Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/21/2009 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fau~ (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, January 21, 2009 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 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2009 ou Mid Town Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 19, 2008, and December 10, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: For those that don't know me, my name is Jim King, I have been reelected as chairman of this Board. It's an honor to serve. I thank you guys for your support. I think. I would like introduce the rest of the Trustees. To my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; next to me is Jill Doherty. She is the vice-chairman; myself; Lauren Standish is our office manager. Bob Ghosio is the last Trustee. Usually we have a legal advisor with us tonight. Neither one of them could make it, so we are without legal aid. Wayne Galante is here keeping track of what everybody says. So if you have any comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record. Board of Trustees 2 January 21, 2009 We need to set the date for the next field inspection. February 4, eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting, February 18, at six o'clock with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) For those of you not familiar with our practice, usually, from the past quite a few years we have had our field inspections on Wednesday. Then the following Wednesday we had our regular meeting. What happened, with the LWRP reviews, we were kind of lagging behind. And we can't move on a project without the LWRP determination. So this year what we are trying to do, we have our field inspections on a Wednesday, but two weeks later, not the next Wednesday but the Wednesday after, we'll have our meetings. That is why you see this change in the schedule. That gives the LWRP coordinator a little more time to do his review, and for this month it seemed to work out. So there is a little change there in the procedures. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, do you want to set a field inspection for Fishers Island while we are setting field inspections or do you want to hold on that? TRUSTEE KING: We can try for the 31 st of January. Fishers Island is kind of tough getting there in the wintertime because of the weather. We go by boat. But if you want to try for the 31 st of this month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I think that's a good idea. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: So we'll set Fishers Island, hopefully for the 31 st. Do we have anything on the minutes for November and December? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read them both and I don't have any changes. On December there was a couple of names, minor. TRUSTEE KING: I have some minor changes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can give them to Lauren. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had read them and submitted my changes to Lauren already. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any changes for November. I have some changes for December. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of November 19, 2008, and the minutes of December 10, 2008. Board of Trustees 3 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December, 2008. A check for $12,108.93 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. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 21,2009, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are listed here as follows: David Berwald - SCTM#22-2-3 Douglas Tikkanen- SCTM#69-3-12 Gabriel Scibelli - SCTM#90-2-15 John and Joy Gallagher - SCTM#37-5-4 David Wilmerding - SCTM#9-9-3.4 Grace Burr Hawkins - SCTM#10-4-10 Paolo and Jean Blower - SCTM#58-1-3 Pebble Beach Lot Owners Association - SCTM#21-5-10 Fishers Island Development Corp. Christopher Pla - SCTM#118-1-2 Joseph and Heidi Battaglia - SCTM~:)4-3-3 Pine Neck Holdings LLC - SCTM#70-5-40 Ronald Massab - SCTM#123-8-22.4 Mary R. Raynor- SCTM#116-4-21 Mark Baxter - SCTM#78-7-5.6 Ted Assante, John Decicco and Ralph Parisi - SCTM#51-1-4 Mary Burnham - SCTM#10-3-4.1 Eric and Paula Nadelstem - SCTM#71-1-18 TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Resolutions and administrative permits, Board of Trustees 4 January 21, 2009 do you want to take the first one, Peg? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on behalf of JOSEPH MELCHIONE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a retaining wall landward of the existing dwelling with roof over; remove existing concrete driveway and add new drywells; install screen roof and wall enclosure on existing deck; re-roof, re-side and make repairs or rebuild existing 7.5'x13.5' shed. Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. I went out and looked at this. We had previously permitted a dock and also rebuilding of the bulkhead. This is most all landward, actually. This is the driveway that will now be pervious. The wall, I believe, on the left, is remaining, while the wall on the right is coming down. And there is going to be a bit of an overhang there. But again, it's all landward. The shed is going to be repaired inplace. Just looking through my notes. And there is also a patio. This is the dock. It was permitted. The bulkhead and buffer that we permitted prior to this. And this deck is going to have an overhang over it. All, again, landward. Are there any questions from the Board? (No response.) I had no problems with this. Again, it's all landward, all minor. If there are no questions from the Board, I'll make a motion to approve the administrative permit for the above construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Ken Robbins on behalf of R. POLLY LEIDER requests an Administrative Permit to install a split-rail fence on the property with chicken wire along the bottom. Located: 1055 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. I looked at this. It's just what it says. It's a split-rail fence. Some of it is in our jurisdiction. Most of it is out of our jurisdiction. And they have a couple, two small dogs they just want to keep in their own backyard. So I didn't have a problem with this. It's very minor. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, application for extensions, transfers and amendments. Number one, JOSEPH & HEIDI BATTAGLIA request a Transfer of Permit #64-3-3 for the existing dock as Board of Trustees 5 January 21, 2009 issued on January 28, 1993. Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. We all looked at this. It's a rather large dock there that was permitted. The only thing I would request in the transfer is when this dock is to be rebuilt that it conforms to the current code. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to approve the transfer with the condition that when it's to be rebuilt that it's rebuilt to the current code. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have number two. PREM CHATPAR & THERESA PRENDERGAST request an Amendment to Permit fl4382 to install vinyl sheathing along the landward side of approximately 188' of existing bulkhead. Located: 580 Midway Road, Southold. I went out and looked at this, and they are installing vinyl sheathing behind the old sheathing, so there is no disruption to the waters or to the wetlands. The only thing I was suggesting is they add a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the length of this bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Didn't we want to go 25? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. That was a 25-foot non-turf buffer. Thank you. My understanding is the owners called the office and said they were agreeable to that. Are there any questions from any Board members on this one? TRUSTEE KING: She evidently agreed to a buffer. She thought there was a 25-foot buffer there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When I went out to inspect this, to be honest, it was snow covered. The property was completely snow covered, so as long as there is a 25-foot non-turf buffer there as a condition that we put in, maintain the 25. TRUSTEE KING: Maintain the buffer that is there. If it's 25, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So with that, I make a motion to approve this application for an amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we go to the next one, I want to go back to JOSEPH BATTAGLIA. It was found inconsistent with LWRP. By putting the condition on that it, when it gets rebuilt that it comes into conformity, it will make it consistent. I forgot to mention that. We can go to number three now. MS. MOORE: Just a point. This is a transfer. LWRP doesn't apply to transfers. I'm not aware of the Board of Trustees 6 January 21, 2009 legislative authority on transfers. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm looking at the notes here. The LWRP came in. TRUSTEE KING: It might have been a typographical error here. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number throe, JOHN & JOY GALLAGHER request an Amendment to Permit #5745 to position the 6'x20' floating dock in a "T" position off the existing fixed dock. Located: 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. This is one that was approved back in 2006 in straight configuration. They are asking to move it to a "T" configuration for better navigation to other docks in the area. We all went out and looked at it. No problem. I would make a motion to approve the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, BENJAMIN & JOCELYN SUGLIA request an Amendment to Permit #6295 to include the deck stairs. Located: 4639 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. This was a project that we approved back in 2006 and when they came in for final inspection, I went out there and I noticed that their contractor had installed stairs that wero not originally on the plans, so were not part of the approved process. So they are now coming in to amend the permit to include the stairs off the deck on the water side of the house. And they wero three steps down, so they wero very minor stairs. So I would make a motion to approve this amendment to permit #6295. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number five, MICHAEL BARTOS & JEANNE SWEAT BARTOS request an Amendment to Permit #4950 to include the existing slate patio, existing shed, rebuild the existing wood steps and replace with stone, repair the existing bulkhead with sheathing and fill voids with existing fill. Located: 1820 Mill Lane, Peconic. I'm familiar with this one. This was a violation. The violation has been taken care of. It's going to be an eight-foot, non-turf buffer along the bulkhead, the entiro length of the bulkhead. And it will be planted with Rosa Rugosa, Montauk Daisies, and they'll use two-inch beach stone in the buffer with plantings. I know another thing We wanted to see done was on the, I guess would be the southeast side of the property, there was some debris over the property line on to county property. We want to see that cleaned up and let that area rovegetate. Board of Trustees 7 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, as I recall, they had filled in past their property line with debris and actually extended it into the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: Anything outside the property line should be cleaned up and straightened out. I think I would like to see all this done by the 1st of May. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fair. TRUSTEE KING: Fair enough. So that would be my motion. Put a non-turf buffer, clean up of the property to the southeast. I think that covers it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anything that could be done about that little patio area? We were concerned about the drainage. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a lot of concern about that. It was there before. And they replaced wood with stone. I think the size of the buffer that we imposed across the whole length of the property takes care of more than the little bit that is going to go there. So that would be my motion. Motion to approve with those conditions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Timeline to May 1st, it should be done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: North Fork Permits on behalf of EVE SEBER requests an Amendment to Permit #6805 to remove two trees adjacent to the dwelling. Located: 3025 Pine Neck Road, Southold. We had looked at this previously. It's a small house that is being renovated with the second floor and decking. And originally we had hoped to save some of the larger trees. They were either going to work a deck around one of the trees. Unfortunately we have a tree landscape service that is recommending that two of the larger trees we had hoped to save, one is cracking the foundation, and the other one has been found to be dead and hollowed out all the way through. So they are coming back to us simply to get the permission to take those two trees down. I went and looked at this yesterday and saw the property and have no problem with the amendment. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I would just like to take a second, folks, to recognize Don Wilder who just walked in. He's with the CAC. They go out and do inspections and give us their recommendations on these projects. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, PAULA DIDONATO & JUDY TEEVAN request an Amendment to Permit ~6705 to remove Board of Trustees 8 January 21, 2009 the condition requiring the removal of the existing Town drain pipe from the bulkhead. Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. This is a situation where we approved an application but we did put a condition on it that a drain pipe that was going through the bulkhead be removed. In an effort to make that happen, we have found that we are not able to do that in as timely a fashion as would be fair to the homeowners, so it seems a little unfair to have that condition so they would not be able to do their work. So upon reconsideration, I think that we need to make that amendment so they can go ahead and get their bulkhead fixed and then if we can deal with the drainage issue in the future, between the town and the DEC, we can deal with it at that time. So I would make a motion to approve this amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, nay.) TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to vote no on this. This was a subdivision that was done in the '60s and when they designed the road system, they put three drains from the road right into the creek. And the worse source of pollution today and water quality is road runoff. And this is very difficult for me. I agree, I don't see how we could hold the property owner liable for this. We really don't want to hold her up, but I just in good conscience can't vote for it. It's contrary to the LWRP or the policies, policy 5.1-b which addresses storm water runoff. It's just a very difficult situation for me because I have tried all the time I been on the Board of Trustees now, 13 years, I have worked very hard trying to improve water quality by getting some road runoff projects done. It's just very difficult. It's expensive, and with the economic climate today you are not going to see a lot of projects done, I believe, unless some federal aid comes down the road. That's my reason for voting no against this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In that vein, I would say, the rest of the Board agrees, it's just that it doesn't seem fair, because we can't seem to make it happen. There have been lots of discussions on the road runoff situation and it was suggested that we put a filtration system in there, which would seem to be the best way to handle it. The problem is it's very, very costly and there is no budget for it, and the DEC has not yet made a decision as to whether or not they would allow us to do it to begin with. So, what Jim is saying is right and I think pretty much the whole Board agrees with it. It's just not a whole lot we can do about it at the moment. TRUSTEE KING: This pipe, by the way, this same pipe Board of Trustees 9 January 21, 2009 through the bulkhead was part of the permit process for the DEC. This was also a special condition to block it off, and they have modified their permit to allow it to continue. That's the story on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Amend Resolution dated May 21, 2008: LORRAINE WENDT requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dock structure and five pilings completely. Construct inplace a 3x16' ramp onto a 3x31' fixed dock with a 3x12' seasonal wooden ramp onto a 8x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two six-inch diameter anchor pilings. Provide electdc service, three lights and water service at dock. Located: 980 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. This, we have gone back and forth. It's been a dock that was built without a permit and we are trying to get it into conformity. And the amendment is to add the three lights, the water and electric. Two of the lights would be on the landward end of the dock, one at the seaward end of the dock, and to conform with the code as far as when they can be lit and where it can shine and everything. So I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did we want to give a time limit under which this work was to be completed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Sorry. We did give a time limit on -- thank you, Dave. I forgot about that (perusing.) TRUSTEE KING: This has been going on, I believe, since last March. It was a 120-day time pedod from DEC to remove everything and get it where it belongs. I think we had a 90-day time limit after that. It's all been way, way overdue. It's been very problematic. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She had 90 days from September 30. So I think that was the last 90 days that we gave her. I don't know if we want -- I guess the weather being what it is. TRUSTEE KING: I would say 90 days. Stipulate if this is not done in 90 days, she will get another violation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So 90 days from today. She already knows about the 90 days. I've told her. So I think we can do it from today. I told her she could start taking it down because she already has the permit for that. I don't know what she has done or not done. TRUSTEE KING: This has been going on long enough. MS. STANDISH: What's that again? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Two lights on the landward end of the dock and one at the seaward end of the dock as long as it conforms to the current code as it applies when it can be lit and where it can shine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And all work to be done within 90 days. That's the motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 10 January 21, 2009 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I apologize, everybody. We have a bunch of postponements. I hope nobody has been sitting here. Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, we have the following postponements: Number two, MBB Architects on behalf of MARYBURNHAM requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story addition to the existing dwelling, new deck and new one-story fully detached garage. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number three, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of DAVID WlLMERDING requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 5x46' fixed dock over an existing concrete dilapidated ramp onto an existing fixed dock and repair as necessary portions of the existing fixed dock. Located: Private Road off of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, has been postpone_d. Number four, Patricia C. 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, has been postponed. Number five, 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 culverts 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 read and curbing. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient, has been postponed. Under Wetland Permits, number 16, Costello Marine on behalf of MICHAEL SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to remove 163' of existing wooden boardwalk to allow for the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead. Reconstruct 172' of existing bulkhead by resheathing landward side of bulkhead with "Everlast" 2.1 vinyl sheathing. Install new 1"x6' tie rod ends welded into existing backing system tie rods. Reinstall wooden boardwalk inplace after bulkhead reconstruction is Board of Trustees 11 January 21, 2009 completed. Construct an 8' extension to existing 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 17, 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 18, En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to remove an existing accessory dwelling structure and attached deck, asphalt driveway and leaching pool, and construct a one-story detached garage, pervious gravel driveway extension and install drywell to capture and recharge roof runoff. