Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/20/2008 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 F S TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:00 PM :. RECEIVED OCT 2 7 Southold Town Clerk Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Lori Hulse, Town Attorney Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk-Typist CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jim King. For those of you who don't regularly attend our meetings, I have the honor of being chairman of this Board. I would like to introduce everybody else that is here tonight. To my far left is Trustee Dave Bergen; next to Dave is Peggy Dickerson; next to me is Jill Doherty, vice-chair, myself; Elizabeth Cantrell is with us tonight. She works with Lauren in the office. And I might say I think the two of them do an outstanding job. We have one of the best run offices in the town. I really appreciate the two of them. I think they do a fabulous job for you folks. Next to Liz is Bob Ghosio, another trustee. And Lori Hulse will be our legal advisor. She just walked out. She sits next to Bob. We have Peter Young from the CAC in the audience. The CAC goes out and does a lot of the same inspections we do. They give us their input on how we should handle the projects. It's pretty valuable input and we appreciate it. And Wayne Galante keeps track of what everybody says. If you have any comments, come up to the Board of Trustees 2 August 20, 2008 microphone and identify yourself for Wayne. And as we get into things, especially into the public hearings, we try and keep the comments limited to five minutes and sometimes I know there is different feelings, one side is for it, one side is against it. We don't want to see interactions between the two. Address the Board. Don't address each other in the audience. We appreciate it. With that, I guess we'll get going. We'll set the date for the next field inspection, Wednesday, September 10, eight o'clock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Ail in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting will be September 17, at six o'clock with a work session at 5:30. Motion to approve? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for July 2008. A check in the amount of $6,248.88 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 20, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Robert & Lisa DeFrese - SCTM#98-1-1.4 Martin Schwartz - SCTM#N9-1-24 Richard Manfredi - SCTM#54-1-19 Michael Slade - SCTM#110-7-26 Robert Swing - SCTM#53-6-24 Linda M. Longo - SCTM#126-3-13 Greg & Martha Cukor - SCTM#86-7-6 Nathan Saint Amand - SCTM#8-2-7.1 Sheila Patel - SCTM#51-4-5.1 Estate of Grace R. Lewis c/o John Nickles - SCTM#66-2-39 Paul Bentancourt - SCTM~22-2-6 Mo Ahmadzadeh - SCTM#54-4-11 Paul & Angela Salerno - SCTM#87-5-6 Barry Barth - SCTM#106-1-26 Peter & Sandra Pezzino - SCTM#110-8-7 Elliot Bruce & Ora Jean Heath - SCTM#66-2-13 Board of Trustees 3 August 20, 2008 Rosa Hodgson - SCTM#70-6-33 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Before we get going too far, there has been some cancellations, postponements. We don't want anybody sitting here thinking something will come up and we are not going to address it. Number 24, Ray Nemschick on behalf of STEIN FAMILY RESIDENCE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling, new front pomh 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 25, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge an 80x480' channel to -20'ALW. The resultant spoil (+7,800 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 26, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of RYAN STORK requests 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. And number 27, 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 15x34'9" deck. Located: 1100 Pine Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. We will not be addressing those tonight. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, who has number one? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have number one, ROBERT & CHERYL SCHEIDET request an Administrative Permit to install 150'x30" roll out trek seasonal walkway to be laid out along a four-foot wide path through marsh on properly from backyard to approved dock. Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. The Trustees went out and looked at this a little over a month ago. This was in response to a violation that was issued back in July, the end of July. Our understanding is the violation was taken care of, and what they are asking for now is permission for us for an administrative permit for this roll-out path. Is the applicant here tonight? Board of Trustees 4 August 20, 2008 MS. SCHEIDET: Cheryl Scheidet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only stipulation we would like to have is this be a seasonal path, as it states here. So we want to define the seasonal for you and what we are saying is it can be down from the period of April 1 and should come back up by no later than November1. Is that okaywith you? MS. SCHEIDET: That's fine. Could I ask you something else? That's great. That's exactly what we need, but they also told us, that I was not involved, so I'm just driving home and my husband said I had to come here tonight, because he's working. But the fine, that you might be able to reduce that. We have not paid that yet. I don't want to say the lawyer for the town, the attorney for the town said we might be able to ask you to do that. TRUSTEE KING: Lori is here tonight. She is the one that handles that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have to talk to Lori separately from this. Let me see if I could find her MS. SCHEIDET: She was the one that said we could ask you for that. The violation has been totally taken care of, other than the walkway. TRUSTEE KING: That's usually not taken care of in this format. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be an agreement reached between you and the attorney. What we can do is make recommendations to the attorney. MS. SCHEIDET: Maybe that's what she was asking. I'm not sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we can do that. But we don't resolve violations here at public hearings because that's a legal matter. MS. SCHEIDET: I understand. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No problem. So with that one addition to the administrative permit -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to make sure the violation was taken care of. She doesn't have a direct recollection of it, so she asked to us wait a minute. TRUSTEE KING: There will be a slight delay, folks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize to everyone in the audience. (After a brief moment, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'll do is make a motion to approve the administrative permit of the Scheidet's with the condition this is a seasonal walkway that will come out by November 1 and not be placed down before April 1. And we will not release that permit until the violation is resolved in court. That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two. VINCENZO POSILLICO requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 6x8' shed and for the placement of pea gravel on the property. Located: 6'170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to speak to this? (No response.) We actually have quite a set of slides for you this evening. This shed was placed without a permit, so tonight they are looking for a permit and I believe the understanding of the Board is that the placement is much too close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: It's basically in the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are also plantings I think eventually I would like to have on the survey of the plantings that he did do. So I'm going to be denying this application for an administrative Board of Trustees 5 August 20, 2008 permit and if he so would like to come in again with a permit for the shed placed in another area, that would be another inspection done. That's a motion to deny. TRUSTEE KING: There is no LWRP on this so can we just move forward with your resolution? I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for amendments, extensions and transfers, we have four of them tonight. They are all pretty straightforward. We've reviewed the files and in order to save time I'll make a motion to approve all four of them. Number one being MARY ZUPA requests the last one-year extension to Permit fl6214, as issued on September 21, 2005. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. Number two being Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests a one-year extension to Permit fl6437, as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. Number three, Costello Marine on behalf of ERNEST SCHNEIDER requests a one-year extension to Permit #6457, as issued on September 20, 2006. Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive, Southold. And Number four, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of AL SAFER requests a one-year extension to permit #6458, as issued on September 20, 2006, and amended on August 22, 2007. Located: 1295 Robinson Lane, Peconic. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to go back to that and put it on the record? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a motion to the table, first off? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's been finished. TRUSTEE KING: We were discussing -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are going back to Vincent Posillico. To put a condition of when to have that shed removed. Because the shed is there and we denied it. TRUSTEE KING: We haven't got a violation, that I know of. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He did not get a violation for the shed. He was told he had to come in and apply, and if he didn't apply by July 1, that he would then receive a violation. So he didn't come in apply, and we denied the permit, and my concern is that the shed will not be removed. And I think we need to either give him a timeframe under which to remove the shed or apply for another permit. If not, be subject to a violation. I think two weeks is sufficient time, myself. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want me to open it and say he must re-submit within the next month? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can add to the resolution we did. Redo the resolution TRUSTEE KING: He already received a notice to remove the shed or he'll get a Board of Trustees 6 August 20, 2008 violation. In July. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would rather just give him a timeframe under which to remove the shed. If not, he's subject to a violation. TRUSTEE KING: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Two weeks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine with me. MS. HULSE: Would that letter come out of my office or your office? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What would you recommend? MS. HULSE: I have no problem sending it out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you for volunteering to do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, should we make it part of our resolution? MS. HULSE: No, that's fine. I'll do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll keep the resolution the way it was. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so Ill make a motion to go offour regular hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into our public hearings. Like I said before, if you have any comments, please keep them brief. And no arguments, please. Number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MO AHMADZADEH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct the existing decking totalling 1,330 square feet, a 192 square foot deck addition and a 172' deck addition. Located: 925 North Sea Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. BARRON: Sean Barron, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes MR. BARRON: Really? TRUSTEE KING: Did CAC look at this? MR. YOUNG: We have no comment on it. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. We went out and looked at it. It is found consistent with the LWRP. It's a non-major addition to the existing structure. This is allowed on the primary dune. It seems to be just small additions to the existing deck. MR. BARRON: It's two five-foot deck additions to add a little more space. TRUSTEE KING: Any idea why? MR. BARRON: I guess they wanted a little more space, and they threw in a non-major addition by about 12%. But that's what the doctor wants. He complies with the wetland setbacks. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us have a huge problem with it. It's such a minor thing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just all the decking. MR. BARRON: That's obviously reconstructing the existing decking inplace inkind. TRUSTEE KING: They would just put up new posts, new stringers and put new decking on, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can maybe talk about spacing of the decking. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it will matter there. There is no Board of Trustees 7 August 20, 2008 vegetation or anything. Are there any other comments on this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think there was one other comment about hay bales with this; that there is no need for hay bales because it's so well vegetated. So there is no need for hay bales for this project. TRUSTEE KING: There is no excavation or anything, so. If there are no fudher comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve Mo Ahmadzadeh. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of SHEILA PATEL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and reconstruct the existing upper retaining wall inplace. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. LWRP review finds the application to be consistent with LWRP because the bluff is adequately stabilized and the property is not currently in danger of loss of structure due to rapid erosion. CAC took a look at this and -- no, they didn't. CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. The Trustees all went out and took a look at this. We do have a couple of comments. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address this application? (No response.) Seeing none, the Trustees were out there and in the notes that I have, as I recall, is that the bluff is pretty well vegetated and it really doesn't have much of an erosion issue at all at this point. Vegetation is in real good shape, so we were curious as to why the applicant wanted to do this replacement to begin with. And I think one of the suggestions we wanted to make is to use helix screws only or put the bulkhead landward of what is existing and tie it into the existing. But seeing there is nobody here representing this, should I just make a motion to put it behind the bulkhead and tie it in? MS. HULSE: Costello Marine has other applications on the agenda. Maybe you can put it off until he comes in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I talked to Jack Costello. He'll be in later today. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to table this application to later on tonight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: That takes us to wetland permits, number one, JOSEPH MELLCHIONE 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 six-inch diameter anchor piles. Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. This was reviewed under the LWRP. It was found to be Board of Trustees 8 August 20, 2008 inconsistent and it's a fairly extensive report. It was found inconsistent because this is located in Richmond Creek, which is a designated critical environmental area. The proposed dock is at an average depth of water of 2.3 feet and so the coordinator felt the proposed dock could have an impact on the public trust bottoms from a vessel sitting, a prop doing damage in only 2.3 feet of water. Again, it mentions Richmond Creek is in a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat area, and that the LWRP reviewer felt that there was access to the water via stairs that are already present from the bulkhead down, so he already has access to the water, so there is not a need for additional access to the water. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore there was no recommendation to be made. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. MELCHIONE: Joseph Melchione. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know when we went out and looked at it, which was over a month ago, we had a concern with the original plan that there were four piles on the seasonal float and I noticed you reduced them now to two? MR. MELCHIONE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you have done what we've asked. It, also, in looking at the depth here, according to this plan that was submitted, there is a line that really, it's really in more of the end of the dock is in more than 2.3 feet of water. It looks like it's probably more 2.5 than 2.3. But that's hard to tell. Do you have any comments you would like to make? MR. MELCHIONE: I'm just kind of shocked where we are. Sorry, which group is reviewing the LWRP and how does that work? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The town has two individuals on staff and they review applications under the LWRP. So this was reviewed by Mr. Hilary, he's one of our LWRP coordinators, and that's the report he submitted. Those are recommendations to the Trustees, the LWRP report. MR. MELCHIONE: Okay. Other than the originally, I know as you are aware, the design of the four piles was, the intent was to prevent the float from going below two-and-a-half feet. I understand the concern it's just not permitted to do more than that. I don't know if there is a way with two piles to perform some sort of support on the float to prevent it from going lower. And it's true, although I have access of the stairs down, it certainly is not easy to have a boat or something like that, which is really what I was hoping be able to do. So I know, as I think the Board is very aware, I do have all the other permits, the DEC, the Army Corps consistency, you all have approved this dock. And just looking at the surrounding neighbors, on either side of me and throughout the creek it's just, I'm a little shocked at the moment at the recommendation or lack thereof. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I notice you are using Flo-thru decking on the catwalk. MR. MELCHIONE: Yes. I'm trying to be as compliant as can I be with protecting -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the use of that FIo-thru decking, that will help mitigate some of the concerns to the wildlife underneath the catwalk. MR. MELCHIONE: And certainly the catwalk and the float is seasonal. It's not a year-round situation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any questions from any Board members TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a huge problem with it. As a matter of Board of Trustees 9 August 20, 2008 fact I didn't have any problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you tie vessels up, I'm assuming, we don't want to take any assumptions here, we are assuming that your stern will go in deeper water so the engine will be out in deeper water rather than shallow water? MR. MELCHIONE: Yes, absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's going from four piles down to two piles on the float. MR. MELCHIONE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody, if there are no further questions from the Board, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Mr. Melchione for the dock at 3575 Wells Road as described here, and given that the project has reduced the structure from four piles down to two on the floating dock, and the use of FIo-thru decking, and the fact that he's stated that the vessel will be water docked so the stern will always be in deeper water to reduce any property damage, we'll find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a date on the seasonal? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is not one listed. Sir, since it is a seasonal ramp, is it okay to with you to go by the same dates of November 1 and April 17 MR. MELCHIONE: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: What did the DEC give you on seasonal dates? I think April to the 1st of Decem her. MR. MELCHIONE: I don't have that paperwork with me. TRUSTEE KING: It might be the 1st of December. I'm not sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bear with me for a second (perusing.) Here we go. Yup. April 1 and December 1. So we'll make it consistent. April 1 and December 1 for the dates. MR. MELCHIONE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number two, 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. Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. DROUZAS: How are you. George Drouzas. TRUSTEE KING: This was a permit that expired. This was an approved application that expired. And they had to reapply. They were at the last month's meeting. There was a lot of confusion because of different sets of plans. The CAC did not support it because trees over eight inches dbh were cut down, and the proposed dwelling is too close to the freshwater pond. It's been found inconsistent with the LWRP primarily because it cannot be adequately assessed. The survey does not indicate all wetlands within a 200-foot radius from the proposed action and it's not in compliance with Chapter 275-§(a) of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. Nor were the freshwater wetlands flagged. I guess it was difficult for him to go out. Board of Trustees 10 August 20, 2008 We have all been out there. I know there was some controversy about the next door neighbor worrying about drainage. In my mind, we reviewed this time and time again. It's just a very small section of the house that is actually within our jurisdiction. It's well out of tidal wetland jurisdiction. It's a small freshwater wetland in the southwest corner that we've all seen. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, for the record, can you just put in the date of the survey we are working on since there was such confusion regarding the two surveys. TRUSTEE KING: This is from 9/08/05 and revised 9/17/07. It's a complete site plan. It shows everything that we've talked about. There is 148 cubic yards of fill being brought in this one section where these two walls are going. The rest of the fill being brought in is out of our jurisdiction. And, like I said, the house is, just a small portion of the house is actually within our jurisdiction from the freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the new code should address any drainage issues that the neighbors have. TRUSTEE KING: As a matter of fact, since this application, the state has done a lot of roadwork up there, all the drainage is coming in. I'm sure that will help some of this problem because I think a lot of road runoff is going down through your property also. MR. DROUZAS: I was down there and I guess the lowest point is by the entrance of the beach, correct? I think when I spoke to them, they told me that was the lowest point, and I'm well, you know, beyond that. I actually took some pictures, not that it matters. But I'm on the up hill. So at the end of the day if there is any problem, it's, you know, I don't know exactly how far I am from the entrance of the beach, maybe about six, seven, eight houses away from that, from the lowest point. And, like you said, I also know that adding drywells on the other side, so both sides of the roads. I also took pictures of that. They had about, I don't know, every ten, 12 feet apart they had a drywell. TRUSTEE KING: I know they did a big system there. The septic system is entirely out of our jurisdiction. Are there any other comments on this application? MR. PROVENCHER: Jim Provencher. The reason this was tabled back in July of 2007 was because of the drainage issue, okay. I don't know that that has ever been taken care of. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was tabled because we didn't have an LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, in '07. TRUSTEE KING: Oh, okay. MR. PROVENCHER: Then the permits ran out and they reapplied. And it was tabled because of the drainage. Weren't you speaking of French drainage or something like that? MS. HULSE: If you would direct your comments to the Trustees, please. MR. PROVENCHER: Okay, do you know what he was planning, because it was in there? TRUSTEE KING: It's a 20-foot area here that is undisturbed and I guess the plantings are going in here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What he has done since the '07 date is added more drywells in the driveway area to catch a lot of the runoff that is coming off from the road. MR. PROVENCHER: Those are to the east? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the west, on the driveway side, he added -- MR. PROVENCHER: Because I know there was some kind of drainage system I was not familiar with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did discuss the French drain, which is basically gravel along that west side, and it's a series of different size gravel, then you wouldn't necessarily see, grass can grow on top of it, but it would absorb the water more thoroughly. So if he wanted to do that, he certainly could do that, in addition to the dryweils that he's added. MR. PROVENCHER: I was just curious as to the drainage. That was the lower spot, it was filled in and that's what my concern is. TRUSTEE KING: There is one whole section that will remain undisturbed there. Right on the west side. MR. PROVENCHER: As far as elevation is concerned, bringing up the elevation, will there be a retaining wall there? TRUSTEE KING: There will be a retaining wall around the driveway area, yes. MR. PROVENCHER: And how high is that retaining wall compared to the where the land is now? Board of Trustees 11 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The retaining wall is 20 feet away from the property line. MR. PROVENCHER: And how high? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you know how high it is? MR. DROUZAS: I know that not more than four feet will be showing. That's where we filled up, where you guys recommended to fill up, whatever you guys asked us, that's what we did, so. You didn't want to see foundation walls, so we brought in the cubic yards, fill area, and that was the only thing you guys asked from us since we were 100. Just in that area. Right? We are talking about just that area? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. DROUZAS: That's the area, so. And I believe you guys went down there. We had to stake everything out and nail the heights. TRUSTEE KING: We have been there. MR. DROUZAS: And we put every height that we needed and/or that you requested. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like Jim said, the state did a lot of work and I hope most of the runoff problems are corrected from that. MR. PROVENCHER: That's for that area from the street. I'm not really concerned with the street. We are concerned with our immediate area there, you know what I'm saying. And as far as the retaining wall being 20 way from his property line, how long is that retaining wall going to be and how long is that elevation going to go for? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to mention, as we did last month, that the new code, the Drainage Code section 236, requires that he retain any of his runoff on his property. MR. PROVENCHER: As we know that's a two-inch rainfall and you know the storms we get out here and that won't help when there is three feet of water in my basement. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's one more step to check that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the survey, you can check in our office at your leisure, it shows the retaining wall between seven and ten feet. MR. PROVENCHER: May I approach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. DROUZAS: Can I approach, too? I want to see what you guys are looking at. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. This is the elevation on the ground. You have seven foot here. Eight foot, nine foot, ten foot. And the retaining wall is here and here (indicating.) MR. PROVENCHER: The only thing I'm concerned about is there was a road here that goes to his property line. MR. DROUZAS: That comes down this way. MR. PROVENCHER: Actually it's this way. Here's his building, his house and our private road here. That's what I'm concerned about, this area here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He can't go beyond his property line. MR. PROVENCHER: No, we are not going beyond anybody's property line. But the elevation here is my concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That will change. MR. PROVENCHER: Right. And how high is this elevation going to be? MR. DROUZAS: I'm not changing that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's going in here. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, this will be an undisturbed 20-foot section going down through there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he'll go through all these plantings. MR. PROVENCHER: And is there drywells here or anything? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is one here and one here. TRUSTEE KING: This has to be engineered to meet the drainage code of this town. MR. PROVENCHER: Okay. And as far as the rainfall that will happen here and the side of the house, it will come this way. TRUSTEE KING: No, it will all be contained in the drywells. They are actually piped into a drywell. MR. PROVENCHER: All right, so you guys will guarantee I have a dry basement, then I'll do whatever you want. I don't have a problem. As long as I have a dry basement. TRUSTEE KING: There are no guarantees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you find that he's not according to the drainage code then come back to the Building Department. They are the ones that enforce the drainage code. Board of Trustees 12 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: They have to maintain it on their property. It can't go on to your property. MR. PROVENCHER: All right, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the Board? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE KING: It's really difficult. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with the plantings on that side and making it non-disturbance and adding drywells, that it will conform to the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think this freshwater wetland out here, I don't think it's DEC regulated. And it's, I have some, just kind of different ideas about what started this. I think a lot of it was from some of the runoff coming down. I don't think, just in my mind, it's a natural wetland. And over time it developed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And that is 100. What's the distance there? TRUSTEE KING: We had a non-disturbance area on this other plans. Sorry this is taking so long. I want to make sure it's done right. We had a non-disturbance area here. (Perusing.) TRUSTEE KING: This is all non-disturbance here. This is staked hay bales. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's what this is here. We could do six foot -- TRUSTEE KING: We want to see you do, before you start construction, replace the hay bale line so it's adequate. Because I know it's pretty well deteriorated now. Didn't we approve a four-foot path down to the shoreline? MR. DROUZAS: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: There is no mention of it in the original permit -- yes, center. Four-foot path may be cleared by hand with no machinery, within 100 feet of the wetlands. So we have that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have a 25 foot non-disturbance area. TRUSTEE KING: From the tidal wetlands to the row of staked hay bales is a non-disturbance area. This whole area here is non-disturbance. From the tidal wetland line to the row of staked hay bales is non-disturbance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Row of staked hay bales is on the survey, which is basically around the six-foot contour line, give or take. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, just about. I think what we'll do is attach this original one to this one and stamp them both. Because this has got the hay bale line, the non-disturbance on it. All right? MR. DROUZAS: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's what we should do. Tie this in with this one here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can make them part of your motion that all the conditions of the previous permit go with this. TRUSTEE KING: No other comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion on approve the application. What we want to do is tie in the original plans with this set of plans we are looking at now that's dated the 17th of September, 2007. And there will be a non-disturbance area from the tidal wetland line to the hay bale line. And you can have a four-foot path to the shore, put in place by hand. No machinery down there. You have all the drywells for the roof runoff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can have the girls type in the conditions that are on the previous plans. Do we need an inspection on the hay bale line? TRUSTEE KING: No, they are putting it right in place where the old one is, I mean -- maybe we should be notified before any construction actually starts just to go out and take a look and make sure it's all right. I think with the amount of drywells they have and the conditions we've put on it, brings it into consistency with LWRP, because in my mind most of it was entirely out of our jurisdiction. That's my motion. Board of Trustees 13 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. DROUZAS: That's it? Do I get paperwork as well, stamped and you'll let me know when you want an inspection? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. The girls will type it up and everything will be stamped and within a couple of weeks you'll receive it. MS. CANTRELL: You'll get a letter stamped and a letter will be issued after that. MR. DROUZAS: What about the original plans now, I get a copy of everything you guys stamp and approve? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. DROUZAS: So I have to supply you? TRUSTEE KING: I think we have enough here. MR. DROUZAS: You have how many copies - TRUSTEE KING: We have three sets here. And two or three sets of the old ones. MR. DROUZAS: All right, so I'll get a set and you'll have two sets. TRUSTEE KING: Well, at least one. MR. DROUZAS: All right, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, PAUL & ANGELA SALERNO request 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 Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SALERNO: Paul Salerno. I purchased the home like 28 days ago and the dock was built probably back in 1970 something or other. And there is a permit, I think there is a picture dated back in 1976. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have been out a couple of times. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think we checked everything. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the condition that public access is provided across the dock. I didn't think we felt -- did we want stairs in that? TRUSTEE KING: I think there was one set of stairs on one side, if I remember right TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there stairs? MR. SALERNO: To get down to the wetland part. That's not public access. It's personal access to my property. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is really a lot of public access along there. It's bulkhead and it's a marsh. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just reading the recommendations. The full Board has seen it a couple of times and there was some questions about propedies but that was all resolved. The LWRP has reviewed it as inconsistent, it being a critical environmental area. However, it does list in the review in the event that pre-existing dock is approved by the Board of Trustees it's recommended that the resolution reflect that the structure can not be replaced inkind without a full review and approval by the Trustees. And the Trustees discussed this also, if at any time you were to change it, it would have on come into compliance with the existing chapter of the wetland code. So that the Board doesn't have any difficulties with what you have but it has to come in for full review if so chose to change it in any way in the future. And that will be part of your permit. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit for the existing dock, ramp and float with the stipulation that if in the future it is to be changed in any way, that it must come into compliance with the existing chapter 275. MR. SALERNO: The application was to repair and maintain, correct? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. But if you want to change it in any way. Board of Trustees 14 August 20, 2008 We are stipulating if that so happens in the future you would have to come back in TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can repair it as is, inkind, inplace. MR. SALERNO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And since I read that from LWRP, that would be the recommendation from the LWRP, that would deem it consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: BARRY BARTH requests a Wetland Permit for the existing bluff stairs and existing decks 25'x16' and 12xl 3' attached to each other. Located: 2040 Central Drive, Mattituck. CAC suppods the application for existing decks however did not inspect the stairs because of the dense vegetation, therefore offers no recommendation. And the LWRP found it inconsistent, policy 6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands are not permitted are near the bluff. Further, five of the six platforms associated with the beach stairs are not in compliance with 275-11. So it doesn't conform, this is a pre-existing, nonconforming set of stairs that has been there for quite a while. Is there anyone here who would hike to speak on behalf of this? MR. BARTH: Yes, I'm Barry Barth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We met Mr. Barth out in the field. Just tonight I gave him the CAC's drawings for under the stairs. We noticed while we were out there, the whole property is very healthy and vegetated except for under the stairs there is some problem areas, so we suggested short retaining walls underneath the stairs. If Mr. Barth would like to do that, it's up to him. MR. BARTH: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to add that into this permit? MR. BARTH: Certainly. TRUSTEE KING: I would just stipulate there be no excavation, just a board put across down on top of the ground to stop some of that from coming down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC recommended that. At what intervals? How often? I don't know what the plans show. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a profile of the stairway, the spacing of the posts? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was, it was a very long stairway and I think we are just concentrating on the areas where there was erosion problem. I don't think we want ask the applicant to do erosion control for the entire stairway when it's well vegetated and there is no problem on the entire stairway. I think we were just talking about the small area where there is an erosion problem. MR. BARTH: Mostly at the top. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. BARTH: You had shown five erosion control devices there on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was just a generic plan. So you don't have to do five. I think what I hear Dave saying is we'll leave it up to you where the erosion is and, you know, put it on those areas that are already eroding and not disturb the other areas. MR. BARTH: I understand that. I certainly don't want to Jose the stairs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a condition to rebuild up to code? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since it's a non-conforming structure, what we would do is add a condition on to the permit if you were to reconstruct this, you have to conform to the code at that time, the platforms. MR. BARTH: Does that include repairs and maintenance? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, just rebuilding. You are allowed ordinary repairs and maintenance. MR. BARTH: There was an issue about the Trustees permit on my deck. I had to file a separate application for the deck. I had a building permit, I had a certificate of occupancy, but Board of Trustees 15 August 20, 2008 there was a question about the Trustees' approval or permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This condition would go for the deck as well. So this permit would be both the deck and the stairs, and that condition will hold for the whole thing. MR. BARTH: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Barry Barth as submitted with the condition that when or if all the structures are to be rebuilt, that they are rebuilt to code and to add the supports underneath the stairs where the erosion is taking place, and no further digging in that area. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR, BARTH: Thank you, TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Philip R. 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 4' 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? MR. ANDERSON: Philip Anderson, project manager and consultant. Mr. Guja is here with me also. I just wanted to mention, Mr. King -- TRUSTEE KING: That's different than what we talked about in the field. I know. Did you bring any new plans or anything? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I submitted them and Lauren advised me you had received them. They should have been in yesterday's mail, with a cover letter. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I'm looking at this now, it looks like everything we discussed. What we did is the whole structure is moved further to the south because initially he was just too close to the neighbor to the north. So it was all moved to the south where there was an open spot in the wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: We reduced to the length, if you recall, Mr. King. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I was going to get into that a little bit. There's a 4x12 ramp versus 12x16. The ramp was shortened. The catwalk was shortened. I thought we only put two piles on the float in place, not three. MR. ANDERSON: I always like to have a third pile in the crux between the float and the float ramp, otherwise the float ramp tends to sway side to side. It holds it in place. TRUSTEE KING: Mostly what we have been approving is simply, it's just a center pile on each end of the float. MR. ANDERSON: If you want, I'll omit it. It will hold without it. If you don't want the third pile, the ramp tends to sway. TRUSTEE KING: We have been pretty consistent with just the two piles. That will hold it in place. MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine, Mr. King. We'll omit that. TRUSTEE KING: We have not been doing any dolphins either. Just single pile. (Perusing.) Which size piles? MR. ANDERSON: What do you approve? TRUSTEE KING: We have been approving eight-inch in the main part of Mattituck Creek, for the main piles. And I know DEC is not allowing anything but 4x4's through the tidal wetland area. MR. ANDERSON: If you look at page two, revised plans, I have pile sizes, 4x4' in the wetland vegetation area, six-inch round seaward. And we omitted that other prior proposed ten inch. TRUSTEE KING: That's fine. On the float, if you want to go eight-inch piles on that, that's fine. Board of Trustees 16 August 20, 2008 It's a huskier pile. MR. ANDERSON: Fine. I have the surveys, Mr. King. Where Mr. Woschuk (sic), the surveyor, was kind enough to expedite it and plot everything on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see a survey here. MR. ANDERSON: I have them here. (Handing). We also have the Department of State (Handing). TRUSTEE KING: Can we keep this? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want this back with your markings on it? MR. ANDERSON: No, I just submitted that so you could see. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so -- MR. ANDERSON: I believe at the last hearing we were held over per the CAC approved the project and the LWRP was found in compliance with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, CAC supported the application. It was found consistent with LWRP. And one of the reasons it's found consistent is because Mattituck Inlet is considered a maritime center and it gets a little confusing to me sometimes why a dock here doesn't have any impact and a dock on another creek does. But it's the way the LWRP was written. MR. ANDERSON: What does it mean, maritime purposes; commercial purposes? TRUSTEE KING: I think it was directed more toward commercial rather than recreational, but they tied the recreational into this and it's found consistent. MR. ANDERSON: There are certain lobster fishermen down there. TRUSTEE KING: So we have to change the description. Are there any other comments? (No response.) 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 -- MR. ANDERSON: I just wanted to say, you were talking about your staff when you opened the meeting tonight, how good they are and I wanted to second that commendation. Whenever you call, there is a live person to answer the phone, if they don't know the answer to the question, they call you back timely. They don't let you wait a week or two. It's a good staff. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I appreciate that. I think we have a well run office. Really. Thank you. I'll make a motion now to approve to construct a docking facility consisting of 4x12 ramp on to a 4x44' catwalk, to a 3x15' ramp to a 6x20 float, held in place by two eight-inch piles. 4x4 piles going through the wetland area and six-inch piles seaward of that. I hope that's everything that we talked about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the eight inch -- TRUSTEE KING: Eight-inch holding the float in place. I think that's kind of it. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of PINE NECK HOLDINGS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 528 square foot rear deck attached to the dwelling, and construct a 4x46' catwalk, 4x5' ramp and 6x20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 1475 Pine Neck Road, Southold. I think we opened this up last month and we decided to take another look at it. MR. LEHNERT: This was a carry over from last month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to reiterate the LWRP has found this application consistent and the CAC supports the application to construct a deck with a condition drywells and gutters are installed on the house to contain roof runoff and a 20-foot non-turf buffer and swale is installed to prevent runoff from going into the creek. The CAC does not support the application to construct a dock because it felt that the proposed dock exceeds one-third across the width of the creek. But I think we addressed that. MR. LEHNERT: Rob. Lehnert, Peconic Permit Expediting. We addressed that since the last hearing Board of Trustees 17 August 20, 2008 in the field visit last week. And you guys got the revised plans I got in last Friday. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The revised plans show the catwalk going out 53 feet now with a removable seasonal ramp which seems to be about five foot. MR. LEHNERT: Close. The float is five foot from the catwalk, if you look at the second page, and the ramp itself is about nine feet long. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The length of that ramp is nine feet? MR. LEHNERT: So it can go up and down, so we don't take up the entire float with ramp. And it's five feet from the catwalk. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think this is what we had discussed. There may be some questions. Is there anybody from the audience who would like to address this? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody on the Board have any questions? (No response.) I think it was pretty straight forward, based on what we discussed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Were we satisfied. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Were we satisfied it didn't go out any further. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I believe so, when we went out and it was staked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I know there was further discussion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes, whether it went out further than the neighbor's did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe these plans reflect the structure coming at least ten feet in than the other plans. Than the other version. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Because of the nature of the slope I think we were pretty satisfied with ten-foot non-turf buffer. Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application, that with the addition of the ten-foot non-turf buffer and the changing of the dimensions and the direction of the seasonal float at the end of the dock, we addressed the LWRP concerns. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, was there an opportunity, I think the CAC had talked about drywells and gutters for the roof runoff, that they are not that there. That would also help address the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was next on the list. And what Dave said. MR. LEHNERT: That was one of the stipulations. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We'll accept this and I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Mark Schwartz, Architect, on behalf of RONALD & PATRICIA ZITO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish walls and roof (foundation to remain) of existing 10.5x10.3' porch and extend the porch six feet to the east with a new concrete foundation. Located: 1185 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. Jim and I took a look at this in July. It was postponed because the neighbors were not notified in a timely fashion. I assume that's what you just handed in? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And CAC didn't take a look at it. Therefore they don't have any recommendation. And it's inconsistent with LWRP because it's within a hundred feet of the wetlands. However, adding a twenty-foot non-turf buffer would bring that further into consistency. Is there anyone here who would like to comment? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark, I don't see drywells on the plan. We would like to see drywells for the whole entire house, not just that section. Is that doable? MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Yes, I have on application we would install them for the proposed addition. You are saying you want it on the entire house. Board of Trustees 18 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we put it on the entire house it would mitigate it that much further and bring the LWRP into consistency. And also we talked about a twenty-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. MR. SCHWARTZ: The bulkhead is dilapidated completely. I don't know if you had been out there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it was kind of. So we can go from the, where the bulkhead was, twenty feet back. I think that's where the marsh is. Is there some grasses in front of there? I can't remember. We may have a picture. Hold on. MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't think the grass goes right down to the bulkhead, wetland. I think it's pretty far behind the bulkhead as it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's hard to tell from the older survey. MR. SCHWARTZ: I do have an updated survey. Do you want me to submit it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it this one? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, it's not showing where the vegetation is. So, you know. MR. SCHWARTZ: Twenty foot is fine. We actually have more than that in some areas. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll say twenty feet from the high water mark. TRUSTEE KING: There is no bulkhead there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, there used to be but it's so dilapidated. And there is marsh all along the whole edge. So if we say twenty feet, we can even do up to ten foot elevation. Ten foot elevation seaward. That's more than twenty feet. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's probably forty feet or more. TRUSTEE KING: This shows a bulkhead here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it shows it here. But it's dilapidated. If we do twenty feet from mean high water and make that first twenty feet from mean high water non-turf. TRUSTEE KING: We can come up inside where this is. You have 80 feet here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This will be the plan that we'll go with, I believe. So we can do this scale. One inch equals thirty. That's to scale. TRUSTEE KING: Let's make it fifteen. 65 feet seaward from the addition. That's non-turf across the property. MR. SCHWARTZ: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That gives you a little added protection there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response.) Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Mark Schwartz on behalf of Ronald and Patricia Zito with the condition that 65 feet from the new addition seaward, at that point would be, from that point seaward, would be a non-turf buffer. And also drywells to be added for the entire house, not just the addition. And that would bring it into consistency with LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROBERT SWING requests a wetland permit to construct an addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling, containing 627 square feet +/-, removal of the existing septic system and replace with an updated sanitary system within the front yard, installation of a retaining wall (surrounding the sanitary system) measuring 118' +/- in length x 1.3' in height, installation of a French drain along the southern side yard property boundary and establishment of a five-foot wide non-disturbance buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 4295 Bayshore Road, Southold. The CAC didn't make an inspection, therefore they have no recommendation. The LWRP was not done yet on this application. As such, I'm afraid we can't act on it tonight, but we can certainly open up the hearing to take public comments on this and discuss the proposed project. Board of Trustees 19 August 20, 2008 I went out and looked at this myself. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BARRON: Yes, sir Sean Barren, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. When I went out and looked at this application, it looked pretty straightforward. I noticed you have the proposed wall around the new septic. The new septic is going completely landward of the proposed addition. It's well outside jurisdiction. You have a French drain to it, on the, I'll call it the south side of the house to address the drainage, because this house has quite a slope down from the house to the road. And I commend you for that. What we would also like to also see on the house is gutters and leaders and drywells also. You have proposed a five-foot, you said non-disturbance buffer. Normally that's a non-turf buffer. That's a very narrow lawn area down there so I think the five-foot wide buffer is sufficient there. So I really had no questions about this application. Are there any comments from anybody else in the audience pertaining to this application? (No response.) Not seeing any. Are there any from the Board? (No response.) Like I said, unfortunately we are going to have to table this application because there has not been an LWRP review done of the application. And I know I said this last month and I want to repeat myself from last month. I think it's only fair to the applicant when the applicant here turns in the application on the 7th of July, the LWRP did not go up for review until August 1, and I think that needs to be addressed administratively in our office. I really think it's not fair to the applicant. By the way, just so everybody understands, the Town Code states that the LWRP administrator has 30 days upon receipt of the application to render a decision. And it has not been 30 days yet, so that's why he has not rendered an opinion on the LWRP application yet. So we cannot act on it yet tonight. So I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. BARRON: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number nine JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of NATHAN SAINT AMAND requests a Wetland Permit to enclose an existing 8xl 3' covered porch and to convert an existing 12x33' deck into a covered porch. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. Is there anyone here to who would like to speak to this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, I'm Glenn Just from JMO Consulting. If there are any questions from the Board or the public. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe there was a walkway on the beach; a wooden planked walkway? MR. JUST: I believe there is, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe the Board would like that removed. MR. JUST: For what purpose? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to look at the picture we have. It was added on and goes all the way down into the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think part of it we would like to have removed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It extends across the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This here. That looks like it's been there a while. It looks like he's just, this is newly added. MR. JUST: Obviously. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't see A reason for it. MR. JUST: I'll be honest, we were out there last Tuesday. We didn't go down to the beach. We walked along the freshwater wetland, which was not impacted by the application. I was Not aware it existed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you think you would have a problem with your client removing it, or partially? MR. JUST: Quite frankly, I would like to go back and look at it myself and talk to the applicant about it. It's quite a surprise. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a structure on the beach. TRUSTEE KING: It's one that is added way, way down. I don't know if it's necessary. The first Board of Trustees 20 August 20, 2008 storm will take it away anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just make it a determination it's not going to be, not to be replaced at all. MR. JUST: I'm sorry. I'm thinking out loud. Is it past the deck that is showing on the survey? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it goes down on to the beach. MR. JUST: It shows the deck, maybe thirty, forty feet above mean high water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It starts way up here. MR. JUST: This is the deck goes off on the side and walkway and deck goes off on the side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this extension all the way down here. MR. JUST: That's done since the survey was done as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could see that survey again, Glenn? MR. JUST: (Handing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had a problem with this part of the path. And this. Because this was all in vegetation. Somebody had extended it from here all the way to here. That's the part we want removed. MR. JUST: Okay. I'm more than happy to contact the client tomorrow. I was not aware of it. TRUSTEE KING: He may not be aware of it either. MR. JUST: Fishers Island, probably not. Again, we were there last week. We only looked along the freshwater wetlands. We didn't go down to the beach at all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC didn't make an inspection and LWRP reviewed it as exempt. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any comments from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you asking us to table this until you can speak to your client about that walkway? MR. JUST: We can move on with the application as it is and I'll be more than happy to look into the situation. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we approve it with the stipulation that the section of the boardwalk that is not indicated on the survey be removed. We are comfortable with what is shown on the survey. MR. JUST: It looks like it's just laying on the rocks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. JUST: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland application for the covered porch, the deck and the existing wooden walkway that is on the survey; the section that is not on the survey to be removed. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Glenn, good luck with the tenant on that one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number ten, Swim King Pools on behalf of ROBERT & LISA DEFRESE requests a Wetland Permit to install a 20x42' inground swimming pool, patio and 16x10' shed. Located: 5223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. I inspected this and I want to know if there is anyone here who would like to come up and speak to this application. MS. QUIGLEY: My name is Cathy Quigley, I'm from Swim King Pools. MR. DEFRESE: Rob DeFrese. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. CAC supports the application with the condition the pool is relocated away from the large oak tree. I did notice that also. Is the oak tree coming down? MR. DEFRESE: It would be, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC would like that not to come down, in order to avoid removal of Board of Trustees 21 August 20, 2008 the tree. Again, that's a recommendation from the CAC. We do not have LWRP, as one of the previous applications. So without that LWRP, we can't act on this tonight. I, myself, didn't see a problem with it. Do you have the shed on here? MR. DEFRESE: I don't think it's shown on that survey, no. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. MR. DEFRESE: That was at the last minute I told them do everything at once. MS. QUIGLEY: I went down to the Board of Trustees and added it on to the survey at the Trustees office. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see. It's right off the house, so the corner of -- MR. DEFRESE: Can I approach? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I do see where it is now. MR. DEFRESE: It's more in this area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's almost in line with the house. MR. DEFRESE: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But you understand, the LWRP, we have to wait for that review. They review our applications and without it, within 30 days, we still have to wait for their review. MR. DEFRESE: Okay, regarding that oak tree, if I can't remove that oak tree? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a CAC recommendation. I did notice it. I don't think it would be a problem with this Board's approval. MR. DEFRESE: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since I was the only one that saw it, they don't know what we are talking about. But we do have to wait for LWRP. MR. DEFRESE: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So this will come up next month. Did you see the dates? MR. DEFRESE: I did not. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The 17th will be our next public hearing and at that time we'll have our LWRP and we can act on it then. I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Architecnologies on behalf of RICHARD MANFREDI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition to the existing dwelling, second-floor deck and second-floor addition above the existing patio. Located: 240 Sunset Path, Southold. The Board was out there and we have reviewed this. All of the additions are landward of the existing structure. CAC did not make an inspection, therefore it has no comment. And LWRP finds the action consistent. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro, representing Mr. Manfredi on this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's a pretty straightforward application. Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. NOTARO: We would contain ail roof runoff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to say, the drywells, we need to see on the plans. There is a question where the septic was and we saw the homeowner and she told us where that is. I believe, really, is that out of our jurisdiction -- it's in our jurisdiction but she noted the septic was newly updated. Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I got a call from a lady, I thought she would be here. One of the neighbors had a lot of concerns about the runoff which I tried to explain to her, the new code prohibits runoff from going onto your property or into the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Like I said before, if she thinks it's a problem, they have to call. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a Petter? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see it. No. TRUSTEE KING: That was her concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As you know, you would have to conform to Chapter 236 anyway, so. Board of Trustees 22 August 20, 2008 MR. NOTARO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Architecnologies on behalf of Richard Manfredi as applied for. And it's, again, consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Do they show the location of drywells there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the condition that the drywells be located on the survey and the new survey showing that. Thank you, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Garrett Strang on behalf of LINDA M. LONGO requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling and new deck with steps. Located: 1235 Albo Drive, Laurel. This was supported by the CAC with the condition the existing buffer is maintained; gutters and drywells installed to contain roof runoff. It was determined to be inconsistent with LWRP because of the distance from the wetlands is ninety feet. What was the distance of the wetlands from the previous application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Manfredi? It was 54 feet and it was to the freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE KING: It was found consistent? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, because it was all the proposed structures were behind the existing structures. I believe that's why. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. STRANG: Good evening. TRUSTEE KING: It says addition. We were out there. I had in my mind it was just going to enclose that porch. Am I wrong? MR. STRANG: There is a minor addition where we are going to flush out -- TRUSTEE KING: The bump out. I see. MR. STRANG: Yes, we'll square that off on the house there. It's about two feet by the width of the porch will be new construction. The area where that hanging plant is in the photo. TRUSTEE KING: That stake is for the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's only found inconsistent because of this distance. It's just - I mean there a good size buffer there already. MR. STRANG: It's a tremendous buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It did have stone all the way around the house. Scott Hilary said that he felt it was such a minor action but he did, because of the way the law is written. TRUSTEE KING: That's the problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he hopes in the future when we change things this would be something that would be exempt TRUSTEE KING: We are trying to work through this somehow to make some of these applications a little more user friendly, and this is a perfect example MR. STRANG: I don't envy your position. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we put in the they have to maintain the buffer. They have quite a good buffer. TRUSTEE KING: if we put drainage on the roof, gutters and drywells. MR. STRANG: We can do gutters and drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That may help bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: That's the only thing we can do. Because the rest of it is well buffered on the wetlands, there is no doubt. Are there any other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: Anything from the Board? Board of Trustees 23 August 20, 2008 (No response.) I think everybody thought this was a pretty simple, straightforward application. Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of drywells, gutters -- leaders to drywells to take care of the roof runoff. And they already have a very large buffer to the wetland area. There is absolutely no need to increase that. Just maintain that as it's been. With the addition of drywells, I think that brings it into compliance. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number thideen, Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of PAUL BENTANCOURT requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing steps to beach and replace with a 3'6"x45' stairway, on 5'4"x6' top landing and one 3'6"x3'4" intermediate landing, a minimum two-feet above grade, and a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace the decking surface and guardrails on the existing deck using untreated lumber. Located: 1825 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. The LWRP report finds the application consistent with LWRP policies. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. And the Trustees met with you out in the field. I think it was fairly straightforward. I believe we discussed changing the decking and stairs to open grate. MR. STRANG: We did discuss that. I did broach that with my client. His concern with that, which he asked me to convey to the Board, he's concerned with using the open grating, or flow-through, as its known, for the deck, specifically, is he has older family members that enjoy the home when they come out and visit and he's concerned they may have an aversion to being on open grating on the deck where it is and he preferred to use wood planking, if it's agreeable to the Board. I think the steps to the beach is less of an issue. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Personally, I don't have a problem with it because you have some vegetation under there now as it is and the spacing on the planking is wide enough that some sun is getting through. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And one thing we didn't think of is putting furniture on the deck. MR. STRANG: Also, with the chairs, legs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if you keep the same spacing as you have now. MR. STRANG: We can use the wide spacing and we would probably use mahogany wood. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Just to put on the record, we measured the deck is 16'x8'3". I think if that is ever replaced we ask that the applicant come in and apply for a full permit on the deck. I don't think we would allow that under normal circumstances. But it is pre-existing. MR. STRANG: I thought that was the idea of our application was to bring the pre-existing nonconforming deck into conformancy with a permit, if you will. We are not changing the structure, obviously. The structure is there, it's in good and serviceable condition. It's just the surface of the deck that will be replaced. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No, just if that bluff, something happens to it, in that deck area, the deck goes it probably won't be replaced in that location. MR. STRANG: I think if the bluff goes, the deck won't be able to go in that location anyway. TRUSTEE KING: You would not be able to rebuild it in its present location. MR. STRANG: It would have to be more compliant with current standards, obviously. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The only other comments I remember discussing is not mowing to the west of the deck there; not mowing in that area up on the top of the bluff. MR. STRANG: Yes, it's either having that revert back to natural vegetation or plant something in there that makes it more natural, Rosa Rugosa or something like that. He was not adverse to that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? Board of Trustees 24 August 20, 2008 (No response.) I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion we approve the application as described with the mention that the deck as it exists is 16x8'3"; that the application reflect that they will be using open-grate decking on the stairs to the beach and using non-treated wood on the repairs on the deck with the spacing as currently exists to allow sunlight to get under it. And also the stipulation of revegetating the area just to the west of the deck, on the bluff, the natural plantings. And that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. STRANG: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, William J. Baylis on behalf of the ESTATE OF GRACE R. LEWIS CIO JOHN NICKLES requests a Wetland Permit to restore eroded beach with clean sand, landward of mean high water. Located: 885 Rogers Road, Southold. We did go out and look at this. CAC voted and resolved to support this project. It was reviewed under the LWRP as described and found consistent. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BAYLIS: William J. Baylis. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we see a set of revised plans dated August 19. I know when we were in the field we talked about some drainage issues from a couple of the neighbors' homes that were probably contributing to the overall drainage problem down there; the cobblestone driveway house. And we had suggested at the time that maybe beside bringing in sand, that you think about some planting and maybe some jute matting on either side where you are bringing in that sand so the sea grasses will help maintain that sand. You have submitted a set of plans here that proposes work that is more extensive than what is asked for in the application. As I read these plans, and correct me if I'm wrong, you want to remove completely the existing ramp and replace with a concrete pad, it looks like, up at the end of the road, and from there seaward a turf, completely new turf block ramp with a catch basin at the end of the road leading back to drywells on either side. Am I correct in what I'm speaking about here? MR. BAYLIS: We are removing the concrete portion at the recommendation of the Trustees and we are replacing it with a catch basin area to catch the water from road runoff and direct it sideways into drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this turf block ramp is, the proposed turf block ramp is 24'x6'. That's a completely new structure, correct? MR. BAYLIS: Well, it's replacing the existing wooden boardwalk that we have and it's providing greater drainage. It gives, it's a higher elevation than the boardwalk that is there so that we can have that build up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know you have a DEC permit already for this project? MR. BAYLIS: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the DEC permit is to replace or place 334 cubic yards of sand landward of the mean high water mark. And the stipulations they have are pretty simple because it's a very simple project as planned. I would be interested in hearing some comments from the Board on this. Here is my concern. I commend you for what you did. But what you are submitting here is very different from what was approved by the DEC and what was originally applied for from us. And what was reviewed was just adding some sand back by the CAC and what was reviewed under the LWRP was just putting some sand in. You now are taking out a structure, putting in a new structure. You are putting in a catch basin and some drywells, which I think is great. Don't get me wrong. It's just very different from what has been reviewed. So I would be interested in hearing some comment from the Board as to what they think of this. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: As I understood when we were out there, we asked them to do this and to re-submit it. Board of Trustees 25 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I didn't understand it was going to be removal of the structure and replacement of two different structures. I shouldn't say two different structures. Concrete pad and another ramp going down there. Again, I don't have a problem with the project. My concern right now is what was originally submitted and reviewed under the LWRP and in the DEC permit is there now going to be a problem for the applicant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (inaudible.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question was what did the LWRP coordinator do a review of. He did the review of just putting sand in. That's why it was found consistent. It says specifically the proposed beach nourishment is preferred approach to erosion control. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can you explain what turf block is? MR. BAYLIS: No, I don't know what turf block is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Dave Chicanowitz and he told me that it's, this basically allows the growth to go through and it just hardens a little bit so you have stability, but everything can move over it and grow through it. It's not concrete. It's like a matting type thing, same as that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Grass can grow. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know the material you are talking about. We saw this material used on a project down on Indian Neck Lane. I know exactly what you are talking about now. It was excellent. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I like the design myself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Yes. Feel free to step up to the microphone and introduce yourself for the record, please. MS. SHINE: Sharon Shine. I'm just confused about what is going to happen, the cement is coming out, drywells are going in, right? And the turf block you talked about is going over that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to come up and see the plan? Or have you one right there. Okay. Yes, they are taking out the concrete pad that is up there ahead of that ramp that is pictured there. And the ramp. And they are replacing the concrete pad and there will be some asphalt there to drain the road end back toward a catch basin that will go do drywells so you, hopefully, in theory, won't have the runoff problem coming down that created this problem. And then there will be this turf block ramp in place of that, what you see, that ramp that's out front there. And this turf block material is one where vegetation can grow up through the turf block. Then it will be replacing sand on either side of it and revegetating the area. MS. SHINE: And revegetate that area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. SHINE: And that ramp will go longer than it presently is. The wood ramp would be extended beyond from what the ramp is now? MR. BAYLIS: It's approximately the same. It just starts back further. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: The hope is you get grass to grow in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you can just address your comments to us, please. MS. SHINE: I think I'm clear now. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to comment on this application? (No response.) Not seeing any, we have talked amongst ourselves up here, based on these new plans here, and I think everybody is in agreement that this is a very good set of plans to address the drainage problem. I'm glad to see the existing pear tree will remain. It's still amazing to me how a pear tree can grow on a beach. But it's there. But I do commend you for doing like we asked in putting in the catch basin and drywells and the vegetation and the jute matting as we had talked about. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I wanted ask, the proposed revegetation area, what are you revegetating with? MR. BAYLIS: American Beach Grass. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just the American Beach Grass? MR. BAYLIS: If there are any suggestions, we are interested in Board of Trustees 26 August 20, 2008 maintaining the beach. So anything that you suggest that will root well. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was concerned about the matting, if this is going to get washed away. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what they are talking about, using jute matting in that area. There will be jute matting in the area so the grasses will grow up and won't wash away in storms. That jute matting, just so people know, can either be taken away or will naturally dissolve. Either way. The only thing I would advise you on, you might want to check with the DEC to see if you need an amendment to their permit to match this project description. I would not want to see you get in trouble with the DEC for doing something that exceeds the scope of their permit. So unless there are any other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Did they say how much sand was going to be added? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. It's in here. DEC permit is 334 cubic yards. So I have a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of William Baylis on behalf of Grace Lewis and John Nickles located at 885 Rogers Road, Southold, and the project will match the plans stamped August 19, 2008, submitted by Creative Environmental Design, and will include, since on the plan it doesn't say, it will include a maximum of 334 cubic yards of sand being brought in to that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 15, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of GREG & MARTHA CUKOR requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling and garage. Located: 7070 Indian Neck Road, Peconic. Is there anyone here who would like to address this application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants. Tom Samuels couldn't be here tonight and asked if I would cover for him. His office should have faxed an authorization over to your office this afternoon authorizing me to speak on behalf of the applicant. If you don't have that, I have a copy of it here. I believe Tom has spoken with the Board about the project and in a nutshell is the demolition of an existing nonconforming structure and the construction of a new dwelling that will actually be setback behind the house line created by the residences on either side of this parcel. And it will also be setback situated to meet the hundred foot setback of the wetland boundary. There is drainage, a system of drywells designed to be incorporated for capture and recharge of roof runoff; a project limiting fence and staked hay bales to be set at the top of the bank during construction, and there will be the installation of a new sanitary system beyond the Trustees' jurisdiction to service the new house. If you have any questions, I hope I might be able to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think you just listed the reasons we might deem this consistent. MR. HERMAN: Good. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were looking for the house to be moved back and these plans are much better because now we can see where the existing house is. CAC supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer; the installation of a pervious driveway. Is your driveway pervious, Rob? MR. HERMAN: He does not indicate whether the driveway is pervious. The driveway, well -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's presently sand. MR. HERMAN: Well, it is now. It doesn't indicate on the site plan. I mean, it looks like the driveway will probably be more than a hundred feet back from the bulkhead. So I can't say whether the proposed driveway is proposed to be pervious gravel or not. I can tell you the ten-foot buffer is acceptable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the rest of the CAC comments are that efforts are made to save as many trees as possible and a planting landscaping plan is submitted. Do you know how much, because it is pretty enclosed with trees. Board of Trustees 27 August 20, 2008 MR. HERMAN: It's a fairly wooded site. I mean, I have been, I listed the site originally to do the boundary determination for the wetlands. And it is a predominantly vegetated site in this area. So, realistically, to come in, the demolition and new construction, especially because the new construction is being setback, I don't think you are going to lose that row of trees. But there may be trees behind it in the area of the new construction that may be lost. But the only thing I could say would be, you know, the requirement in the permit that the construction area be limited to that necessary for the new construction and that they don't engage in a clear cut just for convenience. Which has been known to happen. But I don't have any specific information in terms of, you know, mark outs for trees or whatever. If might be a good idea to arrange a pre-construction meeting, perhaps with Tom Samuels, with at least one of the Trustees at the site so that the Board has some sense what the permit of what is going to come down just to make sure that you don't have a disaster. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the Board's feeling; do we need a site check or just stipulate that the trees be minimal? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would just stipulate that, as a matter of fact, when we looked at where it was staked, I don't remember there being too many trees in that spot. MR. HERMAN: It's fairly open once you step back from the existing house. I'm just worried about the access, if it's a concern that -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can stipulate it that they don't clear cut to get the machines in. I think that's sufficient. MR. HERMAN: That's up to you. I know Tom is pretty good about overseeing his projects, so if you need him to be available, he would be. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You can see the tape and the flags on both sides. TRUSTEE KING: The garage is covered too, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's way out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling and garage at 7070 Indian Neck Lane. This would come into consistency with the many changes that Rob Herman mentioned tonight. The house is being moved back. Did you say to the hundred foot or beyond? MR. HERMAN: It's the hundred-foot setback from the high water line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Gutters and leaders, new septic, ten-foot buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Behind the line of the other houses. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Behind the line of the other houses. And this would bring it into consistency with LWRP. I would also like to stipulate that during construction, removal of trees be limited to the minimal amount necessary for the building; the new construction. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to add any hay bales during demolition? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows it on there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the hay bale line. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 28 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of ELLIOT BRUCE & ORA JEAN HEATH requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto an existing two-story dwelling a northerly 9x13.8' two-story addition with a second-story balcony and 6.5'x18.3' entry porch and steps in place of the existing one-story southerly portion of the dwelling; construct onto northerly corner of dwelling a 6.5'x8.5' patio with pergola; remove existing driveway and masonry walk and construct new stone walkway and pervious gravel driveway; install drainage system of drywells; and establish a ten-foot wide, non-turf buffer on landward side of existing stone driveway located in existing access easement. Located: 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold. The whole Board went out there and inspected this. The CAC supports the application with no other comment, and it is inconsistent with LWRP due to the fact that it's approximately 58 feet from the wetland line. So it's within a hundred feet. That was the reason. We do have a number of letters in the file but before I read them I'll ask if there is any comment from the audience. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman from En-Consultants on behalf of the Heath's who are also here. I do want to clarify, you just mentioned wetlands setback. The wetlands setbacks do show on the site plan by John Ehlers the existing minimum wetland setback is 62.6'. That's to the corner of that, if you can just go one slide back, Peggy. I think it was the first one you showed, kind of shows the front porch. Is that right, that's the front of the house? To this corner right there. The nearest corner. And that porch, that's an existing porch with the second*story deck, that will be, that portion will be demolished and that's where the major addition is occurring is the second two-story addition that we are tying into the existing two-story dwelling. There is a front porch and steps that will then step out from that but the nearest wetland setback to the nearest part of the new constructions 68.3 feet. So we are actually, we are not going as close with any new footprint as the existing wetland setback is. I worked with the Heath's for a better part of a year to really try to contain this addition as much as possible. Most of the addition, most of the expansion is really square-offs of what is existing except on the north side of the house where there is a two-story addition that will extend out. But that's the farthest distance from the wetlands. We did receive a copy of a letter from the adjoining property owner Kathryn Campbell. I just want to try to address a couple points of Ms. Campbell's because she makes a couple of good points that will require a couple of changes to the site plan on our part. It's a long letter. I don't know if you are going to eventually read the entire thing into the record or not, but I will, there are some parts of it, probably the major parts of it address the easement that is shown on the site plan, it's a 15-foot wide easement, and the stone driveway where the non-turf buffer is proposed adjacent to, is the driveway that Ms. Campbell uses to go across the Heath property to access hers. I think some of what she addresses in her letter is really beyond the scope of anything that we are proposing to do and probably outside your purview or interest. But I would like to address a couple of her points that are well taken. And what she points out, which is, I regret to say is probably an oversight on Board of Trustees 29 August 20, 2008 our part, is what we did and what makes the most sense practically speaking, was to propose a ten-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the existing gravel driveway. Because that is the part of the Heath's lawn that is closest to the driveway that is closest to the wetlands. But Ms. Campbell points out in her letter that we are in effect proposing a planted buffer within the boundaries of that easement, whether the entire easement is surfaced with gravel or not, she makes a good point that we really can't really propose any sort of obstructions in that easement. Which we would have to agree with. She also mentioned that the Heath's have placed some large boulder-like stones and a couple of shrubs in that area that she would prefer to see removed. If the Board would like to see that, the Heath's have no problem doing that. The other part of her comment relates to the fact that as you swing around to the northeast, we also have in one location where the non-turf buffer is again proposed adjacent to the driveway, we are actually proposing a planted buffer within the boundaries of Hippodrome Drive. Again, for all practical purposes, I don't see why this is a problem. This is really for most people who live on a private right of way, they have Belgian blocks, aprons and driveways and lawns and all sorts of things that are actually occurring within the town's property and would have to be removed if the town or private road owner ever asked for it. But to be smart and be careful we should probably not be proposing a planted buffer that is technically off the Heath's properly. So what we would be certainly agreeable to doing and should rightly do is adjust the non-turf buffer so that is it is completely within the boundaries of the Heath property, which probably the Trustees would not mind seeing anyway because it will probably result in more of a replacement of existing lawn. Because the fact of the matter is whatever that existing area is of lawn between the buffer and the driveway will just revegetate on its own, so you will actually end up probably with more than a ten-foot non-turf buffer. So those are a couple of points that she makes, and I think rightly so. She addresses many other issues relating to what kind of gravel is in the driveway and whether the driveway should be enlarged out to the full fifteen feet. For the Heath's to agree to do any of these things simply by her request I think creates really more of an issue than we intended to because it would require more excavation, more fill and, rightly or wrongly, it's really a civil issue and doesn't have anything to do with the Trustees and I don't think we want to be in the position of proposing more ground work than is really necessary. As long as the access is maintained through that driveway now, I think the Board would probably rather see plantings than a bigger driveway anyway. If some arm of the town wants to pursue this in another forum, that's fine, but hopefully we don't, I'm not sure it's appropriate to do that here. She does have some questions regarding what type of planting would be in the non-turf buffer. She seems to be concerned about the obstruction ofthe right-of-way or visibility. I think the Heath's would share that concern. It would be Iow growing, native grasses, ground cover, smaller shrubs that can be pruned Iow. If the Trustees wanted to see a specific planting plan for the buffer Board of Trustees 30 August 20, 2008 by the time construction was done and that was to start, I think they would be happy to do that. Other than that, again, there are some other issues that to be, I think really seem like civil or legal issues that don't have much to do with this application. But we want to make sure that our application does not propose anything to exacerbate that situation. So we will make that change. Otherwise I think it is a pretty straight forward application. And the expansion really has been contained as much as possible in order to meet the Heath's needs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Since you talked about Mrs. Campbell's letter, I'll start with that. You did surmise it pretty well. A couple of the areas that she talked about were relocating the right-of-way, which is not in the Trustees' jurisdiction. A couple of other runoff issues, because of the right-of-way, again, the right-of-way is there and we don't have the power to relocate that. I will however submit this letter to Wayne so he can type the full letter and that will be part of the full record. Other than that, you've touched on all of the areas that are of concern for the Trustees and I appreciate you making those changes. (Insert letter by Ms. Kathryn Campbell reads as follows) Ladies and gentlemen, I am the property owner at 570 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, New York. I am writing in connection with the environmental review by the Board of Trustees under the Southold Town Code of the above-referenced request for a permit from the Board of Trustees to construct several additions (as described therein) to the house located at 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, which is adjacent to my property. I regret that I am unable to attend in person the environmental review hearing scheduled for August 20, 2008, however I have asked Ms. Jere Jacob to attend as my representative. I am submitting the following written comments for consideration by the Trustees in their review of the above referenced application: 1. Request for adjournment. I note that the proposed additions to the property, including the location of the non-turf buffer, are not staked-out on the property as is required. Thus, it is difficult to assess on a site inspection the precise areas to be affected by the proposed additions and the impact on my property. Although I have received a copy of the surveyor's site plan of the proposed additions, it is difficult to visualize the impact of the proposed additions from this site plan. It is also unclear whether any of the existing trees, shrubs or outbuildings are intended to be removed. A schematic design drawing for the proposed changes would be very helpful. I therefore request an adjournment of the August 20 environmental review hearing so that the additions can be staked-out as required in order for an informed assessment of the proposed additions to be undertaken by the Trustees as well as the adjacent property owners. I note too from the site map that some of the additions are proposed to be constructed outside the jurisdictional boundary established by the NYSDEC on February 9, 1992. The application should explain why this should be permitted. 2. Easement. Board of Trustees 31 August 20, 2008 Under our respective property deeds (and as indicated on the site plan), I have a property entitlement to a 15 foot easement of right-of-way for access to and from Hippodrome Drive over Lot 8 (ie the Heath's property.) The width of the existing stone drive is currently less than the 15 foot legal entitlement. Over recent years this drive has been narrowed and pushed towards the edge of the tidal wetland boundary by the trees and shrubs planted along the edge of the drive on the Heath's lawn and by the boulders which have been placed on their lawn along the drive. The grade is steeper in the direction of the tidal wetland boundary and less stable for vehicular access. For the protection of the tidal wetland area, the stone drive should be set away from the edge of the wetland boundary and reinstated to a width of 15 feet. This would require that the tree and shrubs, which encroach on the easement and which would be located in the area designated for the non-turf buffer, should be removed. 3. Non-Tuff buffer. The site plan shows the location of the proposed non-tuff buffer encroaching on the easement which would contravene my legal property right. In addition, this will cause the drive to be pushed even closer to the wetlands which is not desirable. I therefore request that the proposed non-tuff buffer be located in an area further away from the drive so that it des not encroach on the easement. In addition, the proposed siting of the non-tuff buffer extends beyond the Heath's property line onto Hippodrome Drive. If it is desirable to have a non-tuff buffer, the entirety of it should be located within the boundary line of the Heath property and it should not be permitted to encroach either on the easement or on community property of Beixedon Estates. I note that the southeast end of the easement area near Hippodrome Drive is covered in plants and shrubs. (This is not indicated on the site plan.) If this planting is deemed desirable to protect the tidal wetland boundary, then the 15-foot easement needs to be relocated to an area which is not covered by the planting and that area of the proposed non-tuff buffer must be located further away from the existing stone drive to accommodate this. I also note that the site plan does not indicate what type of "native vegetation' will be planted in the non-tuff buffer. I submit that such planting should be limited to the types of grasses which are currently growing in the wetlands area and restricted in potential size when mature (ie, one-two feet in height) so as not to cause an obstruction to the right-of-way visibility. 4. Tidal Wetland Boundary. I note that recently along a portion of the tidal wetland boundary shown on the site plan, some of the planting which protects the creek has been cut away opening up areas of access over mud banks to the creek and pond. I do not know why this was done or whether all appropriate permissions were granted. I submit that these recently created cut-aways expose the bank to erosion and consequently expose the creek and pond to environmental damage. Therefore the Trustees should require that these areas be replanted with native plantings consistent with the existing vegetation along the creek. 5. Gravel Surfaces. Recently the stone drive was resurfaced with large stones that are Board of Trustees 32 August 20, 2008 round, rather than crushed. Consequently the material is not compacting as it should and I believe this is teading to road water runoff into the creek and erosion of the bank along the tidal wetland boundary. In addition, the surface of the drive is slippery and unstable. Small vehicles have difficulty driving on this surface and bicycles can not be ridden at all. I submit that the drive should be resurfaced using crushed stones that will compact better (as I have done on my part of the drive.) I also request that the Trustees stipulate that no heavy construction or goods vehicles be permitted to use this drive as they are likely to cause severe damage to the bank and the creek. The site plan does not show the area of road, Hippodrome Drive, in front of the Heath's house where recently they have put down gravel over the asphalt road. I do not know the reason for this but I submit that the gravel should be removed and the road returned to its original state. The map line clearly shows that Hippodrome Drive is not part of Lot 8 but is in fact community property of Beixedon Estates. In addition, I note that the fencing which marks the entrance to the right-of-way is currently located on Hippodrome Drive rather than on Lot 8. Because of this, during rainstorms, road water from hippodrome Drive flows rapidly down the road and is channeled through these fences and into the creek causing erosion and damage to the creek and pond. Consequently the Trustees should require that the entrance to the right-of-way be relocated to be situated on Lot 8 (and not on community property), widened to 15 feet and set perpendicular to the creek to reduce this water runoff. It is not necessary that the entrance be marked with fencing. Thank you very much for your consideration of these points. Sincerely yours, Kathryn A. Campbell. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A couple of other letters I'll read for the record. There is one from Sharon Shine. Would you like for me to read it or do you want to comment? MS. SHINE: You can read it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Dear Trustees, I live across from Hippodrome Pond and its tributary into Southold Bay. I'm aware that estuaries such as this are vital to the health and purity of bay waters. My concern is that the proposed addition on the Heath property may affect the health of the estuary and bay. The tributary has already been compromised by human impact to the bulkheading that borders the tributary connecting Hippodrome Pond to the bay. This hardening of the shoreline prevents that section of the tributary its natural filtering ability. At present time the estuary supports a variety of marine life, both fauna and flora, including a nursery for fish. My request is this proposal be scrutinized regarding the possible environmental impacts. There is a cumulative affect with each manmade structure that borders our wetlands, therefore each individual permit must be considered as part of a larger scenario. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Sincerely, Sharon Shine. And the next letter states: Dear Trustees, since I'm unable to attend the August 20 Trustee meeting, I ask that this letter become a matter of record. My home is two lots down from the Heath's and faces Hippodrome Pond. The tributary that joins the Pond to Southold Bay flanks the Heath and Kathryn Campbell Board of Trustees 33 August 20, 2008 properties. Wetlands and land preserve abuts the Pond to the south and west. Clearly, this is one of the unique natural habitats of the North Fork. Whatever decision is made on this permit, my request is that the Trustees make the health of the pond, tributary and surrounding wetlands their utmost concern. The pond can only be cleaned by the current from the bay. Any debris or clotting of the tributary would rob the pond of its water supply. It would thwart the spartina grass filtering system for processing pollutants, runoff and anti-flooding. Additionally, the pond and its environs are the birthing center and home of a wide diversity of fish, birdlife and wildlife. They are dependent on nature, and on us, for solitude and environmental cleanliness in order to live. Under Chapter 275 of the Town Wetlands Code, the town has a commitment to protect wetlands, creeks, estuaries and ponds. My hope is that my letter will reinforce this responsibility. Thank you for this consideration, sincerely, Vivian Eyre. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is one other comment made in Mrs. Campbell's letter that the project was not staked. However, it was staked. The ten-foot non-turf buffer was not staked, but that is not a normal thing that we request. But the new construction, we saw the stakes and the stakes were out there. Is there any other comment from anybody in the audience? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If I could just make a comment, Jill. The last two letters that Jill just read, I would like to say are very well written and very profound in their recognition of what our Board is all about. And we do scrutinize these permits and I do think that the full Board felt this was a very minor application because it's an existing home with two minor additions. And again, I think they are well written and well stated with concerns, but we do take those into account and again, when we looked at it, it was much less construction than we are usually seeing along the creek side. So the letters were well written but in looking at this project, it is quite minor. MR. HERMAN: I did also want to point out on the site plan for where there will be demolition of the existing portion of the dwelling, that that is called out on the site plan. Just being aware of some issues the Board has been dealing with on other applications. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, are there drywells now for the roof runoff? MR. HERMAN: They are being proposed. TRUSTEE KING: They are not on the present -- MR. HERMAN: Correct TRUSTEE KING: So that's a vast improvement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I think in reviewing this, the applicants have really considered the wetlands because they could have easily applied to come further toward the wetland and bumped out that and squared off that part, and they haven't, so. MR. HERMAN: I have found that the Heath's are more cognizant than most, actually. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there and other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 34 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the addition of the drywells -- it's on there. TRUSTEE KING: The point I was trying to make, the existing house doesn't have gutters and leaders going to drywells, so this is a big improvement. MR. HERMAN: There is gutters and leaders but not going to drywells. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the entire structure will be going to drywells. I think that brings it into consistency with LWRP. MR. HERMAN: I just have to submit a revised plan for the buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the ten-foot non-turf before to be solely on their property. TRUSTEE KING: Technically, this whole piece is their property but they have a 15-foot easement going through it. MR. HERMAN: Right. What I should say, it's ultimately your call if you want us to make the change. They are trying to be good neighbors. If you look at the way the map is drawn, I mean both the easement and Hippodrome Drive actually go into the wetlands, so if the easement were really plotted out strictly, you would have the gravel driveway driving into the wetlands, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to tell you the truth, I don't think the placement of the non-turf buffer next to the easement is really under our code. That's a civil situation and that's, if you want to move it to work that out, that's fine with us. Like you said, that will give a further buffer, which is obviously fine with us. MR. HERMAN: I would think we at least probably want to move it somewhat out of the Hippodrome Drive right-of-way. Just so they don't establish something that ends up being really nice and really effective and then for some reason somebody for some other motive asks them to tear it out and we are coming back to you for permission to make a situation worse. We'll give you a revised plan, if you can give us the flexibility to come back with some form of that buffer, we'll do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: What about fences? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's mentioned in Mrs. Campbell's letter. We talked about the fences, but that has really nothing to do with this project itself. That is, has nothing to do with this Board. That's part of the things that has nothing to do with this Board. MR. HERMAN: The fence you are talking about, it's not in the easement. That is in the Hippodrome Drive right-of-way, of sorts, and the purpose of that fence, which by the Heath's recollection was permitted, although they can't recall whether it was by this Board or the Building Department. TRUSTEE KING: It's not on their property. MR. HERMAN: That's right. TRUSTEE KING: So how can we make them remove it? I thought it was just a simple application when we went out there, but I mean. MR. HERMAN: For the record, the point of the fence is really as a guide site for would-be travelers who would think Mrs. Campbell's property was a thruway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I have a motion and we have a second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 35 August 20, 2008 MR. HERMAN: Thank you, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: Number seventeen, En-Consultants on behalf of ROSA HODG$ON requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inplace) existing dock, consisting of a 6'x87' fixed pier, 6'x24' fixed "L" section, 4.5'x33' step-down platform and a 3'x14' ramp and 6'x20' float secured by two eight-inch pilings; remove and replace (inplace) 9'xl 1' pervious patio and 4'x8' steps to dock; construct approximately 774 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; backfill bulkhead with approximately 75 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and establish a ten-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the bulkhead. Located: 4845 Pine Neck Road, Southold. Rob, we were out in the field and talked to the applicant and suggested a 20-foot non-turf buffer instead of ten. She was comfortable with that. MR. HERMAN: Okay. I trust you. TRUSTEE KING: So we can go on from there. MR. HERMAN: Okay. If Ms. Hodgson said that was acceptable to her, I obviously don't have any problem with it. As I said, the rest of it, these are pre-existing structures, as I'm sure you can tell from the age, these things have been there forever. Just for the record, the letter just, I think Peggy just mentioned with the LWRP, I'll just briefly read the short paragraph that I submitted with the letter that says pursuant to Town Code 268-5(a) and the corresponding definitions of action and minor action by 286-3 a submission of LWRP consistency assessment form is not required for this application as the proposed work entails only the maintenance and repair involving no substantial changes in an existing structure or facility including the replacement of existing bulkhead on the applicant's property in the same location. So I don't think you need be delayed by the LWRP if you are otherwise moved to act on this tonight. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer it. TRUSTEE KING: I just had one question, Rob. On that platform, it looks like it's being added landward from what is there? There was a step down platform when you first get on the dock. MR. HERMAN: Yes. There is a four-and-a-half step down platform that is to be replaced. TRUSTEE KING: Right, and it's, something is changed. Something is different from the description. MR. HERMAN: Being extended, you mean? I don't think so. TRUSTEE KING: I'll see if I could get a picture. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This one up here, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The deck is being extended landward, that Iow section. Because that's only twenty-something feet long, if I remember right. And it says in the plan 35 feet. MR. HERMAN: It's 33 but that's based on the survey by Peconic. TRUSTEE KING: It's like a little ramp type thing there. You see, that means the upper section ramps down to that Iow section. I have it in my mind he just wanted to extend that whole section to the land. MR. HERMAN: I don't think so, Jim. I think it's a platform that is supposed to be a ramp and step down and the way I'm looking at it now, is the way Peconic surveyed it as if it is all a contiguous Board of Trustees 36 August 20, 2008 piece. It's actually shown incorrectly on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: That was the only question in my mind. Something just didn't jibe MR. HERMAN: It was not an intention to change the condition. That is just -- TRUSTEE KING: So we could just change the description to be a platform to a ramp to whatever the length of that is. It only measures 20, 22 feet. MR. HERMAN: I would have to do that. It's just the way Peconic showed it, makes the whole structure look like it's more fixed structure than what is really there. That's just a mistake. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, you're allowed. MR. HERMAN: Because it should probably be from this end to that end, including the gap, is probably 33 feet. I'll have to change that. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. HERMAN: I probably should have caught that, but I didn't. TRUSTEE KING: What about the remains of this. Looks like it might have been some tort of groin at one time. MR. HERMAN: Yes. There is no plans to try to -- TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to get rid of it? MR. HERMAN: I told lan Crowley -- the first time I was there at high tide I didn't see it and at Iow tide it's really just shrapnel. So I don't think there is any objection to getting rid of that. TRUSTEE KING: Clean the area up a little. MR. HERMAN: I think I advised them that would probably be -- I just didn't see it until after I filed, so. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else on the Board? Audience questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the applicant has a question. Just introduce yourself for the record. MS. HODGSON: Rosa Hodgson. I really don't remember that we discussed 20 feet. You said ten and I said fine. TRUSTEE KING: No, remember, I went and taped it out and I said here is where 20 foot is. MS. HODGSON: Was that behind the steps? TRUSTEE KING: From the bulkhead in, I stood there and said this is where your 20 is. You said, yeah, fine. MS. HODGSON: I stand corrected. Okay. Would you approve ten? MR. HERMAN: Go for 15, Rosa. TRUSTEE KING: He always has to negotiate. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is plenty of room. MS. HODGSON: Compromise is always good. MR. HERMAN: Jim, where did it hit that little crest? TRUSTEE KING: It was seaward of it. MR. HERMAN: 20 is seaward of it? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, if I remember right. MR. HERMAN: HERMAN: Rosa, if the buffer is completely on the seaward side of that slope then just do that because it will actually look pretty nice and you won't -- MS. HODGSON: To 15, 20 feet I'll leave it up to you. MR. HERMAN: It's this (indicating.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 20 feet goes just below that crest, and we also talked in the field, Peggy just reminded me, to give you the option of raising the bulkhead a little so you can change the slope if you wanted to. MR. HERMAN: But I mean for the non-turf buffer it might even work well to just have natural grass there. Because from the house, Board of Trustees 37 August 20, 2008 Rosa, you'll still have the appearance of the flat lawn, then you'll have that natural area closest to the bulkhead, which may actually reduce your goose population there. MS. HODGSON: Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. HERMAN: I think that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? MR. HARDY: Doug Hardy, Southold. I would like to make a statement that, not only against Rosa Hodgson, which they have a lovely piece of property and she looks like a very charming lady, but to all future applications that where the bulkhead is footed below mean high water. I've prepared a statement which I wish to read into the public record, but with your permission, I'll hand it to you and you can see where I'm going with it. I would like to cut out some details of some important pieces and just mention them briefly. This application of Rosa Hodgson and all others which seek approval to construct or replace bulkheads which are footed below mean high water should be tabled until the Trustees can satisfy two legal issues and one ecological issue. Specifically, these three issues are: The legality, and I must confess, my proof reading is poor. The legality of denying public access along the shoreline. The legality of advocating jus publicum title to the public lands to exclusive private ownership, and the irreparable elimination of tidal wetlands. To approach the first topic, denial of public access, it goes back to the founding of the Town Trustees. The Southold Town Trustees was created by the New York State Legislature in the Law of 1883, Chapter 615 which states such Board of Trustees -- as an aside, you were only paid three dollars per diem in 1883 -- or a majority of them, are hereby authorized and empowered to manage, lease, convey or otherwise dispose of all or any part of all such common lands, waters and lands underwater, or rights or other interests therein. Now that looks like you can do whatever you want with the property. But here is the kicker. Subject as to lands underwater, to the public right of navigation and to the riparian rights of adjoining upland owners. Thus, at its founding, the Trustees were burdened with the Public Trust Doctrine, which continued those sovereign rights established by the Andros Patent of 1674. The Public Trust Doctrine provides that public trust lands, waters and living resources in a state are held by the state in trust for the benefit -- and this is important - of all of the people, and establishes the right of the public to fully enjoy public trust lands, waters and living resources for a wide variety of recognized uses. The Public Trust Doctrine is applicable whenever navigable waters or the lands beneath them are altered, developed or otherwise managed or preserved. It applies whether the trust lands are public or privately owned. The doctrine articulates not only the public rights in these lands and waters, it also sets limitations of the states, the public and private owners, as well as establishing duties and responsibilities of the states when managing these public trust assets. The Public Trust Doctrine has been recognized and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, the lower federal courts and state courts from the beginning days of this country. The riparian or water property owner, enjoys certain rights under Board of Trustees 38 August 20, 2008 English common law. The bundle of riparian rights include the rights of access to the water, to wharf out, to gain by accretions and lose by erosion and to replace land lost by avulsion. The right of access to the water is the most basic right of the riparian owner, under which other riparian rights are created and protected. And here is another important consideration. In the event of a direct conflict between a riparian right and one or more of the public's trust rights, the public rights will prevail over the private. And it's cited, the source. The public right of access has been repeatedly upheld by New York State courts of which a few are cited here. I have only given New York State court decisions, just a couple of them, to give you a tenor of how the court issues are decided. There are many more in other states and in federal court. Tiffany v Oyster Bay, 1922 -- I'll omit the code. The foreshore or land under the waters of the sea and its arms, between high and Iow water mark, is subject, first to the jus publicum -- the right of navigation and when the tide is out -- MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, sir, if I could just interrupt. I think we are going a little beyond the scope of this hearing and I think that the Trustees are versed on the public trust doctrine. We have your cites. I think maybe that would be sufficient. They will reference those. MR. HARDY: I would really like to read this into the record. MS. HULSE: You are a little bit beyond the scope. TRUSTEE KING: This could be in the minutes but you don't have to read the whole thing. It can be included in the minutes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You gave a copy to the stenographer. So we'll stipulate it will appear in the verbatim minutes. MR. HARDY: I wish to make a few comments. TRUSTEE KING: We try to limit the comments to five minutes. You have already been going on for almost ten minutes now. MR. HARDY: I didn't realize there was a time limit. TRUSTEE KING: We stated that in the beginning of the meeting. MR. HARDY: This applicant reinforces the exclusion of public access by the construction of a cyclone fence which extends below mean high water along side the public launching ramp at the east end of pine ramp. This act appears to violate the Town Code Chapter 275-11. The legal strength of the public trust doctrine implies that the Southold Town Trustees are in a weak legal position when the right of public access to the shoreline is being denied. And I wish to also, it is unclear whether the Trustees have divested title to the public land for the exclusive use of the riparian owner, which would be contrary to US Supreme Court and New York Court decisions. Only one such instance has been noted in Southold's history when the Trustees transferred title to town land to the State to form Orient State Park. The general rule favored by the course is for the good of all the public, not some of the public. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Hardy, Ill have to cut you off now. MR. HARDY: I really would like to -- TRUSTEE KING: I know you would really like to. I would really like to go forward with this meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can maybe have this discussion under a different forum, but this is really, all your comments should Board of Trustees 39 August 20, 2008 pertain to this application itself. MR. HARDY: They are. Because this applicant is denying public access and it's legally wrong. TRUSTEE KING: It has nothing to do with this application that is before us now. MR. HARDY: It has to. I cannot walk across that person's property and I have the right to do so because it is public land. And you are denying me the right to express this. MS. HODGSON: You can walk on the sand. You can't walk on the lawn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ma'am, please don't get into a debate. MR. HARDY: There is no sand because there is no beach. It's below mean high water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, for your letter. MR. HARDY: I'm glad you didn't receive it well. TRUSTEE KING: I wish we received it earlier. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I saw another hand up. MR. ROSE: My name is Douglas Rose, I'm an adjacent property owner. I'm supporting her application for the improvements and the new bulkhead. I would just like to so note that also the seaward side of the existing seven acres which the application is based on is also under separate ownership, one acre under water. And that particular piece of property is not pad of the application as I know it. But it needs to be adjusted as far as the improvements because it's shifting sands and it's in the navigable waters we'll call it, of what is the boat ramp which was recently dredged. And I was wondering if the Trustees are taking that into account or have any feelings toward that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did have a brief discussion in the field about that, but it is not part of this application at this time. We are aware of it and we don't know what to do with it yet, at this point. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can see it's starting to shoal. MR. ROSE: It's basically underwater. Unfortunately, um, it's not a buildable piece. It shows on the tax maps as three-point some odd acres. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you can speak into the microphone so it can be recorded. MR. ROSE: It shows on the tax map, it shows as three-point-some-odd acres. On the actual assessor's map which is in the town, it shows one acre tax being collected on it. And that's the only thing I have reference to. My concern is if it is in fact, it is not necessary that the owner address that at this moment, I just wanted to know how the town feels about it because obviously it will come back eventually and it's going to become the responsibility either of the owner or it will be the responsibility of the tax rolls. As we found out when dredging season took place, the county and the town don't have the right to take the spoils that were taken out of the, we'll call it the channel, which goes down to a public launch and down to the other people that use the water way. So you can't put the spoils back on private property, which I agree with. But there no public property that will surround and protect the Calves Neck area. You have 150 homeowners, and that shifting sand and that shifting spoils which used to be a barrier, used to have foliage on it. It used to have trees on it. It's now barren of all that foliage and it used to protect them in storms. It no longer Board of Trustees 40 August 20, 2008 protects them in storms, in fact it's shifting to the point were you are getting the silt carried down to one of the other property owners which you listened to this evening, which goes beyond the bridge and other places. It's just a consideration to be thought about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Jim, I just want to make a two-second comment, just in case. For the record, this application includes a proposal only to replace inkind existing conditions. There is nothing proposed to change conditions of access, beach access, there is nothing new here proposed. For the record. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to make a comment about Mr. Hardy's information. I think he does bring up some very interesting points. But I think Jim's comment, at this time in our public hearing, it may not be a time for discussion, but at one of our work sessions it may be a better forum for us to discuss this, as Jill had mentioned. TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot here to digest. What about the LWRP, Loft? MS. HULSE: It's really a policy of the LWRP coordinator to say it's exempt. Jill said the Trustees were attempting to put into place some sort of review by the Trustees office to determine exemption? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what the talk is from the town board. That has not been put in place at this time so I don't think we are in position to call it exempt. As the Town attorney is here to advise us -- MS. HULSE: I mean, Rob is correct, if it's inkind/inplace minor, it is going to be exempted. I don't know that it is. I'm sure he's being accurate, but that's something that the coordinator has to determine. Unless the Trustees have gotten word from him, I don't know that he's reviewed it. MR. HERMAN: I would ask if you could close the hearing and/or move to whatever your decision conditioned upon a determination from the LWRP coordinator that it is exempt or consistent, and if it were to be deemed inconsistent and we have to revisit this, then we would come back next month. MS. HULSE: He was obviously out there, so if he can reaffirm that it's going to be exempted, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's just a matter he didn't have time to get to all of these, and unfortunately this is one of them that he didn't get to. MS. HULSE: Maybe there is a way he could exempt it immediately after he goes there so it's not held up for any reason. You know, I don't understand why if he's there and sees it and determines immediately it's exempt, that he just doesn't give you a verbal exempted. TRUSTEE KING: I mean, he was there. He saw everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Scott likes to really review every aspect of this. MR. HERMAN: That's what I'm saying. If he makes a determination, rightfully or wrongfully, that it's not exempt and it's inconsistent, we would have to reopen the hearing next month, but I would like to assume that he will either find it's exempt or if he should find, again, rightly or wrongly that it's not, but it's consistent, that we are not compelled to open the hearing again. And you can just notify me of that between now and next month. It's not a big deal. Thank you. I would appreciate it. Board of Trustees 41 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a motion on the table? TRUSTEE KING: We can close the hearing and reserve decision. That will be my motion. I'll make a motion to go offthe public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion close hearing and reserve decision on this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which allows for the LWRP person to -- MR. HERMAN: So if Scott has comments and we are agreeable to them I could just give you something in writing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just explaining it. MR. HERMAN: I didn't mean to interrupt you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just trying to say, what we are saying is the public hearing piece has been closed and this gives us the opportunity to wait for the review by Mr. Scott Hilary who is the review person for LWRP and depending on his review will determine whether or not your permit is either extended to you or we need to open, review it again. So a final determination will be made at next months meeting. I'll second the motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18. Costello Marine on behalf of MARTIN SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct 126' of new retaining wall using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Construct new three-foot wide stairway to beach. Regrade area behind new wall with clean trucked-in sand approximately 85 cubic yards and revegetate the disturbed areas. Located: 1950 9th Street, Greenport. The LWRP review is showing this to be inconsistent with the LWRP. The applicant has not demonstrated any erosion would warrant the hardening of the shoreline. The only evidence of erosion was identified at the westerly corner of the property, where scaring occurred due to the replacement of the neighboring bulkhead. Further, the proposed action is not consistent with town code exemplified in the LWRP. CAC resolved to not support the wetland application because the CAC does not support any additional hardening of the shoreline. The Trustees did go out there and there was some discussion on the same issue concerning the hardening of the shoreline and we did discuss possibly the use of stone covered with sand and putting some plantings in there. So with that I would ask if there is anybody here to address this application. MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. You couldn't have gone there on a worse time. The beach is pushed back. When I originally went to the job there was a sheer cliff, only about knee high, and you know that all the neighbors completely down, four properties, both directions, all have bulkheads. At the time you went there, I went there after you, the same day, because I had spoken to Jill and I found it hard to believe that the sand pushed back up against the bank and made a nice grade and it looked fine. But you can see where the neighbor to the east had his return undermined. So there has been erosion there. And I wouldn't want to say that the beach has stabilized, but when you did your inspection it did look good, but whether or not it could sustain Board of Trustees 42 August 20, 2008 another storm, you can see how far the return is exposed and therefore they have lost a significant amount of property. I didn't get all the pictures from the applicant to prove the loss of the beach but, um, I do have pictures dated April of 2008 showing that there was more of a sheer bank there, although it was only knee high, um, but you can see, there is some erosion. And that's to the east side of the property, not the west side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you against a rock revetment, you don't feel it would serve the same purpose? MR. COSTELLO: I'm fine with that if it's something you would accept. I have actually drawn up new plans that I have with me. I didn't get them to the office in time for you to look at. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to bring them up? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. (Handing). And the signs are still listed on there, they can be smaller than that. It says two-and-a-half to three ton. They could probably to one to two ton. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The first proposal is to construct 120 feet of single two-and-a-half to three ton rock revetment. Back from the area behind the revetment, re-grade. Maintain a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer, revegetate any disturbed areas with beach grass, American Beach Grass. MR. COSTELLO: If it's acceptable to the Trustees, I will submit with those plans -- I talked to the client. They would be willing to go in that direction of the retaining wall. It's just a single row of stone, Jim. It's kind of like what we did over on Robin's Island. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any plantings in between? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, plantings, we are planning on basically burying the stones and hopefully it will take. If not, the stones are there for armor. We were hoping for the retaining walls to match up, pretty much with everybody else down the beach there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's pretty much what we talked about while we were in the field. MR. COSTELLO: If I could give you these pictures to show you what it was a few months ago. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have those in the file. From April 29, 2008. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions or concerns from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My only comment is what Jack said, make it a smaller stone. MR. COSTELLO: I think he just took that drawing off the Robin's Island and the numbers didn't get through. A one-ton to two-ton stone would be fine. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do you want to change it? MR. COSTELLO: If you just cross that out so the drawings will look the same. TRUSTEE KING: One to two-ton. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments on this? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application based upon the new drawings which show instead of using bulkheading we'll use one to two ton stone revetment with plantings as shown on the Board of Trustees 43 August 20, 2008 drawing. With that mitigation I believe it would be consistent with the LWRP, and I'll make a motion we approve that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to just initial my changes. I just changed it from two-and-a-half to three, to one to two. MR. COSTELLO: Sure. Should I submit the plans to Lauren? TRUSTEE KING: I think this is all right. It's basically the same thing, just a smaller stone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nineteen. Costello Marine on behalf of MICHAEL SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to remove 163 feet of existing wooden boardwalk to allow for the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead. Reconstruct 172 feet of existing bulkhead by resheathing landward side of bulkhead with Everlast 2.1 vinyl sheathing. Install new 1"x6' tie rod ends welded into existing backing system tie rods. Reinstall wooden boardwalk inplace after bulkhead reconstruction is completed. Construct an eight-foot extension to existing finger pier. Install two new ten-inch diameter by 30-foot long support pilings at offshore end. Maintenance dredge an area 50 feet seaward from the existing bulkhead to a depth of minus four feet below MLW on the east end and progressing to minus seven feet below MLW on the west end. Approximately 350 cubic yards of dredged spoil to be trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 1435 West Road, Cutchogue. There is no LWRP, so we cannot make a decision on this tonight. The CAC supports the application. I did have a brief conversation with Jack Costello and talked about some of our concerns with this application. First we'll start with the floating docks. On the, right where those two sail boats are, are not permitted. And I don't think the Trustees would like to consider them. The other issue is we really are not sure where the property line is on that side. So we need to clarify the property line on that side. The other issue is we did find in the minutes that the four docks that are there were accepted, I think in 1996, so those are proposed, but the floats were never mentioned. And I don't think we have a problem with the addition of that one, with the one float, with the one catwalk being extended. The other thing is with the dredging. Again, we looked at the, in 1995-96, a permit was given to dredge that area and it's pretty much the same area, a little bit bigger, it does extend, it looks like it extends on to the town property and going back where those floats are. So again we need to see the property line area there. And I don't know how the Board feels about the applicant dredging on to town property, going over the property line on that. So that's something else we need to discuss. And the biggest issue we have -- Lori, we may need some help on this -- is this property is zoned residential. The history of this property has always been what it is today, with several boats on it. My question to you, Lori, can we continue expanding this knowing that it's not the proper zone and it's a nonconforming use? What is the Board's obligation here? MS. HULSE: I'll have to look into that. Board of Trustees 44 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean the history, it's been this way. MS. HULSE: I'm assuming it's not going to be problem but if it's not going to be approved tonight anyway, I'll look into it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It has to be tabled anyway but I'll give Mr. Costello a chance to answer some of these questions. Again, with the LWRP, we have to wait for that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe when we go back and look in the file, I could be wrong, I believe 1985 is when this was created. And there were three finger docks there at that time. And that was it. It was then expanded in, I believe 1995 with a permit and in 1997 with a amendment to a permit and somehow this fourth finger got in there. It doesn't matter. It's there. At that time, that was all pictures and the file shows that was that fourth finger landward was all beach. They then put rock revetment in and expanded this properly or this marina even farther. So it is interesting that over the years, you know, a residential property has been able to expand into a working marina. MS. HULSE: It was not rezoned, obviously, from 1995 to 1997, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That we know, yes. And I have a survey here from VanTyle from 1980 showing the three docks and the ordinary high tide mark. So it's been there for quite a while. So I would -- MS. HULSE: Honestly, though, if the use is not appropriate in the zone even if permits were given, it could be something that is a problem for the applicant. So I'll look into that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Does anybody have any comment? MR. COSTELLO: I don't have answers to the questions, so, there is only so much I could say. I do have a survey here. It does seem like some of the dredging would be on town property, toward the channel. That's not really the biggest part of it. You can see where it's shoaled up in and around. I don't know whether or not the marina is ever going to expand it but you can see where the first boat in there is basically sitting on bottom at Iow tide, or close, and I think that was really his major concern, if it ever did shoal again he wanted to keep an active dredge permit for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where Dave was saying there was more sand there at an earlier time, and it has been permitted to be dredged there previously. MR. COSTELLO: Right. I don't pass this property line, I think the county maintains that anyway. So it's a point for him, if somebody else will dredge it anyway. It's where the bulkhead had leaked, against the bulkhead it's spots where the sheathing had completely given out. It was a concern, and he didn't want to replace the bulkhead and not be able to dig out in front. It was more a maintenance thing, not trying to expand it, just maintain what he's lost due to the bulkhead failure. If you want that written into the application, that would be fine, just a maintenance to regain the fill that we lost. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, so I don't know, are there any other issues that I missed that we need to continue? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other comment that I would make is, since this is a marina, in my opinion, I don't know if that's legal, but this appears to be a working marina, there is no bathroom facilities there, and I'm not recommending the addition of bathroom facilities, other than possibly port-a-johns, because if not, people are just going to be using their boats and possibly pumping right out into the harbor. So it's just a suggestion. Board of Trustees 45 August 20, 2008 MR. COSTELLO: Does Southold Town have a pump out boat that is available to them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's right there. But it's only available on weekends. I'm just suggesting that part of the problem could be alleviated with port-a-johns. But it's just a suggestion. TRUSTEE KING: The biggest problem is the floats. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the consensus of the Board is we want those floats removed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When the county dredge operator was there he said fiat out with that float and that sail boat, the sail boat is in the county maintained channel. And so he looked at me. He didn't understand how they were even there. MR. COSTELLO: Who was that? Wayne Miller? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. With that I'll make a motion to table this application to next month for LWRP and, Mr. Costello, you can come up with a property line and a couple of other -- MR. COSTELLO: Are you concerned about just the telescope property line from corner? TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Are you concerned about the property line with the adjacent Southold Town property, the right of way there also? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Where the two connect. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, give us both. Just make it clear so we know what we are approving and what we are not. The file is a long file. It's a big history on this and there is so many different surveys in here and so we want to try to tighten it up a little. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to go back to Patel. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to reopen the application of SHEILA PATEL. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, we started this earlier and, for comment, and opened up the hearing. When asked if anybody was here, there was no answer. In any case, going back to that, we were all there and took a look at it and we really found that it was vegetated very well. It was basically the suggestion that we had was to either use helix screws only or to put a bulkhead landward of the existing one and then tie it in so you don't have to disturb all of that good vegetation that is there. MR. COSTELLO: The vegetation can be redone afterwards. I don't know establishing vegetation there will be a big deal. It's more of an esthetic thing and defining their backyard. I mean, I don't think the vegetation witl really have a problem reestablishing itself after the retaining wall is there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but I think the feeling of the Board is that -- we have pictures in the file. My feeling is it's already native natural vegetation and I think that was the reason for the Board's recommendation to put it just behind the existing one. Board of Trustees 46 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Rather than disturb the top of the bluff. The top of the bluff seems pretty healthy. MR. COSTELLO: So you want to put the new retaining wall just landward of the old one. TRUSTEE KING: Can you just leave the old one alone, just put a new one behind it and don't worry about it? MR. COSTELLO: It depends what is holding it up. TRUSTEE KING: That would take all the pressure away from it with a new bulkhead behind it. MR. COSTELLO: I could bring it up to the applicant and see what they would say. I mean one of the things we don't want the water going over the bluff, you know, which the Trustees are trying to do anyway. It's going to catch the water and hopefully percolate down through the ground and not go over the bluff and cause erosion. That's the whole idea anyway. But I don't know how much, the backyard they are willing to sacrifice to do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What is the depth of the lawn; a foot? At the top of the bluff where basically the hay bale line is now. MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. So you want to table this so you can talk to them? MR. COSTELLO: I can't really say they'll give up a foot or two of their propedyto do that. It's probably better offtabling ittosee. TRUSTEE KING: That would be our recommendation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table until next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a break. (After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS & ANDREW ZOITAS request a Wetland Permit to install an ingreund swimming pool, patio and landscaping within 100 feet from the top of the bluff, retain a 30-foot non-turf buffer and construct beach access stairs. Located: 62555 North Road, Greenport. MS. MOORE: Do you have the new drawings? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. This was reviewed by CAC and the gAO supports the application with the condition -- this is back on June 11. GAG supports the application with the condition of a 30-foot non-disturbance buffer plan be submitted to control erosion underneath the proposed beach stairs. It was reviewed in July under LWRP and was found to be consistent provided that the proposed actions meet sub-policy 6.3 below; best management practices are used including the applicant to maximize an 80-foot perpetual non-disturbance buffer maintainin9 existing indigenous personnel. And I believe that's it. Before we start, I do want to read into the record, we have received one additional letter. There are several letters here in the file but most of them were read last month because they were received prior to last month's meeting. But we do have one additional letter dated August 6, received August 7, from Ronald Surprenant, addressed to the Board of the Trustees. Gentlemen, my previous letter focused on the behavior of the clay soil at this location during the four seasons varied weather, Board of Trustees 47 August 20, 2008 in particular the effect of hydraulic pressure was emphasized. At that time of the writing, the septic system was being dug. As part of my remarks made at the Board's July 23rd meeting I indicated during a conversation with an excavation worker, I was told that that lost the hole. Specifically, the hole caved in, crushing the concrete rings within which digging was being done. What really is relevant when one wants to dig and maintain a pool in this clay, here are some questions that are not rhetorical but which need to be addressed and answered. At the July 23 meeting, landscapers plans for the pool and patio were submitted. We were told the patio surrounding the pool would be sloped. Sloped in what direction? Where would runoff water go? What are the patio blocks are slabs made of? Is the patio pervious? Where does backwash water go? Will there be seasonal pumping of the winter cover water? If so, where does that go? If these issue are not in the Board's 100-foot area of jurisdiction, do the questions or issues get forwarded or shared with the Building Department or Zoning Board? Very truly yours, Ronal Surprenant. Like I said, the other letters were already discussed previously. Now, is anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, I'm here on behalf of the Zoitas family. I delivered to you after our -- we had a field inspection and based on the field inspection, I delivered to your office revised steps down to the beach and a revised planting plan that is, I believe, consistent with some of the comments that were made at the field inspection. To begin with, the stairs. The stairs, what I did is, in order to be able to draw these stairs within the area that was identified as a cleared path, I had John Metzger map out for me the location of the cleared path which, as you described, I think you recall, starts at the top and works it's way down to stone then from the stone it starts working it's way, cut backs and starts working in the opposite direction. We did in fact map that area. Do you have the survey, the revised survey? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stamp dated August 20. MS. MOORE: Yes, the August 19 map. That's the survey map revisions. It should be the same one. What we have to do is, if any of you have ever hiked, it's switchbacks. That's what you have to do here because you have to go down a very steep incline. And we started where you guys identified the path to the stone. But from that point forward it was extremely steep. So there is a short switch path that goes and then it continues back down and then again the switch path back and it evens down to the beach. I'm hoping the DEC will see this as a reasonable, because our original request was close to the property line and pretty straight because it was the shallow, the shortest distance. But this one obviously is a longer distance. Um, it will make for a very expensive stairway but certainly a safe one, and it is staying within the area, most of it, will stay within the area of the path that is already cleared. So we did try to accommodate the comments that you made at the site. So I gave you the survey and then the drawings that show the structure itself. Board of Trustees 48 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: In looking at the structure it itself, I'm trying to see on here, it's tough to read the size of the landings. MS. MOORE: The landings are within your code requirements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 32-square foot. MS. MOORE: Yes, no more than 32-square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. These are pretty extensive, these stairs. MS. MOORE: They will be, yes. And we could go back to a previous design that was straight but that would have moved it over some, so TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that straight design was more than 15 feet off the property line, correct? MS. MOORE: Yes, the design that is proposed, we've had three designs. We had the first one, then the second one. The second is 15 feet from the property line and more straight. Sorry, I don't have it in front of me but I know I have it. It might be easier to find it in your file at this point. TRUSTEE KING: This looks awfully complex to me. MS. MOORE: It's actually not. If you look at the survey. It's a little easier. If I could come forward and help out here. Let's see if I could do it this way. I think it's easier. Starting at the top, here's the top. You have to work your way down. Remember, this is the top on this end. You are working your way - TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the beach. MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. It's late. Thank you, I'm glad you are paying attention. Here we go. The steps are somewhat long and stepping down. So they are not steep steps town. Then you get to the landing where you have steeper steps down. Then you again have a very, then you have the steep steps again going down. Um, and then there is a small switchbacks are here. That's this portion here. And then down to the level of the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At the bottom, why do you have to angle it like that? MS. MOORE: You start going out to the beach. It's trying to limit the length to anchor the slope. If you wanted to go straight. TRUSTEE KING: Why can't this be a platform and then go straight down from there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She is saying the slope is too steep. MS. MOORE: It's a very steep slope, so you have to go -- TRUSTEE KING: I've walked down it to the beach. I didn't think it was that steep. MS. MOORE: Not everybody is as agile as you. TRUSTEE KING: Somebody else didn't quite make it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will be off the record, please. I have here the July 23rd plans so we can see what was proposed before. And this was the straight beach stairs but were close to the neighbor's property. MS. MOORE: Closer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, closer to the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE KING: It's a lot less disturbance to do it that way, I guess. MS. MOORE: That's why it was suggested, because it was less disturbance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm thinking, less disturbance and less structure than to go back to the original plan than this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I admit when we were out there, it looks like this would be work better because it's already cleared. Board of Trustees 49 August 20, 2008 MS. MOORE: Yes, but you really go straight down. We submitted both. Choose which one. I know it's probably nice if we could move it away because I'm sure the location here is most desirable for the owner because it's kind of centered, but it is a very, it's an elaborate structure and probably will cost four times what the other one costs. Are you inclined to go with door number two, rather than this door number three? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have all the stairs back, first? MS. MOORE: I could identify the picture. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The July 28 set of plans for the stairs, which have the stairs located farther to the east. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those seem to be preferable. MS. MOORE: That's fine. Now, with respect -- some of the comments being made, if you recall, the pool, the house and the pool were taken out of the jurisdiction. It's 100 feet back. It's a small area of disturbance, that's why I incorporated it into the application so that you obviously would know there is activity going on. The landscape plan that is proposed, I think is more in keeping with what you had requested. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I just back up for a second before we get to the landscaping. Just a couple of issues that came up with the proposed pool. Yes, I agree, it's outside of our jurisdiction but I just had some questions. Is there going to be a drywell or how will you handle the backwash from the pool? MS. MOORE: Yes, there will have to be some form of drywell. I think that's the code requirement anyway. Any area that is deemed impervious will require drywells, and I don't know that the patio is pervious or impervious at this point. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my next question, if you knew if the patio was pervious or impervious. MS. MOORE: If it's impervious, we have to have a drywell to capture all the water runoff. If it's pervious, obviously it doesn't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I wanted to address some of the issues in the letter, realizing, of course, it is outside of our jurisdiction, concerning the pool. Now we can get to the landscaping part of this. When we had been out in the field, we had looked at this area and walked through this area, and I'm looking at a set of plans that are stamped August 20. MS. MOORE: Dated August 19, for the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Dated August 19. Thank you. And these set of plans show a path through what is now a heavily wooded area and it looks like this heavily wooded area is being, it appears the majority of the vegetation is being cut out because you have a great deal of Rosa Rugosa, large bed of Rosa Rugosa, going approximately 100 feet, maximum of 100 feet here, from the coastal erosion line to the edge of the Rosa Rugosa, which is right now heavy vegetation. MS. MOORE: I would actually correct some of that. The vegetation, when you go behind, we identified the trees, that there is a line of trees, and behind the trees is what would be classified as the weeds. There is ground cover but it's mostly weeds and it's vines that are, that have that particular tree is a dead tree that is covered with a wild grapevine. And as you could see below is, I don't know what they are called -- natural plantings, lovely. We Board of Trustees 50 August 20, 2008 pull them out of our yard but what we are proposing on doing is you can see the line of trees that have been identified. There are, there were three, I guess he counted, maybe five trees that are kind of tightly knotted and within that cluster of trees, closer to where it says eliminate vines, prune trees, keep viable trees, cut dead trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, if I may, and I'll ask for the rest of the Board's opinion on this, what we found there when we walked through there, I did not find any, if many at all, dead trees. They all seemed to be fairly healthy cherry trees in there. Many of them are covered with vines. I think what we've talked about, and again, I'm just giving my perspective, was to remove all the choker vines, and I had down in my notes, we measured from the stake, the seaward side of the pool, the stake that is on the northwest side of the pool and measured out approximately 30 feet to where that tree line was and said that's where I was comfortable with a lawn area, and beyond that I was not comfortable with taking out the trees and vegetation. On this plan dated August 20, when I'm measuring from that corner of the pool, using the scale you provided here, it's approximately 80 feet. So this plan as submitted is proposing to go in 50 feet further than approximately that hay bale line right now and taking out all those trees, which are all healthy trees which are being choked by vines. So my feeling was that we remove the vines, the underbrush -- and this is just my feeling, I feel the underbrush could go and what remains are all the trees to remain healthy in there, with some limited pruning possibly allowed, that we would have to look at pretty closely. That was just my feeling and I welcome other comments from the Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What does the LWRP say? TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP finds it consistent. I will again say, it says if proposed actions are approved, the best management practice is recommended requiring the applicant to maximize an 80-foot perpetual non-disturbance buffer maintaining the existing indigenous vegetation. MS. MOORE: Well, I think this plan is actually to scale and 80 feet is to the patio, approximately. When I look at the, if I'm reading the scale correctly, one inch equals ten feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. You are correct. I stand corrected. To the corner of the pool, I am sorry, it's approximately 40 feet. So I stand corrected. It's approximately 40 feet to the edge of the proposed pool. Not the patio, but the proposed pool. MS. MOORE: I think that they actually showed the trees that are there. The tree line that you are observing is the tree line being preserved here. What we are proposing on doing is planting the Rosa Rugosa behind all that. I think the previous picture showed it. That's the tree line that you are seeing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I follow you. MS. MOORE: And then behind that you see the tree line still. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The underbrush starts where this next one takes over. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the seaward end of the tree line. MS. MOORE: Yes, this is the one. That's the tree line that has, most of that canopy there is vines. So there is some, you know, that may also be the corner here that is being preserved that says dear, no machine. Board of Trustees 51 August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's the last picture we took. That's looking at the path looking west where you proposed the Rosa Rugosa. That's where that is. Where the grape vines are. MS. MOORE: Those trees are, as I recall, there weren't any trees in the area of the Rosa Rugosa. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Those are mostly the grapevines. Then there is the trees. MS. MOORE: There was a cherry that was, just the tree was there because the tree itself was dead. It was covered in the wild grape. That's what I think you are seeing there. I remember that's what, when we were standing in the path, that's what we were looking at. So I believe that's what he's preserved here. Well, he's cleaned out the area, the Iow undergrowth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It appears on here it will be from the coastal erosion line landward it's going to be approximately 30-35 feet will be completely cleared out of everything and then Rosa Rugosa planted in there. That's what it appears from this plan. Now, if I'm reading this wrong, please let me know. MS. MOORE: It's actually between 25 and 30 from the coastal hazard zone. That area there is about, I see the first outline of the tree, the canopy of the tree, within that area, about 30 feet of it, in the area of the Rosa Rugosa. But that again is the best management practices. You are using a native -- (Board members perusing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just like to know if there is anybody else from the audience here who wanted to comment on this application. (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim just had a comment, maybe we could consider doing this in stages. Clear some of the underbrush, go out and look, don't clear any of the trees, us go out and look, then see where to continue from there. TRUSTEE KING: It's so dense you don't even know what's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go in by hand. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to read the definition from our chapter that says a non-disturbance buffer is an area typically 50 feet wide immediately landward of the wetland boundary, shoreline structure or other line, etc., where no operations, maintenance or other activities takes place. And we often come up on this and I said it before, to me, non-disturbance area means exactly that. MS. MOORE: We are not suggesting a non-disturbance -- you may be, but it's not acceptable given the fact that you defined it as landward of the wetland. We are talking about landward of the coastal erosion barrier, where this is what we are facing. And I believe that the client is offering a vegetated buffer that is consistent with the native species and best management practices. Rosa Rugosa is a standard top of bluff planting. So I think he's offering you an extreme amount of vegetated buffer. Here you are talking about an area that is significant as a natural buffer. You have about 45 to 50 feet of vegetation that is being provided. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My understanding of the Peconic Estuary Program and Nature Conservancy is that a non-disturbance area, these areas, are to remain natural and as a habitat that they are in existence at this point. Not to be redone and landscaped, although you are providing native plantings. I believe the intent is to leave it remaining natural. And it's being done all along The Sound shores and many of our shores, where the intent is to keep it in its Board of Trustees 52 August 20, 2008 natural habitat. MS. MOORE: I will professionally disagree with what the code provides for. Each of you has your own opinion, and I certainly respect your opinions. I think what my client is offering is a significant improvement and certainly if you want to do this in stages, I don't have an issue, there is a lot of construction that still has to take place and I think he wants to make sure while the contractors are there, get the stairs in and so on. The plantings and vegetation will be once everything is stable there. So we are not necessarily rushed to have the planting. I would just like to know that there is a planting plan in place so that he is prepared for it and it's part of the overall stability of the property. But I can tell you, assure you, that they will not accept an 80-foot non-disturbance buffer. That is completely unreasonable given the circumstances here. And let me tell you that there is already fragmentation of the natural habitat because you have both properties on either side that are clear with grass completely to the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which are past practice and what we are trying to do at this point is improve and change that. MS. MOORE: And we are providing habitat for Rosa Rugosa, and the trees and natural vegetation, will provide a natural habitat and there is an interest in preserving blackberries, bayberries, anything that is found there that is of native species. That's why I have professionals that are looking at this, because I want to make sure that we preserve that which is, you know, valuable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand with respect to your opinion but the improvement is in the eye of the beholder, and we see it different ways. MS. MOORE: This is a client that did not go 50 feet from the top of the bluff. This is someone who is willing to consider alternatives of building back 100 feet back from the top of the bluff. I think that should be something that should be recognized. TRUSTEE KING: All these new houses along the bluff have been pushed back 100 feet. MS. MOORE: No, you can make an application for closer. We see them all the time. I see them all the time. TRUSTEE KING: New construction? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I haven't seen any lately. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I think Jim's suggestion has merit. And I would like to hear what the other Trustees think. But myself, personally, I would support the idea of doing some things in stages, and as far as I'm concerned, when I stay stages, the first stage for this whole area is, I would support the cleaning out of all the choker vines that are in those trees before you even start trimming the trees or removing dead trees, just to clean out all the choker vines, see what it looks like at that point, then we can selectively propose, if needed, trimming of trees. That's just my own feeling. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are we then setting a precedent so that whenever this issue of non-disturbance recommendation best practice comes up we would then go through a stage inspection of said replanting revegetation area? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we've had some recommendations of non-disturbance which we have made non-turf before. I don't know that we've always totally gone with every recommendation of Board of Trustees 53 August 20, 2008 non-disturbance that has been proposed. I can't think of one in particular, off the top of my head. Maybe someone else can. But I guess what I'm saying here is I recognize and appreciate non-disturbance buffers. I really do. At the same time, I feel that what is healthy for the environment here is getting all those choker vines out of there. I don't think it's healthy for those trees that are in there. I think it will eventually kill those trees in there, and I would like to see the choker vines addressed first, and the underbrush, and then work from there. That's just myown opinion. You know, the other four Trustees may disagree with me on that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I've already spoken, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's a good plan to do it in stages. One comment on this drawing, he writes eliminate vines, prune trees, keep viable trees, remove dead trees. I would not approve this plan with all that because that leaves it up to the applicant to decide if these trees are dead and thereby they can just clear cut this whole thing. That basically allows that. And I would like to tighten that up. And I think it's a good idea to do it in stages. And I agree with Dave about the choker vines, it will eventually kill all those trees, then you won't have them. And it defeats the purpose of us trying to keep them. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I certainly suppod getting rid of the bittersweet. It's an invasive species. I'm more apt to suggest a non-disturbance buffer myself but if we have to do it in stages and then go out and see what's there, you know, once we get the bittersweet out of there, I'm willing to go take another look. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At that point we can say that's enough, we don't want you to clear anymore. We can decide that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob mentions bittersweet but I think the wild grapevines also. MS. MOORE: Yes that's the underbrush that's the invasive. Somebody used underbrush. I don't know if that's correct terminology. Choker vines and underbrush. Remove bittersweet TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Underbrush is general. Take that out. That's anything that's under the brush. MS. MOORE: Choker vines, bittersweet and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, your feelings on this? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to do a little bit and see what it looks like. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What Dave is suggesting also, the grape. It's a food source for some of the species, but. TRUSTEE KING: Do it by hand, no machinery in there and see what it looks like. I do know some of the new houses down on Oregon, they put 50-foot non-disturbance zones in at the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: I have been involved with many of those. Those are actually non-turf and they are, they become non-disturbance after they have been planted. They have mostly been cleared to the top of the bluff, then you end up with vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at one not too long ago. It was a four-lot subdivision and it was non-disturbance, 50 foot. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We just looked at that a couple of months ago. I almost killed myself going down there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments? (No response.) If not, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Board of Trustees 54 August 20, 2008 MS. MOORE: Before you close the public hearing, how are we going to do this, so I understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was going to suggest is, first off, we go with the 7/28 plan of the stairs, and that with regard to the proposed actions, landscaping actions, that we start with, we approve or we allow, I should say, the elimination of choker vines on all the trees seaward of the present hay bale line, a four-foot path to the stairs as depicted on the plans, that no machine, all this cutting will be done by hand, no machines will be going through there, and that we'll consider for review after that work is done any further landscaping, again, seaward of that, of the present hay bale and silt fence line. That's what I was going to suggest. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I never got that far. The public hearing is still open. That's what I was going to suggest when we got to that point. If that's okay with everybody, then I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's okay with me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I hear a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Thomas and Andrew Zoitas located at 62555 North Road, Greenport; that we'll approve the stairs to the beach as depicted in the July 28, 2008 plans; we will, regarding the landscaping, we'll approve the four-foot path from the lawn area to the stairs as per the August 19, 2008, landscaping plan, and; we'll approve the removal of choker vines from the trees seaward of the present silt fence and hay bale line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, did you say you approve this plan dated? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I haven't said that. I did not say that. The path as depicted on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Sorry. MS. MOORE: Can we plant Cape American beach plugs along the disturbed area of the stairs so that we can make sure that area is -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Thank you. Absolutely. And that no further clearing will be done in the area seaward of the present hay bale and silt fence line without further review from the Trustees. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll vote nay. I believe the non-disturbance area that was recommended by the LWRP review person and keeping it in its native species and habitat should be restored, should remain. So I vote nay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I vote nay also. Same reason. (Trustee Dickerson, nay. Trustee Ghosio, nay.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show this has passed, three votes to two. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 21, Patricia Moore on behalf of MARIA Board of Trustees 55 August 20, 2008 TRUPIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x55' catwalk using Fto-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. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Based on the Board's request, I had Bob Fox identify the 50-foot setback all the way around. I went to take a look. He just identified the 50 feet. That was just a reference point for the Board because you wanted to know where the line would be as it was flagged, and it is somewhat consistent with previous approvals that this Board has granted. if you go back, and I went back in my file to some of the older approvals, it is consistent. The house was approved, I believe, at 75 feet from the wetland line, which is about right with the flag plus 25 is where the previous Board, previous jurisdiction line. So the house was at 75 feet. I have an old survey, I don't know if you need it or not. This was when the house was originally constructed, it had proposed the area, the 75-foot mark, and it was approved by this Board. Well, this Board had no jurisdiction. It was 75 feet. The DEC identified it in 1992 as the area of jurisdiction. If you would like it, I know it's in some of your older files -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is it showing? MS. MOORE: Well, this is the old -- this was an old map, document in the '90s. It's a VanTyle map that was -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: July 3, 1992, it was stamped by the DEC. MS. MOORE: Right. This was the line where it was originally lined by the DEC, tidal wetland line, and it was, they created the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer at that time. So what you are seeing there now is a lot of the non-disturbance buffer that has grown up and matured. So, 15, again, as a reference point to where the pool would be, if you see on that '91 map, there was a decking area that was proposed on the east side of the house. That was the area that was to be additional deck, which she never built. So, if you can see on the east side of the house, it is an area that is kind of an octagonal deck area, that's the area that most likely will be the area where the pool is to be placed. And what we tried to do is, again, the staking was, our limits for the 50 feet. Then certainly within -- actually if you look at the picture you have right now, it's perfect. That is the logical area for a pool, which is behind the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that the small flags? MS. MOORE: I saw the small flags. I think those are sprinklers. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a sprinkler flag. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was the outline of the pool. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the footprint of the pool. MS. MOORE: Thank you. I was told he didn't make it there, but I'm glad he did. All right. I have different people going on here. Nobody reports back, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually, the Board as a whole I don't think has a problem with the pool. MS. MOORE: Fine. On to the next subject. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC does not support the application based on esthetic values and requests the Board of Trustees obtain a rendering of the area. Board of Trustees 56 August 20, 2008 I think it would be interesting to have a conversation that might follow the format of the LWRP because he has separated the two structures. He's given a review for the pool as consistent. That's the good news. And he has done a second review for the dock as inconsistent. So I'll just read the consistent report for the pool, provided that the proposed pool and related structures are placed at a minimum setback of 50 feet from the wetland boundary, which is exactly what the Board wanted to state also. As far as the dock is inconsistent in its LWRP review, the proposed action is located in Goose Creek, a critical environmental area, nominated by Southold Town worthy of protection; critical environmental area may be more stringent requirements. He goes on to list the dock review and makes a point that the proposed action if approved will result in habitat destruction and impairment with physical loss of significant fish and wildlife habitat within a critical environmental area. If a dock is constructed, the loss of high and Iow intertidal marsh habitats will occur. The proposed action and associated impacts could be mitigated by seasonally mooring a vessel in public waters. This alternative would lessen the potential impact to the high and Iow intertidal marsh habitat within Goose Creek. And I believe I have two more pages here. He mentions fragmentation of the habitat again. The proposed action is private and noncommercial and will not support a pattern of development that enhances community character nor preserves public access or public recreational activities. The Trustees actually walked, after they went out to the flagged area -- this is to the north. So there is a dock immediately north of it, but as we continued around the south bend, this you might recognize, was the picture I used at the beginning of our Power Point, and we even went farther around. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just make a comment about that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll go back. I just want to show this expanse of pristine marsh. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the older survey, the, that area there, which is not Maria Trupia's property, says "park and playground" so it's a park and playground of the subdivision, in the marsh. I'm just making that point. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Glad you did. If I could go back a little bit in time. This application was first made in October of 2006. I came to the Board with a different design proposal, which was a 4x160' dock, which we went to the property. This is a map that would be, let's see, originally certified September of '06 and amended November of 2006. The Trustees at the time made a recommendation that the dock be brought down to a Iow sill and have the mesh, the mesh material on the top. But the length was in theory was approved. And the Board was prepared to approve it, but at the time I was getting correspondence from the DEC that led me to believe that they were going to start making revisions and modifications to the dock right off the bat. So what I asked the Board to do is hold off on that approval because I wanted to be sure that I had a structure that was both approvable by this Board and also the DEC. It took us until, oh gosh, I have the recent stamped map, from the DEC, it took us until December of 2007 for the DEC, after many contortions or reconfigurations of the dock, to approve a 4x55' dock that is Iow sill and with steps to grade. So they certainly kept in mind the Board of Trustees 57 August 20, 2008 location and we compromised a great deal because, as you could see from the previous picture, we had the property owners to the north that have significant docks with a ramp and to a float. And we have the pleasure of having a catwalk with steps down. So essentially what it allows for is kayak or small boat access but without really being able to use it for a boat of that size. My client is willing to accept that compromise but at this point we have all of the approvals that we need and we are coming back to you with a significantly reduced plan from the original plan that was submitted and the Board was prepared to accept at that time. You have the pictures and I have them as well, of the adjacent docks, and as you accurately pointed out, it's a park next door, and it was acquired, it was an open-space park and playground area for the subdivision, and I think the town ultimately ended buying another piece as well. So what you are seeing is a line of public or non-developable land and you are seeing that is -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My comment about the park and playground was not only for that but there might be other conditions. Sometimes the Planning Board puts conditions on the park and playground area. So I think that's something we have to look into MS. MOORE: Actually, I have the subdivision map. And there is actually no condition, and I would be happy to share that subdivision map with you. It's a filed map. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It just says "open meadow" and I don't know if that's part of it. MS. MOORE: It is south of lot 14, which is that area reserve park and playground about 40,000 square feet in size. And the only restriction on this map is that the cul de sac ended without any fill. It says not to be filled. So the area seaward of the cul de sac, of the road end, had a restriction of no filling. So aside from that there is no, none that affect our ability on our end to put any structures. Any marine structures. This is the one print that I have. I can't give it away. I would be happy to make a copy TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other Board comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do recall from a couple of years ago what was originally proposed, and this is a great deal different. Personally, my one concern was, or a concern I have, is the wood chip path in that I'm, I know that's a high marsh/Iow marsh line and I'm afraid with Fall tides, Spring tides and storm tides those wood chips will just end up going all over the place and into the water and everything else, so I'm just not in favor of a wood chip path. I don't mind a regular path but not a wood chip path there. That's my only -- MS. MOORE: Last time she was here she didn't have a problem letting it dissipate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Agree to not to replace the woodchips. Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I have no problem with the pool but that's an awfully nice marsh and I hate to fragment something like this. Particularly since it seems to me access is pretty easy. We walked right down to the water. You can access the water from there, kayak. I don't know. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind what was approved by the DEC is almost the equivalent of the kind of paths that are generally found in parks because they are Iow sill, again, the marsh will continue to grow Board of Trustees 58 August 20, 2008 through it, it just provides a stable area for access. And it is, I mean it's significantly less than what is, everybody around Goose Creek is enjoying. And Mr. Trupia does want you to know the reason it's pristine and beautiful is because she has been keeping it that way, that there is a reason that everything looks as nice, is that she has not -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know this Board has seen plenty of docks put in areas where, as you say, the vegetation, when it's two feet above grade and has that FIo-thru decking with vegetation growing right up and through the decking, so I personally feel the marsh will completely regenerate and restore itself fairly quickly after this proposed dock would be put in. The fact they are using four-inch posts ten-foot on center with only six-inch piles down into the water and if they were not jetted in, or dug in, I would not have a problem with this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: After having a very lengthy discussion with Mark Terry, the LWRP reviewer and listening to all of his listings of environmental reasons to not permit this dock, I would be inclined to approve a pool but not a dock in this area and I'm prepared to make that motion as soon as I get the heads up and close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: I'm ready. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. MS. MOORE: I would just point out if you please go back to the transcript of the 2006 hearing where the Board was prepared to approve a much larger structure. I think in fairness to the client, she's gone through an extensive process to get this dock and we are now back to you to reduce what has was originally proposed and I would hope that you'll honor the direction you gave us. The design of this structure was really at with the assistance of this Board both in its location and its height and material. Because it was proposed closer to the property line and it was moved away and I mean every aspect of this was done with this Board's guidance. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, I'll honor the people that elected me to make my best decision and over time things don't always remain the same and this Board takes a lot of time, maybe not monetary expenses but a lot of time to pursue many of these decisions. And I think I just made a motion to close the hearing. So I'm moving forward in the way that I feel is the best for our community and I'm going to make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lori, can I do a two-parter here in one? Can I approve part of this application and deny -- MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Two separate motions or one motion? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make one motion. My motion would be to approve Maria Trupia's request for a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool that would be setback 50 feet from the Wetland line and deny the proposed structure for the catwalk -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pool and patio behind the 50 foot Wetland line or just the pool? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This says inground swimming pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But the patio around the pool to be 50 feet away? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pool and related structures must be setback 50 Board of Trustees 59 August 20, 2008 feet. And to deny the catwalk, decking and pilings. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I vote nay and I want to note for the record that I do not have a problem with the pool so I wish it had been two separate motions because then I would have been voting yes for the motion for the pool. But it has to go down as a nay. (Trustee Bergen, nay.) MS. MOORE: I'm very disappointed because we did this application to the DEC with -- Jim, you specifically gave me the specs of this dock out in the field and we re-drew it and re-submitted it and took a year-and-a-half to get this through the DEC. So it's very upsetting that you would lead an owner into that kind of regulatory nightmare, then come back -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe she was led into anything. MS. MOORE: I have been involved in it. I was there. She was not there. I was there in person and I met with you and I came to this Board for a meeting. We had a discussion about the size, the dimensions, everything. And it was drawn with this Board's specifications in mind and I got the DEC and all the other agencies and now this Board is reneging on what would have been a larger structure and had we taken the approval that you were prepared to give that night, but in fairness to everyone, including this Board, I came back with a smaller proposal. So it's very disturbing that this is the way you chose to deal with this application. TRUSTEE KING: Number 22, Patricia Moore on behalf of MICHAEL & SUSAN JEFFRIES, requests a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool 56.6 feet from the top of the bank and terrace with a Iow brick retaining wall 45.6 feet from the top of the bank. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. I'm just looking through some of the old stuff. There was a previous application for a cabana, pool and all that. Nothing was done with that? MS. MOORE: No, I think that was with the old house. When the old house was up, yes. No, they ended up not building that because they demolished the house and rebuilt it, so. TRUSTEE KING: This is a major reconstruction going on. (Board members perusing file.) MS. MOORE: Are we ready to start? TRUSTEE KING: Sure, Pat. Go ahead. MS. MOORE: We submitted to you, Quincy provided, there are two drawings here, one is L-501, which is the pool/terrace section. Quincy, why don't you describe what it is you are trying to show here. MS. HAMMOND: I'm Quincy Hammond, landscape designer, Hollander Design. We are proposing a 12x28' pool located off of the back of the house and the corner of the pool is 56.6 feet from the top of the bluff. And the pool is contained within a retaining wall, brick retaining wall that is 45.6 feet from the top of the bluff. The retaining wall would have plantings in front of it so you wouldn't see that. That was a question that the ZBA had at the last hearing. There are other sections provided on L-5.02 which Board of Trustees 60 August 20, 2008 may be somewhat confusing unless we look at the plan drawings that were submitted earlier, and I can clarify where the sections were taken. I'll come up. MS. MOORE: This might be helpful. That's the survey of the original house. It doesn't show the pool. This is the landscape plan that we had given you originally. It's in color. A large one. And the cross-sections I marked out, let's see, where is it. MS. HAMMOND: There is one taken from this point across the bluff and then there is one just for comparison from the face of the house, across the bluff. This corner of the house is 53.6 feet, I believe, from the top of the bluff, and this is 45.6 feet off the bluff, and I wanted to show you how much steeper the bluff is at this point than it is at this point. Primarily to illustrate the decreasing impact as you move around the site. TRUSTEE KING: Here is where we have a conflict. The CAC did not make an inspection, so no recommendation was made. Now, the problem that I see, you are considering the top of the bluff here. The LWRP coordinator is considering top of the bluff up here. That's the problem. MS. MOORE: That is a problem. In fact I wanted to give you the survey because in fact the town has already established from the application with the house as to what is deemed to be the top of the bluff here. Remember that Fishers Island is essentially hills. All of the properties are hills. And when I spoke to the LWRP coordinator, Mr. Hilary, he takes it as a, I guess theoretically, he uses the theory that all, eventually all of the land could become, go back to its natural state. I'm not sure, and I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he looked at -- there is a discrepancy in the way 275 defines top of the bluff versus the zoning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have been discussing it. MS. MOORE: Right. And the fact that here on Fishers Island you don't really have a bluff and that's why the cross-sections are important because what Quincy did is she shows you the slopes and the zoning definition is the more accurate one with respect to precipitous slope. You go to the top of the bank then you reach the precipitous slope. That's were you typically have a bluff of Long Island Sound type of bluff. The problem we have in 275 is that you could essentially call any hill a bank or a bluff and that's not the situation you have here on Fishers and many other areas of town. We've tried to, again, the two cross-sections, provide a technical description of what we are talking about here with the slopes. And even if you were to take the 275 definition, it's not a zero. Because if you take the top of the bluff as it's been historically described, the 275 talks about 25 feet landward of that top of bank. 25 feet is still 25 feet. We still have another 25 feet before we reach a structure. So his zero makes no sense whatsoever. That analysis. I think that you have already established what the setbacks are here because we established the setbacks with the construction of the house. The pool, if you look at the survey and you see the area that is called "terrace" on the house plan, that survey that has my orange line on it, if you see the area that is described as terrace, that's essentially where the pool is going, in that general area. So, we are trying to keep the activities within the scope ofthe area that was to be disturbed originally. Originally Board of Trustees 61 August 20, 2008 it was going to be a terraced area which steps down. Now it's a pool with grass around it. So we've actually reduce the, we eliminated the terrace and established a lawn area, grass area around the pool. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling, I been out there numerous times. This is a previously developed piece of property with the lawn going down to, what they say is the top of the bluff. I think what Scott has done, he's looked at these elevations and gone right up to where the pool is, 32, and in his mind, that's the top of the bluff. In reality if this was a completely undeveloped piece of property, maybe we would look at this and say, yes, that's the top of the bluff. But-- MS. MOORE: That's what he's doing. He's taking a very conservative reading. TRUSTEE KING: The house and everything is there. This makes absolutely no environmental impact whatsoever down below. So that's my feelings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with Jim. After going out there and walking it, I went all the way down to the beach and looked up from the beach, and I agree. I have no problem with this plan as proposed. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I would suggest, I would like to see a little more of a buffer area down at the lower edge of that lawn. MS. HAMMOND: Absolutely. I have a planting plan. TRUSTEE KING: See if we can get a nicer buffer in there. MS. MOORE: In you would like us to submit the planting plan, it's ready, and I think it's done. We can give it to you. That's not a problem. You are talking about the planting plan at the edge of the bank. The planting plan she has here is the one behind the wall. I don't know that you, do you want that one as well or -- TRUSTEE KING: I was more interested down where the vegetation is now, the natural vegetation the bring everything back up into the lawn mark. MS. HAMMOND: Sure, we had a ten-foot buffer at one point, which we've already planted on the wetland side. So would that be appropriate to carry along? That all native planting. TRUSTEE KING: Sure, that would help. MS. HAMMOND: We would be allowed to maintain the little pathway down to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, just get rid of some of that lawn area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And put the path down there. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to indicate the path? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Might as well. MS. HAMMOND: It's on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it's somewhere. MS. HAMMOND: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition of an added ten-foot non-turf buffer along the bottom edge of the lawn, seaward edge of the lawn, increase that, and Board of Trustees 62 August 20, 2008 maintain -- the path down to the beach to be maintained. And like I said before, this is a highly developed piece of property and I would agree that the bluff in this case is down more toward the shoreline and not where the location they said the pool is going to be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does it have a drywell for the backwash? MS. HAMMOND: The construction for the drywells have been underway way for some time. They'll tie in. TRUSTEE KING: You say there will be plantings in front of the retaining wall around the pool? MS. HAMMOND: Yes. MS. MOORE: Do you want that in your file? TRUSTEE KING: No, that's not necessary MS. HAMMOND: It's on the seaward side. You eventually won't see the retaining wall at all. MS. MOORE: Do you want us to give it to you so it's in your file? TRUSTEE KING: You can if you want. MS. MOORE: That way there is no argument that we were talking about it. TRUSTEE KING: It might, in considering how developed this property is and what is going on there, I would find the addition of a pool is consistent. I would make a motion on we find this consistent with LWRP. I would make a motion to approve the application. Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 23, Patricia Moore on behalf of PETER & SABRINA PEZZINO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling located 87 feet from the wetlands and to construct a new dwelling and sanitary system 100 feet from the Wetlands. Located: 3120 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. The LWRP coordinator has found it to be consistent with the LWRP and the CAC resolves to support the application. There is no stipulations and as I recall we were out in the field and we didn't have any problems with it either. As a matter of fact -- TRUSTEE KING: This gentleman has been sitting here all evening and I think he wants to comment on this one. Please, come up to the microphone. He's been patiently sitting there. MR. ZORY: Frank Zory, 60 Wicks Road, New Suffolk. There was a fellow here before. He said in 1920 you guys got three dollars a session. I hope you got a raise since then. I thought I was going to be out of here in half an hour. I have no problem with the hundred feet because that's the law, to the water line, but the only thing I was concerned about was the distance of the building to my property line, which is five feet on the survey. And I was under the impression it had to be ten feet from the line. So I went to the town hall -- TRUSTEE KING: That would be a zoning issue, I believe. MS. MOORE: Actually, we were at the zoning board and we are waiting for a hearing. TRUSTEE KING: That's a zoning issue. MS. MOORE: So you get to do this all over again. Sorry. MR. ZORY: I went to the town hall by Capital Bank. I went to the first office. She said go around to the second office. She sent me to the third office. The third office sent me to the second office and second office sent me to the first office and first Board of Trustees 63 August 20, 2008 office said come here tonight. That's why I'm here. Maybe somebody made a mistake. Anyway, what happens from here? If I think it's too close and it should be according to the piece of paper that the lady gave me at the office, ten feet one side, 15 on the other or a total of 25 feet, and the way it's drawn here is ten feet on one side and five feet on the other side, should 15. To me it's too close. How do I -- what do I have to do? MS. MOORE: You'll get a notice of the zoning board hearing and at the time that the next, when I give you that cedified mail letter like you got for tonight, you can certainly call me, I would have told you this, but you can come to the zoning board hearing and express your opinion. MR. ZORY: Where is that? MS. MOORE: Back here, but it's during the day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry you went through all the confusion. What happens is when the applicant applies to the Building Department they look at it to make sure it meets the current code. If it doesn't, they deny that application and that's what pushes it to the zoning board. Then you'll get notified as a neighbor. And you'll get noticed as to what time and day that hearing is and the place. Unfortunately we can't help you with that here because it's a building code. MR. ZORY: It's a different group of people that do it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Zoning Board is similar to what you see here tonight. MR. ZORY: I looked on the piece of paper. It's number 23. Is that posted outside here so you could come here like a day before and see where you stand so you don't have to hang around? MS. MOORE: It's in the paper. But I post the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can go to the office, the zoning board office and ask to look at their agenda. MR. ZORY: And you get an idea what time to come in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MOORE: I have to give you the time, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Zoning Board is set up ail different. Go to the Zoning Board office and they'll explain it. MR. ZORY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Does the Board have any questions or comments? TRUSTI=E DOHERTY: No. I agree with that man. It's too close to the side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to dose the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as written, to demolish and build a new house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: And for the record, the existing house is two feet from his property line. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to close the hearing. Motion to adjourn TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) OCT 2 7 ~2008