Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-05/20/2009
James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD Of TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:00 PM Town H~I Annex 54375M~nRoad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fo_x (631) 765-6641 RECEIVED JUL 13 2009 el3:q~.~ To~,n Clerk Present Were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert Ghosio, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 18, 2009, and April 22, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our May meeting. My name is Jim King. I have the honor of serving as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. I would like to introduce the gang that's here now. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; Jill Doherty is next to me, she is the vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish. Lauren manages the office for us. And I can't express what a great job Board of Trustees 2 May 20, 2009 she does. She knows all the ins and outs of what we need to do. She is very helpful to people. I really appreciate it. I know the whole Board does as well. And we have Bob Ghosio, Trustee. Next to Bob, in the ~mpty seat, we'll have our legal representative, hopefully, Lori Hulse. We have Wayne Galante down here keeping track of what everybody says. I think we'll have Peter Young from the CAC, the Conservation Advisory Council. He'll be here tonight also. They go out and do the same inspections we do and give us their input on how things should be handled. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And my apologies. How time flies. The Power Point should say "May Trustee Public Hearing." TRUSTEE KING: We'll set the date for the next field inspection, June 10, 6:00. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting will be June 24 at 6:00, with the work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the minutes of March 18 and April 22. I read through them. I didn't have a problem with March and just a couple of very slight typos in the April minutes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did the same thing. I already submitted my few changes to Lauren. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I only had one change I'll submit to Lauren. TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody want to make a motion to approve? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for April, 2009. A check for $4,947.19 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. Ih PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. And that's here in town hall outside of the meeting room. I Board of Trustees 3 May 20, 2009 We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews. 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 VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 20, 2009, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. The list reads as follows: Chris Cyprus - SCTM#99-1-4.2 New Suffolk Fishing Station, Inc. - SCTM#117-8-17 Fishers Island Development Corp. - SCTM#10-5-12.9 James R. Rich, Jr. - SCTM#70-4-7 Estate of Eileen O. Goldner - SCTM#56-5-22 Philip and Jennifer Stanton - SCTM#64-1-29 haven Avenue Realty Corp. - SCTM#21-5-11 Mark Miller - SCTM#81-3-24.2 2000 Broadwaters LLC- SCTM#104-9-12 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve that resolution? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Before we get into the meeting; last month we approved a clam relay to take the clams out of uncertified area in Hashamomuck and plant them in the seasonal section and also into Goose Creek, and it took place on May 7. I think it was pretty successful. We had eight baymen go in there and they harvested 138 bushels of clams and they planted 100 bushels in the seasonal area of Hashamomuck and they put 38 bushels into Goose Creek, the seasonal area there. So it's a way of utilizing a resource that could not ordinarily be utilized. Hopefully we'll get a spawning stock out of it and then later on when the season opens in the Fall we can harvest the clams. I think it was successful. Just for the record. IV RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: I believe we can lump some of these together. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Yes, numbers one through six. Before we lump them together I just want to note on number one came in inconsistent on the LWRP. That was for the distance to the coastal erosion and wetlands. However, Board of Trustees 4 May 20, 2009 it's just posts. It's not really a structure. I don't know how we really can find it, how we can minimize the impact. It's a post in the ground for a grapevine. So I don't find it inconsistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He could use non-treated lumber for it. That's one thing we could do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There you go. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My recommendation is that you group together two through six, then we can address number one separately and then seven and eight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since we are talking about the first one, I may as well do it. WILLIAM LOIS requests an Administrative Permit to install an arbor along the west side of the property and an arbor and garden area on the south side of the property. Located: 58105 Rt. 48, Greenport. I'll make a motion to approve this application using non-treated lumber, which would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: I'm surprised it was even reviewed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll have to review the review list. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And numbers two, three, four, five and six, these are applications that were very simple and they all came in either exempt or consistent with LWRP. They read as follows: Number two, PETER MICCICHE requests an Administretige Permit to replace collapsing cement block leaching pool with a new pool landward the existing. Located: 270 Private Road #12, Southold. Number three, JAMES BLACKLEY requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to twelve inches by hand, as needed. Located: 1455 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. Number four, MARLENE LANE CIVIC ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to repair the existing boardwalk accessing beach and picnic area. Located: Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. Number five, Lillian Ball on behalf of GROUP FOR THE EAST END requests an Administrative Permit to create a vegetated swale using native plants and install 2,300 square feet of recycled glass permeable pavement. Restore strip of spartina along ramp approximately 2x10' and stabilize with rock edge, and install three Board of Trustees 5 May 20, 2009 signs. Located: Mattituck Inlet Ramp, Mattituck. Number six, Eugene Burger on behalf of CHRISTOPHER PlA requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing wood retaining wall with a stacked stone wall. Located: 5900-6000 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. I'll make a motion to approve those five. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, RICHARD BREN requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to twelve inches; add Iow voltage landscape lighting in buffer beds, catwalk, ramp, float and on trees. Located: 430 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. The entire Board went out and looked at it. This was found inconsistent under the LWRP, under 3.1 enhancing visual quality and protect scenic resources. And that was it. This was in regard to the lighting. That was specifically what the LWRP inconsistency came about from. I know we went out and looked at it and we didn't have a problem with lights as they exist in the buffer beds, or trimming the phragmites to twelve inches by hand, limiting the trimming to phragmites only. But that we did not approve putting lighting -- sorry, there was a recommendation not to approve putting lighting along the catwalk, the ramp or float or in the trees. There are currently lights that are placed into the trees and a violation has been issued, I believe, for that. So as far as I know, I don't think that violation has been taken care of, which means -- MS. MOORE: If I could be heard. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on just a second. There was a violation for a tree being taken down. TRUSTEE KING: I think he paid a fine on that. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that's, okay, then if the violation has been taken care of, then that's fine, so. MS. MOORE: I have an authorization. I think he told you he might be out of the country. I think he's still in Europe. Did you want to discuss this or -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: This really isn't a public hearing. This is just an Administrative Permit MS. MOORE: I think we were surprised there would be an issue with respect to the Iow-impact lighting on the catwalk, ramp and float because everybody around has the lighting. And the permit, the construction of docks allows lighting. It actually is a permissible, it's permissible under what is provided for in docks. Board of Trustees 6 May 20, 2009 So it's surprising to me that this would be an issue. TRUSTEE KING: It's an extensive wetland there. If you put lights along there, it will look like a runway for. an airplane. There is no lighting in any other areas, as far as we know. MS. MOORE: It could be lighting that is turned on only when it's in use. According to the code you are allowed to have lighting as long as there is a switch, if you come in late at night, he has young children, because it's a long area and there is no hand rails or anything, it is a little bit treacherous. So the lighting is necessary for the family. So if we put a light switch on, on and off switch, then it's only on when it's necessary, not all the time. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend carrying a flashlight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the lighting proposed to be attached to the dock itself? MS. MOORE: Yes, they were going to be. They are the same style. They are nautical -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't see the lighting on the dock itself. MS. MOORE: It hasn't been installed yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the drawing. I just saw how the lights on the trees were shining out. Because I remember in the field where I asked, how many lights are going out, is it just on the one end, is it throughout the whole thing. MS. MOORE: We could do it staggered, if you had a preference. The lighting, because it's Iow voltage and Iow impact, you don't want it to be a runway style, so you want to stagger it in appropriate locations. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's on the diagram or survey here is drawn in Iow voltage lighting. It looks like three lighting fixtures along the catwalk and then one out on the floating dock. That's what is on here. By the way, the summons was both for the tree and for installing electrical service within 100 feet of the tidal wetlands. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did, just for clarification, we did look, we made a point of looking at the docks surrounding this one and we didn't see any lights on docks surrounding this one. MS. MOORE: I believe you but my client says, no, they are there. So he merely wants what everybody else has in the neighborhood. So I could certainly ask him to point out which ones have them. Maybe you don't even know they have it because most people, I mean most of the dock builders, according to him, they don't even realize you need a permit to put light on a dock, if Board of Trustees 7 May 20, 2009 you build it with a light, as long as it's shut off, that seems to be what the code allows. So you don't have lighting going on all the time. And I can understand, you know, dark skies, trying to keep the lighting down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I can just tell you for myself, since I have the file, I'm not in support of putting lighting along the catwalk or in any of the marsh land area going down to that floating dock. So if somebody else wants to handle this application, that's fine, but I'm not -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think there is a point also. The LWRP review is inconsistent and it's inconsistent because of the lighting. I'm just saying that's my reasoning for wanting to support -- MS. MOORE: I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction since the lighting is only when it's in use. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just saying in the review, that's one of the reasons it's inconsistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the only reason for inconsistency. MS. MOORE: But I looked at the code and the code says you are allowed to have lighting so if the code allows it, it should not be considered inconsistent. I think reasonable lighting is a fair request, particularly for a dock the way it is. You don't want, I think there is more damage, pain to the individual and damage to the wetlands if you have people falling off the Iow sill dock. So it seems somewhat unreasonable to say no to that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm fine the way Dave -- TRUSTEE KING: I think the Board feels the same. way. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't really have an awful lot of trouble with the landscape lighting, particularly, I don't see the point taking it out of the tree. It's all spotted, it's pointing down. It's pointing along the trunk of the tree. It's not being broadcast out into the wetlands. You can get the lighting on the catwalk there to face and to shine down specifically on the catwalk. It can be shadowed. It doesn't need to be out into the wetlands. It's a Iow profile catwalk without anything on the side, no rails or anything. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I know the 'rest of the Board does, but I just wanted to make my opinion known since there was so much discussion on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one point. I believe, Bob, those lights shine up, not down. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One shines down and one shines up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are both right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MS. M©ORE: I thought from my notes, it says buffer beds are okay, the catwalk, ramp and float. The trees, I lost track of the trees, so, I just need clarification. Board of Trustees 8 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I guess the choice here is if the client would consider amending this to just the buffer beds, and of course trimming the phragmites was okay. But limiting the Iow voltage landscape lighting to buffer beds and removing catwalk, ramp, float on trees. Or we can table it. MS. MOORE: I think we should table it. I'll ask him to just take documentary evidence as far as who has the lighting here, and the fact that it's a reasonable, I mean it's, again, it's even questionable under the code whether we need a permit for this; when you have a permitted structure, lighting is a safety feature. It's not impacting, there is no environmental impact to lighting. It's purely safety, so I would ask - TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have to say, I believe I recall Ken Poliwoda being very serious when we put that in the code that there is an environmental effect. That's if the lights were on all the time. MS. MOORE: That's if the lights were on all the time. And I could understand that requirement. And in fact the code addresses that by allowing lighting as long as there is a switch. So it's purely for safety. TRUSTEE KING: People take advantage of that and leave them on all the time, too. MS. MOORE: We have very amenable neighbors here who seem to have an issue with the tree that came down so I doubt we would have a problem with enforcement since we have very interested neighbors. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to say, first of all, it doesn't matter to me what the neighbors have as far as lighting on the dock. We are not looking at their property. We are looking at this property. So you can give us that information but for me personally that won't make a difference either way. The other thing is there has been other docks like this over the marsh in the town that we have said no to lights because of the environmental impacts of the lighting. If you can maybe be more specific on the lighting, show us exactly what will be there. MS. MOORE: I have the specs of the lighting, if you would like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the lighting in the tree, I really don't agree with that. From what Bob said, yes, it shines down, but anybody could just change that light instantly and shine it out and leave it on. How can we enforce that? The light is there. We had complaints it's been up and out before. When we were there it's shining down, but who is to say they can't just lift that fixture up and how are we going to enforce it will shine down where he says it's supposed to? MS. MOORE: If it's a problem, you enforce it just like Board of Trustees 9 May 20, 2009 you would any other violation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, you were saying something before. TRUSTEE KING: I think I lost my chain of thought. MS. MOORE: I have here the brass lights, if you would like see what we are proposing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit for trimming phragmites to 12 inches and adding Iow voltage landscaping to the buffer beds only. MS. MOORE: Can we separate the permit, because the phragmites trimming, he had a permit already. This is just a renewal of the existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think this is essentially what I'm proposing here, is to separate and approve trimming the phragmites and the Iow voltage lighting. It's already there, as built in the buffer bed, and that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in '~avor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I approved because the motion left out the other stuff. MS. MOORE: And we are separating the other application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other part is denied. The lights on the catwalk, my understanding, the lights on the catwalk and the dock and in the tree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you need to clarify that. MS. MOORE: Yes, because he applied for two separate permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No problem. Then I'll make a motion to rescind the decision that was just made regarding Richard Bren at 430 West Creek Avenue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, I'll make a motion to approve an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to twelve inches and add Iow vottage landscape lighting in the buffer beds and deny the request for lighting on the catwalk, ramp, float and on the trees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record Trustee Ghosio is nay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the reason of denying the landscape lighting on the trees. TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I recognize Lillian Ball. Do you want to say anything about this project going on in Mattituck? Board of Trustees 10 May 20, 2009 MS. BALL: No, if you approved it. That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: They have done some repairs on that ramp, the state facility. They were done before we even talked. I didn't realize they had already been done, so, that should help the situation. MS. BALL: Good. I'm pleased to see it's going through. Thank you. I would like to consult with you about the boulder situation at some point. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. So moving right long. Number eight, Patricia Moore on behalf of WILLIAM HAMILTON requests an Administrative Permit to selectively clear the buffer seaward of the existing fence line by removing the non-native plant species and replanting the area with native plants. Located: 2674 Grandview Drive, Orient. This was found inconsistent under the LWRP. think we've all looked at this, on more than one occasion. MS. MOORE: You asked for additional infbrmation from last time and the landscapers are all here, so if you want to hear from them. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just reading through this. It mostly states maintain buffers. I don't think we are disturbing the buffer that much: Avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas, maintain indigenous vegetation within buffer areas. I think this, you are being pretty selective about this. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Dave Chicanowicz, agent for Environmental Design. Extremely selective. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any thoughts? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to stay with my original feelings on this. I was very happy to see the fence and the buffer had been left, and I understand what you are trying to do. I just see that as a complete habitat and, again, I understand you are replacing it with native species and removing indigenous, but I won't be approving it. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plans are pretty detailed. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there will be a lot of disturbance here2 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Will you be removing all the bramble up there? ' MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Not all. Just the plants that are invasive, so, and whatever else is not is going to remain intact. Our intent is not to put a lawn up there at all or formalize it like normal tandscaping. It's just to revegetate with native species. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I reviewed it. It looks fine to me. TRUSTEE KING: There is no tree removal or anything like Board of Trustees 11 May 20, 2009 that, right? MR. CHICANOWICZ: No, no tree removal. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just concerned about the consistency review. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to read it, maybe? TRUSTEE KING: He's talking about just the buffer, maintain buffers. The buffer is being maintained. And effects to adjacent or nearby development to be avoided. There are going to be no effects on any other properties. I can't see that what they are going to do is going to materially change that buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think when Scott and I talked, because in the evening there is another one that we discussed, and what we saw this was, that the invasive species have created a habitat so in replacing you'll still be changing species in there and, again, I mean, I understand where you are coming from and I understand he's replacing it with native species but he's changing the habitat as it is now. So I think that's where he was coming from. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Just as far as the erosion control, as compared with the species that you have there existing, are more prone for erosion problems as compared with the plants that we are looking to put in. So that would be an extremely valid point that you would want to consider before saying not to touch it. You do want to in fact want to maintain it, we all want to maintain those bluffs and the integrity of those areas. The root systems and vegetation we are planting and putting in will maintain that. The ones that you have, will not. So. TRUSTEE KING: All right, my feeling is, I know it changes it but I don't think it's going to change it detrimentally, so I'll make a motion to approve.' TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye, Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: And I think the plants that will be put in there will maintain this buffer and it will be consistent with the LWRP. I would make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave seconded and Peggy voted nay. TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Peggy is a nay vote. V. RESOLUTIONS: MOORINGISTAKEIDUCK BLIND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, resolutions, moorings stakes, duck blind permits. We have two this month, ' both replacing the similar-size boats in the same areas. They read as follows: Board of Trustees 12 May 20, 2009 Number one, EILEEN GALLAGHER requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 20' boat, replacing Mooring #69. Access: Public. And number two, FRANK CENTO requests a Mooring Permit in Little Creek for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring #17. Access: Public. I'll make a motion to approve both as applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number six resolutions, we have one amendment permit #7057, issued to WILLIAM & MARY STEELE to remove the condition requiring the installation Of gutters and drywells onto the dwelling and to contain the roof runoff in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. Located: 1895 Leeton Drive, Southold. This was a site we inspected last month and the area of this house is in a very drained area, very sandy bottom, so we have agreed to amend the permit as such. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The original was inconsistent and the change brings it into consistency. VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Section VII, applications for extensions, transfers and amendments, we can lump one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight together and approve that. They read as follows: Number one, NORMAN & DORIAN FECKL request a Transfer of Permit #6776A from Manny Arturi to Norman and Dorian Feckl, as issued on December 12, 2007. Located: 1600 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. Number two, GEORGE L. PENNY requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6617, as issued on May 16, 2007. Located: 9305 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of TOM & JULIA FITZPATRICK requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6645, as issued on June 20, 2007, and Amended on October 3, 2007. Located: 1030 Clearview Road, Southold. Board of Trustees 13 May 20, 2009 Number four, ROBERT & LISA DEFRESE request an Amendment to Permit #6967 to relocate the 10x16' shed, as shown on the plan last revised 4/13/09. Located: 5223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number five, Dock, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests an Amendment to Permit #6853 to replace an existing 6x97' main float with a 6x100' concrete float, install four new 3x24' finger floats with associated restraint and tie-off piles, add a 30' pier extension and three braced tie-off piles to an existing fixed pier, replace an existing 12x20' concrete float all waterward of the apparent high water line, construct a ten-foot wide non-vegetated buffer with crushed stone and pavers landward of the stone revetment and apparent high water line. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. Number six, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of MADELINE DROEGE requests an Amendment to Permit #7062 to include the existing 5x7' frame sauna. Located: 885 Petty's Drive, Orient. Number seven, Shelter Island Design and Build, Inc., on behalf of NANCY CARROLL requests an Amendment to Permit fl6500 to install a pervious driveway, and bring in fill to reduce the slopes and create swales to catch runoff. Located: 350 West Lake Drive, Southold. And number eight, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS LLC requests an Amendment to Permit #6915 to delete the ramp and float and extend the fixed dock in its place and install four Slidemoor mooring anchors attached to the fixed dock piles, to properly secure a boat. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KING: I would make that motion to approve those. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, you might want to go over the postponements. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. There is just one, on page four, number 11, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests an Amendment to Permit #6437 to increase the length of the fixed open walkway from 55' to 83'. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck, is postponed. It was a little controversial, that one. Board of Trustees 14 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Patricia Moore on behalf of STEVEN & ANDREA KOLYER requests an Amendment to Permit #5672 to increase the size of four dock plies from six inches to eight inches. Located: 4075 Paradise Point Road, Southold. This is an application we approved last month and on the plans it said six-inch pilings and the applicant thought they were eight inch. I would make a recommendation that we keep the six-inch in the fixed portion and do eight-inch on the float. We have no drawings showing them. If there is no comment from the Board -- MS. MOORE: Well, the concern that the -- actually Mr. and Mrs. Kolyer, she is here right now -- they had with the piles is that the six-inch piles, because the dock is a little longer now, that they needed the eight-inch piles. They were reducing the number of piles, making them eight inch. If we have to keep to the six inch, then we need to stagger them a little closer together. So it could work either way. It's up to you how you prefer. MS. KOLYER: They are eight on the float already. We have that already. We are not asking for anything on the float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you have on the current dock that is there now? MS. MOORE: The current dock there now is six inch. But it's shoder so. MS. KOLYER: You gave us eight inch but our neighbor thought, for whatever reason, so it went back down to six. And we were concerned at the time, that the length -- you had originally given us eight. I think in fact it might even be eight on the permit. But we are afraid if we lengthen it that four (4) six-inch is not going to do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me clarify, when you say we gave you eight, that was on the original permit that you have already. MS. MOORE: Previously, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the one last month, the drawings showed six inch. There was really no discussion because we were all happy with the six inch, and I think, it's up to the rest of the Board, but I feel the six inch would b.e sufficient. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does it make it consistent with the others in the cove? MS. MOORE: Everybody else has eight. MS. KOYLER: They have eight, ten and 12. What we could do, if you want to keep the pilings, could we add two more six inch? Because we have just the four. Will it work? Board of Trustees 15 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be inclined to keep the amount and do eight inch rather than add two more pilings. TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of docks out there with six-inch piles going all the way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you mean in the cove or out in the bay? TRUSTEE KING: In our town water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our policy has really been to keep it down to six inch on the fixed portion. You know, I'm not an engineer or dock builder, so I don't know if what you are saying is true. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, how many feet on center are those piles, in the plans? I'm just wondering if they are ten foot on center or less or more. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was my question I was going to ask. (Perusing.) MS. KOYLER: They are at the end and at the beginning of where the ramp goes down. TRUSTEE KING: We don't have a profile of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know what they are proposed, the space between the pilings? Because we don't have it on this survey. MS. MOORE: He didn't draw it, so. You have the drawing, maybe the photographs in your file might help. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are trying to look at the plan that we approved and it really, it's difficult to -- they do have a small profile but it's difficult to figure out. There is no scale on it. TRUSTEE KING: They are on eight-foot-centers now. That's a common spacing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Eight foot, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So six-inch pile should be fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because we approved ten foot on center with six inch. And this is eight foot on center. MS. KOYLER: Is that stable? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying. We've approved six-inch piles ten-foot on center. You are eight foot on center, which is even closer MS. KOYLER: But it's not unsafe? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not that we know of. This is what we have been approving. MS. KOYLER: But in the code, if we didn't put the inches on the piles, is that what everyone else does, they just don't put it on the thing then they use whatever the dock builder. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's part of every application. We usually discuss them on every application. We didn't for yours because you gave us what we thought would be appropriate. MS. KOYLER: Let me ask you, I trust you are giving out permits for things that are safe and everything but what if it's not that sound. Board of Trustees 16 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If after you construct it and you find a problem with it, and back to and us we'll look at it and discuss it at that time. TRUSTEE KING: What's the width on it, four feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I believe so. MS. MOORE: I'm looking at the previous permit. I have five eight-inch piles previously requested, so. TRUSTEE KING: The only docks I could think of that we've approved larger than six-inch piles is on Fishers Island. Every other dock is 4x4 through the tidal marsh, six-inch piles in the water and eight-inch piles to secure the float. That's the standard and that's the standard DEC is approving. MS. MOORE: What did you recently approve for Zupa? TRUSTEE KING: I believe those were six~inch. Cramm (sic) comes to mind, that dock, that was six inch. Remember that one? MS. MOORE: But that was in a different body of water. TRUSTEE KING: The Hinden dock is six-inch piles, 4x4 through the marsh. MS. KOYLER: Do you think it will work? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's worked all over town. If it doesn't, come back to us and we'll revisit it. I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Steven and Andrea Kolyer for the amendment to permit #5672 to increase the size of the pilings on the -- you already have six. So I'll make a motion to deny the request for the amendment to increase the size. So therefore the size will stay at six inches. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MS. MOORE: Because the float already has eight inch. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we move on, I just want to say something about the last one. I know we discussed it a little bit and I'm kind of curious in my own mind why we have this debate about six or eight, and I'm not quite sure I understand the difference between six and eight in terms of the environmental effects. So I'm going to look into that and see if I could find out. TRUSTEE KING: Check with the DEC. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes, because I know the DEC says it so we have been following it as policy. I just don't see any environmental -- TRUSTEE KING: The reason we've done it is because it stops the debate between us and the DEC. Things turn around sometimes. So many people come in and do Board of Trustees 17 May 20, 2009 something, then it comes back to us, no, you can only have 4x4 and six-inch piles. We try to standardize everything and make it easier for the applicant TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand. I just want to see if we can get more information. Because it comes up frequently and I'm not always comfortable saying, in agreeing with it. But I understand why we do it. I'll look into it. That's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten? TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, FARRELL BUILDING CO., requests an Amendment to Permit #6276 to allow for the 35' buffer and for the paved driveway with installed drywells. Located: 235 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. This was a case where I think there was a 50-foot buffer. It was supposed to be in place. And it actually is just about right at the house with a 50-foot buffer. The driveway, in my mind, was not a problem at all. It has a draining system on it. It's barely jurisdictional. It's on the landward side of the house. That's not having a huge, an impact on anything, in my mind. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: I agree with you on that. I want to note for the record that in the permit it says "pervious driveway" and they paved it. They did, upon our request, we asked them to fix it and they are fixing it. They put the drainage in and the drainage is sufficient. TRUSTEE KING: Most instances if we want a pervious driveway, that's stated, and if it's also a hard surface then we make them put drainage in to take care of the runoff, and this has been done here. The buffer, I can live with the 35-foot buffer if they do some plantings along here to stop this erosion. I think we need to see that. We need to see a planting plan along this edge right at the 35 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also to ensure it's not going to get bigger. TRUSTEE KING: Right. They have the edge of the lawn. I think we should see a planting plan right along that edge. Because it's a very small backyard. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce, are you here for this client? MR. ANDERSON: I was called in today and I went out and looked at it. You are talking a foot or two off the edge. TRUSTEE KING: You see the edge of the sod, you have a little erosion problem .there. If that was planted up, maybe even berm it a little bit and put some plantings along the top of the berm. That would be the way to go, I think MR. ANDERSON: Rosa rugosa, something like that, TRUSTEE BERGEN: Montauk daisies. MR. ANDERSON: Montauk daisies, okay. They are trying to do this quickly. How is the quickest way to do Board of Trustees 18 May 20, 2009 this? Because what I have is a letter from them is the subject of a closing. The building inspector sent them here. There is no doubt that it's a 35-foot buffer is what we should be asking for, because I saw what you saw. There is no doubt about the drainage. So how do I do this quickly. TRUSTEE KING: Get up about five in the morning, I guess. MR. ANDERSON: If I give you a plan quickty, but when could I pick up a permit is what I'm trying to ask. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would approve it subject to receiving plans. MR. ANDERSON: You want to see it planted, physically. TRUSTEE KING: Give us a plan and get it done. MR. ANDERSON: Give you a plan and do it and photograph it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll approve it tonight subject to receiving a plan from you and once it's planted then you come to us and we'll give you your C of C, if it's according to what we approved. MR. ANDERSON: Can that be done by code enforcement? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes MR. ANDERSON: Okay, so I could probably do this in a week or so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and if Scot Hilary has been doing our C of C, and sometimes somebody in the building department. If they can't do it, one of the Trustees can do it. We can do it. We have a system in place to get it done in a shod amount of time. MR. ANDERSON: Fair enough. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve that based on plans showing a planted berm along the 35-foot edge. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearings and go into public hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) viii. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into the public hearings. If you have any comments to make about any of them, please keep your comments brief. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number one, Mark Schwartz, AIA, on behalf of ISKENDER EREY & ANGELICA BENGOLEA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a first-floor addition on. the landward side of the existing dwelling and expand the second-floor within Board of Trustees 19 May 20, 2009 the existing footprint, create deck over the existing sunporch and install new windows, exterior doors, siding and roofing. Located: 680 South Lane, East Marion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I want to note I'm recusing myself on this one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We had this last month but bt did not have a coastal erosion, I believe, line, on the survey, so that has been corrected? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it is consistent with our LWRP. It's been reviewed consistent, so. Coastal erosion. We basically reviewed this last month. The Board didn't have a problem with it. And coastal erosion, is this the one from last month? This is stamped April 22. Is this the April 22 one, the newer plan with the coastal erosion on it? MR. SCHWARTZ: If we, let me just take a look at it. (Perusing.) Yes, 'that's the one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So with that correction on the survey, I'll make a motion to chose the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to construct the first-floor addition and expand the second floor for Erey and Bengolea at 680 South Lane, East Marion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) (Trustee Doherty, recused.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, MBB Architects on behalf of MARY BURNHAM 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. This was, the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore there is no recommendation from them. It was inconsistent under the LWRP, and the reason for inconsistency was the setback from the wetland boundary of 100 foot. The proposed actions are not water dependent uses therefore the recommended new development which is not water dependent be located as far away from the coastal hazard area as practical. Trustees King, Doherty and myself did go out and look at this last week. We made a trip to Fishers Island last Friday, in the fog, be it noted. We made it out there and back. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? Board of Trustees 20 May 20, 2009 (No response.) I know when we went out and looked at it, I'll break this down into a couple of pieces here. First, the two-story addition, that is completely landward of the existing house, so we didn't have any problem with that. This was a very small corner of the proposed deck that was in coastal erosion hazard line. The new deck, it was very, very small. I think it was essentially one piling, so I personally didn't have a problem with that one. Where we did have an issue with was the proposed one-story garage in that where it is presently located it's down, the best way to describe it is in a very steep hollow on the property. I'm not quite sure how any type of vehicle could even access this proposed garage, but be that as it may, it was also about, I'm trying to look, here we go, 704eet from the wetlands. We were hoping the applicant would be here because we wanted to propose what we thought was possibly a more workable location for this one-story garage where it would both be functional and it would take it outside of our jurisdiction. And so unfortunately -- TRUSTEE KING: Are you here for the Burnham application? MS. BURNHAM: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: We are right in the middle of it. MS. BURNHAM: I have been driving for four hours. I beg your pardon. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're just in time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. What I'll do is give you a chance to collect your thoughts and I'll summarize quickly what we already stated on the record. Three of us did go out to look at this property last Friday, basically breaking it down into three parts: The two-story addition which is landward of the, proposed to be landward of the existing structure, we had no problem with. There was an inconsistency given under the LWRP because of the setback for the garage and the fact that one very small part of the new proposed deck was within the coastal erosion hazard area. And myself, personally, it was such a small structure or part of a structure that is within that area, I didn't have a problem with that one. Primarily, speaking for the three of us, we had a concern with, was the. proposed one-story garage, because it is down, I describe it as being down in a hollow, where it seems like access to it will be extremely difficult for vehicles. It's approximately 70-feet from the wetland boundary, according to our measurements out there. And what we were going to do tonight was to see if we could propose, what we hope would be a better location for this, both functionally as well as bringing it outside our jurisdictior~ or farther away from the wetlands. Board of Trustees 21 May 20, 2009 So if you please introduce yourself first for the record and I hope you had a chance to catch your breath MS. BURNHAM: Thank you. I'm Mary Burnham. I'm an architect and also a member of the family who owns the property on Peninsula Road. So the two things that we are proposing is doing a small addition, which I guess you already considered, and the second thing is to add a garage. Just to clarify, our thinking on the garage is to essentially build it on stilts so that it is down from the road but only by about 18 inches. So that essentially it's tucked in the growth there, under that huge oak tree. ©ur goal was to hide it as much as possible. I know there is a tension between the location relative to the road and the location relative to the water. But, in any case, I do have photographs for the benefit of those who were not there, of the road right there, if that's helpful. I just printed those. And this is the road. (Indicating.) It's a dirt road. This is the road leading to the beginning of the property, which is essentially right there, just past this pole. This is the car area for the neighbor. And this is looking back at that same pole. There is an enormous oak tree and this is just sod of, you know, jungle growth. It's not particularly, it's not really planted. It's just wild. So our goal was to try and hide it as much as possible in the growth. And it would be a weathered material, it would be wood, so it would go gray. So in any case, that's what we were trying to achieve is try to keep it sort of minimally impacting the road. I also have some photographs, I would also like to show of the immediate neighborhood just showing some other conditions on that road. These are all structures built on the road, just down the road. So these are all, you know, within just, they are just down the road. It's a very, very tiny small road. TRUSTEE KING: How close are these to the wetlands? MS. BURNHAM: These, I couldn't tell you. I know that the property, the water line is not very consistent there and, as you know, part of our property is very thin, and that's down where the garage structure is proposed. And part of it is thicker. And I think, similarly, most of these property o~vners have thicker and thinner areas. This part is fairly regular but this part is the not, this side of the road where these other buildings~ And the this one, for example, this is a whole set of structures that is next to our house that is really close to the water. That part of the, I happen to know the road is sort of encroaching on their property. It just does. So I think you recently approved a septic system for a new property just down Board of Trustees 22 May 20, 2009 the road, just next to this. So that's where it's very, very tight to the water, even tighter than where our garage is, so. Or will be. I don't know if that helps illustrate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our concern is not to the road, it's what's closest to the water. We in this Board would rather see it closer to the road than to the water. MS. BURNHAM: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where we are coming from. MS. BURNHAM: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I ask, the way the driveway is now, I understand the one reason, but why wouldn't you just put it up with the driveway up in that area, if it's out of our jurisdiction? MS. BURNHAM: This area is, this garage we don't really see being a daily-use garage. This would be really to park our car during the winter. That's it. And store our gardening tools, things like that. It's like a storage shed for us. That's not a thing we use every day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you don't want to be able to see it. MS. BURNHAM: Ideally, no, it's not something we plan to see. It's really a storage thing we'll probably use in the winter, not for our car. The dimensions will attest to that. I think right now we are showing, it's not 15 feet wide, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw, it's really cool, the platform and then the tents you have there. So that will be taken down and not replaced in any way. MS. BURNHAM: That we take down every year. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But the platform is not taken down? That's what I'm saying. MS. BURNHAM: No, but we would take that away; yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the garage is proposed landward of that. MS. BURNHAM: Correct, a little further down, right. Yes, exactly. Right. TRUSTEE KING: What purpose would the block retaining wall serve? MS. BURNHAM: we are still looking at exactly how, again, I decided to bring this before the Trustees before we really finished the design because I didn't want to go too far into a direction. Also with the addition, we have not done working drawings or anything, so we are looking at how to support that. We were thinking under the garage level maybe we could put our kayaks and things during the winter, but, again, if it's wailed off, that's fine. It may be more of a post structure is what I'm thinking. It doesn't have to be walls. We have not quite gotten therel Posts might be less invasive, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you really, you are not bringing Board of Trustees 23 May 20, 2009 any fill in so what, the slope from the road, I mean it drops down, so you are building a ramp? MS. BURNHAM: Yes, it would be a small ramp. I think essentially the garage level is to be essentially on the road level. TRUSTEE KING: Basically it's a garage on stilts, is what you are talking about. MS. BURNHAM: It's like a garage on stilts. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Almost like a bridge ramp. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a ten-foot long ramp. There is no elevation picture here that told us that. MS. BURNHAM: True, true. Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. That's why we were confused. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's just storage underneath, multiple kayaks. We loved all the toys. MS. BURNHAM: We have lots of dinghies at our house, lots of toys. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN! This is ten feet from the road. There is a setback issue. MS. BURNHAM: So that's sort of a dilemma. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there really a need, again, I understand Jim asked, but I didn't quite understand the answer. Is there a need for this Iow concrete block retaining walls? MS. BURNHAM: I don't think so. We are hoping not so much. Our goal is to let it sort of perch as much as possible. We didn't know if we were going to need retaining walls, but we might, I think. I think we might. I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: The house is on pilings, doesn't have retaining walls. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm thinking, at the v~ry least, I'm trying to look for a compass rose but there is not one on here. MS. BURNHAM: Here is a compass. North is the big black part. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excellent. So the southern retaining wall that extends farther toward the wetlands, if we could remove that, take that out. MS. BURNHAM: I'm happy to take both. I think in the event that we cannot need them I think that's really the ideal situation, so I think if we could just have it perching up there, that would be best. You know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be favorable to us, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would help bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: So we really don't know what the floor elevation would be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to see elevation drawings. MS. BURNHAM: A section, okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we need to have the retaining walls removed so we could see the elevation. TRUSTEE KING: First floor elevation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Okay, with that I'll ask if there is anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? TRUSTEE KING: We want to see drainage, gutters and leaders to drywells to take care of the roof runoff. MS. BURNHAM: Absolutely TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's Chapter 236 of the Town Code. If you could just make amendments to the plans to reflect taking care of Chapter 236. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the addition of the house doesn't meet the Health Board of Trustees 24 May 20, 2009 Depadment for what you, the sanitary that you have now? MS. BURNHAM: Technically we are not changing the number of bedrooms. We are becoming slightly bigger. But we are actually doing very little to the main house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just ask because when people have to change the sanitary, that's the time to move it back, but if you are not changing it. MS. BURNHAM: Technically, we don't need to. It seems to be holding up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no fudher comments from the Board -- TRUSTEE KING: I would just stipulate on the garage there is to be no plumbing, kitchen or living facilities in there. No habitation. MS. BURNHAM: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just have to say that because we had situations where changes occur. MS. BURNHAM: I understand. That's not our goal here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I would make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you understand what we are looking for now? MS. BURNHAM: Yes. So we'll just resubmit with elevation but we don't need come to another hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Show us a profile of the garage with the elevation with the slope under it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The removal of the retaining walls and everything to address 236. MS. BURNHAM: Okay, thank you. Great. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, CHRIS CYPRUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions to the existing dwelling. Located: 1100 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to comment on this? MR. CYPRUS: I am. Chris Cyprus. TRUSTEE KING: We all went out there: I don't think anybody had an issue with what you are doing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't remember, do we have gutters, leaders and drywetls on the property now? MR. CYPRUS: There are gutters and leaders. Not drywells. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Drywells is something we want it see if you could contain, I know you are just doing additions, but if you could contain all the roof runoff from the whole entire the structure into drywells. How does the Board feel? Should we just have him do the additions or at this time -- MR. CYPRUS: Could I just make a comment? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. CYPRUS: About two or three years back, the town Board of Trustees 25 May 20, 2009 repaved the road and now all the rain water puddles up into my driveway because the road is now higher than my driveway. That's for the front yard. In the backyard, for those of you that were out there, for those that were not, I have pictures if you would like to see it. It's all concrete. It goes from concrete into sand. So if we put drywells, it just goes into the sand, so it's in the clear to me that there is any benefit. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think you have a runoff problem there. MR. CYPRUS: No, I don't. The only problem I have is when the down increased the height of the road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. We just rescinded one that we did, the same type of thing, was all sand and they requested not to do drywells, and with sand you don't need it, so. TRUSTEE KING: CAC resolved to suppod the application with the condition of gutters and drywells are installed. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: It's just an automatic thing we do with every parcel. TRUSTEE KING: Peter Young is here from the CAC. It's recommended consistent with LWRP. That's good news. I don't think any of us have an issue, do we? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: There is no demolition going o.n here, it's just an addition. Any other comments? (No response.) MR. CYPRUS: If I might add something, in my haste, before the architect had given me a plan, I was not wise enough to add a portico. I have a drawing I just got from the architect the other week. Is that something I need to do something different about? Because if you put the picture on the screen of the front yard, if you wo. uld, please. That's the seaward side. TRUSTEE KING: We have some of your photos here. MR. CYPRUS: Okay, that's it right there. If we close in this indentation, there will be no entrance into the house, and I just did not include, you could see it here to the plans. TRUSTEE KING: That's on the landward side, yes. MR. CYPRUS: Yes, I'll be adding a portico. Is that something I need to do here or could I just do that with the town? Because there is no way to enter the house once I close that off. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You had tape across there, didn't you? MR. CYPRUS: Yes, I did, but I was not specific as to the portico on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's an issue. MR. CYPRUS: Okay, I just wanted to disclose that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could note that for the record. MR. CYPRUS: For the portico to be added? Board of Trustees 26 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. CYPRUS: I appreciate that. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion approve the application as submitted, with the addition of the podico. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. CYPRUS: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Young & Young on behalf of MARK BAXTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system and driveway. Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. This is just a continuation of a hearing that we have been having over the last few months. Last month the applicant came before us. We made some requests to make some changes. Just to recap real quick, we had tried to get this property, procure the property for the town via the land preservation committee. The land preservation committee didn't put this forward to the town board, they don't believe that this would be, that they could move forward with getting this property. The Trustees lobbied very diligently to get this preserved, but it's since that's not going to happen and since the town several years ago put forth a building envelope for the applicant on the property, and the planning and zoning was approved for it, we asked the applicant to minimize the impact to this lot as much as possible. In doing so, the applicant came forward with a new set of plans which I believe we have all seen. Does anybody want a copy? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On these plans you'll see that they have taken what was originally going to be a five-bedroom house and made it a three bedroom. In doing so, they will be able to lower the retaining walls on the septic system. They have removed the pool, which is something that we requested. And also removed the dock. So the applicant has done pretty much everything that we've asked. He has been very cooperative in trying to make this, first in offering to sell it to the town at a discounted rate for preservation. In lieu of not being able to do that, of minimizing the impact the best we can. And with that, I'll open it up to any comments on the application. TRUSTEE KING: You have DEC approval and also Health Department, correct? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a comment. I've walked this property, it seems like a long time, as you know. And I struggled with it from the very beginning. For many, many reasons. I walked through water to get to the site many times and besides the entire wetlands that are in the surrounding areas, besides the water that has flooded the area, I appreciate your years of working on it. I appreciate your time in curtailing and changing the plans, but I Board of Trustees 27 May 20, 2009 will not be approving this tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to say I agree with some of what Peggy has said, but also what Bob has said makes sense. This is an approved, buildable lot that other departments in this town have approved and he has mitigated this as much as possible, so I really don't see how we cannot give him some type of approval on this, as much as I would like to see nothing on there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board or the audience? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve the application based upon the plans that have been submitted and received on May 15, 2009, which includes a reduction in the size of the home, the amount of bedrooms, eliminates the dock, reduces the size of the retaining wall, and eliminates the pool, which we requested. All the other conditions that were originally applied for would stand, and with these mitigating factors and changes I see it would be consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: Note for the record Trustee Dickerson voted nay. MR. BAXTER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to dredge 13,000 cubic yards of sandy silt with a one-foot overdredge allowance of 6,000 cubic yards over 145,000 square feet by clamshell bucket for open water disposal at New London. Remove existing "A" dock with sailing program float, "B" dock with floating "T" end and dinghy dock, construct 36 linear feet of seven-foot wide main pier extension and seven 30x4' fixed fingers with associated support and tie-off/fender piles. Install 228 linear feet of eight-foot wide main float with eighteen 20x3' finger floats, 216 linear feet of eight-foot wide main float with 13 20x3' finger floats, two 20x4' finger floats, two 13x42' and one 19x42' sail floats all with associated ramps, restraint piles and tie-off/finger piles. Reconstruct or replace an existing 12x20' floating dingy dock waterward of the apparent high water line and install a small boat crane landward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. This was an application that came before the Trustees last month. We had considerable discussion about it last month. Just for the record, the CAC did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. There was a review under the LWRP dated March 24, 2009, where it was found inconsistent. And the inconsistency, first off, was due to the area being zoned R-80 residential. And where that comes into play is one dock is allowed in a residential area and there is multiple docks here, so there is a question of zoning issue here that had to be resolved. And just asking the Board to consider Chapter 268 in their final P.O. Box 154 Fishers Island, NY (631) 788 7090 Apfil15,2009 To Whom It May Concern: I hope that you will approve the application for dredging in West Harbor, Fishers Island, NY. I am the Deputy Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the island. The Fishers Island Evacuation Plan has been developed by FEMA. Being an island, any evacuation will have to take place by using boats. There are two harbors that are suitable for an evacuation and that are specified in the current Evacuation Plan. West Harbor is one of them. If an evacuation is required in the winter, a population of approximately 300 will need to be taken off the island. Should an event occur in the summer, there could be up to 5,000 people who will need to be transported. Should there be time pressure in an evacuation situation, having the 'ability to collect people from two harbors would significantly reduce the time necessary to complete the evacuation. Therefore, it is vitally important for the island that West Harbor be dredged in order to accommodate large rescue boats. I hope that you will give this request your approval. Sincerely, Michael Imbriglio Deputy Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Fishers Island, NY April 8, 2009 To Whom It May Concern, This letter supports the dredging initiative at Fishers Island, NY. The Fishers Island Fire Department is in charge of maintaining and operating the island ambulance and the boat ambulance rn/v "Sea Stretcher". The Sea Stretcher takes injured and ill islanders between the island and the mainland. Each year our volunteers make between 80 and 100 ambulance runs. Three quarters of these necessitate taking patients by Sea Stretcher to the mainland for further medical treatment. While there is a doctor on the island, there is no hospital. Our Fire Department is responsible for the training and administering 4 boat captains, 7 navigators and 15 EMTs. Our all-volunteer staffbeeomes the island Red Cross should a disaster occur. Several times a year the Sea Stretcher is unable to leave the dock during low tides. In the past several years this is becoming increasingly frequent. Being on an island with limited medical facilities it is vital that we have the ability to transport critically ill people to the superior health care that is available on the mainland. Given these circumstances, I hope that you will look favorably upon the critically important request for dredging. It is fundamental to the well-being of our island. Sincerely, Greg Cypherd,.Chief Fishers Island Fire Department Board of Trustees 28 May 20, 2009 determinations. We have received in April 2 letters in support of this application; one from a Michael Embriglio who is the Deputy Emergency Preparedness Coordinator and another from Greg Siford, Chief of the Fishers Island Fire Department and, rather than read these into the record, just if you'll accept them into the record, I'll give them to the reporter so they'll be placed into the record. But both are in support, for emergency preparedness reasons, for this project. Now, we did this month go out and look at it, Trustees Doherty, King and myself were there last Friday to look at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NEILSON: Keith Neilson from Docko, Inc., on behalf of the yacht club. Based on our discussions at the site and you'll remember that we had several focuses but one was the path. The path, I believe all the issues have been resolved and we modified the sketches as you had requested, and the DEC has issued the amendment based on those sketches. The second thing was extensive dredging considered over here in front of the house of Penelope Sharpe, and what we have done is agreed in the field, we trimmed the corner of the dredging to a point 40 feet off the end of the existing "T" dock which is also the end of the proposed sailing float in that area'and came back to a point about ten feet west of the sailing launch ramp. And so that cut about three-thousand square feet off the dredging- project. We left the yardage the same because it may impact about six-hundred yards and we just felt it was better to leave the quantity in there. But we did trim the area and of course the dredging project will be clearly marked before the contractor goes in, but he's going to be under quite a bit of scrutiny to make sure he removes the right amount of yardage from each area. One thing that is not immediately or easily discerned from the plans, except if you study the shading is that we are stair stepping the amount of dredging to accommodate larger boats on "D" dock, intermediate boats on "B", small boats and the sailing program on "A." So the dredging is four feet here, five here, six, seven, eight, to the largest boats out on the outside of "D" dock. And then five and six in the area of the sea stretcher. And six right back into the aft end of the sea stretcher dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Keith, is this area here, is this where you are talking about section four you have on your map? Is this the corner of the sail boat? MR. NEILSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your blue on your scale is -- MR. NEILSON: Undredged. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's this area here? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the modification. MR. NEILSON: Yes, that's pretty much it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The markers that you see in that Board of Trustees 29 May 20, 2009 picture were the original proposed, so now that is pulled back from those markers, so the dredging is not, the proposal we are looking at is not out to where you see the marker in that picture. MR. NEILSON: In this particular view you are looking right at Penny Sharpe's house. That marker is placed right here. You can see the dredge line is halfway between the dock and that marker. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, as I see this, there is really just one small area you are dredging to eight feet MR. NEILSON: Yes, right off the end of, the northeast end of "D" dock, and that's where in the past Argia (sic) and the whaler have tied up, and both of them have very significant drafts. Eight feet to nine feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As was discussed out in the field, one of the challenges that this location faces is it's open pretty much from the northeast so storm sediment is brought in but has no way of washing out of the harbor and that's what has added to the problem here, filling it in. I guess my question is this small area where which is the most northeast area you are proposing dredging to eight feet, do you think that's just going to be become a deposition basin; in other words that will just fill in as sediment comes in. That's, quickly, in my mind, I don't know for fact, will it just act as a deposition basin and fill in to seven feet like everything else MR. NEILSON: if you'll notice, the eight-foot contour comes in like this and loops right around. And so although it is subject to sand being deposited, and this does get sand whereas this area gets the mud, this is also the area where the deepest draft boats are kept and so they are propulsion systems are down Iow in the water and help to keep it cleaned out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hear you. I'm thinking, practically, I could be wrong, but just from my experience with dredging I'm afraid that might change into a deposition basin and fill in very quickly to a level of seven foot on either side you have there. But be that as it may, I think that's a challenge you might face. Now, as I recall in the field, did you want to separate out the docks from the dredging here tonight? MR. NEILSON: Yes, please. We have spoken with Mr. Verity at the building department and he's asked for an actual legal opinion of the use of the property since the '30s. As you know, the photographs I submitted last time were from the '30S. They did show yacht club facilities and so on, and I believe that Attorney Roosevelt from Fishers Island is going to prepare that document along with perhaps some surveys from Dick Strauss. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In looking at this plan that was Board of Trustees 30 May 20, 2009 submitted tonight, dated 5/19/2009, it shows the rip-rap, again, along that gravel walkway that is seaward of the clubhouse, landward of the fixed pier. So this is, as depicted in this new plan today, that is exactly what we talked about out there in the field. Because I know you submitted in our work session today some documentation. I just want to make sure that what was submitted in the work session is now on the record for the hearing tonight. MR. NEILSON: Those are the record documents and I included a half by length as well as the 24x36. Basically your concern is the easterly edge of the walkway, the water side edge of the, of this non-vegetated buffer, that's where the brick pavers are going to be located. And then that leaves a four-foot crest stone strip between the grassy area and the brick pavers. The pavers are also sloped back to the land. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the pavers will be along that rip-rap and they'll be sloped back landward toward the flagpole there and there will be some of that stone gravel in there also to help collect any runoff. MR. NEILSON: Right. They'll just place some of the real small stone you see along the edge of the revetment, once they get -- the pavers need to be put in this fairly straight line and that will leave some little undulations you see there and they'll just put the small revetment stones in there so it dresses it up and gives it a neat edge. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. And just for clarification also, the dredge material now is going to be disposed outside of the Southold Trustees jurisdiction. MR. NEILSON: Right. New London open water disposal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any questions that the Board members have? TRUSTEE KING: Do they cap that? MR. NEll_SON: Yes, that's why we are under such an urgent time schedule because the Navy is planning a dredge project in New London and that is providing the cap for this project. So we have to get your approval, DEC, and the New York Corps of Engineers before we can apply to the New England Region Corps of Engineers and the Connecticut DEP for the disposition in Connecticut for Connecticut waters. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not a great fan of open water disposal but it's out of our jurisdiction, so. MR. NEILSON: Well, in this case, you may remember we went through a year of planning and the sediment analysis and trying to get FIDCO, Fishers Island Ferry District, Fishers Island utility company and a half dozen contractors to take any or all of this and they would not because of the muddy nature of the sediments. Board of Trustees 31 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are them any comments from anybody in the audience for or against this application? (No response.) Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve, but note for the record here, Wayne, I'm limiting this. Approve number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of Fishers Island yacht club requesting a wetland permit to dredge 13,000 cubic yards of sandy silt with a one-foot overdredge allowance of 6,000 cubic yards over 145,000 square foot by clamshell bucket for open water disposal at New London. That is what we are limiting our approval here to tonight. Now, for the record, do I have to say we are tabling the remainder of the application, so everybody understands that? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are tabling the remainder of the application with regard to anything that refers to dock construction. MS. HULSE: Yes, I wouldn't include that. And I would include that pad that is out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll amend that to read Docko, Inc., on behalf of Fishers Island Yacht Club requests a Wetland Permit to dredge 13,000 cubic yards of silty sand with a one-foot overdredge allowance of 6,000 cubic yards of 145,000 square feet by clamshell bucket, with that material to be placed outside of Southold Town Trustee jurisdiction. MS. HULSE: That's fine TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Only one question I had is the fee for the dredge spoils, we haven't addressed that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, just so people understand, within the Town Code there is a fee for dredge spoil that is calculated at so many dollars per cubic yard and that's something that is in Town Code would have to be paid for prior to the release of the permit. And if the applicant wishes to make an application to the town board for the waiver of that fee, that would be to the town board but the Trustees cannot waive that fee. MR. NEILSON: Thank you. I believe I speak on behalf of Fishers Island Yacht Club that they will apply to the town board for a variance for that fee. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, we can't release the Board of Trustees 32 May 20, 2009 permit until that fee is resolved. MR. NEILSON: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you make a motion to table the other part? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had said we are tabling the remainder of that application, anything related to the docks is tabled. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to clear and remove vegetation in a 30x450' area, excavate a 15x450' area to a depth of -1' and remove any topsoil or unsuitable subsoil and install a 15x450' stone driveway. Excavated soils shall be used to re-establish any disturbed slopes along the proposed drive. Any excess soils shall be trucked off site. The proposed drive shall have a one-foot compacted bank run gravel base with a four-inch compacted native brown processed stone. All disturbed slopes shall be Ioamed and seeded. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. Jim and I were out there with Glen. He showed us a pre-submission. Glen could not be here tonight, he's taking care of his ailing father. And basically, we talked to him. I don't think we have any. I don't know that there are any other questions on this. There is no nobody here to speak on behalf of this. It is consistent with LWRP and the CAC did not make an inspection. Is there any comment from the audience on this application? (No response.) Do the Trustees have any questions? (No response.) Most of it is out of our jurisdiction and we had no problem with it, basically. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing, TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of JMO Environmental consulting on behalf of Fishers Island Development Corp., as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of MARK MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove selected non-native invasive species and replant bluff with native species of shrubs and grasses to reduce runoff and erosion; install 8x20' Board of Trustees 33 May 20, 2009 bluestone patio and four-foot walkways on crushed gravel base; and construct 4x6' wood platform and four-foot stairs on seaward side of existing beach house. Located: 1000 Paradise Point Road, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design. The plans I submitted, I think, are pretty clear. I did meet you at the site visit to answer any questions at that point. Do you have any other concerns or questions for us? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. I have in front of me the review from LWRP that reviewed it as consistent. I also have in front of me the CAC that supports the application and the only comments on the field notes was a request for beach grass behind the bulkhead. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Correct. That's agreeable. Absolutely. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't see any other comments from the Board. TRUSTEE KING: No, we all looked at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland request for Mark Miller to remove selected native non-native invasive species and replant bluff with native species. Aisc to install an 8x20 bluestone patio, four-foot walkway and a 4x6 wood platform and four-foot stairs on the seaward side at 1000 Paradise Point Road, with the condition of beach grass being planted behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. CHICANOWICZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK FISHING STATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x20' ramp onto a 4x220' fixed dock section continuing with a 6x100' fixed dock section at the offshore end. Located: 800 King Street, New Suffolk. We have all been out to see this. The LWRP finds it to be consistent with policy ten, protecting Southold's water-dependent uses and promoting siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. We have all seen some aerials of this and have Board of Trustees 34 May 20, 2009 been out to the site. CAC resolves to support the wetland application to construct this ramp with the following conditions: Gutters and drywells installed on the building, swales installed high enough to bring runoff back to the property and the seaward end of the dock is shortened by 60 feet which will bring it in line with the existing structure to the south. While we were out in the field we did note that we would like to see it have open-grate walkways, if we approve it, and there was a question as far as the ' setbacks off the property lines. Is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting and we are the agents for New Suffolk Fishing Station on this application. And I'll certainly try to answer any questions that the Board has. And as you noted in the photographs, some of the existing floating docks that exist there now are Iow, wider than the four feet being proposed in the shallower waters. And it is designed in an attempt to get it approved, and also, I'll make a note, that one of the objections was to reduce it to by 60 feet so it didn't protrude past the existing structure, but the existing structure is out fudher than this dock was proposed. We are within that framework. So the adjoining property, which I believe is owned by the land trust now, has an angled dock that goes out past what is being proposed. As you well know, the cost of this small piece of property and making a living on it is certainly getting to be a serious trouble for the owner. The cost of insurance is up -- I don't have to go through the scenario -- the taxes are up, fuel costs are up. It's a small piece of property. He has been operating for over 40 years with a rental business, and certainly the public access that is provided by this small piece of property, allowing people to rent a boat, you don't have to own one, and go out fishing, out in the bay, it certainly provides more public access than any other 35-foot piece of properly. He helps -- and he's struggling to make a living and that's why it's being proposed. The offshore end of the dock is slightly wider because it's exposed to northeast winds and the ice conditions that may result and, if he ties up slightly larger vessels than the ones that he accommodates with the outboards and smaller boats, the dock would survive. That's why it was designed on this pretense. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In looking at the plans, again, I think your point is well taken. In actuality it's a little shorter than the existing dock to the south, because of Board of Trustees 35 May 20, 2009 the angle. MR. COSTELLO: They also have, you know, in the water, obstruction, a lot of obstruction. The rocks that were placed in the adjoining property, you know, we are trying to get out slightly past that obstruction. One of the other comments was the property line issue. We designed the dock to be ten feet off the property line, since the property is only 35 feet in width. I'm sure that the owner would be willing, should the Board so desire, to move it over maybe to 16 feet but, you know, you don't want to start encumbering the other piece of property, which is, I believe, Southold Town's. To my knowledge. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have come across this a couple of times in town with lots that have been historically used or historically set up for marine use, whether residential or commercial, and those properties back in the day were made to be too wide to meet the setback requirements that we have today. And it's hard for me, I'm just speaking for myself here, to say that you can't do it because of that setback that we have when we, you know, zoned and created these lots specifically for this use back in the day. So I'm not so opposed to having it there because of the setback issue. Are there any other comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, being that it's a Marine Two zone, I think the setback issue should be less restrictive than if it was a residential zone, and also for reasons that you stated. But I do, I would like to see it shortened, the dock shortened to be in line, like we said in the field, with the bulkhead that is out there. I don't know how much that is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The rock revetment, the rock bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The rock revetment goes all the way around and out. I think you need to look at the plans and measure it from there. TRUSTEE KING: He can shorten it about 40 feet, it looks like. MR. COSTELLO: If you look at the plans, the length of the dock, about the only unobstructed portion that doesn't face a problem with running in'to anything, is the last 50 feet. But, a good navigator might be able to get around it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would exclude me. I mean I hit railroad bridge on Goldsmith with a 14-foot boat. MR. COSTELLO: Like I say, the owner did say if it was necessary and it was the Board's decision, he would be more than willing to move it over to 16 feet off the property instead of. But he couldn't go much further Board of Trustees 36 May 20, 2009 than that and use the north side of the dock efficiently. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem where you located the dock. It's just the length I would like to see shortened a little bit. MR. COSTELLO: For what purpose? Navigationally, it doesn't, I mean, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just as boats are coming around the corner there and coming in here, I just think it's a safe, more of a safety issue. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if, you know, maybe we can compromise. Jim is measuring 40 feet back to here. Maybe we can compromise less than that. I would like to see it shortened somewhat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I shared in the concerns in the field in the length of it, also thinking this is, the New Suffolk area is used quite a bit for kayaking, row boating, small sailboats and I know many hug along that rock revetment. And this would be extending out, I think I already heard approximately 40 feet beyond that, which would become, could become a challenge for people in small boats, kayaks, et cetera. I would also be interested in hearing if there is any comments, I don't know if there is anybody here from the adjacent property owners that want to comment on this project, or from the New Suffolk community since this will have a significant impact on the community. TRUSTEE KING: I'm surprised there is nobody here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we have one person here. MR. SIBEN: My name is Michael Siben. I do happen to live over 600 feet away from there, but I'm not a boater and I'm not particularly knowledgeable. I also happen to be on the Board of the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, which is in the process of purchasing the adjacent property from the Peconic Land Trust. And I have no knowledge and I did not expect to be -- and I'm here to observe, but as apparently the only member of the community other than Mr. Aroria (sic) that is here today, I guess I know I could speak for the board, people that know much more about this than I do, that yes, we are extremely concerned about the delicacy of the area, particularly with regard to the kind of small boats and the kayaks and small sailboats that need, that are not sailed by skilled operators. So any bit of flexibility to those interests, I think would be much appreciated by those of us who live and are trying to develop our waterfront in a way that will maximize the interest and the benefits of the whole community and our neighbors. Mr. Aroda is a neighbor of ours and we have worked with him and we are not, we are not at odds. And I guess that's all I want to say. Board of Trustees 37 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I would rely on the rest of the boating people to come up with a suggestion on the length. TRUSTEE KING: John, where do you stand with the other agencies? MR. COSTELLO: They are all in the process but they have not -- TRUSTEE KING: Because I got a call about this quite a while ago now, probably a month or two ago, from the state department, and they were very concerned about the length. That's all I could tell you. MR. COSTELL©: Can I make a suggestion. I think this was discussed with the owner. What I'll do is offer a drawing with the dock bei.ng 40-foot shorter and, the only thing is, I would like the opportunity to reapply should I find out there is no obstructions, because we don't know what they are going to do with the land trust properly, but I'm sure they are going to utilize, hopefully, they'll use it for public access, too, which would be good. You have the launching ramp? TRUSTEE KING: I believe that's the plan. MR. COSTELLO: It's in the drawing board. But I hope it is. I hope the public has more use of that water there. And if I took 40 feet off of it, what I would do is also, I would not want to see the flow-through decking except on possibly the first hundred feet or so, where I don't need structure. You see I dropped the inside piling off, in order to put less piling in the water. But the flow-through decking on the intro ramp, where it doesn't need the strength, I would certainly: TRUSTEE KING: Why can't you cantilever that seaward end a little more to the north? MR. COSTELLO: It's 35 feet. You could. The dock would be stronger if you did cantilever it. TRUSTEE KING: It would be more u.sable, too, I think. Get it away from the jetty more. MR. COSTELLO: A "T" on the dock or an "L" on the dock gives it the same strength. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not talking "L." MR. COSTELLO: No, but even cantilevering it, it's a brace. And we know the northeast wind is the devil. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you want to approach it? Do you want to table it and come back with a new drawing or do an approval predicated on -- MR. COSTELLO: I would agree to shorten it. But I would like the opportunity to come back. It would be another application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You could always come back. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If we approve the dock with the 40-foot less, could it not just be amended? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure; TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you came back it would be an Board of Trustees 38 May 20, 2009 amendment. MR. COSTELLO: Sure, it would be a separate application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even if you cantilever it, I would not have problem approving it tonight subject to new plans. TRUSTEE KING: John, can you look at this for a second. MR. COSTELLO: Sure. (Perusing). This does, but all the boats are going to be going over the property over here. I could change that. TRUSTEE KING: You could extend it that way. They don't have to run exactly the way they are on the land because you are in the open bay. It's something to think about. MR. COSTELLO: No, that could easily happen, sure. I only did it parallel because it's 35 feet. TRUSTEE KING: See what I'm saying. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Bring it toward the other property. TRUSTEE KING: It gets it way from that jetty more. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How close to the other property line are you getting? MR. COSTELLO: It probably gets within 15 feet from the other property line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it doesn't cross over the extended property line. MR. COSTELLO: Center it at the end. TRUSTEE KING: It depends how you extend the property line. Who says the property line has to run on this angle. Why can't it go like this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you extend the town road out, straight out, you know, then you have that. MR. COSTELLO: The town isn't going to build a dock. I'll bid on it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In there are no other comments or questions, I'll 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 as submitted with the change that the dock will be shortened by 40 feet and subject to a new set of drawings coming in. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, is that grated, non-grated or half grated? TRUSTEE KING: Open-grate on the first hundred feet: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Open-grate on the first hundred feet, makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see the whole seaward end moved to the north. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And also move the seaward end toward the north as much as practicable. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 39 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAMES R. RICH, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to dredge an underwater area measuring 12x36' along the eastern side of the existing dock structure to a depth of three feet below apparent Iow water (allowing for a one-foot overcut) and as a ten-year maintenance dredging permit. Located: 3415 Wells Avenue, Southold. First off, CAC resolved to support the application. It was reviewed under the LWRP and it was found consistent under the LWRP. The Board did go out and look at this and it should be noted for the record there was a permit issued previously dated May 24, 2001. It was permit #5328 by the Board of Trustees to dredge this area to three feet at Iow water. So is there anybody here to speak for this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk County Environmental Consulting for Mr. and Mrs. Rich. Mr. Rich is here in the back. You basically put in my case for me. This is an area that was previously dredged. The permits unfortunately expired. We are simply seeking to reestablish the permits granted by all agencies for this. We received approval so far from the Department of State. We expect Army Corps to follow. We expect there will be a window that will be applied by New York State DEC permitting us to dredging during a window in the winter time. And at present it's really the landward edge of the dredging area that is silted in. We want the ability to maintain that the way it has been historically been maintained. That's it TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question. It doesn't address in the description of the application where the material is going to go, and I'm making an assumption it would be disposed of in an approved upland site. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it will be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm speculating, as you alluded to, the Department of State will require a dredge window, they'll probably end, just so the applicant knows, probably around December 15. It will probably be October 15 to December 15. That's their determination but I'm just saying that's usually what they'll ask for. MR. ANDERSON: That's right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Were there any comments from the Board related to this application? (No response.) Anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak on behalf; for or against this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also note for the record that there was a permit even granted back in February of 1960 for this same activity at this same location. So there is Board of Trustees 40 May 20, 2009 quite a history of this going on this piece of property. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of James Rich, Jr., as mentioned. Located 3415 Wells Avenue, in Southold. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of HAVEN AVENUE REALTY CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to clear up to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary tine, or no closer than 25' landward of the crest of the bluff, for the purpose of improving the parcel with a single-family dwelling and appurtenances located no closer than 100 feet from the crest of the bluff. Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? There is also no LWRP for this application tonight. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I believe the Board had seen some version of this, I don't know whether formally or informally, at some point, a few moons ago, where a site plan had been laid out pursuant to 100-foot setbacks from what is shown on your site plan as the tie line average line of bluff per filed map, which is the filed map of Pebble Beach Farms at East Marion, which was approved and filed with the office of the Clerk of Suffolk County in 1975. It would appear that the house immediately to the east, which is quite some ways landward of the proposed dwelling, may have been constructed pursuant to that identified bluff line, although I think in reality that house was set quite a bit closer than that to the crest of bluff now. I don't know the history of the subdivision so I don't know whether the bluff has receded landward and/or the original bluff line was shown out perhaps farther seaward than what it was. So what I was asked to do when we were hired was to go out and do a field delineation of the top of the bluff, which I did on December 2 of last year. And I flagged along what I believed to be the top of the bluff with blue ribbons. That delineation was picked up by the surveyor, Fox Land Surveying, and if you notice, as that field delineation is plotted out with the contours, it appears to be where it should be, and what I mean by that is you'll notice that in the Board of Trustees 41 May 20, 2009 easterly part of the property there is a flat area where there is a lawn that has been maintained for some time, where the edge of the bluff is quite distinct. You are on a flat lawn, then you walk through a small row of shrubs, then you have a your precipitous drop to the sound. The rest of the lot is more undulating and actually turned turns down to the west toward the properties, the open-space property to the west and the developed property west of that. If you look at the map, and I have blown up a section of it so that you can see this, if you are standing on the upland looking toward The Sound, you'll notice there is a point of inflection, not the same point of inflection in the definition of bluff, but a point of inflection in the contour line that show you the peek point that runs along the top of the bluff, and you'll notice if you are standing at each one of these points, the land is sloping downward both to your right and to your left, at each of these points, by definition. To your right, the bluff is sloping down toward Long Island Sound and to your left the property is sloping straight down toward the open space and developed properties to your left-hand side. So what we did was to alter the entire site plan that the Board had previously looked at, and it may have been during a work session, to situate all of the proposed construction 100 feet from that line that I had delineated. If you look at the coastal erosion line on the map, it actually follows pretty well with what I have flagged, although in some places it's closer and in some places farther than it should be, according to the definition of how the line was originally mapped. So what we have proposed here is a non-disturbance buffer that would go no closer to the top of the bluff at any point than 25 feet or no closer than the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary line, whichever creates a more restrictive non-disturbance buffer. So the non-disturbance buffer would range in width from 25 to 50 feet as you go east to west across the property. The idea being to at no point disturb the property seaward of what was mapped as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary or what in fact exists today as the 25-foot landward offset of the actual crest of bluff, if that makes sense. The property has been staked and I'm happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak? (No response.) Questions from the Board? Board of Trustees 42 May 20, 2009 (No response.) As I mentioned before, there is no LWRP for this application tonight. The CAC did support the Wetland application. TRUSTEE KING: There seems to be a debate on where the top of the bluff is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I believe the feeling of the Board was to wait for our LWRP to get more information. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe we have to because it has not been 30 days. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What was the CAC comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Support. MR. HERMAN: My only response to that would be, I did happen to see Scott Hilary, I guess, probably, I guess it was last week, at some point in town hall. So in anticipation of that report I will mention one thing just for the Board to think about. And it was -- unless you want me to wait. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't believe we can act on this tonight, so I would suggest -- MR. HERMAN: To wait. Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: One comment. Just a second. This is an application just for clearing, right? MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: How about no clearing within 25 feet of the coastal erosion, make that limited clearing. Landward of the coastal erosion line. Make that the limit. No clearing beyond that 25 feet. MR. HERMAN: 25 feet landward of the coastal erosion hazard boundary? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. HERMAN: Jim, the applicant Charles Rizzo is here. I'm posing your question to him. And I suppose it would be my question as well. I suppose whether this is an application only for clearing depends on your acceptance of my delineation of the bluff line. So if you were willing to accept that and grant a permit for the clearing, well then that would be one option. The other would be if you are going to have to adjourn it anyway, then I would suspect we would have to wait. I mean that was the only reason I mentioned to Peggy, I know what Scott's contention is going to be, what his supposition is going to be. He wants to know, or at least he posed to me, why is the 52-foot contour as it turns toward the road not the top of the bluff. So I mean I can answer that geologically, also based on your code and also based on the non-jurisdiction letter we received from the New York State DEC, who accepted our delineation of the bluff and granted a non-jurisdiction letter, whereas if it were in fact a line that shot perpendicular to the shoreline, which defies the definition of bluff in the first place, Board of Trustees 43 May 20, 2009 we would not have been able to get that letter because the 52-foot contour cuts right through where the structures are proposed. In other words, if you look at the definition of "bluff," even in your code, where it describes the discernible line of active erosion or the point of inflection at the top of the bluff, which is what I field delineated, it defines within the definition of "bluff" the point of inflection as that point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes to begin its descent toward the shoreline. Not to begin its descent in any direction whatsoever. And that's correct. Because geologically the bluff is a ridge of sediment that was left by the last glacial subsidence. So "bluff," by definition, has to be associated with the waterway. In o!her words, if the top of your hill is the top of the bluff, the bottom of your bluff has to be associated with some water. So if you went east to west using that contour simply as your point of reference, then what you would find is that the seaward toe of your bluff is not a seaward toe at all but basically a retaining wall that runs along a maintained park. So it just, as I said, that seemed to me to be what Scott's supposition was going to be. But to me it doesn't follow science or your code. So whereas if you look where I delineated as it follows the contour lines, everywhere that contour bends, you are standing at the highest point, and the land is sloping in both directions, this way toward The Sound and this way toward the road. Which do you think is the bluff? It's toward The Sound. So -- but I understand, I mean if the Board wants to wait to see that report, then I could respond to it more thoroughly next month, then we probably don't have a choice. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I've seen the property and I understand what you are saying, but I could see situations where you could have a bluff turn 90 degrees to the water and still be a bluff. I know you are pointing out in the code it says it has to be a precipitous slope down toward the water. Let's say we had a horseshoe-shaped, the bluff was coming along The Sound, came in like a horseshoe and went back out, water and then beach in the middle of that horseshoe. I have a 50 foot bluff. Well, just because it turns in on a 90-degree angle to the water, it's still a bluff. MR. HERMAN: Well, it depend what you describing, Bob. If the water actually follows, like if you are talking about a promontory, like a cliff-like headland, and the water follows around, then it's still following the same definition. If what you are saying is the entire Board of Trustees 44 May 20, 2009 slope of the land moves in a different direction and then kind of takes some turns, I would agree with you. The difference here is the land never loses its slope toward The Sound. In other words, the slope that moves down to the park land is not substituting for a slope toward The Sound, it's in addition to it. In other words you could have a whole, basically the whole property could be a plateau and your slope could be directly toward the water and directly toward the road, in which case that's a more extreme version of this, in which case you would never be saying well maybe the drop toward the road is a bluff, because that seems so completely impossible to you. So what I'm saying is you can't be fooled by the fact that the land dips to the west in addition to the north because it still moving toward the north. So if geologically a bluff is an actively eroding wave cut ridge of sediment that is interacting with Long Island Sound and that slope continuing from east to west, that is always going to be your bluff. In other words, as you go to the west there is no interaction with water or a beach. It's a wood retaining wall, it!s lawn, it's landscaping, and then there is somebody else's house. And if you look to the west, the same geologic feature exists further to the west. There is a top of the bank slopes -- like if you are looking west, this is the top of the bank and there is a slope down toward The Sound, but then there is also a slope coming right toward you, and that house sits at the bottom of that hill. But it's actually set quite a ways back from Long Island Sound. So I agree with you, if this was all a completely natural situation and you actually had a beach and surface water interacting with the hill where it turns, then it's a bluff. But here that doesn't exist. I mean it may have existed in the Wisconsin glacial period but it has not existed that way since the time your code was adopted. So if there is no -- in other words, if you define the top of a bluff, you also have to define the bottom of it. So unless you are willing to define that lawn on the park as the seaward toe of the bluff, which I suspect you are not, then you can't define what is above it as the same angle as the top of the bluff. There has to be a top, a face and a bottom, and if you go toward the water, you have that. If you go toward the west, you don't have that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, may I ask a question? Is there also a concern with Chapter 236 about the 20% slope? MR. HERMAN: Is there a concern with Chapter 236 about the 20% slope? Are you talking about drainage? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, the angle of where the house Board of Trustees 45 May 20, 2009 will be as far as Chapter 236. I recall that being brought up in conversation so it might be something you may want to look into before we again speak. MR. HERMAN: I think if you look at the topography, by the time you get qp to where the house is located I don't know that that becomes a problem. But I'm, frankly I never had a site plan that had to take that fairly new piece of legislation into account, so we could have somebody look at that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll say, the site reminds me of a situation in Cutchogue where I think that code was actually created because of a house on a high bluff. So I'm just mentioning it. MR. HERMAN: Where you have a situation with runoff, almost. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. So I think we are in agreement that we need to table this for LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. HERMAN: Mr. Rizzo would like to speak. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Certainly. MR. RIZZO: Our family owned this property for 25 years and when we purchased it, we understood what the bluff line was approved at, and when Robert explained to us that although the bluff line didn't move, his interpretation of what the bluff line should be is the way he's described it. MR. HERMAN: Which is far landward of what the subdivision established it to be at. MR. RlZZO: And if the bluff line is going to be now construed as this wood retaining wall, which is on the west side of my property, then I would, be right now, I have been tucked into the corner of the property. I couldn't build a house if that was going to be considered a bluff. So for these 25 years we have anticipated the bluff line to be what was approved for the entire Pebble Beach development. And so we are kind of a little astounded, to be honest with you. MR. HERMAN: Even where this house is proposed, it's substantially landward of where the house to the east was approved in 1987. And as I said, itwas probably approved based on that prior bluff line. So, again, I don't know whether to venture a guess as to what the accuracy of what was accepted as the top of the bluff was 30 years ago or maybe it was completely correct and the bluff has eroded landward or there is some combination of both. I don't know. But certainly what we have done is we are trying to abide by what is we believe now currently to be the bluff. So that's why we have set the structures back much farther landward than the house to the east. Notwithstanding the Rizzo's presumption of what was laid out in the Board of Trustees 46 May 20, 2009 subdivision, which to me is an entirely different legal issue that I would hope we would not have to reach. We are trying to do the right thing here so we can, you know, we can take the discussion of what is the top of the bluff as far as the Board wishes to take it, which is I would guess is a minimum to wait until you get your LWRP report. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bob, if we wanted to meet you out there, you would be all right with that? MR. HERMAN: Yes, absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine En-Consultants on behalf of the ESTATE OF EILEEN O. GOLDNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached deck and steps, install drainage system of drywells and establish a 50' non-disturbance, non-fertilization buffer adjacent to tidal wetland boundary. Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. This application is consistent with LWRP and the CAC supports the application with the condition that two large maple trees located in the front of the property are maintained. I'll note that this property had a permit to construct a house as of March, 2006. So this permit has expired, so they are reapplying. Is there anybody here to speak for this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant. For the record, Jill, the current permit is actually still in effect. The original permit was granted in July of 2005 and then it was extended for a year in 2007 and 2008. So if this permit were approved I assume the Board would just include in its resolution either rescinding the current permit or just letting it lapse in favor of this one. It is the same layout that the Board approved four years ago and renewed twice. It does meet the state required wetland setback of 75 feet, which is actually to the stairs and the small deck on the water side of the house. About half the house is probably beyond your jurisdiction. The sanitary system is a raised system due to the depth to ground water, and that system, including its supporting retaining wall and fill are located entirely outside of the Board's jurisdiction. There is a drainage system of drywells that is proposed to control, capture and recharge roof runoff, and realizing the depth to groundwater those are two-foot deep drywells that are proposed to capture Board of Trustees 47 May 20, 2009 roof runoff. There will be very little yard established on the properly because there is a 50-foot non-disturbance, non-fertilization buffer that is proposed and was also required by the Tidal Wetland Permit that was issued by the New York State DEC and remains in effect. The Suffolk Health Department permit for the sanitary system also remains in effect. So essentially we are simply seeking to renew in some sense what the Board has approved and affirmed twice in the course of the past four years. It's also worth noting, as the Board noted during your original hearings, that this house would also be in line with both of the neighboring houses relative to the canal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the old permit is set to expire and you have exhausted your extensions. MR. HERMAN: Correct. It's currently ru.nning on its second extension and expires in July. I mean, if they ran out and started building next week they would still be within their rights to do that, but we are attempting to secure a new permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the original permit, I guess there is a basement in this house? MR. HERMAN: There was never a discussion of a basement one way or the other. The first-floor elevation that you see, which is raised notably relative to grade, is a by-product of the required invert elevation for the sanitary system. In other words if the septic system has to be raised two feet above ground water, the system has to be up, which means the first floor elevation has to be up. There is no basement specifically planned for this site. I'm not sure you would be able to construct one here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we thought. That's what we were questioning. MR. HERMAN: So the elevation is not anticipating -- to put a basement in here it would almost have to be located entirely above grade, at which point it's not a basement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak? MR. MAGAGNIN: My name is Joseph Magagnin. I live adjacent to the property in question on the south side. A couple of things I'm concerned about is the elevation. This house, the first floor is going to be about four feet higher than my house. And this is quite a high elevation, where all the other homes are much lower. I don't know, is this a normal thing to do in a neighborhood where you vary the elevations of the homes? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately, the laws, the flood plain laws have changed and the requirements have changed, so it is making these houses higher. We don't Board of Trustees 48 May 20, 2009 like it either, but it's really nothing we can do about it from this Board. It's through the Building Department and the federal flood plain stipulations and laws. MR. MAGAGNIN: Also, this wall surrounding the septic system is going to be four-feet high. And it's on two property lines. Is this also -- don't we have setbacks? On my neighbor's side, it's right on his property line, 40-feet of concrete wall; 60-feet on the front yard. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a good question. I don't know. MR. HERMAN: Jill, I can respond. Actually, the reason, the answer to both of the gentleman's questions are the same, which is that the other houses here that were built a long time ago, probably have sanitary systems that are sitting in ground water, which was allowable at that time, or not regulated. The problem here is because of the high elevation of groundwater, you can't do that anymore when you build a new house. For example, if the gentleman were renovating his own house significantly and had to put in a new sanitary system, you would not be able to maintain the same conditions. In order to get an approval from Suffolk County, the cesspools have to be raised in a way that the bottoms of the pools are at least two feet above ground water so that there can be proper biological treatment of the waste water. So what happens is, the fact that you are compelled by law to raise the sanitary system, the other part of the Suffolk County Health Department code says that if yqu are going to raise the sanitary system, if you can't create a 20% slope to your neighbor, in other words create a situation where mounding the land would not cause runoff on to the neighbor's property, you have to immediately contain the system with these retaining walls so that you don't create any runoff to the neighbor. So what happens is you are, number one, compelled to build this retaining wall high enough to elevate the system above groundwater and, number two, to your first question, causes you to have to build the first-floor elevation of the house up high enough to support that system. Now, if it makes you feel more comfortable, that doesn't, the need to do that doesn't allow you to vary from the height limitation for the overall house. So even though your first floor might have to be elevated, it doesn't mean you can then build the top of your house also another six or seven feet higher than your neighbors or what the code allows, at least without Zoning Board relief. No such petition has been made to the Zoning Board. So unfortunately I can't really comment any further because I don't know about the specific plan Board of Trustees 49 May 20, 2009 for the vertical element of the house, other than to tell you that you are not given any automatic relief to build the house any higher simply because you are starting the first floor higher. And if they were, you would be notified of that. MR. MAGAGNIN: I keep thinking of the Old Mill Creek with their concrete wall. Are we going to have homes now built with these walls all around? Can you imagine what this town will took like? I don't understand this. It's really unsightly. MR. HERMAN: What many agencies require now and what a lot of people just do, is to face the walls with stone or surround it with vegetation. Obviously if it's right on the property line you can't really do that. But you can face the wall. Most people don't want to see these unsightly retaining walls, but also many of the people who are compelled to build these things also don't want to look at their unsightly retaining walls either. So most of the people that I have worked with face these concrete walls in some way so they are not esthetically hideous. This wall happens actually not to be a subject of this application because it's out of this Board's jurisdiction. But unfortunately we don't really have a choice. That's the bottom line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Getting back to his question, though. I think it's a Building Department issue. Maybe, Lori, I don't know if you could answer this in any way. With the retaining walls for a septic system are there, do they fall into the setback regulations any of other structure for a lot? MS. HULSE: I don't know the specifics in this case. I'm assuming like Rob is saying it would be required to comport with any other fencing or wall around, which is I believe as Rob said, I think it's four feet. MR. HERMAN: Four feet without a building permit and six feet with a building permit. Something like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it would go under the fence regulations, pretty much. MS. HULSE: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't know if it falls under structures or fence. Because we have posts that falls under structure. MS. HULSE: These are on the side yards, right? MR. HERMAN: No, this is the front and the side. MR. MAGAGNIN: But being on the property line is okay? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are asking. That's a Building Department issue. MS. HULSE: As long as it maintains a certain height and doesn't go over a certain height, it is. MR. MAGAGNIN: I mean, I couldn't build my house on my property line. Board of Trustees 50 May 20, 2009 MR. HERMAN: It's not a house MR. MAGAGNIN: I know. It's a wall. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: But the wall is being treated like a fence, therefore if goes under the stipulations of the code under fence requirements. That's what she is saying, which is under the Building Department, not the Trustees. MR. HERMAN: Like a fence or any other wall. I mean, people build these stack stone walls out in front of their properties and berm them and plant them and ail of that. So that's generally the idea with these is to try to mask these in that way. MS. HULSE: The president will recognize people if there is anyone who would like to speak. MR. GUARRIELLO: Bob Guarriello, Willow Point Association. I understand that this is within the guidelines but it seems like. a complete disregard to the neighboring houses. I don't think any of you or anybody in Southo]d would want a four-foot concrete wall constructed along their property line. As the drawing shows, it's just a plain concrete w'all. There is no stone, no covering. MS. HULSE: This is really not a Board of Trustees issue. They can't vote yes or no on the wall. This is really a Zoning and Building Department issue. MR. GUARRIELLO: Does this go to the Building Department after this? MS. HULSE: I'm assuming you've already applied, Rob? MR. HERMAN: No, they would have to apply for a building permit once the environmental permits are secured. There is, the site design, site plan layout here conforms to zoning, so it would not a require a zoning variance. At least not to my knowledge. If it does, they'll find out as soon as they submit the building permit. But it's designed to meet all the required setbacks. MR. GUARRIF:LLO: So if they approve it, it automatically gets a building permit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's subject to review by the Building Department staff. Absolutely. MR. GUARRIELLO: So at that time it could be discussed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They don't have public meetings. MS. HULSE: Specifically, if I could speak on this, Jill. If the wails comport with what the code Section 280 allows, it won't go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, so there won't be a public hearing on that. Because he's not required to get a variance for that. From the description that you are providing tonight. So there won't be any public review on that. It either fits within the code or it doesn't. If it does fit within the code, the Building Department will grant a permit for that. Board o£Trustees 51 May 20, 2009 MR. GUARRIELLO: So it can't be asked that it could be revised and at least make the wall look like it belongs in the neighborhood? MS. HULSE: No. MR. HERMAN: The issue, again, with the wall, not to belabor the point, but if there is still some clarity lacking on it, the wall is not proposed by the applicant because they wish to build a four-foot concrete wall around a raised sanitary system. They are compelled by Suffolk County law to do so. They are also compelled inasmuch as it is practicable, and it is in this case, to set the sanitary system at least 100 feet from the wetland boundary, which is what this Board's concern is. So the sanitary system, if it were located in the rear yard, would not require the construction of retaining walls around the property lines but then it would be too close to the wetland and not conform to what this Board requires. Once it's up in the front yard, because there is not enough room on the property to simply mound it and grade it out at a gradual enough slope, there has to be these retaining walls. Otherwise they would jfist mound it and everybody would come in objecting that it was going to increase runoff. So in order to meet the wetland setback and not increase runoff to a neighboring properly, and also meet both the state and town requirements to elevate the system the required vertical separation distance from groundwater, this is the only practicable option on this permanent. So while it may be, it may appear to be esthetically unpleasing, it meets all of the requirements of this Board, of the New York State DEC and of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the LWRP. MR. HERMAN: And of the LWRP. So because of the environmental protection aspects of all of these laws that I!m mentioning, this unattractive wall is the result of all of that. So I think what your question really is, is how do you make sure that the people don't just build a retaining wall and leave it as a plain, gray retaining wall, and unfodunately neither this Board nor I can really answer that question. Other than to use common sense. TRUSTEE KING: It's entirely out of our jurisdiction. We have absolutely no say' over the septic system. MR. HERMAN: I know that. I'm just trying to be helpful to the speakers who came. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for the explanation. MR. GUARRIELLO: I realize what you are saying, I was just hoping something could be done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any other comments? Board of Trustees 52 May 20, 2009 MR. GUARRIELLO: No.. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, sir? MR. BLANCHARD: My name is Colin Blanchard, I'm the prope.rty owner of the properly on the other side, which is lot 19. You are discussing lot 20. I'm, unfortunately, the guy that has to look at the wall. As you say, it's not your jurisdiction. What I would like to know is how is this wall going to effect the runoff on my property, where my water goes to or? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have Chapter 236 of the Town Code, it basically states that any water has to be retained on their own property. So he has to make sure that water does not runoff on to your property, on to the road, on to somebody else's property or into the creek. That code is administered through the Building Department, and through the Building Department permit they will make sure and they'll review that. MR. BLANCHARD: Won't a 40-foot wall channel my water somewhere else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think you misunderstood his question, Jill. You are asking how will this effect the runoff from your property. And under Chapter 236, which the town adopted two years ago, you must retain all your water on your property. I'm just telling you that's what the Town Code says. So you are telling us, you are coming to us saying how is his project going to handle your road runoff. Our answer is you have to take care of your own runoff. That's not our answer, meaning the people up here; that's the town's answer under Chapter 236. If you were to do some improvements on your property you would be compelled to comply with 236 so there would be no runoff from your property. MR. BLANCHARD: Okay. My other question is, if you build a'wall, which you are considering as a fence, on somebody else's property, environmentally, how is that going to effect, I have a big line of bushes that go all the way down there. They are not little bushes like this. They look like trees. It's the same on your side. They are the same height as the trees on your side. They are big bushes; seven, eight-foot high. How is that going to effect, I mean, if you have a line like this and I have trees with bushes which are on my side, now you build a wall, what's going to happen to all the roots? is that not environmental? You are destroying something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess if you put it that way, it is. But again, it's out of jurisdiction. MR. BLANCHARD: Why is it out of your jurisdiction and whose jurisdiction would it be? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our jurisdiction is within a hundred feet of the wetland boundary line. So that wo~JId be Board of Trustees 53 May 20, 2009 the creek area, not exactly the high tide mark, but a little further back and from there, then 100 feet back. That's where our jurisdiction is. MR. BLANCHARD: So where would I get that jurisdiction from? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, the Building Department, you can ask them those questions. And Suffolk County Health Department. MR. BLANCHARD: I don't mean to sound pointed, but I can come and contest what you want to do and what your rules and regulations are but I cannot do that with the Building Department, can I? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. I understand what your point is, but if it's outside of our jurisdiction -- MR. BLANCHARD: I'm not blaming you people for it. In fact the way you do things is really good because we can come up and talk and get things sorted out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is an opportunity and that is to the Town Board. The Town Board has meetings every other week and they have a section of their meeting devoted, every single meeting, to items that the public wants to bring to their attention that are not on the agenda, and that might be a good time for you to bring this issue up to them. MR. BLANCHARD: We could bring the wall decision up as well? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, again, anything you want to you could bring up to the Town Board in a public hearing like that. But they need to understand when you bring it up that you did come to us and it is outside of our jurisdiction. That they -- and the Town Board gives us our jurisdiction of 100 feet, so. MR. BLANCHARD: Okay, thank you. - MR. HERMAN: Dave, again, as a finat comment, again trying to be helpful. First of all, the area that will retain the septic system, all of the fill material within that wall is clean sand, so this will actually become the most pervious portion of the property. So the creation of the wall with the sand fill will not create any runoff on to the Blanchard property. To the other question, there is a row of bushes that the Blanchard's have along the property line on their side and this retaining wall will be constructed entirely within the applicant's property. The applicants might also propose to come and plant a bunch of trees along that property line, the excavation of the holes for which might also damage their bushes. But the fact there are bushes on somebody else's property can't preclude the applicant from doing something on their own property. TRUSTEE KING: I think we are belaboring this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why let's just get public comment. MS. BLASCOVIC: My name is Olga Blaskovic, I live in Willow Point. Evidently, if they have to bring these cesspools all the way up, there must be a lot of water on that property, that it's not going to retain everything and building up a wall. Evidently the properly is not buildable property if it retains all that water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That doesn't necessarily make it a non-buildable lot. That's why my question was about the basement. Because the water level there, you can't have a basement because you would be pumping out that basement all the time. That's not something that you want. So that's why I asked about that. MS. BLASCOVIC: Why when you' are building and they are digging for the Board of Trustees 54 May 20, 2009 cesspools, they have to hit sand. Evidently they are not going to hit sand, they'll hit water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why they have to bring fill in to build the septic up. These are questions for the Health Department. You can go to the Health Department and ask them these questions. Again, this is out of our jurisdiction. Sorry, to say that. I'm not looking for a way out. It's just out of our jurisdiction and we really don't have any say on the construction of the septic. That's Suffolk County Health Depadment. TRUSTEE KING: You should have former Trustee Foster here. He's a cesspool expert. MR. HERMAN: And Jill, I want to get out of here as much as you do. But I think it bears some benefit to your public if you also advise all of the speakers who have taken the time to come here, that the fact that the septic system is out of jurisdiction is not somehow a cop out on your point. You want it out of your jurisdiction. I mean, that's the one thing we should be talking about here and it's the only thing we are not talking about is what the environmental impact of the project to the property. If it were in your jurisdiction, you would be telling me to move it out of your jurisdiction. So I think that bears noting for the people who are interested in knowing answers to this. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Yes, ma'am? MS. DONAVICH: My name is Mary Donavich. Suppose any of us have to replace our existing cesspools. They are in the ground. Now, what are we supposed to do, lift those up and the house, too? I mean, it's silly. It's stupid. It's a stupid law. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a Health Department law. It's Suffolk County Health Department Law. MR. HERMAN: It's also to protect wetlands, which is what we are here for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's to protect groundwater and wetlands. MS. DONAVICH: This thing with the walls will make such an terrible impact on our community. We all have beautiful homes, level streets, beautiful. Manicured, kept well. Then all of a sudden it will be a wall around.. MR. HERMAN: They are all over the place and people don't notice them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can manicure the lawn where it's a nice swale. MS. DONAVICH: They are not in our neighborhood. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have seen them around town and once they are built they are not as bad as you are picturing it. MS. D©NAVICH: I would like this not being built for our community. TRUSTEE KING: This same system was on the original plan in 2005. Board of Trustees 55 May 20, 2009 This was already approved, and it's the same system. I'm just looking at it now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response.) Any comments from the Board of Trustees? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Since we are talking about the raised cesspools, everybody on the Board knows I'm against raised septic systems to begin with, so I'm just putting that out there. I have done a lot of reading on it. I know about them. I'm against them in any application, particularly in our jurisdiction. However, again, this is not in our jurisdiction so I have absolutely nothing to say on it. So. TRUSTEE KING: What's the alternative, go out 60 or 70 feet? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know, but they have to be created. We had discussions on them, they can create ways of pumping them out and stuff. You know. I don't like them because of the chance of overflow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, do you propose a four-foot wide path through the non-disturbance area at all? Do you anticipate that? MR. HERMAN: Yes, there is not one currently shown on the plan, but at some point in time if there is some particular water access proposed, they would have to propose that. Should we have that? TRUSTEE KING: I would wait until after the house is built. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm thinking you are proposing a non-disturbance buffer now, you may as well add the four-foot wide path because it's attached to the non-disturbance. MR. HERMAN: It didn't use to matter, Jim, before the Board started asking for covenants. TRUSTEE KING: It's all wetlands there. Where do you have access, through the wetland? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It goes out to the creek. TRUSTEE KING: Through the wetland? MR. HERMAN: I know what Jill is saying. We should probably show it. TRUSTEE KING: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we do on all the applications, right? It's not marsh: It's wooded wetland. It's not like it's a marsh. MR. HERMAN: It's wooded adjacent area. The path would have to go from the limit of the clearing to the limit of the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just trying to be realistic. They have a waterfront piece. They are going to walk to the water whether there is a wetland there or not. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, if you say so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would, if I lived there. Right? TRUSTEE KING: That's you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You wouldn't walk through the wetland to get to the water? TRUSTEE KING: Let's not get into a debate over a silly path. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just trying to be realistic with what is really going to happen. It's up to the Board if they want to allow it. This is just what we usually discuss. MR. HERMAN: A four-foot path through the buffer is typically allowed. 05/15/2009 10:4§ 90B?307P"~ DONNA BLN~H~RD - PAGE 01/0! 15, 200~ $om'~ld t~ant of Tras~ 63I- 765-6641 We a~e w~lin~ in ~ ~o th~ infmmal~l M: t, eceiv~ by mail n~ Lot SCTM #1000- 56-5-22 fi~m En-ComalMn~ Inc. We ~e ~ in thls e..~t~,micat~m ~ ~ ~ ~ a Donna & Col~ Blanchard 15'~I~ ~ NS 08867 325 Bay Home Ro~l, Soufllold NY 11971 Board of Trustees Town of Southold In reference to the estate of Eileen Goldner: Bldg. Permit- DVTM#1000-56-522 This letter is to state our opposition of eonslmetion of a dwelling at 435 Bay Home Road, Southold, as it is designed. 1) The elevation is much higher than the adjacent homes. This would cause water runoffpmblems to those homes. 2) The raised front yard is an architectural blunder that would degrade the value of the neighborhood. ( Like the Old Mill Creek Restaurant.) 3) The cement wall enclosing the front yard is on the property lines. (What happened to the set back requirements? 4) The cement wall is 4 feet high. Our covenants restrict any front yard enclosure higher than 3 feet. 5) There are at least 25 existing home in our association, None of them have anyttfing like the design of this home, as it is drawn. A new design that is more aesthetically pleasing, must be submitted before we could agree to its construction. Sincerely yours, Robert Guarriello Willow Point Association ce: Building Dept. Board of Trustees Town of Southold In reference to the estate of Eileen O. Goldner--SCTM#1000-56-5-22 This letter is to state my opposition to the construction of a dwelling at 435 Bay Home Rd., Southold. My house at 535 Bay Home Rd. is adjacent to applicants property. There are 33 homes in this neighborhood and none of them comes close to resembling this house as it is shown. The elevation is much higher than adjacent homes, (four feet higher than mine) and this would cause water runoff problems. The raised front yard is so unsightly that it would devalue the existing homes. The cement wall enclosing the front yard has two walls on the property line. Have the set back requirements been forgotten in this case? The Willow Point Association's covenants, restxict front yard enclosures to 3 feet. These covenants are listed on all property owners deeds. I can only agree to a design that conforms to the elevations and restrictions that all other homeowners have followed. Sincerely yours, Joseph magagnm cc: Building Dept. Board of Trustees 56 May 20, 2009 It would make sense to include it now, would be my opinion. Not through the wetland, just through the buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I said. But Jim is saying why, to get to where? MR. HERMAN: Jim knows why you would want to walk to the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, any other comments? (No response.) We do have some letters he?e from the speakers that spoke tonight. All three of them wrote letters. I will not read them for the record because they spoke. They'll be included in the record. Are there any other comments? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.'? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the Estate of Eileen Goldner, as applied for, noting that the septic system is out of our jurisdiction and with a 50-foot non-disturbance, non-fertilized buffer. I would like to see a row of hay bales at that line during construction. And gutters, leaders, drywells, all the things that are shown on the plan. That's my motion. And a four-foot wide path. And this is consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP & ,JENNIFER STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to reconst~'uct inplace and raised to 30" above AHW, existing fixed dock consisting of 6x15' walk, 6x4' stairs and 6x69' fixed pier; and replace inplace existing/previously existing eight-inch diameter tie-off pilings. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold. The Board was out there to look at this. CAC resolves to support the application with the condition that the stairs are installed to allow for public lateral access and grated materials are used on the decking and that the pilings are being removed or replaced. GAO recommends the size of the structure comply with current wetland code. LWRP finds that this is an exempt application. And while we were out in the field, one of the questions that we had was will there be any water or electric to the dock. MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Both? MR. HERMAN: I would assume so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And there was a question as to whether Board of Trustees 57 May 20, 2009 or not we'could reduce the width and use the open-grate. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant. This is a structure that was grandfathered in 1987 and then pursuant to a second grandfather permit in 1992 allowed to be reconstructed as it exists today. With the addition of the fact that under the original grandfathering there was a second tie off piling, hence the language in the project description of the one tie off piling we are replacing, the one that exists now and the other one which has been lost, presumably they could have simply replaced, given that it is a legally-permitted structure but that is included here as a pile to replace the previously existing and permitted pile. In response to Bob's questions, the six-foot width is critical to the applicants. We researched the permit status of this dock before the property was purchased. It is not just a grandfathered dock with one of the old grandfather permits that said whatever is there is approved. There were specific plans that were approved and then it was approved again to be reconstructed in its current configuration, and it has been maintained in a functional condition since then. So what we would argue is that it should be the Board's practice to allow the dock to be reconstructed in part or in full as it is legally permitted and as it has been functionally maintained. I did have a Chance to speak briefly to Jim after your field inspection about the little erosive area along the bank and the possibility of using the open-grate decking at least on the walkway and stairs in that area, which the applicant would be willing to do. With respect to additional stairs being constructed for lateral access, I can attest to the fact that there really is no lateral access here. As you go immediately in that direction of the property, it's very, very dense vegetation. Very heavy phragmites, poison ivy. This is not a stretch of shoreline that people are trolling along on Saturday mornings. So if we could avoid having to add that, I would like to do so. So again, with the open-grate decking over that landward area, it would be acceptable to the applicant, but we would like to maintain the general specifications in terms of width and length of the dock as it is legally permitted and remains functional today. It's a very heavily wharfed area with many, many other similar docks throughout the whole area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So, Rob, you are saying you would Board of Trustees 58 May 20, 2009 agree to the grating just on this piece? MR. HERMAN: Well, this landward section and then the stairs, because the stairs actually go over that little eroded embankment. By the time you get out to the long walk, you are basically over almost open surface water at that point and there really is no wetland vegetation in this little area, which may be due in part to the erosion of the bank. But we could certainly use it on the landward, and then the stairs, or maybe continue it out to the point of high water, or something like that, just so that over that sandy area would be open-grate, and then the rest would be untreated decking. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't like the tie off piles. They are monopolizing 80 feet of covered bottom here. MR. HERMAN: Well, the boat is going to be moored there. So the idea is just to have the tie off piling just to secure the end of the boat. Again, those tie off pilings have been there for over half a century and they are included on the permit. The Board has approved them twice. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Has anybody, have you seen this, Jim? The old permits and stuff? TRUSTEE KING: No, no. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the file here, I guess we received it on May 8, just the old permits, the existing permits, and then the grandfather applications showing the drawings of what was there. Is anybody interested in seeing this? It shows the piles, it shows the dimensions. TRUSTEE KING: I just question the need to be 35-feet off the dock and 40-feet off the dock on the other side with tie off piles. Unless you've got an 80-foot boat. I don't see the need to be that far off the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agreed with you, Jim, out there in the field. I just didn't see the need for a tie off pile that far away. MR. HERMAN: There would be a boat that would be moored between the dock in each pile, whereas Jim is imagining one boat -- TRUSTEE KING: If you tie it, are you tying the boat alongside the dock? MR. HERMAN: Well, if you tie it alongside this way, you would end up coming up to shallower water. So I think, at least the way I saw the boats on the old aerials is they were tied one on either side. In other words, between the dock and the pile. Like where the 35-foot is, that's your boat. TRUSTEE KING: That's where they tie the boat? Why don't they tie the boat inside the dock? Board of Trustees 59 May 20, 2009 MR, HERMAN: Probably because of the shallower water as you get landward. If you look at the old aerials, you can actually see watercraft tied up that way. I think that's the current owner's plan, to do it the same way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't they make an "L" and put it in further and be on the outside of that "L"? MR. HERMAN: You want more dock? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we'll cut the length back and turn that part over. MR. HERMAN: No, they want to maintain the same historical -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just asking if that's the way they put the boat, wouldn't that make more sense? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The end of the dock shows four feet of water. TRUSTEE KING: I'm uncomfortable with these two other piles. MR. HERMAN: Jim, I don't understand your discomfort with it. It's not structure. It would be where a boat would be moored within that area. So even without the pile, you would have a boat there but you would have a boat without being tethered on its other side. So either way you are not, I mean you would not prevent them from docking a particular boat in that space. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, but I see what Jim is saying. He's saying if two boats are on either side of that dock, you would take up lot less space than the way they are tying them up. I believe, is what Jim is saying. You are utilizing an awful lot of space. TRUSTEE KING: That's it. It's 80 feet. MR. HERMAN: But it's with a boat. It's not the structure. That's what I'm getting confused about. I mean, there is a boat bigger than my house that is moored immediately across the creek. I mean, there's big boats in here all over the place. So I mean unless there were a specific resource, that this was right next to that dock, something that you were concerned about, but again, this is how this dock has been for forever, as far as I can figure out. I mean, Jim, I understand what you are saying, I suppose you could tie off a boat like a "T" off the end of the fixed dock, but you could do that anyway. It's just a safer, more secure way of doing it if you could actually tether it. I mean, I suppose there is other ways to skin a cat, but we are just trying to keep what has been there. TRUSTEE KING: To me it's an unusual way to tie a boat up. Very unusual. How do you step on the boat off the dock? If you have your stern to the dock and you have a tie off pile 40 feet way. How do you move the boat back and forth so you can step offthe dock on to the boat? MR. HERMAN: So you are saying your expectation would be Board of Trustees 60 May 20, 2009 that you would have a boat on the outside of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. You know, I agree with Jim. As a boater, I mean it just would be logical for a boat to come in bow first on either side of that dock so that the stern is in anywhere from three feet on up, whether it's four feet or extending beyond that even into deeper water. Not to be a stern to the dock and a bow to the piling. I can tell you as a boater you are making one heck of a navigational -- it makes no sense and you are making yourself one heck of a navigational challenge to do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It sounds to me like it's the Board's pleasure to eliminate those two pilings. MR. HERMAN: One of the pilings is there, and it's there legally. The other piling was lost and the only reason it was not replaced is because we were simply going to show it on this permit. But if you lose a legally permitted tie off piling, aren't you permitted pursuant to the grandfather permit to put the piling back? TRUSTEE KING: I know the piling was there, I just didn't think it was part of this dock because it was so far away. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, where is the existing one; which direction? TRUSTEE KING: To the right is a pile, but you can't see it in the picture because it's so far off. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To answer your question, if it's being replaced, I think that we can take out the piles. MR. HERMAN: We are not willing to take out the piles. I don't know how else to respond to it. They are legally permitted piles. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any way to move the piles closer? MR. HERMAN: I could ask the question but I know -- TRUSTEE KING: Usually your tie off pile is used, the boat is tied parallel to the dock. The tie off pile is to prevent the boat from hitting the dock in wind. I've never seen them tied like this, taking up -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're absolutely right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's being used as a mooring, almost. MR. HERMAN: I would have to go back and ask the question. I know that the piles and their locations were of importance to the applicant. So I don't want to simply concede -- I mean if we were proposing them anew and you said, well, there is just no point to what you are doing, I would probably capitulate. But, as I said, they are legally existing. They have been approved twice. It's always been this way. It doesn't appear it's ever been a problem to anyone, so I just don't understand the time spent to try to change it just for the sake of changing it. Board of Trustees 61 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, just to kind of change the topic for a second. I didn't see anything in here for either water or electricity. MR. HERMAN: No, that's what Bob asked. That was apparently a deficiency in my dock applications, lately. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, no problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I was just saying in answer to your question, whether or not we can change what is permitted would be akin to having an existing permitted jetty but now you come in for replacement and we shorten it and we lower it and make it Iow profile. Same idea MR. HERMAN: Well, it's sort of the same idea. Most jetties or groins that I could ever think of, I have never seen one of the old ones with a permit in their original condition. And those are always an issue of where those groins are actually functional anymore. In other words in almost all cases those groins are going out beyond a distance of where they are functional. So you are basically manipulating a structure that is no longer functioning as it was originally constructed. So to me it's a little different. MS. HULSE: Rob, aren't one of your pilings gone? MR. HERMAN: One of pilings was lost but I'm saying if you own waterfront property and you have a dock that has a permit and you lose a piling, if you went out and put the piling back, would the bay constable come back and violate you? MS. HULSE: He would have a right to. You can't replace something that is totally gone and call it a repair. I disagree with that. I disagree with your premise that you could just put one back up there. MR. HERMAN: So if you lose a piling, a legally-permitted piling, you are not allowed to replace it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to point out something, too. The existing permit is not in the name of the Stanton's right now. So if you wanted to replace that piling right now you would have to request the permit to be transferred. MR. HERMAN: So you would have me withdraw this application, then petition to transfer the permit instead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not saying you should have to do that but I'm saying you can just keep what you have and replace the piling. But you don't have anything. MR. HERMAN: I beg to differ. I mean I can come in and request a transfer of the grandfather permit and then we are right back to where we are now. But we are trying not to play games with this. We are trying to do it the right way. The other way to do it is to Board of Trustees 62 May 20, 2009 completely withdraw the application and do this in little bits and pieces and starts and fits after transferring the grandfather permit but I don't see how either the applicant's interest or the town's interest is served in that situation. MS. HULSE: But that's what the code says, Rob. That's the problem. It might be not philosophically palatable, but that's what the code says. MR. HERMAN: I understand. But if that's what you want us to do, we'll do it. We'll withdraw the application, we'll transfer the permit and then they'll maintain the dock as it currently is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you get approval of the transfer. MR. HERMAN: How could you not approve the transfer? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the right to deny a transfer. MR. HERMAN: You have the right to do anything but that would never be sustained in court. What would be your grounds of denying a transfer of permit? I've never seen you deny a transfer of permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I was going to suggest is if all of us feel we don't want the pilings there, we can do the approval the way we see fit. But yet if we approve this, does that negate the other permit so he would have to remove the other piling? Or is that other permit -- MS. HULSE: The other permit is just, it would stand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he could keep the piling there and once that pilings has to be replaced he would have to replace it to the current specifications. MR. HERMAN: What current specifications? It's a legally-permitted tie off piling. It doesn't not conform with any of your dock code. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can we table this and have Rob talk to his client? MS. HULSE: If you need a brand new one out there because one doesn't exist, you do need to come to the Trustees to get it replaced. MR. HERMAN: Right. But what standard for permit issue or dock policy does the tie-off piling not conform to? All you are saying is you don't want it. Based on what? MS. HULSE: Just what you heard tonight. The colloquy that was had tonight is basically what you would be hearing about if you did make that application. MR. HERMAN: Okay, but tell me on what portion of the code that opinion is premised upon. What part of the dock code are we not in compliance with? MS. HULSE: Because it would be considered new construction if you were to replace a pile that does not exist. And that would be subject to the Trustees' discretion. MR. HERMAN: And if it was new construction, what part of the dock code does the dock piling not comply with? Board of Trustees 63 May 20, 2009 MS. HULSE: It's within the Trustees' discretion to say they don't want it there anymore, Rob. I mean, you know that. MR. HERMAN: Without any basis? MS. HULSE: Well, because the reasons they have been citing tonight. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What I would like to suggest at this point, because we need to have a little more discussion, I would like to look at the code a little harder on this now. I would like to suggest that we table this so that the Trustees, the Board, the whole Board can have a chance to discuss it and do a little research on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And can Rob also talk to his client about the possibility of the pilings being moved to an alternate position. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like we've opened up a can of wormS. MR. KRAMER: I have a question. John Kramer. If that, the ice this winter took that piling away, we need a permit to replace the piling? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is no permit existing. MR. HERMAN: There is a permit existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My interpretation, John, is since this was a permitted structure and if ice took a piling away, you could replace that piling without a permit. It happens around town on a regular basis all the time. MR. HERMAN: So I'll repeat the question, why wouldn't you grant -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you have a permit. MR. HERMAN: They do have a permit. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think the distinction that is not being made and that is kind of confusing the issue, this goes to what John was just asking, is this is a grandfather permit. It's not a structure that would have been permitted under normal circumstances today. So all I'm asking is to indulge us for 30 days, let us have some discussion on this and do a little research on it until we come to a final decision. In the meantime, if you are open to it, talk to your client and see if there is any movement on this at all and that would help. MR. HERMAN: Do you want me to step outside for a minute and see if I could call him and see if we can close it tonight, if he's agreeable? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It's a public hearing. MR. HERMAN: I could try to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. HERMAN: Can you give me a three-minute recess? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN; Sure. We've done this before. Absolutely. In the meantime, do we want to then handle the resolution? Board of Trustees 64 May 20, 2009 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure, why don't we. I'll make a motion to temporarily table this while Rob Herman recesses to discuss it with his client. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a motion to go off the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to go off the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go back to Mark Schwartz on behalf of Tenedios. It's not on the agenda. We are adding it on. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mark, if you could step up to the microphone. This has to be on the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is Mark Schwartz on behalf of STEVEN TENEDIOS, Main Road in East Marion. The Board gave this applicant a permit to construct a house. The house is actually out of our jurisdiction, but parts of it, of the construction are within it, and the applicant had to move the house further seaward so he wants to amend the permit showing that. And I believe the hay bale line is in the same area as it was before; is that correct? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see any impact or any real changes. It's such a minor change. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment of Mark Schwartz for Steven Tenedios. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not approving an amendment, we are approving a resolution. We are voting on a resolution to amend the, if you read the permit number. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Right. Sorry. I'll make a resolution to amend the survey used for the permit number 6973, survey dated May 20, 2009, to accept that survey as the approved survey for the project, for the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Was this an amendment now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it was a resolution to amend. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was a resolution to accept the May 20, 2009, survey as the permit survey, to be stamped and signed, because it's such a minor change. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to reopen the Board of Trustees 65 May 20, 2009 hearing for En-Consultants on behalf of Philip and Jennifer Stanton. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, Rob. MR. HERMAN: Jim, since you started this, based on the premise that the boat would be docked parallel with the dock and/or off the dock like a "'F' where you would be tethering the end, which I think was your initial consideration of how much bay bottom is being taken up, would you be more comfortable reducing those distances off the fixed dock say to some distance less than 35 feet off the sides; like 25 feet instead of 35 feet, something like that, reduce it by a third on both sides? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that would be helpful but how would they tie the boat? The big question in my mind is how they tie the boats to this dock. Bow in, bow out? MR. HERMAN: I can't reach my client to answer that question. I'm trying to find a way that we can finish this and then if there is some problem that we have to manipulate in some way that I could come back for an amendment or something. I don't know what else to do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we approve the dock portion -- this is what Peggy was saying before -- approve the dock portion and maybe table the piling portion and separate it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And let you come back for that. MR. HERMAN: If you could find a way to do that logistically and legally. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This way you could work on the dock, and the pilings are easy enough to put in some other time. MR. HERMAN: Again, the one piling is there. So I mean are we really talking about both pilings or are we just talking about the piling that is no longer there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Jim is talking both pilings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If he's willing to move the pilings in to 25 feet, does that satisfy most of the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that satisfies me because Rob's point is that has been this way for so many years and if he's willing to reduce it, this is why, you know, this is our time to reduce these things now, and if he's willing to do that, I'm happy with the compromise. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It still doesn't make any sense navigationally. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Or what about the catwalk with the condition Rob will come back to us with the client's agreement, then we can decide whether or not we are happy with whatever he discusses with his client. That way you still have your catwalk. You are not Board of Trustees 66 May 20, 2009 separating it, you are just saying with the condition that you still have to come back to us with an alternative. MR. HERMAN: And if there is still some disagreement we have to negotiate again can they just reopen the public hearing just to discuss this part of the application? MS. HULSE: Yes, you can bifurcate it now, if you are in agreement to that. MR, HERMAN: What I would like to do is be able to secure the approval to rebuild this dock and have the option to continue the discussion of where the tie off pilings are going to go. To be honest with you, I don't want to take the risk of going back so everyone can think about this, these pilings, and then come back in 30 days and have everyone decide this should be a two-foot wide by ten-foot dock. MS. HULSE: Well, now that you mention it. MR. HERMAN: So if we can make it that far, get that far. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, then come back after you've talked to your client and discuss the pilings. MS. HULSE: Is that your application at this point to opt out of the piling aspect of your -- MR. HERMAN: Well, not to opt out of it. MS. HULSE: At this juncture. Right now for this evening is to put that portion over to next month and just for the Board to consider -- MR. HERMAN: I would be willing to go back to the client and try to discuss some reduction to satisfy you on the condition that we can secure the approval for the dock itself, yes. MS. HULSE: You are willing to adjourn the other part of the pilings? MR. HERMAN: Yes, until next month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, then. MR. HERMAN: But it's all still the same application, I don't have to reapply. MS. HULSE: Yes, it's the same application. Correct. MR. HERMAN: If you can do that legally, I'm happy. Now, how do you make that motion? MS. HULSE: You need to close the public hearing with respect to the first part of the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to close the hearing with respect to the fixed dock and the walkway and the stairs and the fixed pier, leaving open and tabling the part of the application concerning the tie off pilings. This is just to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the part of this application that concerns the Board of Trustees 67 May 20, 2009 reconstruction in place and raises to 30 inches above the average high water, the existing fixed dock consisting of a 6x15' walk, 6x4' stairs, and 6x69' fixed pier with the condition that grating material is used on the landward walkway and the stairs to the point of high water and then further into the water from high water they'll use untreated decking. And that's it. And I just want to mention again that it's exempt by LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Once again, we have just approved the pier, the stairs and the fixed dock section of this and we are going to reopen the part of this hearing concerning the tie-off pilings in the future. So I · would like to make a motion to table the part of this application concemin9 the tie-off pilings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. HULSE: Because the first time you were just making a motion to bifurcate it, then you actually have to approve the tabling of it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Secopd. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.)