Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/17/2008 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:00 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Kieran Corcoran, Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Welcome to our September meeting. I'm Jim King, I have the pleasure of being Chairman of this Board. At this time I would like to introduce the rest of the folks here. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; Peggy Dickerson is to his right; Jill Doherty is vice-chair. Lauren Standish is out looking for batteries for the remote control there. She is our office manager, and next to her is Bob Ghosio, our fifth Trustee. Next to him is Board of Trustees 2 September 17, 2008 Kieran Corcoran, our assistant Town Attorney. He's our legal advisor tonight. We have Wayne Galante keeping track of what everyone says. If you have any comments during the process, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. And if you do have any comments, try and keep them limited to five minutes or less. It just makes things a little smoother and saves a little time. We have, from the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory Committee, is Jack McGreevy sitting there. They go out and inspect many of the same sites we look at and give us their recommendations. With that, we'll get going. This might be a fairly simple evening, but, I shouldn't say anything. We'll set the date for the next field inspection, Wednesday, October 8, 8:00 in the morning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) Our next regular meeting will be October 15, at 6:00 with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes of June 187 I read them, I have just some minor typos. Anybody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I submitted my changes. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody want to make a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of June 18, 2008. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for August, 2008. A check for $5,507.30 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: TRUSTEE KING: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee Board of Trustees 3 September 17, 2008 agenda dated Wednesday, September 17, 2008, are classified as Type II actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. We have a number of them listed here. They read as follows: Claire & Rob Riccio - SCTMfi98-6-1 Patricia & Thomas Nadherny - SCTM#70-5-34 Varujan Arslanyan - SCTM#53-5-10 John & Stella Scourakis - SCTM#50-2-10&l 1 Thomas & Mary Irene Marron - SCTM#70-4-10 Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District - SCTM#110-7-13 Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District - SCTM#104-8-6.1 Arthur & Melissa Beisel- SCTM#122-4-24 Michael & Robin Drews - SCTM#118-4-2 Steve Mitchell - SCTM#86-7-8 Terry Triades - SCTM#94-1-12.2 I'll make a motion to approve the State Environmental Quality Reviews. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We have a couple of postponements: Number six under Resolutions-Other, En-Consultants on behalf of ROSA HODGSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inplace) existing dock, consisting of a 6x87' pier, 6x24' fixed "L" section, 4.5x33' step-down platform and a 3x14' ramp and 6x20' float secured by two eight-inch pilings, remove and replace (inplace) 9xl 1' pervious patio and 4x8' 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 10' non-turf buffer adjacent to the bulkhead. Located: 4845 Pine Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed. Number one under Wetland Permits, Costello Marine on behalf of MICHAEL SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to remove 163' of existing wooden boardwalk to allow for the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead. Reconstruct 172' of existing bulkhead by resheathing landward side of bulkhead with "Everlast" 2.1 vinyl sheathing. Install new lx6' 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 10-inch diameter by 30-foot long support pilings at offshore end. Maintenance dredge an area 50' seaward from the existing bulkhead to a depth of -4.0' below MLW on the east end and progressing to -7.0' below MLW on the west end. Approximately 350 cubic yards dredged spoil to be trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 1435 West Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 4 September 17, 2008 It's possible number six will probably be postponed, on page four, Patricia Moore on behalf of CLAIRE & ROB RICCIO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling, swimming pool and sanitary system. Located: 6512 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. That may not be moved on tonight. I think that's it. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven has an inconsistency here, so I don't know if we can move that with that group. TRUSTEE KING: We'll do one through six then. What we try and do, if these ara very simple and there is no problem with them, we'll lump them together and approve them all at once. So I think what we'll do, we'll do number one, two, three, four, five and six. Most of these are administrative permits. Most of them are to trim phragmites. I don't think anybody had a problem. The other was a very simple opening under a garage on the landward side of the house. One through six raad as follows: Number one, JOAN SAUNDERS requests an Administrative Permit to hand trim the phragmites to 12" as needed. Located: 1375 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. Number two, JERRY KALAS requests an Administrative Permit to raplace/repair the existing front entry steps and open garage to existing structure for front yard access. Located: 995 Glen Court, Cutchogue. Number thrae, EDWARD ERNST requests an Administrative Permit to hand trim the phragmites to 12" as needed. Located: Long Craek Drive Ext., Southold Number four, EDWARD ERNST raquests an Administrative Permit to hand trim the phragmites to 12" as needed. Located: Long Creek Drive Ext., Southold. Number five, EDWARD ERNST requests an Administrative Permit to hand trim the phragmites to 12" as needed. Located: Long Craek Drive Ext., Southold. And number six, EDWARD ERNST requests an Administrative Permit to hand trim the phragmites to 12" as needed. Located: Long Craek Drive Ext., Southold. So I'll make a motion to approve one through six, with the phragmites to be trimmed to twelve inches. No other vegetation is to be trimmed. It's phragmites only. I would like to make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Mark Schwartz on behalf of KURT FREUDENBERG raquests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing deck stairs, construct a 6'8"x24'10.5" deck addition and relocate the stairs. Located: 165 Lester's Road, Mattituck. Board of Trustees 5 September 17, 2008 This was found inconsistent with the LWRP and I'm sure it's because of distance (perusing). This is an existing house that has a second-story deck on the seaward side of the house and the setback for a house by code is one-hundred feet. This house is approximately 50 feet from the wetlands. That's why it was found inconsistent. It's very minimal. Jill and I went out and looked at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a buffer in front of the house. TRUSTEE KING: There is a nice buffer, there is gutters and leaders to drywells for roof runoff. This little deck will have absolutely no environmental impact. The house is fairly new. I was on the Board when we approved that house construction and everything was done, it was done the best we could do it, so I know technically it's inconsistent, but -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Gutters and drywells and the deck being a second-story deck? TRUSTEE KING: There is already an existing deck. This is simply a little addition on to the front of the deck to expand it and they are just relocating the access stairs from one side to the other so it's -- everything is on there already; gutters and drywells. Like I said, I'm surprised it was found inconsistent. I'm surprised it was even reviewed it's such a small structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You said it was because of distance. TRUSTEE KING: Did Scott look at this or was it done in the office? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know. He wasn't with us when we looked at it, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was it possibly found inconsistent with the original application and that's why there is an inconsistency down there with the original permit? TRUSTEE KING: This was before we had the LWRP, the house was built. This is about five years ago or so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's original because he was not reviewing the administrative ones. It's this month's date. TRUSTEE KING: It's for an administrative permit for existing deck and stairs. I mean -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can determine it's consistent. TRUSTEE KING; I would make that determination. This is very, very minor. It has absolutely no impact on the environment. I would make a motion the Board finds it consistent and make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, JAIME SANTIAGO requests an Amendment to Permit #6654 to modify the pool dimensions to 20x40' and reshape the patios at pool and rear of dwelling. Located: 3745 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was another case where the original application was Board of Trustees 6 September 17, 2008 reviewed by the CAC back on June 18 when they resolved to approve the amendment, but that was to an amendment back on June 18. It is listed as inconsistent but, again, that inconsistency goes back to when the application for the original permit #-6654 was applied for and in the approval of that permit we addressed the inconsistencies and found it as consistent. So for this one, again, this is a minor change. I went out and looked at changing slightly the dimensions of the pool and reshaping the patio decking. There had already been decking in front of the, excuse me, already been a patio in front of the pool at the rear of the dwelling. They just decided to round it off rather than square it off for architectural reasons. So I would make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, GERARD SCHULTHEIS requests an Amendment to Permit #5746 to allow for the existing enclosed porch. Located: 1640 First Street, New Suffolk. I believe we have a photo of this application. And our field notes say that it needs gutters and leaders to drywells. Is that agreeable, Mr. Schultheis? