluff. In actuality, the pool is really out of our jurisdiction. What we saw through, obviously there will be work done in our jurisdiction to build the pool. Did we give a letter of non-jurisdiction? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we did. MS. MOORE: I think we were so far away, because the house is under construction. That's 130 feet from the top. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what we are really talking about in this is the stairs and the landscaping. MS. MOORE: Stairs, landscaping, small portion of the patio. Just the portion that goes around the north end of the pool and curves. But it's a very small, maybe 100 square feet that extends. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But, again, any of this building would have to comply with Chapter 236. That the town's new drainage code does require that they cannot -- MS. YOUNG: That's what my concern is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right., what I'm saying, don't know when the new code came into existence. It's fairly new, and it will not allow for this construction to create any runoff for you. The law in this town won't allow that. MS. YOUNG: That's what I put in my letter. I don't know when you read my letter, fully, but, he didn't read it all, but my concern is, naturally, for my home. I live there year-round. I'm not one of these people that just come out for the weekend and then disappear to other homes. This is my only home. I live there year-round. MR. SURPRENANT: I'm Ronald Surprenant. I would like to read some of the parts of my letter that you omitted, because it's significant. In particular, as I'm describing the behavior of the bluff, the properties of the bluff being plastic or solid at different seasons. Moisture accumulates below the surface, which increases hydrologic pressure, which is significant. The spring allows the clay to soften from the top down and on the bluff slopes visible weeping streams release the built-up pressure and run down to the beach depending on the amount and kind of vegetation. I have seen these streams every year from the Sunset Motel eastward to the Clark's Beach property. Heavy rains, continuous rains, can and have exacerbated the conditions such that the top edge of a steep, bluff slope can then slope down under its water-laden weight. The clay is too plastic to support the edge despite even thick vegetation. Indeed this occurred on the subject property, the Zoitas' property. The Zoitas' eastern boundary with the adjoining property, Mrs. Young's, also suffered significant damage as she described and the fixes that she made. A few hundred feet to the east, you read this, a large portion Board of Trustees 72 July 23, 2008 of the lawn deck and stairs slope down requiring extensive repair. Since the time the subject property has had its vegetation and topsoil removed, water and silt runoff has run over its eastern and western property lines. Mine being the western, my property is also lower in elevation than the subject property. Some runoff was due to rain falling on hard, bare ground because of the removed vegetation from the clearing of construction. And some was due to the spoils from digging the septic system. This is, on the date that I wrote this, this is still currently happening as the crane bucket deposits the water-laden spoils near my property line. And at that time, those bales that you mentioned along the side were not there. MS. MOORE: Right, we corrected that. MR. SURPRENANT: I had ankle-deep water. I submitted an entire packet. I hope all the Board members read the entire content of this packet because I E-mailed Mr. Zoitas three times and sent him a letter, certified letter, as problems have occurred. So if you read the whole package, you'll get a whole picture. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sir, excuse me, is that your house, on the west side? MS. MOORE: He's on the east side. MR. SURPRENANT: I'm on the west side. We are two different people. Yes. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. You are two different people. I thought you were together. Yes, he has the pavilion by the edge. MR. SURPRENANT: Can I finish my paragraph? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are the property to the west? MR. SURPRENANT: My property is to the west of the Zoitas property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Go ahead. MR. SURPRENANT: The prospect of an inground pool and surrounding patio within the 100-foot no-build zone -- you read that -~ is horrendous. After all, the only indigenous bluff protection on the subject property is the vegetation that is presently there. I cannot imagine landscapers providing an improved system of plant roots after tearing out the current vegetation. I worry very much about the weight of a large, water-filled pool near this bluff. Where does the backwash water go? What about the seasonal pumping of the winter cover water. The surrounding patio, surely, will not absorb water. These are my concerns. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have concerns with the size of the patio around the pool. I think it's excessive and I don't know if the drainage can be handled off that to the extent that it needs to be. And I personally don't think the bluff should be cleared to that extent and replanted. MS. MOORE: With respect to the pool, it's common knowledge and through various hearings I have had various engineers testify with Board of Trustees 73 July 23, 2008 respect to the placement of pools by the bluff and the testimony is always consistent that water weighs less than dirt. So weight, the water, is not a weight issue. I would also point out, as you pointed out yourself, that the pool is outside of your jurisdiction. The patio, the only portion of the patio that is within your jurisdiction is about, not even 200 square feet. It's a slight area that, because we are following the, we are going around the pool and then making a circular area, so it's just that triangular portion of the circumference of that round area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the runoff from the patio going to go? MS. MOORE: We have to provide for drywells. Absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see that on the plan. MS. MOORE: We can add it at any time. It's more of a question of where we put them. I have to ask the engineers that are doing it; where would they recommend they go. We can certainly add the drywells. I know it was added to the house during the construction, but we can certainly put it on this plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And how is the backwash being addressed? MS. MOORE: It would either be in a drywell for that or there are now drywell -- pool systems that require no drywells. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't know if that's what -- MS. MOORE: The drywells are installed for the house already. So we can certainly look into that if you want us to as a condition of the approval that it be a dry pool filter system. Those are becoming very common. That's not a problem. I stipulated to that on many occasions with pools. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if we can if it's out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: We have no issue with that as a condition, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see whatever drainage they use, just to see it on the plan. Even if it's out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: I can. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want to, out of curiosity, do we want to table this so we can actually go to see where this is going to be staked, the stairs? MS. MOORE: I have to clear a path because now you want it 15 feet over. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think it was so much the path getting there. We could get to the bluff. It was the bluff area, Jim and I stood there. We could see no stake. So I'm saying I don't think you need to clear a path. We could get to the buff. Just make a bigger post or flag or something. MS. MOORE: Obviously, we are not going down the bluff to do it. We are only doing it at the starting end of it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the recommendation is move it 15 feet. MS. MOORE: That's okay. The suggestion in this location is because that's the shortest distance. The higher the bluff, obviously, the more stairs, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well have to keep the comments forward. The reporter can't hear these side conversations. Thank you. MS. MOORE: As you can see from the topographic survey, the shortest Board of Trustees 74 July 23, 2008 distance is the placement of these stairs and that's why they angled toward the west. The topography is obviously -- there is more of an angle, so we are going to have to change the design of the stairs and move it over. That sometimes results in more structure when it's finally constructed. I won't know until the measurements are done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I suggest, too, we were just saying, Jill was saying it's only four houses down from the town beach. Maybe we can walk from the town beach and look up and also stake it at the bottom. I'm just trying to think if there is some way we can see from the beach. MS. YOUNG: You have permission to go through my property and go down the stairs. MS. MOORE: Obvious I didn't want to go on your property. MS. YOUNG: No, you can. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, folks we have multiple comments going on at the same time. I'm talking on the Board also. So, please. MS. MOORE: So we can work on moving the stairs over, the starting point of the stairs, 15 feet. I don't know that that will change the angle or not. Because they are slightly angled. I don't know if that's because, I don't know why it was done that way, to be honest with you, so MR. MCGREEVY: Jim. Regarding the stairs, CAC a while back, about five months back on an application for stairs on the bluff, was asked to submit a design for erosion control, and as part of this application we would like to reiterate that recommendation that there is, there should be erosion control at the time of construction and as a permanent part of the structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was when they were recommending putting the 2x6s along the bottom to hold it back. MS. MOORE: Maybe you can give me a little more detail on that because I had it on another application, actually I called on it and I said I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for. So if you have in details to what method of erosion control is for construction of the beach stairs. MR. MCGREEVY: A diagram was submitted. It was also sent to the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Did you ever get a response on that? MR. MCGREEVY: I never did. But the diagram, a detailed diagram, not to scale, was submitted and the CAC never heard a response. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can get that for you. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm hearing is we want the top of the stairs staked and also the bottom of the stairs staked. MS. MOORE: That's fine. My only issue is that the pool and the patio, we are getting ready for the next phase of the construction. So the pool is next. If we could get that aspect of Board of Trustees 75 July 23, 2008 it approved so that we can proceed. The stairs to the beach, that is kind of down the line, so we can, I have no problem with coming with a revised plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The pool is out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: There is a small portion you want me to show you the drywells, so I might-- I have no problems showing you where the drywells will go and specify what type of pool filter, whether it's a dry system or pool filter that has a drywell. Either way I'll get that information to you. That's not a problem. But I do know that they are at that stage and it's been, it was delayed last time because of LWRP. So I don't want to hold it up much longer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think we want to table it for the clearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We haven't even talked about that yet. MS. MOORE: We haven't talked about that yet. That's certainly going to be an issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think before we even talk about that, we should go take a look, take a better look now that we know we'll be