Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/10/2008 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Pegg~ 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 OFSOUTHOLD BOARD Of TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes RECEIVED 12 FEB -4 2009. $outhold Town Clerk Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:00 PM Present Were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Robed Ghosio, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 15, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, my name is Jim King, I have the honor of being the Trustees' leader of the pack, so to speak; the president. At this time I would like to introduce the rest of the Board, the folks that are here; to my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; next to him is Peggy Dickerson, Trustee; next to myself is Jill Doherty, she is the vice-chair; myself; to my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren runs the office for us. Next to Lauren is Bob Ghosio. Next to Bob is our legal advisor tonight, Lori Hulse. We also have Anne Trimbel from the CAC with us tonight. They go out and do a lot of the same inspections we do and give us their recommendations. And we have Wayne Galante keeping track Board of Trustees 2 December 10, 2008 of what everybody says. If you have any comments during public hearings, please come up, identify yourself, and try and keep it brief, if possible. We try and move these things along. We don't want a lot of speeches. With that, I guess we'll get going. We have some cancellations tonight, so nobody sits here all night waiting for something to come up that we are not going to address. Under Wetland Permits, number five, number six, number seven and number eight. Those have been postponed. We will not be addressing those. They read as follows: Number five, 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 e~isting finger pier. Install two new 10" 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. Number six, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to replace three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50', using 10x15' wood piles @ 6' on center and C-Loc vinyl sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINAL, E, 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, has been postponed. And number eight, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JUDIE LIZEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x35' fixed walkway dock with mooring pole. Located: 145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. We'll set the date for the next field inspection, January 7, eight o'clock in the morning. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Regular meeting, January 21, at 6:00, with the work session starting at 5:30. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to mention, on the field inspections, we usually do them the Wednesday before the meeting, but we have a new schedule coming up this Board of Trustees 3 December 10, 2008, year, so field inspections will be the first Wednesday of the month. So that backs up the cutoff date for the advertising. TRUSTEE KING: And also, normally, we have our field inspections on a Wednesday and then the following Wednesday we have our hearings, but starting next year we are going to do our field inspections and the hearing won't be until the following, not the week after, but two weeks after. This is to give them more time so the LWRP coordinator can do his work. We have had some problems with meetings being held up and decisions being held up because we didn't have an LWRP report, and we can't move anything until we get that. So we are trying to move things along more efficiently next year. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of October 157 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for November, 2008. A check for $10,311.98 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. IlL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town Of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 10, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. Leo & Virginia Alessi - SCTM#92-1-3 Roberta Jaklevic - SCTM#117-5-21.1 Charles & Amy Scharf ~ SCTM#81-3-25.1 &26 Wunneweta Pond Association - SCTM#118-1 p/ol 1 Danielle Cacioppo - SCTM#92-1-4 TRUSTEE KING: So moved. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: I think we can do all of these, right? Board of Trustees 4 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yup. TRUSTEE KING: Some of our efforts to move things along a little quicker under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, we do these if they are very simple, if there is not a lot of problems with them, we try and group them together and approve them all at once rather than go through each one. Just to save some time. So numbers one through six can be approved. They read as follows: DIANE GREGORY requests an Administrative Permit to hand-trim the phragmites to 12 inches. Located: 735 Waterview Drive, Southold. WILLIAM KELLY requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 8x12' shed located outside of the approved buffer area. Located: 1840 Brigantine Drive, Southold. PETE & GAlL SCHEMBRI request an Administrative Permit to reptace windows, add French doors, replace siding and construct a new 25x45' wood deck. Located: 1425 Soundview Road, Orient. ' NED HARROUN requests an Administrative Permit to remove a large dead willow tree located on the west side of the property and grind resulting stump. Located: 63645 Rt. 25, Southold. Michael Macrina Architect PC on behalf of GREG KARAS requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 142 square foot wood deck. Located: 135 Soundview Road, Orient. James Richter on behalf of MICHAEL LEVlSON requests an Administrative Permit to enclose the existing screened in porch and add a drywell with gutters and leaders. Located: 1025 Albacore Drive, Southold. I'll make that motion to approve numbers one through six. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: And it's the same, maybe we are jinxing ourselves tonight, it's the same with the extensions, transfers and amendments. Numbers one through ten are all the same situation and we can approve them in one fell swoop. They read as follows: Number one, MARY ZUPA requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6528, as issued on January 24, 2007. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. Number two, B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6298, as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Southold. Number three, B. Laing Associates on behalf of MICHAEL CARLUCCI requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6299, as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 865 Island View Lane, Southold. Board of Trustees 5 December I0, 2008 Number four, B. Laing Associates on behalf of VIRGINIA BONTJE requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6301, as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 802 Island View Lane, Southold. Number five, B. Laing Associates on behalf of JOHN MULHOLLAND requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6300, as issued on February 15, 2006. Located: 725 Island View Lane, Southold. Number six, Pmper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEPHEN MATTEINI requests a Transfer of Permit #5890 from Nell Stmnski & Patricia Perez to Stephen Matteini, as issued on April 24, 2004. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. Number seven, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEPHEN MATTEINI requests a Transfer of Permit #6723 from Nell Stronski & Patricia Perez to Stephen Matteini, as issued on September 19, 2007. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. Number eight, Robed Barratt PE on behalf of FRANK & DIANE PALILLO requests a Transfer of Permit #6912 from Shiu Ching Chen to Frank & Diane Palillo, as issued on June 18, 2008. Located: 7433 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Number nine, Robert Barratt PE on behalf of FRANK & DIANE PALILLO requests a Transfer of Permit #5051 from Shiu Ching Chen to Frank & Diane Palillo, as issued on August 25, 1999 and Transferred on July 23, 2008. Located: 7433 Soundview Avenue, Southold. And number ten, Burger Construction on behalf of DOUG DEY requests a Transfer of Permit #6476 from Doug Dey to Mark Miller, as contact vendee, and as issued on October 18, 2006. Located: 1775 Paradise Point Road, Southold. I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through ten. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: TRUSTEE KING: We have a request for mooring, ROGER CORNELL requests a Mooring Permit in Cedar Beach Creek for a 24' boat, replacing Mooring #897. Access Private. And number two, FRANK JACOBSEN requests an Onshore Stake and 16' whip to moor a 14' boat in Richmond Creek off his own property. Located: 330 Shore Lane, Peconic. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do both of these together. TRUSTEE KING: For number one, Roger Cornell, it's a 24' work barge. It's classified as a boat but it's technically a work barge. And number two, Frank Jacobsen, a 16' whip to moor a 14' boat off his own property. We are interested to see how this works out. It's something to just whip off the beach to keep the boat in place rather than putting a stake out in the water. I would make a motion to approve those two. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 6 December 10, 2008 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Motion to go off the regular hearings and go into public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of DORIS GALLAGHER CIO BARBARA PENNACHIA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to stabilize the base of the bluff by constructing 90' of double row 3' to 5' diameter (two to five ton) rock revetment. Regrade any disturbed areas reusing excavated materials and revegetate materials. Located: 14347 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP finds it inconsistent for many reasons. Let me just read through this. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to represent this, to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody to speak against it? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I did call Costello's office and said that we would like to see a planting plan, and Jane, as far as she knew, said that, John told her -- MS. STANDISH: It was submitted. It was faxed over. He's coming over with the original. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: He probably didn't expect us to move this quickly tonight. MS. STANDISH: It should have today's date stamped on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This one. (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe we can hold offon this until the end. Give him a chance to get here. TRUSTEE KING: We'll hold this open until he gets here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I make a motion we table this to the end of the meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll just hold this until the applicant arrives or the agent gets here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Patricia Moore on behalf of ROBERT & BETH ANELLO request a Wetland Permit to replace the roof over the existing dwelling inkind/inplace with new design pitch and for the existing portable hot tub, and a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing boardwalk (deck at grade) behind the existing bulkhead. Located: 1980 Leeton Drive, Southold. We did go out and look at this. CAC supports the application with the conditions of drywells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff and the boardwalk is to be replaced with an open pervious decking. Board of Trustees 7 December 10, 2008 It was reviewed under the LWRP and it was found to be inconsistent. Just bear with me, since this was just handed to me. The inkind roof replacement is exempt, so that's okay. The proposed action which is inconsistent is the boardwalk at grade because it's not a water-dependent use. The distance from the high water mark is less than 100 feet, and it may require a variance under the ZBA. And that looks like it's about it. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: We are going to need to keep this hearing open because when my client gets back, he has to go meet with the Building Depadment and make a final determination on the roof pitches and what can be done here, because we have limitations under the FEMA guidelines and we want to keep the work very minimal in order to keep the first floor as is. But we are running across some problems with FEMA, so we are going to have to go back and talk with them. Other things, the boardwalk, everything else, is inkind/inplace. It's been there since the house was originally built. If you have any comments, I can go back to him with it, but the boardwalk is already permeable. You could see they are not tight joints. There is a lot of spacing between it and there is sand below it, so it's been kept as a permeable surface, for the most part. The boardwalk is pretty rustic, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question for our representative from the CAC, Anne; was it that the CAC was looking for open grating along here? Because it's described as open pervious and obviously this is a pervious deck. MS. TRIMBEL: A little more space between the slats. That's all. When it gets wet it will swell up and everything will run off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just didn't know if they were looking for open grating here or something. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And when we do these, the applicant might be familiar with, this we do insist on at least a minimum of an eighth inch opening there. So we do have that pervious situation with the decking. MS. MOORE: Eighth of an inch. One-eighth of an inch. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: That's fine. I think it has it right now, because it was constructed, as I said, rustic. That's it. If anybody else has comments, we'll go back. If you could continue this to the next meeting, hopefully I'll have an answer by then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other comments from the Board first that will assist the applicant in coming in for the next meeting? There is nothing here in the field notes so I didn't know if there were any other comment from the Board. Board of Trustees 8 December 10, 2005 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we really had, it's pretty straightforward, what she wanted to do. We just need to wait to see if they are doing that or not. MS. MOORE: If we are allowed to do it. That's the concern. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there a question about the concern about the setbacks on both sides? MS. MOORE: We have to go to the Zoning Board for anything here because the roof is a horizontal improvement. We have to go to the Zoning Board for approval. Everything else here is nonconforming. We are not going to be on the -- I haven't gotten notice that we are on the January calendar. They have an early calendar in January, so probably February. Unless they have a second meeting in January. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we might as well wait until you have gone through zoning. MS. MOORE: Sometimes -- I have no problem with that. We can coordinate. Sometimes they want to see Trustees before they make a decision. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think in this case it has more to do with zoning. It's straightforward for us and zoning and the building department should straighten that out first, I think, in this case. MS. MOORE: That's fine. We'll adjourn this until we get zoning approval and come back. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just to clarify, under the LWRP recommendation, when the proposed action of the as-built dock is not water dependent, it is recommended the structure be located as far away from the coastal erosion hazard line as possible. I'm just reading what is in the report. MS. MOORE: We don't have a dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The deck. Sorry. The deck. I apologize. So if there is no other comments, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number three, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO., requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing wood sheathing 100', dismantle existing wharf, remove existing rip-rap, stockpile on site, remove understructure and excavate, dredge a 30x60' area to-2' ALW, install culvers 18" below ALW, resultant spoil (75 cy.) Shall be dewatered and trucked off site. Install three 58"x91'x56' long concrete culverts, backfill and install rip-rap (18"-24") stone on both sides of roadway and refurbish road and curbing. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, here, if there are any questions from the Board or the public. TRUSTEE KING: Just one question I have on this measurement: 58 inches by 91 feet by 56 feet? I'm confused. It doesn't take much. I take it it's 58" in diameter? MR. JUST: Yes. Board of Trustees 9 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: And one is 90 feet long and one is 56 feet long? Is there a difference in length? MR. JUST: If you don't mind, Jeff Butler who is the engineer who worked on this is here to answer some of these questions, if you don't mind. MR. BUTLER: Jeff Butler, Fuller Engineering, Riverhead. 58 inches is the diameter. What was the other dimension? TRUSTEE KING: I read the description -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 91 feet by 56 feet. MR. BUTLER: 91 inches. The culvert is -- TRUSTEE KING: It's elliptical. Okay. 58 by 91. MR. BUTLER: To get more volume without having height. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That's what was confusing to me, the two different measurements. I see. All right. Thank you. Can you give us a brief rundown, Glenn, on what exactly is going to take place. MR. JUST: We originally met with the folks from the wharf company back in January on site with a representative of the DEC, and they explained how they wanted to reestablished the flow of water through and under the pier, try to get rid of some of the siltation and increase water quality on the north side of the pier. And it's my understanding back in either the 60s or 70s, that that pier had been opened. We have some folks here that are residents of Orient that have photographs showing that had been the case. And again, it was just a thought to better the water quality to open up and reestablish a flush through the pier itself. TRUSTEE KING: I know, I was out there, I don't know if it was last year some time, beginning of the year; Mr. Hamilton, we met with some of the folks, and there was a discussion then. MR. JUST: I was at that meeting as well. It was a little pre-application meeting and the idea started to kick around and people from the Orient Wharf Corporation, we had discussions back and forth with different ideas and Mr. Butter was engaged in the actual plans. And this is where we sit. It's been a year of back and forth with different ideas on how to do it the right way. TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding at one time, at the initial start of that dock, that was open underneath there. Am I right? MR. JUST: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Where the sheathing is there was at one time that was open, I believe, as I understand. Back toward us. But now there is all beach out there. MR. JUST! Here are some photographs. This was taken from, I believe this is an old post card. You can see in the distance there. Board of Trustees 10 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Wow, would you look how that place has changed. MR. JUST: This is just another one showing the depth of water, the size of the boat and how at Iow tide how close wheel house is to the deck itself. TRUSTEE KING: These look like oyster barrels. Were oysters shipped out of there? MR. JUST: A lot of potatoes, from what I understand. TRUSTEE KING: Really? A lot of oysters, too, I'll bet. MR. JUST: This is another one, it goes back to, for electricity. TRUSTEE KING: There is the opening. So it was part of it, it was between -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's almost doing the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: All right. I don't know how much further *- there is no beach there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no structure out there either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Glenn, I did have a question. I noticed that a couple of culverts where they empty - I'll call it emptying -- on the north side are below the mean Iow water and I was wondering why the culverts are not all below mean Iow water on both sides. In other words at Iow tide you have the north end there are two culverts, which will be high and dry. MR. JUST: I think that was just a matter, we were playing around with the different -- I don't know the surface, we had initially played around with the surface, the position of them with the prevailing winds to make sure there was enough flow. They certainly can be installed further offshore below mean Iow water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They won't be functional. You know, some place close to Iow tide, probably an hour on either side of Iow tide they won't be functional on one end because they'll be out of the water. I was just curious as to why it was designed that way. MR. JUST: I see what you are saying. Up toward Section A, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. It might be, if you move -- and, again, I don't know, from an engineering perspective what this will do, but if you move all three of them seaward or to the west a little farther so they are all three functional through mean Iow water, it just seems to make sense to me, but again, I don't know from an engineering perspective how that will affect the project. MR. JUST: Good idea. We'll look into that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you moved it out, wouldn't it impact bringing a boat into the slip? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a pretty good distance there between the existing floating boats landward, existing floating dock. I don't have the ruler with me. MR. JUST: It's an inch to 30 feet. That's about 50 to 60 feet where that seaward-most pipe is right now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's something to consider, absolutely, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that might be the reason. If you move Board of Trustees 11 December 10, 2008 them so that they are all water side of Iow water you will actually be moving them at least 15 feet, within 30 feet of the slip. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could very well be right again. I'm just addressing the functionality of the structure. I would hate to see all this work done on a project where for a couple of hours and every tidal flow that really is, it's not going to be functional. MR. JUST: It's definitely something we should look back into. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Glenn, the other question I had was just for the culverts themselves. What type of grating or screening will be done; just thinking of the safety factor, I didn't know if there was any grating or anything to keep children from going in and going through these culverts, the potential for it. It's just a question. MR. JUST: I have done some of that myself growing up, I have to admit. I never thought about that, to be honest. I've done it. I'm not going to go any further with it. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was fun when I did it. MR. JUST: AIot of fun. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just bring it up, that's all. MR. JUST: I'm sure some rebar could be installed, something like that, that would not act as a clog. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you. You don't want something that will get clogged up easily. Absolutely. I'm just thinking of a safety factor, that's all. TRUSTEE KING: Put a "keep out" sign. MR. JUST: Inner tube. TRUSTEE KING: We'll take some other comments. Anybody else want to comment here? Yes, sir? MR. ESSEX: I'm Bill Essex, attorney. I represent -- some of the people who I represent are neighbors and some are probably the owners of the land on which this work is to be done. Our office representing the neighbors have started an Article 78 proceeding in State Supreme Court. I gave a copy to your attorney yesterday. I served a copy tonight on the applicant. And this will go before a judge in a couple of weeks, and we are seeking to have the DEC approval set aside and we believe we'll be successful. We are going to start a separate action with regard to who owns the land. And if you look at the survey, the map, engineering map, it refers to a survey from 1999 which, according to your rules, I think is much too old to be part of the submission, but that map shows that part of what they are proposing to do is on our land. There has been substantial accretion north and south of the property and that accretion belongs to the upland owner and we are the upland owners. It's our stand that they are proposing to take out, in part, and it's our property upon which they proposed to do this work, and they don't have our permission. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, just for clarification, which are Board of Trustees 12 December 10, 2008 you talking about; the David Air's side to the north or Minichini and Timothy Frost side to the south? MR. ESSEX: Both. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. MR. ESSEX: Now, this issue of whether the DEC acted properly or not, is not, you have no opinion on that. You have your own problems. You don't need theirs. And also, you don't have the ability to make a decision as to who owns the land. The State Supreme Court in a separate action, the same judge, will make that determination. However there is no suggestion in here that the State of New York has given permission to do that, and if you look at their map you'll see that they are having culverts go both north and south of the old bridge. This wharf is -- I spent more time learning about it than I thought I would -- it started in 1831 and 1833 1851, those are grants from the state. They are called patents. Now, if you want to do something, other than very minor things, and the land is underwater and all the land is underwater except the inland ones in the creeks, belong to the State of New York. That's case law established. Town of Southold versus Parks, as a matter of fact, you guys, 100 years ago, 150 years ago, made that case. And there is no, as far as I know, there is no approval for the state to do this and there is no approval from my clients to do this. And we have one lawsuit pending and we'll start another one. So I really don't think that you are in a position today or in the near future to make a decision on this. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we planned on making a decision tonight, by any means. MR. ESSEX: I'm new. We are starting on this. We'll see each other some more over the weeks, months or years. But there is an issue here that is something that I don't think you have ever done. And what is proposed here is apparently the yacht club wants to be able to rent some space, and it's shoaling. The shoaling is a process of accretion. The process of accretion, for better or for worse, belongs to our side, and what .these culverts are designed to do is to cause erosion. They want to blowout the sand that is coming in. I don't think you guys in 200 years have given anyone any permits for the purpose of removing property, removing sand from somebody's property. I think if I came in here for permission to remove sand you would throw me out of the building. And here what they are saying is we want the state and the DEC and the Town Trustees to tell us that we can rip out, take out the sand, take out, put in pipes, put in rip-rap, make the wharf wider. Board of Trustees 13 December 10, 2008 The grant from the state in the 1850's, is up to 500 feet long and 35 feet wide. I don't think -- and also there is no real grant of the land or the water. The grant is very interesting. It says you can put this here and you can put it there for the purpose of commerce. I'm not going to go into that now but I don't believe they could widen it without permission from the state and as far as I know, they don't have that. Now, I won't take up anymore of your time tonight. Some of my client are here. They would like to talk about it and it will be ongoing and I'll keep your counsel, I'll give it to her or him, whoever it is, copies of the papers as we go along so you know what is happening. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anybody else, please keep your comments brief. And one point you made that this was going to take the beach away, I think that was some of the reasons, because the initial meeting I went and talked to the DEC out there, that was one of the gentleman's concerns and that's why they moved those culverts further offshore so that beach would not be lost. That's, you know, this will all be a long process, I'm sure. Especially when we get attorneys involved. Anybody else want to comment? MS. MINICHINI: I'm Margaret Minichini. My husband is Timothy Frost, the owner of Bayside Cottage, which is the property we are talking about here. Two things concern me about the project. The first is obviously that it appears it's being built on property owned by Bayside Cottage and without permission, as has been brought out. The second is that I believe that the goal of the project is certainly a goal that has been talked about and I have been told different reasons why it was being done, but it is also part of another project that has been being looked at by the stakeholders and actually Linda Duell and I are members of the stakeholders committee -- I'm the chair of Orient stakeholders -- attended a storm water runoff committee meeting on June 25. That was headed by James Richter where at that meeting they discussed a allocation of $200,000 that was left over from the New Suffolk drainage project that was going to be allocated to the runoff project on Village Lane. I think that the runoff project on Village Lane, the solution that the wharf company is offering, may be a part of a solution or it may be part of a bigger issue that has to really be looked at, and I would hesitate to go ahead with some band aide, I guess, kind of solution to fix that, without looking at what the Iongterm issue is that is going on there and what is Board of Trustees 14 December 10, 2008 causing the problem. I think there may be other means that will help ameliorate the problem of the silting. There may be other things that can be done without going through the project that is being currently proposed. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We feel the same way about that project, from the stormwater runoff meeting, and we sent a memo to Mr. Harris basically informing him of the application that we have before us and basically saying that we feel that the Village Lane project should be done either before this or at the same time of this, if this gets approved. TRUSTEE KING: If this proceeds in a coordinated thing and make the two projects work together. MS. MINICHINI: And my recent conversation last week with James Richter was that he was saying, well, he didn't think he had money for it anymore or something and it's really getting lost -- TRUSTEE KING: It's a typical road runoff problem. It's very frustrating. All I can say is keep trying. MS. MINICHINI: I'll keep at it. But, as I said, it's part of the problem and I think it all has to be looked at together. TRUSTEE KING: It's been one of my focuses since I have been on this Board is to try and take care of some of this stormwater runoff and improve the water quality rather than let it get degraded anymore. So please, keep up the pressure. MS. MINICHINI: Thank you. MR. HENRY: I'm John Henry, I'm the owner of residential waterfront property a few hundred feet from Orient Wharf. TRUSTEE KING: North or south, sir? MR. HENRY: To the south. And I'm also a member of Orient Yacht Club, the controlling shareholder in the Orient Wharf company. I oppose the wharf company's application to the trustees for permission to reconstruct the wharf, and here is why. I draw the Trustees' attention to the section of the application under the heading "developed coast policy." There in the subsection called Policy Two, the applicant is asked to respond whether its project would "protect and preserve historic or archeological resources of the Town of Southold." The wharf company checked "not applicable" which is, to say the least, inaccurate. The applicant's plans call for three very large side-by-side preformed concrete cylinders to be inserted into the existing wharf. Each cylinder would be an oval 58 inches high by 91 inches, or nearly eight-feet wide. Just to illustrate, I had my wife measure my wing span today and it is 64 inches. Add 27 more inches or a little over two feet, and you get the Board of Trustees 15 December 10, 2008 bulk of the opening of this culvert. And then multiply that by three. Each cylinder would extend 56 feet from nodh to south underneath the wharf roadway, which measures only 30 feet between its north and south sides. That means that the length of the cylinders would exceed the roadway's width by 26 feet and that they would therefore protrude significantly from either side of the pier. I believe the project as currently designed would severely disfigure a very handsome and historic wharf that while privately owned, is a public treasure providing visual pleasure to the entire community. Indeed, it was in recognition of its status as a public treasurer that the wharf was designated part of the Orient Historic District, which itself has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1976. So the applicant's response, as to whether its project would "protect and preserve historic resources for the Town of Southold", should have been no. But it was not. On those grounds alone I believe the Trustees should reject the wharf company's application. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. AIR: I'm David Air. I'm one of the abutting-property owners on the north side. There has been some talk tonight about what is going to happen. Everyone is concerned about what will happen when you put these conduits into place. It's as though people acted as if there was no way to find out. Curiously, there is a whole science about this stuff. And the people who are the scientists are called professional wetlands scientists. They are engineers. There are many of them. They practice successfully. They are used by municipal governments, even here on Long Island to assess the plans and the impacts of work just like this. In getting an estimate for what that survey would cost for this project, we discovered that the bill would come between three and $4,000. The applicant is projecting a hopeful budget of $100,000. So with the cost to find out, in the beginning you were talking well maybe we could move it a little here, a little there, we'll try and think about it some more, we'll have a couple of more meetings amongst ourselves. Why not go for a fraction of the cost to find out? It's baffling. The people who need this information the most are you people. Because you have to judge about this wetlands situation. It would seem to me that you would request that information on the application to begin with. It's rather strange that you don't. And it's strange that the applicant doesn't seek to find out, for such a reasonable cost. Maybe Mr. Just can Board of Trustees 16 December 10, 2008 answer that. The drawing, the plan as submitted, has a reference, you'll notice in the Elevation B, to 78 feet, removing existing wood sheathing. Do you all see that, above the sections of the conduits? I hope you do. If you have it in front of you. Some of you. If you look to the right of that, another reference, distance reference, 18 feet. It says formal bridge to be reconstructed to previous condition. You saw the photographs of the previous condition. If you authorize this permit, it will allow the construction to remove plus or minus 100 feet of the existing stone for a duration which we know nothing about because that question went unanswered in the application. We don't know how long it will take. It could take a year. We don't know. The original section of the wharf was put in in 1740 is when it was started. We presume they started on the shoreline and worked their way west. So what the applicant proposes is removing what is effectively a groin that has been in place for over 200 years, and let's find out what's going to happen. Even if we have to leave the hundred foot gap open for a period of time. Further, if you look under five, under proposed scope of work, place seawall stone so as to reflect water through temporary passage. Well let's get more water flowing through there where we don't know what's going to happen. Throughout the application, the applicant uses terms like "it is felt". Science is available. It would seem to me that feelings just won't pass. You'll have to reject this. You'll have to deny this permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Air, could I just make a comment. Our most of our applications are reviewed by the LWRP coordinators. Scott Hilary is one. Mark Terry usually looks over these. And Mark Terry does have a wetlands degree. So it's not as though we don't have any professional advice. They have looked at this and from what I'm seeing this has been reviewed as consistent. MR. AIR: Have they advised you what the effects will be? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well in reviewing it consistent, my assumption is they have reviewed what will be the results. I'm sure they take that into consideration. I just wanted to let you know that there has been professional review of it. MR. AIR: This is a professional wetland scientist. That is a title that appears after some of these engineers who are specialists. In the case of the person I consulted, it's the name PHD.,PWS, which stands for professional wetland scientist. Is that the qualification of that person? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, he does not have a PHD. Board of Trustees 17 December 10, 2008 MR. AIR: The question is: What is going to happen? That's why we are all in here concerned. So if it's knowable, it should be provided. You would think the applicants themselves would care enough. Any other questions? (No response.) Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: My name is John Kelly, from Orient. I have a home about 600 feet from the wharf to the north side. Clearly, as you can tell from pictures, the area has silted in considerably over the years. I did want to put on the record that the filling of the old bridge which occurred in the late '60s, most likely, was done at a time when the Orient Wharf Company was controlled by the abutter, who I believe was the predecessor in title to the two abutting propedies to the north and south. So that you had the owners of that property controlling the wharf company -- although not being sole owner, just the majority stockholder -- and that happened at the time. So you do have the question of whether the abutting shareholders, I mean the abutting owners at that time controlled both sides. They filled the bridge. They can benefit from the accretion of sand from their action in filling the bridge. I have personally checked, I'm a director of the wharf company, through the records, there is no corporate action on the part of the wharf company that authorized the filling of the bridge. So this is one of the mysteries as to the date because it just happened. So I just wanted that to go on the record. And thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir? MR. STROMEYER: I'm Walter Stromeyer, I live in Orient. I'm a member of the yacht club. I have come out here all my life; summers and then later on living year-round, and I can remember when at a real high tide, the water was lapping up against the walls on both sides, the rock walls, cement walls on both sides of the dock. The accretion has been tremendous through the years and if nothing is done, it's going to act like a groin and eventually it will be filled in all the way out. It may take 50 years. It's done quite a few years now but it will fill in and continue to fill in. So something should be done. And it did take place, of course, when that bridge was filled in. That's when all this accretion staded to accumulate. It acted just like a breakwater or a groin and it collected and it will continue to do so. So something has to be done. Thank you TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. We have a number of letters here, too. Mr. Frost, I think his wife already spoke. For the record, the letters read as follows: A letter from John Henry, dated December 3, 2008. Dear Trustees, I write as the owner of residential waterfront property on Village Lane, Orient, that lies a few hundred feet south of the wharf. In my opinion, the wharf company's application is deficient in several critical respects. The applicant makes broad assertions about the potential impact of the proposed construction project without citing scientific opinion to substantiate those assertions. For example, the wharf company says "the project should have no impacts upon the commercial or recreational use of the Town of Southold's finfish, shellfish, crustaceans or marine plants."The company offers only this sketchy justification for that statement:"it is felt (my emphasis added) that this project is consistent with this policy." That simply isn't good enough. Board of Trustees 18 December 10, 2008 The applicant also asserts that the project "does not involve hazardous substances or waste." That statement would seem to misrepresent the facts; spoil dredged from harbor bottoms almost invariably contains toxic material. Furthermore, while the applicant says that the spoil would be dewatered onsite before being trucked away, the company fails to specify how - or even whether - it would contain the polluted water drained from the dredged material. In answer to the question"what is present land use in vicinity of project?" The applicant has checked "other" instead of the obvious, correct answer, "residential." And included with the application is a map showing the location of the wharf to be at Village Lane and King Street when it's actually a full .15 miles north of there. If the wharf company can't accurately present the most basic and easily verifiable details of its project, it can't expect us to take on faith the rest of its statements in this application. I ask you to reject it. Respectfully submitted, John Henry. The next letter is from Clare Air, dated December 2, 2008. Dear Trustees, we are aware of the application to make changes to the Orient wharf. In the limited time afforded to abutters and other interested parties to respond, we can only say that the application is deficient and filled with inaccuracies and omissions and lacks any scientific environmental analysis, subjects which we will Now, however, we would like to point out that the project is within the structural hazard area of the town's coastal erosion hazard area. Southold Town code Article II, Chapter 111-10, paragraph B states in regard to structural hazard areas "the construction of non-movable structures or placement of major non-movable additions to an existing structure is prohibited." Based solely on this criteria, the application should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, Clare Air. The next letter is from Timothy Frost, dated December 2, 2008. Trustees, I am in receipt of a "Notice to Adjacent Property Owner" sent by certified mail to me by JMO Environmental Consulting on 26 November 2008, informing me of my right to provide public comment on 10 December, 2008. On 1 December 2008 I phoned the Trustees and spoke with Elizabeth to seek a postponement as I have not had sufficient time to review the applicant's environmental review and/or undertake my own. in addition, I have recently been required to take up residence in London and will be unable to attend the 10 December meeting on such short notice. However, even without the extensive environmental analysis such An undertaking requires, based on only a cursory review of the applicant's plan enclosed with the notice, I raise an initial objection that the proposed "Site Plan - Area of Work" encompasses work on my property (SCTM#1000-26-1-1.0) upland of what is shown as "apparent high water mark." On this basis alone I ask for rejection of the application or at least postponement of the 10 December 2008 meeting. I may be reached through the following contact coordinates. Respectfully submitted, Timothy Frost. The next letter is from J. Kevin Mc/aughlin, attorney at law, dated October 24, 2000, addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Frost. Please be advised that I am the attorney for the Orient Wharf Company. As you are aware, the wharf off of Village Lane, Orient, New York, is owned by the Orient Wharf Company and is private property. Notice is hereby given that you, your family and any of your tenants in Orient are strictly forbidden to enter upon the said property of the Orient Wharf Company. Board of Trustees 19 December 10, 2008 Any violation of this prohibition against entering onto my client's property will be treated as a trespass and appropriate action will be taken against the offending party. Very truly yours, J. Kevin McLaughlin. (See attached letter from David & Claire Air.) We'll make sure they are in the record. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else who wants to comment for or against? (No response.) I think we have a lot to digest. The legal aspects, I don't know anything of what will happen there. MS. HULSE: I think this will be adjourned for quite a while. I don't think we'll be making a decision on this at any time soon. TRUSTEE KING: No. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll see where it goes. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving on to wetland permits, number one, DONALD IADANZA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a stairway down to the beach. Located: 855 Soundview Avenue, Orient. This project has been found to be consistent by the LWRP coordinator. CAC moved to support the application with the following conditions: Best management practices are used; provide erosion control; stairs are constructed with non-treated lumber and the installation of a 20-foot non-tut[ buffer along the top. I was a little bit concerned when I saw it because the old survey shows a different placement of the stairs and the survey that was provided for the application shows a plan for the stairs to be more to the west where the original survey shows them. So is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) It's pretty straightforward. Aside from I don't see any reason not to approve it. I would just ask, I think we should require a new survey be brought showing the exact location of the stairs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good idea. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's a big stairway, is it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, it's not that steep down there. The stairs went 32 feet all the wail. It's a 3x32' stairway. And this is going back to a project that was started quite a number of years ago. It already had a Board of Trustees 20 December 10, 2008 permit. So they removed an existing stairs and now they are just putting in a new one and I don't really have any problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: As long as we get a survey that accurately shows where they are. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The vegetation was pretty good. It would not hurt to have a bit more non-tuff buffer along the top of the bluff. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels about that. Another ten feet would not hurt. And that would be consistent to what is west and east of the property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now is the time to do it. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: So I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: I would make a motion to approve the application with two stipulations; one, that a ten-foot non-turf buffer be planted along the top of the bluff and that an updated survey be submitted showing the exact location of the stairway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you might as well put the buffer on the survey, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And put the buffer on the survey. Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Patricia Moore on behalf of LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct as needed the existing 3xl 1' fixed dock, 3x12' ramp and 8x15' floating dock. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. This was an application the Board considered last month. Just to review, it was found exempt under the LWRP and the CAC suppoded the application with the condition of ten-foot non-turf buffer and the size of the floating dock is to be cut back so it doesn't exceed one4hird of the way across the creek; the timber wall removed and replaced with rip-rap. When we looked at this last month, our concern was that as the dock is currently configured with a boat on it, it would exceed one-third the way across. So what we asked the applicant to consider was the oppodunity to reconfigure the dock, turning the dock 90 degrees or swiveling it 90 degrees so it would not exceed the one-third rule, and the depth was clearly there, because this drops off very quickly and it shows at the Board of Trustees 21 December 10, 2008 end of the catwalk at Iow tide close to two feet, and going down from there. So it did drop off pretty significantly. What Trustee King just gave us is an aerial photo of the area that includes that properly. With that I would ask the applicant to step up. MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore for Mr. and Mrs. Alessi. He's on his way here. He gave me little exhibits, little boats to show you how things work but I did want him here because it really affects his functioning, how the dock functions. Would it be okay if we just waited until he arrives and let Cathy -- we are almost at an end. Otherwise I can show you his concerns and, um, we'll just continue the conversation when he gets here. It's up to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem with tabling this. We only have two applications so it could only be a couple of minutes. MS. MOORE: It should be any minute. He called around I think it was four o'clock he was in midtown. He got stuck in traffic there. So I'm hoping he should be here in time. He left a while ago. I'm really hoping he's almost here TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend we hold this open later on for tonight's hearing. MS. HULSE: Pat, can you give him a call to see what his ETA is? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He's on his way here. MS. MOORE: I don't see a cellphone number for him, so. But I'll try. Just to make sure he's coming and he's not really delayed. Ill go outside and do that. If not, I'll be back and we'll continue. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to hold this open and table it for the end of the hearing tonight also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MILDRED DICARLO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing dock with a Iow-profile 4x64' fixed dock on 16.8" diameter piles 12' on center, 3x15' metal ramp and 6x20' floating dock affixed to two 10-inch diameter piles and inplace replacement of 125' of bulkhead and 37' return landward of high water. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Road, Southold. The whole Board went out and looked at this. We also reviewed some history on this and we have some questions. LWRP is inconsistent and CAC supports the application with the following conditions: No portion of the bulkhead extends beyond the mean high water Board of Trustees 22 December 10, 2008 mark; the dock is reconstructed a minimum of five feet above mean high water to provide public access; the dock and the vessel don't exceed one-third across the width of the creek; eight-inch piles are replaced with 4x4 posts; through-flow decking is used on the catwalk; the docks are removed from the beach and the present non-turf buffer is maintained. That is the CAC's comments. And I'll stad with the non-turf buffer. Right there, is not a non-turf buffer. We would like to see that become a non-turf buffer. MS. MESIANO: That's the lower terraced area between the seaward most bulkhead and the secondary bulkhead. And that would be on the -- I'm just getting my orientation. Is that the area to the east -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the whole length of the bulkhead in that area. That area where Peggy just pointed to, we did some review and in 1985 the applicant requested to go, to bump out and to put that there. And at that time the Town Board issued the permits for the Trustees. And it was adjourned. The Trustees sent a letter to the Town Board and recommending that does not happen. It was adjourned and we found no record of anything else ever happening after that. So we don't find a permit for that. We did see a DEC permit for that. So just to give you have a little of what we found there. And we do have a problem with that going out that far. So we would request that that be brought back in, in line with the west of the bulkhead. That's one of our -- MS. MESIANO: To eliminate that easterly section that protrudes seaward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And it's approximately ten feet. TRUSTEE KING: Actually, the whole thing is built without any permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the whole thing is built without a permit. And that's approximately ten feet right there. That return is ten feet, right there. And it goes out further on the other side. MS. MESIANO: Okay. And that line should be kept in line with the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Well, there are two bulkheads. MS. MESIANO: I understand there are two bulkheads. There is a higher and a lower. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we even discussed, Jim and I, when we went out to measure, we might consider this whole area to be brought back as well. I don't know what the rest of the Board thinks. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a picture that shows the two of them, that shows both bulkheads, just to give everybody an idea what we are talking about. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was hard because -- Board of Trustees 23 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me run down the other comments and we can then go over them again. The deck on top, on the higher bulkhead is not built to code, so we would consider putting a condition on that that when that has to be rebuilt, that it comes into conformity with the code. So in other words, a lot smaller. It doesn't have to be torn out but when it's rebuilt it cannot be rebuilt to that size. It can be maintained, though. And then the dock, ramp and float that you asked for, right now it's all a floating structure and you are requesting to make it fixed? MS. MESIANO: Yes. What is there was a seasonal structure that obviously is derelict. I don't want to say derelict. It was unsafe. So it was pulled up to reduce liability. The applicant -- TRUSTEE KING: That shows the two bulkheads. There we go. MS. MESIANO: The applicants are -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is this one, this one and this terrace. And then this one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Three terraces. MS. MESIANO: And all ever them are landward of high water. Significantly landward of high water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would not say that with the lower one. TRUSTEE KING: When we first got there, Cathy, we walked down there and said, oh, boy, here is a land grab that happened years ago. MS. MESIANO: The lower one, the easterly corner, is at the high water mark. So all of the -- I'll rephrase what I said. All of the bulkhead is landward of high water. TRUSTEE KING: Everything we see on the seaward side of the bulkhead from the life boat hanging on it was built without a permit, as I understand. It has a DEC permit but not a town permit. MS. MESIANO: We are talking more than 20 years ago. TRUSTEE KING: It was the Town Board then. The thing that got our attention was there was a letter in the file from the Board of Trustees recommending the town board to deny that application. And there was no further action on it. Evidently it was adjourned. MS. MESIANO: I can't comment on that. I'm only dealing with today. TRUSTEE KING: The question I have for Lori is can we make them back that bulkhead up? MS. HULSE: Absolutely. MS. MESIANO: On what basis, other than arbitrarily saying we don't like it. The bulkhead is landward. TRUSTEE KING: It was built without a permit. MS. HULSE: Do you have anything from the Town Board giving you authorization for that? MS. MESIANO: At this moment, no. I do have the DEC Board of Trustees 24 December 10, 2008 permit and I don't even know if Mr. DiCarlo owned the property in 1985. TRUSTEE KING: He did. Same folks have owned it for years. It was in the file. MS. MESIANO: Like I said, I don't know about the 1985. I saw the 1986 DEC permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a letter from the Board of Trustees, dated May 31, 1984. It is to Tarrytown clerk, in the matter of the Garrett A. Strang for Michael DiCarlo for a wetland permit to construct a retaining wall for the prevention of additional erosion to the existing natural bluff north side of Calves Neck Road, 958 feet east of Youngs Avenue. Southold Trustee Benoski stated that the Trustees visited the site on May 23, 1984. There was no sign of erosion. If this were approved it would be the first one of its kind in the area and we didn't see that this was necessary. We would like to see him replant in front to restore the beach to its natural state rather than to construct this retaining wall. Trustee Smith stated that the Trustees thought that being there are no retaining walls in the area, it may put a hardship on the neighbors in the area and we deem it unnecessary. The Trustees also suggested planting vegetation up on the bank. On a motion made by Trustee Benoski, second by Trustee Cochran it was resolved to recommend to the Town Board disapproval of the wetland application submitted by Garrett A. Strang for Michael DiCarlo without prejudice to future applications. And that was, again, 1984. MS. MESIANO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that was the last correspondence. MS. MESIANO: '84 or '85. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: '84. May 31, 1984. TRUSTEE KING: So it looks like the Trustees' philosophy at that time is about the same as it is today. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But I don't want to really get hung up with that in 1984. We can still decide what we want. I personally think that extension on the east side is not necessary. I don't know if I feel they have to remove the whole thing. MS. MESIANO: I don't see what purpose it would serve to remove the whole thing. I could see your point about that extension. I don't know what the conditions were in 1984 so I don't even want to go there. But my point today is it's been that way for 25 years. What purpose does it serve to remove the lower bulkhead? It is above the high water mark. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the purposes is just remove structure. One of the things we try to do is reduce structure. MS. MESIANO: Then the question is what impact does the Board of Trustees 25 December 10, 2008 removal of that established structure, what impact does that then have the stability of the surrounding area? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think it will be any different than the bulkhead that is existing. MS. MESIANO: Well, we don't know that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my opinion. MS. MESIANO: Because this has not been reviewed with respect to the adjoining propedies. And I'm hesitant to accept just -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe you should read the LWRP that has more professional opinions as to what reason are to not have that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP, Policy 6.3, the existing bulkhead is a pre-existing non-permitted and nonconforming structure and therefore cannot be replaced inkind without full review and approval by the Trustees. Further, new bulkheads in creeks and bays are prohibited unless bulkhead is Iow sill. MS. MESIANO: This is not in a creek or bay. Again, it's above high water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The proposed action extends beyond the minimum necessary for access to navigable waters impairing the public trust interest. The proposed docking structure is private, noncommercial and will not support a pattern of development that enhances community character nor provides public access for recreational activities. The applicant must prove that the following dock standards have been met pursuant to 275-11: Construction and operation standards. And it goes through all the standards. And -- MS. MESIANO: I must say that I have had previous experience with this Board where this Board had no problem approving an illegal structure that never had a permit from any agency. So this Board has taken that action in the past and I just want to bring that to your attention. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just speaking for myself, this is a huge structure compared to some of the things we have accepted. Aside from the two bulkheaded areas, it also has a tremendous deck on top. I think it's much different than some of the things we've approved. MS. MESIANO: Well, I won't debate that issue with you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Again, my opinion. MS. MESIANO: I'm just making a point that this Board, I have personal knowledge of this Board having approved structures that never had any permits and were not pre-existing. TRUSTEE KING: But this is the first one I have seen that a complete denial was recommended by the Trustees. I have never seen that since or before. MS. MESIANO: Since there was no resolution to that and there was no final decision, we can't assume that there Board of Trustees 26 December 10, 2008 would have been absolute denial. We might assume, for argument sake, that an approval of something other than what was originally proposed might have been approved, in lieu of nothing. So that, we could debate what might have happened 25 years ago all night, and I don't want to do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Speaking for myself, what I would like to see is that extension brought back and in line with the existing, and that area non-turf. MS. MESlANO: I can agree with that. TRUSTEE DOFIERTY: Because like you said it has been there for 25 years, yet it would be better if the hard structure is gone. MS. MESlANO: Again, I know I'm repeating myself, but think it's important. It is above high water. We are not obstructing the public right of passage through those public domain areas. There is a step that goes up across and down so that there is not obstruction. So I think with respect to a number of the items that you mentioned with respect to LWRP, you know, there ~s not that obstruction to the public. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cathy, as far as public access, that has already been taken away because of this land that has been -- MS. MESlANO: No, no. If you look at the very far left of that photograph, in the lower third, that part of that structure is the railing for the walkway that goes off the fixed dock perpendicular to the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw it was only on the one side. TRUSTEE KING: I think that was for the applicant stairway to get access to the beach. MS. MESlANO: We could put one on the other side. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that was put there for public access. I think it was put there so they could walk on to the beach from the property. MS. MESlANO: Well, we can fix that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to get to that on the dock. That's one thing we need to see is stairs on both sides for access. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to address the turf on the lower level? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I had mentioned that. All that turf on the lower level will be a non-turf area. And then with the dock, you are proposing to put a 65-foot fixed structure there in place of the floating structure. MS. MESlANO: That's correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the reason being? MS. MESlANO: It's not unlike other docks in the area. It's been my personal opinion that removing a dock and replacing it seasonally causes more degradation to the bottom lands than leaving a structure that then becomes Board of Trustees 27 December I 0, 2008 its own environment. I have seen a number of cases where you are not allowed to remove something because it has become its own ecosystem. And this waterway is a more substantial waterway than some of the creeks. You do have depth, and from my general knowledge I would say that you could get some significant wind and wave action there, because it is wider. It's not a narrow 50 or 60 foot creek. You've got some significant width and depth there, and a boat tied up in that location, I think, needs to be tied to something a little more substantial. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. On the depth, you show this would be at like 3.3. Is there any way you can shorten the structure or move it in further? MS. MESIANO: To what point? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, you have three, you go all the way to 2.8. I mean you can shorten that whole area. MS. MESIANO: Two feet? Three feet? I mean, you know, you would like to have -- TRUSTEE DQHERTY: I know you would like to have the depth. MS. MESIANO: Because when you have wave action, even though you may have a two-and-a-half foot draft, when you have wave action you need to have that depth so you are not hitting the bottom. Because we are not exceeding the one-third rule. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just trying to think. Right where I would like to see it moved back there is no -- MS. MESIANO: Can you describe that area relative to the structures we have drawn; the float, the ramp. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what the scale is on the big drawing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The scale is one inch to 40. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Somewhere in between where the ramp is, move it back toward that. Jim is scaling it off. So I'll have an answer in a minute. Do you have a comment, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I'm looking at this and it looks like the depth at the end of the proposed catwalk is 2.8, and then you've got the ramp and the float that goes to 3.4, and I don't see much of a difference there. MS. MESIANO: The 3.4 is mid-ramp and 3.4 at the end dock, so if we brought it back to the landward -- TRUSTEE KING: That would be the seaward side of the float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was thinking. MS. MESIANO: Because that would at least give us some depth in heavier weather, if you have a boat two-and-a-half foot draft at an extremely Iow tide and you get bad conditions, so bring that back to the more landward 3.4 depth. Board of Trustees 28 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: That makes an overall length including the float of 75 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because that still shows the float in at least two-and-a-half, almost three feet of water. So the float won't be on the bottom at Iow tide. TRUSTEE KING: It's three to 3.4 feet. MS. MESIANO: So the overall length -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We would be shortening the catwalk, and again, we have to scale it out here. If we are shortening the catwalk, it looks like -- I don't know. It has to be scaled back. I don't want to estimate. MS. MESIANO: Jim, could you just tell me again what number you said as far as overall length? TRUSTEE KING: Overall length, including the float, to the seaward side of the float would be 75 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are measuring from the lower bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: I'm measuring from the end of the new fixed dock. Hold on a second. You want including the old dock? MS. MESIANO: No, you have the colored section TRUSTEE KING: Just the red section is 75 feet. MS. MESIANO: Okay, 75 feet length overall. TRUSTEE KING: Including the float. That's at the seaward side of the float. MS. MESIANO: From there to there. Okay. MS. HULSE: Just to address, if I could, Peggy's concern about the structure. The issue would be inplace replacement. If that is permitted, that is going to be essentially sanctioning the previously unpermitted, nonconforming what was spoken out against 20 years ago structure. So the replacement needs to be considered in that light, that now it's going to be a permitted structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah, I was concerned about that. And the only comment I really have to make is, bearing in mind that's apparently the way it is, it's an unpermitted structure, but when you look at it from the top, it really, it changes the shoreline quite a bit. I mean it's not, it's no way near the natural shoreline that is to the left and to the right of this particular bulkhead. I mean it's really changed drastically. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My feeling is that bump out is what has changed the shoreline. Yes, the entire structure has obviously changed the shoreline because if it was not there you would have beach there, possibly. We don't know what would have happened over the last 20 years with erosion. But my feeling is that bump out definitely affects the shoreline. And so I would be comfortable with just pulling back that bump out section and not requiring removing the entire lower Board of Trustees 29 December 10, 2008 bulkhead and that fill. I think then we are, I would agree that the damage that will be done environmentally with all that work exceeds just letting it stay in place. That is just my own feeling. Would the dock, I'm asking the Board, if there is an opportunity, I notice there is eight-inch piles, anchor piles for the float. But for the dock itself is there a need for eight-inch piles? I enjoy the ten feet on center that is there, but is there an opportunity to downsize those to six-inch piles? TRUSTEE KING: Six inch is sufficient. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then the two ten-inch diameter can go down to eight inch. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's interesting, on the one diagram, the sideview, cut view, it says ten inch, but on the diagram itself it says eight-inch pile. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Right, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there is a little inconsistency there. TRUSTEE KING: I would say six-inch supporting the catwalk and eight-inch holding the float in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's fine MS. MESIANO: Six-inch suppoding the catwalk. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And eight-inch anchor piles for the float. MS. MESIANO: Eight-inch piles typical on the float is what I have on the plan view. Yes, I see the error that was made. Correct that error. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Then the description, we'll have to change that as well. MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think that was all our comments. MS. MESIANO: That's all? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I had mentioned the deck. MS. MESIANO: Yes, we talked about the deck and I understand that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The non-turf buffer. The bump out and shortening the whole structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then we have to see on the plans stairs for either side of the -- MS. MESIANO: Right, add the stairs to the other side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the catwalk, above the mean high water line, for public access. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: I still have a problem with that bulkhead. I'm trying to be reasonable, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I would like to do is maybe table this to have the survey -- I'm thinking while I'm speaking. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: I would like to see if we could find out if it in fact does not have a permit and I would Board of Trustees 30 December 10, 2008 also like to take another look at it in light of the idea of removing that bump out, and I would just like to take another look at that now. TRUSTEE KING: I had more in my mind if we just made that new bulkhead, the distance off the second bulkhead the same as it is on the west side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what Dave and I are saying. TRUSTEE KING: Parallel to, parallel the existing bulkhead that is removing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm recommending. TRUSTEE KING: That takes a lot more than the bump out out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, I see what you are saying. So it's equal distance from both sides of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Go both sides of the bulkhead and go parallel with that back bulkhead. MS. MESlANO: Let me say, some of the comments that Dave made earlier relative to removing the fill and the impact from removal, you are effecting that same end result by moving it a little bit, and we are trying to avoid that action. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You put a silt boom out there and you are already going to be working in this area. I'll go back to what Bob said. I think it's not right that this property has taken on this much property whereas the neighbors have gone along with the natural shoreline and they now have this additional property. And I think that's very wrong. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to review the deed and see the meets and bounds. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I make one more comment. On the survey when you redo a lot of it, if you could put the neighbor's property lines on there as well and, you know, on the creek front there. MS. MESlANO: How many of them? Just the adjacent east and west? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so we can see the comparison of where their property ends to where this one ends. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) MS. MESlANO: I would just like to say that I think this Board would be doing a disservice to make a decision to order the absolute removal of the structure or removal of the two seaward, of the more seaward bulkhead. It's a structure that has been in place for over 25 years. There has not been a complaint from anyone. The town has had many an opportunity to perhaps notice and that a person comes back to the town to abide by the rules at this point in time, I think its very prejudicial for the Board to say, well, you didn't have a permit in 1985 and we recommended disapproval, when I think it's Board of Trustees 31 December 10, 2008 a reasonable argument to make that in 1985 or 1995 or 2005, if the Board didn't like a particular design, that a compromise would have been found. I have been coming before this Board for close to 20 years and there has been no more than I can count on one hand the time that the Board has flat, outright denied a permit. There has almost always been a compromise or some kind of mitigation or some midpoint where everybody went away a little bit happy and a little bit hungry. So I have not seen it be this Board's practice to take such a hard line and act in what appears from this side of the dais to be almost a punitive action for an act that occurred more than 25 years ago when there is not an obvious problem other than, you know, I don't like it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cathy, I would like to address that though. I think one of the things that has happened in recent years, and I have not been on the Board for 20 years, but in recent years we have major, major things going on with water quality. We are losing our wetlands. There are considerations. It's not just that I don't like it. There are many, many scientific reasons we consider these reasons for, so from my perspective it's not just that I don't like. There are many scientific reasons out there that we have to look at these a lot more seriously. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I just want to make a comment, I hear what you are saying. And I think you also know that when these come in, this is the time that we take and look at it and we try to be fair. Like with the deck, saying, okay, you have the deck there. It's nonconforming and when you rebuild it, make it conforming. So this is when we are taking a look at these. I think maybe if you want to make some changes on the survey and then like Bob said, we'll go out and take another look at it. Um, maybe if you want you can draw, you know, show us where, taking out the bump out, then show us where, like what Jim was saying, going straight across, follow that eastern most side, follow that line -- the western most side. So we can look at both and look at the difference of what that will show. And in the mean time we'll check the meets and bounds and add either side of the property lines and shorten the dock. TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim just drew what he was talking about, if you want to take this. He already did the one thing I just asked for. TRUSTEE KING: That would be my suggestion. It's not going to make everybody happy, but. MS. MESIANO: I'll take this up with my client. Board of Trustees 32 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: And put some planting in front of that area. MS. MESIANO: I'll take this up with my client. But I don't see a big problem with this. Removal of the entirety, I do have a problem. I see a problem with it. But what you are proposing, I really do not have. TRUSTEE KING: The one problem I see with complete removal is you'll undermine the existing bulkhead. So you need to do something in front to maintain the integrity of that bulkhead and bring this whole thing back, restore the area in front of it, maybe some plantings, spartina, see if we can get a little wetland going in there. I think it's a vast improvement over what's been there for the last 25 years. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think that's the compromise that Cathy has been talking about. MS. MESIANO: I'm looking for compromise. I'm not looking for an absolute one way or the other. TRUSTEE KING: We are not here trying to bust these people's chops. We try and do things right. If we can correct some mistakes that were made in the past, now is the time to do it. MS. MESIANO: And everybody goes home a little hungry and a little happy. TRUSTEE KING: Very seldom I go home at night happy. MS. MESIANO: Is that why you have those little -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sir? MR. KOKE: My name is Al Koke, I represent the side to the west. My three kids own it. And I would like to give you these surveys. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I'll share it. MR. KOKE: Those surveys were done by Peconic Land Surveyors and if you notice, the bulkhead is on our property and when we first took the house over from my mother back in 2002, as you notice on the date on the top we had it surveyed and we really, it was not much we could do. It was already there. And then of course we received this survey in the mail last week. It's not, you know it's just kind of a sketch. But it doesn't show that. And this is not guaranteed. That is. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to address that. MR. KOKE: We are requesting when they do do this work, they put it all back on their side of the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Cathy, can you show that as well at survey? MS. MESIANO: Yes. MR. KOKE: Rob Herman was supposed to do this tonight. He couldn't make it that's why I'm here. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, we appreciate that. MR. KOKE: After listening to your conversation before, Board of Trustees 33 December 10, 2008 we never had a problem. I think you were down to our property next door where we just had some stuff approved, so you are familiar with the area really well. Until that structure was built, we never had an erosion problem. We probably lost 20 or 30 feet because of it. And, you know, now we are fighting it. And now it's going to cost me probably $30,000, $40,000 to put that shore rap, what was approved by DEC. So I'm just telling you. But, anyway, if you could get them to put it back on so if we were able to sell the house, we would not have a title problem or anything like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Excuse me, would you mind if I ask the Board for the extra copies? MR. KOKE: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response.) I'm make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's go back to number two. I would like to reopen number two under wetland permits, Patricia Moore on behalf of LEO & VlR61NIA ALESSl, as described. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Road East, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. HULSE: Jim was supposed to call the role, but they all agreed. MS. MOORE: Are you ready for me? I didn't want interrupt. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was about to say, just to review what was already on the record, this was found exempt under the LWRP and the CAC voted to support it with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer; the size of the floating dock is cut back so it doesn't exceed one-third across the width of the creek and timber walls removed and replaced with rip-rap. We are specifically talking now about the possible reconfiguration of the dock because of our concern; the dock right now exceeding, with a boat on it, exceeding one-third of the way across the water. So I know you were waiting for your client to get here, so. MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. If I could bring up, Mr. Alessi, why don't you come forward. MS. MOORE: I have no drawings but I only have exhibits of the little boats. What he did is he relocated the Board of Trustees 34 December 10, 2008 float. This is the original as is. And this is the relocated based on your comments. He has the boat, his boat is, one is -- MR. ALESSI: 22. One is a sailboat. MS. MOORE: One is a sailboat and the other is a motor. MR. ALESSI: I indicated the size of the boat. Actually, the Key West, which is the center console, I believe is at least seven-and-a-half feet wide and I couldn't measure it because in the boat yard, it's awkward for me to do that. But I believe it's at least seven-and-a-half feet white. The sailboat is about seven feet wide and, again, that's using Kentucky windage. I'm not cedain about that. If we take, the way it is right now, and it straddles the float, I'm sticking out about two feet, and I could easily get into the center console. The sail boat has the cockpit back here, and although my wife is not classified as being disabled, she is very balky with her two knees and angles and everything else. So we need to get into the cockpit from the rear end of the float. Now, if we take the float and we put it in this position here, and we take either one of these boats, but let's, for argument sake, say the Key West, and I want to position it here because when the wind comes in there it's easier for me to dock the sailboat to the leeward side -- the windward side -- but if I put this boat here, if this is eight feet wide as is and I add another say seven-and-a-half, we still have 15-and-a-half. This way it's only 15 feet. So it's kind of, you know, I guess defeating the purpose of narrowing it. I measured from here to here. So, from here to here, it's about 38 feet. I didn't take a tape, but if you take the graduations of the depth itself, if you take the scale, originally I blew it up double the size. So it's one foot -- one inch equals 15 feet -- and you run it to scale, you'll see it's about 40. Slightly under 40 feet. So I don't think that there is any obstruction here. There is one guy who is at the very tail end of this creek that he could only come in during at least mid-tide because of the mud back here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's here. And this is you here. MR. ALESSI: Yes. And this guy comes in here and very rarely do we see him. That's besides the point. But he can't navigate that because it's so muddy back there. He has to go out in high or mid-tide. So what I'm saying, in effect, if I brought a boat in tail end it's at least 15-and-a-half feet. The way it is now is 15 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How long has this dock been here with the current boats on it? For a couple of seasons at least? I don't need to know exactly, I'm just asking. MS. MOORE: Currently, as it's configured now? Board of Trustees 35 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm getting at, has this guy had a problem with navigation going past these two docks? MR. ALESSI: He never said anything to me. I talk to him all the time and Flaherty, who is right across the way, has never balked about it, to my knowledge. At least not to me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to go out that way it's kind of -- MR. ALESSI: Right. I'll do whatever pleases the Board, but if it really doesn't make any sense and it's going to cost - TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what the applicant has demonstrated here is to reconfigure the dock, putting a boat on the end, the obstruction, the length of the whole structure and boat out into the creek is not much different from what it is right now. If we could condition -- my proposal to the Board is to approve this, conditioning that a boat, any boats that are docked there, will not extend more than two feet seaward of the end of the present dock. It could be that that will satisfy the applicant as well as the Board. MR. ALESSI: Have there been any complaints about it from my neighbors? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not a matter of complaints. It's, again, trying to comply with Town Code. We are not familiar with any complaints. It's just we are trying to comply with the Town Code of maintaining one-third of the way. MR. ALESSI: And I certainly want to comply. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm suggesting here is that it would allow you to keep the configuration as it is with the condition that the stern of the boat or, it doesn't matter, bow or stern of the boat, would not exceed two feet beyond that structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The seaward end of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's only a matter, to require him to turn it, it's only a matter of a couple of feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem as long as it doesn't exceed the one4hird. MS. MOORE: With the boat you have now, it's fine. They are saying, I guess, if you replace the boat and get a bigger one. It has to be a short bow. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem as long as it's not exceeding the one-third. As Dave said, it's our policy, it's our code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just like I said before, when things come in like this, we try and make it conform. Because there are so many things out there that have been there for years and we are trying to make things conform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's very hard to tell from this but it does look like it's approximately -- MR. ALESSI: I took it from half inch scale and blew it up so it would be more visible. Either way it works. Board of Trustees 36 December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Just use the ten scale and multiply the inches by 15. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's a good suggestion. MS. MOORE: Can you live with it? MR. ALESSI: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that would be my recommendation to the Board. My question for the Board, the CAC had also requested a non-turf buffer. I'm looking at the pictures here and it's, it looks like it's natural grass is going down there to that dock area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can recommend to maintain that and not -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's what we said in the field notes, to maintain that. MS. MOORE: Maintain the natural vegetation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response.) MS. MOORE: We want to keep that timber wall. We are not in the process, I mean that would be expensive permit process. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Leo and Virginia Alessi as described with the condition that the, that any vessels docked, tied up to this dock, will not extend more than two feet seaward of the end of the float, and that the non-turf buffer will be, that is currently there, will be maintained. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was it worth your long ride out? MR. ALESSI: I made a miscalculation coming from the city, especially this time of year, from the tunnel it's usually two hours. It took three hours and 38 minutes. But I stopped for gas. Anyway, thank you again. Sorry I was tardy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's okay. It all worked out. MS. MOORE: Did you want to talk while Lori is here -- TRUSTEE KING: We have another application. We'll go to Ingrilli first. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN INGRILLI requests a Wetland Permit to remove an Board of Trustees 37 December 10, 2008 existing irregularly shaped deck, install on filter fabric 105.5' of stone revetment along the toe of the eroding bluff, cover the revetment with 120 cubic yards of sand which shall have a grain size that is equal to or larger than the sand on site. The area with backfill shall then be planted with native plantings such as Cape American Beach Grass and Rosa Rugosa, and to construct a 10x20' timber deck atop the revetment with timber steps constructed to grade. Located: 10375 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. We have all been out there several times. With regard to the timber decking, we asked that could be moved over so it's more than 15 feet away from the property line, and also back into the property. Landward. I'm just looking for CAC comments. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, once again for Mr. Ingrilli. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the new plans were submitted show what we requested? MR. JUST: To be perfectly honest I was not at the last site meeting with the Trustees it was attended by Eugene Berger. He's at the doctor's tonight. But these plans were brought to him this afternoon and they were based directly on what was discussed on site that day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean it's what we discussed, so I don't know if anybody wants to see the plans. TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent, I think. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was found inconsistent, and that was the original review. I think by us moving the existing structure landward brings it into consistency. The LWRP repod from July, 2007, suggests that the assessment of erosion is not significant and the property is not endangered and could be mitigated through the successful establishment of vegetation of the toe of the bluff pursuant to the following policies: Hard shoreline protection structures should only be allowed when property is in danger is and no other alternative will save the structure; minimize loss of life, natural resources from flooding and erosion. And it goes on and on, basically saying that revegetate and no structure. MR. JUST: I think at the time, too, part of the mitigation factor, again, was to remove that deck that was seaward of the toe of the bluff, was actually adjacent to the property line and also relocating the path or fixing up that path so it wouldn't be sedimentation and a lot of run off down to the beach there as well, which was pad of the replacement steps that are in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any comments from the Board of Trustees 38 December 10, 2008 Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, I'm going to say that I think the LWRP has a lot more specifics as far as the precedent that this starts here. It references the Peconic Estuary shoreline which has consistently requested that hardening of the shoreline be reduced. It also makes a point that the LWRP requires that the proposal be elevated for the impact of diversity wave and wind energy on the neighboring parcels. Fudher more the proposed boulders will disrupt the natural erosion forces that nourish the beach. Inspection and evaluation of the parcel leads to the conclusion that changing the grade and adding sand and plantings was the first project to install in order to reduce erosion at the toe of the bank. One of the things we consistently talked about is it being the first of its kind in the area and the aerial that Mark Terry has submitted shows that there is no hardening of the shoreline, aside from the deck that Mr. Ingrilli has on his property. So I'm extremely hesitant to approve this and I agree with the comment that I don't see the need for it in this area. MR. JUST: So I may respond to that. I think the adjacent property as huge steel bulkhead on it, doesn't it? Facing the bay side. Not in the cove there. I think the Board disapproved -- this is not the site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have photos. I didn't have the time to go back and get it. MR. JUST: The other thing, we had gone back and proposed to cover the proposed boulders with sand that would continue to renourish the beach, and as part of the special condition Mr. Ingrilli was willing to replace that sand at any time. I understand your point and the LWRP's point, but this is something that I don't know if it was discussed at the meeting or not. I was not there. But sand will be placed on top it will be equal to or larger than the grain size that is there. It's a situation he could bring sand in at any time and replant at any time. That was Mr. Ingrilli's thoughts on the matter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My understanding that any hardening of the shoreline will change the shoreline. And I know to the south of this proposed property there is no hardening of the shoreline. MR. JUST: If you go next door, around the corner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Northwest, I believe, of Nassau Point Road TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But not south. For quite a distance. There is some way at the end of Nassau Point, but not to the immediate south of this area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm very familiar with this area and Board of Trustees 39 December 10, 2008 there is to the south there is no structure until you get around the other side of the point, and on the other side of the point, that's where it begins structure. To the north of this property is a right-of-way maintained by the town and there has been significant erosion to that property, the town property, and there has been significant erosion from that point all the way to the south, the Ingrilli property as well as the property adjacent to that. Um, the reason that there does not appear to be an erosion problem on the town-owned property is because after each storm, the town comes in and dumps sand and fills it back in. They recently did that and when they did it, they covered up all the beach grass that had been planted there. So I would agree that there is not any structure adjacent to this property on either side. I would disagree that there is not a significant erosion problem, and I think to do a revetment that will be buried and will be vegetated, I feel is an appropriate way of addressing the erosion so as to stem the loss of property to the property owner here. TRUSTEE KING: How big a stone are you going to use here, Glenn? MR. JUST: Initially three 300-500 pound. Which is two-foot high or so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Glenn, do you have a DEC permit? MR. JUST: Yes, but when we modified it for the new version for the Trustees we did not submit it to the DEC. We wanted to see how you folks felt about it. But we submitted it to the DEC for the original proposal of the rock revetment with is replacing the deck in the location that it was in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have seen some literature that would suggest this kind, if you need to harden the shoreline, this would be the way to do it, in terms of, you know, planting your stone at the toe, put the filter fabric on and the sand and the plantings. MR. JUST: It seemed to work very well in other projects we have done throughout Long Island. Each case by case is unique. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, I think I would agree with that if I could see more erosion. When we look at the east side of Nassau Point, we talk about erosion. That's erosion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's really erosion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where we are looking, I consider that the natural erosion on a very moderate level, whereas I don't see this as an emergency erosion problem. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I tend to agree with that. The only thing I'm thinking of. I have had the same thought when we were out there in that regard. I could see this as a preemptive move, you know, and once it got Board of Trustees 40 December 10, 2008 established, maybe really good and prevent any problems should we have a bad -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern with that is then it will go all the way along Nassau Point and we'll lose our natural shoreline. TRUSTEE BERGEN: By the way, when you go just to the north of the town right-of-way there, those properties from that point on are bulkheaded. Not all the way. But there are probably about at least six, seven pieces of property there to the north. Not all the way to the creek but there are about six properties to the north that are bulkheaded. So it's, the bulkheading ceases at the town right-of-way there, which is adjacent to this property. And again, at the town property, that is continual erosion there. The town lost their steps this last year. The town had to completely rebuild them this year and truck in sand at least twice this year. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with what Bob said, it's like a preemptive and I think if you are going to, you know, do something, this is what to do. Do the stone, then cover it so it at least looks natural. And I don't have a problem with it. Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE KING: It's permanently kept covered with sand and planted, I don't have of a huge problem with it, if they intend on keeping it in that condition. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do we stipulate that? TRUSTEE KING: How do you monitor that? How do you enforce it? MR. JUST: Special conditions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do a condition it has to be inspected every other year or something like that. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I mean there is a little bit of a concern it would wash out before it had a chance to establish. MS. TRIMBEL: How about the if it changes hands, if the new people don't want to take care of it. TRUSTEE KING: We can put that on the deed and it gets filed with the county. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a very good point, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What did CAC say on this one? I know you read it. I just don't remember it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application with the following conditions: Mitigate the runoff coming from the area of the dwelling; decking should be constructed using best management practices and no detrimental effects to the neighboring properties. To talk about the runoff, they, when we were out there, Eugene, when he redoes the path he'll put stone at the top of that so it at least filters as it comes down, and that one patch of grass in that area, he's going to make that a non-turf area. So we were Board of Trustees 41 December 10, 2008 concerned with that as well. And I don't know if that part is out of our jurisdiction. MR. JUST: There was a lot of roof runoff generated right from the flat roof at the top of the stairs, with no leaders and gutters on it. And there was an upper deck that is concrete. The water would hit it and it would go right down that patch of sod and down the steps. They want to take the wood steps out, frame it 4x4s and put gravel so it breaks up the energy and also sediments will settle as it hits that, as the water runs down. It was running like a stream, initially. The water just tears right down the path there, in a heavy rain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Are there any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay, for the reasons I stated prior. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of John Ingrilli with the conditions that the sand and the plantings are to be maintained and maybe pictures every other year to be sent to the office to prove that it's -- MS. HULSE: That's hard to enforce. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just say subject to inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. Subject to inspection. To continue to maintain sand and plantings and it's subject to inspection. MS. HULSE: Subject to inspection meaning you could reject what is out there and -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And say that he has to conform to the original project. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are you using open grating on any of this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The I don't know about that. Because on the decking, if they space it like this is spaced here, I think that would be fine. Because sometimes the flow-through grating, if you want to put a chair there or if you are sitting there, it's kind of awkward. It's up to the applicant. If he wants to use the flow-through decking, that's fine. MR. JUST: I'll suggest it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But other than that, the spaces should be at least an eighth-inch between the boards. And I think that's -- what else did we -- that's my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 42 December 10, 2008 (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Dohedy, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay, as to my previous comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And moving the deck over and inland for the reasons of bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. We'll do a role call vote, I guess. Trustee Bergen TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Aye. MS. HULSE: Just to specify, for enforcement purposes, if you go out there some year and inspect it and find it to be inadequate and they don't make the reparations, what happens? They are in violation of the permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. HULSE: So it's clear, they are basically open to inspection annually? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to go back to number one, Costello Marine on behalf of DORIS GALLAGHER CIO BARBARA PENNACHIA, tabled from the beginning of the meeting, we were waiting for Mr. Costello to come. He's not here. We have questions on this. I recommend we table this to the next meeting and request Mr. Costello be present. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 315 8th Avenue #12B New York, NY 10001 December 6, 2008 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town Hall Annex 54375 Ronte 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 DEC - 8 ,~u08 RE: Orient Wharf Company permit application, hearing date 12/10/08. Dear Reader: Enclosed are comments delivered 12/8/08 via Federal Express (Fed Ex) for inclusion in the permit application file. Thank you. The wetland permit for the Orient Wharf Company's proposed project should be rejected for the following reasons: [~ [ ~2 8 ~r - Under Article II SECTION 275-6 - APPLICATION 275-6A (1) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT AND THE SOURCE OF THE AP- PLICANT'S RIGHT TO PERFORM SUCH OPERATIONS(E.G. WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS THE OWNER, LESSEE, LICENSEE, CONTRACTOR, ETC.) The Orient Wharf Company is the owner of the Orient wharf but it does not own the State waters that they propose to build on. In fact, part of the project is slated to be built on the deeded property of an the abutter. (2) A SCHEDULE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES AND A COMPLETION DATE. The applicant has failed to provide the required schedule and completion date for the project as required in the code. (3) THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS. The purpose of the proposed operations is stated as "Re-build existing wharf." The Plan submitted, however, indicates that this is an_expansive modification of the ex- isting structure resulting in a substantial extension into state waters. (6) (8) THE DEPTH TO WHICH REMOVAL OR THE DEPOSIT OF MATERIAL IS PROPOSED THROUGHOUT THE AREA OF OPERATIONS, AND THE PRO- POSED ANGLE OF REPOSE OF ALL SLOPES. The depth to which the removal or deposit of material is proposed throughout the area of operations is not supplied by the applicant. SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP, CREATED NO MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, WITH CONTOURS AT TWO-FOOT INTERVALS, SHOWING ALL WETLANDS WITHIN A 200 FOOT RADIUS OF THE AREA FROM WHICH THE REMOVAL OR IN WHICH THE DEPOS- IT OF MATERIALS IS PROPOSED, OR IN WHICH STRUCTURES ARE TO BE ERECTED, CERTIFIED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR OR REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LICENSED BY THE STSTE OF NEW YORK. SUCH SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP SHALL SHO~ THE SOUNDINGS OF THE AREA IN WHICB OPERATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED. THE HORIZONTAL CONTROL OF SAID SURVEY SHALL BE BASED ON AN APPROVED LOCAL COORDINATE SYSTEM. THE VERTICAL CONTROL FOR ELEVATIONS SHALL BE BASED ON THE UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY DATUM. The applicant fails to meet this requirement. The survey submitted was created nine years ago and updated over five years ago. It does not include the contours at 2' intervals, nor does it indicate all wetlands within a 200'radius of the removal of materials. (11) DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN APPLED FOR, ARE PENDING, AND HAVE BEEN GRANTED. No documentary proof has been provided, save the for the DEC permit am- endment. For the other permits required for this project (DEC underlying permit, DOS, Army Corps of Engineers, Historic Preservation Commission) there is no documentary proof supplied. (12) A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES WILL BE MITI- GATED, INCLUDING EROSION CONTROL, REPLANTING AND RE- STORATION, DESIGNATED POINTS OF ACCESS. ALL PROPOSED OPERATIONS WILL BE CLEARLY DEFINED ON A SURVEY AND DES- CRIBED IN A PROJECT NARRATIVE. No description has been provided regarding mitigation, including erosion control, replanting and restoration and designated points of access. These oper- ations are not clearly defined on the survey submitted, nor are they described in the 2-sentence project description, the only narrative provided in the application. (13) CURRENT PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT AREA SHOWING THE PROPOSED AREA OF OPERATIONS FROM AT LEAST TWO OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. EACH PHOTO SHOULD BE LABELED WITH THE DATE, TIME, AND DIRECTION. THE LOCATION OF THE PHOTOS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE SURVEY, PROJECT PLAN OR PROVIDED ON A SEPARATE SKETCH MAP. The photos submitted by the applicant do not indicate the time they were taken, as required. The location of the photos are not noted on the survey, project plan or a separate sketch map. Please note, also, that the photos were taken at a time of day so as to obscure the town's 18"diameter run offpipe that has been depositing sand in the area of the project for many years. Further, the run-off pipe is not indicated on the plan drawing either. (16) AN ETHICAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AS PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL REQUESTS. The required ethical disclosure statement is missing from the application. (17) A STATEMENT INDICATING THAT SUBMISSION OF FALSE INFOR- MATION WILL RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION AND MAY SUBJECT THE APPLICANT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. (18) The applicant failed to provide a statement indicating that the submission of false information on the application may lead to criminal sanctions. A COMPLETED LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM. We will address this item in a separate section of our comments. SECTION 275-11 - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION STANDARDS C. IN WATER 1. JETTIES AND GROINS; GENERAL RULES (b) ONLY 1N-PLACE REPACEMENT OF EXITING LOW PROFILE JETTIES AND GROINS IS PERMITTED. The application's "re-building" of the wharf is not an "in-place" operation. It pro- vides for the expansion of the wharf 6' to the north and 20' to the south. The ap- plicant's site plan shows previously non-existing rip-rap extending over 20' into New York State water, well beyond "in place" replacement of an existing groin. 2. DOCKS a. STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DOCKS (5) ALL DOCKS INCLUDING ANY VESSEL TIED TO A DOCK SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEAWARD CLEARANCE OF 15' SEAWARD EXTENSION OF ANY PROPERTY LINE FROM ADJACENT PARCELS SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH NEIGHBORS ACCESS TO WATERS .... The proposed project does not meet this criteria, and is, in fact, being built on an abutter's deeded property. b "DOCK LOCATIONS AND LENGTHS (3) PROHIBITED LOCATIONS AND ACTIVITIES (b) MACHINE EXCAVATION IS PROHIBITED IN TIDAL OR FRESH WETLANDS. The application describes use of backhoe and machine dredging prohibited under 275.1 t. d. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DOCK APPLICATIONS. BEFORE ISSU- ING A PERMIT FOR A DOCK STRUCTURE, THE TRUSTEES SHALL CONSIDER WHETHER THE DOCK WILL HAVE ANY HARMFUL EFFECTS. (4) WHETHER THE DOCK WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE USE OR VALUE OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO OR NEAR THE DOCK. The applicant's plan shows the project is being built on an abutter's deeded property and will clearly impair the use and value of their waterfront and significantly negatively impact their riparian rights. (10) WHETHER THE DOCK WILL ADVERSELY EFFECT VIEWS, VIEW- SHEDS AND VISTAS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. The Orient wharf is in the heart of the historic district and is the social hub of community. The proposed project, which is to be built in public waters, not only will add an additional structure blocking the waterfront, but is is to be built with 21 st century materials (pre-formed concrete cylinders) expanding an historic 17t~-I 8t~ century structure. This insensitive use of non-compatible materials will certainly negatively effect the views, viewsheds, and vistas important to the community" (11) "WHETHER THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DOCK WILL CHANGE THE WATERWAY OR THE EN- VIRONMENT AND WHETHER ALTERNATE DESIGN, CONSTRUC- TION, AND LOCATION OF THE DOCK WILL MINIMIZE CUMULA- TIVE IMPACTS" The applicant's plan will change the waterway as a consequence of adding an additional structure into New York State water and by the use of 21st century materials. The applicant did not include any alternate design or construction moralities. 3 DREDGING (c) "ALL DREDGING APPLICATIONS MUST DEMONSTRATE A SPECIFIC LO- CATION FOR THE DEPOSIT OF DREDGING MATERIAL" The application fails to supply the specific location for the deposit of dredging mat- efials, as required. SECTION 275-12 - STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT THE TRUSTEES MAY ADOPT A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT TO PERFORM OPERATIONS APPLIED FOR ONLY IF IT DETERMINES THAT SUCH OPERATIONS DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY: (A) ADVERSELY EFFECT THE WETLANDS OF THE TOWN. The application does not supply any analytical data to make the determination that the wetlands will not be adversely effected. (B) CAUSE DAMAGE FROM EROSION, TURBIDITY OR SILTATION." The application falls to supply any analytical data to make the determination that the project could cause damage from erosion, turbidity, or silting. (D)ADVERSELY EFFECT FISH, SHELLFISH, OR OTHER BENEFICIAL MARINE ORGANISMS, AQUATIC WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION OR THE NATURAL HABITAT THEREOF. The application does not provide any analytical or scientific data to make the deter- mination that fish and wildlife habitats will not be adversely effected. (E) "INCREASE THE DANGER OF FLOOD AND STORM-TIDE DAMAGE." The application does not provide any scientific data to make the determination of whether the project increases the danger of flood and storm-fide damage, but the VE zone designation of the area of the project clearly demonstrates that there is a significant danger of flood and storm damage. (see map) (H) "WEAKEN OR UNDERMINE THE LATERAL SUPPORT OF OTHER LANDS IN THE VICINITY." The applicant does not provide any scientific studies to prove or disprove whether ' the project would weaken or undermine the lateral support of any other lands in the vicinity. "ADVERSELY EFFECT THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF THE WETLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS." The applicant supplies sufficient information on the plan drawings to show that the project would adversely effect aesthetic values in it's planned use of modem concrete culverts to modify an historic structure. tions Of depths have been eslablis~d insurance agent ol call the National Flood Insurance Program at {{)OOJ 638~20 APPROXIMATE SCALE FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SUFFOI'.K COTJNTY, NE~C7 YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS) PANEL 68 OF 1026 ~MM~ NUMBER P~EL MAP NUMBER 36103C0068 G EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 4,1~J8 zONE X zONE X zoNE BOR cOASTAL BASE FLOOD ELEVA~[IONS APPLY ONLY LANDWARD OF O.O NGVD JotNS PANEL 01~ Chapter 275-6A (18) LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM The assessment form completed by the applicants is flawed in that it is incorrect and incomplete in numerous of its responses. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY POLICY 1: FOSTER A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THAT ENHANCES COMMUNITY CHARACTER, PRESERVES OPEN SPACE, MAKES EFFICIENT USE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, MAKES BENEFICIAL USE OF A COASTAL LOCATION, AND MINIMIZES ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT. The answer to this question is NO. The project will not foster community character in that it is proposing to make alterations to an 18t~-I 9t~ century structure using 2 l~t century materials (pre-formed concrete conduit pipes). POLICY 2: PRESERVE HISTORIC RESOURCES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD The answer to this question is NO. The applicant is quite mistaken in responding that this policy is inapplicable. The Orient wharf is located in the heart of the Orient historic district, which has been on the National and State Registers of Historic Places since 1976. The district was recognized by Southold Town's Landmark Preservation Committee within the past five years and has come under its jurisdiction. The whaffis an original 18th century structure (1740) which was extended twice in the early 19th century (1829 and 1848). The whaffproject violates policy 2 in general and in numerous of its eval- uation standards. We cite:2.1 A&B, 2.2 BI&2, & 2.3A2: 2.1 MAXIMIZE PRESERVATION AND RETENTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES A. PRESERVE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE RESOURCE BY PROTECTING HISTORIC MATERIALS AND FEATURES OR BY MAKING REPAIRS USING APPROPRIATE MATERIALS. B. PROVIDE FOR COMPATIBLE USE OR REUSE OF THE HISTORIC RE- SOURCE, WHILE LIMITING AND MINIMIZING INAPPROPRIATE ALTER- ATIONS TO THE RESOURCE. Dismantling 100' of the oldest section of the wharf in order to insert 3 pre-formed concrete conduit pipes 56' long by 91" wide by 55" high is not protecting historic materials and features, using appropriate methods, nor minimizing or limiting inappropriate alterations to an historic resource 2.2 PROTECT AND PRESERVE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES B. IF IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED ON A SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL LWRP 2 RESOURCE, MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS BY: 1. REDESIGNING THE PROJECT 2. REDUCING DIRECT IMPACTS ON THE RESOURCE Neither of these options have been entertained by the applicant. In their DOS/Army Corps of Engineers application, page 2, question 5,they state: "No alternatives have been discussed" (See attached). 2.3 PROTECT AND ENHANCE RESOURCES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TO THE COASTAL CULTURE OF THE LONG ISLAND SOUND. A. PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF HISTORIC MARITIME AREAS 2. PRESERVE MARITIME CHARACTER BY MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE SCALES, INTENSITY OF USE AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. The use of 56' long concrete conduit pipes neither preserves the appropriate scale nor the architectural style of the historic wharf. POLICY 3: ENHANCE VISUAL QUALITY AND PROTECT SCENIC RESOURCES THROUGHOUT THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. The answer to this question is NO. This project is contrary to policy 3, in general and specifically in numerous of it's standards. We cite 3.1 A, D,F,G,I, &J2. 3.1 ENHANCE VISUAL QULAITY AND PROTECT SCENIC RESOURCES THROUGHOUT THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. A. MINIMIZE STRUCTURAL DESIGN COMPONENTS WHICH WOULD BE DISCORDANT WITH EXITING NATURAL SCENIC COMPONENTS AND CHARACTER. The project contains structural design components which are discordant with ex- isting natural scenic components, i.e., three 56' concrete conduit pipes protruding from an historic stone wharf. D. USE APPROPRIATE SITING, SCALES, FORMS, AND MATERIALS TO EN- SURE THAT STRUCTURES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH AND ADD INTER- EST TO EXISTING SCENIC COMPONENTS. Again we cite three 56' protruding concrete conduit pipes as being inappropriate in both scale and materials in this proposal. F. IMPROVE THE VISUAL QUALITY OF THE HAMLET AREAS. G. IMPROVE THE VISUAL QUALITY OF HISTORIC MARITIME AREAS. This project will detract from the visual quality of the hamlet areas, and historic marifme areas because of the design, scale, and materials proposed by the applicants 5. Provide a thorough discussion of alternatives to your proposal. This discussion should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the "no action" alternative and alternative(s) resulting in less disturbance to waters of the United States. For filling projects in waters of the United States, including wetlands, your alternatives discussion should demonstrate that there are no practicable alternatives to your proposed filling and that your project meats with current mitigation policy (i.e. avoidance, minimization and compensation). NO alternatives have been discussed DREDGING PROJECTS Answer the following if your project involves dredging. 1. Indicate the estimated volume of material to be dredged and the depth (below mean Iow water) to which dredging would occur. Would there be overdepth dredging? ~ 75 c.y to -2' ALW 2. You can apply for a ten.year permit for maintenance dredging. If you wish to apply for a ten.year permi~ please provide the number of additional dredging events during the ten-year life of the permit and the amount of material to be removed during future events. n/a 3. Indicate of your drawings the dewataring area (if applicable) and disposal site for the dredged material (except landlfll sites). Submit a sufficient number of photographs of the dewatering and disposal sites as applicable so as to provide a clear indication of existing conditions. For ten-year maintenance dredging permits, indicate the dewateringldisposal sites for future dredging events, if known. ncl se 4. ~)~n~ ~e method of drodging (i.e. clamshell, dragline, etc.) and the expected duration of dredging. Crane with clamshell or backhoe 5. Indicate the physical nature of the material to be dredged (i.e. sand, silt clay, etc.) and provide estimated percentages of the various constituents if available. For beach nourishment projects, grain size analysis data is required. Stone and earthern fill LWRP 3 I. ANTICIPATE AND PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF DYNAMIC LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO EPHEMERAL VISUAL QUALITIES. The applicant has not met this standard. By not submitting any scientific analysis of the effects on the dynamic landscape of the project, it is not known what will happen when a 100' gap is opened in the body of the wharf. J. PROTECT VISUAL QUALITY ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC LANDS, IN- CLUDING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ROUTES, PUBLIC PARKS, AND PUBLIC TRUST LANDS AND WATERS. 2. LIMIT ALTERATIONS OF SHORELINE ELEMENTS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO SCENIC QUALITY. The applicant's project proposes using public trust waters to make the alterations to their private property, which is a significant shoreline element. Further, the applicant has not supplied scientific analyses of whether the project is necessary, whether the project will work, and what effects the project will have on the environment. NATURAL COAST POLICIES POLICY 4: MINIMIZE LOSS OF LIFE, STRUCTURES, AND NATURAL RESOURCES FROM FLOODING AND EROSION. The answer to this question is NO. The applicant's answer of 'not applicable' is baffling, as this is essentially a groin project that has everything to do with flooding and erosion control, and further, this project in located in a coastal erosion hazard area. This project is also in a VE flood zone, according to FEMA's map #36103C0068 O (included). 4.2 PROTECT AND RESTORE NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES A. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED IN NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURE AREAS, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED UNDER THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF 6 NYCRR 505.8. The project is located in a coastline area which is categorized as a natural protective feature area, and as such development is not allowed in this zone. POLICY 5: PROTECT AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND SUPPY IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. The answer to this question is NO. This project is contrary to policy 5, in general, and specifically in some of its standards. We cite: 5.3C and 5.5A. 5.3 PROTECT AND ENHANCE QUALITY OF COASTAL WATERS C. PROTECT WATER QUALITY OF COASTAL WATERS FROM LWRP4 ADVERSE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION, FILL, DREDGING, AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL. The application is silent on the dewatering method of the spoil and how 'stockpiling' it on site and dewatering it, as opposed to containing it and dewatering it, would not lead to contam'mation of coastal waters if the'stockpile' was on the seaward side of the pro- posed opening of the wharf. Further, there is no specific location cited as to where the spoil will be taken after dewatering it, as required by Town code. 5.5 PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE QUALITY OF POTABLE WATER. A~ PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF POTABLE WATERS BY LIMITING DISCHARGES OF POLLUTANTS TO MAINTAIN WATER ACCORD- lNG TO WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION, AND LIMITING, DISCOURAGING OR PROHIBITING LAND USE PRACTICES THAT ARE LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE TO CONTRAVENTION OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS FOR POT- ABLE WATER SUPPLIES. The vagueness in the applicant's description of the methodology of dewatering spoils that are"stoekpiled" as opposed to contained on site could effect the abutter's groundwater if the "stockpiling" is done landward of the proposed opening in the wharf. POLICY 6: PROTECT AND RESTORE THE QUALITY AND FUNCTION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ECOSYSTEM. The answer to the question is UNKNOWN. The project is in an area designated as a 'Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat' (Reach 5) and yet the applicant provides no qualified assessment of whether ecosystems will be effected, impaired, destroyed or mitigated in the course of this project or restored at the conclusion of it. The project is contrary to policy 6, in general and specifically to numerous of its standards. We cite 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4. 6.1 PROTECT AND RESTORE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY THROUGH OUT THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. 6.2 PROTECT AND RESTORE SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS. 6.3 PROTECT AND RESTORE TIDAL AND FRESHWATER WET- LANDS. 6.4 PROTECT VULNERABLE FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANT SPE- C/ES, AND RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES. The application does not address any of these evaluation criteria because no scientific studies of these issues was undertaken in regard to the project. The applicant says there "should be no destruction of designated habitat ...... "and it "should have no negative impact on any vulnerable fish, wildlife or plant species." But will it7 LWRP5 POLICY 8: MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FROM SOLID WASTE AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND WASTES. The answer to the question is NO. The application denies that the project involves haz- ardous substances or waste in the first part of the sentence answering this question and in the second part says that debris will be disposed of. (see enclosed) The applicant appears not to know that dredged spoils requiring dewatering are hazardous materials. The dredged spoils involved in this project are contaminated and must be dewatered and disposed of properly. Yet the application is vague as to the method of dewatering, the location and method of storing ("stockpiling') and the specific disposal site of the hazardous material. PUBLIC COAST POLICIES POLICY 9: PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO, AND RECREATIONAL USE OF COASTAL WATERS, PUBLIC LANDS, AND PUBLIC RESOURCES OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. The answer to this question is NO. The applicant has posted "Private" and "No Trespassing" signs on the property for years. The applicant has demonstrated his intention to enforce the public access restriction as evidenced by the attached letter from his attorney. 9.3E PRIVATE USES, STRUCTURES, OR FACILITIES ON UNDERWATER LANDS ARE LIMITED TO THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE OWN- ERSHIP OF UNDERWATER LANDS OR RIPARIAN INTEREST HAS BEEN LEGALLY VALIDATED EITHER THROUGH PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF THE UNDERWATER LANDS OR ADJACENT RIPARIAN PARCEL, OR BY ASSIGNMENT OF RIPARIAN IN- TEREST BY THE RIPARIAN OWNER. The applicant is proposing to put a structure on underwater lands adjacent to its wharf. The applicant has failed to provide "proof of ownership" of the underwater lands or ad- jacent riparian parcel or assignmem of riparian interest by the riparian owner. WORKING COAST POLICIES POLICY 11: PROVIDE SUSTAINABLE USE OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES IN LONG ISLAND SOUND, THE PECONIC ESTUARY, AND TOWN WATERS. The answer to this question is UNKNOWN. The applicant offers no qualified analytical or scientific data to support a claim that "The project should have no impacts upon _.daai~nated habitat h bit t v 1 es or im airment of the viabil/_/t~ have no negative impact on any vulnerable lis ,wi d i e-6-~ plant species, s Atmchadd~mflshc~sW,c~s~m~ felt that this project is consistent with this po1 icy. Policy 7. Protect and improv.e, ah' quality in the Tows of Southold. See LWRP Section m - Palieies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. · ~YesRNof--flxNotAppilcable The project will have no impact on~It is felt that A~ach additional sheets ifncc~a~y -- . ~ uw,~r oec~on rtl - Pohki~; Pnges 34 through 3~ for evnlnntion o4terh~ [~Yes ~-] No ~'~ Not Appli~ble The project does not involve hazardous substances or waste. The pr-----~Ject does involve the disposal o so 1 was e e r~s removed from existin wharf) which will be disposed of. It is t th' o ct is cons tnt with this olic . PUBLIC COAST POLIC~.~ ui ine lo~n of No~thol . r--- criteria, d. See LW'RP Section HI - Polieies; Pages 38 through 46 for evainatio~ [~ Y _e~'-] No[-~ NotAppHcable The project site currently provides public access to and recreation use of coastal waters~__~ublic lands and public resources of the Town of Southold. There shall be no interuption of this access. It is felt that thisr~_~q~ect is consistent with this lic. AUach additional shes if necess~y WORKING COAST POUC~ suitable locations. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable (631) 76,S~85 ~.~,~ (6,ti) 7~4s~ October 24, 2000 New Yo.rk: New York !DD~! ...... against the of~endtn~ party. LWRP6 commercial or recreational use of the Town of Southold's finfisn, shellfish, crustaceans, or marine plants." ~ectftfll~su/~m. itted~, · , Y 11,958 12/8/08