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe it was in the original permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it's on the field notes. I was just reiterating. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) Any comments you wish to share? MR. SCHULTHEIS: I just want to ask if everybody is clear on the dimensions. I know it was confusing. I did the calculations and proof everything. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I guess it was measured while we were there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And the survey was a little different than what we measured. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So can we have them clarify on the survey? MR. SCHULTHEIS: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just want to make sure the dimensions as we recorded them are appropriately reflected on the survey so everything matches up. MR. SCHULTHEIS: Here is a copy for everybody of basically what the dimensions are. The challenge was on the survey, it didn't show the offset of the porch off the side of the house. And there was some question of what the dimension was from the edge of the house to what the existing, the previous porch was, okay, and what I did is, taking the survey and the offsets on the west side and the east side, and the distance from, that the porch began from the west side, I basically calculated what the offset would be for the porch within that existing envelope, and I believe, when you folks were there, you measured 12'9". TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 12'10". MR. SCHULTHEIS: If you do the calculations it comes out to Board of Trustees 7 September 17, 2008 12'8.4". That's using the dimensions on the survey which are to the nearest tenth of a foot, which is really 1.2 inches. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you satisfied with that, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we can just put a note on this drawing here in the field what the dimensions were and stamp it approved. It keeps it simple. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you want these dimensions from the field notes? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, and just put them on with his notes so everything jibes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, we'll do that. With this new information I'll make a motion to approve this application as stated. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of BETTY SULLIVAN requests an Amendment to Permit #5258 for a 4x13' addition to the previously approved proposed deck. Located: 380 Inlet Lane, Greenport. The Board went to look at it. It's a very simple, small little addition to what we've already approved. There are no issues there at all. As a matter of fact it's actually still landward of the already existing structure. So I would make a motion to approve this on behalf of Betty Sullivan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark Boeckman on behalf of STEVE MITCHELL requests an Amendment to Permit #-4201 to rebuild existing 16x10' platform at bottom of stair for storage. Located: 7132 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. We all went out there. This is an area that a smaller sized platform was approved back in 1993, and over the years it has grown, but it has been there for a while. And they want to replace it. There is no vegetation being altered and it is inconsistent with LWRP, however if we say no treated lumber on the decking, and I don't have of a problem with it, because it's just replacement of what is there, and it's been there for a while, so I'll make a motion that it's consistent with LWRP and to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With non-treated lumber. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With non-treated lumber, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll take the next one. Costello Marine on behalf of DONALD HYMANS requests an Amendment to Permit #6648 to remove existing stairway to beach; remove 136' of existing bulkhead and construct new bulkhead inplace extending west return ten additional feet; reinstall inplace the existing stairway to beach that was removed; and provide a 12'-15' non-turf buffer behind new bulkhead. Board of Trustees 8 September 17, 2008 Located: 1050 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. I don't think we had a problem with this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE KING: It's just a straightforward, inplace replacement. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Being it was an inplace replacement of existing structure, it's exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf of TERRY TRIADES requests an Amendment to Permit #6351 to repair the existing stairs, inkind and inplace. Located: 2505 Sound View Avenue, Mattituck. This is a set of stairs that was damaged and was never repaired. It was damaged quite a while ago. There was some other complications on this property with some other structures. I think we finally, I think we finally have gotten things settled. Pat is not here. The only thing I did notice, these are the old plans that the original stairway was built from. I take it they'll rebuild it has per these plans. The only thing, the bottom platform is 6x6 and maximum by code now is 32-square feet, so the bottom platform will have to be downsized so it's less than -- it's 32-square feet or less. Other than that, it's the same set of stairs. They are just putting them back in place. So I would recommend approval with the stipulation that the bottom platform at the bulkhead be reduced to meet the code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. MR. MCGREEVY: I made an inspection of this property and I would just like to bring something to your attention. You probably did notice it. It's a very steep vertical bluff. TRUSTEE KING: They had a lot of erosion problems there. MR. MCGREEVY: Right. You had a blowout on that bluff that has been filled. TRUSTEE KING: To the west. MR. MCGREEVY: Wasn't it to the east? TRUSTEE KING: To the west. The two properties, these people, Triades and the one to the east, I think O'Mally is to the east. The people to the west also had some problems with an illegal stairway and all that and there is a blowout right on that property line, but between these two properties was a blowout. They went through a lot. Looks like they did a lot of work down there. Looks like it's been pretty well stabilized. MR. MCGREEVY: Yes, and it looks like it's the CAC's concern in that new construction on that bluff, unless it's engineered in a certain way, and one of the recommendations that the CAC has made to the DEC is regarding putting some kind of erosion control device at the base of each support on the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about that, yes. MR. MCGREEVY: And I think it's very important. Once that Board of Trustees 9 September 17, 2008 vegetation is disturbed on that steep bluff, I think you'll have another blowout right where it's being replaced. TRUSTEE KING: I know they have a problem just to the west of these stairs now on the adjoining property. As a matter of fact, they have been throwing brush and stuff over the hill. And this particular one, they were supposed to have a non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff, which has never been installed yet. We just went through a whole thing. Believe me, it was incredible. Part of this stairway, also, they have to get that non-turf buffer inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We gave them ninety days, I think we said. And the ninety days is -- TRUSTEE KING: Yes, they've reached a settlement with us. They've got ninety days to get this work done. This is very difficult. MR. MCGREEVY: It is. TRUSTEE KING: But the neighbor to the west, I don't know, something is going on there, too. MR. MCGREEVY: Definitely, yes. TRUSTEE KING: That non-turf buffer has to be put in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was through the court. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a motion and a second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOANN WALKER requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6470 as issued on October 18, 2006, and amended on December 12, 2007, January 23, 2008 and June 18, 2008. Located: 290 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold. So this is a simple one-year extension of this permit that has been amended four times over. So I make a motion to approve it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go into section seven, public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I want to mention, again, that at the last minute, the applicant postponed, under resolutions, Rose Hodgson. That was postponed. TRUSTEE KING: I said that in the beginning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know. Other people just walked in. I just wanted to mention that again. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, Costello Marine on behalf of SHEILA Board of Trustees 10 September 17, 2008 PATEL requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and reconstruct the existing upper retaining wall inplace. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This was one we went out to last month. It was actually on the agenda for our August meeting, and we had a discussion with a representative of Costello Marine that we wanted this replaced, the new wall replaced immediately behind the old wall, because this was a very well vegetated bluff and we wanted, while we agreed the wall needed to be replaced, we wanted it to be done with only minimal damage to the surrounding environment. Even though this was all done last month, for the record, CAC did not make an inspection, so no recommendation was made. It was reviewed under the LWRP, which we didn't have last month. It was this month on August 13 reviewed and found to be inconsistent. And its inconsistency is based on the bluff is adequately stabilized and the property is not in danger of being lost. So that's why it was found inconsistent under the LWRP. Is there anybody here from Costello Marine to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I'm surprised because I thought he was going to go back to the client and give them that recommendation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. As I recall he was going to go back to the client, talk about that recommendation and come back to us, and he has not. Now, it was found inconsistent because in the opinion of Mr. Hilary, this was signed from both Mr. Hilary and Mr. Terry. The bluff is adequately stabilized, so there is no need for this additional structure. In my opinion, in looking at it, this wall is starting to fail in places and if it does fall down I'm not sure if the vegetation there will hold. I think the vegetation might fall down also. So in my opinion I don't have a problem with replacement of this wall behind the current existing wall, again, so that it's, it doesn't require or it requires minimal damage to the existing plantings that are there. I welcome any other comments from the Board. TRUSTEE KING: I thought that was basically the way we all felt, just go behind the old wall, landward of the existing wall. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it's not how it was applied for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can make that a stipulation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a stipulation it goes behind. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And put new plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. If there are no other comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve Costello Marine on behalf of Sheila Patel at 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold, as applied for with the condition that the new wall be placed behind the existing Board of Trustees 11 September 17, 2008 wall, hence bringing it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, 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. This has been deemed consistent by our LWRP reviewers. CAC supports the application with the condition the pool is relocated away from the large oak tree in order to avoid removal of the tree. I inspected this. There was a very nicely vegetated 50-foot non-disturbance buffer that was most likely put there when the house was built. And I would just make sure that that non-turf buffer was maintained with all of this new structure and that there be a backwash for the pool. And I would also like some hay bales with a silt fence because it's near the wetlands. And that is also on their DEC permit. Is there anyone here? MR. DEFRESE: Robert DeFrese. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC, we have two representatives here, would rather not see the oak tree have to be taken down, and that is their recommendation to us. But your plans are -- MR. DEFRESE: To knock it down. Because we have cesspools on the other side, and to situate that pool any other place is pretty much impossible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, and the shed is right off the east corner of the house? MR. DEFRESE: If you were there, there is a swing set there now. That swing set will come down and the shed will go there, and just replace that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Again, I had no problems with it. I would just ask the hay bales and silt fence be put up and to maintain that non-disturbance buffer, which is very nice right now. Okay? Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Again, the Trustees deem this also consistent with LWRP and I would make a motion to approve this application for a pool. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing first. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit for Robert and Lisa DeFrese for a 20x42' inground pool and 16x10' shed on Indian Neck Lane, with the stipulation that hay bales and silt fence and 50-foot non-disturbance buffer be maintained. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. DEFRESE: Thank you. Board of Trustees 12 September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Suffolk Environmental 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. This was an application we looked at our hearing last month and we did not have an LWRP review so it was postponed to this month because of that. We now have an LWRP review. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. It was found inconsistent under the LWRP and the reason is the landward addition of the dwelling is more than 25% of the original structure and that's inconsistent under the LWRP. The distance from the bulkhead to the proposed action is 60 feet. There is a minimum one-hundred foot setback required. The proposed action involves the construction of a permanent concrete wall encompassing the majority of the property. The applicant may be required to submit a drainage plan for the entire property. So for those reasons it was found inconsistent. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) Okay, I went out and looked at this proposed activity and I had, I did have a question in reviewing this about the wall around the, what they say is around the septic but the wall actually goes around the septic and all the way along the southern property line, according to this survey dated January 29, 2008, stamped in our office July 7, 2008. As I alluded to, it goes all the way along the southern border of the property line. It seems to then go along the front or waterside piece of property and then back up again, going back to the house. So it does encompass approximately the entire piece of property, and I don't see the need for this wall to encompass the entire piece of property unless that was required by the Health Department because of the sanitary system, the proposed sanitary system. So since there is nobody here to speak on behalf of this application, I would make a recommendation to table this until we can discuss this with the applicant to see why this was such an extensive walt around the property rather than just encapsulating the sanitary system, unless, again, the Health Department required it, which it's pretty extensive. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should all go take a look at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say it might be beneficial for all of us to see it, especially with the LWRP inconsistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem with that recommendation since there is nobody here to represent the applicant tonight. It's my motion to table this. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? Board of Trustees 13 September 17, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia Moore on behalf of JOHN & STELLA SCOURAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story addition to the existing two-story dwelling, demolish the existing garage, remodel existing two-story dwelling, lift existing house in order to replace locust post foundation with full foundation. Located: 955 Soundview Avenue Ext., Southold. The Board was out there and looked at this. LWRP was reviewed for the zoning board application, so it was not reviewed again for us, and it was found inconsistent due to the distance of the top of the bluff and the hundred-foot setback. And they recommend a non-turf native vegetated buffer landward to the top of the bluff and require gutters, leaders and drywells for the structure. And the CAC supports the application with the condition drywells, gutters are installed to contain roof runoff and the placement of lined staked hay bales and silt fence prior to construction activities. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the applicant? MS. MOORE: Yes. We were out there. We actually, the zoning board, I believe when they approved it, made those conditions as part of the approval, and we have no problem. Let me point out that we can put the hay bales on our property but remember, if you recall, and the non-turf buffer, the non-tuff buffer, there is really only a small portion of our property that is on the water. The rest is a neighbor's property. So really we have no control over that property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is the skinny little strip here, that's down where the stairs are? MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was vegetated pretty well. MS. MOORE: Yes, it's been left natural, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of John Scourakis, located at 955 Soundview Avenue Ext., and I'll make a motion that we find this consistent with LWRP by adding the hay bales, the line of hay bales during construction and the gutters, leaders and drywells during, as part of the construction, as part of the project. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Patricia Moore on behalf of PATRICIA & THOMAS NADHERNY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition over the existing dwelling, renovate the Board of Trustees 14 September 17, 2008 first floor and install new windows and siding. Located: 1025 Pine Neck Road, Southold. MS. MOORE: Mr. and Mrs. Nadherny are here, so if there is anything I can't answer, I'll rely on them. This, again, is just a second-floor addition to the existing house. The new, the only new portion of the foundation or the only new portion of the house on the first floor is the screened-in porch, which I think -- is that the screened-in porch? MR. NADHERNY: Yes. MS. MOORE: I don't remember that. That's from the side. And there is a small front stoop addition, like a, if I'm remembering correctly, a little entrance way. The rest is al~ set over the existing first floor of the house. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there looked at it. I don't think anybody had a huge issue with it. MS. MOORE: No, it was already naturally vegetated. They had planted vegetation all landward of the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: The existing sanitary will be abandoned, right? MS. MOORE: Yes, we are not going to remove them. We'll cap them; fill them with sand and cap them. TRUSTEE KING: This has been found consistent with LWRP and yet it's only 70 feet from the wetlands. MS. MOORE: I think it's because of the degree of the second floor being over the existing. MR. CORCORAN: I think the second-story addition on the existing home they are now starting to call consistent. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking back to the one in Mattituck. We had a very small second-story deck, two feet, found inconsistent. MR. CORCORAN: I can't promise they have been consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Just, it adds to my confusion. MS. MOORE: I would like to be a fly on the wall and kind of learn how it's done, so. MR. CORCORAN: Would you? MS. MOORE: I would, yes. I'm into those kinds of things. TRUSTEE KING: Gutters and leader to drywells for the roof runoff. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given the slope of the property down to the water, do we want to include hay bales? MS. MOORE: Yes, I think you asked for hay bales about midway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, the LWRP is consistent but does he have some best management practices? TRUSTEE KING: One was abandon the existing septic sanitary, which they are doing, and hay bales to be installed seaward of the existing cesspools. That was the recommendation. MS. MOORE: That doesn't make sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you were going to dig up the cesspools and re-fill. I asked the same question. MS. MOORE: Okay. Oh, all right. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 15 September 17, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it's been submitted~ MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Did you do Triades already? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, the only thing is the plans for that were from the original stairs, the bottom platform exceeded the size of today's code, so it's just going to be made 32-square feet. MS. MOORE: By the beach, the very last. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it's like 36 now, so just bring it down to 32. MS. MOORE: Okay, 32-square foot platform. Okay. That's fine. That's not a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, number six, CLAIRE & ROB RlCClO, is that postponed? MS. MOORE: Yes, we adjourned it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was done last minute, we wanted to double check. MS. MOORE: Yes, because I would have had the architect and everybody here. We'll have it all staked out for you on the next inspection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Fitzgerald, I did get your message and I'm sorry I didn't call you back. But, yes, it's fine. I figured I would let you know before you came up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of VARUJAN ARSLANYAN requests a Wetland Permit to install a docking facility consisting of two floats, each 8x20, and secured by four eight-inch diameter piles, with access by hinged ramp 4x16' secured at its landward end to existing bulkhead. Located: 1280 Sage Blvd., Greenport. We were all out there last week. I don't see anything from the CAC. Did CAC look at this? Can you tell us what you found? MR. WILDER: We recommend not supporting it due to the size of the floats and recommend redesigning it to conform to Chapter 275. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: LWRP coordinator has found this proposed action is inconsistent with policy six; protecting and restoring the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem; protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. As well as talking about residential docks being no larger than 6x20' floating docks. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Jim Fitzgerald, for Mr. Arslanyan. I'll read my speech because I find I keep forgetting things and I want you to hear all of it. Board of Trustees 16 September 17, 2008 I have the feeling that you may be inclined to deny this application because the Town Code says floats can't be any larger than 6x20'. But you regularly approve variances from other regulated limits, most notably residential setbacks, and such variances are specifically allowed by the Town Code. Chapter 275 time and time again allows the Trustees significant leeway in applying the as written provisions of the chapter. We are asking that you take advantage of that discretionary windfall in reviewing this application. The six foot width specified as the maximum for floats is entirely arbitrary. The code specifically allowed eight-foot wide floats on Fishers Island under certain unstated circumstances, and I think you would agree that all arbitrarily determined limits should be treated as guidelines and subject to the granting of variances at the discretion of the Board. Sure it would make your job harder, but that's why we pay you the big bucks. You have said time and time again that every project is different so please don't cling hard and fast to a one-rule-fits-all approach in this case. There is, within a few hundred feet of the proposed project, a float described in a Trustees permit issued in 1995 as being eight feet wide and 37-and-a-half feet long. It's a grandfather permit. I mention this not to imply that our project should be approved simply because the continued existence of a neighboring float of comparable size was approved but to indicate that in the past the Trustees have indeed been willing to grant a variance from the rule in question, grandfathered or not. Forgetting any requirements or limitations imposed by Chapter 275 or the LWRP, what is it that is bad about this project, environmentally speaking? And what exactly would you think you are protecting in this case? And most importantly, who or what would benefit from the denial of this application? If you are worried about establishing a precedent, the granting of this variance for this project in this place at this time will not in and of itself establish a precedent since you, the Trustees, have repeatedly stated that every project is different and must be approved or disapproved on its own merits. A different project at a different place at a different time. The Town Code burdens the Trustees with the job of attempting to strike a balance between, among other things, recreational use of the land and protection of the environment. If this application is denied, will you have achieved that goal in the present case? In this case, the recreational use may be denied simply because and only because the Town Code says so. The granting of this permit would indeed stand out as a precedent for the thoughtful application of reason and common sense in a situation in which there was no environmental reason to deny it. And that's the proper use of discretion. The Trustees job is to manage the relationship between use and protection not to simply enforce rules written long ago and passed on down to us simply because it is always that way. What was the person thinking, I wonder, who first said, let's make it six feet. Board of Trustees 17 September 17, 2008 About the project itself, the seaward side of the most seaward float will be in water five to six feet deep at ordinary Iow tide, which water depth would itself reduce the amount of light reaching the bottom, but on the other hand the increased height of the float above the bottom would minimize the effect of any created shadow. The proposed float size and configuration will provide necessary stability for the desired wheelchair access and the support of the weight of the wider ramp with its two handrails. The ADA requires that access must be provided in public places so it doesn't seem reasonable that access in a private place should be denied in the access of some pretty significant reason. The project site is close to a heavily populated and used commercial marina within a manmade basin with very limited access to the open bay. The last, and probably least, the DEC allows floats of up to 200 square feet without a permit, in this location. I'm done now except to ask again who or what would benefit from the denial of this application. Thank you. I would be happy to answer questions or chat or go home. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say the DEC approves floats up to 200 square feet in this location without a permit? MR. FITZPATRICK: That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: That's news to me. MR. FITZPATRICK: It's in the chart, part 661, up to 600 square feet. In total. TRUSTEE KING: 600 square feet? MR. FITZPATRICK: Sorry. No, 200 TRUSTEE KING: I know we had an incident with another dock there where the Trustees approved a 6x20', the applicant built a 6x30', which was under a DEC permit. Now why did he go for a DEC permit if he didn't need one? MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't know. Maybe they didn't know they didn't need one. TRUSTEE KING: And by the way, they went to court and the float was downsized to 6x20', in that same location. Diagonally across from where this location is. Did you also say this applicant is handicapped? MR. FITZPATRICK: No, the applicant is not, but there are three, count them, three family members, one who is partially wheelchair bound and two who are always wheelchair bound. He's an older gentleman and, believe it or not, his mother is still alive and his mother-in-law is of the same ilk. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any kind of doctor's letter? Because usually they come in with a doctor's letter if they have a problem. MR. FITZPATRICK: No, but we can get one if that helps things. MR. CORCORAN: How does the Board feel about two floating docks as opposed to one? I'm not sure that you normally would issue more than one per property. TRUSTEE KING: No. He's right. We have issued permits in Fishers Island for an 6x20 but it expressly states in the code the need has to be demonstrated that they need an 8x20. Usually over there it's Board of Trustees 18 September 17, 2008 because of the rough conditions in some of those harbors. So we have allowed a larger float. I can't recall us allowing any larger than 6x20' here on the mainland in the last ten years for a residential property. MR. CORCORAN: What about the one versus two floats? MR. FITZPATRICK: May I? The two floats in that configuration, they are not there -- in a "T" configuration would be more stable than a single float just straight out. And the additional stability would be required to suppod the ramp and to support the presence of the wheelchair or chairs. MR. CORCORAN: But the issue is not just 8x20. It's 8x20 times two. I'm not -- I'm just raising it. It's not for me to decide. MR. FITZPATRICK: I understand. Two floats each, 8x20. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling was the Board felt from a catwalk to ramp and float was the more appropriate way to go with this. It gives you access to the water and it's less structure in the water. That was my interpretation of how we felt about it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As to what's here, just to make sure that it gets put on the record, there is a letter here from back in August. MR. FITZPATRICK: Bob, sorry, these microphones don't work very well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's okay. I was just reading the letter we got about getting the written permission from the owner to put the bulkhead in. It says here our research revealed that the original sale of the reference property by members of the Sage family to the Sooda (sic) family in 1962 had the deed recording the sale, including the following statements: Also together with the right to erect a walk 50 feet in length into said basin from the premises and that the walk shall be located at least twenty-five feet in from either side of the line of the premises. So it seems that the deed does allow for a walk out at this property. MR. CORCORAN: In other words the deed only gives rights visa vie one property owner versus another. It's not a municipal right. MR. FITZPATRICK: The only reason this came up is because the Board asked that we provide permission. MR. CORCORAN: Good. MR. FITZPATRICK: Because the community owns the underwater land. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? Any questions or comments or do we want to approve it with a stipulation or deny it outright? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think if he's asking for a larger structure because of the handicap, we would have to wait for a doctor's note, and I think actually I still would want to go with the traditional catwalk, ramp and float. It could still be suitable for a wheelchair. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Gentleman, I think the Board is saying we have a real choice of either denying what you applied for or give you the opportunity to come up with a more traditional ramp and dock. MR. FITZPATRICK: I hear what you are saying and I wonder why that would be MR. KEDJIERSKI: May I address the Board? I'm Dennis Board of Trustees 19 September 17, 2008 Kedjierski, I live at 1700 Sage Boulevard. And I would like to say that the subject property is in line with the inlet coming into the marina and at times there is quite a large wave action at the subject property, not mine as much because I'm off to the side. And I could understand the need for a more stable platform, especially if people are going to be on it and this wave action occurs. That's my comments. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. In the code it specifies Fishers Island with 8x20, not the rest of the town. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm inclined to go with catwalk, ramp and float. That's my feeling. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other feelings? (No response.) I think the Board wants to go in the direction of a catwalk, ramp and float. MR. FITZPATRICK: I understand what you are saying. I would appreciate hearing why you would like it to be done that way as opposed to what we are proposing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody want to answer that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: In my opinion, it would comply with the code. In other words, the size float that you are requesting does not comply with code. And I understand you have asked for a variance of that code and the Board sounds like they are not inclined to grant that variance. We want to stick with the code, which is 6x20' maximum size of the float. That's my answer to your question. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes, and as I alluded to in my speech, we aro talking about a set of numbers, 6x20', that somebody said at a meeting, twenty or thirty or forty years ago, a guy said let's make it 10x20 maximum and another guy said no, 4x20 and I think it ought to be 8x20. And they ended up with 6x20'. And it doesn't mean anything environmentally. It only means something as far as the code is concerned. And your concern ought to be environmental protection, I think. If there is no environmental reason to make it 6x20', or as a float and ramp and walkway, then why not make it the way it is, with a variance? I mean, you do the variance thing all the time. As recently as fifteen minutes ago you approved a construction of a house that is less than one-hundred feet from the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: That's an entirely different situation. MR. CORCORAN: The Board does not give variances, normally, to the 6x20' rule. It's clung sort of hard and fast to it, whether you agree or disagree with it, for environmental reasons, for coverage issues. And quite frankly you are asking for more than 100% variance. MR. FITZPATRICK: The point is there are no environmental roasons for a 6x20'. And the Board has said, has wide discretionary powers throughout all of Chapter 275, which was just rewritten recently. And the phrase "at the discretion of the Trustees" -- MR. CORCORAN: That is definitely true. And they exercise those powers. Board of Trustees 20 September 17, 2008 MR. FITZPATRICK: Sorry, I didn't mean to continue talking while you were. MR. CORCORAN: And I apologize if I was when you were. They have not chosen to exercise that discretion with regard to this rule. You are correct that doesn't mean that they can't. It just means they should be prepared to do it on a regular basis, if that's what they choose to do. MR. FITZPATRICK: They don't have to do it on a regular basis. MR. CORCORAN: Just for your application? MR. FITZPATRICK: Every project is different, and that's what I said a number of times. So, what say you, Board? TRUSTEE KING: I would deny this as submitted. That's my recommendation. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. FITZPATRICK: I would like to say, if I may, that if you are bound and determined to deny this, I would like to table the hearing and talk to my client and see what his feelings would be. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The Board made a motion to close the hearing. Did we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: I seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: If you want to table it, we can table it or we can take a vote. Do it either way. It's your choice. Do you want to table it? MR. FITZPATRICK: Please, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table the application and give the applicant a chance to come up with a different plan. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want to keep the hearing open? I guess we should keep the hearing open. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We'll have reopen it anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to reopen this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to table the application until we can re-address some of these design issues. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Also, please, since we'll re-address this, see if you can get some information showing us a need, if you are going to stick with that, let's find out, get a doctor's notes and all of that and see where we can go from there. MR. FITZPATRICK: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay number eight, Douglas McGahan on behalf of THOMAS & MARY IRENE MARRON requests a Wetland Permit to construct Board of Trustees 21 September 17, 2008 additions to the front and rear of the existing dwelling, add detached garage and new deck, demolish existing deck, walls and roof of existing structure to facilitate new framing of taller nine-foot walls and steeper roof with dormers into the attic. Located: 3125 Wells Avenue, Southotd. This was a project that was granted a permit previously and I believe '05 and '07, that permit was extended in September of 2007 and the work started. The work was stopped because it was determined that the work exceeded the scope of the original permit and the applicant was asked to submit a new permit to correctly reflect what is being down with the work. As such it was reviewed by the CAC. The CAC supports the application with the condition of twenty-foot non-turf buffer below the eight-foot contour and recommending the condition of the driveway being pervious; gutters, drywe~ls installed to contain roof runoff and there is no further tree removal. It was reviewed under the LWRP and was found to be consistent under the LWRP. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. MCGAHAN: Yes. rm Douglas McGahan, here to speak for the Marron's. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The entire Board went out and looked at this on field inspections and a couple of items we've noted. First off, it appeared as though there is a rock wall that is acting as -- a rock wall revetment that is acting as a buffer already in front or seaward of this structure. We'll see if we have a picture of it. TRUSTEE DtCKERSON: It's on the other side. MR. MCGAHAN: That's not it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. Okay. So the question I have for the applicant, would the applicant consider a non-turf buffer between this rock wall and the structure, since that's what we have been requiring in the last few years for construction projects. MR. MCGAHAN: Can you explain that a little further? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, a non-turf buffer is a specific width, and I would propose -- the CAC proposed twenty foot there -- between the proposed structure and that rock wall. Let me see on the survey if we have a distance there. (Perusing.) A non-turf buffer means that there is no mowing allowed, it cannot be maintained as sod. A lot of people today want to sod all the way down to the water line and what happens, as the water runs down, it carries with it any contaminants. MR. MCGAHAN: You want natural vegetation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Natural vegetation in that non-turf buffer. Right now it looks like it's between approximately 50 feet of proposed area between the current concrete piers and the rock wall or revetment that is there. So given that distance, I would be interested in how the Board would feel about a fifteen-foot non-turf buffer in there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I feel the rock revetment provides some of the buffer in itself. I would be happy with ten. Board of Trustees 22 September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That sounds okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, if we were to request a ten-foot non-turf buffer there landward of the rock revetment, is that something the applicant would be okay with? MR. MCGAHAN: It seems very reasonable to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Now also on the original permit there was a hay bale line at the eight-foot contour line. Which that shows running, staked hay bale line running just landward, again, of this rock revetment. So if it's okay with the applicant, we would like to include in here, in this new permit, again, the staked hay bale line along that eight-foot contour line. MR. MCGAHAN: Is that seaward of the hay bales that are there right now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with it just where it is. I just want to make sure that it's contained in the new permit that you are applying for, that you continue to have the staked hay bale line. MR. MCGAHAN: Absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's fine. Now, one question we had, we noticed the chimney has remained. That chimney doesn't have to come down? MR. MCGAHAN: No, we were not expecting to take down as much as we did. The entire rear portion of the house was shown on the plans to have new wall framing and new roof framing and some portions of the sides of the house. When we got into the demolition, there was extensive damage, due to rot or termites, whatever it may have been, I don"t know, but in the front garage area, that's why we took that down. And along the front concrete patio, along the front of the house, was also similar damage. The chimney is in fine shape. We are planning on reconstructing the house the way the plans are drawn around the chimney. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, I'm looking at the plans here and I see drywells around, on both the east and west side of the house. Are those to handle the roof runoff? in other words, are you planning on putting gutters and leaders going to those drywells? MR. MCGAHAN: Correct, gutters and leaders going into underground drainage into those proposed drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We wanted that and it was a condition of the CAC also, so I wanted to make sure I addressed that. And is there any need to take down any additional trees than what you have down already? MR. MCGAHAN: Absolutely not. It's staying the way it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. In that case I think I addressed all the questions that the CAC had. Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to comment on this application? (No response.) If not, are there any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you covered it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 23 September 17, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number eight, Douglas McGahan on behalf of Marron's as depicted on 3125 Wells Avenue, Southold, with the condition that the staked hay bale line continues to remain in its present location and remain in effect through the period of construction; that, as the applicant has said, there are gutters going to leaders leading to drywells and that no other trees are taken down on this property as a part of this project. And a ten-foot non-turf buffer to be installed landward of the rock revetment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you MR. MCGAHAN: Thank you. Just one last question. Regarding a non-turf buffer is this something that will be specified as a use of art of what we plant there, how it's done and when it's done? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It should be done as part of the construction project. It's included in this permit as a condition of the permit. What you can do is come in the office, we can give you a list of plantings that you can use in that. What we are asking for is native, natural native plantings, and ones that don't require fertilization or any chemical treatment. With a lot of people what is popular is American Beach Grass, Rosa Rugosa, beach plums, et cetera. We can give you have a list of all the appropriate plantings. MR. MCGAHAN: Very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number nine, Christopher Stress on behalf of CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing handicap access ramp and to construct a new wooden walkway to buffer beach from the existing parking area. Located: Nassau Point Causeway Beach, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here who has any information for us tonight? MR. STRESS: Hi, I'm Chris Stress, the architect, and I'm here with Jeff Smith, and I believe you have the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. On inspection, we really didn't have any questions. Qur LWRP has reviewed this as consistent, and the CAC did have some comments. They support the application with the condition of French drains installed to catch all runoff and chemicals from the asphalt parking area, and; the handicap ramp is shortened because the existing ramp is buried due to accumulation of sand on the beach. Does anyone from CAC want to elaborate on that? Are you saying because the sand is there, you think it's going to get covered anyway? MR. WILDER: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was from the dredge spoil, I believe. MR. WILDER: It's going to remain or blow way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jeff? MR. SMITH: Jeff Smith, I'm Chairman of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Board of Trustees 24 September 17, 2008 Park District. Up until the time of the dredging, we never had a problem with the sand. When they ran the pipes down the beach, I happened to be there that morning, and I almost had heart failure because ali of a sudden this sand is gushing out of this pipe and totally buried the one end. And I said to the guys, did you not see this ramp? Oh, we'll take care of it later. Well, you can see what they did later. Nothing. MR. WILDER: Is it going to stay there? MR. SMITH: No, we want to reconstruct the whole thing. The sand will stay there. We want to just build it up on top of it. TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to raise the elevation of the deck? MR. STRESS: Yes, it will be above the existing grade. We do anticipate that existing grade may move a little bit over time, but certainly we are not going to bury it the way it is now. MR. SMITH: That's been there. The existing ramp that is there has been there for at least fifteen years, if not more. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I do have to say, I have taken many a class down there to do beach cleanups and we walked that entire ramp up until this last dredging. So it was perfectly fine and usable until then. TRUSTEE KING: You have just opposite problem than most people have. They don't have enough sand. You have too much sand. You can give it to somebody else. MR. SMITH: You can come and take it any time you want. MR. STRESS: I have a question. You are looking for a French drain system? MR. WILDER: To keep runoff from the parking hot. It's not a pervious parking lot. MR. STRESS: We are looking at about half a mile or more. Probably closer to three quarters. That would be a very extensive and expensive process for the Parks District two do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you implying that because that because of the paved parking area, that it runs, it will run down the ramp? MR. WILDER: That will help the runoff but that paved area is running over now, and it should be pervious. It's too close to the water not to be pervious. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a very old road. MR. WILDER: Sorry, but that's what it is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand. But are you saying you think it's coming down the ramp from there? MR. WILDER: At the front of the ramp anyhow, to make sure it's not a gusher coming off there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was going to say a step up. MR. WILDER: It's a handicap ramp, not a step up. MR. STRESS: You are not saying just in front of the handicap area? MR. WILDER: That's the only place I would do it. The parking lot shouldn't be there anyhow. TRUST~-E GHOSIO: There is a buffer there between the parking lot and the tame>, and that water comes up. MR. MCGREEVY: Is this an old picture? TRUSTEE KING: No, we were just out there. Board of Trustees 25 September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is just to the north of the ramp. This is to the north of the ramp. MR. MCGREEVY: You are talking about the walkway to the -- MR. SMITH: The walkway is to the south of this picture. When you come into the entrance, the walkway is just south of the entrance. Now, the gentleman made a comment about the parking lot not being there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Here we go. See, it's raised. This is raised here. MR. WILDER: Okay, as soon as you have a slot in it for handicap, it won't be raised anymore. So you need the French drain. TRUSTEE GFIOSlO: Just in front of the ramp. MR. WILDER: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see, I think we all assumed you meant the whole length. MR. WILDER: No. MR. SMITH: Where that handicap ramp starts, that is not going to change. That's already raised. And the road is pitched. In fact I had this discussion with some of you before. The road is pitched so that the water builds up back here. If you come down after a rain storm, there is no water on the beach side. It's all on the land side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that a puddle there? MR. SMITH: Yes, and it goes over that way. MR. WILDER: Would you point out where the walkway is in relation to that -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right here. These are the handrails. MR. MCGREEVY: On this side of the railing? MR. SMITH: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's basically a continuation of what is there. MR. MCGREEVY: I would like to make a recommendation. I did make an inspection on this property and it is a narrow parking area which is also used as a roadway. MR. SMITH: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Let him make his recommendation. MR. MCGREEVY: When I was there, there was vertical parking to that fence, nose-in parking to the fence. Then you had a roadway behind it, right where people would go through the parking lot, in front of the parking space. MR. SMITH: Further down, yes. MR. MCGREEVY: My concern, Jim, is that if that walkway going south from the ramp way, if it's going to be placed, not that -- TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be the same as that. MR. MCGREEVY: All right. Then my recommendation would be, for safety sake, either put the walkway to the east side of that railing, the new walkway, to the east side for protection, for safety. Because when people, when vehicles pull in there, Jim, it's a safety concern. TRUSTEE KING: You have the same thing now. Has there ever been an accident in the walkway? MR. SlY, i-i-h: No, none at all. Board of Trustees 26 September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see the walkway -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. I have a question. I know what we are all referring to as a parking lot was the original Nassau Point Causeway. It was a town road. It was never built as a parking lot. It was a town road. Was that deeded to the New Suffolk Park District or is that still a town-maintained roadway. MR. SMITH: All deeded. We have from, I don't know if you have any pictures, you see a guardrail at the far south end of this is a guardrail. That's the extent of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District property. That end across the street, across the causeway. But this has all been deeded to the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District. It is not a road. It's strictly a parking lot. MR. STRESS: it's one tax lot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I make a suggestion for the CAC's concerns? You are concerned about parking, could these be "no parking" areas on both sides? MR. SMITI-;: Once this is done it's going to be handicapped parking. With the blue, you know, and the signs in front. It will only be handicap in front of that ramp. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that would reduce the amount of vehicles there. MR. SMITH: Actually we had the blue there already and it kind of got worn off and we didn't bother doing anything with it. TRUSTEE ;BERGEN: I was going to say you did have "handicap parking only" signs there previously. I remember that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, Don and Jack? MR. WILDER: As long as this end is raised and everything is sloped away from the water, no problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, good. MR. MCGREEVY: My concern is with a sturdy fence like that, which could be a good safety factor, any new pathway that will be placed south of that rampway way, I would recommend to put that pathway on the other side of that sturdy railing to protect people who are walking on that pathway from cars which are pulling in there to park. It makes more sense to have a pathway on the other side of the fence for' traffic. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually, I can tell you why, when they came in for the other walkway, it was recommended by this Board and myself specifically because there is so much healthy beach grass there that we didn't want it on top of that grass. So we required that they not do that. MR. SMITH: Can I just say something. When we first applied for it, that was the original set of plans, to go inside. TRUSTEE KING: It was our recommendation. MR. SMITH: Right. Then they came back and we said, okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ~'11 make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this application for Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District for their new wooden Board of Trustees 27 September 17, 2008 walkway and handicap access ramp. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number ten. Christopher Stress on behalf of CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10x16' pavilion six feet from the top of the bluff. Located: S/W corner of West Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue. We have an inconsistent LWRP review on this application. The LWRP finds it inconsistent because the proposed pavilion is not permitted on or near the bluff. And I do believe that was a concern of this Board. MR. STRESS: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC does not support the application because the proposed location of the structure is too close to the top of the bluff and it does not include a drainage plan. I believe the consensus of the Board was that, you have your wooden seats, you have the fence, and they, as LWRP has stated, it was too near the bluff and there is a question of necessity. MR. SMI;'H: The necessity came out of people asking us if we could get a covered area that they could sit in, have a family picnic or whatever, and overlooking the water. We had no intentions of removing the fence on the water side, the building would be built basically between those two fences and just removing those first two benches and putting the barbecue at the far end on the Pequash Club side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The problem is that as per our code, 275-11, it's not allowed, because it is a bluff. Is there any consideration for moving it back any further where people can still see the water? MR. STRESS: Inside the fence. TRUSTEE BERGEN: if it could be moved inside the fence, would it then serve your purpose of what you are looking for to provide a coverea pavilion for people to use -- landward of this fence. MR. SMITH: Where we are standing. TRUSTEE DICKERSQN: That's not Bob. That's Scott Hilary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which is one of our policies anyway is to not extend out. MR. SMITH: Then it would go right into our parking lot. MR. STRESS: It will take away at least two, maybe three parking spaces. MR. SMITH: We only have six or seven spots there to begin with. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can our legal assistant make a comment? MR. COP, COP, AN: Well, Lauren asked me, I'm not going to pretend it was my idea, whether this would need a ZBA variance. It seems like it very well might. Anything within one-hundred foot of the top of the bluff needs a variance from the zoning board as well. TRUSTE. E DICKERSON: May I suggest the tabling of this for you two to maybe consider changir~g the location of this and also looking into the variance issue? MR. SMITH: All right. MR. STRESS: Okay. Board of Trustees 28 September 17, 2008 MR. CORCORAN: Just check with the Building Department. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And check with your membership to see if that's something they would consider, moving it back knowing that could result in a net loss of possibly a few parking places. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One for two. MR. SMITH: Actually, Nassau Point was our biggest concern because we have to get it done before our lovely birds come back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I knew you liked those plovers back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You consider those lovely? MR. SIVIITH: No comment. Thank you, very much. Good day. TRUSTP. E DOHERTY: Number eleven, Mark Schwartz on behalf of MICHAEL & ROBIN DREWS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing stairs and replace with new four-foot wide set of stairs with a 4x8' platform. Located: 7425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This is consistent with the LWRP policy nine, which provides public access to and recreational use of coastal waters, public land and public resources of the Town of Southold. And he also recommends best management practice to minimize disturbance to the natural protective feature during the removal of existing stairs and the construction of new proposed stairs. And CAC supports the application with the condition that the scattered tiles and debris is removed and the area is planted with beach 9rass in order to stabilize the bluff. Do we have a picture of that? A couple of years ago the applicant came in. They had a deck there. They requested an approval to replace that deck and they have an active permit to have a deck in that area. I don't know why they haven't done it. It wasn't beach grass when we approved it. It was a natural deck there. They removed the deck. I don't know why they haven't built it, but the two years is not up on the permit yet. So they have a