The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-10/15/2008 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:00 PM Present were: Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Lori Hulse, Town Attorney For Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008, at 6:00 PM WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 23, 2008, and August 20, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our meeting. Jim King, as I explained, probably won't make it. He has an ailing father. So with that I'll introduce the rest of the Board. Board of Trustees 2 October 15, 2008 To my left is Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, myself; Lauren Standish is our office manager, and Trustee Bob Ghosio. Our attorney tonight is Lori Hulse, who is not here yet, and we have Wayne Galante taking the minutes. So when you do come up to the microphone, please state your name for the record. We do have a couple of postponements which I'll go over first. I think we only have two. Page six, number 21, Costello Marine Contracting 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 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 x 30' 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 of dredged spoil to be trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 1435 West Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. And, number 26, Christopher Stress on behalf of CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10xl 6' pavilion six feet from the top of the bluff. Located: S/W corner of West Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, has been postponed. So we won't be headng those tonight. Our next field inspections will be Tuesday, November 11, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, November 19, 6:00 PM, with our work session at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) And we have minutes of July 23 and August 20. I read the Board of Trustees 3 October 15, 2008 July ones. I'm not quite finished with August. I have just a couple of minor corrections. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I reviewed them both and sent some minor changes off to Lauren to be made. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Do you want to make a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll be glad to make a motion to approve the minutes of July 23, 2008, and August 20, 2008, with the minor changes that have been noted already to be entered into those minutes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) I, MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustees monthly report for September, 2008. A check for $7,922.23 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Review Acts. Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 15, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. Richard Johnson and Pamela Maino - SCTM#59-6-9 Goldsmith Boat Shop, Inc. - SCTM#64-3-9 Alvah and Allan Goldsmith - SCTM#64-3-8 Joseph Licciardi and Catherine Pino - SCTM#38-2-31 Claus Rademacher- SCTM#57-1-31 Daniel and Ursula Vavas - SCTM#53-6-6 Stein Family Residence Trust - SCTM#37-4-10 Robert Krudop - SCTM#122-4-34 Joseph F. Gonzales - SCTM#122-4-14 Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport, Inc. - SCTM#-43-3-2 Carol Pufahl - SCTM#87-2-25 Paul T. Bentancourt - SCTM#22-2-6 Henry and Diane Hobbs - SCTM#104-4-9 Robert Celic - SCTM#123-8-29 Board of Trustees 4 October 15, 2008 Robert Bombara - SCTM#54-4-19 Steven and Olga Tenedios - SCTM#23-1-14.1 Kimogenor Point Co. - SCTM#116-6-24.1 John Severini - SCTM#35-4-28.27 Kimberly Mueller - SCTM#123-3-19 Alan Cardinale, Jr. - SCTM#118-1-9 Fred Dacimo - SCTM#27-2-4 Judie Lizewski - SCTM#137-4-10.1 Gail Rerisi - SCTM#76-1-15.3 Victor Rerisi - SCTM#76-1-15.6 Howard Ludecker- SCTM#87-5-3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion to approve that?. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions and administrative permits, Young & Young on behalf of ANNE MARIE MCVEIGH requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second-floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling. Located: 2375 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. Does Jim have this file? MS. STANDISH: Yes, he does. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I did inspect this. Jim did also. He has the file. This was a straightforward second-floor addition. Is there anybody here representing this? (No response.) Okay, I just want to, on this, just to make sure the usual, when we have second floor additions, that the first floor, if it does need to be demolished, that they come back in and amend the permit; and drywells are added. I don't remember if they were on the plans or not. Gutters, leaders, drywells. It was an established lawn and there is quite a bit of distance between that and the wetlands. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for extensions, transfers and Board of Trustees 5 October 15, 2008 amendments. What we do when we have some simple applications that ara all in order, we try and lump them together to try to make this time go faster. They ara numbers one through seven and number nine and they raad as follows: CHERYL HANSEN raquests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6242, as issued on November 16, 2005. Located: 405 Williamsburg Road, Southold. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SUSAN MAGRINO-DUNNING raquests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6257 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6257C, as issued on December 21, 2005, and Amended on June 18, 2008, and as depicted on the revised plans last dated September 17, 2008. Located: 925 Stephenson's Road, Orient. Samuels & Steelman on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG raquests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6247, as issued on November 16, 2005. Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold. Patricia Moore on behalf of BENALI, LLC, raquests a Transfer of Permit #6325 from Shirley Kram to Benali, LLC. Located: 1275 West Cedar Point Drive, Southold. John Hiller on behalf of EUGENE & MARY JANE BOLTER raquests a Transfer of Permit #5807 from Eugene & Mary Jane Bolter to ARTHUR SKELSKI & NAN MOLOFSKY as issued on September 24, 2003. Located: 510 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. John Hiller on behalf of Eugene & Mary Jane Bolter raquests a Transfer of Permit #5436 from Eugene & Mary Jane Bolter to ARTHUR SKELSKI & NAN MOLOFSKY, as issued on October 24, 2001. Located: 510 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. MARK & MARIA KATSIGEORGIS raquest an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6358 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6358C to ramove the concrate blocks and debris on the west side of the dwelling that was previously a wall and raplace with a new concrete block wall; replace paving stone lx10' walls on west side of dwelling south of splash pad to stabilize dirt from running down into splash pad; reconstruct a four-foot wide walkway over existing splash pad araa with 16"x16" pervious interlocking driveway stone gravel filled joint; raconstruct curved driveway with pervious interlocking driveway stone pavers, gravel and sand, and Board of Trustees 6 October 15, 2008 trimmed by cobblestone; and reconstruct 4x16' wide cobblestone apron to access curved driveway. Located: 55455 Rt. 48, Southold. And number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MO AHMADZADEH requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6936 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6936C to include an additional 126 square foot of decking on the seaward side of the residence. Located: 925 North Sea Drive, Southold. With that, I'll make a motion for numbers one through seven and number nine, to approve those applications. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll do number eight now. GERARD GRALTON requests an Amendment to Permit #5897 to lower the decking on the existing dock 1.5'. Located: 5710 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. This request was because of difficulties getting from the dock, as it is existing, to the vessels below, which I agree with. However, there are, at this point, there is some grass that is just barely, marsh grass that is just barely staying alive, so what I'm going to recommend and require is that when the catwalk is lowered, that it must be grated material. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as a condition it will be open grating material will be required. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess we need to skip number ten until Lori gets here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren did talk to Lori and the fine was paid and she said we could go ahead and act on this and she will take care of the rest of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With that, number ten, John Strode, Esq., on behalf of WILLIAM PENNEY requests an Amendment to Permit #4379 to allow one of the existing floating docks to be replaced with a boat float. Located: 2200 Hobart Road, Board of Trustees 7 October 15, 2008 Southold. As we know, this has been ongoing. And this is actually what we requested, that if he wanted to keep the boat float, that he has to remove one of the floating docks. And the only thing I would add to this is that we give him a timeframe to get this done. And since we already gave him a timeframe to remove the boat float and he didn't, I say 15 days is enough time to do this. I don't know how you guys feel about that timeframe. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How many days? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 15 days. It's just a matter of removing a float. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine with me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine with me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve this amendment with the condition that it is done within 15 days of today. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing, he needs to have the amendment in hand first before he can do it, so if we say within 15 days, it's within 15 days of having-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, then we can send that to him certified. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 15 days of receipt of the permit. Just in fairness to him. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. We have a second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 11, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of GAlL RERISl requests an Amendment to Permit ~8173 to construct a fixed open walkway 4x107' with decking a minimum of 3.5' above vegetated grade, hinged ramp 3x10' and floating dock 5x20', and install two six-inch diameter piles to secure the floating dock. Located: 497 Private Road #22, Southold. The previous Board had already approved what was there and I believe that it was a split decision at that point. Do you want to address this? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Ms. Rerisi. Please be sure that everybody understands that the description you read is a description of the project as it would exist, including the extension, okay, we are not looking to do everything that is there. This is the reason that we would like to do this. I only had enough ink left to do one of those. That's the dock that is Ms. Rerisi's dock and the point, of course, is that the dock is not usable as it is now. It was designed, Board of Trustees 8 October 15, 2008 if you will, by individual members of a former Board and perhaps with the participation of the DEC, and it was on a try-it-and-see kind of basis, because both Ms. Rerisi and Mr. Rerisi, who owns the adjacent property, which we'll talk about next, felt that it was going to be inadequate, and it certainly has turned out to be that way. So, and with regard to my anticipation of your one-third of the way across the waterway concept, please look at the water depths. That really ought to be one-third of the way across the usable width of the creek. Because over 60% of the width of the creek where the house is, is innavigable so. And that's all that distance is adding up to the length of the dock that you will say is more than one-third of the width of the creek. So, what do you say?. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Well, I'll point out that LWRP found it to be inconsistent. Several different reasons. The proposed action is private, non-commercial and does not support a pattern of development that enhances community character, nor preserves public access for public recreational activities. It's limited in water depth, so the proposed amendment to the existing dock is not suitable to this location. Applicant currently enjoys adequate access to navigable waters via the existing dock structure; also has alternative means of access to Goose Creek via the use of the town's boat ramp off Gideon's Landing Road. It's also, the proposed action is located in Goose Creek which is a critical environmental area nominated by the Town of Southold as worthy of protection. I have to say that, as proposed, we are going to be extending it 45 feet, adding a 3x10' ramp and still only get to a foot-and-a-half of water. It seems like an awful lot of structure to get to a point where you still can't moor a boat, really. I don't know, what does the Board feel? MR. FITZGERALD: We can certainly do better than we can now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My recollection of the odginal proposal was that point that Bob just made was that the depth was a major consideration for those of us who voted against it, that it was not a place where a dock would be appropriate, because of the depth. And, again, it's a very appropriate consideration. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, the picture that you submitted, I was looking for a date on that picture. Was that taken in the last day?. MR. FITZGERALD: It was taken on the 13th. Two days ago. Board of Trustees 9 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it was taken at full moon Iow tide. MR. FITZGERALD: One half hour before Iow water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I concur with what I heard, while I was not part of the original decision when this came up before, I was not on the Board then, when we went and looked at it, this proposed extension goes well out into the creek, well beyond the one-third rule, and it only gets you in a foot of water. So really beyond a kayak or canoe or rowboat there is not much, many other vessels, certainly not a motorized vessel can go on it without being on the bottom with its engine. And I heard what you said about the one-third rule should affect only navigable water, and that gets very tricky. But the current code rule as it stands is one-third across. It doesn't say anything about navigable water. So we have to work with the current code. We have, obviously. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here is a case if that is what it was, the one-third navigable water, you end up with a passage of about ten feet wide. So we would not be able to do it anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a real challenge. MR. FITZGERALD: All those docks on the other side don't seem to have any trouble. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because they are in deeper water. MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And they probably would not be allowed if it was one-third of the navigable width. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I doubt they would have been allowed if they were also going into one foot of water. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, we are trying to get out, so maybe we should make it longer. Look, I think something that I would like to say to the Board is that if the objective of the Trustees is to enforce the code, enforce the code, then think we are all wasting our time. If, on the other hand, the objective of the Trustees ~s to protect to a reasonable extent the environment, then again, it's as with a lot of the things, I don't see anything wrong with this. So if -- Bob, who wrote that response to the LWRP? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP coordinator is Scott Hilary. Scott and Mark Terry. MR. FITZGERALD: Scott doesn't, didn't say anything about what it is that we are trying to protect, other than the code. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He mentioned the critical environmental area, didn't he Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, he did. And quite frankly, I didn't read the whole thing. Board of Trustees 10 October 15, 2008 MR. FITZGERALD: We civilians don't get to read any of it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The existing dock structure has already resulted in the destruction of and prevented the growth of vegetated wetlands, therefore the construction and operation standards pursuant to 275-11 have not been met. The proposed action, if approved, will result in continued habitat destruction and impairment with the physical loss of fish and wildlife habitat within a critical environmental area. And there are pictures here showing the existing dock and the shadowing that it caused the destruction of and prevented the growth of vegetated wetlands. So the evidence is also here. MR. FITZGERALD: What I really want to say: So what. But I'm not going to say that. But the point is, any dock that we -- 75% of the docks that are built in this town do exactly that. In my humble opinion. Because there are very few docks built in the town that don't cross through vegetated wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Fitzgerald, we've had this conversation many, many times, and you have made the same point and I have made the same point. We have a documentary out that should be available and you can listen to all the reasons that we, again, give, and Cornell gives of the value of the wetlands, and I think one of the things that happens is you are mentioning the dock and one of the things we are trying to do is minimize and start to reduce the number of structures; and especially in critical environmental areas, that's when we have to sit back and say it's not that one little piece or that one fish or Fiddler crab. It's extended to the condition of the marsh, which is all interconnected, its food chains and food webs. It's not just that one picture. It's not just this one individual. It's the connectedness of all of the docks that we are considering, and this is one more. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, I understand what you are saying and I hear it and I understand it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: Although obviously I don't agree with it. And the reason I don't agree with it is that this, the Town Code is a very negative document. It tells us what we can't do. It doesn't address, except in one word, sorry, one word which appears twice in the code, the word "recreation." It doesn't say anything about the rights of the civilian, if you will, the rights of the homeowner, the property owner, to be able to do the kind of thing we are asking. And I don't mean this particular, only this particular application. I mean the concept in general. Board of Trustees 11 October 15, 2008 And we get answers from Mark Terry and Scott and the DEC and many people, that you can't do something because it will have an adverse effect upon the wetland or it will fragment a valuable habitat. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did find it, it's interesting to note that the CAC did resolve to support the application. It supports the application with the condition of public access is provided. It was inspected by and moved by Doug Hardy. Is Doug here? Can you step up for a minute, please? MR. HARDY: Yes, I will. I don't remember approving that. In fact, I came here partly to object to it because it's destroying public wetland and it's a trophy bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is for Gall Rerisi. This is number 11 under -- page three. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have tonight's agenda? MR. HARDY: Yes, I do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 11 is what we are talking about. MR. HARDY: Yes. I did not approve of this application because I went back to look at it. And it's a trophy bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a bulkhead. It's a dock MR. HARDY: But it's a dock will be built on a bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I think you are confused on the piece of property. MR. HARDY: This is on Sage Boulevard? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MR. HARDY: Sorry, I back off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Needtess to say, I don't think he remembers it. Anyway I'll make a motion - MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a hearing. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, Mr. Rerisi would like to take advantage of the continuing offer to have people comment on these things. Mr. Rerisi is husband to Gall Redsi. MR. RERISI: Thank you, for the opportunity to speak. My first name is Victor, last name Rerisi. The problem here is when this thing was approved two years ago or so, I didn't get a chance to renew it. It was done up here on the Board with an architectural ruler and scale and this was kind of, I don't want to say forced on me, but really kind of, the Board, and I'm sure if you check the records, the Board ended up arguing over this thing. It was a hot discussion up on the dais there and it was kind of embarrassing at the time. Two points; number one, just to the west of this Board of Trustees 12 October 15, 2008 property is a new bulkhead -- sorry, take it back. It's a new dock, a floating dock to the west of the property. It's a seasonal floating dock. It's in the same depth of water, just to the west, maybe 200 feet from the second application. That's number one. Number two, you know, I would be happy to compromise here with something. This is what we are looking for. I'm not looking to put a marina in. I would just like to have access to the water. Be it for a canoe, a kayak, for a rowboat. Right now you go down the steps, and I think Mr. Fitzgerald showed you photographs. It's mud. You can't walk in it. It's impossible to walk in. It's like the bridge to nowhere. It doesn't accomplish anything. I never realized what it was going to be like until it was built. I mean, I can understand the floating dock. Fine. I would just like to be able to access the water with a rowboat, a canoe, a kayak, where I don't have to walk through the mud. It's not like we are asking for the moon. And like I said, almost the identical thing, since my hearing, just to the west of me, was built, and this Board must have approved it, and it's in 1.7 feet of water and it's a seasonal floating dock. And I could understand you don't want it left in for the winter. As far as the vegetation, the vegetation under that fixed catwalk now is growing fine. If it gets extended, there is no vegetation out there. It's nothing. I'm not saying there are no Fiddler crabs, but there is no vegetation under where we want to extend it. It's just mud. What's happening, by the very nature of that creek, where we are it's the widest point of the creek, and all the silt comes into that area. When the tide goes in and out, that's where it's all dumped. So I would appreciate your consideration on this. Again, I'm not trying to get something that is totally unreasonable. I just want access to the water. Right now we don't have any access to the water. We just have access to mud. Thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know when we went down and viewed this, we have been down and viewed this, I think the last, I know the last two months, and on one of those visits we went down at Iow tide. Not full moon Iow tide; regular Iow tide. And there was water down there. Now, you know, I saw the picture and it's full moon Iow tide. And you are absolutely right, it's mud right now. But at normal Iow tide, when we went one time, there was water there. There was very little. There was very little water there. But Board of Trustees 13 October 15, 2008 there was water there, enough for a kayak or a canoe. MR. RERISI: I would be happy to give you pictures. Honestly, that's not the case at Iow tide. Believe me, I'm there all the time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a long agenda tonight and we have the property right next door to this coming up. Is there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, when we were out there we thought maybe this could be shortened a little bit. Since the water depth is 1.5 and 1.7. It's really not that much of a difference, but if we shorten it up a little, I don't know if that's doable with the applicant. Right now he doesn't have a ramp and float, he just has the steps. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just measured out, to go back to one foot of depth would be reducing it in length by 40 feet over what is proposed right now. And that gets it 1.7 to one foot in depth. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see how having that, given that would be of any value, really. It's not getting us out to a depth that really makes any sense. So I would like to make a motion we deny this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second it. MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry, I didn't hear the motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm making a motion to deny the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a second from Peggy. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of VICTOR RERISl requests an Amendment to Permit #6174 to construct a fixed open walkway 4x67' with decking a minimum of 3.5' above vegetated grade, hinged ramp 3x10' and floating dock 5x20', and install two six-inch diameter piles to secure the floating dock. Located: 850 Private Road #22, Southold. This is the property right next door to the one we were just discussing. LWRP report is the same, essentially. Again, I have pictures here showing the vegetation under the existing walkway is completely died off. TRUSTEE BERGE~q: Bob, when you say the LWRP report is the same, just for the record, it's inconsistent? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is inconsistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the same reasons that we discussed on the last application. I could review them if we need to. I don't have a survey. This is from '05. Are we working Board of Trustees 14 October 15, 2008 on the same file? (Perusing). Yes, here it is. It's the same situation. This one extends the, it's not quite as wide a section of the creek and it also extends out only to 1.8 feet of water, and it's a T-ramp, T-float on the drawing. Basically we have the same problem here, I think, that we do on the other one. It just seems like an awful lot of structure that is in a critical environmental area that is not getting us out to any real depth of water. So on this one, I would make a motion to deny this application as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, before we entertain that motion, I have a question. Does this one also exceed one-third of the way across or is this within the one-third of the way across? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's awfully close. From the edge of the wetland area, I don't think, it's just about one-third. It's pretty much maxed out. MR. FITZGERALD: So that's one thing that makes it different than the other. The next thing is that it's too deep of water than the other, and marginally deeper, but in that situation, that's important. And the last thing is that your initial comment about taking a lot of wood to get to not much water, doesn't apply in this case. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How is that? MR. FITZGERALD: Well, because the extension that we are talking about is significantly smaller than the other one. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes, except that this is also a 55-foot walkway that is already there that connects to it. MR. FITZGERALD: That's why this is an amendment, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right, I know that. I'm saying it's going to be an awful lot of structure to get to less than two feet of water. MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry? TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Any other comments from the Board? MR. FITZGERALD: What? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we wanted to see is the water depth, and it's the same water depth all the way out. So to keep adding structure to get to the same water depth doesn't make sense. I mean he has the access -- MR. FITZGERALD: One of the reasons we are doing it, Jill, is that, one of the problems with the existing thing is those steps. That's not a practical way to access any kind of watercral~. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have it that way in another creeks in the town. It might not be the best way but -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We do have plenty of docks in creeks in Southold that do have steps at the end of catwalks. I said docks. It's really catwalks, with steps at the end. One Board of Trustees 15 October 15, 2008 of the things we have considered though, for those who have kayaks in that situation, is to put on top of the steps a slide so it's much easier for the user to slide a kayak down while they walk down those steps. And it is something that does make it a little easier for kayaks so it's not bouncing up and down steps. It's sliding down the slide. We had one recently in Cutchogue where the owner did that and it works very well. I offer that as a suggestion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can even put kayak rack on the side of the dock so the kayak can hang on the dock and then you can just lift it up and slide it down the slide. MR. FITZGERALD: Vic, would you like to negotiate? MR. RERISh The water is significantly deeper at the end of this catwalk. It goes to three feet and it just starts dropping off right at the end of my property line, if you look at it. According to the plan that I have that was done by Bob Fox, it gets to the deepest point of that West Creek. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This shows it goes from .6 to 1.8. MR. RERISh Right on the other side of the floating dock you can see the water drops to three feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says two feet up to the end. MR. RERISI: To the west it shows two feet. But obviously there is a lot more water out there. You know, again, I'm just trying to get access to the water without walking through the mud. I'm not trying to be crazy here, but the Board seems like they made their mind up already and, again, I'm not looking for something spectacular. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). This is different than this. This is a gain of .2. This is closer to the one-third. It doesn't exceed one-third. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Apparently, according to Bob, it does not exceed the one-third. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: it's close. It's 100 [eet across and depending on which way you go. It's 90 feet across at the shortest spot, and this comes out just about 30 feet from there. So it's just at one-third. But it still doesn't get you to the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It doesn't get you to the deep water or the 2.5 foot that we usually try to get to. But the applicant is saying he just needs it for a kayak. I see this is different from the ottler dock in that it's much less structure and doesn't exceed the one-third rule. This is just myself making a proposal to the applicant. If they would consider an extension of eight feet and still having stairs, no float, no ramp, just an extension of the catwalk another eight feet which -- the reason I pick eight is Board of Trustees 16 October 15, 2008 usually we ask for the pilings to be eight to ten foot on center. So that would equal one additional length, so to speak, where the next pilings would go. And I use the term piling. We are probably looking at very small pilings, if not 6x6, I don't know what is there currently, if in the description it's 6x6 or 4x4. MR. RERISI: It's 4x4, which is really inadequate if we get any ice. Just as a matter -- this is the widest point of that creek. I'm at the widest point of West Creek. And I own right to the center of the creek there. If we can go out a little more than eight feet I would appreciate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I would propose is for the Board to consider is to go out an additional eight feet with the steps, and if you would like a slide, to include a slide on top of the steps. That's a total option. Because it makes it easier for kayaks. That's why I throw it out there. MR. RERISI: I would like to just be out of the mud. I would like that on the other application, again, just to be out of the mud. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other application for me was very different. We've already decided on the other application. I'm not looking to reopen that. TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: I would agree that additional eight feet with the kayak slido. MR. RERISI: So it would be eight feet plus the steps? TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the eight feet would be open grating. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MR. RERiSI: So it would be eight feet plus the steps. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. In other words, the current steps come off, extend the catwalk eight feet and put the steps. MR. RERISI: I would be out about 12 feet total. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are looking for is a net gain of approximately eight feet over what you have currently, of length. MR. RERISI: I want to make sure we are clear. Because the steps are there. We'il relocate the steps. So the eight additional feet o[ catwalk with the steps, it will be eight additional feet oF catwalk. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Take the steps off, add eight feet of catwalk, put the steps back on and if you want a slide. ]''hat's just my proposal. MR. RERISI: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you feel about it, Peggy and Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Weti, my feelin9 is extending it eight feet with open-grating and putting a slioe, I don't have a problem with that. 'You know, it eliminates the float, the 5x20 float, tt brings it back a whole lot. The Board of Trustees 17 October 15, 2008 open-grating will help with the issue with the intertidal zone dying underneath the structure. So I would be all right with that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My vote was against both of these docks to begin with, mostly because of the depth and the critical environmental area, and my concern with this dock is that, to me impeding even more of the navigation of the creek. So my vote would remain the same as last time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, the only thing I would recommend including in that is two six-inch pilings at the end, in other words small pilings, because I agree, it does need pilings. If we are going to go with this it needs pilings to address the ice situation rather than going with 4x4s. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keep the 4x4s inland but six-inch on the end, like they do in Mattituck Creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. All right, I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following changes: That instead of what was written, it will be an eight-foot extension of the walkway with open-grating as the decking material, using two six-inch pilings at the end of that eight-foot extension, and they can put the steps on the end of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to add a kayak slide? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And he can add a slide for the kayak. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll add it in the permit. If you decide you don't want it, then you don't have to add the slide on. The slide is on top of the stairs, not adding additional structure to the side, so it won't block the bottom at all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second. TRUSTEE DOHER'['Y: And this would find it consistent with the LWRP by shortening it up and taking the float out and making it open-grate. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It certainly makes it more consistent than it was. TRUSTEE DQIflERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion carried, three ayes, one nay, and we would need revised plans showing what we just described. Just note for the record, Peggy said nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE, JR., requests an Amendment to Permit #6536 to aliow for the previously unapproved increase in habitable space in second-story as part of the previously approved roofed restructuring. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Board of Trustees 18 October 15, 2008 Cutchogue. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent and the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Again, this is not a public hearing. There are a couple of issues that we had with this application for an amendment. This was an application that was submitted and approved, #6536, that according to the plans, all it was, was changing a roof line to create a cathedral ceiling and a proposed pool. And it even says no additional second-floor area of habitable space or bedrooms are being added. And what we found is this house is completely different. It's an entirely, appears to be almost entirely new structure with a second floor with plenty of habitable space up there. And it was a little concerning to us that 'this was not represented to us as it was intended to be built the first time around. The second issue is that we found a buried propane tank that is 13 feet from the wetlands as we measured and in our code we state 25-foot minimum for buried propane tanks, if there is sufficient upland area to bury this tank. And there is certainly plenty of area on this property to bury this tank other than within that 25-foot limit. And I think it's unfortunate also that the applicant did not ask for that originally. So this places the Board in a difficult situation where, work has been done, now they are coming back asking for us to amend the permit to allow this. So for myself, for this one, I feel that that tank cannot stay in its present location. I feel the tank has got to be pulled up and removed and then the application has got to be amended to reflect an appropriate location of that tank where the tank will be staked out and we can go out and look at it to see if it's outside the 25-foot limit from the wetlands. Again, I'm open to other comments from the Board on this one. TRUSTEE DOHER'I'Y: I agree with that. The area is still disturbed, so it's not like it's going to be disturbed anymore by bringing it up. So I think it definitely has to be brought back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you saying you want that done pdor to any -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, so -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Will this be as built? TRUSTEE BERGEN: ~'his is definitely an as built. This is definitely an as built. Yes, thank you. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just confirming. Board of Trustees 19 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. So my recommendation would be to table this until the applicant can come in with a revised set of plans to note a revised or new location for the buried tank. I see somebody standing at the podium. Would you like to introduce yourself and please make your comments bdef since this is not a public hearing. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants. There is other work, as the Board knows, that occurred on the site that was not within the purview of the original permit. There was a public hearing later to address that. I believe Alan will be here. I think Dave's comments are well taken. There was a stop work order and a violation that had been issued because of the increase in habitable space on the second story. That violation, I believe, I can check with Lori, but I believe a fine was levied and paid and the violation has been resolved. I would not agree, Dave, that it's a completely different house. The footprint in terms of the expansion of the roof line, including the extension of the roof overhang over what had been the existing patio area is as the crow flies what was presented. What was done, as you noted, totally inconsistently to what was presented, was the increase in habitable space on the second story. This seems to be yet another where there were plans presented and, again, this was not written vaguely. This was written very specifically to represent a particular action or lack thereof, an0 that was not what happened. It seems that there were changes made at the Building Department phase that were, apparently with respect to the habitable space issue, permitted by the Bdilding Department, but then only flagged after the permitted work was completed as not having been consistent with the wetlands permit. So I'm starting to hope that the Building Department will begin flagging the disparities before it gets to construction phase, because what happened here, and we discussed this again with Lori, and unfortunately Jim is not here tonight, but Jim was at that meeting with Alan and myself and Lori ti3e morning the stop work order was being issued, is that we obtained, or our firm obtained, these environmental permits, and then the building permit expediting or whatever you wan~ to call it is handled by somebody else who has absolutely no connection with this entire process with this Board, the DEC, et cetera. So there was this belief, rightly or wrongly, obviously wrongly, that as long as the overall footprint Board of Trustees 20 October 15, 2008 did not change, that this increase in habitable space was somehow okay, despite the fact that's not what is written on your permit. And that was the reason for this stop work order. I don't want to go any anymore discussions for what the beliefs of the, of Mr. Cardinale or the contractor were, obviously the work what was done, was done. The propane tank, I have absolutely, I don't even know where you are describing it. That was not presented to you because that was never presented to me. But I don't see that that is a problem to rectify it. It's sounds like what you would need us to do is to -- is the tank located on this plan? Can you show me where it is? At least we know where to - TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I can show you where it is. No, it's not located on this plan. It's right adjacent to this drywell. It's immediately adjacent to this drywell. It's approximately here. MR. HERMAN: Okay. And that's a new tank? Or appears to be a new tank? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It sure appears to be a new tank. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured from here. This is where the vegetation is. MR. HERMAN: All right, so we would have to locate, we have to locate that tank and then show a proposed relocation of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm asking for, yes. MR. HERMAN: Other than lhat, the second-story space is there. The house is basically done. Again, it's unfortunate because within the footprint of the dwelling, I don't think it's something the Board would have objected to. There is nowhere else you could 9o with it. It's just, again, as with a couple of your prior cases in the past couple of months, it's people getting a wetlands permit then doing something else. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The only comment I need, I would like to make, and I'm not looking to get into a big debate here, but I hea,'d what you said but I think it's at some point there is a responsibility of the applicant to conform to the permits that are being given by the town. MR. HERMAN: I don't think I could argue with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: t'm sony, I didn't ;near that. MR. HERMAN: I can't argue with you is wha't I'm saying. The point you are making is aimos~, rhetorical. That's why, you know, when we present, when we as an agent present something to the Board, especially something that is prepared this explicitly, that is the intention or at least what we believe to be the intention of the permitee. Board of Trustees 21 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And what I'm saying is the plan didn't change down the road at the Building Department stage and I'm saying in my mind there is a responsibility of the applicant to come back to the Trustees. MR. HERMAN: 100% correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anyhow, my recommendation is table this until the applicant can come back in with a revised set of plans to include the movement of the propane tank and have that staked so we can go out and take a look at it so we can make sure it's outside the 25 foot. MR. HERMAN: So you don't want the tank moved - TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What I'm recommending is that tank be taken out of the ground, remove0 from its present location and moved to another location that is at least 25 feet or greater away from the wetland. MR. HERMAN: We can have the surveyor stake out the location and have it done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor (ALL AYES.) VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions -- actually, before we go on, I just want to note that Anne Trimbel is here representing the CAC. She is a new member a[ the CAC. So we welcome, Anne. It's that time of year again to set the scallop season for 2008-09. What we did as a Board is we questioned baymen, we questioned, I think, Chris Pickeral, Steve Tettlebach, some scientists, people that are in the industry, and the bay constable as well, of what is out there; what they see out there this year. Some of these people dive, a lot of the baymen are out there with theic look boxes. So this is, you know, getting that information, gathering it. This is a resolution that we have come up with. So I'll go ahead and read that. The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees a'~ a regular meeting held Wednesday, October 15. Resolved that the Southold Town Board of Trustees opened the following dates to scallop harvesting pursuant to Chapter 219 of the Code of the Town of Southold. From Monday, November 3, 2008, from sunrise to sunset, through Sunday, November 16, 2008, inclusive, for non-commercial scaliop harvesting only with the exception of Hallocks Bay, where that area will be closed. From Monday, September 17, 2008, from sunrise to sunset through Tuesday, March 31, 2009, inclusive, in all town waters with the exception of Hal!ocks Bay, where that area will be closed. So i make that motion. Do I [lave a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1'11 second. Board of Trustees 22 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two under Resolutions, En-Consultants on behalf of ROSA HODGSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace inplace existing dock, consisting of a 6x87' fixed pier', 6x24' fixed "L" section, 4.5x33' step-down platform, and a 3x14' ramp and 6x20' float secured by two eight-foot pilings, remove and replace inplace 9xl 1' pervious patio and 4x8' steps to dock; construct approximately 774 linear foot 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-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the bulkhead. Located: 4845 Pine Neck Road, Southold. is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this application? It's not a hearing. Is there anybody here who would like to speak? MR. HARDY: Doug Hardy, Southold. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before you start, Mr. Hardy, I just want to reiterate, this is not a public hearing, so if you can really keep your comments brief. If there is anything that has been repeated from the public hearing, it's already on the record so we don't need that repeated. MR. HARDY: It's already on the record then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Did we get a letter?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I just would like to review that there is a CAC that did not support the application because there is no public access along the beach and recommends the Board cf Trustees adopts a policy allowing for public access. We also would like to note that this is an exempt, both tile dock and the bu,khead replacement is exempt from LWRP, however we do have some recommendations from our LWRP coordinator, which I would t,ke to read. The proposed action is exempt. This is for the bulkhead replacement. Provided that a silt boom is installed prior to the replacement of the bulkhead that will retain all suspended sediments within the immediate project area. And as far as the dock is concerned, I don't see any recommendations. Yes, I do. The location of the proposed dock and bulkhead reglacement is next to Jockey Creek sand pit, a significant coastai fish and wildlife habitat recognized by the town as worthy of protecting. Nesting shore birds inhabiting the Jockey Creek san0pit are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans, especially during the nestir~g and fledging period. If the actions are approved it is recommended that any activity within the replacement of the Board of Trustees 23 October 15, 2008 dock or bulkhead occurs outside of the breeding, nesting and fledging period. And that's the recommendations. I also have a letter from Rob Herman where he has -- do you want me to read the whole letter? MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Dear Mr. King, as you know, the public hearing on the captioned application was closed in August except for written comment and re-submission relating to then pending waterfront consistency review recommendations pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code. As you also know, a report dated 20th of August, 2008, was submitted to you by the LWRP coordinator recommending that the proposed bulkhead and dock replacements be deemed consistent and inconsistent actions respectively. In response to which I submitted a letter dated September 9, 2008, arguing that both proposals should in fact be deemed minor actions that are exempt from waterfront consistency review. I have since reviewed a copy of an amended waterfront consistency review report dated the 17th of September, 2008, which recommended that both proposals be deemed exempt minor actions. Nevertheless, in furtherance to my September correspondence I am herewith submitting three copies of a project plan last dated the 6th of October, 2008, which has been revised to depict a 3x9' set of steps on both sides of the fixed dock to maintain lateral access atong the shoreline to honor the public trust doctrine. As depicted on the revised plans we are also offering to relocate the seasonal floating dock from the most seaward end of the fixed dock to a location approximately 2'1' farther landward, which will reduce the scope of the most seaward end of the dock and ensure that any vessels docked on the seaward side of the float do not extend farther seaward than the dock structure itself. Please note that as previously indicated, the plans have also been revised to reflect a 20' non-turf buffer behind the new bulkhead. And the applicant is agreeable to too use a silt curtain during the bulkhead replacement. Should you require any further information from me before moving on this application next week, please let me know. It is signect, respectfully, by Robert E. Herman. Do any Board members care to see this or have any questions? TRUSTEE DOHER'F¢: I think we reviewed it at the field inspection ~ay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Herman has also supplied us with photos of this bulkhead area that does show that there is Board of Trustees 24 October 15, 2008 substantial shoreline seaward of this bulkhead. So that's been submitted and put in the file. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you could walk in front of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you can walk in front of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The stairs would definitely assist in them getting up and over. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What did we determine with the fence, that there was not -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, there was a question on the fence. In the code it talks about no fences are allowed down to a beach unless they are post and rail, and they are not allowed within 10' of the high tide mark going down to the beach, in this particular case, I believe Mr. King said he researctned this, looking at the deed of Ms. Hodgson plus the prior owner's deed and in they in fact do own the property down to and including the bulkhead. So that is private property and, first off, the fence is on private property and; second, it does not go down to the beach. So I had questioned wlnether or not this would meet the requirement of the code to at least amend that fence so that it was not present for the last ten feet. But based on the findings of the deeds arid the interpretation of the code that was provided to me, I think it's fair to leave the fence just the way it is on both ends of the property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else? (No response.) I'll just make a comment, because this has been very controversial and has been brought to the attention of many people in the community. If this was being brought to this Board today, with the size of the dock and the extent of this, it may not be considered, as I believe it's going to be considered tonight. One of the things this Board is trying to do is to reduce -- what we are not permitting new bulkheads and we certainly are looking at reducing structures that go into our waterways. However, this has been in existence for many, many, many years. This is exempt from LWRP because of that. This homeowner is wanting to repair something that has been in existence for quite a while, and I think the revisions that have been proposed as far as providing the stairs for access and removing the float so that it's not impeding into navigational area wiil certainly show the efforts to do, at this time, what I t~ink is the best that they can do for th~.s },'roject. So i will make a motion to approve this wetland permit. I'll make a resolution to approve this wetland Board of Trustees 25 October 15, 2008 permit to replace the existing dock with the revisions that there be a 3x9' set of stairs on both sides of the dock and that the relocation of the seasonal float will be moved from the most seaward end to a location approximately 21' farther landward. And a silt boom will be required. And do we want to ask that they call the office when it's in place. I know that's one of the recommendations that Scott has made. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So when the silt boom is in place, the office would like to be notified of that. And I'm also proposing the 20-foot buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three. Again, we are still under resolutions. Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS & ANDREW ZOITAS request a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool, patio, and landscaping within 100' from the top of the bluff, retain a 30' non-turf buffer and construct beach access stairs. Located: 62555 North Road, Greenport. ]'his is an unusual situation in that this came before the Board last month for a permLt and a permit was approved for this application. But unfortunately in the discussion, while we addressed the pool and the patio around the pool, when the resolulion was put forward for a vote in the permit, that was never included in the resolution. So all we are doin~ tonight, we are not changing the permit that was granted. What we are doing is now addressing the full scope of what was asked for in the permit last monti~ to include the pool and the patio. When we went out and Looked at this, we determined the pool was ot~tside of our jurisdiction, but the patio, a very small portion of the patio was, and we asked at that time if this would be a pervicus patio, and we were told yes. Again, ti~is was Ln tile discussion phase before we got to the resolution stage. So what, and I'll just review here the motion that was granted last month for this, was specifically that we'll approve tile stairs to the beach as depicted in the July 28, 2008 plans. We wilt, regarding the landsca,~ing, approve a 4' path from the lawn area to the stairs as por the August 19, 2008, plans, and we'll approve the removal of choker vines from the trees seaward of the present silt fence and hay bale line. What we had asked was once [ney removed those choker vines, that we go back and review it again, if ~hey wished us to, if the applicant wis~ed us to, we would re¢iew it again to see if Board of Trustees 26 October 15, 2008 anything else needed to be taken out of there. That was approved in a three to two vote at that time. So that was the permit and so what we are doing is a resolution tonight just to address the pool, which is non-jurisdictional, and the patio that is within our jurisdiction to make sure that it is a pervious patio. We did, also in the discussion, ask the applicant about the drainage from the pool and there was going to be backwash and appropriate drainage for the pool to comply with Chapter 236 of the Town Drainage Code. So I hope I got that ali straight. Are there any comments from the Board, anything I forgot there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you covered it. So we'll just do a resolution on the patio. TRUSTEE BERGEN: ",'es, we are just doing a resolution on the patio. MS. MOORE: Are you doing compliance with the plans, because it shows fencing and so on, but it's all on the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could please step up and introduce yourself for the record. MS. MOORE: Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. Just if you are doing clean up work, just to make sure, I know there was a fence that has to be technically has to be around the pool. I believe it's showing on your plans, but just so that you recite everything, it also includes the fence around the pool. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stand by for a minute while I get the plans out MS. MOORE: Sure. I didn't bring my file with me for this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it on the landscape plan or the regular plan? MS. MOORE: I know I saw it. I don't remember where it shows. Which one are you looking at? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the landscape plan. All that it depicts is a fence along part of the property line. MS. MOORE: We have existing fence along both property lines. We just need to go frorn the property' line from one end of the property line to the other so we can enclose the pool. Is it showing anywhere there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, not on the survey. Pat, if you could step up. I'm looking at the September 24, 2008 survey, just for the record. MS. MOOR.:: That's tine. There are so many drawings. Okay, there is a fence here. And there is a fence here. There is a fence on both sides at the east and west side of the property now. There is an existing chain link fence, so we have to incorporate and extend it. Whether they'll do it around the patio or go straight across, I don't know, but it's going to require some form of fencing. So it will probably just be inside your -- Board of Trustees 27 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MS. MOORE: Just something no.more than four feet in height, whatever the code requires. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So between the proposed pool patio and the hay bale line will be a fence there to comply with Town Code and it will be no more than four-foot high. I'll include that in the resolution also, as depicted in the plans dated September 24, 2008. MS. MOORE: Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. TRUST.=E GHOSIO: Nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is a 2-2 vote. On 2-2 vote, that's not a majority. MS. HULSE: It's denied if the motion is not carried. The essential effect of that is it's denied MS. MOO,:;t.