clearing everything, rather than getting into a whole discussion about it now. Because based upon the LWRP you are looking for 80 feet, CAC suggested 30. MS. MOORE: And I'm providing a landscaping plan of 30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were recommending only taking out the vines. I think we are better going out into the field with this plan and discussing it and coming back. MS. MOORE: And if you let me know when you'll be there, I'll get Briarcliff out there. I tried to coordinate it with him with somebody from there to talk about specifics. It just seemed to me having an expert there would be advisable. So if you let me know the time you'll be there, I'll be sure that we have somebody there. It may be possible, I had originally requested a letter of non-jurisdiction for the pool. So is it possible to get a letter of non-jurisdiction for the pool and then we'll complete the -- the patio is finish work. We are not ready to do that. We can include the patio and the rest of it with -- that which is within your jurisdiction. The pool is clearly outside your jurisdiction. It's just at the time I couldn't get a letter of non-jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to make the patio smaller so you are out of our jurisdiction completely? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't think about moving the pool closer to the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have the survey itself. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The pool is on the 100 foot mark, the pool itself. And there will be a requirement to have some kind of a walkway around that end. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If the pool was turned. Just a thought. MS. MOORE: We considered all the different alternatives and this was the preference. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not comfortable giving a non-jurisdiction because part of the patio is in our jurisdiction and dudng Board of Trustees 76 July 23, 2008 construction is in our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: You know what, that's okay. Because I just realized, the pool, because of the angle of the bluff, a comer of the pool needs a variance, because it's in a side yard. Don't tell me how this is considered a side yard but it is and that's where I'm going next. So that's not a problem. I'll be on the next calendar, I think, for the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can table this and take a look at it. MR. SURPRENANT: Can I still have a comment? Coming back to the relevance of hydrologic pressure. I talked to one of the experts on the site and they were very disturbed as they were digging the septic system, which is not in your jurisdiction, but hydrologic pressure is there. Everywhere. And they went down 67 feet for the septic system and they lost the hole, in their words. They were digging inside a cutting ring. They had deposited regular leaching dngs above that and the entire thing crashed in and they had to fill it in. And this was in the front yard. So hydrologic pressure is a serious issue. Water may be lighter than dirt, but they are digging a hole and it caved in. So, near the bluff, I think it's just more of a hazard. And it affects people on both sides. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MS. YOUNG: Can I just ask you to let me know when you wish to come? Is it possible to let me know when you are coming to walk through my property. I would like to walk through it with you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: August 13 is our next field inspection day. MS. YOUNG: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's right at the top of your agenda sheet. At the beginning. MS. YOUNG: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number sixteen, Patdcia Moore on behalf of MARIA TRUPIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x55' catwalk using "FIo-Thru" decking, four-inch posts in the marsh and six-inch piles in the water, and with steps to grade; and install an inground swimming pool. Located: 1395 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. This has not been reviewed under the LWRP. It was submitted June 16, which is more than a month ago; correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it was submitted to LWRP -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: June 27 it was. They are all submitted the same day. And the other applications it's the 27th. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is no date there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the other applications, this must be an older form. Board of Trustees 77 July 23, 2008 MS. MOORE: If I could clarify. We submitted this application for the dock a year ago or so. And what happened is that the DEC and the Army Corps, they started changing the design between the two agencies and we were getting bounced back and forth. So rather than have a final plan submitted to you or get a plan, the original dock which was much larger and went out further, be approved from you, then have to come back to modify it, I asked that it be held in abeyance so we can get the final plan from the DEC and come back and finish the permit process with you. That's what we did is we came back with the DEC drawn dock, approved dock, and that's where we are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it was submitted to LWRP coordinator on June 27. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But I don't have anything here in the record to reflect that. I have nothing in here to reflect that that happened. At all. So myself, I think we need to go by the stamp of receipt of everything, which is June 16. (Perusing.) Okay, sorry, here we go. LWRP, June 27, 2008. I apologize. MS. MOORE: Procedurally, I don't understand, do you bundle them up and give them to them at once? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The office waits for the cutoff date for the month's meeting then submits them all at once. MS. MOORE: Doesn't that mean many of your applications don't have LWRP and therefore we are here all night long waiting for an application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are absolutely right. MS. MOORE: Something is wrong with that system. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are trying to work on a better system. MS. MOORE: I mean it is what it is today. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Once the applications are complete, she can't submit them until they are complete. MS. MOORE: I'm not cdtical of Lauren. Don't get me wrong. It's just the way it's working is it's not working. Because, you know, it's not fair. She paid me to be here all night and we are not going to get much accomplished, I assume. TRUSTEE KING: I think I mentioned during the beginning of the headng there was not going to be any decision on this tonight. We went all through the agenda. MS. MOORE: All right. Because I had somebody call me at home and he must not have heard this particular project was going to be adjoumed, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We announced it in the beginning of the night. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, you don't have a legitimate point. I think the LWRP application should be forwarded on the date our office receives them and stamps them in and can move them on and they should not be sitting someplace and this should not happen. We can move forward talking about the field inspection, and Board of Trustees 78 July 23, 2008 concerns, there is also a letter to be read in here. I would like to go ahead and open the hearing. MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And let me now start out with the fact the Board did go out and look at this, as I alluded to. There was no LWRP report done yet. The CAC does not support the application. They resolved not to support the application for the dock based on esthetic values and recommends the Board of Trustees obtain a rendering of the area. I guess I need a little clarification by what CAC meant by requesting a rendering of the area. MR. MCGREEVY: We had at our last CA(; meeting the other day we had a long discussion on this. There is a lot of pros and cons, but we all agreed on one thing. The subjectivity of the esthetic values is an issue that will have to be faced sooner or later. That was our concern. And I didn't see the site but just looking at the picture, I can appreciate the couple of gentlemen that did the inspection, first thing that must have impressed them was what a natural, beautiful setting this is. And I don't know that there are other structures on the waterfront, but just looking at it from this angle here I can see why they brought up the subject of esthetics. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Let me first, before I take comments, let me first read, we received a letter dated July 15, from neighbor Alan Mathers and basically stating there is an error in the survey accompanying the application. First off, Alan is saying he has no objection whatsoever to the dock or catwalk. The issue he wants to bring up is the inground pool raises a concern. I would loath to have the Trustees grant a blanket of generic pool permit without any facts of the structure being presented. The pool as staked out physically, it doesn't match the survey. The pool area takes into its boundaries two large air-conditioning units. If they were to be moved, they should be moved to the southerly side of the premises, covered or baffled to reduce noise. In building my home I was facing neighbors on both sides and placed my air-conditioning units in areas setback to be blocked in on two sides on the side of my house opposite an area not regularly used by my neighbor and as to the pool filter and heater I removed them as far as possible from the proximity of the neighbors and placed 4x8 cedar boards and bushes on the side to muffle the noise. I did not place any lighting around my pool to hold down light pollution at night. Within the pool area boundaries is not shown anywhere in the map there is an elevated deck. Part and parcel of the deck surrounding half the house is to be removed and construction of the pool and incorporated in the pool. There is no location selected for the pool system or heater and drywell. These should be located outside the wetlands and the appropriately muted, covered or baffled. We did go out and look at this. And I guess I'll first ask if Board of Trustees 79 July 23, 2008 there is anybody here to speak to this application. MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. All right. With respect to the dock, when we first made an application for this dock, this request, it was a dock that mirrored or was similar to Mr. Mathers' dock to the north. The adjacent property owner that sent that letter. The DEC objected to the dock because we had to go out to the length of the dock going out to feet, two-and-a-half feet of water. And all they gave us was a grated platform two feet above grade, which was something I think the Board actually, was a recommendation of the Board as well, and steps to grade. So it was in a sense not effecting esthetic values because it's a Iow, equivalent to Iow sill dock. That was the Board's recommendation at the time even with our longer dock going out to the proper depth of water. As I said, DEC cut us back and just gave us steps down to grade, and the height of the dock was consistent with what the Board had recommended. This was all from the field inspection. We had not made the modifications and we are coming back to you to finish the process up. It took us a very long time to get through the full DEC process with the state. Again, because of inconsistent recommendations from one agency to the other. That being said with respect to the dock. The second issue is the pool. I would point out Ms. Trupia is here and she was somewhat incensed by Mr. Mathers' comments because he has an above-ground pool right next to her property with the pool filters and everything and air-conditioning units all right next to her property. So it seems somewhat ironic he would have complaints about it. Nonetheless, she has had the property on the market and every time somebody looks at this house, they ask can I put a pool here. We really want to put a pool here. And when I had you out in the field and we did this field inspection, we looked at the area that I identified as the pool area and the Board said at the time we don't really see a problem with this area for a pool because the odginal