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number 19, Patricia Moore on behalf of GRACE BURR HAWKINS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and sanitary system. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number 20, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to reclaim and repave East End Road, which is a private road extending from Oriental Avenue eastwardly approximately 4.5 miles to the east of the island. The plan calls for reclaiming the existing pavement to create a sub base, replacing old culverts with new, larger pipes, grading and repaving, with two courses of bituminous concrete. Existing unpaved storm water leak offs will be improved with rip-rep in areas not adjacent to freshwater wetlands and stone trenches and landscaped swales designed to accommodate runoff from a design storm will be installed in areas Ioamed and seeded. In addition, proposed construction of an 8' wide paved or boardwalk path to follow the road alignment for an approximate length of 3.25 miles. Design plans proposed a corridor approximately 12' wide be cleared, topsoil removed, processed gravel base installed and a final two-inch pavement course of bituminous concrete. Any disturbed areas will be Ioamed and seeded. In areas where the path crosses freshwater wetlands, an elevated boardwalk with open grating is Board of Trustees 12 January 21, 2009 proposed. Located: Fishers Island, has been postponed. Those are all postponements. We will not be addressing those tonight. I hope no one has been sitting here waiting. Again, I apologize. I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing and go into our public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: These are our public hearings. Like I said before, if you have any comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself, and keep your comments brief, if possible. It makes life a lot easier for us and for Wayne. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, Costello Marine on behalf DORIS GALLAGHER C/O 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 (2 to 5-ton) rock revetment. Regrade any disturbed areas reusing excavated materials and revegetate materials. Located: 14347 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: George Costello Sr., representing the applicant. I believe there is a little confusion on my access to this job. On my drawing it's saying by water using barge and through the applicant's property. I'm not going through the applicant's property. TRUSTEE KING: Don't see how you can. MR. COSTELLO: Depending on what time of year I actually attempt to do this job, it's either going to be barge, if it's in July. If it's in the winter it's going to be down, I think it's Duck Pond Lane, Duck Pond Road, down the road. What I normally do is get hold of Pete Harris, take pictures at the end of the road, meet him on site and give him a $5,000 bond, then we go down the beach at high tide, basically is my approach. Again, depending on what time of year I attempt this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Just some notations before we begin. CAC did look at this and they resolved to support the application with the condition the plans are stamped by an engineer. It was reviewed under the LWRP and it was found inconsistent in December of 2008 because of hardening of the shoreline. Just bear with me here. (Perusing.) The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the structure. And also he has written down here the toe of the bluff is exemplary of Iongterm erosion Board of Trustees 13 January 21, 2009 conditions, which are a slow process. It's estimated that the toe of the bluff is accreting, which contributes to the natural coast process of applying sand to the down ddft beaches allowing the shoreline to come into equilibrium. Recommending best management practices be used if this is something that is approved by the Trustees. So that's, that was the view of the LWRP coordinator. MR. COSTELLO: I didn't understand the last couple of words. What kind of practice? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Best management practices are utilized in the construction, if it is to be approved. MR. COSTELLO: Got it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To help mitigate any possible further damage dudng the construction process. TRUSTEE KING: Is the property to the east of that bulkhead, George? MR. COSTELLO: Not the next one. That's Keebler (sic). The next one to the east is bulkheaded. TRUSTEE KING: To the west, I believe is O'Mara. MR. COSTELLO: To the west is O'Mara. He went to battle with the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a long -- they originally applied for a rock revetment. I think we approved that, then it went to DEC and it was knocked down to two rows of stone. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it was a full blown revetment and DEC modified it. TRUSTEE KING: I think they came in and we amended the permit to conform to the DEC requirements. MR. COSTELLO: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: So this is kind of a piece of property between hardened structures already. MR. COSTELLO: Correct. This particular lot and that particular house has been moved back once. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Really? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I think somewhere around 40 years ago it was moved back. If you would look, if you are going to imagine moving out ten feet from the bluff, that was the position of the odginal house. That particular house is still there, but it's moved back. I don't know what the distance, I don't have a survey but I think it's moved back 40, 50 feet from the bluff now. And that was the original vista. Gallagher owned it. So instead of moving it again, we are applying for a rock revetment. A modified version. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I noticed on the plans here, you also have a proposed removable seasonal stairway over the rock revetment at the bottom, but I didn't see that in the description as I read it. MR. COSTELLO: Position the stairway to the beach as needed. On the description. Proposed. TRUSTEE KING: Any plans to revegetate the bluff at all? Board of Trustees 14 January 21, 2009 MR. COSTELLO: Yes, beach grass only. TRUSTEE KING: Because that needs something. MR. COSTELLO: That's the only thing that will stay there. Anything else is just a waste of money. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Besides the question, I had the question, again, it must have been an error on our part, it was not included in the description as I read it, so I want to make sure we include it in what we approve here, the proposed three-foot wide removable seasonal stairway. You have it depicted here with nine risers? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have pictures from the last one? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. I don't always catch that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that has any comments pedaining to this application? (No response.) If not, are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you addressing the LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I stated it's listed as inconsistent under LWRP because of the hardening of the shoreline and also there seems to be the feeling, I'm paraphrasing here, that there would be a natural movement of sand that would occur without this. And then he was concerned about best management practices being utilized during the construction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was the recommendation to try revegetating first? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope. Just says the recommendation, best management practices to maximize the capabilities of the natural protective feature of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Have you been to DEC yet with this, George? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. We basically copied O'Mara's permit and that's what we applied for and that's what we received from DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Good to go with them? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So they don't have to come in for an amendment. MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve Costello Marine on behalf of Gallagher and Pennachia, 14347 Oregon Road, with the stipulations as follows: Number one, there will be revegetation of the bluff and the disturbed area with beach grass. That we Board of Trustees 15 January 21, 2009 are including in this the proposed three-foot wide removable seasonal stairwell section as depicted on the plans dated December 12, 2008, on page five. And that if access is done via a public roadway, that permission will be granted by the Highway Department and you'll leave a bond, as you described, with the Highway Department for that work. If not, you'll be coming in by sea to do this project. MR. COSTELLO: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with the vegetation being added and best management practices being utilized during the construction of this, I'll find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I also think, Dave, they are showing pretty severe erosion, too, because they had to move the house once. I think that's something we have to consider also. The house has already been moved once. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wetland permits, number one. MARY R. RAYNOR requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing wood bulkhead and wood retaining wail as exists, utilizing PVC bulkheading. Located: 575 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. This was found to be exempt from LWRP because it's replacing inplace, and the CAC tabled the application; recommended comprehensive engineering plan for the mouth of the creek. Currently, the mouth of the creek is in the process of getting applications to be dredged and we talked about maybe changing a little bit the bulkheading here. Are the Raynor's here tonight? (No response.) We have several pictures here that we have been looking at. And we have been to the site. What's happening is the creek keeps getting filled in and we are almost wondering if that jetty should be extended a little. TRUSTEE KING: I wish they were here. I wonder where they are with the DEC. I know DEC wanted to take a hard look at this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I did call the Raynor's and left a message asking them to be here so we can discuss this further. I'm almost inclined to table it to so we can discuss it with them. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a good idea. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What in particular is the issue that we Board of Trustees 16 January 21, 2009 have here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Different design, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. CAC and also LWRP coordinator has recommended we maybe take a different look at the design of this. The LWRP coordinator felt it should be more equal to the other side, which means that we should extend Mr. Raynor's side a little bit. And that would help with the flow of sand. But, I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you say "equal to the other side," I'm not sure, are you talking about the structure, the bulkhead, should be seaward of equal length? I guess I need to know what you mean by it needs to be equal on the other side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Scott Hilary, basically, he didn't say you have to go out to be equal but maybe extend Raynor's a little further. He feels that will help with the flow and maybe not fill in the inlet as fast. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The consideration was if this activity is approved, that during that time of activity there are other changes that the channel will benefit, so do you go ahead and approve this or do you wait until that discussion can be had. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem tabling. My concern is twofold. First off, the littoral drift there is significant in that it runs from west to east. This is a jetty/groin that is to the east of the inlet. To extend it in some way is just going to encourage the build up of sand there, which will encourage the fill in of the channel. It's actually functioning as a jetty for the inlet, it's On the wrong side of this inlet. So I would not be in favor, first off, of extending or increasing, extending this jetty because it would then affect the inlet. Second, just to understand, if there is going to be a change in this bulkhead, it will stop the permitting process for the dredging and it will have to start all over again because those permits have been applied for with the bulkheads as currently in place with both the DEC and the Army Corps. So I just think the Board needs to understand if they do want to reconflgure this bulkhead, it will stop the dredging permit process in its tracks. And that's, if that's what the Board wants to do, that's okay. I'm just saying that's a consequence of that decision there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it possible the dredging, if it is to happen, it can then refill very quickly and therefore the process of dredging is sort of null and void? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a difficult question to answer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What I'm saying, as a consideration of tabling it in order to possibly discuss alternatives. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The tabling of this for a month is not going to upset the dredging applications that are in. Board of Trustees 17 January 21, 2009 I'm just saying if we change the configuration of that bulkhead in some way, it will require the change of the permits for the dredging, and this is something that these, the permits for the dredging were applied for, excuse me, went before the dredge screening committee a year-and-a-half ago and so this is a process that has been going on for about two years now, that the residents in there desperately would like to see happen. That creek is environmentally closing up and I would just not want to make a decision here that would hold up the dredging for possibly another year or two years, if they have to go through an entire new application process. TRUSTEE KING: Dave, take a look at this. This is my concern right here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When I reviewed this, I didn't have a problem with this. TRUSTEE KING: This is one of my concerns, this jetty. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The inlet is over here. TRUSTEE KING: I can't find it in the picture. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The inlet is over more. It's right here. (indicating). It's right here. That's it. TRUSTEE KING: That's this part here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. This is this bulkhead and goes here. The inlet is here. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at something different. That's this one here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe so. TRUSTEE KING: That won't be touched then because it's not on the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I mean a little bit of it is. But this is theirs. Remember, they came in and the Raynor's gave them permission to replace that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, if we are not causing any change to the bulkheads that are going on out, that's fine. I thought I heard people say, no, we need to look at the re-engineering possibly of this inlet itself. That would mean changing those bulkheads around. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't have a problem when I first looked at this. The reason I'm saying table this is that was brought up to CAC and LWRP. I don't have a problem if the Board wants to move forward. TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't have a profile showing this part of the bulkhead. It looks like it goes down hill here. This might be advantageous to make that more of a groin than a bulkhead to allow some more flow there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make it more Iow profile. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I have no objection to table it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think it's worth a discussion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ail right, do you want to table it to discuss it with the Raynor's and talk to them about it? Board of Trustees 18 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: I think so. And see where they are with the DEC on this. Because I hate for us to do something then they go to another agency and it's all changed, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: It used to be a I.ittle easier when we did the joint inspections, but they are not being done anymore. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion we table this so we can speak to the applicant about it and just inform them of what has been discussed, then they can make their decision how they want to proceed. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, RONALD MASSAB requests a Wetland Permit to maintain the existing catwalk, ramp and floating dock. Located: 3266 Park Avenue, Mattituck. The LWRP review is inconsistent, and portions of it read, the existing docking facility is comprised of three 6x20' sections of floating dock pursuant to 275-11. If any part of a residential dock structure includes a float, the float shall be designed so that it is no longer than six foot wide and 20 feet long. Furthermore, during site inspection of the subject docking facility it was observed a portion of the floating dock was sitting on the bottom land. No part of the floating dock will contact the bottom land during normal Iow tide pursuant to 275-11. We had quite a bit of discussion with this with Scott Hilary, whose comments I just read. And also I believe, Jim, you also had some comments on this, because you had looked at it. TRUSTEE KING: It's difficult. It's been there for so many years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, this is pre-existing. TRUSTEE KING: See, what they have done, they have the two 6x20 floats going perpendicular to the shoreline to get out into the deeper water, where it would be better if the fixed catwalk was extended with a ramp down to a single 6x20. They have the same thing but they do away with the two floats sitting on the bottom. Which would help. But, I don't see a measurement on the length either. There is a wood walkway from the house to the catwalk. Do we have a profile or anything like that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't you ask if there is anyone here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here tonight? MR. MASSAB: Yes, Ronald Massab. TRUSTEE KING: What's the length of the catwalk itself? Board of Trustees 19 January 21, 2009 MR. MASSAB: I believe it's 75 feet. TRUSTEE KING: 75. You are sure? MR. MASSAB: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And the wooden catwalk, walkway from the deck to the catwalk? MR. MASSAB: Is 18 to 20 feet. I tried to measure it in the snow. TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to try and scale some of this off here. MR. MASSAB: I believe with the scale is 144 feet from the deck to the end of the two 20-foot floats. The straight verticals. TRUSTEE KING: You are saying the catwalk itself is 75? MR. MASSAB: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And that makes the walkway 60 feet from the steps of the house, to the catwalk is 60 feet. MR. MASSAB: There is a ramp going up. It's not 60 feet to the walkway. TRUSTEE KING: So you have a ramp going up from the walkway up. MR, MASSAB: I think that's ten feet. TRUSTEE KING: I wish we had a profile drawing. You don't know how long the ramp is? MR, MASSAB: The ramp is ten feet going up. TRUSTEE KING: Ten feet. So that makes about 45 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is another float here. This is two floats. TRUSTEE KING: Wait a minute. This doesn't look dght Something doesn't look right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It goes out. It's a wood ramp, catwalk, float. You have another ramp and a float, and a float and a float. Here is the -- TRUSTEE KING: If that's the case, it shows the catwalk being 30, 35 feet long. The catwalk is more than 35 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, he said it's 75. TRUSTEE KING: If this is a float and that's a float, then this would be the end of the catwalk, dght? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and that probably extends -- measure the catwalk 75 feet this way and the rest is the ramp and the walk. TRUSTEE KING: That doesn't work. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the 75 feet? TRUSTEE KING: Right through here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is 75 feet? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That makes that 15 feet. And the walkway is a lot more than 15 feet. Something doesn't jibe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to look at it again? Because I didn't see it. Bob didn't see it. I think it was just you and Jill. Did you see it Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know, here is a picture right here. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have an aerial in there? Board of Trustees 20 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we have. Here is the catwalk from here to here. TRUSTEE KING: That's fairly substantial. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then there is a ramp and float, float, float. And here is the walkway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then here is the remp here. TRUSTEE KING: Here is your high water mark. The dock is out here. This shows the dock is ending at the high water mark. So there has been a little extension from what this shows, from the way it looks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here js the remp up that he's talking about. You're right. It starts here and then it goes all the way out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So on the drewing and what is in the field is two different things. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drawing doesn't reflect what is in the field. That's the problem we are having. MR. MASSAB: May I just say that I bought this house in the year 2000. It was a foreclosure. I bought it through a bank with, by a bank, with a State Supreme Court looking over because it was an adversarial suit with the referee. So it really was under supervision. And this dock was the way it was. And that's how it went through. I refinanced three times, this house, and this didn't come up. Now I'm having some financial fatigue and I have the house up for sale and someone has offered to buy it. And so they want a legal dock, you know, a dock with a permit. So I came down to see if there was a permit because I assumed maybe there was, with all the clearances. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we could find any permits at all for all. MR. MASSAB: I didn't. TRUSTEE KING: That's some of the problem. MR. MASSAB: And I called Parker Wickham, who actually owned the home and built it years ago. He said, oh, that dock has been there for 40 years. I said do you have any aerial views. Because he flies. He said look it up. But he's not of great health right now and it was hard. But that dock has been there for a long time. And I want to make it comply. TRUSTEE KING: That's our goal is to try and provide the dockage but make it a little more compatible with the way we do things today. MR. MASSAB: I understand. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take a look. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to permit it in as is with the condition, such as we have already done once tonight, with the condition that when any repaire are done, it's brought into compliance with current code? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Except that we want a survey that shows what is actually there. Because that's one of the dilemmas we are finding. Board of Trustees 21 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: We can probably measure it up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because he wants to go to closing. Can we approve it subject to a proper survey? Then he doesn't get the permit until we get the proper survey. This way if he can get it all done before the next meeting, he can come in, review it and just stamp it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And also with the condition when it's to be repaired and rebuilt, it is I:;rought up to code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Because we all know it's there. It is what it is. We just have to get it correct on the paper so the records are right. TRUSTEE KING: We have to stipulate no work can be done on it as is. Because once you have a permit you can do repairs without anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we give the approval tonight, it will be subject to receiving the information. So he won't get his permit until the information is correct. And if that takes two months, then it takes two months. If it takes two weeks, it takes two weeks. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we can approve subject with receiving the new survey and condition it that it can't be repaired or rebuilt until it's brought into conformity. That way you are controlling what is there and what will be there in the future and doesn't hold him up. MR. PUCCIO: I'm Chuck Puccio. I'm actually representing the person who is going to be buying this. We were supposed to, assuming we would get, not the permit as it is, he wants to take those two floats off and make it a regular catwalk and comply. TRUSTEE KING: You are reading my mind. That would be the right way to do it. Extend the fixed catwalk and have a ramp down to a 6x20' float. MR. PUCClO: As far out as that dock goes he wants to make sure his boat fits there. TRUSTEE KING: He wants the water depth. I understand that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we approve that tonight subject to receiving a new survey, why don't we just do that? MR. PUCClO: Can we still go to contract and close ASAP? Basically what he we wants to do, if he does any work, he wants to do it to comply. He wants to make sure this dock is legal as itself and moving forward he obviously has to make this comply with the fiberglass and everything. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And do the new subject to survey. Because they'll still get the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Approve that subject to a set of plans showing the fixed catwalk with the ramp and float. That's fine. That's all we are trying to do. Then you have a legal structure that conforms to today's standard. MR. MASSAB: Can you clarify that again? Board of Trustees 22 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What we wanted to see is the longer catwalk with the one 6x20. So because that's what the new owner would like, we are going to approve a permit for that subject to getting new surveys. So as soon as the survey comes in showing that, then you have the permit. MR. MASSAB: Survey showing what it is right now? TRUSTEE KING: No, we want to see a set of plans for the new construction, both top down view and profile of it showing the length of the new fixed catwalk, say what size ramp, whatever you'll use, probably 16 or 20-foot ramp down to 6x20 float with two piles holding the float in place, two eight-inch piles holding the float in place. That's what we would go with today if you were to come in for a new dock in that location. And I think that would simplify things and gets those two floats off the bottom. MR. PUCCIO: Basically a catwalk down to the end and "T" floater. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or you could go straight out. TRUSTEE KING: Give him the "T". MR. PUCCIO: If you go straight out, it goes more into the channel. That channel is not that wide. TRUSTEE KING: You basically have an "L" configuration now. Replace the "L" with a "T." This is too simple. Everybody is agreeing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion for a Wetland Permit for Ronald Massab for a catwalk, ramp and one 6x20 float subject to receiving new plans and -- TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to keep the walkway from the house to the catwalk? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would include that in it and let the new owner decide whether or not he wants to maintain it or change it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To include the walkway from the building to the catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: If it's replaced, it's to be non-treated lumber or plastic or grated material. MR. MASSAB: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And this would bdng this application into consistency with LWRP, because originally it was inconsistent. Now we shortened it so it would make it consistent with LWRP. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Board of Trustees 23 January 21,'2009 TRUSTEE KING: Number throe 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 a 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. Is there anyone anybody here? Is Ms. Mesiano here? (No response.) We went over this last month, if I remember right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I think we were just waiting for plans. TRUSTEE KING: I think we came up with a solution. Cathy was supposed to get us new plans. I don't know if they ever came in. (Perusing). No. What is your pleasure? I know we talked about doing some changes, but there is nothing on the plans. Should we just table it and wait for her to come in with new plans? Or do you want to approve what we talked about? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would rather have plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was confusing and major. That's why we tabled it for the plans, so. TRUSTEE KING: All right, there was a suggestion to straighten that bulkhead out and keep it parallel. She seemed agreeable to that but I think she wanted to go back to her client with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: She is not here tonight. I would make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JUDIE LIZEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x35' fixed walkway dock with moodng pole. Located: 145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald, Proper-T Permit Services, for Ms. Lizewski. The project you described is the one which is on the original application three or four designs ago. And we have, at our last meeting, discussed another iteration, if you will, of that. And at the last meeting the Board suggested that you would Profer if the dock was in the area whero that, in quotes, path through the phragmites exists and it was significantly smaller, and at that point I said I really have to discuss this that with Ms. Lizewski. She was away at the time. we discussed it since then and that resulted in what I'm about to hand you, is a Board of Trustees 24 January 21, 2009 new proposal. And there may be some question about whether administratively we can do anything with this tonight but I would like you to look at it and we can discuss it. I would hope we can discuss it. It is, for the record, a project plan dated revised January 21, 2009. And the really good news is that the project complies with all the standards set forth in Chapter 275. The overall length is within reason. The size of the float you'll be happy to hear is 6x20'. The water is sufficiently deep to have both the float and the boat docked to it at less than or, I'm sorry, off the bottom at Iow tide. And the project extends less than one-third of the way across the creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So we are supposed to go back out and look at this, is that the idea? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think that would probably be prudent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could ask for -- MR. FITZGERALD: May I come up here. The microphones don't seem to work very well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stake that was out there when we were out there. MR. FITZGERALD: That stake, it turns outs, and that's the other thing, you have already seen what this proposal looks like. That stake that was there is where the corner of the float is. That would be the northwest comer of the float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That was my question, was that stake represents the northwest which is the corner of the float farthest out. That was my question. Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: Correct, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's the stake we saw. MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. And I told you at that time, because that, we were at a design, intermediate design that did not extend that far and that was at the time when I would say I would like to have one just like the others in the neighborhood. And Jim said is it going to be on the bottom at Iow tide, and I said yes. And then you folks said, well, how about you put it over here and make it shorter and no float. And aside from that, it was just what we wanted. TRUSTEE KING: I just wish you would bring things in -- I don't like seeing things brought in last minute like this. MR. FITZGERALD: I understand. That's why I said if there is an administrative problem and you want to start from the beginning, fine. I'm not, you know, this is certainly not an attempt to push you into anything on a moment's notice. And if you want to treat it like a new application, that's fine by me. TRUSTEE KING: We should go back out and look. That's what I think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to table it or just have a Board of Trustees 25 January 21, 2009 new application and come in with a new description TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, on the description you have, Bob, does that fit this drawing that is, this plan? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we need an accurate description that fits the plan on the drawing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: This is, like you said, the third or foudh kind of revision. I would suggest that we just disapprove the application and start from scratch and then go out and take another look. MR. FITZGERALD: Disapprove it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you'll make another application anyway. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's what he has in his mind. I don't think he wants to go completely reapplying and notifying the neighbors. We can table this. MR. FITZGERALD: No, we did this on another design. It ended with my saying I had to go back to my client and check it out. And I did. And this is the result of that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, good. MR. FITZGERALD: So I don't think your intention was, at that time, was to arrive at this sort of conclusion when I came back with a new plan. TRUSTEE KING: My suggestion is to table it, stake it out, stake the two corners of the seaward end of the float. MR. FITZGERALD: You saw a stake at this point, right? TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. FITZGERALD: That's the stake that was there. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, but show us the two of them. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I like to go out and see this is where the float is going. MR. FITZGERALD: What I'm smiling about is the two of them, Jim. I think it would seem to me that, especially this time of year, it would be nice if we could do it with the stake that you saw already. TRUSTEE KING: Is it still there? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: Is it iced up in there? Is'the creek iced up? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure it has. I have no idea whether the stake is there or whether it's out by Fishers Island. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If it's iced up, it's easier to put two markers out. MR. FITZGERALD: Just spray paint it. TRUSTEE KING: Just walk out, stick a stick in there. No problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to table. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so, Jim, do you need two stakes? Board of Trustees 26 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: How does the Board feel? I would like to see a stake on each corner of the float, on the seaward side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to be honest. I'm fine with one stake that is at the most seaward end. It's the most seaward end ofthe structure. So putting another stake out there will only be inside that stake, according to this plan. TRUSTEE KING: What do you mean inside? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Closer to shore. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We know it's six feet from here; I mean 20 feet from here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if the Board disagrees, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: What's your opinion, Bob? Three out of five. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm fine with just a seaward stake. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm fine with the seaward stake. TRUSTEE KING: One stake. You win. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Anthony Vivona on behalf of PEBBLE BEACH LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to revegetate the beach access area with Bayberry bushes and Rosa Rugosa. Located: 5065 The Long Way, East Marion. This was a reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And looking, I don't see a recommendation here from CAC on this one. This was a situation where there was a violation given for cutting down a significant amount of vegetation there, trees and shrubs. And that was discovered dudng a field inspection. A violation was issued. And as part of the settlement of the violation, in taking care of the violation, this gentleman had to revegetate. He came into us. He asked us what we would like to see. We went over with him what we would like to see as far as it being revegetated and they are now submitting plans depicting what we had talked about when we were out there. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. VIVONA: Anthony Vivona. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there something you wanted to add to this? MR. VIVONA: No, no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When were you planning on doing the work? MR. VIVONA: As soon as the weather breaks. If this is approved, I will turn this over to our maintenance committee and they will solicit bids and then as soon as the weather breaks we'll do the planting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I said, in looking this over, it looks exactly like what we talked about last time. And Board of Trustees 27 January 21, 2009 that was the only condition we had talked about was a timeframe under which this work would be completed. So if we were to say May 1 for a timeframe for this revegetation to be completed, do you think that's ample amount of time for them to get the work done? MR. VIVONA: I think so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know the ideal planting time is in April to do this type of work, so. MR. VIVONA: I really wouldn't see any problem with it. As soon as I get the approval, I'll turn this over and they'll get the bids. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response.) In not, any other comments from the Board? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number five, Anthony Vivona on behalf of Pebble Beach Lot Owners Association, as described, at 5065 The Long Way, East Marion, with the condition that this revegetation be done as per the plans received December 3, 2008, in our office, and that this work will be completed by no later than May 1, 2009. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of TED ASSANTE, JOHN DECICCO AND RALPH PARISI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x129' stairway with platforms down bluff in same location as previously existing stairs. Demolish and remove existing house foundation and undertake construction activities such as ground disturbance and cleadng activities associated with construction of a new dwelling located no closer than 100' from crest of bluff. Located; 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This was found consistent with LWRP, and CAC did not make an inspection therefore they don't have a recommendation. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants. For the record I just want to briefly review the permitting history of this site as I believe only Jim and Peggy were on the Board in 2005 when the original permit for this site was issued. Two owners and about three-and-a-half years ago, this Board issued Wetlands Permit #6136 for the stairway down the bluff in the location where at the time Board of Trustees 28 January 21, 2009 remnants of a prior stairway still existed, and most of those are now gone. At that time, under Chapter 97 jurisdiction, the upland work was actually out of your jurisdiction and an NJ letter was issued to that effect. After the Board's jurisdiction was extended via Chapter 275, we had the permit amended in May of 2007 to authorize demolition and removal of the existing remains of the fire razed dwelling and construction of a new dwelling setback 100 feet from the crest of the bluff, conditioned on the establishment and maintenance of a 25-foot non-turf buffer. That permit received its first one-year extension at the time it was amended in May of 2007, which validated the permit through May of 2008. Unfortunately the current owners did not file for a second extension and what would have been a necessary transfer last year that would have validated the permit through May of this year, which is why we are now before you tonight with a new application, although the plans that are the subject of the application are identical to what the Board has already approved and already extended, and that applies both to the upland reconstruction and also to the bluff stairs. So if the Board has any questions that you didn't have before, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, I don't have the previous permit. Do you know if we put, maybe we do, put a buffer on that and what the buffer is? MR. HERMAN: That was a 25-foot, non-turf buffer. That was shown on a revised plan that was submitted and approved and should be shown on the plan that you have now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it doesn't say on the previous permit. MR. HERMAN: Well, again, the original permit was for the stairs, so where you would see the language for the buffer would be on the amendment issued May 16, 2007, it says: Resolved that the Southold Board of Trustees approve the amendment to Wetland Permit 6136 to remove the existing concrete foundation and any other construction disturbance associated with the construction of a new dwelling located beyond Chapter 275 jurisdiction, with the condition of a 25-foot, non-turf buffer adjacent to the crest of the bluff, project limiting fence and row of staked hay bales erected along the landward limit of the buffer during construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see it now. Thank you. Because we would put the same stipulations on this. MR. HERMAN: That's why I read the whole thing into the record and you can just put it on to the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have any other questions. Does anybody else on the Board have any questions? Board of Trustees 29 January 21, 2009 MR. HERMAN: The DEC permit remains valid and has been transferred, and the Health Department permit remains valid and has been transferred. Obviously no transfer is necessary here because the other permit is now no longer valid. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about a non-disturbance buffer rather than just non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: That's in effect what it is. You may want to take this opportunity to, if you want to change that. I mean, there is no clearing proposed within 25 feet of the top of the bluff, but I suppose the language "non-turf buffer" would suggest that clearing could be done. So if that was your intent -- TRUSTEE KING: I think so, when we were out there. I think I would put that in there, with a path down to the stairway. MR. HERMAN: Right. I would just say non-disturbance with the allowance of a four-foot path to the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a better way for us to go. MR. HERMAN: Then if they have, if there was some specific trimming or revegetation or whatever, that would have to come to you for that approval specifically. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Is there anyone -- TRUSTEE KING: Do you think we need hay bales? MR. HERMAN: Yes, the hay bales and fence are shown along the 25-foot buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to say. MR. HERMAN: So you would just, I presume condition and upon receipt of a revised site plan changing that language. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve the application as submitted with a 25-foot non-disturbance area from the top of the bluff, with a four-foot wide path to the stairs, and hay bales, line of hay bales on the 25-foot line dudng construction, and a new survey showing the same. MR. HERMAN: Are you going to be looking for a covenant for that buffer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven, Nancy Dwyer Design Consulting on behalf of ERIC & PAULA NADELSTERN requests a Wetland Permit to repair and rebuild the existing elevated deck and covered area. Located: 1020 Northfield Lane, Southold. I looked at this. It's exempt from LWRP review. Board of Trustees 30 January 21, 2009 It's an existing raised deck that wraps around the back of the building. It is falling down and in need of repair. It is being replaced exactly as is with the only exception of this one staircase, instead of going on an angle, they are just going to shift it slightly, so it's more convenient. CAC supports the application with the condition that no treated lumber be used and all runoff is controlled. Is there anyone here tonight that has any comments on this? (No response.) I did speak to Nancy on site. She walked me up top. I was not too happy about it, but it's very straightforward. Any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to include the condition of non-treated lumber?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. And also with the condition that it's consistent with Drainage Code 236. Even though I believe, I mean the whole house is being renovated but, if there is anything in the code that would be required for this extensive decking. Being no other questions, Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve the request for Wetland Permit to repair and rebuild the existing elevated deck with the condition that no treated lumber be used and that it be consistent with any of the Drainage Code 236 of the town. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight. JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER PlA requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct inplace approximately 190' of timber bulkheading utilizing vinyl sheathing and to backfill structure with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand. Located: 5900/6000 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. I went out and looked at this. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to be exempt. And the CAC resolved to support this application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Mr. Pla. This application was approved, I believe, about three years ago, and it expired. It's basically the same, exact same application as has been app.roved about three years ago. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is an application to replace the Board of Trustees 31 January 21, 2009 bulkhead that is on the western side of the Wunneweta Pond Inlet. We had noticed, as a matter of fact, when we approved the application for the eastern side, that it was in dire need then of being replaced and it is in need of being replaced. The question I had: Access. Are they planning on coming in by barge to do this work? MR. JUST: Yes, same as they did on the east side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you talked about revegetation, revegetating with Amedcan Beach Grass. MR. JUST: Patens, perhaps. There is a bit of salt spray that blows up there. So some patens 18 or 20 inches landward of the bulkhead or Cape American Beach Grass. Whatever. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's an excellent idea. Particularly the patens down at the bay end of that and then the Amedcan Beach Grass more inland toward the creek side of this. Beside that, it looked, everything looked fine to me. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak either for or against this application? (No response.) Is there any other comments from the Board on this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP coordinator did suggest using a silt boom. Is there any support for that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Bob. I had forgotten. That's why it was exempt. He did suggest that a silt boom be deployed and used dudng this construction. What's the feeling of the applicant on that? MR. JUST: I believe it was used during reconstruction on the eastern side. It's not a problem doing it on the western side either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Bob. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Then I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to approve JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Christopher Pia, as depicted, 5900/6000 Vanston Road, with the condition that this will be revegetated with the combination of American Beach Grass and patens, and that there will be a silt boom used during construction of this project. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. JUST: Glen Just. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore on Board of Trustees 32 January 21, 2009 behalf of DAVID BERWALD requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct on existing foundation a new two-story dwelling with new addition landward of existing foundation. Located: 1525 Aquaview Road, East Marion. We were all out there. Upon inspection, we saw it was staked out. LWRP has determined that this project is exempt from LWRP. And the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore there was no recommendation made. While we were out there doing our inspection, we noted, first, that it's a lovely shade of blue, and -- MS. MOORE: It didn't look so blue when I was there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The pictures make it look even bluer. I guess the only questions that came up were, of course we were going to recommend a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the bluff. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were curious about where the septic was located and whether or not there was any opportunity to move the structure further back from the bluff. MS. MOORE: Well, you have a survey that shows where'the septic is located. It's actually a relatively new sanitary system and it's right between the garage and the house. That's why the addition is going only so far. The house is 800-square feet now. And it's only going to be about 1,300-square feet when it's expanded. So there is really no reom to put this house any other place than where it's proposed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see the cesspool. MS. MOORE: It's on the landward side of the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it says "new septic." MS. MOORE: Existing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pouring rain that day so we kind of missed it. We were not able to look at everything. Is there any other questions or comments from the Board? I know it's pretty straightforward. (No response.) I make a motion to close the hearing, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve this application with the stipulation there is a ten-foot non-turf buffer added; that all drainage be brought up to current code. And I think that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOSEPH & HEIDI BATTAGLIA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling, barn and chicken coop and construct a new dwelling and sanitary system; Board of Trustees 33 January 21, 2009 cut and remove all trees and branches that have fallen onto beach front, remove debris, dead branches and driftwood, remove trees on southeast side of property, which all roots have been exposed and add dp-rap or large stones to the eroded edge of soil line. Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. CAC supports the application with the condition existing non-turf buffer is maintained and the driveway is pervious. And the LWRP, I guess kind of split up a lot of the application, so let me just go through this. It's found inconsistent because it's, because of setbacks. And the following addresses proposed rip-rap or large stones, and the natural shoreline has an inherent natural, social and economic value that should be respected to ensure continuing benefits to the town, region and state. Hardening of the shoreline is to be avoided except when alternate means such as soft engineering alternatives are not in effect. He goes on about hardening of the shoreline. And I'll discuss more of that later. And that's about it. Is there anyone here to speak to behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of applicant. I also have Joe Battaglia here with me. He's as familiar if not more so with the property. We were out in the field in the pouring rein. That was fun. We did take a look at, to address one of the issues that the LWRP pointed out, the house is not 100 feet from the shoreline, however the house that is existing is much closer than the proposed house. We are actually making the project more consistent by moving the house away from the shore. To move it to 100 feet would put the house right on the road, and that's not desirable, probably not conforming with zoning anyway, so. We did speak in the field regarding the stones, the hardening of the shoreline. I expressed your viewpoint to Mr. Battaglia that you thought the shoreline was okay, it was not really eroding, and that some vegetation might actually control it. Also, we think the trimming of the trees and cutting some of the trees that are overhanging will expose more light and actually improve the vegetation. So we'll take it one step at a time. He had, after we came back from the field, he did identify the trees that he wanted to remove and trim and he put red ribbon around it. I didn't go back out. So that he could identify precisely what you wanted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for doing that. We looked at out and we are glad he did because we thought there was a lot more trees. There was not that many. There were no trees along the shoreline. This tree right here, is that to be trimmed, or, is that -- that was not Board of Trustees 34 January 21, 2009 MR. BATTAGLIA: That was to be removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was not marked. MR. BATTAGLIA: Right, it's on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we asked you to mark the trees, that was not marked. MS. MOORE: He was under the impression, or at least I understood, that the trees that we observed on the shoreline that were actually somewhat coming down, those were pretty clear. The ones that were not clear, at least in the field, were the ones that were being trimmed and cut that were more landward, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is this the only one on the shoreline that were coming down? MS. MOORE: No, I think there were two. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we wanted all the trees marked, not just the ones we talked about but all the trees. MS. MOORE: They were so obvious, that you -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, they were, but we wanted to make sure. MS. MOORE: We could give you the pictures, if you would like. We were there. It was pretty, in fact I think we, there were really only three, I think at most, two or three. There were some shrubs, a tree that had already fallen down. That was obvious. We had to cut it back. There were there were only two others that I recall; this one and one on the other side. There was one on either side of the cut of the expanse. And those are shown on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the picture in the file here. I believe. MS. MOORE: And those, I believe we talked about leaving the root system in, which he agrees that was not, we would cut it down to the base. But leave the root system in place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So is everybody okay with the trees? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I was surprised that one laying over was not marked. MS. MOORE: I apologize. I misunderstood your instructions, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so that's it with the trees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is one that was dead and then another one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would recommend the buffer that is there is to be maintained as a non-disturbance buffer once the debris is cleaned out. And I think, like what you said, the proposed house is set further back, so that would bring it into consistency with the LWRP, and we see, at this time, no, the stone, no use for the stone at this tame for replanting. Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to clarify. I know the CAC had a question of those floats that are sitting in the Board of Trustees 35 January 21, 2009 marsh in front of that. I asked out in the field. I believe those were floats that just floated in. MR. BA'VFAGLIA: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are looking for those to get removed. MR. BATTAGLIA: As soon as the weather breaks we'll remove them, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: Or someone claims them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically, it's slightly -- this is existing. And all this will be removed as well. MS. MOORE: The chicken coop and barn and the house. TRUSTEE KING: Why did they put that dock all the way down at the end of the property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Were you here earlier when we did the dock? MS. MOORE: I was here. It was transferred. If the dock is rebuilt, because it has a permit, so it can be repaired. But if rebuilt, he should think about conforming with the code at that point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He will. Not think about it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nice try. MS. MOORE: Diplomatic. He will conform to the code. Sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to, if there are no other comments. MS. MOORE: We have a neighbor that is just interested. I don't know if they have comments or not. MR. PENNY: William Penny, 2200 Hobart Road. On this drawing that they sent me, I just want to state that there is wetlands in here going up to the main road, up to Hobart. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you come up here and show us on this map. MR. PENNY: I thought you might want to draw this in here. MS. MOORE: I actually want to dispute that fact. Because we had the environmental consultant, JMO -- sorry, on the survey it says who did it. MR. PENNY: That's the thing you guys, I know you talk about flood water and stuff like that. This floods really bad in here, like oh, my God. You could take a canoe through here when it rains. MS. MOORE: JMO did the flagging. Some of those wetlands are actually on Mr. Penny's property. He actually didn't mark them as wetland because the topography, reed grasses, these are reed grasses not wetlands. So our wetland line was flagged professionally, and what exactly it's doing on Mr. Penny's property, I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: The wetlands continue up here. MR. PENNY: I just want to make sure, it is kind of lower here and there is a lot of geese in here and they Board of Trustees 36 January 21, 2009 bed down here night time, but this is all what do you call it, phragmites. The whole thing is nothing but phragmites in here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Should we put hay bales during construction? MR. PENNY: I'm not sure what you define as wetlands or not. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anything that is 100 feet away from the -- MR. PENNY: i'm sure you guys walked through here and seen this, so it's all, you know. TRUSTEE KING: This goes from nine to six to three. It's pretty Iow. MS. MOORE: If you could have the conversation on the record so I could hear it. MR. PENNY: I just didn't know if you knew that MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We are just looking at the topography. MS. MOORE: The topography is 3-9, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what I'll do is suggest hay bales around the ten-foot elevation line during construction. Is that what that is, an elevation line? MS. MOORE: We have ten-foot elevation. MR. BATTAGLIA: We have one with the fencing and hay bales already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that what this line is? MR. BATTAGLIA: That's the ten-foot contour, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: This is 2.3 acres, the size of this parcel? MS. MOORE: It's over two acres, yes. I think we have the wrong survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, it is. (Perusing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nine foot by nine foot nine. MS. MOORE: The one I gave you has the proposed house has the hay bale line showing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you show me where? MS. MOORE: It's on your survey. Here you go. This is the hay bale line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have that. MS. MOORE: You don't have this survey? Which one do you have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that on the tree survey? MS. MOORE: It's possible. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the hay bale line? MS. MOORE: You don't have this survey? TRUSTEE KING: We have that line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the line but not the hay bale line. It just shows a dotted line. MS. MOORE: I don't know. I don't know why you don't have it. I'll get you one that has a hay bale line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is this it? MS. MOORE: (Perusing.) It's close but that's not it. MS. MOORE: They have the survey in front of them that has trees, so. Board of Trustees 37 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there are no other questions I'll make a motion to close the headng TRUSTEE KING: I have one more question. Pat, can this land be subdivided? MS. MOORE: Yes, there is actually a subdivision precess going threugh, for this lot, yes. This lot from the barn. It exceeds two acres and it's one acre zoning, so. TRUSTEE KING: So there are plans to subdivide? MS. MOORE: Yes TRUSTEE KING: So the dock would go with one of the subdivisions, with the barn area? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any plans to come in after the subdivision, to come in for another dock? MS. MOORE: That would be his house, the larger piece. Probably. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that subdivision is still planned. In other words, they are going through the process. It has not been approved, so I don't want to jump the gun here with anything. TRUSTEE KING: It was just a question in my mind. MS. MOORE: Yes, because the location of that dock is so off on the one side that it doesn't make sense otherwise. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other questions? MR. SEMONS: Andy Semons, I'm the owner of 1580 Hobart Road, on the north side. We support the application as, you know, as proposed. No question. Although we'll be sorry to see the house go. And I also have it on the authority of Justice James Rich that the chicken coop was the first Southold Yacht Club, and I guess he's old enough to know. In any event, we are concerned about what is constructed at a later date. That's something we would be mindful of, particularly in the event that the other side lot gets developed. But that's pretty much it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Joseph and Heidi Battaglia to demolish the existing dwelling, barn and chicken coop and construct a new dwelling and sanitary system; cut and remove the trees as depicted on the survey, and remove brenches that have fallen on to the beach front; remove the debris, driftwood, floating docks. Urn, after that is cleaned up, that area shall remain a non-disturbance area. I don't know what the measurement was. If we could get that to scale for the non-disturbance area. Board of Trustees 38 January 21, 2009 It's kind of hard to scale because it really doesn't show. And subject to a new survey showing the width of that disturbance area as it is now. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to take the vegetation line where it slopes up? I mean, it's common sense that area of the bank. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right from there. If you could give us a measurement. MS. MOORE: I have to figure out what contour line that is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, okay. Then during construction the hay bale line around the ten-foot contour line, to show that on the survey; the debris, all that debris to be removed. MS. MOORE: Hold on a second. I'm not sure what you are calling debris. Some of that stuff -- they are talking removal of debds. Some of that, I think they are retaining walls and pipes. MR. BATTAGLIA: At one time that looks like that was a diving board, believe it or not. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you going to leave it? MR. BATTAGLIA: No, that really doesn't have any value. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's what you mean be debris, removing the debris. MR. BATTAGLIA: That and a couple of logs floated up on the pilings and basically just garbage and pipes sticking out of the greund, galvanized piping, showere. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you'll remove all that? MR. BATTAGLIA: Yes. I'm not going to touch that stone, what do you call it, looks like a jetty. I would just maybe cut that wood down flush. I don't want to disturb any of the sand. It's nice and compacted. That property was not really touched for a long time. TRUSTEE KING: Basically maintain the wooded area that is there. MS. MOORE: One of the things, you said that platform, almost looks like a mini, little retaining wall. I don't know that -- MR. BATTAGLIA: No, I think itwas like a diving board TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you saying, Pat, right here? MR. BATTAGLIA: It's above grede. MS. MOORE: All right, you know better. MR. BATTAGLIA: There was an old bulkhead on the other end that's all rotted on the south side. There is nothing left of that. MS. MOORE: I just wanted to be sure we know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me recap. The buffer area after to be cleaned up shall be a non-disturbance buffer area and it is approximately 30 feet, we figure, if you could show that on the survey. To leave it vegetated and non-disturbance. MR. BATTAGLIA: Right, from the wetland line landward, 30 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. At least 30 feet. Some areas may be wider. You'll show that on the survey. Board of Trustees 39 January 21, 2009 MS. MOORE: I'll say more or less because I want the surveyor to give me the topo line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And staked line of hay bales during construction around the ten-foot contour line around the whole entire structure. And the typical drywells, leaders, gutters, is on the survey, has to conform to 236. MR. WILDER: Shoreline hardening. TRUSTEE KING: No, there is no signs of any erosion there to speak of. I think when you trim those trees, you'll get more spartina growing in there because it won't be shaded so much. MR. BATTAGLIA: We'll consult and maybe put some approved plans to compact that, you know, buffer there, between the soil and the sand where the runoff was, where all the roots were exposed, try to keep that compact. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually there is grass growing here that will fill in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 11, Pat Moore on behalf of GABRIEL SCIBELLI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24x30' addition to the existing dwelling landward of and connected to the existing dwelling by a heated passageway and to install a new sanitary system. Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Scibelli. You described what we are asking for, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe this is the main part of the building here and then -- MS. MOORE: That's the front yard. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, this is landward. MS. MOORE: Oh, that's right. That's right. He used logs to identify. He told me that. TRUSTEE KING: It was all marked out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is the heated walkway right here. MS. MOORE: You were talking about logs. I had no idea what you were talking about. Okay, now, yes, I understand. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is exempt from LWRP. And CAC supports the application with the condition that all runoff is contained on the property, especially in the area of the gully. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We thought it would be wise for hay bales to be seaward of the addition. If I go back one, it just seems there is quite a -- the first one is Board of Trustees 40 January 21, 2009 quite, over in that corner, is quite a Iow area. MS. MOORE: Sorry, I can't see that well. Is that the water or the street, where the "G", his name - TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the pathway in front of the house. That's the pebble walkway in front of the house. Again, it was a very cold, cold, rainy day. MS. MOORE: I'm disoriented on that picture. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And drywells on -- MS. MOORE: I have the drywells already showing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had a problem with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else to speak? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request by Patricia Moore for a Gabriel Scibelli for the 24x30' addition to the existing dwelling connected with a heated passageway and to install a new sanitary system. MS. MOORE: If I could ask when you give me back the survey you can draw the hay bales where you want them. That might be actually more helpful than if I asked the surveyor to add hay bales, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that the 0nly thing you need? MS. MOORE: That was the only thing I need. TRUSTEE KING: I'll do that. I'll be in Friday and draw the hay bale line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a distance for hay bales during construction? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You had mentioned it-- TRUSTEE KING: Ill figure it out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You just said that one particular area. I don't know if we were speaking specifics. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Christopher Stress, Amhitect, on behalf of DOUGLAS TIKKANEN requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing dwelling, install new foundation, install new roof, windows and siding. Located: 680 Ackerly Pond Road, Southold. The Board did go out and look at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that drywells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. The CAC is requesting consideration in the relocation of the dwelling to the southeast corner of the property, which will double the distance from the wetland boundary. Any modifications to the sanitary system will require further review. Board of Trustees 41 January 21, 2009 They also question the concrete cover located adjacent to the wetlands. There is also a concrete culvert that should be referred to the storm water runoff committee. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. STRESS: Yes, I'm Chris Stress, architect for the Tikkanen's. I guess I would start you out, in regard to our presentation to say that -- and I just heard a recommendation about moving the house. The house was built somewhere between 1770 and 1790. It's part of historic Southold. If the Board is familiar with Lower Ackedy Road, it had another name, actually, back then. Valley lane. That was actually part of historic Southold. There is a number of histodc homes in this area. The house sits on its existing foundation. Right now the house currently is in the Tikkanen's family. I think it's been in the family almost since day one. From day one. So probably back from the 1770%. The house currently is an histodc landmark within the Town of Southold. We have plaques to that effect. Later this year we'll be putting the house on the register, the national register of historic places. There are a number of homes in this area that are on the national register; the doctor% house is the building that is immediately south of this. That is also in the national register. And there are few others. Essentially what the Tikkanen's are looking to do is, the house has gone downhill somewhat over the last couple of years in terms of the work there. The lower level was always a habitable space. The lower level being i.e. the basement. We have some photographs of in fact the loom in the Southold Historical Society, which is in the historical society now, used to be in the basement of that building. And I have photographs of your great grandmother - great, great grandmother, working with that loom in the basement of that house as well. Essentially what they are looking to do is some repairs to the building. We are going to keep the majority of the historic fabric that exists within the structure. We are keeping footprint We are keeping the esthetic. You can see some of the repairs were made through the years. You are looking at some of the newer concrete block there. We want to repair this foundation. We are proposing to lift the building probably about four inches. And we are going to do the majority of the work from the interior, but we do have foundation work that needs to be done, thereby it requires a building permit, thereby it requires us to be before you here today. Some of the other work that is being done to the house does not require permits; siding roofing, Board of Trustees 42 January 21, 2009 windows. New York State DEC and I believe this Board does not require permits for roofing and siding. We, as far as the rear of the building, there is a somewhat bdck patio there that will be removed. It will not be replaced. At one time, and here is where I'll draw on some or all of your memory. This was a see captain's house. At one time the creek actually ten all the way up behind this house. When tall ships came in, they would dock out in the bay or the harbor. The seamen and captain in particular would take his long boat or smaller boat and believe it or not, row it right up to the back door of this house. Right where you are showing right there. They actually rode the boat right up to the back of the house. He would walk up and he would be dght in his backyard. So it was a short walk from the house to the ship that he would go out on. I have a photograph, in addition to supporting the historic documentation, if the Board is interested, i'll pass it around. I would like it back. It shows the house about 1875, 1880. The people in the photograph were born about 1805. That's not 1905. That's 1805 to 1810. The interest of this photograph is that you'll see Goose Creek before it was completely invaded by phragmites and actually you could see from the house I think to the railroad in the background, which today, you.will never see again. So. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to see it. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we could copy it. MR. STRESS: Ill start out at the far end. You can pass it around. TRUSTEE KING: That's an historic building. Do you have to keep up the windows all the same size and everything identical to what it is? MR. STRESS: What is happening is a fellow by the name of Gary Loughby (sic) has been working with the town to establish the historic district. So that actually pertains, and I don't think that's been finalized with the Town Board as yet, but in context of it being a town landmark, which it is, and also getting on the national register, which is through the state and then the state recommends to Washington, they do want to keep the exterior of the building looking as close to original as it can be. And the Tikkanen's are not proposing any additions to the house. They are not actually increasing the volume or usage of the house. They basically want to fix it up and keep it within the family as it has been since day one. So, yes, to answer your question, more specifically, we are actually putting more historic windows, a little closer to the original installation date of 1770, 1780's. These windows going into the house. So it will look different than what is there now. A wood roof was recently put on the building, so Board of Trustees 43 January 21, 2009 that replaced the asphalt shingled roof that was there. New wood shingle siding will be going on the building as well -- no, sorry. I should know this. MR. TIKKANEN: You'll see it in the picture. It will be framed the same way. MR. STRESS: Yes, so with respect to the exterior esthetics it will better replicate what was there in the late 18th century. The foundation that we are proposing, you'll see brick, once again, on the exterior, as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question about the concrete cover that is there, in that picture, is that for the septic? MR. TIKKANEN: Yes. MR. STRESS: Yes. It's a pre-existing condition that we are living with. It works, it functions. We'll sign off on it, but it is what it is. MR. TIKKANEN: That is not. That's placed (indicating.) MR. STRESS: That will be removed. Incidentally, these are the Tikkanen's sitting in the audience. I didn't properly introduce them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any thoughts of moving the septic? MR. STRESS: Items like that become cost prohibitive for us. It would put us back into the dark ages in terms of permitting, a6d the cost is very extensive. Again, we are trying to make needed repairs to the foundation. Tl~e septic system which, again, is not merely a brick, you know, well, is functioning fine. And it works. I understand the location is pre-existing nonconforming. However, again, due to the cost and nature of the work, we are trying to stabilize and better put together what we have there now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we just say if the system ever needs to be replaced, at that time if you would consider moving it out of our jurisdiction. MR. STRESS: Absolutely. At that time it would go through Suffolk County Health Department and we would put it as best in a conforming location as possible. I was also the architect on the historic home just south of this which was the doctor's house and we did put a new sanitary system in there. Of course it wound up becoming a five-pool system because of the shallow ground water, and major issues were related to wells, neighboring wells and wetlands. And it probably was a two-year process. The Tikkanen's basically want to stabilize the existing historic home. Within the code§ of the Town of Southold there is leeway to put additions on to the building and what have you, and I would think that if some future owner would do something like that, at that time would be a good time to address the existing sanitary system and perhaps upgrade or relocate that at that time. TRUSTEE KING: If I could ask, Mr. Wilder, given the Board of Trustees 44 January 21, 2009 CAC's suggestion of moving the house and given what you have heard today, would you concur that it's fine to leave the house right where it is? MR. WILDER: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I know one question we had was the brick patio. You already mentioned you'll remove the hdck patio. What we were going to request is non-disturbance from that brick patio seaward, so to speak, to the east. MR. STRESS: Yes, and that's exactly what the DEC required and actually the revised surveys, I don't have a copy to show you, but they just went out to them recently. And that is exactly where the hay bales, you know, the buffer will go as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those are the only questions I have from the field notes or that have been brought up so far. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to make any comments for or against this application? (No response.) Not seeing any, are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve number 12, Chris Stress on behalf of Douglas Tikkanen, 680 Ackerly Pond Road, with the understanding that the brick patio in the back will be removed and it will be a non-disturbance buffer from what is listed here on the plans received November 18, 2008, the top of bank seaward. That will be non-disturbance. And I believe that is the only condition. I'm sorry, and that the project will conform with new drainage code, so there will be gutters and leaders and drywells to -- MR. STRESS: Well, let me ask you. Are you looking for drywells as well on site? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gutters and leaders to drywells that will absorb that water. That's the code today. MR. STRESS: I understand. The answer is yes. I have a yes from my client. TRUSTEE KING: We've also done French drains, too. MR. STRESS: Exactly. Mr. King, I appreciate your comment on that. That's exactly where I was going. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to go with French drains, engineer it appropriately given the measurements of the roof of the house. You can measure, I think it's a two-inch rain fall will maintain, French drains, if you want to do that. MR. STRESS: Historically, gutters are just not-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to do that, you can resubmit plans showing the French drain. Board of Trustees 45 January 21, 2009 MR. STRESS: Okay, but the condition to the permit is that we'll meet the drainage requirement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. STRESS: Understood. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. STRESS: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number 13, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of PINE NECK HOLDINGS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace the siding and windows, raise a portion of the rear roof nine feet, replace inkind existing screen porch, construct a retaining wall at the rear of the dwelling and install an outdoor shower attached to the deck. Located: 1475 Pine Neck Road, Southold. We have been out there and we have seen this. The LWRP coordinator has determined this is exempt according to the LWRP. The CAC resolves to support the application with the condition of a non-tuff buffer and the installation of gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of Pine Neck Holdings. You guys have all seen this before. We were in here before for the deck and the dock. At the time of the deck and the dock application, which is still going forward, we had the condition of a ten-foot non-tuff buffer and meeting the drainage. So, again, we have no problems with those conditions. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: As I recall, this was pretty straightforward. We have all been out there and seen it. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion we approve this application for Pine Neck Holdings, seeing how it's exempt from LWRP and everything seems to be in order. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. LEHNERT: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 14. Young & Young on behalf of MARK BAXTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway pool, Board of Trustees 46 January 21, 2009 deck, foot path and 4x82' open-grate catwalk. Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. We do not have an LWRP on this so we cannot act on this tonight, but we will open the hearing and start discussions. MR. BAXTER: What do you mean by the LWRP; the application for it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the review. And the CAC supports the application with the condition the driveway is relocated in order to prevent removal of large trees, and leaders, gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. The CAC also has questions of the height of the proposed catwalk. We have lots of questions, but I'll start with is there anyone here on behalf of this application? MR. BAXTER: Mark Baxter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The first question we have is we wanted the height of the retaining wall around the septic system. And I guess that was staked and we looked at it, it seems to be 18 inches maximum. MR. BAXTER: It's different heights around. It's staked, I think it was four feet. I think the number on the stakes were four feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. BAXTER: I think Mr. King called up Young & Young and they went out there and staked it out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Do you want to pass that down to Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have C&R's on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a copy of the C&R's for the subdivision. The subdivision was just done a few years ago. And one of the C&R's says that no structure or sanitary disposal facility shall be constructed or otherwise located within 100 feet of top of wetlands as designated on subdivision map. I don't have of a copy of the subdivision map so I don't know where they put the hundred feet. MR. BAXTER: I think the new map -- the hundred feet you guys are all familiar with Smith Drive South, there is a canal that comes in there. That's the wetland, the canal. The other side of the wetlands, if you look at the map, you'll see where it says 100 feet back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that the same on this as it is on the subdivision map? MR. BAXTER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's what I wanted to know. MR. BAXTER: Yes, it's exactly the same. And I think you were out there, I had a pre-inspection for this a couple of months ago. I think you were out there. I saw you were all out there looking at this. We did change where the catwalk was, too. Because you did have some comment you didn't want it to go all the way out to the peninsula so we were working with the DEC Board of Trustees 47 January 21, 2009 and we moved it over to where you thought it was more appropriate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, do you have a DEC permit for that? MR. BAXTER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You got the permit for what you have on this survey? MR. BAXTER: For exactly what's on the map there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the dimensions of that? 82 feet from -- MR. BAXTER: I think it's 82 feet, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, according to this, I don't think the pool is 100 feet, from the whole area, I don't think the pool and patio around it is 100 feet from the wetlands. MR. BAXTER: I think the patio -- the pool is 80 feet away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a very sensitive lot and if we had our way we would not have seen this a subdivision lot. But it is, and we have to work with it. And being that said, we don't see any reason for the pool, to put a pool there. It's just too sensitive an area and it is going against the C&R's of the subdivision. So I don't see how we would really be approving a pool in that area. MR. BAXTER: Actually, if you go out there and look at it, the wetlands line there is actually over toward the center of the property more than where it shows on there. I know that's where we ended up where it is, but it's actually more upland than it actually showed on there. And I didn't learn that until way past the time to change it, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It also doesn't show the wetlands to the west. MR. BAXTER: There isn't any wetlands to the west, except the canal, and where the phragmites are, we had the DEC out on three different occasions. One time they had five people from the DEC came out and they checked every inch of that and didn't say there was any wetlands in that to the west. You have been out ten times. And I have multiple letters from you saying that there is no wetlands there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think the Trustees have ever said there is no wetlands to the west. MR. BAXTER: Absolutely. Absolutely. As a matter of fact -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a copy of a letter from the Trustees stating that? MR. BAXTER: (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean, I remember making comments to the Planning Board in 2006. I don't remember what those comments were, but maybe you are referring back to those letters? MR. BAXTER: Yes. Board of Trustees 48 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have those in this file. Maybe in the old file. MR. BAXTER: Well, back, I think the earliest ones was 2005. Let me see, yes. Where it says if -- attached is a map showing the amended wetland line. The line is included in the 50-foot required non-disturbance buffer and therefore it is not necessary to change the original map. The ten-foot relocation of the house puts the house beyond the hundred-foot jurisdiction of the Board of the Trustees. Therefore, in accordance with the current tidal wetlands code, Chapter 97 and Coastal Erosion Hazard Chapter 37, no permit is required. And that's Al Krupski. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, that was, what was the date on that? MR. BAXTER: That was earlier, May 4, 2005. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So before that, about three or four years ago. Okay. MR. BAXTER: And along with that. In 2006, the Planning Board, when they had the open meeting for the Planning Board, they the had the neighbors came and they said there was wetlands there, and I already had the DEC permit for that and the Board of Health approval for that, and Al Krupski's letter saying there was no wetlands within 100 feet of what I was working on, and we, the DEC came back with six people. The Town Trustees came back about three times. And the Board of Health reviewed the whole project again. That was in 2006. I mean I have all the documentation here with all letters and when they were sent and what they asked for and the problems that were there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a letter here from the Office of the Board of the Trustees dated April 25, 2005. It's addressed to you. It says: The Trustees have reviewed the above-referenced application and found the wetland line near the proposed house to be less than 100 feet. Therefore a building or any activity indicated will need a permit from this office. The Board of Trustees will require 50-foot non-disturbance buffer to the wetlands for any construction. I have sent a copy of your survey to Young & Young to change the wetland line as indicated. MR. BAXTER: When was that, that was in April. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: April of 2005. MR. BAXTER: This was when Heather went out there and said that the line we had there which was to the east, -- to the north, that wetlands line. What we did is we had put the map back with Young & Young and they actually moved the building envelope back another ten feet so we would be out of the hundred-foot jurisdiction of the town Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It might help just for clarification if we look at this picture that is up here on the screen Board of Trustees 49 January 21, 2009 now, the left-hand side of the picture, is that what you are referring to when you say to the east? MR. BAXTER: I'm referring, well, actually we are making a reference to both east and west. The first reference was is that the left-hand side, there is no wetlands until the canal. On the east side, actually if you look at that flagpole right there, on the earlier map -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the east side. MR. BAXTER: We had it right up to the flagpole, I think it was, and when Heather came back and said it was ten foot, we actually moved the building envelope back ten feet so we were out of the hundred feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I'm asking for this is I recall going out there for pre-inspection, and it was not months ago, it was at least a year ago, I believe, but what I'm looking at on this picture is to the left or in other words to the west. That wooded area, there are ribbons in there, and my interpretation when I was out there, is previously as well as two weeks ago, that is, those ribbons are in wetland areas, and what you are telling me is that it's not a wetland area. MR. BAXTER: I'm saying the State of New York and members of the Board that went out there with me before and looked at it said it was not. We are going back from day one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just want to make sure we are very clear and we are talking about the same areas, that's all. MR. BAXTER: The letter that you are reading them though is speaking about the, by the flagpole. That letter is speaking to that where we moved the line back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This area I'm referring to was flagged when we were out there for the pre-inspection and a couple of weeks ago there were flags out there. And our understanding was, in looking, our interpretation was those were wetland delineation flags. And you are saying no. MR. BAXTER: No, they were marked out because I was supposed to mark out where the house was going to go and a few other odds and ends. And Young & Young, I don't know what they are actually marking. They came out and there and marked them. I'm not even sure why they are there. I knew some of the other ones were for the lot line. But none of that other side is. I just want to say, this is an ongoing thing. This is going to be seven years in May that I have been working with this. So there is a lot of different things how it transpired over all those years to get to this point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You said DEC checked it out. Do you have anything in writing from them? MR. BAXTER: I have the permit. You should have it there. I'm sure -- Tom Wolpert (sic) said he sent it in. I have another copy. Board of Trustees 50 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: These are one of the these files that we weigh, it's several pounds. MR. BAXTER: It doesn't fit in the suitcase. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That tree there. I could see it now. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is a flag down here. MR. ADAMS: I'm Doug Adams, Young & Young. As a matter of clarification. When my guys were out there staking the stuff for inspection, they called me up and said they didn't know what to do about the phragmites out there. They wanted to locate it to see if it moved since the last survey. And they as a matter of surveying probably put a couple of ribbons in case I went back out there I could verify what they staked was. There was probably no writing on the flags. It was just more reference for them for when we came back to check to make sure they did it right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. The pool. I really, I don't think any -- I don't know. What does the rest of the Board think about the pool? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. It's not necessary TRUSTEE KING: There is not a lot of enthusiasm for it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just my opinion, to be honest with you, I was the same way. When I say the "same way," I was not in favor of this pool, because I was looking at this area all to the west as being wetland areas. And if those were wetland areas, that's why I was not thinking a pool is appropriate there. If that has been determined by the state as not being wetlands and that is documented -- TRUSTEE DOH ERTY: Then it's out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was getting to is that would affect my decision on the pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll have to look into that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This wetland issue to me is critical because if those in fact are not wetlands to the west, the house is 100 feet to 112 feet away. That's outside our jurisdiction, which would put the pool outside our jurisdiction, the only thing left in our jurisdiction, I'm trying to see here, could be the sanitary then obviously the walkway that has been proposed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'm just speaking for myself right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm thinking here. But I don't have the report in front of me. TRUSTEE KING: It's still in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I might be misreading this. MR. ADAMS: The pool, I believe, is about, the pool edge as showh on the plan you are looking at is about 85 feet from the wetlands. That could probably be, you know, moved to be out of your jurisdiction. As well as the deck would be. Right now, as you read it, is 75 and 85, something like that. Respectively. Board of Trustees 51 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Normally we like to keep pools and things associated with it at least 50 feet away. But as I said before, this lot, I would like to see it even further out of .our jurisdiction, so if you could move it further away, that would be -- MR. BAXTER: I honestly think if you gO over there with a measuring stick and measure it from the wetlands to the edge it would be 100 feet. I know on the survey it doesn't look that way but if you look at that little seat in the back there, you see that little seat, the bench. If you look at the map it says it's wetlands back there but it's definitely not wetlands. If you look down the existing dike there you can walk about 75 feet before you actually get into wetlands, maybe 100. So I think it's actually where it's sitting is 100 feet away. I just didn't want to, it's been seven years on this. I'm willing to take the beating on all the things they made me take back, so I think it's within, I think it's over 100 foot, actually, if you went there and took some flagging for the wetlands, to the edge of the pool. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is this house proposed to be on stilts? MR. BAXTER: Yes. TRUSTEE OOHERTY: What other approvals -- have you obtained any other approvals yet; Health Department, DEC? MR. BAXTER: Yes, Health Department and DEC. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we could get a copy of those as well. I don't have it in the file here. MR. BAXTER: The DEC, I'm sure he sent that. But I could get it. I have it here. I could read it. As the plan is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just would like to see a copy of it; whenever you get a chance, get a copy to the office. Because I don't have it in the file here. All right, are there any other comments for the house and pool before we move on to the catwalk? TRUSTEE KING: I take it that's a raised septic system, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, how much fill, the fill on the house, where is -- MR. ADAMS: Originally we conservatively estimated about 450 cubic yards before we got into the detail you see in front of you, the design. And it's about half of that. In terms of what you are looking at it's about 200 to 225 cubic yards. That would include for the septic and some matedal for the length of the driveway. I think we mentioned that would be raised a little bit for drainage reasons. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: The fill, is that reflected in the Health Department approval? MR. ADAMS: Young I don't recall if it's on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you just send a cover letter in Board of Trustees 52 January 21, 2009 with the copy of the Health Department approval stating the fill amount has changed from your application. MR. ADAMS: The original, it's gone down, but sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we have it as 420-something. Because if you say that's about half, that's a significant amount. You have 450 cubic yards that you applied for. If you could just put it in writing it's gone down. MR. BAXTER: Actually kind of leave it like that in case it goes over a little bit. I don't want to come back and say we did something, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Whatever you think the amount is. If you think it's going to be different than the 450 cubic yards. MR. ADAMS: We'll make it more concrete to what it is actually going to be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, that's just for the septic and roadway. Nothing going in the house or around the pool or anything. All right, again, we can't really move on this because we don't have LWRP, and I don't know, we may want to go out and inspect again. TRUSTEE KING: Hopefully in better weather. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could see what the weather was like, particularly when we went out there. Now, I know we did a pre-submission with you on the catwalk. And I don't know if we are even happy with what we suggested. So I don't know what are the comments of the Board members? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take another look. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that staked right now, the catwalk? MR. BAXTER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't walk out there that day. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where the new location is. MR. BAXTER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other comments for now? (No response.) I'll table the application for LWRP report and to take another look at the site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could please get the documentation in to our office prior to February 4, the reports from the DEC on that wetland area. I'm speaking specifically to the west. MR. BAXTER: I mean, the way I understand, you put an application in, you put the plan in, they go out and look at it, and then they determine whether what you said on the plan is proper. Do they write back in the letter, no it's not wetlands? No, you put it in and you are saying what it is and they agree with you or they don't agree with you. I don't think there well, you know, I think. They do it that way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I heard you say -- Board of Trustees 53 January 21, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Did you get a survey from DEC where it's approved? MR. BAXTER: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's sufficient. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will work. Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: See what they approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can get that prior to our field inspection when we'll review it again, which is February 4. MR. BAXTER: Sure. Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone want to take a break? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We just have one more. (Trustee Dickerson steps off the dais.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you want to make any comments pertaining to this application? MS. OHLMANN: I did. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We should have gotten those comments before we tabled this. That's not your fault. That's not your fault. We'll wait until Peggy gets back in. We'll reopen so we can get your comments. Just stand by for a minute. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go back to the Mark Baxter public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone who would like to make a comment on this application? MS. OHLMANN: Hi, my name is Paula Ohlmann. I live at 5405 Main Bayview Road, which is two houses from the Baxter property, and the back of my yard faces his land back there, the subdivision. My grandmother's home, which is directly next door to Mr. Baxter's property, that is looking directly from her backyard from there. Bear with me, I'm a little nervous. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you saying you and your grandmother are on this side? MS. OHLMANN: Looking straight out to the flagpole, that would be forward to Bayview Road would be my grandmother's property. So right along the bottom there, probably a little closer, would be the property line. I have a map, it kind of shows the different properly lines. This is an old map that I have back when my parents purchased their land, which clearly states that this was all salt meadow when we purchased this land. My family moved here, we used to have a Board of Trustees 54 January 21, 2009 spectacular view of Goose Creek. That changed when the creek was dredged and the spoil was deposited on to the salt meadow within the dike. That is something that I'll never get back, that view. Southold Town local revitalization program states that was historically done· Creeks and inlets were dredged in their entirety and the spoil was deposited into the wetland. The practice of covering large masses of wetland had detrimental impact on the ecology of the creeks and often resulted in permanent loss of wetland. The land behind my home is testimony to that fact because that's what it is left behind my home. The wetland it once was is now destroyed, which is why I'm here to object to Mr. Baxter or anyone else obtaining a permit allowing them to build a five-bedroom home with garage and swimming pool or any other structure on this 100x62x8' parcel of land which sits within the subdivision of 2.3 acres. In order for Mr. Baxter to complete this project, landfill must be brought it, grading; according to the subdivision totals meant that grading up to one foot for the driveway would be required and four feet for the septic system and retaining walls built. All of these actions will have additional detrimental effect on the natural flow of the land and the surrounding properties. Flooding will become worse in surrounding areas and properties and water will become trapped because of the natural flow disruption. An example of this is a neighbor, Mr. Warner, which his home sits right along Goose Creek. He did some renovations to his home and was required to elevate his septic system. We had brainstormed at one time where when water came and the creek came in, all of that water became trapped in the back of my property. I have pictures to document this. I have pictures of what my land used to look like. This is a picture on a dry day of the back of Mr. Baxter's property. This is a picture of the elevation of the septic system on the Warner property, and then this is the Iow lying land, so when the water comes in, it just sits there. It took over two weeks for that water to disperse off of my property. These are pictures on a bad day at the, at our area, our property. This is the flagpole. This is my grandmother's backyard with the waves there. This here is the opposite side of Mr. Baxter across Bayview Road and into the adjoining property across the street. This is a little cottage in the back corner of · my grandmother's property that is surrounded. This is Mr. Baxter's house with the water. This is my property here, so you can see it's already coming over into my property, and if you would like to take a closer look. (Handing.) And this is just a kind of a map across the street, and that's where it ended up, across the Board of Trustees 55 January 21, 2009 street. These are additional photos. This was just a minor storm that we had. But as you can see, again, here is the shed. This is the flag pole, and it still comes in and when I step out here, the water comes up to my knee. We are not talking a couple of inches. This is just after a snow. And again, it does come around the opposite side of his property. This is where the intended driveway is going to be. You can see that it floods up in that area as well. This area is already burdened with flooding during storms. Just how far do you think that we can stress this land without severe consequences. It has already been demonstrated by decisions made to date they have been wrong and detrimental. These decisions of subjecting me to property loss, loss of value to my property, insurance premium increases or loss of insurance because of claims that I have to, claims that I may have to make. Mr. Baxter's attorneys and Young & Young argue that we can't prove that this will happen, but they can't prove that it won't. Only the land can tell us in the end and so far it keeps telling us all the decisions we have made have been wrong. Goose Creek is a listed critical environmental area and is located in the AE zone. New York State Department of Environmental conservation lists endangered plants and wildlife in the immediate area. Are you willing to risk Goose Creek and the surrounding areas do let this permit go through? My family has already suffered the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of property value due to this creek being dredged. I don't expect this Board to take responsibility for what has been done but I do expect you to take responsibility for what will become of this land. I assume this land is still for sale by the Prudential sign in front of Mr. Baxter's property. What I propose to Mr. Baxter and the Town of Southold is that the Southold Town Peconic Land Trust purchase this property from Mr. Baxter and preserve it. I hope this is something that he will consider. But if he finds this is an option he will not consider, I have no other course but to state and put on record that I will take every legal action necessary for the recovery of property damage incurred to the degree that my property would not have otherwise experienced and hold the Town of Southold and the owner of Mr. Baxter's property responsible. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You said you had some pictures from before the spoils? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Talking about pictures prior to the dredging in '60%? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MS. OHLMANN: They are old, but I have them. That's my backyard. You can see the salt meadow. This one is a bad picture but you can still see back there. These Board of Trustees 56 January 21, 2009 are just the original pictures of the flooding. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we keep, not the old pictures but the other pictures? I know you want the old ones back. MS. OHLMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any idea of a date when this was taken? MS. OHLMANN: I don't have an exact date. I can see if I could pull it off the picture. This is a map that shows this land was salt meadow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Goose Neck Estate map. MS. OHLMANN: The land goes like that and this is the property right here. So I would question the phragmites to the west of that line. That is consistently wet. Can I just have the other, you can have the enlarged pictures, but can I have the smaller ones? Did I give you those or did I keep those? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You kept those. Did you want this back, too? We have aerials in our file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you want this back, or -- MS. OHLMANN: Yes. I could give you a copy of that TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sure we have a copy of this in the assessors office. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? MS. OHLMANN: That's it. I just really want to stress I'm trying to protect my property. I know I'm a thorn in Mr. Baxter's side, but I have property that I need to protect as well. As well as what it will do to the environment around me. Thank you, very much. MR. ADAMS: Just along with the information that you asked for be submitted I can also, I think in September of '06 we prepared a report that addressed, I think many of the drainage concerns in that whole area. I know you might not have that from the previous file. We can just send that along. You can hash it over. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you MR. BAXTER: I would just like to bring up, the presentation that Mrs. Ohlmann brought, she brought that back in 2005, pretty much the same pictures, the same information, the same concerns, and the Planning Board, we went through that and I think that's where the Board of Trustees were out there about four or five times after that. That's when we got Young & Young, the engineers involved with that. And that's when the DEC went out there and brought six people. ,&nd they found that what she was talking about, I'm not saying it doesn't flood some times. It doesn't flood all the time. But the wetlands, the elevated water and all those issues she brought up about her house getting flooded were issues that didn't have any weight. I mean they had some weight as far as the water rising in a bad storm like Greenport gets sometimes when we get a bad storm, the waters down in Front Street. But the issues were addressed. ,&nd I have it in the Planning Board of Trustees 57 January 21, 2009 Board about the issues that she brought up tonight were addressed there. It's the same, she brought the same issues and we addressed those. And if you would like, I can bring those things that we addressed, if you would like to see what the Planning Board said about those. Because I know they talked to you. And she also went to, I had the DEC permit, I had the Town Trustees non-jurisdiction permit and I had the Board of Health permit. And she went back to the Board of Health, went there in person, and told them that, gave them the same presentation that she is giving now. She also went to the DEC and brought the same presentation with them. And I know she came one night to the Town Trustees and brought the same issues with you. And we addressed those issues for the last couple of years on an ongoing thing and we brought experts and we brought people that know about elevations and septic systems and drainage and what was going to happen and what would happen and we have all the documentation if you want to look at some of those issues. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, that would be great. MR. BAXTER: And we'll put that in for you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) ,All right, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Put it on for field inspection, February 4. If the weather let's us. TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of PAOLO & JEAN BLOWER requests a Wetland Permit to construct an elevated fixed catwalk measuring overall 4x205' within the northern section of the subject property. All decking to be open fiberglass grating and elevated a minimum four feet above the wetlands. Located: 5865 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the Blower's. This is an application with a lot of history. I don't know if you guys remember it. It started out with a catwalk that was constructed and in the inspections that ensued it was a fairly significant violation here. So the permit process was suspended pending the resolution of those violations. We went to DEC for that. There was an awful lot of debris that had to be removed. There was planting of various oak trees, which are in there now. We applied for and obtained a permit to remove the debris and do the planting, which is part of your file jacket somewhere. And the thought was that we would go Board of Trustees 58 January 21, 2009 to the DEC, obtain a permit, and when that occurred, to return back to this Board. This I have done. We have a DEC permit, we are now returning back to this Board. Among the question was where to put the catwalk. To the western portion of this property, what you have is a very dense blueberry marsh. That's where it was originally laid out. To the east you have more of a cranberry bog, which is much lower vegetation. We first laid it out on the west side. We did so because it crossed the wetland where it's most narrowest But we wound up moving it to the other sides because the vegetation was much lower. The cranberry bog is sort of matted on the ground and so that's why you see what you see today. If you were down there, you should have seen, you would have seen the stakes. We staked the landward end. And unfortunately you'll see one of the newly planted oak trees right between the two stakes. It should probably be moved four feet further to the east. I'm not anxious for that paperwork but I could see that it just turned out that way. Sometimes we cite these things on paper but that's because that's where one of the white oaks was replanted. You probably saw that. And that's pretty much in a nutshell what is going on on this lot. TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application. It doesn't give any reason why. Wait a minute. The motion was lost. Even vote? MR. WILDER: We had a split decision, but the purpose is that this is a super-sensitive area. There is nothing like it on the coast anywhere, and anything that you do to it is going to drag it down, make it detrimental. You may even cause problems. You start driving stakes down in that, I don't know what you are going to get. You'll break through the crust and start the drainage working or soaking into the ground. You have no idea the environmental damage you can do with that. Obviously I was one of those dissenting. TRUSTEE KING: I assumed that. MS. BALL: Is it my turn? I was wondering what does the LWRP say. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you state your name, please. MS. BALL: Lillian Ball, Southold Town. Do you have an LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: We have one from January 22, 2007. I think it was an update, an addendum to that. It was reviewed back then as inconsistent. They go on to say it's in a freshwater inter-dunal swale. MS. BALL: Okay. You could probably imagine what I'm going to say. It's exactly that. It's a maritime freshwater inter~dunal swale, which means that both the primary and secondary dunes are connected. They are wetlands, whether they look dry or not. And what you Board of Trustees 59 January 21, 2009 are suggesting is to do it over an even more tenuous area, which is a cranberry bog or a blueberry bog. And frankly, I don't quite understand the need for a catwalk. I mean, is this to access the beach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, if you could address your questions to the Board. MS. BALL: Sure. Is this on to access the beach? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Apparently, yes MS. BALL: In this particularly significant area, which is nearly adjacent to both the Bittner (sic) property that we just spent $13.4 million for and the Peconic Dunes Camp, which is 34 acres of preserved inter-dunal swale, there seems to be no reason to set a precedent this dangerous in an area where anything can happen, as Don says. Anything could happen. It's an extrernely pristine area. There is no other catwalk, no other approach to the beach necessary by any of the other landowners. Don and I were discussing it, the fact there is a house on the secondary dune is really upsetting. From my perspective, they, I mean I was there today, I looked at it again today. The trees were hacked off in the most haphazard, the pine trees that were destroyed, that were discovered at that DEC, on that DEC permit walk were hacked off in the most arbitrary and, you know, really brutal way. They did not replace the pine trees. If they planted white oaks, that's great, but it is not cleaned up. The debris is not cleaned. There is still, I have, I would have brought pictures if I had known you had this wonderful slide presentation now. I mean that area is still looking beaten up and trampled down. And, you know, it's a significant habitat. It's globally rare maritime freshwater inter-dunal, you know, it's just not a place where an arbitrary catwalk needs to go. And I'm sure that the people who are adjacent to this property would be more than willing, if they can't walk on their own property down to the beach, I'm sure they would be more than willing to share access to the beach over their dryer properties. The camp is very, very close. And I'm sure there can be something else worked out that would not destroy the environment to this extent and that would also not set a very dangerous precedent on the viewshed, on the inter-dunal swale and on this extremely sensitive area that we have all worked so hard to preserve. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I'm just trying to find something in here. What the DEC did. Did they come out and check the property at all, do you know, after remediation? MR. ANDERSON: The precedents -- I would like to address some of these points. The current precedents we have now in that area is to bulldoze the marsh and drive over it. In your file, you'll see the photographs Board of Trustees 60 January 21, 2009 showing the roads that filled in that was for Peconic Dunes. I have another copy here if you would like to see it. If anything was done on the adjoining property to the west, which is Jim Gray's property, those are the adjacent properties, both of them feature bulldozed work roads through the marsh to get to the beach. The purpose of a raised catwalk is to minimize disturbance to the marsh, not to maximize it. So the precedent setting is one of destruction, okay? And I see this, for example, this is what you have, Peconic Dunes. This is what is there today. It is bulldozed right to the marsh. MS. BALL: And what date was that? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know who you are. Are you a neigl~bor or with the town? MS. BALL: If you don't know who I am, you have a problem. MR. ANDERSON: I don't have a problem. But I am here to talk to the Board. So the question here is how, I think we all have to agree that a waterfront owner has a right to access the waterfront. I think that's a right that no one can take away. So the only question is what is the best way to access the shoreline. Now, I submit to you the precedent of doing so, which is bulldozing and installing a read, is not the best way. I submit that the best way is a hand-installed four-foot catwalk suitably elevated with the flow through that allows the light to pass through so that the marsh can still exist and access still be obtained. That's why it's laid out. That's really all this is about. DEC has told me that they would consent to placing the catwalk in the blueberry grove which is to the west or to the east. Their point is limit that access in the way you are doing it. So there is flexibility on our part as to where to physically site this. But certainly, laying boards down, bulldozing, filling; are not appropriate ways to access the beach. Now, the lopped off trees and all of that, that all occurred as a result of a renter. There was litigation that was ensued. There was an action that had to be taken to have that person removed from the premises. It was a trial that occurred here in town hall. And it took over a year-and-a-half to remove this renter who caused the cutting down of these trees, not only on this property but on the adjacent property of Mr. Gray. Prior to this renter, the Blower's would go and they would access the beach through the Gray's property.. Jim Gray, because of the destruction done to his property, because of uncertainty as to what the future holds, that you can no longer come upon my property to access the water. Nor can you access the water from Peconic Dunes. So it leaves us with the simple question as to what is the best way to get to Board of Trustees 61 January 21, 2009 the beach from the home. That's what this is about. It's just that simple. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I recall from the last time this application came before the Board, these very issues being discussed. And exactly what you have talked about now, was talked about last time. I'm talking specifically about the trees and about the, that the adjoining neighbor had at one point granted them the opportunity to use his property to get to the water but no longer wanted to do that. I remember going down there with several individuals from the state that were experts in wildlife identification, species identification, and it was, all I know it was in very cold months because it was ice down there and there were boards down there and they looked at everything and they said this is where we would say is the best place to put a path. That did not mean that they were in favor of a catwalk through there. They were just saying if a catwalk was going to go in, this is where we are in favor of it going in. So I remember many discussions taking place a couple of years ago, I think it was, and again, it was around this time of year as far as the season went. If there is not a catwalk allowed, the alternative for people is to walk through wherever they want to or wherever they feel is the easiest access through and trample down wetlands, cranberry, blueberry. Whatever the vegetation is, they'll trample it down to get there. So I can see how the DEC decided in granting their permit that the best way to do this is the least environmentally damaging is to do an elevated catwalk as it's described here. The other thing I want to mention is I worked at Peconic Dunes Camp back in the very early '70's and the statement that was made is absolutely true. That they did bulldoze pathways through there. That's how the Peconic -- MS. BALL: In the early '70's. We all know much better now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying that statement is true. That's what Peconic Dunes did. The county at that time did because it was county owned. Finally, for myself, I can't see telling somebody that the reason we are denying you this is because you can use the camp's property or private property owner's property. That's up to the owners of the camp or the owners of the private property to say yes or no to that. We can't make any determination. It would not be fair for us to say that's your access, use your neighbor's property because the neighbor would certainly come back to me as a Trustee and say what do you mean you told my neighbor he has permission to use my proper~j. MS. BALL: Has anything ever been asked of Peconic Dunes, whether they would mind? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not the applicant. I don't know. My feeling on this one is I support this application Board of Trustees 62 January 21, 2009 because I feel this is, with proper construction, best management techniques used during construction, I would agree with what the DEC has proposed here -- or approved here, I should say. They didn't propose it, but they approved it -- so this property owner has access to the water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, can I make a comment? TRUSTEE KING: Sure, go ahead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, we had multiple conversations about, and also our full Board has had conversations about the two sides or views of these catwalks where, you know, as opposed to trampling down, you have the structure to walk on. But I would have to say, as I've said before, policies from the past have changed as we learned new things in the future. And I have had extensive conversations with Mark Terry who is extremely knowledgable in wetland science, and Scott Hilary also, and their thinking at this present time is that the views have changed and that the trampling down, if it was consistently every day in the same place, which might to some harm, that there is more harm in the permanent structure, there is more harm in this inter-dunal globally rare area and there is more harm in the fragmentation that this structure will do to the wildlife corridors. So in speaking with these two, who I would call experts in wildlife science, I think, again, as it has been stated, there are no other catwalks in the area, there are these two preserved areas. I think Peconic Dunes with the plowed road, the camp goes back to the 1960's. Obviously, you know, that was done prior to what we know today. So I don't know that that is a good comparison. And I would definitely be against any structure in this area. MR. ANDERSON: But you know what; you know what you are forgetting, is that there may be times when, after a heavy rain storm or maybe in the spdng, that a property owner would absolutely be precluded from getting there, without having to wade through water to get to the beach front property that they own. There is no doubt that there is a riparian right to get to that beach. It's a waterfront lot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are talking about an incident that happens occasionally. And if it's a flooded area -- MR. ANDERSON: It doesn't matter if it happens once or a thousand times. It makes no difference TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But those types of situations are going to curtail people's activities in many situations, not just a walk down to the beach. MR. ANDERSON: But it's not the role of government to say to a property owner when they are allowed and when they are not allowed to walk over their own property to get to the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are not saying they don't have Board of Trustees 63 January 21, 2009 the right to walk over their own property. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, you are. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying if it's flooded -- MR. ANDERSON: If it's flooded, don't go down there, is what you are saying. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying putting a structure there is not the way to go. I'm not saying they can't access their property. MR. ANDERSON: We have two ways of accessing this. We have the bulldoze method and the structure method. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I disagree. MS. BALL: Neither method is acceptable in this area. MR. ANDERSON: Unfortunately, you have a waterfront property owner with an absolute dght to get to that beach. And if you say you can't get to that beach, by some reasonable means -- reasonable means is not wading through water because it's deep, to say well if it's wet, I don't think you'll go down there or you can't go down there or you shouldn't go down there. Reasonable access means reasonably convenient. What would a reasonable person say. Well, if it's flooded, do you have a way of getting there. You either fill it or you go over it. I mean that's -- so the real point of this application is what is the least impact way of reasonably accessing that beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce, I have a question. I'm not looking at the map right now. Is there an opportunity to maybe not do the walkway the full length but maybe on the real Iow spots a walkway and then just keep a path cleared on the upper?. MR. ANDERSON: No, because the grade is fairly uniform throughout this whole area. MS. BALL: No, it's not. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me MS. BALL: It's not uniform. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let him finish his statement, please. MR. ANDERSON: This catwalk is laid out, begins at the marsh edge and ends at the marsh edge. A view of your survey shows that the grade changes are so similar across this that it doesn't even rise to the level of a placement of even a contour line in the marsh area. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, I take it this last picture, that's not where this proposed catwalk is? MR. ANDERSON: No, these are resubmitted. You already have these in your file. TRUSTEE KING: Same name? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's misspelled. You actually have those. TRUSTEE KING: We have these? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, because we were trying to figure out how to get to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: Is this considered an alternative location for a catwalk? Is that what I'm reading here? Board of Trustees 64 January 21, 2009 MR. ANDERSON: That's really where it is. That's where we are proposing. That's really across the bog area to the west. But you already have these. And these here are some other examples of where catwalks were installed across marshes. Sometimes by government, sometimes by nature conservancy, Peconic Land Trust and towns and villages, without ripadan access to the wetlands. That's why that was put in the files. You should have these. You are welcome to have this if you'd like. You are welcome to have it. TRUSTEE KING: There it is. Thank you. This is another file that we weigh. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, how long have these people owned this property, do you know? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know, offthe top of my head. MS. BALL: I actually have some questions in terms of their usage. Is it rented currently? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. MS. BALL: I believe it's rented currently. I believe these people don't live in the country. They come occasionally, and there is no traffic that I have ever observed other than deer traffic going down to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't assume that will stay that way. MS. BALL: They may very well have other intentions, but I don't see that the, as Peggy and Mark and Scott Hilary have all said, I don't see that the occasional wet spot that they might hit walking down to the beach through that property is of such inconvenience to warrant destroying the wetland and destroying the animal life corridors and setting a very dangerous precedent. We don't believe bulldozing is the way. We don't believe catwalks are the way any longer. Science has gone on. And two wrongs do not make a right. Just because Peconic Dunes made that decision in the early '60's doesn't mean that we should be making those kinds of decisions today. We know better. It's a significant habitat from the Department of State. It is not an area that one makes these kinds of decisions in a very arbitrary way. The property owner can access the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of the things we often miss also is the public right to this very rere area. You have pictures of other wetland areas, and there are wetland areas that I value that maybe other people don't, but this area is specifically very sensitive, very rare, and how it is bordered now is, in my eyes, being protected and preserved, whereas if this is approved, takes away from that. MR. ANDERSON: The public has no right of access to this property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't say a access. The public has the right for this area to be preserved and protected. Board of Trustees 65 January 21, 2009 MR. ANDERSON: That's what we are doing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In your opinion you are, in mine, you are not. TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody want to go back out and take another look at this project, beside me? MR. WILDER: I would. But I have a question. What is the method of construction here? What are we talking about; how are we going to get this in? TRUSTEE KING: I would assume everything is hand dug, but I'm trying to look at some of these details here. MR. ANDERSON: The way it would be installed is just that. It would be done by hand. MR. WILDER: No power equipment. MR. ANDERSON: No power equipment. There is really no way to, you would not bring any kind of mechanized -- MR. WILDER: I hope not, not down the side of the dune. Even putting this in, as people came from the house to that, they'll work off the side of that dune they'll make a gully, they'll start breaking the sand down. You have to think your way through all of that. Because if have you one spot to go to, you'll make a path. If ifs on the side of the dune, it will take the sand down. It will happen. MR. ANDERSON: In the early portion of -- I need to respond for the record -- in the early design aspects of this, my thought was to take, to extend this catwalk and limit access across the dune. I was advised that was a bad idea. But the dunes are not regulated per se in this town. There is no dune regulation. So that alternative was viewed as just more construction. Unnecessary construction. And so it was not proposed in that fashion. MS. BALL: But the laws of New York State specifically say primary and secondary dunes are protected. Isn't that true? In Bombara, didn't we find that to be the case in Bombara? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bombara was in a coastal erosion zone. MR. ANDERSON: We are not in a coastal erosion area, I don't believe. MS. BALL: It's closer to the beach. But the primary and secondary dunes are extremely rare. To have a double-dune system there is extremely rare. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have been conspicuously quiet, and I have been so because I did want hear what everybody had to say. My opinion is that I agree that it is a globally-sensitive area. I have done some research, read about these areas here and on the south shore. I agree with Peggy on this one that I do not, .I don't really see a need for it. I don't want to see it there either. It's a very sensitive area. I think this is one of those instances, in my mind, where the needs of the environment do supercede the perceived, whether it's real or not, right to or riparian right to access the beach on this particular piece. Board of Trustees 66 January 21, 2009 I think that without, having been down there and walked it, I think that under most circumstances they can access the beach without the catwalk. There may or may not be those times where you have a flood come in there, and I don't know if that would be very often, if at all, that it may be a little difficult to get down to the beach. Certainly if you really wanted to get there you could go down and walk the beach from the other direction, from the coast line. Urn, but I don't want to see this there either. I don't think the habitat will sustain it and I do think it would set a bad precedent in that area. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don't you think we have more control if we give them a means to take one path instead of going through the whole property; any one person can go a different route? This way if we have the path, it's a little more controlled and the rest is not walked through or touched. That's how I see it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, in my mind I also look at it, what would a deer corridor do? MS. BALL: Exactly. And there are many of them in there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you have a deer corridor, it's a corridor. I don't think you would even see that with human activity there. Because you won't have a parade constantly every day going the same route. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because I'm thinking of the one we had, Fitzpatrick, whatever the name was, and I felt the same way. They had all that, I mean, it's different because it's marsh and it's not intertidal. TRUSTEE KING: It's definitely a developed area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, but I just pictured going all different ways, you have all these paths going through. To me, maybe you could control it and have one path through there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember when we went out there, and we did walk this property. I believe all of us -- Bob, I don't think you were on the Board at the time. But you might have been. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was the first property I was at, one of the first. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. And there were, again, everything was frozen over, it was ice down there, but it was obvious that they laid down boards, you know, just loose boards, and they were using those boards to create paths, and there were several different paths going in many different directions zigzagging through there. That's the way the property owner was doing it at the time. MS. BALL: Are you sure that was the property owner and not a renter? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the way people were gaining access to the waterfront. MS. BALL: But they could have also been renters who were equally as insensitive to the trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the way people were gaining access at the time to the water[font. And to me, a carefully constructed pathway, as the one that has been Board of Trustees 67 January 21, 2009 approved by the DEC, is, with best management practices, is going to do much less damage both short term and Iongterm than people randomly selecting paths and putting boards down, maybe not putting boards down and walking through there throughout the year is going to do. So that's why I support it. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to take another look or are we ready to vote? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm ready to vote. Make a motion. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Any other comments? MR. ANDERSON: I would like you to take another look. Go down and look at it. TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's desire? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't need to. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Me neither. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't need to see it. TRUSTEE KING: Everyone has seen enough? (Board members respond in the affirmative.) TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: It's been found inconsistent twice. I think we have heard everything from everybody. And I have thought about this a lot. I agree with Bob. You kind of read my mind on this. I really don't see a need for it. These people have managed to find their way to the beach for quite a few years, And I didn't see an awful lot of damage down there from people going through there. So I would make a motion to disapprove this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to take a roll call vote? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Probably should, just for the record. TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a roll call vote on this. Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Dickerson? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Doherty. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye. Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Three to two. Motion carried MS. BALL: Thank you, very much. MR. ANDERSON: Good night, all. TRUSTEE KING: Good night, Bruce. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second, TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees (ALL AYES.) 68 January 21, 2009