--: I would suggest if it's going to stay like this, I was under the impression this was just a clean up of what was done last time which, last time, verbally, what was in writing before you was alt the structures that we just talked about. Again, the pool is outside your jurisdict;on. All we are talking about is a fence. TRUSTF__E DOHERTY: Let me just cut you off and ask Lori a question. If it's denied, what's the next step for the applicant? Do they have to totally re-apply [or it or how do you go from ti'~ece'? MS. HULSE: GRAND I me~n, Pat knows. She can try to wait until Jim comes here to ask the Board to put it back on, bu[ the Board doesn't have to. MS. MOORE: ! think I hace been misled on what the Board was doing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't believe we misled you. Jim is absent because his father is sick. MS. IvlOORE: I understand that. I think it was approved last time. Was it 3-2 vote last time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the problem. It's not anything to mislead you. Jim's vote is no'~ here. MS. MOORE: We'll hold off until Jim comes. If he's not here, we'll wait. TRUSTEE ~3ERGEN: It's already been voted on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The motion carried. MS. MOORE: ;'m not coming back for a patio. I mean -- the pool is outside your jurisdiction. What we are talking spout is nor even ten feet of patio extending into within a Board of Trustees 28 October 15, 2008 100 feet of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you consider reopening this for further discussion? I'm asking you, Jill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's, if we can. I mean, this is not a public hearing. This was on for a resolution, so I don't know the proper procedure MS. HULSE: The Board doesn't have to reconsider if they don't want to. This is a vote that is a denial. You don't have to reconsider it just because you have someone absent MS. MOORE: But Lori, we had the public hearing last time, and it was the request of the Board that, again, the notice went out with everything. The description went out with everything, and for whatever reason, when it was put on the record, you missed the discussion of the pool. I assumed that you don't have to recite everything again when it's been put on the public record and it's been advertised as such. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think because it was an error on our part, like you said, this was, like you said, applied for, rm willing to reopen this and reconsider, table it until next month, and put it on next month, if that's okay with tt~e rest of the Board. Did you hear what I said? Because this was an error on our part, it was out ir~ the open and discussed last month, and I'm willing to, you know, table it and rescind the resolution and table ;t. MS. HULSE: If you put it on again, you keep this vote and you can put it on again next time, if that's what you choose to do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that would be fair, and the right thing to do. MS. HULSE: That's up to the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE DOrtER'I'Y: She said keep the vote. The vote is there aad just put ir on again. That".~ what Lori is saying the procedure siqould be. MS. HULSE: You don't have to change your votes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have to make a resolution to put it on or just put it on next month. MS. HULSE: Are you requesting that, Pat? MS. MOORE: Yes. I have, again, I guess I need to understand, what was the problem with the Board members ti,at voted against a pool and patio? TRUS-~-~2 GklOSIO: It's not that. We would be essentially char, ging our vo;e last month. MS. HULSE: This is the same Trustees who voted against your original. Nothing has changed. TRUSTEE GHOSiC': Mainly because of the way it's worded. If Board of Trustees 29 October 15, 2008 you wait until Jim gets back, it will be taken care of. This would not happen if Jim was here. MS. MOORE: It's just my clients' are in the midst of construction, so it's another month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is something we have no control over. Jim is absent. That's what happened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll put it on for next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir?. MR. MEINKE: Howard Meinke. Just a point of information, the construction is within 100 feet of the top of the bluff, comes under great argument under some agency. If not here, where? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, you are asking a question that doesn't have anything to do with the application before us right now. MR. MEINKE: I assumed I could get information from you guys. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll be glad to discuss that with you at another time. We have a lengthy agenda and - MR. MEtNKE: It would only take one sentence. TP, USTEE DOHERTY: I'm not sure if I really understand your question. MR. MEINKE: My question is, I believe there is an agency, coastal erosion or something out there, that is very interested with any construction within 100 feet of the bluff, and I'm just asking what agency is that? Because that pool must have corne up under discussion under some other agency's auspices. TRUSTEE DOHEP, TY: Besides the Trustees, you mean; you are asking who else has jurisdiction over this? MR. MEINKE: 'Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: believe the Zoning Board has jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: We have Zoning Board approval. TRUSTEE. DOHERTY: And I believe it's out of coastal erosion and out of jurisdiction of the DEC because of the eievation. $o I don't think there is any other agency. MR. MEINKE_: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With that I'll make a motion to go off regular' meeting and go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUS'I'EE DOHER'D': Excuse me Bob, want to remind everyone, these are public hearings, anybody is welcome to speak, but if you could please keep your ccmments brief, five minutes Board of Trustees 30 October 15, 2008 or less. And go ahead, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one. Garrett A. Strang Amhitect on behalf of PAUL T. BENIANCOURT requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct alterations and additions to the existing single-family dwelling including new garage and swimming pool with terrace at grade. Located: 1825 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. We have all been there to take a look at this. The LWRP report has found this to be inconsistent with LWRP basically because of the location of all proposed actions being on the bluff, and that's of course the reasoning behind it. '['he problem of course with that is that it's all existing and it is on the ~luff already. The CAC resolves to support the application with the following conditions: That drywells are installed to contain the pool backwash; the asphalt driveway is replaced with a pervious driveway; hay bales installed along the bluff during construction; and gutters and drywells are installed on the house and storage shed. I'll just make a quick comment, that when the Board was out there it did note those things that the CAC did, as well as asked the applicant to consider pulling back the one corner that was over the coastal erosion hazard line and bring that in landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. And with that, would anybody like to make a comment or address this application? MR. STRANG: Yes. Good evening. Garrett Strang, architect, representing Mr. Bentancourt. I did have the pleasure to be present at the field inspection by the Board. As mentioned there was discussion about pulling the northeasterly corner proposed work out of the coastal erosion line, and I dcn't see that we have any choice. It's something I think that we can do, although albeit a very small encroachment that was proposed, but any encroachment is considered preferably to be nonexistent. So I think, that being said, we can do that. Bearing in mind, ol course, there is an existing corner of the house that will remain encroaching because we are not going to tear off a corner of the house. Or at least hopefully we won't be asked to tear off a corner of the house. And if there are any other questions from the Board, I would be happy to entertain them at this time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that was it. And you addressed that. So with that, I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. Board of Trustees 31 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to approve the application as it is written, with the stipulation that the corner on the extension be brought back landward of the coastal erosion line -- not to extend any further than the existing; that it incorporates drywells for the pool backwash, hay bales along the bluff and gutters and drywells according to code 268. And that would make it consistent with LWRP. MR. STRANG: Is the condition, if I may ask a question before the motion closes, was the condition of the CAC with respect to the driveway suit'ace going to be a condition of the Trustees? We'll probably do that anyway. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then I would like to make it a condition. Make it a condition that the driveway also become pervious. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'il second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. STRANG: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Peter Danowski on behalf of ROBERT BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposai facilities, Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold, Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application MR. DANOWSKI: I will. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is this the coastal erosion application or wetland application that we are doing first? TRU$¥EE OlCKERSON: We'll open this as a coastal erosion application. MR. DANOWSKh My name is a Pete Danowski. I do represent the Bombara's, who are present tonight. They are sitting in the back row. I'll also be calling Mr. Mark Burns to testify with regard to his expertise regarding coastal zone erosion issues. I know this Board, perhaps some members of the public are aware of the history here. I last appeared before this Board approximately a year ago, and at ti~at time, at the co,'~clusion of the hearing, the Board indicated they would seek some outside consulting advice before rendering a decision. Subsequent to that time I wrote to the Board saying i would like a decision. As the Board knows, should I have an unfavorable Board of Trustees 32 October 15, 2008 decision, my relief is to seek administrative relief to the Town Board, and I certainly would promptly file for that relief. But I had not received a decision. Ultimately, I did receive recently a notice saying to post the property again and serve notice on the neighbors again, and there would be a new public hearing which is being held tonight. I would point out, and I know this Board is aware of it, that initially this matter was reviewed with a plan that called for a swimming pool in front of a home. It was pointed out that there was a cefinition in the Town Code with regard to beach area, and the beach area was described in an ultimate decision of denial without prejudice from this Board. We filed our administrative appeal but we agreed to try to cooperate to the extent of trying to revisit the plan and come up with some alternative ideas that perhaps this Board might see fit to favor. And we submitted three alternate plans showing different ways to proceed with regard to the build out on this particular lot. I believe the most favored of those three plans is identified as alternate number three. 'rhat plan called for a distance approximated on the survey of 157 feet from the high water mark to the nearest structure, which would be the house. There was a small swimming pool put to the east of the property. Also we were cognizant of the recommendations and permits that had issued from this Board that said build the I-,ouse on posts so it can ~)e lifted off of the ground. We also provided proof by way of experts' reports dealing with the question that there has not been erosion in this area. In fact there has been accretion, and in fact this Board has ;ssued permits along tl~e stretch of road that have in fact current testimony from both experts and attorneys saying accretion has occurred. Most recently, in fact, when I was appearing on this issue before the Board, there was in fact a neighboring property that gained relief, I believe, from the Trustees for an addition to the property. For an addition to the house that is exactly or, the adjacent piece of property. So the circumstances relating to homes in the area are circumstances that also fit t?~is lot. All we are looking to do is build a home similar in size, certainly no closer to the water than ali the other homes in the area that front along the Long Island Sound, and we distance ourselves back from the water as far as we can in order to locate the house and still deal with the septic system Board of Trustees 33 October 15, 2008 situation. So, with that said, I have handed up not only the proof with regard to the mailing of the notices and the posting of the sign, I have also handed up a report prepared by Mr. Burns as well as his curriculum vitae. I would like him to come up for a brief statement. I would like him to explain his prior background, even his work in the local area, and I think there are two things that are important here. Not only mentioning the historical significance of no serious erosion in this area, for a long period of time, but also I think one of your natural questions that has set forth in the state enabling legislation is will in fact Iongterm coastal erosion happen here, either to destroy the beach area or, will it reach the location of proposed structures. And I think Mr. Burns can comment on his expertise in those two issues. So with that said I would sit down, however I would like to call up Mr. Burns to follow in the natural order of my comment. MR. BURNS: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Mark Burns. I'm principal or Tri-Coastal Research and Engineering. My background in the field of coastal erosion and coastal change Odes back to a little over 20 years ago when I finished my FHD in coastal oceanography from Albany University. More germane to this specific application is the work that I have done in this area. tn fact the shod coastal assessment report that you ha~'e, you'll notice it has a series of shorelines in here which represent shorelines that were compiled for the town by me years ago. We have added a couple of newer shorelines to it but it's basically the qata set that the town has at its disposal. ~Athat I'm going to cio is quickly go through the summary ti~at I have provided in here re[ative specifically to the Bombara property. But I also have some general comments on the entire area. The first figure just simply shows the location of the Bombara property relative to the general area and goes to the sett,ng itself, i'm going to speak specifically to figures two through five and the discussion that is presented or that is written o,~ page two is going to be very sirnilar to what I discuss. in figure two, what i'm trying to do is summarize changes that have occurred historically as they nave been mapped by d!fferent federal agencies and from aerial photography. So you'll notice the first shoreline goes Board of Trustees 34 October 15, 2008 back to 1884. That was a land survey that was done by the National Ocean Service which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are the ones responsible for mapping the shoreline historically. You'll notice that blue line is far out into The Sound. That was the position of the shoreline as they mapped it back in 1884. Now you'll notice national next shoreline, 1933, it's going to end up being the landward most shoreline that exists in this data set. I think there is nine or so shorelines here. And you also notice on figure two, that that shoreline was mapped approximately 25 feet or so landward of the seaward bound to the Bombara property. Now, it should be mentioned that tile 1933 shoreline was mapped in April of 1933. Which was just after the significant Januaw, 1933 nor'easter. So it's no coincidence that this shoreline is the landward most one. It was just mapped three months later and recognizes that it's the storm representation of the shoreline, not the average Iongterm position. We'll see by 1955 and 1964, the shoreline has actually accretion accreted. The beach has accre'~ed, the shor61ine has moved out into -I-he Sound. And this trend of movi,~9 out into The Sound with some fluctuatior, s is what follows after 1933. In other words, if we are using 1933 as your reference shoreline there has always bee~-~ net accretion along this section of the beach. Let's go to figure three. Now we are looking at 1964. You'tl notice that what I do is overlap between the two figures. The '64 shoreline between two and three so you can have a reference point between/he two. You'll see treat there is some variation in position of the shoreline, but overall, ti~e variab;lity that exists in this area is far seaward of [ile Bornbara p,'operty. And there is only about s 30-foot variability. If you go forward again to the period 1980 to 2004, you notice we have the same general trend in that there is about a 30-foot vadabiiity in the change rate in this area at the Bombara property, however, in this case, as well, ali shorelines are seaward of the seaward boundary of the property. In other words, they are not encroaching upon any part of the Bombara property. For' the period from abou'~ 1955 to 2007, arid all of imagery that you see that 'rhe shorelines are superimposed on is 2007 imagery. What you recognize right away is that the position of the shoreline has really changed very little between 1955 and 2007. It's effectively zero. That Board of Trustees 35 October 15, 2008 doesn't mean there was not variability in that position,. but net change has been about zero. So I think just, in summary here, there certainly has been change or variability in change that has existed over a 50-year plus time period, but net change, the net movement of that shoreline has been zero for that 50-year period of time. Meaning that the property we are talking about is outside the area of wave activity for that 50-year period of time. And I think this supports the idea of being able to build in this area and being outside of the erosion zone based on the 130-year period of historical record. If you have questicns, I'll be glad to entertain them. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there else here who would like to speak? MR. HARDY: Doug Hardy, $outhold. Mr. Burns gave a very interesting review of the shoreline dynamics. There is two things that he omitted. One, it's a possibility that he cherry t~icked the data because there are seasonal cycles and it's in the winter time Ihe shoreline regresses and in the summer it accretes, and there is quite a difference between summer and winter. And he didn't mention the time. Possibly, he is correct. The second factor which will have repercussions in the near [uture is the sea level is rising and you can, in a conservative estimate is that in 20 years it will be at least six inches higher than what it is today. And that would be a conservative estimate as it's presently accelerating from the 9asr 100 years where it was one to two millimeters per year and now, since 1991, it's three to four millimeters per year. So the implication of this is that storm surges are going to be more and more frequent in this whole area, not just in this property. So there is a great deal of danger to property during severe storms. Thank you. MR. BURNS: May I respond, quickly. First, about cherry picking the data, it's not true. Ali the data available for this area have been used and, secondly, the time period, i didn't mention this, but it gives me an opportunity to mention it. The time 9eriod for most of the shorelines, i don't knorr if it's every one, but most of the ones that exist are for April of the year that is listed here. So they are all at the same time. In other words, we are not mcving from season to season so we are picking up these changes. It's all at the same season. Board of Trustees 36 October 15, 2008 Second, the sea level rise comment, sea level has been rising since the last glacial period, approximately 10,000 years ago. That certainly includes the entire period of record for the historical data set, which includes the last 50 years which is the data clearly shows there has been no net change in shoreline position during that period of time. And in fact if we use 1933 as a reference time period, we have seen beach accretion in this area for that period of time. So we have a 50-year period of time that has sea level rise going on in there and we can't measure its impacts, i think historically if we work with the data that exists, that should give us an indication of what we can see in the future. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I certainly don't have the background that either of the last two people that spoke, but I did feel that, when you mentioned little change, I don't know that in this day and age of what we have seen in recent -- and when I say recent, t mean the last year or two or three -- of unexpected changes of weather that you can forecast it not happening, that we are not going to have that problem. MR. BURNS: I understand what you are saying. These, if you look back in the past, let's just use the 130-year time period we are looking at. The changes in weather have shown up th~'oughout that entire 130-year period. There are times when we have stormier cycles. There are times we have less stormier cycles. TRLIS'I'EE DiCKERSON: I'm just saying weather prediction is not easy. MR. BURNS: Exactly. That's why often times we use, almost all the time, we use the shoreline data because what they represent is a response of the coastal system to the weatiqer patterns, to sea tevel rise, to waves. And that gives you the indication of what the beach is going to be doing. IRIS. BALL: Hi, Fm Lillian Bali appearing as an individual person here today. I must say, I live in the Kenney's Beach-McCabe's Beach area. I'm a member of the civic association there. Ar,¢~ i wanted to ask specifically what the LWRP statement was and have that read for the record in the court. "l'his is something - TRUSTEE DICKER$ON: That was next. MS. BALL: Maybe you'll answer some of the issues that I bring up. But I wanted to say that this is a primary dune area, a virgin beach piece of which ',~e have very little left. Urn, it is an area wh~.re adjacent wetlands are endangered. It's an area where we have substantially proven already to the Board of Trustees that there are Board of Trustees 37 October 15, 2008 endangered species and globally rare wetlands that actually protect the property already on the shoreline. Now once you built one house, that's one house. And there are several houses in this area, as the Bombara situation states. But because there are several houses there doesn't mean we need several more. It is extremely sensitive for the wetland area and for the primary dune area to have more houses built, even without climate change. And it is a prediction that none of us can make. Anyone who walks the beach every day, as I do, knows that serious erosion is a relative term. There are many lawsuits and controversies about the Kenney's McCabe Beach area and erosion produced by the Goldsmith jetty and other circumstances which are beyond human scope. So I thiak this is, it's a very tenuous area right now to say there is no erosion. And if you walk the beach any time, day-to-day, any season, April through March, you'll see that the beach changes every day. Every day it's different. Every day there is different sand deposits in the sand bar that runs parallel beyond the point of the Goldsmith jetty that runs parallel to both McCabe's and Kermey's Beach and my bottom line feeling is that there are properties already there that have been built upon that have been enlarged upon and that's one thing to give permission for but to eestroy virgin beach when we have a choice seems very unw;se. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. I'll read the LWRP report unless there is someone else who would like to speak first. MR. SAMUELS: Hi, I'm Jeremy Samuels, Group for the East End. I just want to ask a question. I understand this on for public hearing tonight. You anticipate you'll vote and close the record this evening? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we can answer that at this point in time. We haYe to get through with hearing the testimony. And understand what we are do~ng is right now we are considering this under coastal erosion. Not under 275. We'll do that separately. MR,. SAMUELS: Understood. The reason I raise the question is we have phone calls this week from a couple of our members saying could you please go down and take a look at the file and see whats 9oin§ on. Ob¥iousiy Monday was a holiday. I went over to '~he office today. I just wanted to take a took at the file and became aware o~ the apparent procedure of the Trustees which is the day of, the files are not open for public ceview, i just want to go on record and ask if you are anticipating closing the hearing Board of Trustees 38 October 15, 2008 this evening, if you could hold open the record open for public commentary for an appropriate period of time that would be up to your decision so that we have an opportunity to review the file. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have had it open over a year. MR. SAMUELS: Understood. There also have been amendments along the way, and there have been discussions that have been made and amendments that have been made. And as I said, obviously, it's up to you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This has been in a holding pattern for quite a while. That's wl'~y it's on tonight. Maybe you'll get the gist of the file as we continue. MR. SAMUELS: Obviously tine hope would be we were able to comment in some specific terms. MS. HULSE: Once it's closed, you can submit something in writing if you want. But once it's closed, it's closed, and there won't be anymore public comment. MR. SAMUELS: Understood. 'rhat's why I was asking if it cculd be held open. Yhank you. T~LJST~E DICKE~S©N: All right. The LWRP review as of October 1,2008, says tr, e pro;~osed actions are inconsistent with the denoted following Town of Southold LWRP policy standards and not in compliance with Chapter 275. It's all together, that's why I'm reading it. Wetlands and shoreline and Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion haza~rl areas. Therefore the actions are inconsistent with LWRP. More specifically, to address the Chapter 111, the purpose of Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas is to regulate coastal areas land use and development activities so as to rninimize or ¢~reYent damage or o~struction to manmade property, nat,~rai 0ro'rectJve features eno other natural resource anc~ to protect human life. In addition, the purpose of Chapter 111 is to regulate new construction or replacement of structures ir~ order to place them a safe distance from coastal hazard areas. There is a list of such areas but i'm going to read the ones that am hi[ihiighted, which would be (b) under 111-4, regulate and coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion land use and development activity so as to rnin~mize, preve~t damage or c~es~ruction to manmade property, natural protective features ant other natural resources and to I~rotect human li[e. Also 111-4(c), regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosion and the irnpact of coastal storms to ensure these structures are not permanently destroyed or damaged due to Board of Trustees 39 October 15, 2008 improper siting as well as to prevent damage to natural protective features and other natural resources. Let me just skim here -- the proposed actions don't have a functional relationship to coastal waters and is therefore not a water-dependent use. The proposed actions are located entirety within the coastal erosion hazard area of the primary dune, a natural protective feature. This is a definition - that's under 275. Okay. These are just a lot of definitions that I'm skimming through. New construction is prohibited in natural protective areas which this is a primar~ dune or has Peen specified as a primary dune. The distance from the proposed action to the natural protective feature is zero feet. That's 275 again. I'm just trying to separate the 275 from 111. Are there any comments while I'm filtering through here? Any comments from the Board'?. MR. MEINKE: Howard Meinke from Mattituck. I just wanted to say that I think under the current regulations, the LWRP and everything else, if there were no houses in that area, we would not consider putting any there. And there are houses there that date way back before we got as well informed as we are now, so I just think that all our regulations mean nothing if we feel we t~ave to approve a house because there are al;early houses. The point of our regulations is to mirror that we are getting smader, that science is getting better and sometimes we should not do what we did in the past, so you shouldn't do it again. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. We do have a letter received from DEC on April 17. -rhis was the most recent, I believe. TRUSTEE DOHER'¥V: Yes. TRUS-I"EE DICKERSCN: Instead of reading the entire letter, I'm just going to read from: 8efo;e a permit could be issued the town would have to review the proposal by applying permit issue standards Southold 1 i 1-9 and assure that tl~e proposal wouid meet all of them. Those standards require that the proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and to the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location is not likely to cause irnmeasurable increase in erosion at the proposed site and at o'd~er locations, prevents if possible or minimizes adverse effect on natural protective fea'rures and their functions and protective vaiues Existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just read who that is from, what Board of Trustees 40 October 15, 2008 department. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: That's Robert McDonough, Environmental Program Specialist, Coastal Erosion Management Section. Board comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is being considered right now under 111 and 111 section 16, it talks about primary dunes and secondary dunes, what is allowed and what's not allowed, and it talks about non-major additions. This obviously is not a non-major addition. This is an entirely new construction. It also says all other activities in dune areas are prohibited, unless specifically provided for by this chapter. So for myself, ifs fair(¢ clear that under coastal erosion, I could remernber a year ago I voted against this and I, there is nothing that has been submitted to me that changes my mind on this, regarding my vote, in regard to coastal erosion on this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With that comment and no one standing up, either of the speakers, I'm going to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE i)ICKERSON: And I'ii rnake a motion to deny this coasm', erosion permit to the construct a single-family dwelling at 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. TRUSYEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All ;n favor? (ALL AYES.) Note for the record it was denied under Coastal Erosion Chapter 111. I'm going to ask if there is anyone here who would like to speak to the application for Robert Bombara for a wetlands permit to construct a single-family dwetling on 1725 North Sea Drive, Southoit~. MR. DANOW'SKI: Pate Danowski, once again. I recognize that these two hearings are following one another. They didn't quite to tha'~ last time around, ~owever, I would note that I understand there is an administrative appeal from your last decision on Coastal Zone Erosion and i'll be taking that appeal. As you pointed out on the fecord, during some of the previous hearings in public record, you indicated that at a prior time there was some rationale to not reaching a final corrclusion on tidaJ wetlands undl the administrative appeal is concluded. That is semeth;ng for you to consider tonight after the close of this particular' hearing. Obviously, there is not an administrative appeal. If Board of Trustees 41 October 15, 2008 you deny both ends of the permit that would lead to instant litigation that will have to take place as the administrative appeal on coastal zone erosion is proceeding. I would just like to incorporate by reference the comments I just made on the prior hearing rather than bore you on this late evening, and I would ask you to just note that as I pointed out on the earlier testimony, we have distanced ourselves well beyond the 100-foot distance that is the jurisdictional prerequisite for tidal wetlands here. We are 157 feet away. I pointed that out in writing to you before. I poi,nt it out to yea again. I'll not make any further cornment other than to say to you, I would ask you to either find you have no jurisdiction or to issue a tidal wetlands permit. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lori, we are continuing. MS. HULSE: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a lot of language in there. I was not sure if you wanted to continue. MS. HULSE: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else? MS. MURRAY: Anne Mun'ay, North Fork Environmental Council. My question is, the attocaey is pointing out he's 157 feet back. ;s he saying that you t~ave no jurisdiction as this Board because he's not wi'dqin the hundred feet of the shore? Is that the point that he's making'? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I understand it, that's the point he is trying to state, that since this is '157 feet from the high tide mark, it"s outside our jurisdiction. MS. MURRAY: Is it in fact outside your jurisdiction? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just about to answer that. I can only speak for myseif. But in reviewing this and having been out in the field several times, I feel this is within our jurisdiction because I feel this is within 100 feet of the top of the beach and the beach ddne line there, so I definitely feel that this is within our jurisdiction. Myself. MS. MLiRRAY': Okay. I would strongly recommend the Board not issue a wetland permiL I understand [he applicant would need both coastal erosion and wetland permit but there is certainly no ceason in our view to issue either one, given the sensitive enviror, mental nature of that area. And as Howard pointed out earlier, it's a pristine beach in that spoL Just because it was built on before is certainly r,o reason to add to the insult by building again. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll read from our LWRP report, again, Board of Trustees 42 October 15, 2008 of October 1,2008, and referencing the 275 comments. The purpose of Chapter 275 wetlands and shoreline is to regulate wetlands in order to maintain and contribute to the following resource area values and the attributes and functions they possess. Flood control, erosion sediment control, storm damage prevention, water pollution control. In addition, the following resource area values shall be maintained and protected: Prevent flood damage by limiting of development in flood hazard areas; preventive damage to structures and natural resources as a result of erosion; protection of coastal ecosystems minimizing impact of new development, restoration and/or expansion on the resource area values ~isted above. This might be a bit repetitive, i'll read it again. A site visit of the property of Robert G. Bombara was conducted on October 17, 2007. In attendance at the site visit, among others, were representatives of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees, LWRP coordinator Mark Terry ar'~d New York State DEC Environmental Programs Specialist Robert McDonough which confirmed the proposed actions are entirely located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area line and within a primary dune. And I believe I have covered all comments on 275. MS. BALL: I'll spare you my advanced state of laryngitis and just very briefly remind you that we did discuss many of these issues, that Peggy was on the Board at that time, most of the rest of you weren't. Jim was, too. We did discuss a number of these issues in relationship to the inter.-dunal swale which exists between Goldsmith Inlet and Horton's Point. So this area is smack dab in the middle of the ia'rer-dunal swale, which is designated by the New York Department of State as significant habitat also for fish and wildlife. So it is on the significant habitat maps, regardless of the fact that there are places in and out whici~ previously built hcuses have destroyed. It is the general area of the inter-dunal swale which is a globally rare ecosystem and it is designated by the New York Department of State as a significant habitat. So I'm glad you voted "no" first time and I hope you will vote "no" again. TRUS'I'E~. DiCKER, SON: i!1 mention there are some letters here. I[ someone is here that would like them read, I'll read them, othe~'wise we'ii have them entered ir,to the record. This was received or, August 22, 2007, from Irene Viti in Southold. These are ali o',d. There is another letter from Ed Booth, 'l'homas Rosaca, and i believe these are in tl~e records atready. CAC does not have a recommendation due to the location Board of Trustees 43 October 15, 2008 of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line being landward of all proposed activity, therefore a review of the application cannot be conducted at this time. So that was their comment. We had some expertise shared before and I would just like to mention that I value our expertise, Mark Terry and Scott Hilary, I don't have their resumes with me, but they are certainly very impressive also. So I feel very strongly toward their comment with their LWRP review. If there are no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing for a wetland permit for Robert Bombara. TRUSTEE ~EP, GEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHEP, TY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to deny the wetland permit for Robert Bombara to construct a single-farnily dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities located 1725 North Sea Drive. I'!i make note to our Chapter 275's regulations arid also Chapter 111 's, and I'm not rereading ail of the review, that this is an area where this Board stlould not be permitting a structure. TRoSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we vote. I have a comment. As I recall from, again, it's at least a year ago when this was open the first time, there were ideas presented with the proposal then, that would help mitigate some of the concerns under the LWRP, and the applicant has not, in this revised plan that I see here dated, it's just October, 2008, utilized a,'~y of tr~ose suggestions that were made last year. So as of sucih I'rrJ going to vote no on this. TRUSTEE OICKEP, SON: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERi"Y: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERYY: Motion deniec under Chapter 275 wetlands. At this time l would like to take a sho~t [ecess, please. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows. ~ WETLAND PER[vll l'S: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Al~ right, under wetland permits, number one, JOSEPH F. GONZALES, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 18x18' deck attached to the rear of the Board of Trustees 44 October 15, 2008 existing dwelling and new sliding door. Located: 2700 die Jule Lane, Mattituck. Both Jim and I looked at this. This is an application they started work and a stop work order was put on it, but it is a simple deck. They do have quite a bit of a buffer behind their bulkhead, and that's something we have no problem with. And unfortunately Jim has the file so I do not know if there is CAC comments but I do have the -- oh, they are attached to it. We do have CAC. CAC supports the application with the condition gutters and drywells are installed on the dwelling. And the LWRP comments are inconsistent due to the hundred-foot setback. And that's basically it. And they asl(ed to use best management practice. Is there any comment from anybody in the audience on this application? (No response.) From the Trustees? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is. I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE L31CKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOPIERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the applicalion as submitted of Joseph Gonzales with the condition that leaders, gutters are installed on the house, and that would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ail in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DOt-~ERTY: Number two, ROBERT KRUDOP requests a Wetland Permit to excavate bank to a 1:3 slope. Resultant 30 cubic yacds of excavated material to ;~e trucked off site to an approved location. Armor 95 linear feet of slope with a 100-pound toe stone and a maximum of 10-20 pound stone along the face of the slope. Plant intertidal marsh in the upper '1/3 tidal range and a buffer area landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. This is an application that was applied for, that was approved by the previous Board, then came back for an amendment due to changes in the DEC permit, and the applicant had let this permit expire. So now he's coming back to apply for the same exact thing that was approved. CAC supports this application, and it is found Board of Trustees 45 October 15, 2008 inconsistent with LWRP due to minimize loss of human life, subsection 4.1, structures from flooding and erosion hazards; use of vegetation on structural measure to manage flooding and erosion; the capability of natural protective features by avoiding alterations or interface the shoreline's natural condition enhancing natural protective features; restoring condition of impaired natural protective features, using practical vegetation approach to stabilize natural shorelines and, (d), use hard structure erosion protection measures for protection of erosion only where two vegetation approaches of control are not effective; enhancement of natural protective features would not prove practical in providing erosion protection; const,'uction of hard structure is the only practical design consideration. Adequate mitigation is provided and rnaintained to ensure there is no adverse impact to adjacent property. And he goes on to talk about best management practices. Just a litIle more history of this property, it is an arm of James Creek that is manmade and has been dredged before. It is the very end of it. And there has been quite a bit of erosion on this area. With ti3at, is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. KRUDOP: My name is Robert Krudop, I'm the owner of the property, along with my wife. I applied for this back in 2005, had several meetings with the Trustees prior, worked with Chris Pickerel picking out p!ans and identifying them, had approval for it. Then I went to the DEC for their approval. It took me over a year to work it out with the DEC. They didn't like ths size o'f my rocks. They wanted me to excarate tr~e bank and reduce the slope and change the type of rock so they were interlocldng and a smaller grade of rock. So then i had to come back and re-apply to you folks. And 'that took, so basically now I'm almost a year, year-and-a-half irate your permit process, you know, in other words, I was granted the pen-nit, then I came back and amenoed the permit, and I tr)ought that the two year started when I finished the amendment to get the job done. So I hao two years to ft~lfill rny duty to get the job done. Well, when I went and bought the new grade of rock and got rig o'I the old rock and I round out and I rnade the call, my permit expired; it's two years from the date you initially gave it to rne and not wc, en you amended it. And I didn't file for the exrension of tine timeframe. That's why I'm here tonighl to pay all the fees ar, d stand up in front of you folks agair;. And i apologize. I misinterpreted. I thought I had time. TRUSI'EE DO~ERTY: Any other comment from the Board? Board of Trustees 46 October 15, 2008 (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application of Robert Krudop as submitted. And basically, that's it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You'll have to bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it does show adequate -- you know, it has sloped off. He has loss of land there. He's proposing vegetation within this area, and that was one of the things it says here and he is put~ing that there. TRUSTEE DiCK~-RSON: Since you went to the DEC and you are using smaller rocks now, so has this changed from our original? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He came and amended our application. MR. KRUDOP: Originally I was not going 'to ask for the bank. What happened, I was going to use larger rocks, roughly 300 pounds, 100 to 300 pound rocks, I was going to place them in there and stack them and make a beautiful wall on the axisdng slope. Unfortunately Chuck Hamilton (]oesn't like rile s;ope and he didn't like my rocks and decided he would iike me to excavate the bank to a 3:1 slope and reduce the size of the rock and mom of a jagged type of rock, more of a crushed rock and graded to nave a perfect particular size. TRUSTEE DONERTY: 'That's fir~e, I was just hoping that this review was of the larger' rock so we could say the srnaller rock was a way of mitigating it to consistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are putting plantings within the rocks, in the area -- IVlR. KRUDOP: In front of, in between the rocks and the water, there Js plants at tile end, urn, conducive w;th the plants that are there. I 6yen tried some of tl~e p!ants and I ended up ,quntic,9 around ~he internet, and ended up getting only about 30 plants, when I need 800. And I bought those and plugged them to see if they would take in the meantime, and they did take, so they are conducive to the area. TRUS'I'EE DOHERTY: Are you willing to do, I know we talked in the field, maybe extend behind the rock landward maybe five feet of non-tuff buffer. That would bring this, I feel, into consistency. So instead of having lawn all the way up to ~vhere tr~e projec~ ends, do another five feet of non-turf. It could be -- IviR. KI-~UDOP: i'he oniy 9,'orJier,~ I have ~s encroaching upon my neighbors, i think I'm abodt t-on-rear off. So from my he,ge, bors, ~ need access, in otr~er words, I need a path down to the dock. I can't p~ant that. And also I want to be abie to see the dock from my house where it's located. Board of Trustees 47 October 15, 2008 And it's all grass right now. It just drops right off into the water. What I want to be able to see -- my whole idea is the grass I want to plant is roughly grows about a foot high, and that I wouldn't be able to see the dock and any of my children, for the safety, are out on the dock, and I have a lot of kids that come over to my house I want to be able to see it. That's why where the rocks are, it's right around the dock area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. And I'm not asking you to plant the grass you were told to plant in the other area. You can do whatever you want here, as long as it's not turf. You can do smaller gravel, you can do wood chips, you can do other plantings. You can do sand. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just so the lawn doesn't go up to the rock area and carry down any fertilizer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we generally do when people come in repairing their bulk~qeads or anything, we generally do a five, ten, 15 foot non-turf buffer behind it. So that's, so I think a five, extend this five feet. MR. KRUDOP: For' the full lengtr~ ¢,f the rock wall you are looking for, a five-foot? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. rvlR. KRUDOP: What arn I going to use to ge'c access to my dock? TRUSg-F_E DOHERTY: You could have a four-foot wide path to the dock. And you don't nave to plant it. Like I said, you can put stone or sand, as long as it's not fertilized grass. IVtR. KRUDOP: You are saying take a different grade of rock and put it aaove the rock walk? In other words, I'm putting more rock in? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. What we are proposing is not going to prohiioit you from getting to your dock in any way, shape or form. ¥'ou can just put a five-foot wide buffer that is just sand. We just don't want turf going down there. MR. Ki:;tUDOP: '¥ha~'s just 9oing to grow weeds. Do you want me to rip the weeds out. Is that what you are talking about? TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: We don't want to see lawn all the way up to that. If we can do that, we can bring this into consistency and we can do an approval tonight. Iv!?,. KRUDOP: How about bluestone. Five 'toot more of bluestone, three-quarter blend, all the way across the top. TRUSTEE GhtOSiO: That's i:i~;a. Beach gravel, sand, you pick your diameter. As long as it's pervious. MR. KRUDOP: As long as i dor,'t have to go back to the DEC. TP, US'[EE BERGEN: I4o, don't worw. You don't have to go tt~rough that nightmare again. TRUSTEE ~DICKERSON: You can also plant a ground cover that doesn't have height to it. It just can't be grass. That's all. Board of Trustees 48 October 15, 2008 Plant something Iow growing. MR. KRUDOP: I guess ~ have to accept it or you won't approve it. I don't have a choice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our challenge is, probably what you didn't have last time when you came before us is the LWRP. We now have, the town adopted an LWRP. MR. KRUDOP: They found it in compliance. This time they don't. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Things change. MR. KRUDOP: Did any laws change, or just the people? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think our understanding of the interpretation of the LWRP has evolved and that's probably what has changed *,he report. MR. KRUDOP: 1'~1 accept what you give me. TRUS'TF_E DOHERTY: Thank you. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All favor? (ALL AYES.) Ill make a motion to approve the application of Robert Krudop with the addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer behind the structure. That would bring it into consistency see with LWRP. TRUSTEE D~CKERSON: Second. 'f,-~US"L--.-- DO~ER-/¥: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Latham Sand & Gravel on behalf of BREWER YACHT YARD AT GREENPORT, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to removed and replace the existing floating docks usin~ Gracle #1 southern yellow pine floats and to reconfigure with zero net increase in square footage. Located: 14'~0 Manhassett Avenue and Beach Road, Greenport. This was review,~d under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And the GAG resolved to support the application. We went out and looked at this and walked it and have seen it and in its entirety. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HOCKER: John Hocker, L~tham Sand & Gravel representing Brewer 'Yacht Yard to answer any questions you have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Speaking for myself, I really have no questions for you. We walked it in the field. We talked to you about it. One of the things that I was pleased to see is there was no drainage issue here, there were no pipes going through the bulkhead that needed to be taken care of. Drainage was well taken care of and everything seems to meet our' code. Board of Trustees 49 October 15, 2008 Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Anybody else from the audience with to comment on this application? (No response.) Not seeing any anybody dash for the microphones, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve Latham Sand & Gravel on behalf of Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport as submitted in the application, location 1410 Manhasset Avenue and Beach Road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Number four, Fairweather-Brown Design on behalf cf DANIEL & URSULA VAVAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20x28' addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 3085 Bayshore Road, Greenport. i did inspect this and it has been found to be coasistent under the LWRP. CAC resolves to support the wetland appiication ~ith the condition that a ten-foot hca-tuft buffer be put behind the bulkhead, and gutters and dlywells are installed on the house and garage. While I was there I noted that we had asked that hay bales be put dp during construction and that the drywells be added for the dcainage [:om the roof, et cetera, to bring it into compliance with the drainage code. Aside from that it was pratty straightto~ward, and it's mostly landward of the existing structure, so, is there anybody here who would like to comment on this application? MS. MARTIN: Yes. i'm Amy Martin part of Fairweather-Brown Design Associaies, 205 Bay Ave., Groenport, representing Ursula and Dan Vavas. I have, yesterday, received the letter o1' non-jurisdiction from DEC to complete tt~e application. Basically, I realize now that we didn't show the line of hay bales on here and I would like to state that they '~vill probably be about 30 feet seaward of the proposed ac;dition to the comer of the existing house to the he. dges, so that we are not at all landward of the ten-foot contour. And that we will provide the drywell for the leaders eno gutters. And are you asking for a non-tuff buffer for rhe full iength oi' the bulkhead; the existing area or just in front of the addition? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be typical of a non-tur[ buffer Board of Trustees 50 October 15, 2008 along the whole edge of the upper bulkhead. MS. MARTIN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You say that hay bale line will be about 30 feet from the corner? MS. MARTIN: It's about 30 feet to the corner of the house, not including the deck. I would rather go to a solid surface there and not go around the deck for any seepage, then go over to the hedge row on the property line from there. It may go out to give a better access, but it won't go past the ten-foot contour. And I'll submit plans to that effect. And the dryweil will be landward of the proposed addition. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Right. Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a rnotion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All ir, favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUS'f EE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application on behalf of Daniel and Ursula Vavas as written, with the conditions that a hay bale line be set during construction, and the plans will be submitted showing that, as well as five-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead will be added and all drainage for the pool and for the roof will be brought up to current Southold drainage code. T,q:US-¢EE. ~CKERSON: Secono. TRUSTEE DOMERTY: Aii ir~ favor?. (ALL AYES.) MS. MARTIN: 'Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Mark Schwadz on behalf of S'¢EVEN & OLGA TENEDIOS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing structures on ~he property and construct a new dwelling and detached garage. Located: 1 7327 IVlain Road, East Macion. It is inconsistent with LWRP and CAC's comment was it was not staked, however the CAC supports the application. Is 'there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. I'm not sure when the CAC went out there, but it is, as you sa,~, stakec out. 'ri~e ex;sting house is approximately 110 fee'[ from sPdn9 higl~ water. The proposed structure is just a little bit cioser, approximately 10 feet, 106 feet to spring higr~ water. There is an existing vegetated buffer that is 30 feet wide at ihe narrowest expands cut to 40 feet on the west Board of Trustees 51 October 15, 2008 side and up to about 70 feet on the east side. The proposed location of the house will require some clearing of that vegetation area but it will not be, there won't be any less than 30 feet in any location front to back. We are proposing a new septic system and drainage for the new structures. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we went out there, we measured slightly different. We measured 97 feet from mean high tide. And that's where I would like to take the line is from the high tide. As you said, it's beach then there is approximately 30 foot vegetative buffer. This property is long and you are basical!y demolishing the house and since it is Iow-lying, is there any possibility of moving it back further and get it totally out of our jurisdiction? MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure. What were you thinking? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured 97 feet, so, you know, what were we --. at least three feet if not more to get it --- because the construction would be in our jurisdiction, but the actual project when it's done will be out of our' jurisdiction. So you would still need a permit from us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's tile house. Now, the secondary structure, if you look at that on ti~e plans, because the seccndary structure can still be in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHEFtTY: Right. That was my next question. The secondary structure, you have a proposed two-story frame garage. 'l-ha( shows it to be 60 feet, and that shows, like you said, you'll be doing some clearing into that l~uffer area. Is it possible to even move that back further? MR. SCHWARI"Z: The garage itselt is 168 feet f~'om the high water. TRUS'[EE DOHER'['Y: 7he detached garage. MF,. SCHWARTZ: '(es. TRU$'I';5_E DOi-tERTY: tt snows here -- what was staked out in the fielo? MR. SCHWARi'Z: "[hat's what was staked. It's deceiving because the clearing of the property is not parailel with the beach. It's really at a 45 degree angle, so this dimension is approximately 168 frcrn ~arage to high water. Its much further back Ihan, al[hough it doesn't iook like it when you are on site. 'I-P, dSTEE DOHE,~-F¥: [;tight. When we were on site there was staking in [l~e woods here. IF, P,. SCHWARTZ: Thats actuaily what was stoked. Because the clearing, see, this is the cleared area. And it's at an angle, so it tooks like it's closer to the beach, but it's actually not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You kno'~v what it is, it's the building envelope we are Icoking at in the 'field. The building envelope shows Board of Trustecs 52 October 15, 2008 75 feet, but actual structure, so that is out of our jurisdiction. Okay. Is it there any other comments from the Board? Anybody from the audience'? (No response.) All right, the plans show drywells, gutters, leaders, hay bales during construction, pervious driveway. So everything that we normally ask for is on here. Septic system is out of our jurisdiction. LWRP, we'll go over that. It's found inconsistent, 4.2, protect and restore natural protective features, no development is permitted in natural protective features except as specifically allowed under relevant wet[and portions of the chapter, and natural pretective features are near shore areas, beaches, dunes, bluffs and wetlands and associated natural vegetation. And it goes on to list the definitions. It's 100-foot setback. So if this is moved back it will br',ng it into consistency. MS. HULSE: Just a quick question about what we talking about earlier. Frorn a jurisdictional perspective, the specios that are indicated by Scott in his report, are those wetland species, or -- because my understanding is you are taking your measumnqent from the high water mark. TRUSTEE DOhERTY: We are taking the rneasurement from the h;gh water mar,~ and -- biS. HULSE: he's starting his measurement [rom the natural protective features. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the near shore area, there is no dune or bluff there. The weoded area is at the same, the wooded scea is at the same elevatioa as the beach, but it really wssn't wetlands. MS. HULSE; F, ight. Because it seems in 275 it seems like you take it from the beach, ',:rom the mean high tide mark. It seems ,~o me iv, s analysis was more appropriate for 111. TfkdS'f EE DOHER-t'Y: Yes, I do want to note that this, all this construction is out of coastal erosion. It s beyond that. Because the coastal erosion line is actually along the beach. MS. HULSE: So i think your anaiysis was probably the correct one as opposed to that reporL TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Ill make a motion to close the pubiic hearing. TP, USTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOt-IER-~'Y: Al', in favor? (ALL AYES/ TRUS';'EE DO;-~ER-,'Y: I'1~ make arnotion to approve the applicatio¢~ sub¢ect to rc, owng the stcucture back at least, receiving new plans showing the structure moved back at least th~'ee feet, 8nd of course ece~.thing that is on Board of Trustees 53 October 15, 2008 there, the gutters, drywells, leaders, hay bales dudng construction, be conditioned on that. And which moving the structure back would bring into consistency with LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll need a revised set of plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we'll need a revised set of plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUS'fEE DICKERSON: JMO Environrnental Consulting on behalf of HOWARD LUDECKER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct inplace 87' of timber bulkheading uDizing vinyl sheathing and to backfill structure with ten cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 370 Koke Ddve, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. Any questions from the Board or audience? TRUS-£EE D;CKERSON: Let me iook. CAC supports the wetland application ,~nd it is exempt from LWRP. Field notes asked for a ten-foot non-tud: buffer arid to add sirairs to the beach. MR. JUST: That's fine. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: And unless the Board has any other comments? Those are from your field notes. TRdSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we had asked the applicant if he wanted to include stairs to the beach that are presently there. He sa;d yes. They were tef[ off the application. So at his request that's why the stairs to the beach are added on. MR. JUST: I'4o problem. TRUS FEE DICKERSON: Oi(ay, i don't see anything else except to ask to close tl~is hearing. 