house plans had this area as decking that went all the way around and was a significant decking on that side of the property. So we took that same original plan that the DEC approved and that we believed, based upon your observations, you felt would be an appropriate location for the pool. So we show it as a pool area. We need to give people a kind of understanding of the area. We can certainly have people come back to you with the specifications of the pool and where the pool filter is and all these other things when the time comes. We can try to produce that. But we are not going to build it. We have several people that have been looking at the house and specifically are asking for a pool. They walk away when we say this is the area the Trustees thought was a reasonable place for a pool but without having a Board of Trustees 80 July 23, 2008 permit in place it's very difficult to show it has as a viable location without some guidance from this Board. So that's why we are with, again, closing out the dock permit and for previding for a pool area that can be subject to further details or specifications when people, when somebody has the real intent to build out the pool with the specifics. So that was our purpose for this particular aspect of the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's start with the easy one. The pool. When we measured it, if the pool was moved five feet landward frem its present location it would be outside our jurisdiction and you would not even need permission from us for this. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what's on the field notes, folks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be beyond the 50 feet. We like to keep the pool outside of 50 feet frem the wetland. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize for that. I'm just reading what is on the notes. So, I apologize. MS. MOORE: I had the wetland boundary that was frem our dock application and when I measured, based on the scale of this map, it looked like 120 feet. That's why when you say 50 feet, it's somewhat confusing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The wetland line. Not from where the dock is starting but from where the wetland all the way on the side of the house. MS. MOORE: Yes, the wetland boundary, September '06, that line that I used? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have that. MS. MOORE: The stamped plan that has the DEC stamp that I crossed off so you could see it was hand -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here, looking for a scale on this. MS. MOORE: One inch equals 60 is the scale. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. If I could have the ruler, please. We are looking at the wetland boundary marked September, 2006. MS. MOORE: Right. That's the one I was basing it on. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One inch equals 60. The pool would be much farther than that away. TRUSTEE KING: I thought the wetland extended to here. They come up along the side here. This is all bacharus up in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll modify my question for the applicant and ask would the applicant be willing to move the pool five feet so it's 50 feet from -- MS. MOORE: Sure. That's not a problem. Again, it's an area that we want to reserve for the pool area, so if you draw it on a map, I can then give it to a surveyor and say here, this is the area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Now, with regard to the dock, we had a couple of observations. First of all, it was not staked. We walked up Board of Trustees 81 July 23, 2008 and down and around and there was no stakes for the start and no stakes for the end. And we do require docks to be staked when we go out and look at them. The second concern we had was there was a proposal to use wood chips over the marsh and we wanted the applicant to consider not to use wood chips in the marsh because they will just float away. At high tide they'll float and they are going to go. MS. TRUPIA: Actually, they were not there. They did float down there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, let me go back. If you are going to speak, you need to come on the microphone and be on the record. I'm just mentioning the notes right now. MS. MOORE: All right. We won't use wood chips. If the woodchips come down by water, that's one thing, but we won't place any woodchips. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I recognize that you already had a DEC permit and this DEC permit matches the description of four-inch posts in the marsh, ten feet on center; six-inch piles in the water, again, ten feet on center and steps on grade in approximately, looking at this upside down, just over one foot of water is what it comes down into. So now, first, are there any other comments from anybody in the audience regarding this application? (No response.) Not hearing any, are there any comments from the Board regarding this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing so far is I didn't see any stakes for the seaward end and the landward end. MS. MOORE: It was staked originally for you guys when it was first submitted. That's, I thought you might have photographs in the file from when you were there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Has it changed any?. MS. MOORE: Just the length of it. That's my memory. You have to double check me. It's been a while, but. It was originally moved. It was closer to Mathers and you had me move it away and center it. So the placement of it, I think came from the Board. From the Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do remember our visit. I do remember our visit and I do remember us looking at one location and suggesting another location. We do have pictures here and I don't see any stakes here. And in the field notes from our November 10, 2006, it says to be staked next month so. And since there is not an LWRP evaluation for us tonight, I would like to ask if they could please stake it and it will be on the agenda for next month and that way we'll have the LWRP evaluation at that time to address that evaluation and then we'll have the stakes there. MS. MOORE: And if you have measurement of the pool area maybe I could have the surveyor