permit to build a deck there. They wanted a deck on both sides and we said no because the other side was beach grass. This was no beach .crass. So they got the approval for a deck there in the previous permit, and the two years are not up yet. So they have an active permit for that. MR. WILDER: I'm surprised they got the first permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was a deck there when we approved it and the deck was taken down and those were put up. And so they still have time to build the deck, if they want it. Is there any comment from anyone else? MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we would like to replace the stairs with a four-foot wide set of stairs here. So I believe there is a 4x4 platform at the top, similar to what is there now, and they would like too, halfway down create a 4x8 platform with a little seating area so it's 32-square feet, which I believe is allowed by code, and underneath, that wout~ be kind of a cantilevered deck, so underneath this will be growth, plantings underneath. Board of Trus'Lees 29 September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our comments when we were out there is it's such a short distance that we didn't really see the need for the 4x8 platform, seeing that you have that seating area on top of the bulkhead there. You are still elevated, you could still have your view. So they do already have a seating area. So we didn't really see the need to extend this to 4x8. MR. SCHWARTZ: I can't say it's a necessity. It would be nice. It's what they wanted to do, which I can't see any harm in it. If it's allowed by code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that size is allowed by code. Any comments from the Board on that? MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, there are two comments from the CAC on this one. Again, erosion control devices at the base of the supports of the stairs and I noticed on the original plans for this construction of the project, that I think the driveway was going to be asphalt, and if that was the case we would recommend a pervious driveway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe the driveway is outside our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could still be requested. MR. MCGREEVY: It's requested by the CAC. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that I didn't see on here. MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't recall what the plans were for the driveway at this point. I could certainly check. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just comment for a second on the erosion control that the CAC has talked about. What I would recommend is that when applicants, for the Board to consider when applicants come in to apply for stairs to the beach, that we hand out to the applicant at that time, as they come in for the application, a copy of the recommended erosion control, so they can consider including that with the application. Because I agree totally with the CAC, I think it's something that is simple, we are not talking about much an of an addition, so there is not much of additional cost involved, there is not that much more structure involved and it would assist with erosion control underneath the stairs. And I thought it was a great idea. So I would just make the recommendation that we provide all applicants who come up with stairs to beach, with that information upfront, so they can consider putting it in their application. MR. MCGREEVY: I don't know if it's true, Dave, but the feedback that I got is that the DEC is not favorable to this concept. For whatever reason, I don't know. But there has been no response to the request for privacy to the DEC regarding these erosion control devices. So I don't know where that puts you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we could still recommend it. TRUSTEE KING: Between a rock and a hard spot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The applicant still has to apply to the DEC and go through the motions and see what happens. MR. SCHWARTZ: In this case it would be non-jurisdiction, for this project, because we have the bulkhead there. So it's not even in the DEC jurisdiction. TRUSYEE GHOSIO: We could do i'~ then. TRUSTEE KING: Seems to me, one of the hearings somebody brought up the point, [hey were afraid. In other words, you have the piece across the base of two 4x4s, they are afraid of water coming down Board of Trustees 30 September 17, 2008 and going off to the sides and causing erosion on the sides more than it would if it was just left natural. I remember somebody saying that at one of those meetings we had. MR. MCGREEVY: That might be a logical reason. You are dealing with some very steep bluffs, as one of the applicants has, a very steep bluff. The initial construction, just the workers on those steep bluffs, starts the whole process working and if you don't do some kind of control there, it just exacerbates the situation. TRUST~.E KING: What if we used grated steps rather than solid steps?. We've done that on some of these applications. Try and get better growth throughout, rather than solid steps, using the grating material. The open grate, like we use on the catwalks. MR. SCHWARTZ: What material is that made out of; plastic or metal? TRUSTEE KING: Fiberglass, they have plastic now. They have a lot of varieties. It seems to be working out pretty well. There is a picture in the office of that one dock. I think that is fiberglass. You can get it with non-skid surface on it or get it with smooth surface on it. But it allows a lot of light penetration so you don't get a lot of the vegetation dying off underneath the walkway. It's something to think about. I would recommend it myself. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't look like much of a vegetation issue. But there is, that's comiag from the side, not directly under. TRUSTEE L3OHERTY: So what I'm hearing from the Board is we feel no need for the additional 4x$ platform in the middle of the stairs? Or do you want to -- what is your feeling on that? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we go if the with the grating on the structure, ~ don't really have that much of an issue with the platform in the middle, as much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's allowed by code. TRUSTEE KING: 4x8 platform. Go with the grated, it's less of an issue. TRUSTEE DOHER'FY: Is chat doable? You do the grating, then you can get your 4x8. G,'ated material on the decking. MR. SCHWARTZ: Sounds good. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUS-~-EE DO~IEP, TY: I'll make a motion to approve Mark Schwartz on behalf ¢>f Michael and Robin Drews, located at 7425 Nassau Point Road, as applied for, wid'~ the condition that open-grate decking be used during construction for the decking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, the 4x8 platform will use grated materia for that decking. TRUSTEE. E, OHERTY: And the stairs, too. TRUS¥,--E BERGEN: A,nd the stairs also. Okay, I didn't hear that before. And we would as~ the applicant to consider using erosion control pieces under the stairs. And we could -- MR. SCHWARTZ: I'll look into it. I'm not exactly sure what that is. TRUSYEE. BERGEN: It's just a recommendation TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jack can help you out with that. Board of Trustees 31 September 17, 2008 TRUST_--E DOHERTY: We have a copy in the office, too. Do I have a second? TRUST.--_E DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number twelve, Mark Schwartz on behalf of ARTHUR & MELISSA BEISEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling, complete interior :enovations, new windows, exterior doors and siding, remove roofing and insulation boards to expose existing roof rafters, install new insulation panels and asphalt shingle roofing, remove and replace inkmd existing wood decking and railings, install new deck and stairs. Located: 3760 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. We were ali out There and it looked at it. It's pretty straight forward. LWRP has found it exempt pursuant to 268-3, provided the deck is to be replaced inkind. I think he meant to say be replaced inplace. Because I believe they are going to use plastic oeck, ing on that? MR. SCHWARTZ: We didn't specify a decking material. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, it's inplace replacement? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. All the foundation, all the joists will remain, just new decking, probably mahogany. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, CAC didn't make an inspection. So there was no recommendation made. MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, I did make a inspection on this. My only recomrrlendation is to retain the pervious driveway. I don't know what their' plans are, but our recommendation would be to retain the pervious driveway that is presently there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not so sure the driveway is even in our jurisdiction. MR. MCGREEV¥: it's just a recommendation by the CAC as a part of the report. MR. SCHWARTZ: The Bu~,ding Department requires that now to retain the runoff from driveways. TRUS¥~:_-- KING: i [~elie~e it's out of your jurisdiction. (Perusing). Like I said, it's pretty minimal to me. It's basically all on the landward side of the house. MR. SCIdWARTZ: Yes, it is. TRUSTS,: KING: Any comments from the Board.'? (No response.) Anybody'? (No response.) I'll ma~,e a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUS¥'-ZE KING: All in .avor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTi.:.'E KING: A~d I'h make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUS'FEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUS¥~:~ ~ihG: Ail in favor'? (ALL AVES.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Great, thank you. Board of Tins ees 32 September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any other business? (Negative response.) TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.) RECEIVED *~ / oZ .:/¢¢ ,~/~ DEC ,~' ,:,~,~ ,,~ !