7RUS"f'EE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll rr,ake a motion to approve the wetland permit for' Howard Ludecker to replace his bulKheading as stated at 370 Koke Drive, Southold, with a ten-foot buffer and stairs to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES,) IV, P,. JUST: Thank you. Good evening. TRdS-FE.E BERGEN: Number seven, Patricia Moore on behalf of CLAIRE & ROB RICCIO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dweliing and construct a new dwelling, Board of Trustees 54 October 15, 2008 swimming pool and sanitary system. Located: 6512 Indican Neck Lane, Peconic. We all went out and looked at this last month and it was not staked, so we asked to have it staked. We went out and looked at it again this month. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent because the proposed actions do not meet the minimum setback of 100 feet. And that's, that was the LWRP. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Pat Moore on behalf of the Riccio's. Mr. and Mrs. Riccio are here and I have also Fred Weber who is the architect. I know that I saw two of you there. I don't know if the other two were able to go back out there while it had be,sn staked. So just to give you a little bit of background on this, there is an existing house there. The house is right on top of the bank. We are on Peconic Bay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did see it. MS. MOORE: Peconic Bay, there is an existing wood bulkhead that has been there fora very long time. There is also, landward of the bulkhead, is another retaining wall. And then at the top of the bank is, the bsnk is vegetated. This is all an extremely stable and 'very well established area. Ti~e bulkheads were built probably in the '40's and it's an entire length of bulkhead along the homes that are e~tner off of indian Neck Lane or Smith Road, in that region. The house, as i said, originally we looked into renovating and building an addition, second-floor addition over this existing dwelling, bu[ the degree of the improvements would be extensive and because we are right on top of the bank I felt that it was p[obabiy a better application that both you and the zoning board would consider a more favorable application if we were to demolish the house and reconstruct further back than the exis'dng house, which is what the proposal is before you today. We r~ace '~o p Jr in a new sanita~-y systen% and the area has no public water, so cur sa,aitary system nas to be placed in such a !ocation where we can maximize the distance to neighbcring, to our well and our well to neighboring sanitary systems. So a lot of the design has occurred around the sanitary system. I know that we talked aoout it in the field when we were there, but for the benefit of the other Board members, urn, we do have a pool proposed in the side yard. We went to ti~e zonin§ board and tP~e zoning board approved this project. In particular, because yod have the homes, all tr~e homes, I would say all, Board of Trustees 55 October 15, 2008 certainly the homes on either side of this property are very close to the bank and are more in line with the existing house that is presently there. The homes are all in similar line. We are actually being, pushing the house back, further back than some of the neighboring homes. The pool was placed in the side yard to try to maintain some of the open space. There is a house that is on the landward side of this property and it was trying to preserve a little more open space than blocking the entire shore front. So the pool and the side also, it kept the pool from being placed on the water side of the house as well. We are here to answer your questions and I have, Fred can, we have a colored diagram to help you understand the project even more thoroughly than; think you do. So, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no questions. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) I think, as you have already stated very eloquently, you are moving this house back and that's why it was -- excuse me, it was found inconsistent under LWRP and with moving this house back as far as you possibly can, plus ';he fact that it will be behind the other, adjoining houses on each side, it's going to ac;dress that inconsistency. We also looked at the challenge that you face there with regard to the sanitary sysmm and the wells, because there is not public water in this area, and so because of the challenges you face with tile minimum distance required between sanitary system and your well and the adjoining property owners' wells, there was really no opportunity to move this house back any further than what you have proposed here. So, are ~here any questions from the Board? I'~,USYEE DOF~EF(I'Y: No TRLISTEE 8ERGEhI: The only ti'dngs we want to add to this was two things. First off", we he noticed that between the two bulkheads down at the ~ottom lhere had not been any vegetation put in there, any beach grass planted in there and we would iike to see some beach grass planted in there. ! think it's a benefit to your applicant that beach 9ross is planted here. So in the event -- that has both a southeast and southwest exposure, whe;e if waves go over that first bulkhead the beach grass wiil help protect that proper~y that is ~i~ere. 'Fha other thing we wanted to make sure we ii';cluded ;n here is an associated fence for 'the pool. Because as we ialked about out in the field, we were not quite sure where that was going to be, but there was a Board of Trustees 56 October 15, 2008 necessity for a fence around that pool according to code, and we thought, again, it would be beneficial if we include that now so you don't have to come back to amend your permit later on before us. MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. If there are no other comments from the Board or comments from the audience, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number seven, Patricia Moore or~ behalf oi: Claire and Rob Riccio as described at 6512 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, with the only amendments to the application that is being asked for is to vegetate with beach grass, Native American beach grass, the area between the t~vo bulkheads, and it will include in there, in this, an associated fence for the pool, and given the fact that i;'s been moved back as far as possible that will address the inconsistency and in fact bring it into consistency. That, along with, of course, drywells, gutters, leaders, and appropriate drywells and drair, age [or the pool also, as is depicted on the plans here. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHER'f¥: All h'~ favor? (ALL AYES.) IVlS. MOORE: 3''hank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of FRED DACIiVIO requests a Wetiand Permit to demolish an ex;sting one-stow storage building 18x26' and replace it with a new 1 1/2 stow gara.qe/storage building 20x40' in tl-~(; same location. Located: 5520 Na~'row River Road, Orient. The Board has been out to see this. LWRP has been found to be inconsistent, and it was found to be inconsistent because the distance from the bulkhead is approximately 88 feet and the code shows a minimum setback of 100 feet. CAC resolved to support the application but made the following notation: The stakes did not I~ne up with ~he plans, however the CAC supports the application with the condit;or', of drywells and gutters are installed to contain roof ru~o'i¥, and the ,SAC notes that the building may be ,~istoric. Is d~e~e anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. STRANG: Yes. Garrett S;rang, Architect, representing Board of Trastees 57 October 15, 2008 the applicant Fred Dacimo. First, I would like to, I realize this afternoon after the office closed that I had not presented to the office the affidavits of posting and mailing and I would like to bring that up. Other than that, I think the application is straightforward and speaks for itself, and if there are any questions from the Board I will certainly be more than happy to address them at this time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's pretty straightforward. Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's a beautiful piece of property. It's just magnificent. MR. WEISS: I would like to speak in opposition. My name is Jeffrey Weiss from Orient, I I~een there about 12 years. I understand that this is private property, it's not landmarked and, in the end, it's a question o,~ property rights, however, it is a magnificent piece of property. What I'm looking for is a postponement of this demolition so that the community can be properly apprised of what is about to happen and can come back with a point of view to present to Mr. Dacimo i,'~ the hopes that he'll alter his efforts and achieve his objectives in another way. This is part of the original Hallock Farm. Tile buildings, which were about six, vew interesting red barns, were not part of the original. 7hey were brought there in the '60's, I believe. They are old buildings '~hough. They are not historically significant as buildings but the entire assemblage is beyond picturesque. It's iconic in that it really speaks to time and place, which we talk about a lot, but which we don't seem to do a whole lot to preserve. Instead we see it in the local r~ewspapers what used to be. And 'we are getting rid of it all the time. So I think basically that there would be community support for this. Ifs principally the demolition that I'rn opposed to because once something goes down, no matter how much you water it, it's not going to grow back. And it's not, it's a fairly large plot of land. l would tt~ink there is probably a way the new storage facility could be integrated in without gettin9 rid of what is there. So ~ don't know if you folks are the ones who can grant a postponement, but if you are, that's what I'm requesting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: i think you have some valid points. I just don't think this is the Board that deals with those issues. He's basically -.. MR. WEISS: How do we do it? '¥RUSTEE GHOSIG: We decide wr~ether or not it can be done Board of Trustees 58 October 15, 2008 based upon the wetland code and what we administrate. Any suggestions? MR. WEISS: Number one, how can we do it and, number two, how imminent is this? In other words, if you folks say, sure, do it, does it go down tomorrow? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he still has to go through other agencies. MR. WEISS: What kind of time are we talking about? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has to deal with DEC, I think. Is the whole thing bulkheaded? MR. STPJ, NG: It's presently -- good evening. By the way, it's presently, the application has been made to the DEC. As anybody who is involved with environmental issues knows that the DEC moves at a snail's pace at best. So it will be at best several months before DEC renders their decision, okay. At that poim we would then make application to the Building Department for a building permit MR. WEISS: ]'hat might take six weeks? MR. STRANG: Building Department permit, probably ten days to two weeks, depending on the extent of the applications they have to entertain. MR. WEISS: So we am talking maybe two to three months. MR. STRANG: I would say at ;he earliest. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify [or myself. Is it from an historical perspective you would liXe to see the structure maintained? MR. WEISS: Not even maintained. It's listing, if you have been oct there. '£RUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we have ail seen it. MR. WEISS: And there is some support for allowing it to return to the ground. Just not to partake in removing it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. IV;R. WEISS: tt really, the buildings, I think, are not historic, but they do scream Old Orient, for many of us. TRdSTEE BERGEN: ! unOers'rand that. h/iR. WEISS: I mean, I could think of the crab shack on the causeway and then beyond that, perhaps nothing else. And it just s:,ouid not, I think, be taken lightly. Without seeing il: ';here is community supporl and if there is, approaching Mr. Dacimo arid seeir, g if there is an alternative. If which case the community would be forever' grateful. ?RUS-£.zE DOHERTY: I( sounds like you have some time to pursue that. MR. WEISS: I may have to. IV, R. STRANG: My client is present and would like to address the Board, if it's okay. Board ofq-rustees 59 October 15, 2008 MS. DACIMO: I'm Maureen Dacimo. Fred Dacimo could not be here this evening. I appreciate your comments. Hello, pleasure meeting you. MR. WEISS: You, too MS. DACIMO: I don't know if you had an opportunity to see the plans. MR. WEISS: No, I haven't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you address your comments to the Board, please. MS. DACIMO: I was wondering if this gentleman had an opportunky to see the plans so that he might look at what we are proposing to do. And it's one of the reasons that we would like to replace that building is because of the state of disrepair that I'm sure you have seen it's in. And rather' than have a building totally fall down upon itself, I think we have a much better plan to keep the character of the area and, you know, replace it with a new, safe building. We have been there for 20 years, have never wanted to change the character' of that property because we feel so strongly that it is a gorgeous piece of proper[y, and we want to maintain that. But we don't want to have the building in the state ol~ 0isrepair that ifs in, because we are unable to use it. Thank you. TRUS]'EE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board? Any other comment from the audience? (No response.) Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUS'fEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A;I in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. WEISS: Thank you. TRdS'£EE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the spplicatior~ as written. The only problem I have is we are not making any changes. How do we find it consistent? Just with the gutters and drywe[;s? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, remember it's just a recommendation from the LWRP coordinator to us. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, then Ill make a motion to approve the appiication as written w;th the stipulation that the new building be brought up to current Southold code which concerns drywells and gutters, and by doing so, it bdngs it lc, to cor;sistency witl~ the LWRP. iVii:~.. WEISS: Excuse me. Quick question. Does this mean from your point of view it's okay, however, it still has to go tC'~rough these '~wo additionai steps? Board of Trustees 60 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: From an environmental point of view. Your concerns are not addressed by this Board. MR. WEISS: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (,~,1_ L AYES.) MR. STRANG: Thank you, have a good evening. T,:~UST.:.-- GHOSIO: Nucnber nine, Andrew Schmitz III, AIA, on bermif of CAROL PUFAHL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story master' bedroom/bathroom addition onto the existing dwelling, remove and install new sanitary system, relocate existing hot tub, rebuild existing outdoor shower, replace the roof and siding on the dwelling and add d~¥wells for roof drainage. Located: 700 Teepee Trail, Southold. I have been out there and inspected the property. The LWRP has determined that it is, this app',ication is consistent with LWRP, and the CAC did not make an inspection, the;efore, no recommendation was made. Upon my inspection, I found it to be a basic renovation of an existing house. It's approximately 225 feet from the water, though it is closer to the wetlands. And I really didn't have any p~'oblem with it at all. It's all within the footprint of the existing building. Is there anyone ?~ere who would like to address this applica',ion7 MR. SCHMiTZ: Good evening, my name is Andrew Schmitz and I'm here to answer any questions. I wouid like to add that we have '~;led for the DEC perrnk and we have filed for the Health Department permi[, and those are still pending. And ol~viously if we are granted approval tonight, that would be granted with the stipulation that we receive those permits. -I'FxUSTEE GHOSIO: Again, it was just a basic renovation and updating an existing nome. The driveway is already pervious; drainage issues r~ave already been taken care of. I donOt have of a problem with it. Any other comments from the Board? TF~.USTEE DOHER, TY: Yes. I just have to mention, with the secor~O-story addition, if you fin~ during construction that the [ir'st story has to come down, you Imow you have to come to the Board first before you do that. MR. SCI-/MITZ: I understand that, but it won't have to come down. TR~STF_~ DOi-IERYY: We have heard that before in the past. That's why 1 have to put that in the record. Board of Trustees 61 October 15, 2008 MR. SCHMITZ: The house was constructed in 1983, it's not like it was 1883. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to, since it's been found to be consistent with LWRP, I'll make a motion to approve the application as written. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) M,q. SCNMiTZ: ',',~n~ you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Ray Nemschick, on behalf of STEIN FAMILY RESIDENCE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition to the existing singie-farnily dweiting, new front porch and a half-story addition with utility (1) toilet (1) sink to existing oil, e-story garage. Located: 2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion. The CAC supports the application with the condition that a ten-foot non-turf buffer, gutters, drywells are insralied ro contain roof runoff and a ten-inch conduit pipe on the garage is addressed. Which we'll be addressing. And it is inconsistent with LWRP. Is tha,e anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? MR. NEMSCHiCK: Yes. Ray Nernschick on behalf of the Stein Family Trust. I also wanted to submit the affidavit of posting and mailing, for the record. TRUSTEE DOHEP, TY: Thank you. MR. NEMSCHICK: And i'm here to answer any questions. TRLIS'FEE I_}OrtERTY: Okay. The only question we had out them was t~']e drainage that's on the property, it's obviously taking runoff from the road and it's a series of drains, it looks like it 0rains into one area, then if that overflows it goes into a p,pe that goes through the bulkhead and into the pond. So 'that's something we want to see addressed with a different system. [V]R. ;xlEMSCHICK: On the updated plans I submitted it has a 0rainago scheme on it that was approved by the ZBA. ?,~;,US'£EE DOHIER'I'Y: Okay. Bear witi'r me. (Perusing.) MR. NEMSCHJCK: Sure. No problem. The ZBA requested the same thing, so. 'I"RUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, good. MR. NEMSCHICK: In the lower right-hand corner. Board of Trustees 62 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, drywells. You have four drywells proposed. All right, do you show the current drainage being -- MR. NEMSCHICK: It's all contained in the site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me? MR. NEMSCHICK: We are proposing to carry all the drainage produced by the structures and keep it on site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pipe through the bulkhead will be taken out? MR. NEMSCHICK: If that's something that you mandate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. NEMSCPliCK: I don't have any problems. I would rather see it taken out. It's not something we would like to see, any kind of runoff go straight into the bay anyway, so. TRUSTE,E, DOHERTY: So this drainage calculation reflects Chapter 236 of the drainage code. MR. NEMSCHICK: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Is there anyone else who has any comment? (No response.) Aay comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUS';'EE DICKERSON: Second. TRdSTE,E DOHE,RT¥: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted and with the drainage, with the condition that the one pipe that is through the bulkhead be removed, and with the updated drainage that would bring it into consistency see with LWRP. And it has gutters, leaders a~'~d drywells. And it has a buffer behind the bulkhead already. A~d everythi¢~§ else is on the plans. So that's ray motion. Do I have a second. TRQSZE,.E, BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) IV~R. NEMSCHiCK: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ttENR'! & DIANE HOBBS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 53x27.5' second--story addition to the existing dwelling and to expand ti'~e front porch. Located: 800 Sterling Road, Cutchogue. We went out and looked at this. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent, and the CAC resolved to support tile application with the condition of gutters leading to Board of Trustees 63 October 15, 2008 dr3~vell on the structure. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application.'? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of applicant. I think the application pretty much speaks for itself. This is a second-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. No ground disturbance is proposed but for a couple of square feet around the front porch or stoop, which is just being expanded by a couple of square feet. Your comments on, with respect to the drainage, are noted and will be shown on the plan and submitted to you. Being that it's an existing house, there is some drainage, but we'll of course make sure the calculations are appropriate and the drainage provided is sufficient. If have you any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Also, just for informational purposes, I'll provide the Board with a rendering. I know I have given you some elevations, but the renderings of the proposed finished project is done so I can simply provide this to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question we did have, there is a brick patio between the house and the pond in back and it's, to tr, a best or our understanding, that was installed and it has not been a Trustee permit granted for that. biS. MESIANO: ']'hat's as much as I know. I do know there was a patio of some sort there when the CO was originally issued and then the CO was updated some years later, which I can show you. But, yes, I believe your statement to be correct and I do not believe that the present owners of the property constructed that. I believe it was constructed prior to their purchasing the house. TRUSTEE BEP, GEN: Would there be any objection from the applicant if we included that brick patio in this application so that it's ali beet', permitted in? [V~S. MESiANO: -,'here is no objection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, than~ you. Would anybody else in the audience like to commem on this application? MS. MONAHAN: My name is Jennifer Monahan. IVly husband and I oven the properly to the east. We are next door. We are aiso co-.owners of the pond. The pond is mostly in the back of the property ~h,s application addresses, but we own part of k, too. And we just want to say right off, we are in no way trying to stop development. We are not trying to p~a~ a stop to this. We are not being rnean-spirited. We feel we are in a very deiicate siluation, very difficult. We are not ~rym9 ~o stop anybody from improving their properly. We just have a couple of concerns we wanted to voice. Because in aggr69ate we d~i,qk that the proposal Board of Trustees 64 October 15, 2008 might result in the pond being a little too much encroached upon and instead of being a pond to support wildlife it's turning into more of a landscaping feature. One of it is that the rear of Sterling Road, I don't know what that rendering is, but I think that might be the front, but in the back it's, I think with the proposed story it will be three stories fully exposed, and that will be 30 feet away from the water line. And that brick patio, which we understand is not, wasn't given approval, is only 15 feet away from that water edge. So what we have is, now, I tl%nk, you know, ~rom the survey that I saw, it was four-ar~d-a-balf 'leer high, the brick patio~ and let's assume ten feet for each story pius five feet for roof line plus three feet that they could ge;[ for the difference in the grade being six feet and tak;ng it from the midpoint. Essentially we are getting a 44, we could have a 44-foot height extending, starting from 15 feet away from ;[he pond edge. And I'm just wondering if between that and the patio and all the new landscaping, are we just overly imposing too much stuff on this little pond. Also, you know, the size of the building, more septic going i,'~to there, and while I know tna;['s a Board of Health issue, it's still iess than 100 feet away from the pond because of whe~'e the road is and the proximity of the pond to that. I guess t wanted to ask, too, we submitted a le;:ter. ts that part of the file? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the letter is here. MS. MONAHAN: So just to continue, to summarize a little from ;[here, the dfywells, if there are drywells there, we didn't see any notated. We would like to confirm that if there are drywells there, if they were done prior to, very, very early, perhaps that they don't conform to the size of wi',ere the construction should be, they should be inspected to make sure they are adequate so the pond doesn't get any of ttqe runotf. And, you know, again, we are just k;nd of concerned that maybe a reduction of mass, maybe some more erosion managernent, there is a 40 foot, this potential for a 43-and-a-half foot high wall coming up to within 30 feet of this little pond ~s, just might be a little too much. So. ']'hat's all I have so say. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. Is there anybody eise who wouid like to speak or would you like to address any of tr, ese issues? [VIS. i,IESIANO: Yes. I [hink I adequateiy addressed the issue pertairmg to any storm water turnoff and containment of stom~ water runoff, and that we would provide the Board Board of Trustees 65 October 15, 2008 with adequate documentation of the calculations pursuant to the Town Code and adequate containment of that runoff. And again I would reiterate that there will be no ground disturbance but for installation of additional drywells, if that becomes necessary. There is no increase in the number of bedrooms in the house, therefore the septic system has been certified to be adequate for the renovated structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could address that for just a second. I don't see in the plans the present location of the septic system at all. Do you happen to know where that is? MS. MESIANO: Yes, it's in the front yard and I have a survey from when tl~e house was originally' build. And it's r;~7 only copy, so I'll give it to you -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could look at it for a second. Because I don't see one inciuded here. MS. MESIANO: It's noted that the septic tanks are in the front of the house. Sc the septic is noted as shown. It runs to a cesspool, under the driveway and overflows in the front corner. 'lC'he road side corner. I could mark it if you like. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I see it here. MS. MESiANO: "~'hat would be, I believe, the northwest. I have lost my bearings here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. Thank you. 'rF~uSTEF DOHER¥'(: Do you want a copy of Ihat '~'or the file? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, whe~'~ you provide new plans anyhow, if you could have that placed on the new plans. Not that we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Okay, just to address a couple of the concerns, I mean we also, we share in the concern that we don't want a project encroaching fur;her upon this pond, and as I see thcs plan is depicted, it's not going to do that. It's going over the present tootprint. In other words, the proposed second-floor addition is going right on top of what is already d~ere. I tt~ink with regard to the issue of height, that's an issue 'rot the Building Departrnent, so this is all going to have to go through the building depa~-~ment. The building department looks at height requicements to make sure a home doesn't exceed a height requirement. A,nd as tl;e appiicant has already tai~,ed about, ti~ey do flave to conform with Code 236. 236 is the to',vn drainage code, so they will have to have drywells, excuse me, gulters and leaders leading to drywells that can handie the volume of water that will come off this roof. And it's all done marhematicaliy. And we are very strict about that because we share in your concerns and I hope the applica~t shares in the concern. We don't want any runoff Board of Trustees 66 October 15, 2008 going from this house down into the pond. Even though it is a fresh water pond, we don't want any water running into the pond. And so we agree with your concerns and I'm sure they have to comply with 236 and that will be addressed. The brick patio, as Trustee Dickerson said, the brick patio is pervious. So you won't get runoff from that. That will just percolate through. MS. MONAHAN: But it really is so close. I don't know, it seems like it's a lot on top of a little pond and I want to reiterate, again, please know there is nothing behind this other than the concerns of the pond ti~at we share. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We share in your concern for that pond and in speaking to the applicant out there in the field, 'they demonstrated to us a real concern for that pond. That's a very unique pond back there; very unique to that neighborhood and very unique to the town to have these little ponds like this. So again, we agree you, we want to see it protected, and i think the applicant agreed with that also. Any others comments fl'orn anybody in the audience? (No response.) In not, any comments from the Board'? MS. MESiANO: Can I just add, with respect to the height, we will of course be conforming to t~-~e ';own height requirements, which comes no, here near 40 feet, and I think with that, I've addressed all of the items that were brought up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So I'll make a motion to close this pu~D;ic hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Catherine Mesieno on behalf of Henry and Diane Hobbs as depicted at 800 Steriing Road, Cutchogue, with the inclusion in this, the pervious brick patio in the applica[ion, so that becomes pem~i[ted in, and subject to receipt of new plans that shows the gutters, leaders leading to the drywells. 