do it all at once. Board of Trustees 82 July 23, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just move it five feet to the -- MS. MOORE: I would rather if you don't mind drawing it and I'll transfer it. TRUSTEE KING: What size pool? MS. MOORE: Actually that's what I'm asking. TRUSTEE KING: You need an envelope where the pool can be put. MS. MOORE: Exactly. We need an envelope for the pool. Because within that envelope we'll fit the pool, whether it's a small pool and more decking or more pool and less decking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't know the building and the zoning aspects of the pool. I think the surveyor needs to realize the wetlands on that side and just measure 50 feet away from the wetlands. And that will have to determine the building -- MS. MOORE: If you can mark what wetlands you are talking about on my map so I can have it. MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, what body of water is that? MS. MOORE: Goose Creek. MS. MOORE: (Handing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) When we said slide it five feet, that's exactly what you just did with the arrow. We looked at sliding what was flagged. Because you had flagged an area. We thought that area was the actual proposed pool. And if that was slid five feet toward the Mathers' property, that that would take it more than 50 feet. MS. MOORE: The only thing I don't know that you can go that close to the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I'm saying we can't give you -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You might have to do a smaller pool. MS. MOORE: We just want to give people an idea, if they don't like it, they can come back and ask you for a different proposal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Now that you know that, you can give a dimension of the pool. MS. MOORE: All right. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments from the Board, then I would like to make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 17, Patricia Moore on behalf of MATT-A-MAR MARINA, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing boat storage building, demolish existing office and relocate office, replace sanitary system, and install drainage system. Located: 2255 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this? Board of Trustees 83 July 23, 2008 MS. MOORE: This one I hope is straightforward and easy. We went through the full process. We got site plan. We got everything. And in the mean time we waited for the Health Department. And how many years was it? Four years. We were waiting for the Health Department. We finally have Health Department. So here we are to reactivate because to extend it, we would have run out by now anyway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The good news is it has consistency with the LWRP. However -- no, it's not a big however. There are just a few best management practices I would like to read into the record. Maximize a permeable buffer landward of the existing retaining wall running parallel to the entire seaward side of the existing and proposed boat storage building. And as I read these, please realize these are recommendations. Currently there is a gravel road structure between the existing boat surge building and adjacent wetlands. The adjacent wetlands are approximately within 65 feet of the proposed and existing boat storage building. Number two, the placement of erosion control structures during construction such as silt fence and hay bales. The site provided does not include any special erosion control measures. MS. MOORE: It's actually stated on the site plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I must have missed that. And those are the only two recommendations. I was not there, I did not inspect this originally four years ago. But, Jim, what do you think about the maximize permeable buffer landward of the existing retaining wall? MS. MOORE: I don't want to start making -- this is a final, approved stamped site plan by the Planning Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm asking the president who did the inspection. MS. MOORE: Mr. President, I can't go back to the Planning Board. Just to point out, we have evergreens that, through the Planning Board process. We added -- TRUSTEE KING: Which section are they talking about? MS. MOORE: Are we talking about the south side? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The gravel road between the existing boat storage building and adjacent wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: That's on the south side. I think it's all bluestone now, isn't it? MS. MOORE: It's bluestone, right. It's all pervious and I don't see a need for a buffer. And let me just point out, there is a note on this site plan says proposed lands, all dead trees along southerly property line are to be replaced with 12 to 15 red cedar trees approximately two to four-inch caliber, additional 12-inch to 15-foot red cedar trees will be planted in single row. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just brought it up to put it on the record. I don't think the Board had any problem with this. If there is no one else to speak. TRUSTEE KING: The only concern I have, it's been an ongoing problem Board of Trustees 84 July 23, 2008 is the pump out station. We really have not addressed this. We addressed it a long time ago with Matt-a-Mar before. MS. MOORE: We have a pump out station. TRUSTEE KING: They were supposed to have a pump out, they were supposed to keep a log of how much is pumped and all that. It's something that has fallen through the cracks. MS. MOORE: These guys don't know anything about it. If you want to come over and talk to Mike and try to work something out. Are you trying to get some data for purposes of future pump outs? TRUSTEE KING: We need something here. I don't know how to address it. It's a difficult situation. Both marinas, you know. MS. MOORE: You are saying in general you would like to see more pump out stations throughout the town. TRUSTEE KING: Of course. MS. MOORE: We have one, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for a Wetland Permit as described for Matt-a-Mar at 2255 Wickham Avenue in Mattituck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.)