Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/22/2009 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:00 PM Present Were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney Absent was: Bob Ghosio, Jr., Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM RECEIVED OCT -6 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, my name is Jim King, for those of you who I don't know me, that attend our meetings. I have the honor of serving as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. And the rest of the Trustees here tonight I would like to introduce to you. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; next to me is Jill Doherty, she is the vice chair; myself; Lauren Standish manages the office for us. Trustee Bob Ghosio is to my far right. Lori Hulse will be our legal representative tonight. She is not here yet. She sits in the far chair over there, and we have Mr. Jim Eckert from the CAC with us tonight. Board of Trustees 2 July 22, 2009 That's the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do many of the same inspections we do and give us their input and recommendations on a project. With that I guess we'll get going. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One other thing, Wayne Galante is our court reporter. He's not here tonight so please make sure you speak into the microphone and state your name and speak clearly. We are recording it. TRUSTEE KING: Set the date for the next field inspection, August 12, eight o'clock in the morning. Do i have a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, August 19, at six o'clock, with our work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim, I won't be there, I'll be out of town. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll make a note of that. The minutes of June 24, 2009, I have not finished them yet. Anybody want to do anything with them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I haven't received them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I haven't received them. TRUSTEE KING: Guess that's why I haven't seen them. I thought it was a senior moment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we can't do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can do it next month. TRUSTEE KING: We'll put that off until next month. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for June, 2009. A check for $6,474.29 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Board of Trustees 3 July 22, 2009 Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 22, 2009, are classified as Type I~ Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: And they are listed as follows: Skunk Lane Trust c/o Mary Krause - SCTM¢104-3-18.1 Anthony Campo - SCTM¢I 11-1-24,25, 26 David Fuhrmann - SCTM¢51-6-39 Richard & Joann Saverese - SCTM¢37-6-7.1 Norman & April Wenk - SCTM¢31-16-2.2 Robert Celic - SCTM¢123-8-29 Alan Cardinale, Jr. - SCTM¢118-1-9 Richard Bosworth - SCTM¢107-4-13 Grace Hawkins - SCTM¢10-4-10 Michael Giacone - SCTM¢123-8-28.1 Jerry & Linda Matejka - SCTM¢103-10-27 Long Island Sound Oyster, LLC - SCTM¢140-1-23.1 James Maino - SCTM¢57-1-17 Paul Keber - SCTM¢72-2-2.3 Rockhall Development Corp. - SCTM¢90-2-28 Joseph Manzi - SCTM¢90-2-27 Michael Carlucci - SCTM¢57-2-22 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 DOHERTY: We have a couple of postponements. Page four number 12, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAY,AM,AHA, 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. Page six, number eleven, Eh-Consultants on behalf of COYOTE PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to clear and maintain a four-foot wide path through the existing buffer and construct a 4x40' fixed timber catwalk with stairs over the tidal marsh. Located: 2000 Glenn Road, Southold, is postponed. And page seven, number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROCKHALL DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story single-family dwelling, deck, sanitary system and driveway. Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 4 July 22, 2009 And number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH MANZl requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-stow single-family dwelling, inground swimming pool, deck, garage, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold, has been postponed. TRUSTEE KING: We will not be addressing those tonight. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The following are administrative amendments and permits that we have all reviewed and find to be minor. They are either consistent or exempt from LWRP, therefore I'll make a resolution to approve numbers one through seven. They are listed as follows: Number one, JAMES & MARTHA BAKER request an Administrative Permit to construct a 250 square foot permeable driveway apron. Located: 1600 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. Number two, MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to conduct periodic beach maintenance; removal of debris from park beaches from 10' above mean high water to bluff toe/bulkhead, for width of beach. Manual or rubber-tired tractor only, no treads, as needed. Maintenance to be conducted four times a year-Spring, mid-Summer, Fall and one additional, as needed. Located: Bailie's Beach, Breakwater Beach, Veteran's Memorial Park, Peconic Bay Boulevard Ball Field. Number three, MARLENE FERBER requests an Administrative Permit to install deer fencing around a 14x17' garden. Located: 1825 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. Number four, MATTHEW & VERA CUSUMANO request an Administrative Permit to remove a tree which has recently leaned toward the bulkhead. Located: 435 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue. Number five, Ray Nemschick RA, on behalf of ALISON BYERS requests an Administrative Permit to regrade the existing driveway. Located: 10335 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Number six, James Wilson on behalf of the SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests an Administrative Permit for the installation of a 12" HDPE water main for the purpose of supplying drinking water and fire protection to the residents of East Marion residing east of Dam Pond channel. The grass area on the road's edge will contain all work pertaining to directional drilling (staging and receiving). The staging and Board of Trustees 5 July 22, 2009 receiving permits are to be approximately 300' east and west of the centerline. Depth of drill will be approximately 10' under the channel bottom. Hay bales and silt screen are to be installed to contain sediment-laden runoff. All excavation to be backfilled, stabilized and returned to the original condition. Excess fill to be removed and disposed of legally. Located: Rt. 25, East Marion, over Dam Pond channel. And number seven, James McMahon on behalf of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD/BITTNER PRESERVE requests an Administrative Permit to remove and dispose of the existing single-family dwelling, sanitary system, oil tank, frame garage, inground swimming pool, retaining wall and pool house. Remove and dispose of the existing bulkhead and any contaminated fill and backfill the area to mimic the adjacent dune contours, with clean sand from the dredging of Goldsmith Inlet. Replace the new dune area with beachgrass, beach plums and other native vegetation. Located: 4305 Soundview Avenue, Southold. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through seven. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, do you want to start, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. We have a couple of administrative permits. Understand these are not public hearings so we don't normally take comments for administrative permits, but if anybody does have anything they want to comment on when we get to either number eight or number nine, feel free to introduce yourself, but please make your comments brief. I have in front of me number eight, MATTHEW DECKINGER requests an Administrative Permit to cut down weeds blocking view. Located: 3805 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. The Board did go up and looked at this and there was some discussions as to the level in which these weeds can be cut down. This is along the top of a very heavily vegetated bluff. There was a suggestion of four foot, cutting them to four foot, and at that time the applicant asked for one foot; have them cut down to one foot. I have, personally, I have no problem with cutting the top section down to one foot so that he has a view, but I'm open to discussion from other Board members on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are they phragmites? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was a mixture of vegetation, to be Board of Trustees 6 July 22, 2009 honest with you. It was bamboo at one end. To the west end was heavily vegetated with bamboo, then there was a mixture of vegetation, probably around eight foot high all the way along, and that's an estimate, so that it completely blocks his view of Long Island Sound. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: ~ don't think there was any big trees or anything in there. It was a heavily vegetated bluff. The other thing we discussed was the lawn going right up to the bluff, even though it's a heavily vegetated bluff. Did we want to -- TRUSTEE KING: I think if they are going to trim it down lower I would like to see some buffer put in along the top of the bluff. Non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what Jill was saying, there should be a buffer. I would agree with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, what's your opinion? TRUSTEE GHOSiO: When was the last time we allowed someone to cut the vegetation down to one foot on the top of a bluff? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not asking him to cut it down, he's asking us. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, but I'm saying when is the last time we allowed it. ~ don't think we have. We definitely used discretion in allowing that kind of cutting to happen. I think if we let him cut the top of the bluff down to one foot, we'll have this come in all the time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I asked what the vegetation was. I didn't see it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's heavily vegetated. It was all, for the most part, natural. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It wasn't trees? Unfortunately I didn't see it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was no trees, it was just a mixture of vegetation; some invasive, some not. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have to agree. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about the four feet. Four feet doesn't obstruct the view. Unless you are a little person. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying the applicant in the field, when we talked about this, asked for one foot. So far what i'm hearing, either one foot with ten-foot, non-turf buffer or four foot. And if it was four foot, I would not see the need then for him to rip out a section of his lawn for a buffer, if we are remaining at four foot, because then it will be very heavily vegetated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we say four feet, then we'll take a look at it and see what difference another three feet would make in this particular area. In other words, four feet, cutting it to four feet high, then when we visit if it looks sparse and we don't want it Board of Trustees 7 July 22, 2009 cut further, fine. If it's completely vegetated and the view is still obstructed then we can go from there and say maybe a little lower. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with that. TRUSTEE KING: Sounds reasonable to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is Mr. Deckinger here? MR. DECKINGER: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. DECKINGER: May I make a comment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, just make it brief, that's all. MR. DECKINGER: I promise. All I'm seeking in my application is to restore the vegetation to the look that it had before. When I first moved here in 2003, the height was only about a foot, but I didn't tend it. It just got out of control. These are weeds. Weeds grow wild. And I guess we had enough rain, certainly this year alone, we have seen maybe, two feet added, maybe three feet. Just this year. And I wanted to apply two years ago but at the time my dad was very sick and I didn't have the time to address the matter. He has since passed away. But I wanted to restore the bluff and vegetation, whatever it is, to what it had been. It's not really looking to change or interfere with the ecology, if that's the right word. TRUSTEE KING: Do you happen to have any pictures of what it looked like before? MR. DECKINGER: I did have them. Unfodunately, I went looking for them before I came. I couldn't find them. So I figured I better show up and at least say that much. But I did have a couple pictures that were older. I took pictures of my cat and the bluff was in the background, but I couldn't find those pictures. TRUSTEE KING: I like Jill's suggestion myself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It sounds like the majority of the Board here is favoring, right now, cutting to four foot, then we can go out and see how that looks and if the Board feels that's fine at that level or maybe they can be cut back further it will be up to the Board. But we'll start it there. MR. DECKINGER: I'm certainly willing to indulge the idea of taking a look. All I'm looking to do is restore it to the way it was. I'm not trying to destroy anything or prevent anything. In fact if anything needs to be growing, I'll add to that. But I can't imagine adding to weeds. They don't need the help. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I make a motion then to grant an Administrative Permit to cut down the weeds at 3805 Soundview Avenue to a height of four foot and that work to be performed some time in the next month. Is that okay with you? And what we'll do is go back in and revisit it in one of our Fall inspections and see. Board of Trustees 8 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Just notify the Board, let us know when you have the work done and we'll come out and look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: DONNA WEXLER requests an Administrative Permit for the trimming of dead and/or deceased limbs and branches landward of the top of the bank and for the placement of indigenous beach stone and sand on top of bog and on either side of the dock. Located: 1775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. We actually have pictures. The Board was down there and this has been reviewed by LWRP as inconsistent. The Board also felt that the habitat area had been covered, so it is inconsistent by LWRP and you would like to speak? MS. WEXLER: Yes. Donna Wexler. First of all, I want to apologize for this whole issue happening. I would never do anything that would harm the environment and I have some pictures of before I bought the property and it was only grasses there, and I never took any grass out. We just put the stones back on. I have pictures of what it looks like today and I also have Dave Chicanowicz's authorization to replant if anything needs to be replanted. May I give this to you? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure, come on up. MS. WEXLER: Do you want to see pictures from years ago? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Whatever you have, bring it up. See, our concern is where the stone is now, whether it was vegetated or not vegetated, is being prevented from revegetating itself naturally. MS. WEXLER: That's what the pictures are. And one of the reasons that we did the stone was because we felt it was indigenous to this area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not the shoreline. It may be indigenous to the bay beach but not to a wetland beach. MS. WEXLER: Okay. I was trying to do the right thing, with the plants there, it's filtration and it was securing the shoreline. I also have a problem with Limes disease and there are ticks and so for disease prevention -- TRUSTEE DICKERSQN: I understand that, sure. MS. WEXLER: And also my mother, my mom is 89 and had a step ladder to get through those otherwise she can't, so it was kind of stabilization and it was kind of -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You just need to go back to the microphone so we can get it on our tape. MS. WEXLER: And we just thought this would be the best Board of Trustees 9 July 22, 2009 way to kind of take care of the safety program and take care of the health issues. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can certainly understand. My mom just had four deer ticks in the past two weeks, I think, taken off. But she has been in her house. So those, unfortunately, those deer ticks can find you know matter where you are. I think the concern of the Board is if you had come in to ask us to do this, this would never have been permitted because, again, the pebbles are not indigenous to this marsh area, they are indigenous more to our bay areas and Sound areas. So it's not common. MS. WEXLER: What would you have suggested to stabilize an area, because as you can see, we bring the boats in and out all the time, and we have the kayak. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My thought is that is what your dock is for. MS. WEXLER: We can't get down there. My mother can't walk on those stairs. They are slimy and slippery and in order to clean them you have to use Clorox or some kind of cleaner that will pollute the water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Routinely when we permit docks, the docks are for access to the water and to your boats. Again, these pebbles, if you would come in to us for this and requested it, we would never have permitted those pebbles, so. MS. WEXLER: I understand. Next time I'll definitely ask because I had no clue. I thought this was something that would be beneficial. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because right now what this is doing is preventing any re-growth of the grasses. I do see there is some but it's going to slow down the natural revegetation. So I believe the feeling of the Board is the pebbles have be to be removed and this area has to be revegetated. But I'll defer to any other comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think in the field we also commented, there is a material that you could put down and it hardens it a little bit but the growth grows through it. The Geo-web stuff. I don't know what it's called. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Another thing was the roll-out matting that we saw down in Gagen's Landing there. I think that's probably a good idea for here, particularly if she has an elderly mom. It would be a little more stable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's like a roll-out dock thing and you can take it out seasonally. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would suggest maybe if they remove the stone, see what the re-growth is, visit it, you know, in the Fall, and if it needs to be re-planted, then replant it. But it may grow back. Because how long has the stone been down there? Board of Trustees 10 July 22, 2009 MS. WEXLER: Probably about a month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it may come back by itself. TRUSTEE KING: That's probably the easiest thing to do, remove the stone and see if it revegetates. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And maybe in the meantime also look into some of the recommended materiats. MS. WEXLER: Thank you, I appreciate it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We actually have quite a few pictures in the file if you want to come take a look at these. MS. WEXLER: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you understand -- because Dave Chicanowicz might know what the proper name is of the material that we are talking about, that matting, that you put it down, you leave it and it grows through. Or like what Bob was saying. TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Do you realize we'll deny you the permit for the beach stones and request that they be removed. And what was the feeling of the Board for the -- TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we look at it at the September field inspection. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. But what about the trimming of the dead and/or diseased limbs branches landward of the bank? TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a huge problem with that as long as there is no tree removal. Just trimming. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I'll ask Lori, do I need to separate this, if we approve the trimming and deny the placement of the pebbles, just that, as such? MS. HULSE: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And Peggy, just before you do that, Donna, just to clarify, if you do some kind of matting or roll-out thing, you do need a permit for that. You can't just do it. So whatever you decide, come in and ask for an Administrative Permit for it. MS. WEXLER: Would it be all right if I ask for both and then just do one? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You can say and/or. Request one or the other. MS. HULSE: Are you going to make it a condition of possible revegetation upon inspection in the Fall? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit for Donna Wexler for trimming of dead or diseased limbs and branches landward of the top of the bank but deny the placement of indigenous beach stones and sand on top of the bog, with the condition that the beach stones be removed and that it will be reinspected in September, did you say, ,Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And at that time if revegetation has not started by itself, that there will be a condition Board of Trustees 1 I July 22, 2009 that it must be revegetated. MS. WEXLER: Thank you, very much. I appreciate it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES.) V. RESOLUTIONS: MOORINGISTAKEIDUCK BLIND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, moorings, stakes, duck blinds. There are four of them on the agenda and all of them were inspected and I make a motion to approve all four. They are listed as follows: Number one, SANFORD LENT, requests a Mooring Permit in Arshamomaque Pond for a 14' boat. Access: Private ROW. Number two, GORDON LAU, requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 26' boat, replacing Mooring #001. Access: Public. Number three, GERARD O'DOWD requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 23' boat, replacing Mooring #448. Access: Public. And number four, JOSEPH BROWN requests a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 16' boat, replacing Mooring #6. Access: Public. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Resolutions. To give you just a brief background on this. This was a very difficult application. This is another one that the file, I guess we should weigh it. This process started I think back in 2005. It's an application to build a home. It was a very, very small piece of property surrounded on three sides by water. After many studies and a lot of review, the Board disapproved the application. We denied it. The applicant brought a lawsuit and he won the lawsuit. We appealed it and we lost the appeal also. So we are now mandated to issue a permit for this piece of properly and that's what this resolution is about. Number one, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the application of SIM MOY to construct a single-family dwelling and sanitary system subject to the following conditions and depicted on a revised survey: The area between the timber curb and the bulkhead will be left as a non-disturbance buffer, with the exception of a four-foot wide path to the water; no regrading of the property; no fill or other material placed on the property with the exception of Board of Trustees 12 July 22, 2009 the amount necessary for the sanitary system, as approved by the Health Department; and the remainder of the property will be maintained as a non-turf area. Located: 750 West Lake Road, Southold. MS. HULSE: Jim, may I just state for the record that I have submitted the resolution as worded to counsel for Sim Moy, Anthony Fiorelli and he's in receipt of that and he was going to forward it to his client. The Trustees at this juncture have no option to disapprove this resolution because it's a court order, so ordered that it needs to be passed and a permit has to be issued in this case. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After I_ori saying that, and we discussed this and put as many conditions and mitigations that we felt that we normally put on a property that is this sensitive, um, and I really do not want to second it but I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Yes? MR. ANDERSON: I have a question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to finish the vote first? TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye, Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to give my aye also with a concern for a very small piece of property with environmental results that in this day and age of marshes dying and brown tides, I feel this is why this Board is here, but, as Lori has stated, I will be voting aye. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone else? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm in a fortunate position where I was not involved in the original litigation or the original application. Having seen it in this Past turn around, after the court order was issued, I would say there is no way that we would ever have approved this and of course if I vote no, it has no bearing on the fact that he'll get his approval from the Board. So I'm going to vote as I would had I seen it and had been part of the original and I'll vote no. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I already voted aye. TRUSTEE KING: We have aye for Bergen, aye for Dickerson, aye for Doherty, aye for King and nay for Ghosio. I believe they still have to go to zoning on this. Yes, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I just have a question. When it says the remainder of the property maintained as a non-turf Board of Trustees 13 July 22, 2009 area, right now you have lawn. What does that mean, to rip up the lawn? TRUSTEE KING: Well there is really -- MR. ANDERSON: It's like weeds. TRUSTEE KING: It's not really a turf lawn what is there now. And after they get done buildings the house and all the traffic there won't be much turf left. So we would just say to be left in its natural state. MR. ANDERSON: Natural existing state, I guess, is what we are saying. MS. HULSE: This solution is actually not open for comment. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, because that will be asked of me. I don't know what that meant. TRUSTEE KING: You win some, you lose some. VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Application for extensions, transfers and amendments. Again, we have several that we have reviewed and are minor. Numbers one through eight I'll make a motion to approve. They are listed as follows: Number one, SUE K. ODELL requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6664, as issued on July 24, 2007. Located: 6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number two, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6437, as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. Number three, Terence M. Higgins Esq., on behalf of RICHARD & MARIANNA KIRIKIAN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6676 as issued on July 24, 2007. Located: 6760 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. Number four, MICHAEL CARLUCCI requests an Amendment to Permit #1788 to replace inptace the existing 40' timber bulkhead and two existing 8' and 12' returns, and backfill with up to 12 cubic yards of clean upland fill. Include existing piling at north end of floating dock and replace by steel pipe or timber and to include the existing floating dock and 2x7' ramp. Located: 865 Island View Lane, Greenport. Number five, JERRY & LINDA MATEJKA request an Amendment to Permit #868 to add a 3x19' fixed "T" Dock extension onto the seaward end of the existing dock. Located: 1300 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. Number six, Seascape Marine Construction Corp., on behalf of JOSEPHINE GElS requests an Amendment to Permit #35 to remove and replace a 3x4' platform, 3x8' catwalk, 3x12' hinged ramp and replace existing float with a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Board of Trustees 14 July 22, 2009 Number seven, Jeffrey T. Butler on behalf of JOHN ELICK requests an Amendment to Permit #7053 to construct beach access stairs using Trex material with 1/2" spacing between the boards, rather than open-grate materials. Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. And number eight, Jeffrey T. Butler on behalf of DANIEL HUME requests an Amendment to Permit #7052 to construct the beach access stairs using Trex material with 1/2" spacing between the boards rather than open-grate materials. Located: 14216 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, SOPHIA ANTONIADIS & MARIA XEFOS request an Amendment to Permit #7038 to add a seasonal set of stairs to the beach and enlarge the landward deck to 18x30' instead of 18x24'. Located: 12500 Main Road, East Marion. We have all been out there. We saw it. Construction has begun, and, again, this is an amendment. I don't think the Board had any problem with the change in the deck size but as I recall from discussions there was not a whole lot of support for a second set of stairs on the property, seeing that is not our general policy. Any other comments or thoughts? (No response.) I'll make a motion to approve an amendment enlarging the deck landward to 18x30 instead of 18x24 but disallowing a seasonal set of stairs, second seasonal set of stairs to the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of GEORGE GARBE requests an Amendment to Permit #6824 to reduce the size of the non-tuff buffer from 15' to 10'. Located: 685 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. This one is kind of, it's a little bit strange in that it is involving a couple of different properties. This application for the amendment comes with a letter. Dear Trustees, the two above-referenced clients, that being George Garbe and Kings & Alphas which is the next door neighbors, are adjacent property owners, and it has come to our attention permit 6824 requires a 15' non-tuff buffer, which was the one that Board of Trustees 15 July 22, 2009 we issued for Garbe. The permit for Kings & Alphas 6822, only requires ten-foot, non-turf buffer, therefore they are requesting an amendment to reduce the non-turf buffer so that both properties are consistent. So I decided that to check that out before I went out and looked at it. I found a letter from March 7, 2008, from Costello as well, where, when they were submitting revised plans following our hearings that month, there was talks about revising the plans for George Garbe showing the 15' non-turf buffer that we had requested and for the neighbor Kings & Alphas they sent in a revised plan showing a 10' buffer provided behind a 10' walkway. Now, we had allowed for a walkway and a 10' non-turf buffer giving us, on Kings & Alphas, essentially, a 20 foot buffer, to the bulkhead. So I'm a little confused because that is 20 feet. We allowed 15 on the neighbor but now they want to make it ten. And I was hoping that somebody would be here to help guide me through this. My feeling is we leave it at the 15 because the neighbor is in fact, the walkway and the non-turf buffer that was specified in the plans, shows it, you know, 20 feet, at least in using my math on that letter. If we leave it at the 15 we'll probably be just fine. See, I don't think that's a ten-foot walkway actually on the neighbor. I think it ended up being a four or five foot wood walkway. So if there is a ten foot buffer that would make it 15, in reality, and 15 on the neighbor, I think is just fine. Any other comments or thoughts? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with your thinking. TRUSTEE KING: I would say maintain the 15 foot buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. So I'll make the motion to deny this application for an amendment for the permit for George Garbe. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, Patricia Moore on behalf of GRACE HAWKINS requests an Amendment to Permit #7089 for the revised footprint of the proposed single-family dwelling to be located 46' from the limits of the tidal wetlands rather than the approved 53', and increase the size of the proposed drywell. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. Now, this Board has approved, reviewed this and had issued a permit, 7089, in April of 2009, after a great deal of discussion. And so it has been found to Board of Trustees 16 July 22, 2009 be consistent under the LWRP. The CAC did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. Now, obviously, we just had material handed to us that we have not had a chance to review prior to right now. So I would ask the applicant, once you get a chance -- first off, if you could introduce yourself for the record. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Grace Burr Hawkins. Mrs. Hawkins, I'm not sure right now if she is still in Florida or back to Fishers Island, but it takes a great deal of effort to come to this meeting and I know she would have liked to have been here, but it has really put a toll on her to be traveling. She is very vivacious but she is older. So she apologizes, but says if you want to see her, she will be happy to make an extra special effort. Do you want me to go through my packet here? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, since this is not a public hearing, I'm noticing that there is something I'm confused on. It says you are actually not decreasing the setback of the front yard, you are just decreasing the setback between the house and Darby's Cove, correct? The wetland area. Or am I incorrect on this? Because I see 46 feet on this new permit where it was 53 beforehand. MS. MOORE: We are increasing the setback from the road to comply with a zoning average setback. If I could just -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: By four-and-a-half feet dip? MS. MOORE: My numbers are six, but, yes. Then the setback to the wetlands is 46. The original setback was at 53. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MS. MOORE: So we are reducing, we are not changing the area of non-disturbance, the hay bale line. What is occurring is we are having to move away from the road to make it a conforming building envelope, and that pushes, essentially eliminates any backyard, any rear yard that we would have had. But, again, I point out that we had established with the DEC and this Board a non-disturbance area, and that has not changed. Our sanitary system is also maintained as it was before. The only additional was the construction was going to require to us put in a drywell that was slightly bigger than the original. But that's to comply with the code. If I could briefly summarize what brought us here, it's good that I have given you all the history here to incorporate into the record because, since we don't have the stenographer, I would ask that Mark Burns' testimony and the coastal assessment report, which I put one into your file, to be incorporated from the Board of Trustees 17 July 22, 2009 last meeting to give you the basis of how we ultimately got a permit to construct on this property. What occurred about a week after we got our permit is that the surveyor was notified that the adjacent property owners Aldren, (sic), had subdivided their property. The average setback is obviously the setback of the principal structures divided by the number of lots within 300 feet. When our neighbor, because he had multiple structures on one piece of property, by deed, split the properties, we now had an impact on our average setback. We had to recalculate. As soon as we learned that, unfortunately, a week after our hearing, we were forced to come back here because now our appropriately setback house has to conform with average setback. We are now at 22.5, which is now conforming. Obviously that was very upsetting to the client, after months of review, to find that out, but nonetheless, here we are. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, couldn't you need a variance to get the house further away from the wetlands? MS. MOORE: Well, here's the thing. We are talking about six feet. To ask the Zoning Board for a variance to move the house to ten feet from the road I think would be very difficult. It would probably cost the client, easily, because I would have to bring in experts and testimony and so on, anywhere from three to $10,000. This woman has gone through hell and back to try to get this approval, and we are talking about no change to our non-disturbance, it is, we have made the house as narrow as humanly possible. It's a 20-foot wide house. You really can't build a normal house for less than 20 feet in width. I mean that includes decks, it includes everything. So we are really at a minimal width. We can't make the house narrower. And if we were to push the house, again, as it had been approved before, it was going to require -- the road encroaches on our property and we were going to have to move the road into the road bed and off our premises. If there is an advantage to having, to moving the house a little further away from the road, which is that if you see from the surveys that were prepared, there are some large trees that the original proposal had to be removed. There was no choice. The fact that we have been able to move the house slightly further back allows us to preserve some of the nicer trees that are along the road and we don't have to make any modifications to the road itself. The road that is encroaching is fine. It's a dirt road. It's been there for a long time and it doesn't bother my client. There is enough setback room to bring her car on to the property. So it really is a better plan, but obviously Board of Trustees 18 July 22, 2009 we were trying to make this, submit a proposal that was conforming to zoning. And if you recall, Jim, I think you asked me originally, hey, is this house conforming to zoning. I said, yes. Because we had a certification from our surveyor that gave us an average setback. We just had no idea that the neighbor had subdivided by deed. Those records don't come to the town until many months after the fact and it's only because the surveyor, and we were asking the surveyor to give us certifications for everything. The surveyor was made aware of it because the Aldren family was asking for updated surveys and all of a sudden we have two parcels where we originally had one. Our Health Depadment permit doesn't change, our DEC permit doesn't change. It's just this footprint. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Just to clarify for the Board, because not all of them have what we had approved previously in the permit. The footprint previously approved was 40x20 of the house, compared to this is 56x20, then there is a small cut out there. So it's not quite a -- MS. MOORE: It's 14 -- my, what my client did is because she lost the square footage, she asked if it could be a little longer so she could -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's approximately a thousand square foot now that is being asked for, footprint, versus eight-hundred square foot. So it's an increase of about 20% in the footprint, size of the footprint. If my math is right. MS. MOORE: Yes. This was something she wanted. I don't, you know, if the Board wants me to cut it back, she has a proposed porch showing. I think what she wanted was a screened in porch but I can't tell if that's what this part of the building -- I would imagine, yes, the building envelope is part of the porch. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a porch on both. The porch on the new one is slightly smaller because the porch on the old one was a full 20 foot in width where the new one proposed is a couple feet short of that. So it's a couple of feet smaller. But footprint has increased. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is this going to be a two-stow? MS. MOORE: Yes. It's the building envelope. Right now I don't have a set of plans, so we were just working with the building envelope, so. Our concern was making sure that our setbacks, we were showing you our setbacks. The building envelope, again, she has not designed the house, so. TRUSTEE KING: Is that road a right of way? Is it a private road? What is it? MS. MOORE: I think it's -- I'm not 100% on Fishers Island. It's a dirt road. Because we have photographs Board of Trustees 19 July 22, 2009 of it. TRUSTEE KING: Do the setbacks apply? MS. MOORE: No, the setbacks are required from the property line and so we have the appropriate setbacks. It's not, if you have a road that encroaches, you don't measure from the encroachment. You measure from the property line. Which is why we don't have to move it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just trying to see if we could reduce the square footage, but is it really going to make a difference, that minimal? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so. MS. MOORE: We could eliminate the porch that is on the outside and just make the porch part of the building. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think the porch is an issue at all, really. MS. MOORE: We cannot make the house any narrower. The 14 feet is really just for one, whether it's a kitchen or whatever, it's one room. That's not, the 20 feet really barely gives you a room-and-a-half, which is a room and corridors and so on. This will be a challenge to her. And remember, these are four parcels that had been combined. And you have the property next door that has at least three single-family dwellings with sanitary systems and boat houses and structures, and I gave you the aerials that show you the conglomeration of buildings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, the property that you are referring to that was subdivided, which property is that? MS. MOORE: I gave you -- here we go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: lt's the one right next to it? MS. MOORE: I gave you Exhibit D. It's the last sheet. That's the neighbor's property. And you can see how it was developed on Fishers Island, you have the Aldren property consists of lot 70 -- 67 through 70. What they did is over the years they put houses on the property and at one point it was all under one title. Then I believe they split off lots, I'm positive, they split off lots 70 and 69 from 68 and 67. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't realize what direction it was. It's not the vacant land, it's the land that is developed. MS. MOORE: Yes, it's all developed. TRUSTEE KING: Really, this is not a public hearing TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? If not, I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to permit 7089 for Grace Hawkins as described in the application on Private Road, Fishers Island. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 20 July 22, 2009 (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. She throws kisses to you again. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting and go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number one, Fairweather Brown on behalf of JOSEPH & JOANNA CHERNUSHKA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to convert dormered second floor bedrooms into second floor conforming space, remove the existing chimney, lift the dwelling to conform to flood plain regulations and install gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 640 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. We have an inconsistent review from LWRP. A portion of the existing residential structure is located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. We'll discuss that a little further in a minute. The rear yard setback on the parcel is 35 feet from Rabbit Lane. From the rear yard setback to the existing structure is a total distance of 22 feet. It's recommended that the Board assess the feasibility of relocating the structure closer to Rabbit Lane within the building envelope and requiring a landscaped buffer landward of the existing bulkhead. A recommended definition follows in the LWRP report. And another recommendation is that the Board require that the applicant upgrade to an onsite septic system to protect from potential contamination to ground and surface waters. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? CAC supports the application with the condition leaders and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff. MS. MARTIN: I'm Amy Martin of Fairweather Brown Design Associates, 205 Bay Ave., Greenport Village, agent for Joseph and Joanna Chernushka, owners of the property at 640 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. I'm here before you this evening because this couple who owns a small unheated fisherman's cottage they purchased in June of 1990 wish to add some head room to the existing two bedrooms on the second floor. To do so requires them to make other changes to meet code requirements concerning habitable space, egress Board of Trustees 21 July 22, 2009 and stairway issues. These changes to an 18x31 or 558 square foot cottage become considered as improving a house 50%, thus causing another requirement of lifting the house up on piers to meet floodplain regulations for the first floor to be two feet above the AE-9 floodplain rating. The current first floor is 7.4 feet above grade and the proposed new elevation will be 11.3 feet, an addition of four feet higher from grade, putting the house approximately six feet above grade. Because we need to lift the house up on piers to meet the floodplain regulations, it is my understanding that you wish to move the house landward to behind the coastal hazard zone. This creates problems on several levels, but most consequentially being the location of the primary pool of the existing three pool leaching system. The research I have done tells me that to abandon the system and replace it will come at great cost, and they will have to tear down their garage and spend in excess of $10,000 just alone to put in a new system. As the property is less than 4,700 square feet there is little room to achieve the separation distances required. When the owners have done this, should they choose to do all these things, they'll have a two-bedroom, unheated fisherman's cottage up on stilts setback from the water behind the neighboring cottages with less view, no garage, a smaller driveway, less usable yard and a debt estimated at twice the cost of the renovation. I don't think they'll do this. It is my understanding that the coastal hazard line is drawn on a map that scale is one inch equals 200 feet. And on maps used by you as Trustees and by the surveyors who reference them on surveys, the estimated thickness of this line equals between eight and ten feet in width. Our surveyor used what he perceived to be the center of this line on the survey as reflected on our proposed site plan. You are asking us to move this house back seven feet, which causes all kinds of consequences and hardships. If the full width of the line were shown on our plan, the water side edge of the cottage structure is at a maximum one foot seaward of the coastal hazard line leading edge. This is not an area of contours or bluffs. This is an area of relatively no contours behind a nearly 100-year old bulkhead. In this location, the coastal hazard line appears to be an arbitrary, irregular line. According to Chapter 111 of the code, a project increasing lot coverage of less than 25% is considered minor. We are not increasing but rather decreasing the lot coverage by removal of the fireplace and chimney. Were this a major project on a bluff related situation, I would understand your diligence in wishing to push the house Board of Trustees 22 July 22, 2009 landward, but this cottage is in line with the neighboring houses and pushing it landward seems arbitrary and achieves no benefit in safety or well being of the neighborhood. We believe that your job to protect our natural resources is very important and I hope you realize that as a local firm and our history of applications to you and your predecessors, we have never come before you to ask for anything that would jeopardize our local ecology or drastically change for the bad the nature of the neighborhood. This application holds true to these principles. Since we have started this process, the local law seems to have changed and all projects now need review by the Health Department. And I just received a notice today from the ZBA to that effect. Hopefully less than a completely new system will satisfy everyone, but this will not nullify our request to keep the cottage in its current location. When answering questions for the ZBA application you ask, one of the questions asked how will this affect the neighborhood. And in this application I believe moving the house further landward from its neighbors affects the neighborhood more than leaving it in its current location. I also have from, with the surveyor, used their line to show the ten foot swath of the coastal hazard line, which I'm sure you are aware of, but it's a very high corner of the property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we have that. MS. MARTIN: According to an explanation of policy of the coastal hazard line, the owners have come up with this quote that says: Lands identified as coastal erosion hazard areas, buildings and similar structures, shall be setback from the shoreline a distance sufficient to minimize damage from erosion, unless no reasonable or prudent alternative site is available, as in the case of piers or docks. In this situation, moving the house back seven feet doesn't achieve anything other than give them less of the view they have and actually give the neighbors on the other side of Rabbit Lane less view of the water, because a larger, taller structure coming at you precludes you from seeing more of what you are used to of seeing past the house that exists. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was the feeling of the Board at the time if you were going to be picking the house up, how much of a job it would be to slide it back seven feet. We felt -- MS. MARTIN: But it's in line with everything else on the front. And by doing so - TRUSTEE KING: I see the septic system where it is -- Board of Trustees 23 July 22, 2009 MS. MARTIN: Precluding repairs to the septic system to possibly bring it to code, if that's a doable situation in its present location, but I've been told if they have to put in a totally new septic system, they'll have to tear down the garage. Which they are already making changes to, because when they bought it in 1990, it was a cottage and in order to get this application through, they have taken on the responsibility of returning the garage to a garage state and taking the shower and something in there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can understand your comments on it is the nature of the area, and I believe it does jut out a little bit from the house that is to the east of it. One of our jobs is whenever we have such major work being done is it gives us the opportunity to improve and upgrade and I would just like to hear a little bit more of some considerations on the applicant's part to work with some of the LWRP requirements. One of the requests was to consider, instead of the wooded deck, to revegetation there. MS. MARTIN: We only got this recommendation today, so we have not had a chance to discuss that, and we'll discuss that before we go to ZBA. And at this point, with all of these things surfacing, I think we are at the point where we may want to entertain having an environmental specialist represent them. But our biggest concern is all of these houses are angled slightly. And it really isn't forward of the house next to it. Each one of them has a forward corner that protrudes past the imaginary coastal hazard line, which at ten feet wide, most of them are on that seaward line of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to say. I remember in the field, it was just that eastern corner of the house that was -- MS. MARTIN: It's a seven-foot corner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that corner of the house maybe moved back, re-designed in some way. Because all the houses are on that line. MS. MARTIN: But all of the houses are tilted to look west, so that for the exposure or whatever, they were all built on an angle. That's just -- they are immediate neighbors and they all have this protrusion of five to seven feet toward the seaward line. But they don't, by pushing their house back, I have pictures but I don't have them with me, they lose their view. They, you know, it becomes -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You had just mentioned that you had received the LWRP report and recommendations. Would you be willing to consider some of those and go back to Board of Trustees 24 July 22, 2009 your applicant and discuss the possibilities of making some concessions to, again, as Jim said, our concern is if you are lifting it and you are working on it, then it's the time to possibly consider some of the recommendations and suggestions. MS. MARTIN: We understand. The fact that we would prefer not to have to lift it and everything is begetting something else that is making it a monumental task. I'm sure that there can be some considerations to having a break between, with the exception of a four-foot path across, between the porch and the, you know, I'm not -- it can't be much. I mean, there is not much there. But the problem is, it's 6.6 to that first pool. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a small area, we understand that. MS. MARTIN: We have to maintain, I believe, a five-foot minimum setback to something that will be structurally sound to hold this up as a blocked pier. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me just ask if there is anyone else here this evening who would like to speak. I just want to check. MR. CHERNUSHKA: I'm the owner, Joseph Chernushka. It seems that the house, I think, would be the best advocate for us. It's been there 60 years in the same footprint, no problems. It's just used seasonally, not every day of the summer. Low usage. And it when it's raised up and on new pilings and so on, fine, it will be the safest house on the block. But to move it back doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all. The bulkhead there is quote our primary defense for the houses there. The bulkhead is not a straight line. It's on an angle to reflect the angle of the beach. And if you have a storm, it goes over that four-foot bulkhead, the tide rises over that bulkhead, it doesn't matter if you are five feet closer or further away. Because the bulkhead doesn't even protect all of Rabbit Lane. It's only for a certain number of houses, maybe eight or ten houses, then there is no bulkhead, so the water will go around. You'll just have surf's up. So to move the house five feet back I really don't feel has any benefit whatsoever. I've been there since 1990. I seen a lot of storms and so on, it was weathered it well. The bulkhead was replaced, it had originally been built in the '30s, it was replaced in the early '90s. So that is intact. And I really don't see any advantage or benefit to moving the house back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One of our challenges before the LWRP came in inconsistent and we are trying to make it consistent. And by moving the house back, that was one way. I'm wondering, I'll put this out to the Board, by Board of Trustees 25 July 22, 2009 him upgrading the septic system and the drywells and the drainage on the property, does the Board feel that brings it into consistency or ~- MR. CHERNUSHKA: Don't forget the drywells -- it's sand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't do drywells on that block, actually, you're right. MR. CHERNUSHKA: And the man in the department of zoning that we were talking to said, don't worry, it's sand. It would make it consistent for the beach house to have gutters.. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're right. Because other lots on that neighborhood -- MR. CHERNUSHKA: And also the zoning board, I believe, gave notice to Fairweather Brown if we were to move the house back it would be okay to build a bigger deck. So there is so much inconsistency here that I'm overwhelmed. And I don't see that if we agree to anything here that we are going to have any less problems along the way. The house has been there forever and, like I said, it's Iow use, we don't fertilize the lawn, we don't add to the brown tide. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: This is one of those areas where if the horse is really out of the barn, it's out of the barn. Moving the house back seven feet in reality, what is that doing ecologically? Nothing. MR. CHERNUSHKA: And as I said, we don't use the house that much. The septic system is not exactly overloaded by any means. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To me, there is structure in front of that. It's not like it's the beach. There is already the bulkhead structure in front of the coastal erosion line, and I know our policy is to really try to get the structures behind the coastal erosion hazard line. But as Bob said, this has been there for so long and to me it's beneficial they are upgrading the septic system in that area. I think that will have more of an impact than the seven feet of moving the house back. MR. CHERNUSHKA: May I ask, what is involved in upgrading the septic system? Does it have to be built up? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You said you were upgrading the septic system. MR. CHERNUSHKA: I didn't say that. MS. MARTIN: LWRP said that. TRUSTEE KING: If you simply raise the house, you don't have to do doing anything with the sanitary system? MR. CHERNUSHKA: No. No new plumbing, no bathrooms. Nothing. Just four foot knee walls on the second floor. That's it. For the bedrooms. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, I misunderstood what she said before. Board of Trustees 26 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did, too. Because I thought what the previous speaker had stated was that she just found out is that the septic had to be upgraded as per maybe the Health Department regulations or something. MR. CHERNUSHKA: I didn't say that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I said the previous speaker. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: We need that clarified. MS. MARTIN: What I alluded to, I just heard that any kind of building now is subject to, in Southold Town, has just adopted something that any form of improvement to your house is subject to Health Department approval. So I'm not -- we just got this today. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. The only question I had, is this cottage, is that also hooked up to the sanitary system? It shows a line going to the cesspool. MS. MARTIN: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE KING: So both houses are connected to the same septic system. MS. MARTIN: Yes. That will not be a house anymore. That will reveal to a garage with a bathroom. No shower, no cooking facilities, whatever. That's part of our application to the ZBA. When the Chernushka's bought it, it was a cottage for some reason. They bought it from an attorney and apparently he didn't disclose it. They didn't have a CO for that part of the property. TRUSTEE KING: I can't imagine that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you want to retain -- MS. MARTIN: They are doing a lot of remediation to make this simple head room to happen. TRUSTEE KING: I think that would help toward consistency, you are taking a habitated building and now it won't be habitated, with no cooking facilities, no living facilities. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, what I heard her say is the bathroom will remain in that cottage. MS. MARTIN: We are allowed to have a john in there and a sink. But not a living space. There will not be bedrooms, no problems with couches and beds. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think what people were hearing is when I read the LWRP it was recommended that the Board require that the application upgrade to an onsite septic system to protect from potential contamination to ground and surface waters. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to give the applicant time to consider some of the LWRP and then we'll discuss for our next meeting? Just because you have not had a chance to look at this and I think -- MR. CHERNUSHKA: How does everyone feel about this now? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I, myself, feel we need to consider more conditions to bring this up to consistency, is my feeling. Board of Trustees 27 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: My feeling, when I was out in the field, I was one of the ones who proposed moving the house back so it was in line with the other two homes, because in my opinion in looking at it, it was not in line, and bringing it back a little bit would bring it in line. Now, since tonight, at this meeting, the information that I gathered from this meeting, the consequences of that are going to be pretty severe, in my mind, on the applicant. I would be comfortable tonight, if the applicant was willing to remove the bathroom from that frame cottage so it doesn't become habitable space any longer, then I would be comfortable with myself approving this application tonight with that condition. That would address the LWRP and also in my mind help to bring it into consistency because we are reducing the potential charge into the septic system, we are removing the bathroom, and we are making that frame cottage truly uninhabitable space. In my opinion as long as a toilet remains in there, water remains in there, electricity remains in there, in my opinion, it remains habitable space. That's my opinion. So that is something I would give consideration for and we could move it forward tonight. MR. CHERNUSHKA: We would agree to that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not ready to move forward with this tonight. So if somebody else wants to make a motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, are there any other comments? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not comfortable that would make it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would agree with Dave. Reducing what is going into that septic would bring it into consistency. In this particular area, it is such a small lot and these houses have been there for 60 years, and this really is not much you can do. I mean the next one will come in, too, one day, and it will be the same thing. If we can, you know, reduce the septic, I think that's more important in this area than actually moving the structure back. Because this area is so Iow to the ground, there is water on both sides, and if we can reduce what is going into the septic, to me, that's a big thing and that brings it into consistency, in my mind. MR. CHERNUSHKA: We would certainly agree to that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, any comments? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see it as a beach cottage. It's been a beach cottage forever. LWRP, I don't necessarily agree with the LWRP on this because it is what it is. It would not meet any other criteria anywhere in the Town Code today anyway. It's not like some of the properties that we have seen in other areas, you know, knee say Nassau Point, where we have room to move Board of Trustees 28 July 22, 2009 everything back, you know, and in moving it back, I think it's causing the homeowner more of a burden than what we'll gain in environmental positives. So I don't have a problem with the way that it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other comments from the Board or the audience? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ill make a motion to approve the application of Fairweather Brown on behalf of Joseph and Joanna Chernushka for a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to convert dormered second floor bedrooms into second floor conforming space, removing the existing chimney, lift the dwelling to conform to floodplain regulations and install gutters and -- I don't know if we need drywells in this area. So I'm not going to make that a condition of this. As other areas in the neighborhood, we have not requested drywells. But they still have to conform to Chapter 236 of the Town Code. And also with the condition of taking the cottage in the back and making that a true garage, which means taking out the kitchen, all water. You can have electricity, but the kitchen, the bathroom, and water to the cottage, and disconnecting anything going into the septic. And that is my motion. Do I have a second? Sorry, and that, by reducing the flow into the septic brings it into consistency with I_WRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll vote no. I don't feel the LWRP requirements have been met. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which brings us to number two. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PAUL KEBER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 130' of double row 3' to 5' diameter (2-5 tons) rock revetment; construct a four-foot wide by 125' staircase with three 4x4' platforms; regrade any disturbed areas and revegetate entire bluff with Cape American Beachgrass. Located: 14345-14349 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 29 July 22, 2009 MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr., representing Mr. Keber. This is sort of a copycat application of the old Mauer and the Gallagher application that was here last year and which was approved and apparently the job was done. Basically it's exactly the same. Access will be down Duck Pond, using Duck Pond Road at the end of the road. Bond was given to the Highway Superintendent of $5,000 for the use of that end of the road. And that's it. Mr. Keber, once he saw the Gallagher job done, he thought it was a great idea to connect to that and then connect to the existing wooden bulkhead to the east so he doesn't lose anymore of his property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. CAC supports the application with the condition that the erosion control devices on the bluff stairs -- I'm assuming you are referring to Mr. McGreevey's plan. MR. ECKERT: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This section is subject to Town of Southold Planning Board covenants and restrictions. The applicant proposes to plant the bluff with Cape American Beach Grass. It is recommended that the Board require that the planting plan be submitted and approved by the Town of Southold Planning Board be applied. In addition it's recommended the survival of planted vegetation be maintain by 90% for a period of three years. MR. COSTELL©: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: The only problem, we couldn't even get in there to look at what is going on because it's so heavily vegetated. I would kind of like to see a pathway so we can get down there and take a good look at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to approve it on the condition of an inspection or do you want somebody to go down and look at it? TRUSTEE KING: I'm pretty sure I know what it looks like. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does the applicant understand what we talked about with the erosion control under the steps going down? MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have a plan for that in the office? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe we do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Apparently the office does have a plan that he will show you exactly what we are talking about, but basically what has come out of the CAC is the opportunity to put cross members, so to speak, or planking underneath to help control the erosion underneath the steps, that we supported and thought was a very good idea. MR. COSTELLQ: Okay. Board of Trustees 30 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Do you have plans for the stairs? Is there somebody else who would like to speak? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. This is not opposing the application. I want you to be aware of something, because you made a recommendation, the CAC had made a recommendation regarding the cross planking on an application I had last month, I think it was. I went back to the architect, and the DEC is not allowing the footings on the bank. And what happens is that these cross members would cause the entire structure to come down. It's not structurally strong enough to provide for cross beams. So it's, structurally, it's creating a major problem and I was advised strongly, no, you cannot do that. We don't have the structural, at least in my case, we were not permitted to have the footings for the stairs. I don't know, Mr. Costello, if the DEC allows footing in your case. They didn't allow them in ours MR. COSTELLO: No, it depends on the length of the plank they are talking about. I would assume it's wood stairs or a 12 foot wide, we are talking about a four foot wide only. No more than that. We are not terracing this bank, correct? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct. MS. MOORE: I think what the CAC was recommending is that it become kind of a backup system in case there is some erosion and that if in fact you do have some erosion it will actually push the structure off the bluff. So it's, I'm putting on the record, I know it's my case, I would have to, when I come back, we can deal with the application, because I had enough time to get it reviewed, but I just want you to be aware of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. MR. COSTELLO: Point well taken. TRUSTEE KING: What are the treads constructed of? MR. COSTELLO: Flow-Thru. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, great. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the audience or the Board? (No response.) Jim, you are all right with not checking it out? TRUSTEE KING: I'm pretty familiar with the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did all look at it when we were inspecting the property next door, I believe last year, we looked at this at the time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Costello, do you want your pictures back? Board of Trustees 31 July 22, 2009 MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for Paul Keber to construct 130 feet of double row of 3' to 5' diameter rock revetment; construct a 4' foot wide by 125' staircase with three 4x4' platforms; regrade any disturbed areas and revegetate entire bluff with Cape American Beach Grass, 14, located at 14345-14349 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KING: Should we do the survivability of the beach grass. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I'll make that conditioned to survivability of the planting vegetation that will be maintained at 90% for a period of three years. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under wetland permits, number one, RICHARD BOSWORTH requests a Wetland Permit to install a new spa, inground swimming pool and patio, 4' high fence and gates, clear existing trees and shrubbery to 50' of freshwater wetlands and revegetate and install an impervious driveway. Located: 4553 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to represent this application? CAC resolved to support the application with the condition the patio is pervious and 50-foot non-disturbance buffer from the freshwater wetlands. I believe that is already on the plans. It was found inconsistent with LWRP. It was inconsistent with policy six. When we were out in the field it looked like there were really adequate buffers to the freshwater wetlands adjacent to this property. It's recommended that a 50-foot perpetual or natural vegetated buffer be required from the freshwater wetland and 100-foot perpetual natural vegetated buffer from the marine wetland boundary. Anybody here on the Board have a problem with this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: For clarification, it was inconsistent because of the buffer? TRUSTEE KING: Evidently he wants a 50-foot buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a 50-foot buffer and Chapter 275 of the code is asking for 50-foot. TRUSTEE KING: We have 50 feet from the wetland to the pool fence. So that whole area will be undisturbed. And from the -- he has a proposed pervious driveway on the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was, the CAC had noticed an Board of Trustees 32 July 22, 2009 inconsistency there between what was on the plan and what is described in the proposed -- TRUSTEE KING: On the plan it's pervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, so we just want to make sure it becomes pervious as per the plan. It's probably just a typo. TRUSTEE KING: I just want to scan this. In looking at the survey from the tidal wetlands, the closest point is about 155 feet to the pool fence. So it's, there is a huge undisturbed area here. I don't know what else we can do, really. It's a huge area here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was this the one CAC wanted the pool moved to the side? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought that was the one we were talking about. TRUSTEE KING: No, they just wanted the patios pervious. They just have the proposed patio. They are not saying what it is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, that really helps me out. TRUSTEE KING: I wish there was somebody here for this application that could address this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why don't we just make it a pervious patio. TRUSTEE KING: The proposed patio and the patio around the proposed pool would be pervious. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is one that has a large buffer to begin with. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should stick with the 50-foot buffer should remain undisturbed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, we can make that as a condition. TRUSTEE KING: Going to the freshwater wetland. As far as from the tidal wetlands, this should just say any clearing to take place they have to come back to us for any clearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the patios around the pool and the porch patio be pervious; there be a non-disturbance area from the pool fence to the freshwater wetlands and there is to be no clearing between the pool fence and the tidal wetlands. Any clearing to be requested they would have to come back to the Board and have it reviewed to do any clearing in that area, between the pool fence and the tidal wetlands, and there is to be no disturbance between the Board of Trustees 33 July 22, 2009 freshwater wetlands and the pool fence. And the driveway is pervious. Pervious driveway. Those conditions would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Charles Cuddy, Esq., on behalf of ARTHUR TORELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, garage, sanitary system, and pervious driveway. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport. This is a continuation of something that we have been dealing with for a couple of years now, at least. In its present form, the CAC moved to support the Wetland Application to construct this with the condition that gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and is looking for an installation of a 12' non-disturbance buffer. In its original form it was inconsistent with LWRP. Ill make a note that at our request, I believe, the applicant did go and apply for a lot line change. That change was granted, so on the new application, the new plans which we have all seen and have been out to the site as well, the house has been moved from what was originally going to be 19' off the wetland line to now 35'. This is basically what we asked for. It's primarily the best they could do with that lot. And I don't see any reason that we would not move ahead and approve this as it is tonight. So with that being said, Ill ask if there is anybody here who would like to address this application. MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy on behalf of the applicant but I'm not in a better position to address anything that you have not addressed. And I thank you for that. I would just like to make part of the record, beside my affidavit of posting and mailing, copies of the permits Mr. Torell has. As you pointed out, he has been doing this, actually, for five years. He has a permit from the DEC, he has a permit from the Health Department, he has a permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and he has a permit from the Planning Board to do the lot line change. And he has moved it back, as you indicated, and he's hopeful he can now finally get approval. By the way, he does have a 25' non-disturbance buffer required by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we'll adhere to that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Great. Any other comments from the Board or any questions? (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We appreciate your cooperation in Board of Trustees 34 July 22, 2009 making this happen. MR. CUDDY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application as it's been presented on the revised plans dated March 6, 2009, showing a, coincidentally showing a hay bale line at the eight-foot contour and noting that the applicant is going to have a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer as was described by the ZBA. We will also ask that drainage be taken care of with drywells and leaders and gutters as would normally be done, and with that I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to note that just for the record that with these changes we find this to be consistent with LWRP. MR. CUDDY: And also the ZBA did the same. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We would like to recognize Vinnie Orlando, our town councilman sitting here, seeing what is going on. MR. ORLANDO: I can't hide. TRUSTEE KING: George Costello, one comment for George. On the application here you said access is by water use barge to the property and you said you'll use duck pond. I took the liberty of write nothing duck Pond Road with the bond posted MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to replace three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50', using 10x15' wood piles at six inches on center and C-Loc vinyl sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. This was reviewed in October of 2008 under the LWRP and found to be consistent at that time. The CAC supports the replacement of the of the eastern-most jetty only. The other two jetties don't appear to be functional and should be left to deteriorate or be removed. Now, there was a violation issued on this and I understand from legal counsel that violation is still outstanding. MS. HULSE: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we cannot move on this application as long as there is an outstanding violation but we can certainly open the hearing tonight to receive comments Board of Trustees 35 July 22, 2009 to assist us for with we get to the point where the violation is taken care of where we can possibly move one way or another on this application. The Board did go out and looked at this this month. And it was the general feeling of the Board to agree with -- and we did not have the CAC recommendation, obviously, at the time, but our recommendation at the time was basically the same as what the CAC recommended. And just for definition purposes, according to the State of New York, a jetty protects an inlet, other than that they are groins. So you'll hear me talking about groins versus jetties here tonight. I know it gets very confusing for everybody when you hear jetties versus groins because the applicant has all jetties, but technically jetties protect an inlet which is there, and then those structures serving the same purpose are actually referred to as groins. It's just a technicality. Is there anybody here to speak on this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. And I had spoken on Friday with Jim and with Lori and there was further comments that the Board had. So if you don't mind if you would proceed with your comments, then I'll proceed with mine TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. When we had gone down and looked at this area and, I mean we'll be getting to another application that is a, not an adjacent property owner but it's in the very near area next, but what we have looked at is the entire beach area and obviously, historically, there had been a theory that everybody puts out a groin or a jetty, again, interchangeable words here, that builds the beach up, starves the next beach with the littoral drifts so that person has to put a groin or jetty in. That build that beach up, starves the next beach, so that person puts a groin or jetty in. This is a perfect example that we felt is historically what had happened here. And when looking at this it was the opinion, I felt, and any other Board members are welcome to comment, that if some of these jetties were removed, really, you would end up with a very straight, natural beach. It would all fill in very naturally. And those are actually groins that would be removed. But we did agree, too, that you need jetties near the mouth that is to the east there, in other words Deep Hole Creek, because a jetty there will help protect the mouth of Deep Hole Creek, hence reducing the need to dredge it so often. So the Board really didn't have a problem with at least that last jetty, what is depicted here on the plan as Jetty D. And there was some, there is some Board of Trustees 36 July 22, 2009 feeling of, you know, some Board members, maybe Jetty C would also serve the same purpose, but did not see where Jetty A or Jetty B were essentially needed. So, again, I welcome any comments. MS. MESIANO: Well. My comments to yours are first that I think it would be frivolous of me to agree out of hand because I'm not sure, because I'm not an expert in that field, that removing jetties A and B might not have a deleterious effect on the structure and the integrity of that structure. Because if, as you say, each structure, hardening structure, deprives the down drift beach, then that is going to cause a naturally erosion of the point that is immediately northeast of the neighbor's, that would be Sheppard's jetty. Sheppard is to the -- sorry, Sheppard is to the west. Shepherd is to the west TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Now you know I'm dyslexic. So I'm not comfortable, myself, standing here and agreeing with you because logic would tell me that that could have a deleterious effect if that erosion continues as it does on the down drift side of the structures. And the structure on the Sheppard property is significantly seaward of all of our structures. All of our structures end at the mean Iow water mark or landward thereof and I don't know that they are not completely functional. I know there is at least one that just looks saw-toothed and that's not of great concern. But the two defined as D and C, I certainly would be concerned, I do agree that those are, it makes perfect sense because of the effect to the inlet. At a previous hearing I gave the Board aerial photographs, over time, that showed that whole beach area and its integrity and the photographs did show the effect on that jetty. So I think we are in agreement that the jetties are necessary to the health, if you will, of that inlet. But I'm not comfortable in saying, sure, we'll forego jetties A and B. Perhaps one of them. But given the fact that the Sheppard jetty extends so far into the creek, this Board approved the Shepherd jetty replacement, and I have the minutes of those hearings in which that was done. The Sheppard situation was the same as our situation in that during a storm a lot of the beach was taken out and the jetties that had been there since the 1920s, were exposed. That is what started this whole situation. These were not constructed currently. These were exposed in a storm event. I provided the Board, previously, with surveys going back to 1926 that makes reference to at least three of those jetties. So I think there is -- I think I would be remiss if I took Board of Trustees 37 July 22, 2009 it too lightly because i'm concerned not just with the integrity of the beach, the inlet, um, the bay in general, but the structural integrity of the house. Because this house, there has been much flooding there. In 1993 the house was raised up on piles. A lot of work was done at that time. So I'm not comfodable in foregoing jetties A and B out of hand without more scientific expertise than I certainly possess and, respectfully, that I think the Board possesses. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to look at that whole area as a cell. Not just Celic's property but Sheppard, Drumm and there is two or three more. We need to look at that whole area. I would like to get together and do a joint inspection of that with the DEC and possibly somebody from the state department and see what we can come up with for a game plan for that whole area, not just Mr. Celic's but the neighbors also. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe it was last year, Jay Tanzi with the Department of State came down and it was not at this location but another location near this location, on Great Peconic Bay, was actually down just to the west of West Creek. And he looked at that area and talked to us about groins and jetties, again, because West Creek is right there, it's a very similar situation. I thought his discussion with us was very helpful. Where is the applicant with the DEC on this? MS. MESIANO: We are nowhere with the DEC. At this point Mr. Celic doesn't intend to do anything. And we are here simply as a function of the legal process and we are here complying with the demand that an application be submitted for the Board to recognize what is there. If we can at least do that, because I have provided with you ample, I think, ample evidence that these structures existed long before any of us did, and that they were there prior to the Trustees' current status, prior to the permitting process, and I think that there should be some recognition of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I agree with you, those groins have been there for many years. What also brought this to our attention was the fact that this, these groins were in fact increased without permission, without getting a permit. That's what led to the violation and that violation still has not been resolved. MS. MESIANO: I understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You know, and when you go and look at it, as the picture shows, that build up that was done without a permit has now functioned to retain beach to the top of what was put, what somebody built without permission and has in essence starved the next section of the beach. You know, if that raise had not happened, of course we don't know, I can't say with any Board of Trustees 38 July 22, 2009 scientific proof, but I believe what happened is that beach that is now retained within that area due to that raising that groin, would have naturally flowed to the next section of beach. But again, that is what started this going and was the fact that a violation of was issued and unfortunately that violation has not been resolved yet in the courts, so. MS. MESIANO: I should just note the beach starving that you referred to is on the subject property, not on another property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right, sure. MS. MFSIANO: So I guess that leaves us not much far[her ahead than where we were before. I'm not part of the court proceeding, so I don't know where that stands. I'm just handling this aspect of it. But I would request that when the Board has its meeting with the Department of State and the DEC, I would like to be given notice so that someone could attend if they chose to. TRUSTFE BERGEN: That's very fair, yes. MS. HULSE: Just an update. The violation has been pending for two-and-a-half years. It was in Southold. It was a change of venue, because the judge recused himself, to Shelter Island. It's been literally sitting there. We make appearances once every three months, and I tried to reach an agreement with counsel and he just says he's not interested in anything, he wants to see what he can get from the Trustees, which is not really the way it works. But at the end of the day the other two who also received violations immediately addressed them, Sheppard and Drumm, and Mr. Celic has been the one holdout and we are pushing three years now with this violation, so. There is no hold up other than that. MS. MESIANO: I have no control over that situation. MS. HULSE: I understand that. MS. MFSIANO: But I hear what you are saying. MS. HULSE: But please understand that it's not coming from the town in any way dragging its feet. We have been willing and ready resolve it two-and-three-quarters years ago. MS. MESIANO: I think a lot of the issue is the fact that the jetties did exist prior and has a lot of bearing on it. And this Board, I know, has eliminated the process for grandfathering structures. So I guess that is where -- MS. HULSE: Well, I mean this was clearly a substantial addition to it, even more so than the other two. I went out there and saw it. I mean it was quite built up and [ think even that Trustee Bergen indicated had been already covered with sand at this point, so. MS. MESIANO: Then the question becomes once something Board of Trustees 39 July 22, 2009 has started to establish itself in that manner, what then is the impact going forward to take out something that has begun to work, it's begun to establish itself, it's become covered by sand. Then what? Is that impact equal to or greater than -- is the removal, the impact of the removal equal to or greater than the impact of leaving the structure, which has now started to, for lack of better term, vest itself in that environment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: I don't have an answer to it. It's just a question that comes to my mind. It's easy to say remove a deck, remove a fence, but to remove a shore-hardening structure is not quite so easy to do because of the repercussions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It also sets a precedent to putting structures in, then having them permitted, that may or may not have them permitted. MS. MESIANO: I don't think this situation would set a precedent because after 20 years I have seen literally hundreds of as-built conditions come before this Board and handled in a variety of ways. Some successfully, some not, and some in between. So I don't think we are looking for precedent-setting action on the part of the Board. Just recognition of the fact that the integrity of the lot upon which the house sits is as important to a property owner as the environmental impacts are to this Board. MS. HULSE: The problem is, Cathy, and this is just from me personally, I'm not speaking for the Trustees. With all due respect for as-built applicants we always hear that it will actually impact and damage the environment more to remove it. So that is always the built-in excuse for not being able to take the stairs off the bluff or whatever you put on the beach or the dock or the jetty or whatever it is, and the bottom line is if it came before the Trustees for their consideration initially, they might have said no. MS. MESIANO: Well, in this instance I say they might have said yes for three quarters of it because everything is above the mean Iow water mark. It's landward of that. And there is good reason for there to be structures here. Obviously, it's supported the property this many years. The house has been there for 75 years. Of course as I mentioned it has been raised because of the flooding. MS. HULSE: Right. But what Trustee Dickerson is absolutely true, because as soon as Mr. Celic did it, Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Drumm did it. So when you talk about precedent, they immediately had to react to Mr. Celic's building on it and they had to build there Board of Trustees 40 July 22, 2009 own. So one violation begot two others right along the same stretch of the beach. So it's just one of those situations that you are tying the hands of the Trustees and the town if you go ahead and do it without approval then come back and say, well, look, it is what it is, can you give us an approval now. I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. MS. MESIANO: I do understand completely and I'm not standing here saying, oh, we can't take it out because. I'm saying to the Board, the fact, the issue that should be considered is what the impact may be. I'm not standing and pleading mercy because I'll damage it further. I'm suggesting it be looked at from a scientific perspective. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Like I said, we can't move on this tonight. I just wanted to see if there was anybody else who wanted to make public comment on this before we closed the hearing. (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to table this application because the violation has not been resolved yet, the criminal violation has not been resolved yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Enviropermits, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL GIACONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace, inplace, an existing 81' wooden groin with a 73' Shore-Guard 425 vinyl sheathing groin. The groin will be Iow-profile, with the height not to exceed 18 inches above grade on the downdrift side. Located: 360 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. This is one down from the previous application we were just discussing. It is consistent with LWRP and the CAC comments, they do not support the application and recommend complete removal of the groin. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) Again this is Michael Giacone. Anyone here to speak on behalf of this? (No response.) In light of the conversation we just had on the previous application I'm almost thinking that we should table this to try to get that meeting together with DEC, the state and all of the neighbors, Celic, Sheppard, Giacone and Drumm and get all the parties out there and discuss what do with all of them. TRUSTEE KING: There is no doubt in my mind that area has to be protected. Those cottages have been there Board of Trustees 41 July 22, 2009 for years. I would just like to see some good design work and maybe we can clean the area up and accomplish that. Some of the problem also was when that was dredged, we used to switch back and forth pumping the sand east one time and west, and a couple of years in a row it all went to the east. So they were screaming my sand, my sand, and they didn't get it. And that contributed to some of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, last year when Deep Hole Creek was dredged, some of it was put to the west. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aisc like Cathy said, get some science behind it also, and get the best design. TRUSTEE KING: We have to look at that whole area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How many groins are down there, about a dozen? TRUSTEE KING: Six or eight, probably, at least. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: Four just on Celic. TRUSTEE KING: Then you have Drumm and these to the east TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it would be wise to go and look at the whole area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there are no comments -- MS. GIACONE: I'm Michael Giacone's mother. I lived in that house. I deeded it over to my children. I have been in that house since 1960, with the jetties, and the last two years, the water is right up underneath my house. I can't use the stairs because the water is there. There is nothing to hold it back. And I think just asking for this jetty is protecting my house and it's protecting the land. in the winter, the water comes right underneath my house right almost to the creek. Everything has to be tied down. I have lost numerous boardwalks because everything floats. As far as Celic goes; then there is Wiggins, which is now Sheppard; then Drumm; then there is vacant land that belongs half to Caligan, which began, which she just deeded her house over to her daughter. I don't know her last name. Then comes Healy; myself; Carrie Cassidy; Powers, who applied for a permit that is coming up in two weeks. And we have a very severe thing. We've worked on this a long, long time. My son could not be here. I hate to tell you why, but we live outside of Albany, and it's very difficult. But he just happened to be at a Yankee ball game. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, being a Met fan myself. MS. GIACONE: I really think that we need that jetty so badly. I have no beach. And they must have taken those pictures after it was just dredged. And that was, I think in October, and all the sand is totally gone again. Because there is nothing to hold it. TRUSTEE KING: These are recent pictures, correct? MS. GIACONE: These were the other day. I saw you guys out Board of Trustees 42 July 22, 2009 there and I didn't say anything. I let you do your job. But I don't want you to turn us down because of Celic. Now, I lived in my house before Celic's even had the house. TRUSTEE KING: That's not the idea. We want to look at this whole area and do this right. MS. GIACONE: It's been a really long time. And I don't know how much longer I'll have stairs. My beach chairs are now in the backyard. High tide you can't even sit on the beach. And I don't think that's right. I think something, we should repair that or do something with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, in the recent history, what we've learned about jetties and groins is the opposite of what they used to do years ago. And we are concerned for that area and protecting that area so you can continue to live there. And what we are looking to do is the best possible solution for you. And I can't promise when we'll get this meeting together because we are dealing with different agencies but I can say the Trustee office will work to get these agencies together in a timely fashion and try to do it as soon as possible. We don't want to approve something that is going to hurt your property even further. So that is what we are looking into. In the end, if this is what we are going to give you, this might be it. We don't know at this point. We need to look into it further. But we, our interest is protecting your property. MS. GIACONE: My concern is that I won't have a piece of property. That bay is going to go right to the creek and it's going to be like a canal. It's going to cut me right off from them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's one of the reasons we to get some expert opinions on this, because we really want to get people that have expertise and scientific knowledge about these and give us that information so the decision can be made to the best of our ability. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have an application in with the DEC for this? MS. GIACONE: My son took care of it all. I just came for the hearing to tell him that we had a permit, it was a go ahead. I believe we have. TRUSTEE KING: There might be a permit already in the file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we do have a copy of a permit. I don't know what it says. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, no problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they have been to DEC. It says inplace removal and replacement of existing jetty all in accordance with all the pages of conditions. And it is good until 2014. TRUSTEE KING: They are good to go with DEC. Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So basically the DEC, even if we have a Board of Trustees 43 July 22, 2009 meeting and go over the whole area, that will be approved. TRUSTEE KING: Not necessarily. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was given just this past April, 2009. I don't see that they did anything to it. It's just pages of conditions, so I don't -- and there is a letter in here from the Army Corps. It looks like an approval also from the Army Corps, with special conditions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay: All right, well, we respect what you are saying and we'll be looking at this again next month and hopefully have an answer for you next month, at our next meeting. MS. GIACONE: And that's what I should tell him? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And we'll be in touch. If we have a meeting with the other agencies, we'll get in touch with him to let him know when that meeting will be and we'll give him as much notice as we can to let him know to be there if he wants to. MS. GIACONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to table this application for further review until next month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number five, Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of SKUNK LANE TRUST CIO MARY KRAUSE, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with deck, attached garage, sanitary system, pervious driveway, and to establish a non-turf zone landward of a 50' non-disturbance/non-fedilization buffer. Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here this evening what would like to speak to this application? MR. BOWMAN: Charles Bowman, President, Land Use Ecological Services. Good evening, Board members. This is a pretty straightforward application. This house and the improvements with the exception of the garage was approved by this Board in 2005. Since that time we have been involved in a pretty intensive archaeological investigation of the site. We went through phase one, phase two and now phase three, which has been completed. Phase three is where you actually recover the artifacts, and there is a closing report that has been submitted. So that's the reason why they have, the permit did expire. The Krause's now want to add a garage to it, which is about a 30x25' garage which is located 277 feet landward of the wetland line. The Board of Trustecs 44 July 22, 2009 house remains the same, the buffer areas remain the same. The sanitary systems remain the same. So it's really just the addition of the garage, and we are back before you. So if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question. The archeological investigation, has something been found? MR. BOWMAN: That whole lot area, if you will, is a highly sensitive area identified on the state maps, Shifa maps, and first you do a stage one which actually shows that it is, that's through document searches, then a couple of test holes are put in the place. Those test holes show artifacts. When we talk artifacts we are talking about shards, some arrowheads, some pot shards. It looks like it was used as a campsite, if you will. And that was the conclusion of the archaeologist. But then once that is identified you then have to tie down where the majority of these artifacts are. They have to be recovered and catalogued, unless you are able to actually move the building site out of that area so it is not lost. So that's the whole process you have to go through, which is pretty intensive, very expensive, you could imagine. And what is completed over three years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did browse through the report. It's very interesting. If fact when we were out there we kept walking over these mounds of soil and tried to figure out, until we came across this. MS. BOWMAN: In this lot they did find some pretty unique arrowheads. The place, to me it looks like a broken rock to me, but that's to a biologist as opposed to an archeologist, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For those that are here that are locals, it's interesting to note they found over 8,300 artifacts there. That's a lot. Bits and pieces. MR. BOWMAN: Part of the artifacts are like boiling stones. Boiling rocks. Because they didn't have metal pots, they had skim pots and they used to heat a rock, put water in it and put a hot rock in the pot to make it boil. Put a hot rock in a cold water, it cracks. So part of it is cracked rocks. So, again, you look at it, and to me it looks like a cracked rock. But, you know, show me a dolphin and a seal, I'll tell you exactly all about it. But a cracked rock is a cracked rock. The arrowheads I certainly thought were pretty cool. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also thought it was very interesting, the specific tree, is it going to have to be removed? MR. BOWMAN: I actually don't know if that's within the building area or not. Board of Trustees 45 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was. But I was interested in it and did find out it's a Post Oak and it is ornamental, so it just -- it's a great climbing tree, I'm sure. We have a consistent LWRP repod and CAC supports the application with the condition the deck and the dwelling are setback 100 feet from the wetland boundary and all trees over eight inches in diameter that don't interfere with the construction of the proposed dwelling are preserved. It was a very nicely wooded lot. The Board also made the same comment on our field notes. Note, the field notes didn't get written up, but I remember the conversation, when it was measured out, the Board that if -- TRUSTEE KING: Basically it could have been moved out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ten feet off the deck we felt it could have been moved out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall it was approximately 75 feet from the wetland boundary to the most seaward part of the deck, and we were wondering if there was a combination of reducing the size of that deck and then moving the house back 25 feet, then the whole thing is out of our jurisdiction. MR. BOWMAN: We understand that. I just think the Krause's have just gone through so much. This was issued before. The buffers, I think, are very reasonable. They just don't want to go back before the DEC, probably have to get another certification from the archeological because the house is now moving back as well. I don't know if it's true or not, but I imagine we have to. And, you know, they would just rather get on with it after all is said and done. And I can't tell you the process they went through. It was pretty significant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I do have a letter here that has a concern from Donald and Ellen Ball. I'll read the most detailed part of it. It says that the survey shows that we use public water and also well water. The well is located in the northwest corner about 29 feet from the Krause's driveway. The driveway is 25 feet wide. The proposed leaching pools are approximately ten feet from the same driveway, adding up to 64 feet between the well and leaching pool. That being said, their feeling is too close -- our leaching pools are 150 feet from our well. And if they are here and you would like to elaborate on that or make a comment? (Negative response.) MR. BOWMAN: All I can say is on the updated survey we have, it all shows it connected to public water on the adjoining houses. I could check, but this will also be subject to Health Department, which of course is going Board of Trustees 46 July 22, 2009 to make sure that we are either 150 feet or connected to public water with all the houses. And even if the other ones are on a well, we would have to make the offer to connect them. You know, so I think the Health Department issue would be taken care of at that point anyway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How does the Board feel about that? TRUSTEE KING: I was wondering how could you could use public water as well as a well? MR. BOWMAN: Sometimes people keep the wells for irrigation, and potable water is connected to their house. TRUSTEE KING: The reason I'm asking, I just got a letter from Suffolk County Water Authority, wanted to know if I was interested in Suffolk Water coming in my neighborhood where I live and they said they need 40% of the people they need to sign up for it. Aisc part of the letter said you have to disconnect your well from your home when you hook up to Suffolk County water. It can only be used for irrigation purposes, not for potable water. So my question is how can you do both? MR. BOWMAN: Well, you can't. That's what I'm saying. You can't. This has to go before the Health Department. The survey is showing it's all public water has been connected for the potable supply. There may be a well that is used for irrigation. That's very possible. TRUSTEE KING: But that would not an issue on how close it is to a septic system if it's used strictly for irrigation. MR. BOWMAN: Correct. Not at all. TRUSTEE KING: So in my mind, it's not an issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not an issue for me either. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to come up and speak, sir? MS. BALL: Don Ball. We have, we had a well for many years. The last couple, two, three years, we have added on a section to the house which was separate from the house. And there is a door between it. And it required us to put in public water. And we did. And we kept the well water because it was so near the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To clarify what you just said, you are using the county water for the one section but you are still using the well water for the main house? MR. BALL: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Are they two separate buildings or? MS. BALL: Not separate. They are face-to-face with a door in between. TRUSTEE KING: They actually are adjoin each other MR. BALL: Yes, we took the door down and took a wall out. TRUSTEE KING: It's kind of, in my mind that's a tricky Board of Trustees 47 July 22, 2009 situation. When I read that letter that I received from Suffolk County, they stated you cannot use your well water anymore. MR. BALL: We gave you copies of this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we have it. MR. BALL: It's from February 24th, and it's been approved. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. It's beyond me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could step back to the microphone. We don't have a stenographer here tonight so we have to make sure everyone speaks into the microphone. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think what the Board's feeling is, the issue is, you may need to take to the Health Department. MS. BALL: We did already. The letter that you have is to the Health Department. I was there yesterday and maybe the day before. And they told me to write that letter. And they have -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We don't normally deal with well water and potable water. It's a Health Department issue. We are just concerned about how it affects the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where are you with the Health Department? MR. BOWMAN: If I could answer that. We deal with that all the time. With respect to Mr. Ball, you can't have both. You know, if you hooked up to public water and your whole house is supposed to be served by public water, you know. We do, when we go before the Health Department, we are going to have to certify and so is the surveyor and engineer that all the houses are hooked up to public water, and if there is a well that is servicing a house and public water, that is something the Health Department will write a letter here and say you have to take it out. You know, I mean you just can't have both. That's the whole purpose of hooking up. And they don't allow that anywhere in Suffolk County. It's pretty simple, you know. That's the reason why you have public water hooked up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, Mr. Ball. I think the conclusion here is that the issues that you brought up, as much as you are concerned for, it's our feeling our Board is not going to be addressing that. This is a permit we have permitted prior, it ran out and I think at this point we are ready to move on that. MR. BALL: What did you say? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That your concern is a Health Department issue. It's not a concern of this Board. And this Board is ready to move forward with this application. MR. BALL: My only problem is with the layout you have given me, it says on there that the dwelling uses public water. And I would say, yes, that's true. Board of Trustees 48 July 22, 2009 However there is a well that is working and that is incorrect on the sheet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And your letter is in the file. It will be kept in the file. MR. BALL: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else to speak to this application? Any Board members? (No response.) Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland application to construct a single-family dwelling with deck, attached garage, sanitary system, pervious driveway and to establish a non-turf zone landward of a 50 foot non-disturbance non-fertilization buffer. This application is consistent with LWRP. And CAC has made some recommendations. It's located at 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of JAMES MAINO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing shed, bulkhead and wood walkway. Construct 110' of new bulkhead and new four-foot wide wood inplace. Remove existing floating dock, ramp and access platform and install new 4x4' cantilevered platform, 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp and 4x50' seasonal floating dock inplace. Remove existing retaining wall and construct 110' of new retaining wall inplace. Provide a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer zone landward of walkway. Located: 655 Albacore Drive, Southold. Is there anybody here to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, George Costello, Sr., representing the applicant. Basically what we have here is an existing structure of 20, 25-years old that we are going to rebuild inkind and inplace, with the exception we are using vinyl sheathing instead of CCA sheathing; untreated decking, concrete wall, the retaining wall will be concrete block. And the existing shed is going to be removed and not replaced. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval of this application with the condition the walkway, docking facility, bulkhead and retaining walls are constructed using best management practices. I believe this was consistent with LWRP. Recommends the Board minimize Board of Trustees 49 July 22, 2009 the use of CCA treated material on the bulkhead and dock line, and go with vinyl sheathing. We all looked at this. It was pretty straightforward. Everything is there. Just replacing it. I think it's in need of repair. MR. COSTELLO: One comment I do want to make is when we straighten up the bulkhead, right now the bulkhead is falling over, we have a bow in the middle of it. Hopefully we'll straighten it up and make a straight line out of it so actually the float is coming landward a little bit. It's a tight channel, tight issue in there. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty much a dead end. Any Board comment? (No response.) Any comments from the audience? MS. MOORE: Good evening. Pat Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, who are here tonight. We are directly across from the Maino property. My client's house is on Tarpon Road, which is the waterfront directly across from theirs. I did do some research with respect to the existing structure because we really have no issue with this bulkhead replacement. The only issue that we have is with regard to the dock, ramp and float. The position -- this structure has been there a long time, but from my research I could find no permits for it. I could not tell from the computer because it was having issues when I was researching. We found no permits. The computer was not picking up a permit and sometimes, actually, you know, it's difficult -- were you able to find a permit for this structure? MR. COSTELLO: No. I didn't look for one. MS. MOORE: Oh, you did not. MR. COSTELLO: I did not. It was not an issue. MS. MOORE: I did look with respect to the building permit that was issued for construction of the house that was issued, a survey from 1986, and the permits that were issued there in 1989, did not show a dock structure on the canal. So I went looking and I just couldn't find any legalization. But in any case, if it's illegal, then that is certainly one consideration. Even if it is a legal structure, it is certainly nonconforming. The concern that we have is that when the Wilson's had come in for an application to replace their dock, they were very limited in the placing of their structure, their float, because of the Maino structure. It takes up 60% of 110 feet of bulkhead. The float extends along pretty of much the entire length of that bulkhead. The way the canal is developed, you have the Board of Trustees 50 July 22, 2009 docks that are for, the most pad, trying to share a narrow canal. So they are staggered. And there is an effort by all the property owners to share and not go beyond that one-third rule. And in this case we have the Maino's dock as well as the large boat that they have exceeding one-third and I believe a half of the canal is taken up by the Maino's structures. We did approach them. My client tried to be a good neighbor and asked them, please, if you are going to take and request a 50-foot long float, could you please move it three piling lengths to the west, because that would at least provide for the navigation of his dock and boat. That was not well received, and we are here to ask the Board to intercede into that request, because as you can tell, the structure is nonconforming, and from the code language it is the Board's regulations that you are supposed to be making a nonconforming structure more conforming if at all possible. And certainly there is flexibility in doing that here. My client actually did some arts and crafts and I think if you would not mind giving him a minute of your time, he did a beautiful job. And I think he illustrates very clearly through an aerial photograph and a photograph from his property to the Maino's property what his dilemma is and how maybe we could reposition this float and this ramp in such a way that both parties can share the waterway, which is the goal here. So I would defer to Mr. Wilson and he's going to come up to you. It's easier. MR. WILSON: My name is Michael Wilson, 590 Tarpon Drive. I really don't want to be here tonight because the Maino's were very good to us when we moved into the neighborhood and I do not wish to be disagreeing with them. But in this case, I have to disagree. The first picture here is an overhead that was taken in winter and the Maino's boat is real. That's the one in yellow. Because it was there in the winter. I didn't have a picture of my boat there in the winter, so I cut out a picture of the Maino's boat and stuck it there because I too would like to have a sail boat like theirs. You will see that as it is, their boat overlaps almost half of my dock. And then through the miracle of cut and paste, if you move the dock over three pilings to the west, then there would only be a one or two foot overlap. If it wasn't the Maino's I would ask you to move it 12 pilings because that would give me even more pilings. But because they are nice people, I'm just asking for a three-piling move to make it so that there is only a foot or so overlap to my dock. As you know, when you turn, we come in from the water and we have to turn around in Board of Trustees 51 July 22, 2009 this space. I have a 20 foot boat, which is difficult to turn around because you have to keep going forward reverse, forward reverse, and I just don't think I could do it if I got a sailboat. Which I want. That's why I'm asking the three-piling move toward the west so there is less overlap. That is my cut and paste from Google. Here is a picture taken from my house looking over at the Maino's. Once again you can see the significant overlap between my dock, which had to be there. It couldn't be any further east, any further west, because it would not fit otherwise. So my dock has to be there. And what I'm requesting, again, is that the Maino's dock be moved this way. And once again through the magic of cut and paste what I did is I moved the dock three pilings, and you can see then there is only like a one foot overlap between the Maino's boat and our dock. And because the Maino's are nice people, I'm willing to live with that. But I think it has to be a three-piling move just to improve the navigation. Would you like those? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any objections to that? TRUSTEE KING: Would the depth of water be an issue? MR. COSTELLO: I have a couple of comments to make and I'll address them to Pat, I guess. When was this application made for the neighbor? When did he put his bulkhead in? TRUSTEE KING: You shouldn't be talking back and forth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Direct your comments to us. MS. MOORE: I can answer that. When did we -- 2003. MR. WILSON: I think we started in 2001 and the dock had been put in and is conforming with the plan. MR. COSTELLO: My question is, I guess I'll address the Board. At the time that the application was made, was there any comments made from the next door neighbors, any objections? That's one. Number two, was the float, I don't know how wide the float is. MS. MOORE: Four feet. MR. COSTELLO: Was the float put in any position? Could it have been moved to accommodate the existing dock and the existing sailboat? MS. MOORE: I think on the record we already, Mr. Wilson already mentioned that. Rob Herman submitted that application many moons ago, but the only location that was feasible because of the Maino's dock and boat was as far to the -- direction, help me out. Up to the east, toward the opening. That was the only area that was left and my client was limited in the size of their float as well as the placement of the float. Because we were dealing with an existing structure, there was no -- and, again, we are not trying to object. We Board of Trustees 52 July 22, 2009 don't want to object to their structure. If the Board wants to give them the size float that they have, as long as it is moved over, it will not impact us. I think it's interesting that you grant such an application because I thought our rules were 120 square feet is the maximum float. But if the Board allows a replacement of an existing 50-foot float, as long as it has not impacted us, we'll leave it to the discretion of the Board. I think the problem is that in its present position it does impact us. So it is an opportunity now to correct an existing circumstance that is kind of a monopolization of the waterfront when we do have multiple users on this canal. MR. COSTELLO: I have a picture here I would like to show you guys. If you notice, this is the bow of the sailboat. That boat is quite a ways to the east. We are quite ways to the west. I don't particularly see a problem there myself. MS. MAINO: My name is Marianne Maino, I own the property jointly with my husband James. He couldn't be here this evening. I was hoping I didn't have to stand up here tonight. The reason we have not been able to converse with the Wilson's this week is we have a grandson in intensive care. He's had a brain surgery for an aneurism. We are waiting for a second surgery for a brain tumor. So we have not had the patience or the time or the thought, even, to consider this. But the one thing I would like to say, we did have Mr. Costello's son over several times to look at it to see if we could accommodate their request, and in looking at it, the way that the new ramp will be going down will allow another 18 feet. In other words where the floating dock is now, the ramp will be going down longer so there witl be another 18 feet going back for the floating dock. And the other thing is, the width of the floating dock will be two feet west. And with the bow that is in the dock now, they'll be gaining two-and-a-half feet in width and they'll be gaining 18 feet in the length of what is available there. And we are kind of perplexed by this because we are just replacing a bulkhead and a dock that is in dire need of replacement. And the only reason I'm here tonight is because we can not postpone this much longer because we can't go through another winter or it will then cave in, as you can see. TRUSTEE KING: The point is well taken. MS. MOORE: Would there be any objection to moving the structure the three pilings? MS. MAINO: I really don't see why we should be moving our dock farther down into shallow water. You'll be taking the size of that boat. It's very shallow down Board of Trustees 53 July 22, 2009 the other end. You'll be limiting -- TRUSTEE KING: That's why I asked the question is water depth an issue here. MS. MAINO: It is. MS. MOORE: If I could just speak. Most of the time when these docks are being built, there is a small amount of dredging that is required for the area, the sand that has fallen in due to the deterioration of the bulkhead. It's very common to do a small amount of dredging. It does show four feet in depth. Well, 3.17. It seems to all be of a consistent depth. A very small amount of dredging may be able to correct that. Again, we are dealing with a nonconforming structure in a very narrow waterway. And we have the smallest structure that is permissible and they probably have the largest structure permissible, and I am sympathetic to your personal, I'm sorry you have to be here, but I think that's why the Board -- MS. MAINO: I beg to differ there is four feet down to the western end. MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, the conversation really has to be with the Trustees and as you are recognized by the Trustees. The conversation back and forth, if you could just hold off while Mr. King is reviewing. MR. COSTELLO: You notice going to the west, the depth of water is one foot. On the outside of the existing float is three feet. MS. MOORE: That's if the float remains 50 feet in length. If it was cut back to a normal size float, then your boat and the depth of the water is all within the area that is already identified as the 50-foot float. MR. COSTELLO: We are not interested in cutting back. MS. HULSE: Again, I'll just ask that you stop the back and forth because they are not even listening to what you are saying, because you are just talking to each other. They are just reviewing something right now. Just give them a second, if you would, please. TRUSTEE KING: George, we are just trying to figure out what we can do here. (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: How much rise and fall of tide do you have there. Two, two-and-a-half feet? MR. COSTELLO: That's what is on the books. It's probably 2.8, 2.9. That's more on the average. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any suggestions? Because I'm in a quandary here as far as what to do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One thing we were discussing is maybe reducing the width of the float. MR. COSTELLO: Reducing the width? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. To three feet. I personally Board of Trustees 54 July 22, 2009 think three feet is kind of narrow for a float. It's something we -- MR. COSTELL©: I would have to come up with a better way of making an attachment to stop it from rolling. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, with grandkids on it and other things, to me, I don't know. We were just trying to come up with something. MR. COSTELLO: If I could make one suggestion. Has the Board been down there and looked at it? (Board members respond in the affirmative.) MR. COSTELLO: I'm just wondering if we put a string on it from the property line to the end of the bulkhead and, you know, a straight string, I don't know how, I can't tell you if it will be a foot-and-a-half or two foot, after I straighten the bulkhead up, that we are gaining in the channel. Do you know what I mean? If I put a string here and a string here, a straight line, that will be the bulkhead. How much did I bring it inland. How much room did I just contribute to the channel. I can't tell from you here, without going down there and looking at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we were discussing now is the structure never had a permit, so. MR. COSTELLO: Well, we are innocent until proven guilty, correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess if you could produce a permit, yes. MR. COSTELLO: Well, we are innocent until proven guilty. That's what I'm told all the time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this point we don't know that a permit exists on this property. TRUSTEE KING: That's the problem we are up against now. MR. COSTELLO: Was a permit necessary when this bulkhead was installed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the question. Because if it was prior to permitting. TRUSTEE KING: 1956. MS. MOORE: That's why I looked at the survey, because I wanted to give your clients the benefit of the doubt. Assuming it was a permitted -- I did the research to look to give the client -- I'm sorry, I'm trying to be polite in facing both of you. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I assume the structure had a permit. I could not find one. And when I looked in the Building Department records I found the survey that showed no structure when the house was built, and that's the date that I gave you. And I know the Trustees had jurisdiction at that point. Permits were required. But again, it would not, I don't know that it would even matter, because it does interfere with, the bringing the structure in somewhat will be helpful to Board of Trustees 55 July 22, 2009 deal with the one-third rule. That might address the one-third rule. But I don't believe it addresses the difficulty of navigation that my client faces every time he tries to turn his boat around because the Maino's dock and boat extend from one end to the other. That's why, again, we were not trying to, we don't want to hurt the Maino's, we want to give them what they have in the sense they need 50 feet of float. MS. HULSE: The Trustees are the ones to give it to them. I mean, you've made your points very clearly. I think it's just a matter of the Trustees making a decision. The legality of not having a permit is the problem, as ,Jim said. TRUSTEE KING: That's the problem. MS. HULSE: If you don't have a permitted structure right now. MR. COSTELLO: Do we know that for a fact? MS. HULSE: Do you know it for a fact? Do you want to take the time to research it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table this to do some research? MR. COSTELLO: That's fine. And I want to put the string up to find out exactly how much room we are gaining. TRUSTEE KING: If you can't find a permit for it and it's not a permitted structure -- MR. COSTELLO: It's a different ball game. TRUSTEE KING: We should seriously think about downsizing the float to meet today's standards. MR. COSTELLO: That's, I understand. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are up against. MR. COSTELLO: That's fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And this time, too, I think we should focus more on the other dock. I mean, we really didn't look across. MS. MOORE: You are more than welcome. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it meets the one-third rule after it's brought in, then it's really -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to look at the dock test as listed in 275. That states the one-third rule. With the boat. TRUSTEE KING: My understanding and in my mind, anyway, the whole idea of the one-third rule is so you could have boats exactly opposite each other and still have navigation. It was not said, well you have to offset. I think we should to some research on this and see if there is a permit or what happened here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And should we go inspect it again with Mr. Costello and putting the string across. MR. COSTELLO: I would like to be at the inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to table this application, that we research this and see if there is Board of Trustees 56 July 22, 2009 a permit on this and we reinspect it next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven, Costello Marine on behalf of LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER, LLC., requests a Wetland Permit to remove 30' of offshore section of existing four-foot wide dock, existing ramp and floating dock, remove existing pipeline; expand 105' of existing four-foot wide dock to six-foot wide; expand last 20' of offshore end to ten-foot wide; install new 3,000 lb. davit; and install seven 2-pile dolphins. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. MR. ARNOFF: Harvey Arnoff. It's nice to be back before the Board. It's been a while since I have been here. When I first got involved in this case, I said to myself something has gone awry. This Board has been involved in this matter for I think the last five years. And I set about a course to try and remedy a situation which on its face had no solution. Unfortunately my clients have received some terrible advice from their inception, from the inception of this matter. No one checked the surveys when they bought it. No one checked to see that the dock exceeded the permit length that the Board gave them. And they embarked upon, I think, a course of conduct which I certainly would not have recommended to them at the time. Having said that, I suggested to them that they see what could be done to come in conformity with the existing application, the existing permit, and they have done that, I believe, and I think Mr. Costello has done a very fine job in presenting to the Board a reduction in the size and dimension of this dock so as to make it strictly in conformity with what the prior approval from this Board was. I think he would be better able to speak in regard to the application and its scope and I would like him to do that at this point. MR. COSTELLO: Counsel has taken most of the words right out of my mouth. TRUSTEE KING: I doubt that, George MR. COSTELLO: This dock has a lot of history. Unfortunately, a little too much history. I was brought in by the Anderson's to try and mitigate some of these issues; the issue being depth of water and how do I remove the 30 foot of dock and still keep them in the fishing business. So the only thing I could come up with was to remove the violation, remove the pens, remove the piling that hold the pens in place, and install some mooring piles so these guys could dock Board of Trustees 57 July 22, 2009 their boats in, put a davit at the end of the dock so they could pick up their product and I'll put a removable aluminum ramp down to the boat, and a davit can swing it over and set it down on the boat for access. You know, I can't put anymore structure out there, a float or anything like that. So this is about the only thing I could come up with after a year. I would not be able to get a dredging permit from the DEC since the area has not been dredged before. So that's about the best I could do. Simple as that. TRUSTEE KING: George, are all those oyster floats coming out of the water? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: They'll be removed? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. That's not an issue. We are just trying to make everybody happy. TRUSTEE KING: It's been an absolute nightmare for not only this Board but the previous Board also. The new dolphins now, will be landward of where the oyster float are now; am I right? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I'm dropping 30 feet of dock off, so the boat is backing up to the end of this. This is why I made it ten-foot wide so it has a place to put the product. TRUSTEE KING: The only permits in the file there, I reviewed this a couple of times, a long time ago. If I remember right, the original permit was to widen the dock to ten feet, the entire length. MR. COSTELLO: That's how it all started, correct. TRUSTEE KING: When we went down to inspect it, it was 30 feet longer than what it was supposed to be, and that started the situation. MR. COSTELLO: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: And things got -- poor advice, like you said. Somebody got very poor advice. And it ended up in court and a lawsuit. And we appealed it and we won the appeal. Now the dock has to be shortened. It's just been a miserable story, especially for these folks, I think. I remember part of the original permit was that the aquaculture was done away and the dock was to the put back to four feet wide. MR. COSTELLO: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Then you applied for six feet and then extends ten feet out seaward. MR. COSTELLO: They are still going to keep, what do you call it, not the pens, but the tanks upland. TRUSTEE KING: That was the original proposal for that oyster raising was an upland system with a pipe. And it failed, then Bluepoint had it, they also failed. So it's been kind of a dismal failure. If I remember Board of Trustees 58 July 22, 2009 right, part of the original permit was supposed to be a revegetation from the cement wall seaward, and there was a lot of rebar, a rack system on the beach that was supposed to be removed. I don't know if any of that is gone or not. MR. COSTELLO: I'm pretty sure it's all gone. Last time I was down there superduper Iow tide, I took pictures, and they were not there. I know that was an issue also with the DEC. Chuck Hamilton had an issue with that. TRUSTEE KING: I think -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, are you good with this? TRUSTEE KING: I think he's come up with a solution that is the best that we can get out of it, as far as I'm concerned. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want that line, aquaculture, do you want that back in? TRUSTEE KING: No. They are widening the dock from four to six feet wide, then the last 20 feet of it they go to ten feet. They need room to work. MR. COSTELLO: To get a hand cart down there then they have room for whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, did you say you are using the grated decking? TRUSTEE KING: I would not use that on a commercial dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was a CAC recommendation. I didn't know if you were using it or not. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if that's feasible for commercial use. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it is --. TRUSTEE KING: We don't normally approval these two-pile dolphins but this is a commercial facility and it's zoned Marine Two. MR. COSTELLO: It's a little nasty down at the bottom of that in the northwest wind. TRUSTEE KING: Sure I don't have an issue with this at all. I think you are doing a great job on it. We are finally getting it resolved. It's been a long haul, really. I mean with the letters and threats and violations. MR. ARNOFF: We don't want anymore part of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, looks good. It's also reviewed consistent with LWRP. So 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 Permit for Long Island Sound Oyster to remove 30-foot of offshore section of existing four-foot wide dock, existing ramp and floating dock, remove existing Board of Trustees 59 July 22, 2009 pipeline, expand 105 foot of existing four-foot wide dock to six-foot wide. Expand last 20 foot of offshore end to ten-foot wide, install new 3,000 pound davit and install seven two-pile dolphins. Located 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want it take a five minute brake. (After a five-minute break, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: 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 line, or no closer than 25 feet 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' from the crest of the bluff. Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion. This is an application that comes to us because of a request for a letter of jurisdiction on the property that we looked at the end of last year, I believe, and we found that we could not issue a letter of non-jurisdiction, so they come to us with a full application. We had some questions concerning the bluff line. We've all met out there and we have gone over it. I did some research and found out that the bluff line is as it is marked on the survey. The CAC has resolved to support the application and it has been found to be consistent by LWRP. As I recall the conversation, you pretty much have done everything that the Board expected and I'm not anticipating any problems here, but we welcome any comments that might be made. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I don't have anything to add to Bob's summary. Any questions the Board has, I'm here. TRUSTEE KING: I have two comments. I would not like to see any clearing within 25 feet of the landward side of the coastal erosion hazard line, and also on the western edge of this property. DEC when they were out had a lot of concerns about any clearing that takes place along there will cause erosion on that side. So I think we need to restrict the clearing that is being done. MR. HERMAN: Jim, I think we had talked about that. My recollection was a little bit different from what you just said, but what we had shown, what we had intended to show was no clearing that was within the coastal Board of Trustees 60 July 22, 2009 erosion hazard area or any closer than 25 feet from what is in fact the crest of bluff. Now, two months ago there was some question as to what was in fact the crest of bluff, so I'm happy to hear that my delineation was supported. I thought what you had discussed with me was actually expanding that non-disturbance buffer to be a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer the whole way across from the crest of the bluff. In other words there would be no clearing within 50 feet of the crest of the bluff. Same as you would have a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer from the edge of wetlands. I discussed that with the applicant and they were agreeable to that. So that would actually expand the width of that non-disturbance buffer. It would double it for most of the distance across from what we have shown, from 25 to 50 feet and it would be 50 feet the whole way across. That would, in effect be -- I'm trying to think of what the word would be -- irrespective of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary. TRUSTEE KING: You are saying no clearing within 50 feet of the crest of the bluff. MR. HERMAN: The whole property, all the way across. Because right now we show -- TRUSTEE KING: All right, so that brings us to the eastern side. That pushes that up quite a bit. That I could live with. I'm just concerned about -- what about this western edge of the property? How are we going to control it if they clear there? That's a steep slope on that western side. MR. HERMAN: You mean toward the westerly property line? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Where the leaching pools are, seaward of the leaching pools along that edge. You have the really be careful there. That is all going to go if they clear that. They will get an erosion problem there, no doubt in my mind. MR. HERMAN: Which doesn't relate directly to the shoreline but it would relate to that area to the west. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. The neighboring property is going to get dumped on if that gets cleared there. I would be very, very cautious. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I imagine that could probably be terraced, right? MR. HERMAN: Frankly, the problem is, once you get up to that point, it's actually outside of the Board's jurisdiction. So there was not, there really has not been any great deal of thought that went into what portion of the westerly side of the property would remain. I mean the drywells are actually shown on that side because there was an effod to keep the Board of Trustees 61 July 22, 2009 development to the easterly side of the property, so ultimately that was where there was room. TRUSTEE KING: I've just seen what has happened in the past. MR. HERMAN: And your concerns are well received. That's why I said, I relayed our conversation that we had in the field to the applicant and explained, I have actually spoken to a couple of people recently with bluff erosion problems who fought the ZBA and this Board to keep their house closer who now wish they had not. So the concerns are well received. I just would not know off the cuff here how to outline where that clearing limitation would be on the west side or whether even the locations of the drywells might be reconsidered. Again, part of which would be within the Board's jurisdiction and part of it would not be. TRUSTEE KING: A lot of it is outside of our jurisdiction. To me, that's a concern. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? TRUSTEE KING: Nope. That was the only comment I had. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application from En-Consultants on behalf of Haven Avenue Realty as it's been written, with the following change: Instead of 25 foot landward of the crest of the bluff, the permit will be to leave a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer from the crest of the bluff, and I would ask that a hay bale line be set at that point, and that of course when the time comes and the building is done, of course drainage be taken care of according to code. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should include hay bales along the western boundary, within our jurisdiction. MR. HERMAN: The question, with the new drainage code in Southold, as part of the process -- I'm asking because I'm not yet familiar with it from the perspective of going to the Building Department -- is there a engineering phase now as part of the building permit process where the town engineer or some committee has to review to make sure that the drainage conforms with the new chapter of the drainage code? Would they look at the slopes here and look at where the clearing and all that is from that, during that phase? Do they just make sure the volume capacity is there? TRUSTEE KING: I know they calculate the roof runoff and the capacity of the drywells and that type of thing. Whether they look at the terrain, I'm not sure, Rob. Board of Trustees 62 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's new to them, so I think it's a work in progress and it might evolve to that. But I don't think it has evolved to that yet. MR. HERMAN: All right. TRUSTEE KING: I have seen some case where they build a new house and everything is going down and hurry up and try to put a row of hay bales to try and stop it. MR. HERMAN: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My understanding of the law is that the property owner is required to maintain the runoff on their own land. So if there becomes a runoff issue, they will be asked to solve that runoff issue. MR. HERMAN: I'm hearing Jim he wants to make sure that doesn't happen as opposed to trying to treat it afterwards. I mean I would say if you want to put a requirement that there be, that the hay bale line be extended along the westerly properly line, at least as far as your jurisdiction, that actually moves it up roadward of where those wood retaining walls are. So I would not have a problem with that. That is what should be done anyway. At least to have something -- TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a good idea. I had a case in Mattituck when I first got on the Board, the next door neighbor is down Iow, and the neighbor up here did some clearing and it all came down on his driveway. He ended up having to go to court and sue the guy. There was nothing the town could do. And it ended up in court in a civil suit. MR. HERMAN: It makes sense. I mean -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So my motion is to approve with the change that there is a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer landward of the crest of the bluff and hay bale line will be along the edge of that non-disturbance buffer, and then up along the western edge, at least as far as our jurisdiction, try to retain any runoff that may occur. It's also been found to be consistent with LWRP MR. HERMAN: That's all fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to replace inplace existing/previously existing eight-inch diameter tie-off pilings. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold. This was an application that came before as at the May meeting, specifically for a dock/walkway/pier, and we approved the dock/walkway/pier and tabled the tie-off pilings and that was as per a plan submitted stamped April 29, 2009. Since that time, a new plan stamped Board of Trustees 63 July 22, 2009 July 13, 2009, as received by our office, has been submitted by En-Consultants showing the relocation of this one tie-off pile in question. That has been -- excuse me, the two eight-inch piles have been relocated as per our request at that last meeting. This was at the time reviewed by the CAC and they supported the application. Again, this was in May, they supported the application, and it is exempt under the LWRP. Is there anybody here to speak for this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Phil Stanton. The only thing I would add to Dave's summary is that, yes, in response to concerns of a couple of months ago, I did confer with Mr. Stanton and he spoke with at least one dock builder and I think the concerns that were expressed by the Trustees were, again, well received. And the modification to the plan would be to pull in the two pilings that were each separated 35 feet from the end of the pier, to pull the one in to 25 feet from the pier and the other 15 feet. It's basically reducing the span of those pilings by about 50%. I certainly hope the Board would consider this an improvement and hopefully meets and satisfies the concerns you had in May. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from Board members? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's helpful. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We appreciate your client's cooperation with this request. Is there anybody else here in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill make motion to approve number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of Philip Stanton for the Wetland Permit as described, location 845 Maple Lane, Southold, as per the plans submitted July 13, 2009. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Dave, just as a housekeeping issue, there will be one permit that will be issued for the entire -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, yes. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE, JR,, requests a Wetland Permit to remove the accessory dwelling structure and attached deck, asphalt Board of Trustees 64 July 22, 2009 driveway and leaching pool and construct a one-story detached garage, pervious gravel driveway extension and install drywell to capture and recharge roof runoff. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. As we all know, this is one we have gone round and round with. It was before the Zoning Board. There was a violation that was taken care of. We asked them to go to the Zoning Board first. Came back from the Zoning Board. Zoning Board approved what was constructed. We all went out last week, two weeks ago, inspected it again, made some comments, and the applicant has submitted new plans showing the comments we made, which were on the north side of the garage we asked that to be all a non-turf buffer. There will be, on the survey it shows a ten-foot sand beach area, directly behind the bulkhead, ten foot wide for the whole length of the bulkhead, then the area between that and the driveway will be a non-turf planted area. There is drainage in the driveway as well, for the driveway as well as the roof runoff for the garage shown on the survey as well. The CAC comments, they do not support the application due to the close proximity to the wetlands, and the LWRP is inconsistent, probably for the same reason, I believe. Is there anyone here to make any comments for or against this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant Alan Cardinale, who is also here. As Jill said, we have been back and forth on this both before and after the recent Zoning Board hearing, so I don't want to completely rehash the record, but what I do want to reiterate is that again, as we argued at the original hearing, notwithstanding the violation, the end result here is a reduction in a pervious surface area, in this area, at the same proximity to the wetlands as has historically existed, and the elimination of a dwelling use at the same proximity to the wetlands being replaced with a non-dwelling use, which is the garage. And also the elimination of a sanitary system that existed as part of that historically-used habitable space, which has been eliminated. The violation has been resolved. Subsequent to the Zoning Board hearing we did meet at the property and one of the things we had discussed, as the Board knows, there has already been established on the property a ten-foot, non4urf buffer that is noted as that sandy beach-type area immediately behind the bulkhead. And Mr. Cardinale had had a plan depicting the area immediately between the garage and the bulkhead to be planted with native vegetation as a Board of Trustees 65 July 22, 2009 means of expanding on the size of that buffer, which as you'll recall, we had discussed, had the proper sequence been followed this would have been the kind of significant mitigation that we would have had to propose in order to increase the size of the building itself. I think Peggy and others had mentioned the concept of actually expanding upon what the applicant was suggesting so that the native plantings and the expanded buffer not just be limited to the area between the garage and the bulkhead but to follow out that curve of the driveway until it met toward the westerly end of that section of bulkhead, and that has been shown. For the purposes of a covenant that would be required if the Board approves this, that entire area would be deemed a non-turf buffer area. The only difference being that the ten-foot, non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead that was imposed as part of the bulkhead permitting would remain as that sand beach area, very pervious soil, and then everything behind that would be actually planted according to the plan that was given to the Board. As a housekeeping issue, you'll note on this site plan it does show that area of proposed pavers that runs along the length of the garage in that driveway area, and that wraps around, and I think there was a question of the sliding door that was in that corner. And again, Alan is here, if you want fudher explanation, but when I asked Alan about it subsequent to our visit, saying what he was trying to do is to at least maintain the appearance of a compatible dwelling area as opposed to having the appearance just of a garage sitting behind the bulkhead on Wunneweta Pond. Certainly the door does not create a habitable use or hopefully would not lead the Board to believe that that sliding door would lead to the double bay being used as habitable space. That is not the intent and I would say that, it is safe to say at this point that Mr. Cardinale will make sure there is nothing associated with this garage that is not permitted and that the Board is not aware of. So as part of this permit we would want to make sure, again, if the Board is inclined to approve it with the mitigation and in light of the Zoning Board decision that this paver area be included as part of the final product. There is no question about -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The paver area is pervious pavers? MR. HERMAN: Yes, there will not be masonry joists between the pavers. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I personally don't have a problem with that. Does the Board have any comments on this? Board of Trustees 66 July 22, 2009 (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments from the audience? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Alan Cardinale, Jr., to permit the removal of the accessory dwelling structure and attached deck, asphalt driveway and leaching pool and construct a one-story detached garage, pervious gravel driveway, extension and pervious paver walkway as noted on the survey, and install drywell to capture and recharge roof runoff. And the area to the north of the garage to be a non-turf area as depicted on the survey received July 20 in this office. MR. HERMAN: And you may want to, Jill, the site plan that you are referring to for all these purposes is the system the July 9, 2009 map, because the non-turf buffer is a little bit unusual in the sense it doesn't have a consistent width. So we may have to make reference specifically to this plan as opposed to a given width from a reference point, just to make sure the record is clear. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. The July 20 survey received in this office is revised as of July 9, 2009, and by doing this non-turf area it will bring it into consistency with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Mark K. Schwartz, AIA on behalf of DAVID FUHRMANN requests a Wetland Permit to construct dormers, remove and replace existing windows, exterior doors, siding and roof shingles, and construct a 453 square foot addition to the existing deck. Located: 2345 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, Architect for the project. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there. It looked pretty straightforward, a well developed little piece of lot, that's for sure. CAC supports the application with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer seaward of the deck. And it was found consistent with LWRP. And LWRP also recommended a perpetual natural vegetated buffer be required landward to the top of the bluff preserving the existing vegetation. Board of Trustees 67 July 22, 2009 We found a drainage pipe going out off that bluff. I don't know if it's roof runoff or they are pumping over there or what. MR. SCHWARTZ: I just noticed that this morning myself. That will be taken care of. We'll do drywells. TRUSTEE KING: We'll need to see roof runoff directed into drywells. Other than that, I don't thin, anybody had an issue with anything. It is what it is. But we will stipulate this area from the top of the bank seaward, that whole area is to remain undisturbed. Anything else? (No response.) Any other comments from anybody? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve this application with those conditions, that the pipe is removed and gutters and leaders to drywells to take care of the roof runoff and the bluff area to the top of the bluff is to remain undisturbed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, Mark Schwartz on behalf of NORMAN AND APRIL WENK requests a Wetland Permit to construct first floor alterations and an addition of 393 square feet with second floor alterations and addition of 300 square feet. Located: 415 South Lane, East Marion. The CAC did not make an inspection therefore no recommendations have been made. LWRP has found this to be consistent. Upon my visit, I found that all the work is landward of the existing house. There is a very nice non-turf buffer along the seaward side. The new septic is completely out of our jurisdiction, so this is a very minor application and I really didn't have any problems with it. Is there anybody who would like to make any comments? MR. SCHWARTZ: It sounds good to me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 68 July 22, 2009 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Make a motion to approve the application for Norman and April Wenk as submitted. It's been found consistent with LWRP. And that's it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES. ) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Mark Schwartz on behalf of RICHARD AND JOANN SAVERESE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and reconstruct a new two-story dwelling with deck, install drywells for stormwater runoff and a new sanitary system with retaining wall. Located: 2575 Old Orchard Lane, East Marion. This was reviewed and found consistent under the LWRP with a recommendation that a perpetual natural vegetated buffer be required landward from Orion Bay to the AE flood zone line respectively. CAC supported the application with the condition of a non-turf area seaward of the sanitary system. The Board did go out and looked at this and it is an interesting application for us because the sanitary system was only a few feet within our jurisdiction, but the majority of the work is within our jurisdiction from the canal. So while we were looking at it, everyone was concerned of the Orion Bay side of it when really the majority of this comes into our jurisdiction from the canal. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We originally started this and we looked to try to do addition and alterations. Due to the fact that the Building Department considers this a substantial improvement, we'll be required to raise the building. The existing foundation is not completely -- portions of it are okay but a lot of it is on locust posts. So we are looking at a situation to try to rebuild or demolish what is there and build a new structure. We have had added to the footprint approximately 138 square feet, just to get enough space for a decent living area downstairs, with one bedroom on the second floor, a master bedroom suite. And the existing septic system is down Iow on the north side of the property, so we are proposing the new septic system as best as we could on this property. The lot coverage now, existing is 12.9, we are proposing 13.4 percent. And that's where we are. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Would there be any consideration for the applicant, to meet the LWRP recommendation, that there be a non-disturbance buffer maintained from zone AE flood zone line seaward toward Orion Bay? MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't think so. The Savarese's are Board of Trustees 69 July 22, 2009 here. There is no problem. That's kind of the way it is now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to make sure that this survey, I know recently, in recent years, lot lines have been changed on this lot and the one next to it, and I just wanted to make sure this is accurate. Is this -- MR. SCHWARTZ: I can give you a copy. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Because this is your drawing and not the survey. MR. SCHWARTZ: I can give you copies. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? Just introduce yourself for the record, please. MR. CHANCE: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. It's late, my comments will be brief. My name is Walter Chance. I'm the owner of the parcel adjacent to the east. I believe that the lot lines we were just talking about were my lot lines in conjunction with the Savarese's. I can tell you I reviewed this plan and support it fully. The Savarese's have been very good neighbors since we've moved in. They have done everything possible to their property to make it what it is today, but they face a practical difficulty. And the practical difficulty is, as you know, the shape of the parcel. They have a hardship that they have not created, and I think they have done their best to continue to place this house in the spot where it is, even though the setbacks are nonconforming, because there is no other location for it. And the only location that the septic can go is where they are proposing it. They have done their best to move it. They have done their best to put it in the post proper location based the surrounding properties. There is no house to their west and as you can see it appears as though the septic is favoring the west side of the parcel. So based upon that and based upon the practical difficulty I see that they experience, I don't think there is any better application that they could submit other than what they have submitted. I can tell you also that you should be familiar with this area. I know you hear applications from it, but in the a five or six or seven years I have been there, there have been a number of houses that have gone up around me. You'll probably recall the Walsh residence, who is my adjoining neighbor to the east. They were permitted a significant nonconforming setback that you are not seeing here. What you are seeing is a Board of Trustees 70 July 22, 2009 modest proposal by an applicant who has very few, if any, other alternatives. So I'm in support of the application and I just wanted to make you aware of that. Thank you, very much TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody running to the microphones, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Mark Schwartz on behalf of the Savarese's as described on 2575 Old Orchard Lane with the one addition that there will be a perpetual natural vegetated buffer be maintained between Orion Bay and zone AE zone line as depicted on the site plan that was submitted this date. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you talking not just between there but also on the west side, between the house and Spring Pond or just -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, all that was discussed in the recommendation was Orion Bay to the AE flood zone line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would there be a problem if we add the west side of that to keep that in its natural state? It's basically -- actually, I let me see the survey. Sorry. MR. SCHWARTZ: There should be some kind of walkway -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You'll have to have access to get to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The property line is right up against it so. Okay. Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, to review my motion once again, is to approve the application as stated at 2575 Old Orchard Lane with the one additional condition that a perpetual natural vegetated buffer be maintained landward between Orion Bay and the AE flood zone line. And that's my motion. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 15, Mark Schwartz on behalf of ANTHONY CAMPO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and reconstruct a new two-stow dwelling, remove and relocate sanitary system with retaining walls, and install new drywells for runoff. Located: 1165 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. Board of Trustees 71 July 22, 2009 We do not have an LWRP report for this. So I'm opening the hearing and putting it on hold. MR. SCHWARTZ: I want to give you a site plan I marked up. So once again we have a house that is, once we do the proposed addition, will be determined as a substantial improvement and we'll be required to raise the first floor elevation. And as you look at projects like this, it doesn't really make sense to do additions and alterations. It's more economical to just demolish and build new. What we tried to do is leave the northeast corner, which is kind of sensitive and closest to the water, as is, and add on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark, on this right of way, what is the -- is there C&R's on it? How does it describe the right of way? Is it a walking right of way? Because there is -- is it a road? MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm not certain how it's described. It looks like a road to me. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because there's stuff in it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are existing structures in the road, basically. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm sorry, is the shed coming down? Is the shed remaining? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I believe. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. This application was really just for the triangle-shaped property where the house is, what I calculated the lot coverage. The other two parcels are separate in these application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because any additions are not encroaching on the right of way at all. But there are existing structures in the right of way that have been existing for quite a while. MR. SCHWARTZ: The structure is not, just the brick patio is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, you have the shed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What was the berm originally put there floor, just for flood protection? MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm not certain. It's been there for many years. I'm not sure how it got there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll just add the CAC supports the application with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer seaward of the limit of clearing and ground disturbance. And we did see, it's not part of your application, but outside the shed there appears to be a septic, as you said before, it's not -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's located right in front of the shed. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. There is actually three structures I guess we are talking about on this parcel. There is a storage shed that's in the right of way. This is a one-room guest house I guess you could call it. That Board of Trustees 72 July 22, 2009 is existing. And the septic for the main house is located in front of it, so we would disconnect that and put the new septic to the south side of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you would connect that septic from that little cottage, if you will, to the main house, and abandon that septic that is existing now. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's what we would like to do, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just for the record, the frame shed as well as the brick patio, right now, are on the right of way? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. I don't see any problem with removing that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Removing what? MR. SCHWARTZ: The frame shed and brick patio. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is septic from the cottage to the main house. TRUSTEE KING: That will be removed when they remove the shed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The shed. Not the cottage. The cottage is not on the right of way. It's over more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He said there is a shed and a cottage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'm confused. MR. SCHWARTZ: The small shed is in the right of way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The shed and cottage and brick patio are all in the right of way. MR. SCHWARTZ: I would call it a cottage, the one room. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a cottage. To the left of that was the shed. And the cottage is not on the survey he just gave us. It's over, it's off the right of way. Is that what I'm understanding? MR. SCHWARTZ: It's on our site plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it's not on the right of way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is a little tiny thing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so the shed and patio will be removed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, this septic will be abandoned and this is connected to there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here's the cottage. Here is the road. Here is the line. That septic will be abandoned and attached to the main septic. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, so we'll have to wait for LWRP on this. Any further comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to table this application TRUSTEE BERGEN: For clarification, for the applicant, the application for the LWRP was received less than 30 days ago, so this is within the time period in which we Board of Trustees 73 July 22, 2009 must wait until the LWRP review takes place, or 30 days passes before we can act on it. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I made a motion to table. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RECEIVED OCT -6 2009 Southold Town Clerk