'i'hat w'ill cornply with Chapter 236, and also the location of tile septic, as shown on the survey, is outside of our jurisdiction. So that's my mo'don to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUS-;i~E DOHERTY: All in fa'~o¢? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 12, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT CELLO requests a Wetland Permit to replace three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50', using 10x15' wood piles @ six-foot on center' and C-Loc vinyi sheathing or Board of Trastees 67 October 15, 2008 equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. Is there anybody who would like to speak to this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The CAC supports the replacement of the eastern most jetty only. The other two jetties did not appear to be functional and should be left to deteriorate or remove. I don't know if Anne has anything further to add to that comment. MS. TRIMBEL: I didn't see the site. I think they felt they may have been afoul for a couple of years and to just let them be. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Except for the one on the eastern side MS. TRIMBEL: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It is a minor action and exempt from LWRP and, Cathy, you know plans are needed with elevations? MS. MESIANO: Yes, Laurer, indicated that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And you have a violation still pending MS. MESIANO: That's what is driving this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from Board members? (No response.) MS. HULSE: Just to let the Board know, the nature of the violation was the addition that was put on the jetties. So these were built up upon. I'm not sure they were all necessarily pre-existing or if ai',y of them were considered new struclures; new jetties. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: So is there approval acceptable with the condition that the pians wiil be submitted? MS. HULSE: As ~oag as you are specific as to whether or not you want that top portion removed, because it was added on to without the benefit of a permit. So it's whatever, certainly go forward, if that's what you choose to do at this point, um, with the understa;qding though that the build up o~ The je';iy was a violation when it happened. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My understanding is twofold. First, the violation has to be taken care of before we proceed with this but, second, there were no plans. So when we were out there in tile field we were really, we didn't know what the applica~;t wanted to do because there were no plans. We have to have pl~ns to consider this further. MS. MESIANO: I understand. This was an atypical situation, and compounding that was I had checked the Internet and saw tr, at tile field inspection was proposed for' the 8th and I had made vacatio,~ plans, ancl ,¢,e left on the 9th and I think you inspected o~n either the 9lh or tl',e 'lOtto. Otherwise i would ¢~ave been there to meet you. But neverti~eless, if the Board has no other comments at this tirne, then i';I make mine. i would like to start by say~ng that we have documentation that indicates that Board of Trustees 68 October 15, 2008 the jetties existed in about 1925. I have some older aerial photographs that I have assembled from online, and they are not scalable to the foot but they are indicative of the conditions. And what I have to give you is a 1994 aerial photograph and then a subsequent 2006 aerial photograph and then the 2008 aerial photographs, you'll see that the shoreline along that whole Marratooka Point changes from a curved edge to a scalloped edge, indicating that jetties are in place. The jetties were not obvious in the older pictures, but in the more current pictures you can s6e That the edges has become scalloped due to erosion, a storm event; tt:e erosion uncovered the old jetties. So I'll give the Board that. I do have photegraphs from the point in time after the erosion exposed the jett;es. I also have a copy of a sucvey that was dated 1925 that shows -- actually it's a ma9 of the 0roperty, of the Marratooka Point itself, that was dated as early as - I'll locate that. I have 1976 DEC tidal wetlands map that is indicative of the configuration of that point at that point in time. Just bear with me, please. ~ believe in my odginal application to you provided a copy of the map entitted map of property of Mrs. George Penney. And on that map there is a indicated a stone jetty and three timber jetties. And those were the structures that were submerged for years and uncovered in that storm event. So i'll give you those. And I would like to also :eference ~ nearing that was held on Wednesday, June 18, for ar; adjacent property, the owner was Stacy Sneppard. It was the san',e event and the same set of the circumstances when ¢iolations were issued. And I would just like to reference the minutes of that hearing and ask that they also be submitted into the file. The comment was rnade in the reading of the application; request a wetland permit for the existing 49-foot jetty located at 710 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. And this was Jim King reading off the description and giving his cornment. I think I'm still probably as confused as you are on this thing. Rather tr~an pem~it the existing jetty, i would rather permit a new Iow-profile groin in its place. I think ttmt's the way to go. it cleans up tile whole thing. It's consistent with LWRP. ]'his is in an area that houses were built here many years ago. It's a comple~.e ¢coin field. It's a really erosion problem here arid I think ?,'s prudent for us to improve this groin. ~ think it will improve situation. I talked to your neighbor Mr. Drumm be[ore he passed away and told hir,~ this is tl~e thing he should do Board of Trustees 69 October 15, 2008 also. Maybe down the road the family will get in it because I know what a problem you have there. And then it goes on to the rest of the comments. And I think my request to this Board is for the same consideration that was given to Ms. Shepherd to be given to Mr. Celic and his family who own the property. I don't think, given prior action, given my knowledge of the area and having done a little research on some of the history of the, some of the controversy in that area that giving up any of the groins would be a viable thing to do. Especially when as recently as June the statement is made it's a complete groin field. So we are looking for a permit to replace the pre.existing structures and I don't believe that Mc. Celic would be amenable at this point in time to removing any of the structures because this property, being at the end of a point and bein3 in ar; area where there is significant tidal ac'dvity and potential for wave activity, and there has obviously be-~n a loss of property through e~'osion, i think they would be hard pressed to casually give up any of the groin field. TRUSTEE DIC~ERSON: Cathy, i want to say, I hope you didn't misunde,'stand me. I was ['eadir~§ from CAC's recommendations arid I don't believe that was the feeiin9 o/this Board. MS. IdESIANO: I w'as r, ol clear on t?~at. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't believe that was [he feeling of this Board that any of them would were not functioning and would be replaced. So a,'e you proposing that these three would be replaced as iow sill? IVIS. MESIANO: I unde, rstar,d ':r~at is the Board's preference. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Al'e you¢ ciients agreeable to that? MS. MF_SIANO: If you could give me one minute. Yes, that would be perfectly acceptable. TRUS'fEE DICKERSON: I thi¢]i( wha'i we'll need is a set of plans showir~g the iow sill [or what we just discussed and we'll table ti~i$ tonight with the anticipation of getting those plans. blS. MESiANO: Do you have any specifications, did you make measurements in the field; tell me exactiy what you want. TRUSTEE DO,dER I'Y: I ',:hink you need to propose to us what you wa(~t. We need e;evatioi~s on ti-~e plan and we would also need to see it staked, tha seawacd end as weil, staked, because we have ~o decide on the length of them as well. You know, they are somewhat functioning but we don't know if tF~ey are 100°,0 funcJorfing, so we have to dec;de that based on the plans and based or~ what is staked out there. We would have to go ou~ there a; Iow tide aisc. MS. MESIANO: What's the date of your November hearing? TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: The inspections ~re the 11th. Tuesday, the Board of Trustees '70 October 15, 2008 11th. MS. HULSE: Just for the Board's information, our court case is in Shelter Island on November 3rd and that has been in litigation for over two years. He's chosen to fight this to the extent that he has, and just as a note, because Ms. Mesiano brought it up, both Ms. Shepherd and Mr. Drumm cleared up their fines and remediated their situation in a very quick manner. So this needs to be hopefully closed on the 3rd or prior to that so that you can move forward on this. MS. MESIANO: I would like to say something, too. I'm going to be leaving for two weeks on the 7th. I would like to wrap it up before then as well. Could we perhaps say 'that, is '~hcre any possibility of the Board closin9 the hearing subjec'~ to my submission of a satisfactory plan? TRUSTEE DOP;E. RTY: SpeakS. rig for myself I'm not willing to do that because there is so much information that we don't have. MS. MESIANO: Okay. is there any way that a Board member would be available for ar~ inspection before November 3rd? TRUSTEE DOFiER'I-¥: I cJo,~,'t think, I mean, again, we don't have a corr;plete application and we have our inspection da;e, and we ha~e sc many applications, we can't just be ar'bitrarily -- MS. MESIANO: i understand, l';7~ try;ng ro take ir]to consideration vvha; your a~omey is saying and tryir, g to work wi~h that. TRUS-,-EE DO,-~.--R'F'~: We don't need, what she is saying is that t,~e violation has to be cleared up before we make our decision on here. You are in the process now with us, with ti'se application. 'You aeeo to submit more in¥'ormation. So we can'~ even ac~ on ;his untii the violation is ~aken care of. IV~S. HULSE: ;f she war~s to expedite this, you carl come to m)t office a;'~y time Yo,~ d,:n't have to wait for the court Gate. We can have it resolved before then, on that date. At ycul cor, wr, ience. It jus',' has [o be done. biS. MESIANO; i'i~ hav'e Mr. Cei;c's attorney contact you with respect to that, eno l'ii get you a set of pians as soon as possible. Is there -- ali dght, so you are tabling it until next month. What's the date of the November hearing? YRUSYEE DOI--~ER'¥Y: The 11th is tile field inspection and the hearing is the 19tl~. TRUS'[EE iDICKERSON: Make a motion to table this application. TRUS'!'EE BERGEN: Just to give the applicant some assistance here, what we non'nally looked al witi~ jetties and groins is that they are Iow profile, which means the down drift side can't be more than 18 inches above grade. We would look for' it to be staked at tlne landward end and at the seaward Board of Trustees 71 October 15, 2008 end we would normally not have considered groins or jetties going beyond the normal, not the lunar low tide, not the full moon Iow tide but the normal Iow tide, so they're functional but they are limited in scope. That would just help you with what we have looked at before and we acted more favorably in. It doesn't guarantee if you do that we'll approve it, it's just some assistance I'm trying to provide to you. MS. MESIANO: Right I had others approved of those specifications. I didn't know if as of late the Board had changed its preferences because that's the direction I would be going was the others ', had done. Okay, not to belabor the point, but my pt'ob!e[~ is l'rn riot here from the 7th to the 19th. I'll get you wha(I can betwee,q now and then, we'll try to resolve ir and if the hearing is a perfunctory matter', I can reso;ve everything before then, two points for me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSYEE DICKERSON: I made a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MS. MF_SIANO: '!'i"~ank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numoer/3, Propar.-T Permit Services on behalf of 'CARLO,JAN ARSLANYAN requests a Wetland Permit to instali a docking facility consisting of Mo floats, each 8x20' ar, d secured by four eight-inch diameter piles, with access by hinged rarnp 4x16' secured at its landward end to existing bulkhead. Located: 1280 S~ge Boulevard, Greenport. This was I]eld over from last month. Is there anyone here to comment? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Arslanyan. I have written another neat speecl~ but l think I could get the point across wi~h relatively fe~ words. TRUSTEE COHZ_R-I'i": l'i',a,;,< you. MR. FITZGERALD: The concern of the Arslanyan family is the use of the dock/or boating activities by old people. Some of the people s, re even o~der than I am. And along those lines I rhink it is apparent that the dock configuration that we are describing, and whicb the two floats are eight-feet wide, would be significantly more stable than six-feot wide floats. And I think teat probably we have ali walked on six-foot wide floats a,~d we have come down ramps on to ther~n, arid atong ~hose Jines one of tbe problems is that a number of the peop;e in ,~ne family require the use of a walker and proi~abiy' 'would requlre assistance of another person to get down the ramp, so that puts two Board of Trustees 72 October 15, 2008 people on the ramp, and the ramp we are asking for has two hand rails on it so it's heavier than the ramps that ordinarily are approved. And that would have an affect upon the stability of the floats themselves. The doctors that we were counting on to provide detailed medical reasons for doing this are gone in one way or another, so I have for you a letter to the Board from Mrs. Arslanyan. She says: My mother underwent total knee replacement surgery in 1993 for the left and 1994 for the right at Beth Israel North Hospital in New York City. Dr. John Insahl (sic) was her surgeon. A few years later Dr. Insahl passed away a,'~d the hospital was e'ventually demo!ished. Dr. tnsaM's practice was taken over by one of his partners, Dr. Scidali (sic). I called Dr. Scidari's office and his office staff informed me that alter seven years all records go into medical archives. They were not able to locate our old files on top of which, Dr. Scidari was not our operating surgeon and the hospital is no longer in existence. Ivly mother is 86-years old and walks with a walker at all tirnes. She loves the outdoors and in particular boating, which we want her to enjoy for the remainder of her years. We also have five grandchildren, the youngest of which is three-years old. We are concerned about ';tie safety of all of them from tine youngest to the oldest. We thought a somewhat wide~' dock would be more stable and could eiiminate the potential of any dangerous situations. We would be grateful a~qd appreciate il if you would grant permission to our request. In addition, one of our in-laws has also undergone total knee replacement surgery on both her left and right knees. We are blessed with a large and loving family and enjoy activ,ties all together and would hope she could corltinue to spend tirne with us enjoying the outdoors. I thank you in advance for your time and atten[L;on to this matter. So, there you have i",. I rnea~n that's what it boils down to, the additional stability of the larger floats. TRUSTEE DOHERYY: I don't ~now wha~ to say. I sympathize with the family and I ur,derstanC at'~d can'[L argue that e~gnt-foot wide is more stable th&r, six-foot wide, but we do i~ave our' guidelines that we follow and we have been pretty strict with and i personally feel that six-feet wide is t,'~e Im'~it that i'm wiiiin,.3 to §o to. I hope at that age I'm willing to still enjoy the water and everything too, &nd i hate to [Lake that away, but i think six-foot wide is sufficient. I don't know what the rest of the Board feels. MR. FITZGERALD: Wouid you consider approving alternative reliei: as t~ey do with the zor,ing board, for a six-foot float? i'RUSYEE GHOSIO: $x207 IVlR. FI'IZGEiZlALD: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Instead of an 8x20. TRUSYEE DOHERTY: Yes, I would consider 6x20. Board of Trustees 73 October 15, 2008 MS. ARSLANYAN: My concern is 6x20 -- 8x20 conversion to 6x20 is going to be very difficult, very expensive, and this existing one I would be very appreciative. Not only required but I really begging, appreciate if you could accept it. That's really my only request is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are saying you already have the 8x20. MS. ARSLANYAN: Yes. If I knew, my real concern, my neighbor has two 40-pieces of, one is 80, 8x40. The other is 40x6 is extended to each other, existing in my next neighbor, h'nmediate next neighbor. If it wasn't there, I 9rant that is my agologet!c concern and misunderstanding, I was very sure that ~,f they could oxi~:ting right next neighbor east siege of my immediate property, that I thought you people would be granted. That was my mistake I made. That's why I apologize abou'~ it with honesty. I didn't 9et, even a moment that I didn't think, I didn't think I wo,JId be refused. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Normally we don't allow two floats but, you know, I wouid not mind in this case seeing the two floats, but not eight feet wide. You know, I'm willing to [;o 6x20 and w;lling to ~o two floats instead of the normal one because o1: tile stabiiity 7ou need. Bdt '~hat's my opinion. MS. ARSLAN'~Ai'q: lvly final saying, only I could request, I made a mistake. I apolo,2ize, a,nd w~'~atever it will cost or do, I wi;l do as you wish to, if you refuse. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: W'hat does the rest of the Board feel? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: i think we should stick to what our code says. And i sympathies and I understand that it's difficult for the lamily, but -- IRIS. ARSLANYA~',I: Can't you show any consideration immediate neighbor float is already' there and I'm using. They even ask me if you war, t, you could use our decK. And i want to have my own. i od more than appreciate ve~,j much to use his exist;ng docK. It ~vould ~e much Jess costly. TRU$¥EE DOt'aERTY: I un~ers'~a,qC ti:at but it's hard for me to come up with a reason why I could say, okay', we'll go to eig,nt foci just because you i~ave it already. Environmentally, you kno'~v, I can't MS. ARSLANYA~I: My guilt is that I granted myself because a lot of people the,~ I spoke with and nobody suggested me it could be you people would refuse me, because existing is immediately adjacer4 my propert/. Existi,~g. 'I'RUS"I',~JE DOHE;R-JY: But that's only six-feet w~de. MS. ARSLANY~,N: No, I'm tellir~9 yo~, il I may, please, there is two docks, decking, two pieces, one is 6x40 immediately Board of Trustees 74 October 15, 2008 connected to 8x37. That's what failed me to understand that I would be refused. Otherwise I would not do it. This is my sincerest expression. This is the truth. I was so sure you people would grant it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I assume that structure doesn't have a valid permit from the Trustees. I don't know. MS. ARSLANYAN: I'm not aware. Believe me, I will buy it. It's almost three years now I'm waiting this to be approved and otherwise I would not buy it. Honestly. I didn't even touch the house. I didn't use the house. I didn't put one nail yet. -[his is rny real wish to ba owning my own property by the water. TRUSTEE GI-tOSIO: My comment really is that this is an area that is not cverwhelmed with docks and floats. By and large th;s really only represents a difference of about 80 square feet, cornpared to some of the structures that we, on occasion, allow, depending on what the circumstances are. Persor, ally, I understand that our code says 6x20. Having looked at this, I really don't have that rnuch of a problem with it. I just wanted to say tha'~. TRUSTEE DO;qERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess my concern is that are we making an arbitrary decision tnat, are we considering making an arbitrarily decision oi' ;ncreasing from six to eight because the applicanL through all types of reasons, went out and bought one thor was eight foot rather than six foot. Arid the code has been six foot since I have been on board,, for at least two-and-a-half, w6;i, almost three years ~ow. And I don't want to just be making arbitrary decisions here. I ~eei that we do have to stick with 6x20 and here in tills case, nor~ns, lly, i mean 6x20 we are considering two floats here. So we are already greatly increasing the amount of covecage that we would normally, we are doubling already the amount of coverage. So I don't know that it w;~l be that expensive. 'fhere will be an expense, no doubt about it, but; don't know if it will be that expensive to reduce an 8x20 down to 6x20, you know, cutting it down snd re-doin9 the siding on it. I'm not in the ¢;o;~strucfion ous~ness but it's a lot easier to do that than it wouid be to exper,cl. IViS. ARSLAN'rA,"~: May i, please. TRUSTEE ~Ei~GEiN: Yes. MS. ARSLANYAN: Sir, I been here since 1957, this area. I'm in love with trois place, it reminds me where I came from because t was born and raised on watedront properties. A¢~d it is so much not available dockir;9 spaces on the Board of Truslecs 75 October 15, 2008 shores. This is a 23'7 feet of property. I would use only one boat there, and many reasons that combine together that I feel if I may beggingly please ask you. What is it really, it's a float. Under ground is all clay. There is no vegetation to worry. For that in mind I ask to make a float float. It's not rigid. It's floating just for stability in terms that I done this mistake. That's all. And I would be understanding and very, very appreciative. Even if you refuse me, I'll do it. But before I do it, I'm asking you your permission to grant me. MS. HULSE: I'm not sure there is a legal basis, to be honest with you, from just my perspective. I have gone to court to fight a case that was ten feet greater and it was protracted litigation and that person had a natural handicap that was documented. Fm not hearing a basis in law or anything ,'hat !s really go;rig to hold out to deviate from the 6x20. At least given the history that l've experienced here with the town. t just don't see that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Arsianyan, I just want to say, you are a ,'ery gracious speaker, and again, it's not that we don't sympathize. It's just that we are trying to be consistent with our code that we have ;~een very busy in working on. MS. ARSLANYAN: I appreciate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we are considering the 6x20 rather than 8x20, is there a need for eight-inch diameter piles or could that be handled with six-inch diameter piles. -t'RdS','EE DOr'JE,~T¥: ~'hat was my next question. MR. FI'I'ZGERALD: That's fine. Jill, with regard to the neighbor's dock, the Trustees issued a grandfather permit for it in '1995 and it is indeed 8xST-and-a-half feet. TRUSTEE DOHER'fY: Okay, thank you. NIP,. FI'FZGERALD: And he doesn't have old people in the family. TRUSTEE DOHF~TY: Are there any other comments? (No response.) Being r, one, any returner,ts ;:rom the Boa~'d? MS. Af~,SLANYAI'~: Thank you, very much. T[RJS-,-F_E DO,-,.--,R'F¥: Ill make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSO,'q: Second. TP, USTEE DOt-it-':R-'£Y: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: FII make a motion to approve the application of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Varujan Arslanyan for two 6x20 floats secured by four six-inch diameter piles with access by Board of Trustees 76 October 15, 2008 hinged ramp of 4x16 stored at landward end to existing bulkhead, subject to receiving new plans showing what was stated. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ARSLANYAN: May I add another thing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's closed, but go ahead. MR. ARSLANYAN: I accept what you say. My deed says I can build 50 feet along and even if I need dredging, that I could do. They say wharf. TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: Yes, we have that information in our file. MR. ARSLANYAN: Ecen so, that was pa~t of' my believing that you people ~vould accept this. That's why my three reasons together combined that I'm su:e would be accepted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand. MR. ARSLANYAN: "¢~ank you. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Number 14, Preper-T Permit Services on behalf of JUDIE LIZEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x35' fixed walkway dock with mooring pole. Locatera: 145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here who would like [o speak to this application? MR. FIIZGF. RALD: This is ar~other one. Does everybody have a copy o1: the new, new. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have anymore? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I have lots of copies. I would like to request t,qat '~he hearin9 be adjourned or be held open or heid over, because the iast time we did something like this it had catast~'ophic effects. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you like this application tabled? Is mat wi'mt you are askir~g? MP,. Fl'i ZGERALD: Yes. I would like the system to have a month to accept the chan§e and get it into the system. So that, for instance, and I will make it right, but as I said the last time, I instigated something like this at the eleventh hour, hey, approve this for me, will you. it dien't work ',veil. TRUSTEE DICKER,5ON: So you are learning from past experience? MR. FII'ZGERALD: So let's all meet here in ,November. TRdST~:E DOHERTY: And you will have the seaward end staked of the aew plan? MR. i:TFZGERALO: Yes. TRUSTEE 31CKERSON: I'll rr,ar, e a motion to table Judie Lizewsk~'s reques'[ fo/a wetiaad permit. Board of Trustees 77 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, 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' i;~ 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, $outhold. This was an application that had been opened once before and some comments were received pertaining to it. An LWRP evaluation baa not been done. Since then, an LWRP evaluation l~ad been done and found inconsistent under the LWRP. The primary reasons are as follows: That the proposed addition is greater than 25% of the original structure, so as per 268.3 it is. inconsistent; that the minimum setback, according to the LWRP be 100. This is 60. So for that reason i't was inconsistent. And it involves construction of a permanent concrete wall which may alter exisiin§ storm water drainage patterns. That's basically the reasons for the inconsistency. CAC didn't make an inspection, ,~',qerefore no recommendation was made. Now, just to review what had been orought up last time, i had asKe6 for the, what is listed on the survey here that is da;ed Jul~ 7, 2008, is listed a five-foo[ wide non-disturbance buffer and I had asked for that to be a non-turf DuPer; gutters, ;eaders leading to orywells, to address the roof runoff so that we addressed Chapter 268. And, again, as [ar as the inconsistency, particularly under 268, the ob¢iousiy the applicant is going to have to take the necessary measures to address any drainage issues so that ti~ere is no runofl of dra;nage going off the property on ;o Island View Lane or aojoining properties. So, with mat, is t.nere anybody here to speak on be~-,alf ot this applicat:.on? MR. A,',IDERSON: Yes. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting lOT tl*e applicant ,~ober~ Swing. 'This is an apphcation that, as i'ar as tire dwelling improvement has already been approved by this Board some Board of Trustees 78 October 15, 2008 time ago. They were bogged down with the process with the DEC and also with the Health Department. In the context of kind of obtained proof from the Health Department it became necessary to install this wall that surrounds the septic system. The purpose of the wall is to elevate the ground, elevate the septic system two feet above ground water. And that is an environmental protection scheme. -['he wall itself does not, does nothing to really promote runoff because the walls may be a foot thick and when we look at runoff, we look at impervious surt:aces and so forth. And also when you look at the cross-section of this wall, you should really be looking at more kke a curve, because we ale talking about something that is going to extend approximately 18 inches above grade. That's what is required to get this septic system suitably elevated above ground water. There is a foot of sand proposed bet~een the top of the septic system within this wall, sc what we are talking aboul here is it's almost like installing a san0box. $o there really is no runoff associate0 with this property, o~" with this wall. Ir, addition, the land rises from the street to tho water. Youll see a corner elevation of 4.9 feet adjacent to the souse. You'll see an elevation o[ 6.2 feet on the south, what would be the so~thwes'~ corner of the corner there is 4.8 and that rises ~o 5.8. So there is no runoff that would move ~oward the water. Tlnere are spy elevations tha'~ have beer, 9;aced to the road and they show elevations of 4.9 down Bayshore Road to 4.5 to the end of Island View Lane the,~ is 4.2. So ti~e rur~off basically follows the town road into the water. And that's reaJy a town problem. So I doc,'t think we are making that any worse. We are ~robably rna?ring it better because the sandbox essentially captures ali the runoff within dmt surface area. So i iust sort of disagree with that. i do say, I do a~ree that we'il have to take probably a closer look at the 0~ainago because in the context of this apptica~.ioc, we'll want ar! of the property, all of the buii0ing area, ~ot j~st the addition, comply with the town's runoff drainage law. So yo~ rnay see something of a more formal drainage pkm which we hawz been submitting to you lately. That's really all ! hava to say. It's an sbsolutely necessaw situation to make d'~at septic system comply and we want tile septic system to comply so that it protects the envirenment. "/'hank you. 'rRJSTEE BERGEN: Question's. 'The concrem walis, I'm looking Board of Trustees 79 October 15, 2008 again at this plan stamped dated July 7, 2008, that you are telling me is required by the Health Department for the sanitary system, goes ell the way along the northern side of the property down to the wooden bulkhead, as I'm looking at this. MR. ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Basically it surrounds the entire house except for a very small portion on the southern side. i'm just curious as to why the Health Department wanted such an extensive concrete wall all the way around the property, except for a litde, you Iq;ow, excep! for a small a,'ea there on the southern slde. MR. ANDERSON: Do you see the wall that extends to the adjacent property to tc:e r, orth; the idea was just to connect to that. I don't know if it's necessary or unnecessary. I don't know that it even matters. Because, again, at that point we are talking about the top of a wall then that is one to two inches above grade. [ don't know that it even matters, to be honest with you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's along the northern side there is already a p~'e-e~isting wa;i, is vv?,at you are telling me, an,a so this Js ';.~,ing into the pre-existing wall. MR,. ANDErSOn\: "(es. But we ~re 'mlldng it's an ;nch high. Maybe two inches high. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, can t ask, what is this bump out wall? It says "concrete." Is that existing? MR. ANDERSON: That's a walkway, i was referring to this wall here. I think that's what Dave was taiking about. That's just concrete. TRUSTEE SERGEN: Yes, that's just a walkway. h/iR. ANDERSON: i ~o,'L Knorr that it matters one way or the o'[he¢, ~o be horles[ wJti) yot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application? (No response.) Any questions from the 8card on (his one? (I'~o response.) TRUS'fEE BERGEN: tf not, Ili make arnotion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TP, USTEE DONER'I'Y: All ir; favo, '.,' (,ALL AYES. ~. TR, OSTEE &:F, GEN: ;il make a motion to approve Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Robert Swing as described here in ~he application located 4295 Bayshore Road, Southold, witl~ the only amendment to this, what is described as a Board of Trustees 80 October 15, 2008 five-foot wide non-disturbance buffer, that could be a five-foot wide non-turf buffer. And because the addition, while it is greater than 25% of the existing structure, because it is landward rather than seaward, and with that five-foot wide buffer and with all the measures that will be taken to tone conform to Chapter 236, including gutters, leaders and drywells, and the French drain that is along the south side of the property as depicted on the plan dated July 7, 2008 would find it consistent with the LWRP. I make that motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO. Second. TRUSTEE DOHEFtTY: Alt in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CLAUS RADEMACHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,665 square foot s6cond-story addition to the existing dwelling; a 127 square foot second-story and 174 square 'loot one-story addition off tile northern face of the existing dweliing; a 206 square foot second-story addition, 190 square foot porch and '162 square foot steps off the northeastern face of the existing dwelling; a proposed 220 square foot driveway expansion off the southwestern existing driveway; and a new sanitary system. Located: 950 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. '/he Board has been ~.here ~o ,ook at this. '[he LWRP finds this to be consistent and just mentions, recommends the installation of drywells to contain storm water runoff. The CAC did not make an ir, spection, therefore no recommendation was made. And despite the extensive description, it's just not really ali that big of an addition or extension. Again, it was a s~raighti:o,'~vard application. So is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consditmg for the applica~t Ivh'. Rademacher, who is sitting beside me here, who purchased t~is t;ouse not long ago and proposing tilese various improvements. He's an architect. What I have counseied him in and explained to him to be mindful of is I want you to understand wha~ we are pcoposir~g here. Yes, these are additions. But this house is going to be cedor~e in a very sign',ficant way. He's very interested in pursuing a §r6en type [louse which, new energy efficient type structures, as you may have heard of them. The exterior appearance of this is going to change Board of Trustees 81 October 15, 2008 greatly. Them has been, the design choices have been made because it sits on top of a board foundation, concrete foundation, that is dry, that is a foot to a foot-and-a-half thick and fully strong enough to support this addition. But the house, make no mistake, will look different than it looks today very significantly. I say that because I was at a hearing and I've seen this coming up more and more where folks think they are just approving something that sits on top of the house, they come back and look at it and the house looks completely different and they say how do we get to this point. I want it known that this is basically a ranch-style house, it will be a modern house. It's goiag to be a green house, which means we want to use solar, we want to use geothermal, it will be various, applies sortie of ';he newest building technologies, because he's an architect, because he can, because he's knowledgeable and he's excited for this project. And I want this on the record so it's understaod what we are doing. I also want it understood, if you look at the array here, we are replacing a nonconforming septic system with a conforming one, and that system occupies pretty much all the available space between what would be the house and the road. So it is an efficient use of space, it's prcperly la;d our, it's well thought out. But that is truly what you are going to see. That's wi;at you are entertaining today. Thank you. And M:. Rademacher ks here to answer any questions, ii' ~,ou have a,qy, al}at you 'would like to ask him. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody on the Board have any questions or co,'nmants? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ] t~ea.:'d "solar." Are you going to try a green roof with vegetation? MR. IM\DEIvlACHER: We were not going to go quite that far. But we are onented due south so we want to take advantage of the ability to collect -- l'RtJS-iEE DICKEt~.SON: i'm just: ir,terested ir', all those top;cs. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing the;e are rio further questions or comments, the file is complete. Eve~ytining has been -- LWRF says it was consistent, so we don't have and we agree it's consistent, i make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSi'EE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application as made and we agree with the LWRP coordinator it's consistent ~vith the ~.;¢\/~.~P a:~d ar;ceo[ it as written. TRUSTEE OICKERSON: Second. ,-,,~ :~_ DOHER'i'Y: A~i tr~ tavo~? Board of Trustees 82 October 15, 2008 (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Good night. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to remove an existing accessory dwelling structure and attached deck, asphalt driveway and leaching pool and construct a one-story detached garage, pervious gravel driveway extension and install drywell to capture and recharge roof runoff. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. CAC did not make inspection, therefore has no recommendation, and its inconsistent with LWRP. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, Eh-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant A',c,n C~rdina;e. Unlortunately Jim is not here tonight because i did, again, this is work that was done conlpletely outside the scope o~: the originally issued permit for the house :enovations. We met, Alan and I met with Lori Hulse and with Jim, again, the morning tl;e stop work order' was issued. And this all relates to the. generally the same violation, but the two issues l~ave been separatee because the renovations having to do with the second story that we discussed earlier was a modification, an illegal modificatior, cf the work from t,'~a pemfit, wner'eas this was work ~hat was to'~al[y outside the scope of the criginal permit. And done without a buiidir, g permit., as the Soam imows. Just for the record, Alan was fined by the town. He has resolved the violation. ')'his work is, was doee reaily, and as we expiained to Lo,q al. this initial compliance meeting, Alan was :)asically caught trying to do the right tr, ing in tire wrong wa),. While the work was being done for tl~e house, it was orought, rrn not, it's not necessary to go in~o detaiis, but basically i'~ was pointed out by some of the professionals on si~e what was supposed to be a garage was in fact an ~ega; dweiiing quarteCs with a functional sanitary s:~stam, vYha~ Alan had hoped to accompiish, weli, probai~(i self-servic, g to save himself a great deal ot time and anxiety was to try to take something that was an illegal use that he did not c[eate but was one whic~'~ he was going to try to do away with. That's what I mean by saying he was caught t~¥ing to do the right thing but went about i! in [?,e wrong tray. What he should have Cone, as we discussed earlier, ;s bring this to the attention of the rmilding department, Trustees, et cetera. But instead try to just 9ut the ase and reta;n ti~e Board of Trustees 83 October 15, 2008 structure as a garage. One thing led to another in terms of trying to make those structural changes and pretty soon he had a mess on his hands and found he really couldn't retain the structure as a garage without reconstructing it, which is what he did. That was sort of the second mistake in timing is that at that point he probably should have come to you and said this is what I'm trying to do. Now I need a permit for it. But again, made in hindsight, obviously, an incorrect decision to try to simply reconstruct a garage. And again, the attempt here was to eliminate the illegal dwelling qu~rters use, to eliminate the sanitary system and tile leaching flow. As a result of this, the removai of the previously existing structure, the deck and the asphalt pavement, you actual get a net reduction and impervious coverage on the lot with what is there. The wetlands setback to '~he bulkhead remains unchanged with respect to coverage. It actually increases from about 52 tc ,57 feet with respect to the other wet[and. I put in an LWRP consistency assessment form and; would just like to read into the record what ~ wrote, because it's unfortur, ate that w'~ didn't ISU~ th~s before the Board because i do think ';he end result is not only in keeping with the use that ha6 previcusly existed before it was converted to dwe;ling use, illegally, but it's consistent also with 'the garage that is immediateiy adjacent. So I do think that it's something that, had Alan brought to the Board, had the foresight or' ultimately the current sight to do ;hat, would have preseF~ted itself io tile Board as an approvable project. And ~ want ire just read the information that we put in the LWRP appiication. It will just conclude my summary ~he project. 1 he project consists o'i tile r~movaI o~ an existing accessory dweliin9 structure, attached dec~, leaching pool and asphait driveway, and tt;e construction of a detached garage and pervious gravel driveway extension in the same general location on the property. As a result of the project, a minimum se';cack from il-,~pervious surt:aces to the nearest wetlands bukhead side remain eifec'~.ively unchanged at pius or m;nus 3'1 feet. It actualt¢ goes from 31.8 to 3l .1, and a ,minimum setback from impervious surfaces to the un~)ulkneaded wetlands associated with the creek will increase from ,52 ~o 67 feet. Also, as a result o~ the projec~ by irnperv;ous sur,;aces will decrease by 246 square feet. The driveway, previously existing asphalt driveway will be replaced by a driveway comprised of pervious 9ravel. Fhe garage will be equipment with leaders and Board of Trustees 8~1 October 15, 2008 gutters and a drywell will be ir~stslled to capture arrd recharge roof runoff. The prior structure had no such drainage capacity. Thus, the project will result in an improvement in drainage and a net decrease in potential runoff. The project also eliminates a longstanding, preexisting nonconforming dwelling use and associated septic discharge via removal of the dwelling quarters and existing leaching pool which results in a substantial improvement to ground water quality adjacent to the wetlands, obviously because we are removing the septic system, and the ~'ef' line. Yhe p;'eviously established non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead at this location will of course remain in place and t['~erefore the project actually results in net improvement in wetland setbacks from pervious services and net decrease in coverage by impervious stiff'aces, and a complete elimination of septic discharge at this location, thas resuiting in a net improvemen'; in beth surface and groundwater quality and consequent benefits to the adjacent wetlands and 'tidal waters. Because the new structure could not be located any fartr, er from the bulkhead withct~t piacin9 it closer '~o the unbulkheaded vegetated tide; wetlands associated with the natural creek shoreline to its south, utilizing the same location while eliminating the driveway nearer to ti~ose wetlands thereby increasing the setback of impervious surfaces to those southerly wetlands by 15 feet provides the best practical compliance wilh the setback requirements of Chapter 275. Therefore the project is consistent with policy six. So, again, i':'s, I understand tlmt it's §oing to be diflicuit for the Board to digest this in the same way it would as ii' this project was being brought to you before the work was being done, as it strouid have been, but again, I thir~k Alan, he showed good i/~terrtions but used poor judgment. That's why we are where we are today. That's why there was a violation issued and a fine levied and paid. Again, I walked the site with Jim that day. The site remains, with respect to the garage, in the same condition as ,t did that day. No further work has been done on the garage. There is a stop wor~ o:der that remains ~n place until the rnat~er is addressed by the 'trustees. I[ you have any technical questions, i'm happy to answer chem. If you have any further questions of A~an, r',e's here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Where art-; you witr~ me DEC permit for this'.; MR. HERMAN: ~'qowhere. Board of Trustees 85 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Have you applied? MR. HERMAN: Not as of yet. We are trying to resolve everything with the town stemming from the violation to the wetlands permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if this would be something that we would approve something this large in this area. That's what I have a problem with. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was the footprint size of the previous dwelling; not the deck, just the dwelling. MP,. HERMAN: It's actually or~ the site plan. The previously existing building ~vas 318 squa:e feel The previously existing deck was 135 square fgeL Tile previously existing driveway was 580 square feet. The constructed garage is 761 square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the pre--existing dwelling that you described as an illegal dwelling was 316 square feet and the garage is seven..hundred and what? MR. HERMAN: 781 square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: More ';hac~ do~ble the size. MR. HERMAN: The structure itself. '¥hat's correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And its distance from the wetlands? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approximately 35 feet. We measured 35 that day. MR. HERMAN: It scales to 31 ..1 on the survey, and the previously existing deck was 31.8. The previously existing dwelling structure would be located farther back f;om that by at least another ten feet, maybe. TRUS','-EE DOHER'f'Y: Let's 9o back to the propane tank that we talked about earlier. According [o you~ delineation of the wedand line, it is further away than 13 feet that we measured. MR. H,=RMAN: les, and i apologize, because the site plan that ran with the amendn;ent is, to keep things from getting too con ~plicated, was essentially the same proposed condition site plan that the previously issued permit addressed. This site plan is an existing conditions map, with the omy changes with respect to the garage. So I did not realize, Dave, when you were talking to me about the tank before, tha~ the tank is actually surveyed on here. And it scales to about 38 or 39 feet from ~.he wetlands boundary'. Now, if' you see the pi~oto again, it's rr:uch nearer to the hay bales, but the hay be;es are not at the wetlanc2s boundary. The h~y bales were supposed to be at least tel', feet landward of the wetlands boundary, i think they are closer than that, though. So the tank may be closer to the hay bales, but the hay bales don't represent Board of Trustees 86 October 15, 2008 the wetiands boundary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I measured from the edge of the vegetation. MR. HERMAN: From the edge of the wetlands vegetation? Because that whole area there is naturally vegetated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The edge of the vegetation. MR. HERMAN: Okay, but the edge of the vegetation there is not the edge of the wetlands. There is a natural upland vegetated buffer landward of the wetlands. The wetland down that slope are actually on the creek. They don't come up to the flat part of the land. That is well above the tidal range. That may be easily resolvable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. You said the tank is on the survey?. Because I don't see it on here. MR. HERMAN: It is. You if you look at, right under where it says existing gravel driveway, underground propane tank. I'm assuming that's tile same tank you are talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I see it now. On the survey it seems so much further aw'ay than where it was. Dave, do you want to look at this. (Perusing). it shows the tank here. Here is the proposed hay bale line. We measured '13 feet from basicaiIy this part of tine ha) bale line. It's on this side of t,qe hay bale line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Something is definitely wrong there. So, again, there is something that is not -- MR. HERMAN: What I think it is, the hay bales were proposed to be set at the limit of the buffer, wh:,cn is as far away from the project site as you would want them. What Alan tells me is tr~e hay bales were actuaily set closer '~o the work site, farther from ';he wetlands, which is a good thiag, but it's creating the appea;'ance that the tank is right next, in other words -- strike that. If the tank is close to the hay bales, it may be creating the illusion based on this plan that they are very c,ose '~o the wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we have already acted on this tonight and we tabled it with the opportunity to go out and look at i~ age,r:. M,:;,. HFRMAN: That's w'hat i'm sa)ihg, I think the exercise may be to verify the distance lrorc, the wetlands the tank is. im thinking it is probably no~ 9oihg to have to be moved. It's probably more thaa t~e 25 feet we are looking iOr. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, well take a look at that. MR. HERMAN: Yes, only because I had ~'~ot realized that that tank was in fact surveyed on this map because this is not the map that was submitted with the amendment. Board of Trastees 87 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Back to the garage. What does the rest of the Board feel on this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Will there be habitable space up above it or a uti!ity room put in with a toilet and sink? MR. CARDINALE: Alan Cardinale, Jr. Sorry. Absolutely not. It's strictly a garage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw a rather large electric panel there so we thought, we didn't know what that was. MR. CARDINALE: That's the generator. It's just a transfer switch. TRdS','.=E ~3ERGEN: I guess, speaking for myself, my challenge here is we went from a 316-foot structure to a 761 foot structure. More than double. And I don't know that we would have ever approved this. 7o start off with. It's hard to say now in hindsight, but I don't know if we would have ever approved this. And I've got a real problem. You know, and you toid me you haven't even started the DEC process yet, correct? MR,. HEPJVIAN: Thats correct. Wit~ respect 'to the garage, that's correct. TRUS-,'EE. E~ERG~_N: I guess arco(her challenge for me here is the fact we hear ali the time of stories of people and the time arm effort they put in to do things the right way in going through ~.he iDEC process, which I agree, ;t's many times is a nigh',mare. Bu~ people over a~d over and over again are g2;~,g t~rough that. And as well as the Trustee permit procs, ss. And they ace doing it the rigl~t way. And here is a case where this was not done the right way and in fairness to ev'erybocy else tiaat does it the right way, this maxos it even more of a challenge. I ha~e to go back to the original p~oblem I have. It's doubling the size of what is there. And I don't know if fha', would have been something that woui(~ have been app/oved to oeg;n with. So 2~,1 not inclinec ,'ight now to support ti~is apphcation. TRUSTEE DOH;JRTY: is there ar~y consideration for reducing the size of ttle structure, maybe make it a two-.bay garage instead of three? MR. HE.P, MAN: I guess what I was going to say ir~ response to Ds, ve's corr~rnenL ~.',nd again, as with the prior discussion, you know, I can:t disagree with you. it is now what it is. So really the E~oard nas, I imagine two choices. Again, I think it is important to understand what the inteF~t was, but t.'~er'e is no gettmg arcuad the fact that th~; s~ructure is larger. So you call do really one of two things. You c~n render a decisio,fl tf;at compels the size of Board of Trustees 88 October 15, 2008 the structure that has been constructed without a permit to be modified. The other thing that we could consider is some other more substantial form of environmental mitigation that perhaps we can explore that would perhaps greatly exceed the scope of what you would have asked for had you approved a smaller structure in the first p~ace. I think Alan has made some very good efforts on the property to comply with what were a number of very significant concerns by the Board during the original permit process, not only with respect to establishing a ten-foot non-tuff buffer around the entire proper~y but also has done, I think, an acmirable job of revegetating that other creek side where there was a cor~cem ~¢ith the cedars. And I assr:me yo~,'ve seer, ti~e;'n. TRUSTEE BERGEn",;: Yes, I wouid agree. MR. HERMAN: Frn ',"alrly certain with my converss';ions with Alan that he would probably be, and stop me if I'm wrong, that he would be willing to do more i,~ that regard perhaps to even other places of the property had the Doard has not explored hsd we just come in and said we'll make this a 316 square foot to 400 square foot garage ~nd get rid of the asphalt anc deck ~5 gc; rid of ail the other positives I just reaa. So pemaps wa taaie ri'tis a,',d Alan, age,n, just had a meeting with the 7own Attorney. Perhaps we all need to sit down o: meet at the s~te as a Board and see if there is another way to ski¢~ the cat i'~e~e ;r~at migent get [he Board more than it wouid otherwise have even sought in some other way. TRUS'I'EE DOhlERTY: On that note I'ii tall you tile LWRP report finds it inconsistent under 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water' wedands, and &iso with the hundred-foot serbaci~. And it also says to follow bast management nora-turf buffer a~ou~;d the whole pe~imete~ of the proper~y. Maybe your suggcstion is a §cod idea that we all mee~ out there together and d;scus.~,, m~yDe coing a 20-foot non-tull buffer amu~';d, but other mitigations like maybe non-turf from the garage to the bulkhead, all non-turf, you know. MR. HERMAN: And we could also do other plantings. I mean, I think what we are wrestling with to a great degree is the principal of the position the Board has aeer~ put in, which is something has been done Without your permission and then there is a sense of forcing that upon :ecu in some way because it's '~hem. So I sympathize with '~he position. I t~ink er~vironrnent~tl.v whether th~s garage were ten feet shor~e~ on or ten feet farmer from that bulkhead in the Board of Trustees 89 October 15, 2008 grand scheme of things is really probably negligible, but perhaps we can put our money where our mouth is by creating more habitat in a greater scope on the property and not only in this area but somewhere else. So I would probably like to explore that because then you may end up getting more than you might have asked for with respect to mitigation. And there is nothing, as I said, other than partially or completely demolishing what is there, and I think you would have approved something, that is a longstanding structure there, so I would be so bold as to suggest you would have approved something, if not something this large. So if we ccLIO table that and make a gu at tina~, to see what we ca~; do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I support exactly what you are recommending. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then I'll make ~ motion to table the application so we can dc that. TRUSTEE DICKE. RSON: Seco,'~d. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ali in favor'? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Number 18, En-.Consultants on behalf of JOHN SEVERIIql reques[s a Wetland Permit to construct an attached, two-story garage addition (equipped with leaders and gutters) to an existing two-story single-family dwelling; install a pervious gcavel driveway; arid install a dryweil to capture and recharge roof runoff. Located: 565 Gull Pond Lane, Greenpor~. I have been out arid inspected the property. LWRP finds this proposed action inconsistent with the LWRP because under Policy Six, protect and restore quality and function of the Town o'~ Somhold ecosystem, and because of setback ~ssues. 'rhe distance from the buikhead ','o the proposed action is approximately 70 feet where minimum setback is 100 feet from the bulkhead pursuant to Chapter 275-3. Now, t will say that when I was out there, it's landward of the house; tills addition is actually further away from the bulkhead than t~'~e house itself is, including the drainage. The p;'oposed cirywell is closer to the road. Everything is outside of the 100-foo~ setback to any freshwater wetlar,ds that were across the street. 7'he pians incorporate a ,hay aale ii~;e, it's a pretty complete application, fine CA;; resoived to support tile appiication and asks for a condition cf a ten-foot, non-tuif buffer. I'm not quite sure where they were talking about. I'm Board of Trustees 90 October 15, 2008 assuming they were talking about a ten-foot non-turf buffer down by the bulkhead. Is there anyone here who would like to address this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of John Severini. First of all I'll say the LWRP report is generous to afford a canal. John spent a very, very long time designing and redesigning this addition to be as consistent with the LWRP and as consistent with 275 and the state wetlands code as humanly possible. Bob, you probably noticed there is a bit of an unusual narrow lane between the bulk of the garage and the r~ouse that had been squared more, but il/order to minimize the footgrint of the structure and maximize the wetland setback as much as practically possible, we ended up with this configdration that you see. Jo;qn went lhr'ough several iterations with his architect and the 70-foot setback that you see for the addition that is in fact landward of the existing house is as good as we can gat. We would argue, well, I retract that because I realize what you were -.- never mind. I was going to get to something with tile ! O0-foot setback and t~'~e correlation of it being landward of the house, but that section of the code I don't think appiies. I think w;th the 754oot setback to tile setback under zo;,ing, I thiRk that's the section, if we are tandwa~d oi~ the house, that section doesn't apply. But the wetland setback applies. But nonetheless, this is the bea~ that we can do. We did obtain a DEC permit with variance for this plan. And when i say' variance, that's a iive--foot variance from the state wetland setback, because this is as good as you can get it and there is the drainage and the hay bales tnar is more than 100 feet f~om ':he freshwater wetlands, et cetera. i t¢fink the only issue ti'let y3u brc ug,'~t up that we need to address is the non-turf odlYer, t don't ~hink the non-turf buf-,:er is a problem but after we submitted this and i s~arted speakin9 with Jonn a little bit, he had an idea which I think the Board would probably like to see, which is I~e would like to put some sort o',' retaining wall eown in the area of [?~e bulkheads and that, first of all, would act as a separator between the developed portion of the property and the non-turf buffer. And that would also raise the grade ten feet behind the bulkhead; orten or 15, however it works, so tha~ you are ,'lot c,n;y establishing treat non.-turt buffer bezween the lawn and bulkhead but you are a;so easing ;he s[ope so that you;' ;ate of flow is not Board of Trustees 91 October 15, 2008 as much. So I think John is completely fine with the ten-foot non-turf buffer but what we might want to do if the Board would consider -- first of all, if the Board will approve it; secondly, if the Board would consider approving it with the condition that we amend the plans to show some sort of retaining wall like that to make that non-turf buffer work as best as it can. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where would you want to put that; at the six-foot contour line? MR. HERMAN: Yes, it would probably, if I can get my scale, it would probably be back closer to tile eight, John; is that what we TRUSTEE GHOS',O: That would kind of b,'in~ it to the comer o? tile deck whe~'e 'rhe stairs are. MR. HE_RMAN: '/'es. Exactiy. MR. SEVERINI: John SeverJnL i was actually thinking of possibly a terraced effect; two smaller walls, food--and-a-half high each, steps setback. So the first would be probably about five feet off the bulkhead and then go up about a foot-and-a-half and the other one five feet from that, so yoL~ have a ten-foot buffer and it would be terraced. And I'm working with, I forget the name of the landscape des,gn company, but they said riley would put a pian together and preser~t it to you for your consideration. TRUSTEE GNO$iO: J think that would be a good idea. That would help mitigate the runoff issdes on tl~e slope. I don't have a problem witl*, ti",at. MR. HERMAN: Okay, again, if the Board was of the mind to approve the application we would ask you to approve it with the conCition of receipt of revised plans showing that buffer design. 'rRUSTEE GHO$10: A:,~ comments or questions from the Board? (No [esponse.) ']'RUSTEd. GH©SiO: Ante other comments from the audience? (No response.'/ Seeing none, 111 rna~e a motion to close the hearing. TRIJ$'iE~ L)OIqEP,'/¢: Second. td, in favor? (ALL AYES.) TF, OSTEE GHGSiO: I'll make a motion to prove the application with the, as written, with the following change: 'fhat the five-fooL at leas~ a flee-foot non4urf buff-~r ¢~ill added to the pisn at the bulkhead w,th a revised com,ng in showing terracing with perhaps two, up to two retaining wails beginning at ~pp~'oxhnately the eight-foot contour and heading down toward the bulkhead, to mitigate any runoff issues cu, the slope towat'd Fordilam Canal. Evelything else has been addressed on the plan with hay Board of Trustees 92 October 15, 2008 bales and drainage, et cetera. So that would be the only change made. And with that I'll determine that it would be consistent ~vith LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was a little sloppy of a motion but I think all the essential facts got in there. TRUSTEE L}iCKERSON: Number 19, Eh-Consultants on behalf of KI~IOGENOR POINT CO., reqdests a Wetland Permit to construct approximateiy 343 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of and up '~o eight roches h',gher than existing timber bulkhead (to el. 4.7' ALVV'~, co:lstruct 25' vinyl return on landwald side of existing northerly return to be removed; replace existing wood fer~ce; remove existing return landwa:d of exisling dock to be temporarily detached during construction; resheath approximately 655 linear feet of existing bulkhead below the lower wale on its seaward side with plastic shea'~hing; and bacK~ill with approximately 200 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked ia from an upland source. Located: 50 Jackson Street, Cutchogue. is there anyone wi~o would like to speak for this application? MR. HERMAN: Ror~ Her;nan of Eh-Consultants on behalf of Kirnogenor Point Company. This is a straightforward application, if the Board r,as aoy question,s 1 would be happy to answer then;. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, CAC supports the application with the condition of a t6n-foot non-'turf bullet, the bulkhead from the tirnber 9~'o~n to ti'~e bay ~s replaced with a rock revetment and public access ;s provided long the bulkhead is their recommendation. I don't see any comments on the field notes from 'd',e Board inspection and this is exempt from LWRP. Ar, y comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHER';'¥: k's a stra;ghtfofward application. It's a structure that ,~,as beerl t,qere for quite a while tha~ needs repair. TRUS"I EE DICKERSON: Rob, did you have the buffer in your description'? Isr,'t ii,ere ar, ex;sting one? MR. HERMAN: Yes. There ]S really two aspects of the project. This whole point is really jus'~ re. questing ti~at resne&d'dn9 betow the lower wale. Again, i mean, notwithstanding the merits of the one CAC comment, we are not proposing ~o reconstruct the jetty. Probably nothing will happen wii. h the jetty iramine~;t;y. I thiak it's really this one not spot the Board sa~' when ~( wes mere that was Board of q[rastees 93 October 15, 2008 in need of the most repair. But the owners would like to get a permit in place so they don't have to keep coming to the Trustees every time they want to deal with a little ten or 12 foot section of wale. The entire area over here between the bulkhead and the road, this whole thing is mowed but it really is a non-turf buffer now, and Bob Fox is here if he wants to talk about the type of grass there but apparent!y there has been these great efforts over the years to get this puccinellia grass which can tolerate tidal flooding, so it's not the type of grass timt is maintained as fertilized turf. It's rnowad, but it's a grass that can withstand harsh conditions such as tidal flooding. So this is really, it's a non4ertilized turf buffer, if you will. In other words, it's not a grass that is chemically dependent. It's just the opposite. I don't know i';' it's :~ative 'to this area but it's a non-turf' species. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I guess my only questicn is there is an existing buffer, so there is no intent to keep that existing buffer?. MR. HERMAN: Yes, we have on the plan the labe( says mowed non:l'e,'tilizer dependent puccinellia grass buffer lo be main~a;ned. So that en~i~e area o'~: lawn wOUld be just continued to b6 maintained as it is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no proaiem with that. MR. HERMAN: It's an open space, but again, it's a non-chemical d6pendent open space. It's the entire distance between the bulkhead and the road, so any width that you would put on it would actually reduce what is there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have comments from the field inspection but they w6re i~o~. written, to I'm dependent on -- 'I'RUS'i'EE DOhER'rY: The comment was you have the limit of (~isturbance 15 feet, so we were saying 15-foot nolYtdrf buffer, but. Go ahead, Dave. TRUS'~-EE BERGEN: I'm so~'ry, there was a question that we had when we were out there. On the southeast part of this project there is a stone drainage a~'ea and rhen a pipe going through the bulkhead so that any water that is in that stone area goes into the creek. MR. HERMAN: it's actually, it's riot a surface water drain, it's a tidal flood drain. And again, Bob can got into this in more detail if you wish, but because that buikf~ead do,ss get overtopped, what happens is the tidal war6rs flood over and Ihat p~pe is ;:here just as an outlet for the tidal water to go back. it's not connecfed to any upland surface water cunof[ system. TRUSTEE. BERGEN: What w/il prevent ti~e sud~ace water that comes along that. asphalt road ttmt is r, earby to run down there and then rdn into, via tinat p;pe, ;ri're the creek? MR. HERMAN: Does that happen? Board of Trustees 94 October 15, 2008 MR. FOX: I'm Bob Fox for Kimogenor Point. Them is a Iow point in that stone area, so them is runoff that would flow into that point. The tidal overf!ow is s major concern, with flood tides several times a year, the entire area is flooded out and that needs an outlet for that water to go back into the bay, into the creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there any way of catching the runoff before it gets to that pipe? You are saying there is runoff that comes off of the traveled roadway. MR. FOX: I don't know if it comes from the roadway. It comes more from the grass area. The roadway, I don't think goes in there. T~USTEE BE,:qGEN: I guess '~h~ challec, ge is to catch it before, the runof:' water before i~ goes into that catch, that tidal ~- wha[ ~e~gy was jus; su~gesth;g was the opportdr, ity for maybe a French drain between the road and that stone area to try to, again, collect the fresh water before it goes down in there. I agree with you, I have been present on this property when that who:e area was completely flooded over and full moon high tides. I know the road, everything gets inundated with salt water. So I understand completely the need for some type of way to redirect that wat,~x back. But it's jusL we were just wondering if there was ar;y way o1' addressing MR. FOX: A swaie possibly TRdSYEE BERGEN: A swale could work ar a French drain in there could possibly work. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Just make it a condition that the drainage from the roadway is contained. TRUS-~"EE ~,ERGEN: Exactly. (Mr. Herman arid Mr. Fox consulting.) MR. FOX: Sounds good. TRUSTEE i);CKERSON: I'tl make a i"rlol:ioi'~ to close the hearing. TRUSTEE G~tOSIC': Seco~;d. TRdSTEE DOH~R'I"",': Ail in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: HI make a motion to approve the application by Er~-Ccnsultants for Kimogenor Point as stated with the condition that the runoff be contained prior to reaching the tidal overflow pipe with either swale or F:rench drain as long as it's contained before that pipe so it doesn't go into (he creek area. t¢IR. i-tEP, MA~'~: l'ii get you revist;d plans showing that. TF:uS-;EE D[CKEP, SON: 'I hank you. With revised plans, and this would comply with Chap(el 236. TRUSYE_E GHOSIO: Is this a project that miglnt require a silt boom? TRUSt-::.: DO}tEP,¥Y: i don't know. Some people would say yes. It's [dna o,' tight ir~ Board of Trustees 95 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about the tidal flow? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not really them because under the bridge is really all filled in. it used to flow all around. It doesn't anymore. MR. HERMAN: What was the question, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: If this would be a project that would require a silt boom. MR. HERMAN: I mean, other than the fact that it's written into the LWRP, I don't know how effective silt booms really are for bulkhead replacement in general. Silt booms are really designed to contain turbidity associated with dredging, where you see those mass plumes. You don't really see that much with bulkhead mr,;acements unless the contractor is ~eally sloppy. And whoever is hired here won't be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of KIItlBERLY MUELLER reqdests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x30' fiberglass Grid catwalk (two-feet above grade of marsh) with "L"-sllaped 4x8' stairs at the seawarc end. Located: 1445 ;5unga~ow Laid. e, ¥1atiituck. fitoti'~ Jim and I looked at ii,is. CAC suppods tine application width c;le condition of a ten-foot not,-turf buffer, and the project is co~sistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, and it is inconsistent with LWRP. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. HERMAN:/~,ob Hermar~ of En-.Co,'~sultants ell behalf of the applicant Kin'l bl..,ellpr. This is a site, i'm sure tile Board remembers, that used to have a high sill bulkhead, and the:e was really r~o wetland ve9etatio~'~ behind it. It was sand ';:iliad. W6 d~d ;mplement a Io¢~' silt bulkhead here tha'; has turne~ o,u, quke nicely and created ar~ irriertidal marsh hem that had previously been lost. So t~aL whole area behino the bulkhea~ is really a combination recreated we;:iands and a non-turf buffer already. 'i-here had previously been approved by the Board, I think approved and then amended, a couple different versions of this catwalk. I thini< it used to be mat the catwaik went straight out and the stairs we;e in line with the catwalk at the end. At some point the appiic~nt had tee plans revised 1or this L-shaped s'(airwe, y, whic,q w'as appcov(~d by the DEC, and so we have been asked to come back beibre tile 'rruslees simply -- we wanted really just to amend the prior approval but the work on the bulkaead had ~ll'eady ~)eerl done arc the permit had since expired, and no work nad staded on the catwalk. So we ale here as ,~ new' appiication, although it is one the Board of Trustees 96 October 15, 2008 Board has seen it in a slightly different version before. I can't fathom how it's inconsistent with the LWRP, but maybe, Jill, you can tell me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 6.3 protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. They are just reciting the code. Provide for public access; the proposed action is private non-commercial, will not support a pattern of development that enhances community character nor promotes public access or public recreation. There is really no public access there now. MR. HERMAN: Given that the Board expressly allows under cerlain conditions the construction of wharf out structures in public bottom, and this is probably about as small as a dock can get, 'there is no float. Has it come to the Board's kncwiec;oe the position of the LWRP coordinators that all docks are now inconsistent with the LWRP? TRUSTEE DOt--iERTY: Yes. MR. HERMAN: So now something that is expressly allowed by your code is express',y inconsistent with the LWRP under any scenario. Because if this one is, they all are and I think that's probably something your constituents need to know. TRUSTEE DC, HEP, TY: i can"~ answer ti~at. I think that's a question for the LWRP coon:tinator. MR. HERMAN: Fney don't ~,itend the meetings, so I don't have anyone o,se to ask. It's a side point, i~'s a long night. But I just, it's like -- TRUS',"EE OOr,,=P,-,'V: Ace you willin9 to use'the grated, flow-',hrough decking? MP,. HERMAN: it is. it's fiber~,lass grid dock. T,~at's why it's proposed with lower' elevation. That's why it's on tnece wi'¢'; 9rid panel stops, too. T/:~US'J'EE DOhER',~Y: OKay. Yhat's no'; mort'cloned in the LWRP report so I'm thinkin9 that would bring it into consistency. IV,;~. i%=RMAN: '7'ne repor, s typically ignore w;natever we include in the pla~; to Fnake it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says wi~ether the dock will cause habitat fragmenlation, loss of s;gnificant coastal fish and wildli,Ce habitat. But 1 think with using the deck you are proposin9 will allow for gFo',vth underneath that. As you said, it's a smaller structure. MR. HEE~,MAN: And the grovcth underneath it is also wetlands that were created by the applicar, t as part of the original project. I'F~.USTEE OOHiSR'I'Y: l was gOhng tc say, with the Iow sill bulkhead they had -- are there: any other c. omrne~ts? (No response.) Any other com:nents from the Board? Board of Trustees 97 October 15, 2008 (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES) I'll make a motion to approve the application by Eh-Consultants on behalf of Kim Mueller for the application for the dock as applied for using flow-through decking, which would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. 'I'F:USTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AY'ES.) MP,. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next one, 22, we can skip over and do 23 and 24. TRUSTEE numb-ar 23. Costelto Marine Contracting on behalf of ALVAH & ALLAN GOLDS:[~ITH requests a Wetland Permit to cor;struct a 4x70' dock leadi,~g to a 32"x20' ramp and a 6x20~ floating cock secured by two ten-inch diameter pilings. Located: 2550 Hobart Road, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. C©$TELL©: Yes. My name is John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agent for the applicant. Could I ask, what happened to 22? TRbS-,-FF DOH£RTY: We'~i ~et back to it. it's just that that appiica,'~:, is not here. TRUSTEE DICKERSOt,~: i con't think the Board h~d any problems with tl-,s. It .':; co,'~sis:ent with L¥'~'RP. Was there any co,'~sideratior~ '[or a grated decking on I. his? MF,. COST-D_LLO: ?i:ere is c~o vegetation there. We did not propose a grated decking. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It came up. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. II= there had been vegetation, I would have recommended it. 71RUST~F. DiCKER$ON: CAC suppor~s the application with the condition conventional public access is provided. MR. COSTELLO: There is. All you have to do is walk in the we[er. l'f-<dSTE~ DiCKER$ON: 7his Js the one that was staked and then no[ s~akecl. Thaz's ~hy the first one is bright white and the second is dusk. T~USZEE_ DOHERTY: Ves. TP, US'FEE DICKERSON: ~ see no prcblem with this. I'll make a Board of Trustees 98 October 15, 2008 motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for a wetland permit for the dock, ramp and floating dock as stated for Alvah and Allan Goldsmith at 2550 Hobart Road, Southold. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Number 24, Costello Marine on behalf of GOLDSI~II'rN BOAT SHOP, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing timber ramp; construct a 4x20' ramp to a 4x40' fixed dock leading to a 32"x20' seasonal ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating dock with a landward 4x4' access p!~.tform, secured by two ten-inch diameter pilings. Located: 2620 Hobart Road, Southold. l do know that Jim had a question about this, Mr. Costelle, he just wanted to know what was the need for the 4x4 access platform on this one as opposed to the other, since they are v~ry similar. And he's not here to further ask. M,R. Cos'r£LL©: It's j,~s~ tha'~ the access platform was there because it's sand. The other one is not, and it was just so there is a tripping hazard there. 'That's all. TRUSTEE L31CKERS©N: Any problems with that from the Board? MR. COSTELLO: it's beycr~d the bulkl~ead, so. TRLISTEE DICkERS©N: ~i was just odd that one was a little diffe,'em than the other. CAC supports the application witl~ the condition convenie,nt public access is provided. No comment on the field notes. Il is consistent with LWRP, and being no further comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to c~ose the public [~eanng. Tt:;,USTEE BERGEN: Becond. TROSTEE DOHER'.'.'Y: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: iii make a motion to approve the wetland pe,"mit for Goldsrnitp, Boat Shop to remove the existing timber ramp, cor~struct a ramp, fixed doci~, seasonal r&mp and seasonal floating dock and 4x4 access pla'~for,'n with ten-inch diameter pilings as stated. Located 2620 Hoaart Road. MR. COSTELLO: [just wanted to mention to the Board that both of then', receiw:d tile DEC permits recently and they are both consistent with what you just approved. TRdSTE£ :)iCKERSON: T~ank you. I'm waiting for a second. TF~,JS'fFJE BERGEN: Second. TRdS'.'E~ QOHEF, TY: All it~ favor? Board of Trustees 99 October 15, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TR~JSTEE bSERGEN: Number 22, Costello Marine on behalf of JOSEPH LICClARDI & CATHERINE PINe requests a Wetland Permit to backfill eroded bank areas and regrade as required with clean trucked-in fill. Construct 95' of rock revetment using 500-1,000 pound rock. Remove remains of existing displaced stairway to beach and construct new stairway in original location. Located: 50 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. The Board did go out and looked at this. The LWRP has reviewed it end found it consistent, and CAC supports the application with following conditions: Install ten-foot non-turf butfer, no removal of trees. The revetment is placed aao'~e nlear', high w.~ter ac, d the revetment is tied into the adjoining neiGt;bor's return. I guess they mean the adjoining neighbor to the east. 'They don't say it here. I'm guessing the adjoinirlg rleighbor to the east. MR. COSTELLO: Alt of those are oil the plan and that's exactly what we ;ntended to do anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is anybody here who wants to speak on behalf of this application MR. COSTELLO: John Costello on behalf of the applicant. And al; el these recommendations are exactly what was 6esJgi',e~ in~o tbs p,ar,. Lt's well ,~bo,,e the high water mark. We Co not want to take ar~y ct d'le trees down except for the ones that are almaey falling down by then]selves, and 'd'~e it was cor;r, ecting to the existing return in order to reduce the wave energy. And what we don't want to do is transfer the problem further to [he west. So that's why the election for rooks wera recommended to the client. TRUSTEE ~SERGEN: We have one letter here that came in as oared !0/1,: from a John Eoier. It's very short so i'll read it. 'Fo prever~t fla~'~k;r~g, which would lead to scouring of ti'id wes; ec, c of ,:iq,9 rook revetmer~t, the existing rock jetty should be extenCed rlorthward to ';.I-,e ~'ock revetment. The area ;s in mean hig~ water arid ur, der COdS(al erosion hazard ac( we have the Th&t's not included in '£his plan to exteno t;*~at existing rock jetty northward to tie into tP, e rock ~e'vetment. I think if we were to do somed'~h'~g iike that i~ would ~',eed re be reviewed again under LWRP. IV, P,. COSTELLO: Tha~ would be a separate application and we did not elect to even advise tile c~ient to go in that direction because the waw energy i$ disbursed on the beach elevation, so it works as it is. I';:(US¥'EE SHO$iC.: Scott l--~iia;y, Wl'~en ne was doi,'~g the LWRP inspection, uid make the suggestion that in that non-tuff buffer area to use sl~rubs 'for tile roots to ¢~an.cj cc, '(o the bank a little more so than grass or Board of Trustees 100 October 15, 2008 beach grass would. I just throw that out there because he mentioned it. MR. COSTELLO: Logical. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Not hearing any comments from the Board -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. It was a ten-foot non-turf buffer that Mr. Costello said was included in on the plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there room for 157 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge that we talked about last night was there is a fcarne bui",ding there that is approximately 2'1 feet from the proposed revetment, then you have a wood platform in 'irorrt of that. To add 15 foot you really would be right close 'to the building. So I think the ten foot here is -- TRUSTEE DiCKEP, SON: i just had it wdtten down because somebody lied commented abo~t it. TROS~'£E BERGEN: I think the ten.-foo; is okay. If there are no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the public headng. TRUS-,-F-,= DiCK.=RSON: Second. TRdS'?~.£ DOHER'I"Y: Ail m favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUS'I'.:-E 8,:-'RC-EI't: I1i make ,~ rnotion to approve Costello Marine on behalf el Joseph Licciardi and Catherine Pine as stated at 50 Cleaves Point F. toad, East Marion, with the one addition t,qere will be ten-foot non.-tud i~ui:fer instal',ed and a suggestion t,',at that non-turf buffer may include plantings, plants oather thah grasses to assist with retaining that area. And tha'~ all t,'ees, ex;sting trees, renmin other than those few that are falling down as a result of the erosion. Do I i',ave a second? 'I'RUSTF_E DOHERTY: Second. All in favor'? (ALL AYES.) TRJSI'EE GHCSIO: Costeiio Madne on behalf of RICHARD ,JOHNSON & PAMELA &IAINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3xl 0' ramp or, to s 3x27' fixed dock with a canoe stocage rock and ins~.all one swim ',adde~. Located: 7617 Soundvie~v Avenue, Southoid. fhis is a ne~ application or', somethin9 that we have loci(ed at before. The last application was turned down by the Board and LWRP coordinator has found this application to be mcons~sten'[ with LWRP based upon the same reasons as the original application, which we already denied. 'lh6 CAC nas resolved to suppor~ th;s application. It does not ha~,e any other ,zommant to make. Would anybody like on address this apr;lioation? Board of Trustces 101 October 15, 2008 MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, still, even though it's getting late. We are the agents for the applicant. My son has made contact with these people on several occasions and we've reduced and tried to mitigate the job from the beginning. We reduced and eliminated any potential floating dock, we met on site with the Trustees and accepted all their recommendations the one time and we have tried to mitigate it with rio-thru decking in its entirety. We are not using treated materials in its construction, and now we have: minimized it as just a smaller, straight dock. And the whole application has changed considerably and this is a new application. TRUSTEE S- HOSIO: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to say I had quite an extensive conversation with Scott Hilaw last time and this time also, and I just want to relterate what I have learned from Scott that this dock ,an G~eat Pond is very different from any docx cc, a creek or a bay. One of the things that I was not knowledgeable about was that much of the fishing that ;s do;ye Js done along the edge of this area, and that's where most o[ the species hang out, to put it bluntly, and also '~he major use are kayaks or canoes, where the access is the edge of the shoreline. He has also rnentioned '~hat the town ramp prov;des access, so for these multiple reasons t will not b.a approving this dock either. And again it was after many conversations with Scott Hilary. T,RdSTEE. BEE. GEl,,: Co~id ! ;-,ave the cuter, please. 'I';;;.OSTEE G[--IOSIO: ~ h~v8 to admit, i'm kind of tofn on this one mysaif, l think tr~ere is merit in scm6 of the issues tic, a( ;Scott has i;rough'r up ir, his evaluation of the appiication, and i voted o:i!di~'~al;y agsinst the original appiicat;on with that structure. I'm torn because i know t~at there are environmental issues and Great Pond is a great asset 're the Town of Soutiiold, but you have done a lot here to mitigate, you know, based upon discussions that we had out in ti~e field witl] the ~',o4hru decking and such. So I'm kir~d of torn a ;title bit on this. MP,. COSTELLO: Could ! di'ess o:~e o'i those probierns. We have mrdgat~d i'~ to 'me best oegree. "1' I',e dock is not -- people are the tr'~in9 h&¥e you to wor~y abed;, polluting any of tr~ese structures o~ whatnot. [his dock is beir','g coF~structed ~'ith untrealed materials; rm~'dmizing the length, I mean we tried to mitigate it. it is a rninimal structure. That srructure is not going to environmentally cause any of the difficulties. As a matter of fact some of the dock structuces, ma','~.¢ ct them, create a hab?(ar for Board of Trustees 102 October 15, 2008 fish, for vegetation, but let me tell you, you'll find out more fish and bait hang around docks for the simple reason it's a place to hide and feed. So I mean, this has been minimized by every extent we could possibly do it. It's not the dock. It's people. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It goes out 27 feet from the edge, dght? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'rn looking at the plan here and I'm just wondering, first off, I also want to commend you because last time I voted against it, and I was very specific about the reason I voted against it. Because the plan had not been modified at all to correspond with any o';~ th, e comments we made out in the field. That's why I voted agai,'~st it. I now arri looking at this and I also recognize what Scott Hilary has said. And I notice this is extending out beyond the phragmites by, it looks like about 15 feet, roughly. And since the purpose of this seems to be to gain access for a canoe as well as, as I recall, for people to sit out there, I'm just wondering if it could be shortened by about ten feet, which would still put it out beyond the phragmites slightly and then it would not interfere with anybcdy who wants to canoe or kayak along that shoreline. They won't have really -- they don't have to go out ten feet around the structure. in other words, if ~'t was reduced by ten '~eet would it still achieve the goal of being able to launch a canoe new florn there and a place for people to sit and address some of the concerns to bdng it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right now 'the plan shows that where it terminates is in about four-arid-a-half feet of water, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And this would bring it back to between ~hree-and-a-half to ~our feet of water ire depth. MR. COSTELLO: They intend to use it for swimming. You could stand up in four feet of water anr~ get out of the water, but, you know, we minimized it by reducing the widtr~ from four feet to three feet, rio-thru decking, untreated matenais. '~ou know, i mean -- TRUS-I'~EE BERGEN: rm iust looking at other ways we could bdng into consistency unae,- ;i've LW~-(P. MR. COSTELLO: Personally, t think it's in consistency with the LWRP. I mean, I nave heard en. ough of that tonight with t~e, you know, you used rio-thru decking you minimize it. We mitigated the width, untreated materials. How much mitigation can you do. You can make a two-foot wide dock. I mean, I've seen two-foot wide docks before, you know. I mean I think it's mitigated. ~Ve dropped the float. We droppe(~ ti~e lan§th. We reduced the length. I dont know. 'l'hat ~s a suggestion, certainly, but. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: t w~ll say, again, you have done a very fine job si' mitigating and making it ~ minor structure. My difficulty with it is that I went to look through the LWRF' report, which is not there because it's the second one and it was m the other file, is that this is very different from the creeks and bays and aisc i'rn pretty sure it listed i~ as one of the Board of Trustees 103 October 15, 2008 critical environmental areas. So that's my reason behind not wanting another structure there. MR. COSTELLO: But environmentally you think this dock -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think this dock is necessary in that they can still have access without it. MR. COSTELLO: Not necessary, but environmentally? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think it's a critical environmental area that should not have more structure added to it. MR. COSTELLO: What about people? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ]'hat's a whole other issue. MP,. COSTELLO: I know. J know what the problems are on any of tl~e waterfronts. TRUS'i'2:E DOHER',rY: The last permit, as Dave was saying, I also denied 1bt the same reasons, and this is more of the structure that we had in mind of what you did here. I'm torn, too, with how do you mitigate it mot6 for LWRP but I think by just what we have done from the beginning of the process to what they have applied for now, we mitigated a lot. MR. COSTELLO: I reduced it because it was suggested to mitigate some of that. It was suggested by' the Trustees. TRUSTEE DOHERYY: What are ~he size posts you are proposing? IV~R. COSTE,.LO: Six ~l;uh. 'I'RUS~,'EE DOi~tERTY: Can we do 4x4s? MR. COSTELI_O: On the inshore en~, absolutely. TR. OS"I-EE DOHE[-~TY: 1'hat s one way we can mitigate it further. MR. COSTELLO: ~ou might be able to do the whole dock in 4x4s. TRUS'rE.E DOHER-[Y: ~ts not like you get the tidal flow like in a creek. IViR. COSTELLO: No. I mean tile only thing it is, it's the length of the timbers that makes the structure worth while. And you can get 4x4s, you know, up to 20 'leer. And that's all we, would use if we were using six-inch material. But I mean that would cedainiy n',,tigate i~ again. It doesn't hurt the structure, since it's on;~ three~foot w~ce. ~."ROS'?EE GhOSiC: Any other comments or questions? (No response.) TRUSTE. E GHIOSIO: I"11 rn&ke a motion '[o close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application for Richard Johnson and Pamela rviaino noting that the new application has taken steps 'co m;tiga'te enviconrnental issues by using no treated wood, and a flu-thru decking material. T;;.a enid char, ge we ace going to make is s'dpuiate ~our-incr~ ~osts instead of six-inch posts to be used in the structure, and by doing that ¢,,e'll 'i,'~d ~! consisten~ with LWRP. Do I have a second? '1'F~USYEE ~ERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE GO,-~EI:~tTY: ,~tt in favor? (Trustee Doher~,, aye. Trustee Bergea, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Dic~erson, nay.) Board of Trustees 104 October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note for the record Trustee Dickerson says nay. Motion carried. Motion to go off the meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RECEIVED e'b/'~'~' ~DEC 1 2 2008. Southold Town Clerk