Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/19/2009 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town H~lAnnex 54375Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:00 PM RECEIVED OCT 2 3 2009 ~. Present Were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 24, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, my name is Jim King, I serve as Chairman the Board of Trustees. I would like to introduce the rest of the Board to the folks that are here. To my far left is David Bergen, Trustee; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; next to me is Jill Doherty, she serves as vice-chairman; myself; to my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren manages the office for us. And we are minus two members. Bob Ghosio is not here tonight and our legal advisor Lori Hulse is also not here tonight. And we have Wayne Galante down here keeping track of what everybody says. If you have any comments to make, please come up to the microphone, identify yourself so we can get it on the record. And we have two members from the Conservation Advisory Council here, Doug Hardy and a new member, Ms. Greta Schiller, is it? MS. SCHILLER: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Welcome. MS. SCHILLER: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. TRUSTEE KING: We have two postponements for tonight. Number five on page five, Catherine Mesiano, on behalf of ROBERT CELIC requests Board of Trustees 2 August 19, 2009 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, has been postponed. And number ten, on page five, Patricia Moore on behalf of MICHAEL & CORINNE SLADE request a Wetland Permit to remove 163' of existing wooden boardwalk to allow for the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead. Reconstruct 172' of existing bulkhead by re-sheathing landward side of bulkhead with "Everlast" 2.1 vinyl sheathing. Install new 1"x6' tie rod ends welded into existing backing system tie rods. Reinstall wooden boardwalk inplace after bulkhead reconstruction is completed. Construct an eight-foot extension to existing finger pier. Install two new 10" diameter x 30' long support pilings at offshore end. Maintenance dredge an area 50' seaward from the existing bulkhead to a depth of -4.0' below MLW on the east end and progressing to -7.0' below MLW on the west end. Approximately 350 cubic yards of dredged spoil to be trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 1435 West Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. We won't be addressing either one of those applications tonight. We'll set the date for the next meeting, September 9, field inspections, September 9, eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Our regular meeting will be September 23, six o'clock, with the work session starting at 5:30. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of June 24, 2009? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT The Trustees monthly report for July, 2009. A check for $6,877.64 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. Il. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental Quality Reviews. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 19, 2009, are classified Board of Trustees 3 August 19, 2009 as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: They are listed here. James Manning - SCTM#117-10-10 Joseph Zevits - SCTM#90-1-13 Henry Kaminer- SCTM#90-1-13 Susan Cebulski, Adhur Farnbach and Paul Farnbach - SCTM#122-4-13 James Baker- SCTM#10-5-9 Ryan Stork - SCTM#128-6-8 John Fischetti & Deborah Deaver - SCTM#70-5-42 George Yatrakis - SCTM#51-1-14 John & Marie Shack - SCTM#47-2-26.1 John Scopaz- SCTM#86-7-2.1 Frank & Margaret Burr- SCTM#10-7-15 Cardinal East Coast Development, LLC - SCTM#111-14-33.1 Edna McNulty - SCTM#139-1-18 Michael & Robin Drews - SCTM#118-4-2 Don Jayamaha - SCTM#140-1-8 Michael & Corinne Slade - SCTM#110-7-26 TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions and administrative permits, number one PATRICK & JENNIFER HIGGINS request an Administrative Permit to remove dead scrub and brush bushes with heavy poison ivy infestation and replace all with native, environmentally appropriate plants such as Rosa Rugosa, Dwarf Black Pine, Bayberry, Clethra and sea grass. Located: 410 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. The whole Board went out and looked at this and we all agreed that this is not a good idea to do. We understand that she wants to get rid of the poison ivy, but it's basically ripping out the bank and reestablishing it. I spoke to Mrs. Higgins. Neither one of them can make it tonight, and they looked at their property again and they agree with us, however, they would like to be able to maintain it, keep it at a level where it is controllable. So cut it back. And so I'm willing to do a resolution to give them a permit to keep a maintenance on the bank as far as the poison ivy and the brush. I don't know how we want to exactly word it. I don't know what else was there. There was some trees there but I Board of Trustees 4 August 19, 2009 don't think there was any bacharus bushes in there or anything. I think it was Rosa Rugosa and -- what other bushes were there? Does anybody remember? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was natural vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically they would, they want an existing lawn line. They don't want it to grow back into their lawn TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't issue permits for that. I mean, that's normal, everyday maintenance of a yard. We would not require people to come in to get a permit to cut their grass, to maintain the border at their grass each year, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought, but then I was just told earlier that we don't do that for the bluff. And this is a bluff area. Not a bluff, but a bank area. And in the code it says excluding banks and bluffs. Is that correct, Lauren? MS. STANDISH: Maintenance to establish a lawn area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's an established lawn area there and, correct me if I'm wrong, because you spoke to them, I didn't speak to them. I thought what they want to do was keep it from encroaching the poison ivy up onto the lawn and they could do the normal cutting of the grass. TRUSTEE KING: That's fine. I thought they wanted to go down into the bluff area and clean that area out and replant stuff. I think it should just be left in its natural state. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They also want to be able to trim it down in height, also. Not just keep it from the lawn, but also trim it down in height. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The poison ivy, there is nothing there for it to grow up. So the poison ivy won't grow up three or four feet high. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just relaying what she told me. TRUSTEE KING: If they want to maintain the lawn area up to the edge of the bluff, I have no problem with that. But going down into the bluff and clearing it, I don't think it's a good idea. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So by denying this you are saying you can't cut or remove. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to deny the application of Patrick & Jennifer Higgins as applied for with the note on their resolution, however, that they maintain their lawn area, the existing lawn area without -- to its present boundary and present location without a permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number two, PINDAR DAMIANOS requests Board of Trustees 5 August 19, 2009 An administrative permit for the existing 10xl 5.6' deck, existing split-rail fence, existing 8x5.6 shed and to trim the phragmites to twelve inches, as needed. Located: 2030 Mill Lane, Peconic. We all went out and looked at that and found the wetland area had been completely cleared right down to the ground level. It almost looks like it had been mowed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was it taken care of? TRUSTEE KING: I think what we need to see here is some restoration of that area that was whacked down so tight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I really think three and four are the only two we can lump together. And five. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looked through the file. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not happy with number three. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a problem with the deck that is there, or the shed. The problem I have is with all the extensive clearing that was done right down to the water. So I would approve this and make it subject to getting a restoration plan for the area that was cleared, with that stipulation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So we'll approve this with the stipulation we need to see a replanting plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And maintain the buffer. TRUSTEE KING: And I think what we need to do is put a timeframe on this, too. Let's give them 90 days, is that fair enough? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: To get it in and get it planted up. Because otherwise it might not happen for a long time. So that would be my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, JEED REALTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, requests an Administrative Permit to remove 1,200 square feet of asphalt from the front of the property and replace with sod; renovate the existing walkway; plant flowers, sod and shrubs; add two drywells to contain stormwater runoff; and resurface the existing parking lot. Located: 15400 Main Road, Mattituck. Now, I see in here, Lauren, an LWRP application, but I take it since this just came in it has not been reviewed by the LWRP coordinator yet. (Perusing.) Oh, I apologize. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So is this reviewable under the LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would think this would be reviewed under the LWRP. I mean, it's extensive work within a hundred feet of the wetlands area, including drywells being put in. Unfortunately, we don't have legal counsel here tonight. I wish we did. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I'm familiar with that property, as a matter of fact I stopped and looked at it. This has been a vast improvement Board of Trustees 6 August 19, 2009 over what was there. TRUSTEE DICKERS©N: I just have a problem with it getting done before getting the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the audience understands, this is really an as-built. This is a situation where the Trustees went by, saw work being done, called it in and so this is, it came in affer the fact to apply for this permit. If it's reviewable under the LWRP, then we can't take any action tonight until the LWRP coordinator has a chance, 30 days to review it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we have to put it off another month, then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, without legal counsel here, I don't want to get into a sticky situation where we put something through that had to be reviewed under the LWRP, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, all the work is done except for the asphalt. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. So I would recommend they leave the driveway just the way it is right now until this can be resolved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, I'll make a motion to table this application until it can be reviewed under LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four, Mark Boeckman on behalf of JONATHAN WENDELL requests an Administrative Permit to construct continuous steps down from the existing deck on the south side of the dwelling. Located: 7940 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. I looked at this. It's very minor. It's two steps down from a wraparound deck that is simply being renovated. It already has a pervious, non-turf area in front of it and a very well-vegetated bluff. So I had no problems with this except that before the permit goes out they need the dimensions for the steps. It was pretty sketchy on the survey. So they just need length and width of the steps. But otherwise, I'll make a motion to approve. MS. STANDISH: He came in. The dimensions are now on the plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Scratch that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. I'll second the motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five. Patricia Moore on behalf of PETER & WENDY ROSENBERG requests an Administrative Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the collapsed cesspool. Located: 22035 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This just came into the office. It's kind of like an emergency, so we put it on. If anybody wants to look at the aerial, it's in the file, in the survey Board of Trustees 7 August 19, 2009 that is here. Basically it's, the cesspool is on the road side of the house and being moved further away from the -- closer to the road. It's an existing house and it's collapsed, so. TRUSTEE KING: There is no other place to put it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. RESOLUTIONS: MOORING/STAKE/DUCK BLIND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions: Mooring/Stake/Duck Blind Permits, number one, ANDREW SEMON$ requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 25' sailboat. Access: Private - 1580 Hobart Road, Southold. Motion to approve? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under applications for extensions transfers and amendments, there is quite a few of them here. We reviewed them all. Most of them are simple, so I'll lump them together. Numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 14 and 15 I'll make a motion to approve all of those TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to address the inconsistencies? TRUSTEE KING: We'll do 15 separately. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry. I didn't realize that. Okay, so -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, again, we are doing numbers -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One through ten and number 14. MR. ANDERSON: I would just like to substitute a survey for number ten. Where we have a deck of 45 feet, we are securing a DEC permit and they asked us to trim it back so that would be 50 feet. So I would like to submit that so the two permits agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: That would be the only change. The house and everything else good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can lump that in. MR. ANDERSON: We just made it a little smaller. That's it. TRUSTEE KING: That's 50 feet from the wetlands boundary instead of 48. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers one through ten and number 14 read as follows: Board of Trustees 8 August 19, 2009 Number one, ANNE SOWlNSKI requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6685A, as issued on August 22, 2007. Located: 825 West Lake Drive, Southold. Number two, PHILIP MILOT requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6696, as issued on August 22, 2007. Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Number three, Kinlin Rutherford Architects on behalf of PETER BACCILE requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6706, as issued on August 22, 2007. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. Number four, HP Broom-Housewright, Inc., on behalf of NOL, LLC, requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6432, as issued on August 23, 2006, and amended on March 19, 2008. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. Number five, Gluckman, Mayner Architects on behalf of LAURA WElL requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6707 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6707C as issued on August 22, 2007, and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6707 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6707C to omit the 168 square feet addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling and concrete block access well to remain. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient. Number six, Mark Boeckman on behalf of NICK DECROISSET requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #7071A for the new location of the asbuilt patio, outdoor shower and garden shed. Located: 20 Third Street, New Suffolk. Number seven, Mark Schwartz on behalf of MICHAEL & ROBIN DREWS requests an Amendment to Permit #6430 to alter the previously approved deck areas with a new hot tub, pond and barbecue area. Located: 7425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Number eight, Garret A. Strang on behalf of SPIRO GEROULANOS requests an Amendment to Permit #6836 to relocated the proposed pool and terrace to the nodh keeping it a minimum of 75' from the edge of the wetlands and maintaining the 50' non-disturbance buffer requirement, and to relocate the existing sanitary system. Located: 2130 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. Number nine, George Peter on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Amendment to Permit #6821 to plant a buffer area with beachgrass and other native species. Located: Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH ZEVlTS requests an Amendment to Permit #6928 to construct a single-family dwelling 50' from the wetland boundary, a northerly deck 50' from the wetland boundary and a second deck and stairs facing the water. Located: 1945 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. And number 14, Docko, Inc., on behalf of AMERICAN Board of Trustees 9 August 19, 2009 MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY requests an Amendment to Permit #6675 to allow for an alteration in the alignment of the proposed dock; rotate the landside end of approximately 5% counterclockwise to allow the hinged ramp landing to terminate along the northeast corner of the concrete bunker rather than the northwest corner of the bunker; and to construct the proposed docking facility using either wood or steel. Located: Great Gull Island. I'll make a motion to approve one through ten and number 14. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 11, Greg Rivara on behalf of the PECONIC LAND TRUST requests an Amendment to Permit #6718 to construct eight linear feet of rip-rap in "Area A" and 12 linear feet of rip-rap in "Area B" by placing filter cloth and 5-7 pound stone along shorelines. Construct a 135x2' French drain, two feet deep, lined with filter cloth and filled with cobblestone. Regrade roadway and construct six-inch berms along both sides; and install four pilings along existing pier; and a One-Year Extension to Permit #6718 as issued on September 19, 2007. Located: 10273 North Bayview Road, Southold. This was primarily a runoff issue from a building going out on to the road and washing down into the basin. We talked about this a long time ago about doing something about it. This was worked out also with the DEC. Hopefully, they'll correct some of the problems. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they wanted to suggest to extend the rip-rap around there; I think that's what was in the notes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My understanding is we wanted to offer them the opportunity to extend the rip-rap up to the dock there, and what I believe, Jim, you have the chart in front of you, if that's "Area A" rather than "Area B." TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that, again, it's their choice. TRUSTEE KING: Actually it's "Area B" because "Area A" is on the other side of the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to do "Area A" and "Area B," and they can build as much as they want, when they want. They don't have to do it all at once. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it to the right or to the south? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's from here all the way around the corner where they asked for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And this is to the left or north of the dock. Board of Trustees 10 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then they want there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we are saying continue it around this bend here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: The thing is they have to go back and modify the DEC permit to be able to do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then they don't have to come back to us. TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can give them that and they can still build to what their DEC permit is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It gives them the option of not having to come back to us again if they want to extend the project a little more and protect the rest of that bay. TRUSTEE KING: How do you want word this? Do you want a new plan to show an extension of the work area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, if that's what they want to do, we could do that. I don't think any of them are here. If they don't want to do that then we can just stamp those plans later on. TRUSTEE KING: All right, why don't we approve this as it's written, with the recommendation that they increase the area on either side of the dock. Actually, in my mind, this is a lot of old oyster shells and stuff there, that is stopping the growth of anything. If they are going to do this work, they should remove those oyster shells and do some plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the other recommendation we noticed, that the oyster shells are inhibiting the spartina from being able to grow and if they remove the oyster shells it could be they'll get some vegetation growing back which will help them with the erosion control. We could certainly put that in as a recommendation to remove the oyster shells. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we do that. We'll approve this as written and if they want to increase that area, they can come in with new plans showing that. And we strongly urge them to remove those oyster shells so some vegetation can grow there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sounds good. So you want to increase the area of the revetment. TRUSTEE KING: Right. I'll make that motion TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Patricia Moore on behalf of GEORGE YATRAKIS requests an Amendment to Permit #7122 to construct stairs to the beach, bluestone on sand walkway to top of beach stairs, remove remains of existing building, install drainage structure and regrade to pitch property away from top of bank. Board of Trustees 11 August 19, 2009 Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold. We have no plans in the file that we have to look at. Dave dropped these plans off in the office on Tuesday and I didn't look at them and he was concerned that it was not going to meet all of our expectations, but hopefully we can figure out what he has here. We did note the trees that are staying, the locusts and the cherry, at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what is marked here as far as trees go is what trees are remaining? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe so. That's what we requested of him. That's the area to remove invasive vegetation and replant with native -- existing trees to remain. It says that on here. See the key on the right. This shows a pool fence. It shows a little bit of a lawn area. Apparently Mr. Yatrakis wanted the lawn area, and you see it's at the 55' contour. I think that's where we said -- TRUSTEE KING: It's showing the berm being planted landward of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave Chicanowicz is here now. Hi, Dave. We are reviewing the new plan that you submitted the other day on Yatrakis. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz of Creative Environmental Design representing Mr. Yatrakis. Jim, when we met at the property, we talked about trying to get ourselves to start at the elevation 54. One of the things we talked about was putting in a retaining wall at that point. Our client said he didn't want to have any kind of like hard structure so then we redesigned and did just a slight berm that we can vegetate and still control the water and be behind that 54 elevation mark. He's actually not that concerned with having extra lawn, which is, I mow something that you would be happy to hear, so. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, happy to hear that. MR. CHICANOWICZ: I did denote all the trees located that would a be notable saving. There are other trees there but they are either rotted or diseased or covered with such heavy ivy that they are on the way out now. But these would all be worthwhile saving. And then in the same tune we would be looking to eliminate or clean cut down to the ground without removal of root systems, the unwanted plants, the privet that is over abundant, and then replant with a special, you know, the native species. We can go over more issues in particular if you want an exact planting plan with quantities, we would be happy to supply that to you but we would adhere to whatever you would like to see. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would just like to say when we first went and looked at this I was not for a lot of Board of Trustees 12 August 19, 2009 the removal that you talked about tonight, but Mark Terry reviewed this as consistent and also because you backed that up to the 54 foot and brought it farther away from the bluff, this is looking very good. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's much better than the first one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I'm happy with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see, does the Board want to see a more padicular planting plan? I mean we could approve something subject to receiving; or do you want to -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem with it the way it is. TRUSTEE KING: I don't either. I think it's got enough detail in it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Any other questions? TRUSTEE KING: Not from me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right seeing no other questions, I'll make a motion to approve the application MS. DUPONT: I would like to say something. My name is Beatrice DuPont and I am on the property adjoining to the west. I really still have a problem retaining water because the street is eroding so badly. I have a picture of trees that were standing a few months ago. Right now it's about, it's lying down, and it's about to be uprooted. I think the stairways the way he wanted, but the way the piece is eroding now, without the retaining wall and without doing anything, the stairway is great chance of being washed out. I have not seen the planting plan nor is my business and you are in a better position than I am to judge if it's good for the environment or not, but this is not a stable bluff and if their bluff goes because of more construction, we are in trouble. And I know my neighbor, the next door neighbor on the east of Yatrakis is not here because he was never notified, because he bought the property a few months ago and it was too late for him to come to the meeting. He was not notified. But we are both concerned about putting weight and doing something with the retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. We have reviewed this and we found where he has the stairs is the best place for that. MS. DUPONT: I'm not contesting but this is really a problem, the erosion there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The last time you were here we discussed your property and how some of the runoff is coming in that corner. MS. DUPONT: This is no runoff there. I don't know what it's coming from. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The corner is right on your property line where it's eroding the worst. Board of Trustees 13 August 19, 2009 MS. DUPONT: My property is actually first ten or 15 feet is fine because of native planting is there. And there is absolutely no erosion on the first ten feet, I would say going into Yatrakis, because we take care of our property. We are responsible. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have your roof runoff going into drywells? MS. DUPONT: I think so. I guess so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You don't know MS. DUPONT: I don't know. The house was built so long ago. I know the gutter upstairs is going to a drywell by the basement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sometimes, years ago, they would just put them into the ground so they're still running through the ground and they would pipe them out to the bank. And that could be possible. If you are not sure, for your safety of your property I would check into that more and get a definite answer for your property on that. MS. DUPONT: But you see the erosion is not merely on my property. It's up on the bluff where the Yatrakis' are. It's not down below. We have no problems so much with erosion. It's the middle part that caves in and water, the bluff does collapse once in a while. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we were so concerned and we didn't want, with the original plan that came in, we did not like that plan. This plan is much better and it is not going to be lawn all the way up to the top of the bluff. It's going to be planted and maintained planted and we believe this will stabilize that. MS. DUPONT: If you feel this will stabilize the bluff, that's my main concern. I just don't want the bluff to go and make it worse than it is now. The other problem was the retaining wall but ~ just don't know how efficient that is. And finally, I have another question, which I don't know if you are able to answer or not, but we noticed on the plans that we have well and septic tank and leaching tank very close to our wells and we wanted to know if the Board of Health has approved those plans as well and the leaching field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That you would have to go to the Board of Health. That's beyond one hundred feet. It's beyond our jurisdiction. We are concerned with them and we try to get them out of our jurisdiction but the actual permit comes from the Health Department and I don't have that here right now. MS. DUPONT: Neighbors on each side are concerned about that because Mr. Schwartz talked to me today, as a matter of fact, saying he was having a problem with this as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That I can't answer, sorry. Board of Trustees 14 August 19, 2009 MS. DUPONT: Okay. I just wanted to know, as far as it goes I do have a concern because we are not within 100 feet from the leaching pool to the well. None of the property is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, again, that's a Health Department. MS. DUPONT: Thank you, for your comments. Any other comments?? (No response.) I'll make a motion to approve this application as applied for as per plan that was revised and dated 8/18/09. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 13, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests an Amendment to Permit #6437 to increase the length of the fixed open walkway from 55' to 83'. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not a public hearing. MR. COSTELLO: Good evening. Jack Costello from Costello Marine on behalf of Don Jayamaha. I just thought it was very consistent with the docks in the neighboring area. I went and looked at it today. It's been staked and I was hoping the Trustees got the opportunity to look at the staking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did. MR. COSTELLO: And from that angle and if you look at it from the other dock, you'll see there is plenty of room. It doesn't impede navigation at all. I don't know if all the Trustees went down to both docks and looked across. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim was here and we are standing on your dock here. MR. COSTELLO: Right. I just wanted to point out it is not going to impede navigation, and as far as the other, I know Anderson is getting cut back but it doesn't seem to go in more than them. TRUSTEE KING: When I sighted across from where I was, from that dock to the Anderson dock, the Anderson dock on the end, it looks like this needs to be shortened about 15 feet. That would maintain that pier line. MR. COSTELLO: If we put -- what we should have done is put a string up from the end pile there. The 30 feet is what you'll cut off Anderson, is what was agreed upon? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We measured 30 feet back along the Long Island Oyster Dock and stood at that measurement and looked at the end and this was, again, it's Board of Trustees 15 August 19, 2009 approximating, but it was at least 15 feet farther out. So it was not meeting the pier line, and I respectfully disagree, that I think it would interfere with navigation being 15 feet out further than the pier line there. MR. COSTELLO: If you go around the corner to the town dock, it's shot[er than that, too, by a considerable amount. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It also narrows there. MR. COSTELLO: There is also water depth. There is plenty of water all the way over to Matt-A-Mar Marina. Most of the water is over on the other side of the creek. We are just pressing this float out to where we can tie a boat. The most navigable water is on the other side of the creek. That's where any boat traffic navigating would be going. If they would foolishly come in that close to the property, that's not where their boat should be anyway. If they came in tight to the Anderson dock or the easterly neighbor, the easterly neighbor dock is barely in water as it is. I was there at Iow tide today and they were sitting on the bottom. If they were in the inside of those docks, they would be on bottom anyway. We are trying to keep this minimum amount just to get a boat so it's not sitting on the bottom. TRUSTEE KING: I can live with making it 70 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to make it clear, where the photo was taken was approximately the end of the Anderson dock, where the proposed end is. That's what we saw when we were at the proposed end of the Anderson dock. MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me, may I? TRUSTEE KING: This is not a public hearing. Make it quick. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Go right ahead. MR. FITZGERALD: When the oyster company dock is shortened 30 feet, the Mattituck Park District dock becomes the longest dock in the creek, and if one stands at the end of the Mattituck dock and looks down the line, it's fine. The marked location for the end of our dock does not extend beyond the line between the Mattituck Park District dock and the Chord (sic) dock, which is the name of the owner of the dock we are looking at. And if I may, the portion of the Town Code that refers to the so-called pier line, indicates that the docks that are being used to establish a pier line must conform with the requirements of this chapter. And that dock does not. And the reason it does not -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you referring to this dock? MR. FITZGERALD: And the reason it does not is that at Iow water as recently as 3:45 this afternoon, the float was on the bottom. TRUSTEE KING: Well, you could figure about 75% of the Board of Trustees 16 August 19, 2009 floats in town are on the bottom at Iow tide. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, but this is the one we are concerned about because it's part of what is causing a problem for us. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Fitzgerald, I believe there is a comment from the Board that we would consider 70 feet. Is that something you and your client would consider. MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you see we don't see anything wrong with our proposal. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This Board has been over and over this. So what we are proposing is 70 feet. Is that something you and your client would consider? MR. FITZGERALD: I would have to look at the drawing. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's the best we could do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What would you like to do about that offer? MR. FITZGERALD: I would appreciate a response about the things that I just said. First of all, the Mattituck Park District dock is significantly longer than the shodened oyster company dock. TRUSTEE KING: I don't want to get into this, but Mattituck Park District is supposed to have been reviewed and expired for two years. I don't think there is a permit. So it very well that might change. MR. COSTELLO: The other point, the very first dock to the east there is not a good place to establish the dock line because that dock is not in the proper amount of water. TRUSTEE KING: The original application for that dock ended almost at the edge of the spartina and they came back in, it was modified and we gave them an extension to come out. That was the best we could do for them. And we are trying to do the best we can for this application now and I think 70 feet is about the best we can do. MR. COSTELLO: Do you have a hydrographic there, Andy, to see what type of water depth -- TRUSTEE KING: We have been going around and around with this application for a long time now. It's time to stop it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I was just going to mention that some of the comments that Mr. Fitzgerald entered into tonight, were already pertaining to this other dock sitting on the bottom at Iow tide, we already went through this at a previous hearing. Those comments are on the record from a previous hearing. Just so everybody knows the history here, we granted a permit for this dock. So we have granted a permit for this dock. It's just the applicant wants it farther out than what we originally granted. Now we have looked at it and we determined that what the applicant is applying for is too far out. You know, we looked at it Board o£Trustees 17 August 19, 2009 and we all are in agreement that, as staked, this is too far out. It does create a new pier line that goes well beyond the pier line, so. TRUSTEE KING: We addressed this application the first go round. We issued a permit for a dock. It was denied by DEC based on water depth. That's the problem. DEC is the one that denied the original permit. Not us. We issued a permit for a dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Then DEC says we'll give you a permit if you go out 83 feet. We don't want to go out 83 feet. Sorry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I think we need to know what you would like to do next. Do you want to take this back to your client? Do you want to table it? MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to hear a comment that has to do with the length of the Mattituck Park District dock as it effects the pier line that we are talking about. Because it has not been taken into account. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think Jim just did address that. Jim did comment about that. Jim made a comment. MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry, I must have missed it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there are any current permits for the Mattituck Park District dock. It's being reviewed. It's being reviewed for the past two years. We are trying to find permits for that. They take it in and out every year. I don't know. We may have to shorten that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the choice we have here is either for it to be tabled for you to consider what we offered or deny, is the feeling of the full Board here. What would be your preference? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have a drawing that shows 70 feet from March of '08. MR. FITZGERALD: What's the question? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a drawing in the file that shows the walkway to be 70 feet. It's dated March of '08. And it shows a depth of three feet at the end of the ramp. MR. FITZGERALD: Is this what you would like us to do? TRUSTEE DOFIERTY: That's what we are offering is 70 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: This plan -- MR. COSTELLO: The problem is negotiating the length with the DEC. It would seem to be acceptable. We have to go back to the DEC again. If we extend it 20 feet, it seems to get the boat and the float, if you look at the hydrographic, it seems to get us in enough water. The boat would need three-and-a-half feet of water at Iow tide. I think 20 feet is acceptable to the client. I think if we went back to the DEC, that would Board of Trustees 18 August 19, 2009 be acceptable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can not go with 20 feet. It's think it's going to be beyond the pier line and impede navigation. I can't go along with that. MR. COSTELLO: That part of the creek is not navigable. The channel is on the other side. If anybody impedes on it, it's Matt-A-Mar. I don't want to do anything about them, but the channel is on the other side and always has been. TRUSTEE KING: We need to move along. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the frustration is we have looked at this so many times and I think the feeling of the Board at the present time this is what we are offering and we want to know do you want to table to consider this or do you want me to go ahead -- MR. COSTELLO: We don't want you to deny it certainty, but we have to go back to the DEC again. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I'm hearing you want to have this tabled. MR. COSTELLO: We have to go to the DEC. I know you don't want to see this again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there was a letter in the file that, from Peter Scully from DEC, saying that he's willing to work with the Trustees on this. So I think maybe the best thing is to table it and go back to the DEC. Maybe we can help you contact the DEC and work something out. TRUSTEE KING: We are giving up 15 feet, they have to give up 13 feet. So what's wrong with that? MR. COSTELLO: Seems fair. TRUSTEE KING: It is in my mind. I feel very strongly about this. These are patent lands. They belong to the town and they don't belong to the DEC MR. COSTELLO: If we go back to the DEC with 15 feet, it would be fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And we are willing to talk with the DEC as well, to help you along with that. MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. TRUSTEE KING: If you want, tonight we with approve this at 70 feet and go to the DEC with it. We'll give a permit for 70 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, do you want to take a quick look at one of the drawings. This is from March '08. It shows 70 feet and it shows three feet here. MR. COSTELLO: If they turned the dock the other way. So this would actually be longer. If we make this 83 feet. It's not really impeding on anything. We are turning it this way and making it a "T" now. It's not an "~" anymore. That's getting the boat broadside in the channel rather than sticking straight out. If that's acceptable like that. Board of Trustees 19 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what DEC approved. MR. COSTELLO: This structure is no longer necessary. Just turning the boat in the other direction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But adding the boat to the end makes it go out further. So if we reduce this to 70 and bring everything in, it would still be that the boat would probably be sitting right here. So that would bring it in that much more. TRUSTEE KING: For the record, DEC approved the Kord dock. Okay, Kord dock is sitting on the bottom at Iow tide was approved by DEC. MR. COSTELLO: So you would approve it at 15 and we'll go back to the DEC so we don't have to come back for another amendment? TRUSTEE KING: We could approve an amendment to increase the length of the fixed open walkway from 65 feet to 70 feet. That's what we would approve. MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. Then we'll just go back to the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Saying that's what you got from the Trustees. MR. CQSTELLO: Then the whole thing would be another amendment. If they make us go 20 feet we have to see you again, so it's other amendment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think you heard 70 feet is it. TRUSTEE KING: I think you heard the Board's feeling is 70 feet is maxed out. MR. JAYAMAHA: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We need a revised set the plans on that indicating the length is 70 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Obviously after talking to the DEC. MR. COSTELLO: We'll go to the DEC and we'll come back TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And revise your plans after that. TRUSTEE DICKERSQN: Okay, I'm going to make a motion to approve Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Don Jayamaha, requesting an amendment to permit #6437 to increase the length of the fixed open walkway from 55 feet, we'll make that to 70 feet, with the stipulation that the plans be revised. And this is located 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, Docko, Inc., on behalf of JAMES BAKER requests an Amendment to Permit #6619 to construct eight linear feet of new four-foot wide wood post and framed stairs with a rail mounted to an existing dock waterward of the ten-foot elevation contour. Construct a 10x8' landing with a dock box, construct 38 linear feet of timbedstone steps with rails set in the existing bank leading to a new 4x4' Board of Trustees 20 August 19, 2009 wood post and framed landing at the top of the bank, and install Iow intensity lighting and water service. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. We went out and looked at this. It was reviewed and found to be consistent under the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support with the condition appropriate materials, no CCA is used in the landing and reduced to comply with Town Code. Our concern, we did hike this property and found it and the only concern, as I recall, and the Board can correct me if I'm wrong, was the size of the landing or deck, the landing deck because Town Code limits that to 32 square feet and this is presently proposed at 80 square feet. So we want to reduce that platform associated with the stairs to comply with Town Code 32 square feet. And then we also wanted to ask the applicant if there was going to be any CCA used with this stairs. Because I know that was a concern brought up by the Conservation Advisory Council. So I want to address that also. So if the applicant is willing to reduce that landing to 32 square feet, I think we didn't have a problem with this as depicted. And again, I would ask the applicant if he could respond to the Conservation Advisory Council's concern about the use of CCA if CCA is being used in the decking. MR. NEILSON: First of all, my name is Keith Neilson, Docko, Inc., and I prepared the application documents before you tonight representing Mr. Baker. The reason for that intermediate landing is to allow him to have a storage area, a use area where he can keep some equipment related to his boat usage so he doesn't have to take it all the way up and down the hill every day after usage. And 32 square feet, the width of the walkway right now, three to four feet, that makes it eight feet long. The platform that I have shown there is eight feet long. If you consider the storage area to the side being four feet wide and for the eight foot length of the landing, I think that Mr. Baker would be agreeable to that. And certainly with regard to the construction materials, if you are adverse to pressure treated posts and timbers supporting the deck, that is one thing, if are you are opposed to the pressure treated treads, we can certainly deal with that. I would prefer to use pressure treated augered into the ground for the support, and the horizontal members, similar to a pier, we are okay with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. NEILSON: And before I forget, I would like to hand in the return receipt cards for the neighbor notification. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in looking at, I don't see a page number here, looking at the plans that you submitted Board of Trustees 21 August 19, 2009 here dated July 17, 2009, that shows this landing and dock box, is what you are saying here taking off the southern extension of that platform so that -- if you want to step up and look at this -- so you could still have the dock box and it would be a four-foot wide walkway. You would just be taking off that pad of the, removing that part of the platform on the other side, on the southern side of the stairs. MR. NEILSON: If you are agreeable to that I believe Mr. Baker would be agreeable as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I ask the feeling of the Board on that one. Is it clear what I'm talking about here? TRUSTEE KING: What's the difference of the square footage? MR. NEILSON: The square footage on the north side of the walkway would be 32 feet. But it would be the four-foot wide walkway in front of the platform, more or less the continuation of the stairway. But it would be a level platform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what the applicant is saying. The stairway would be there without the dock box platform, so he's asking for a 32-foot extension platform there adjacent to the stairway to hold the dock box. MR. NEILSON: If I could just sketch this here. You see this area. You would cut that off and so the platform would really be, the area for the dock box would be this area on the north side and but the width of the walkway, this would be, the stairway comes up from the pier, a level walkway, and stairs, and this would be the only part of the platform which would be where the box would be off on the side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's one large dock box. MR. NEILSON: Well -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know that I have ever seen a dock box 8X4'. That's huge. MR. NEILSON: The dock box is actually a little smaller than that. It's about three feet by about six to six-and-a-half feet. So I just had the rail around the edge of it and, you know, if the dock box is there, the rail would not necessary have to be put in. I'm just trying to make sure people don't fall off it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm agreeable to that. TRUSTEE KING: It's starting a precedent, everybody wants big box now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's actually within the code. This is part of the catwalk. He'll take this off. It's the width of the catwalk. That's what I'm looking at. TRUSTEE KING: It's still 80 sf., isn't it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So it's double the size of the code. Board of Trustees 22 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm looking at two separate things. You have the catwalk is four feet wide and 4x8 platform. TRUSTEE KING: Add the two together, what do you got? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other consideration that we do have to work with on Fishers Island is the water dependency of Fishers Island, because it is an island, versus here on the mainland. TRUSTEE KING: It's not a huge issue, I guess. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm willing to go with what has been proposed here. TRUSTEE KING: As it is a usable dock. It's not that it's just down to the beach, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And this is a very steep, very wooded area here. So if there are no other comments from the Board, I would make a motion to approve the application of James Baker as stated here, with the exception that the landing will be limited to eight foot by four foot on the north side of the catwalk on the stairway, and that non-treated or non-CCA lumber will be used on the stairs and the catwalk. MR. NEILSON: Non-treated lumber for the decking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, for the decking. So I make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one Docko, Inc., on behalf of FRANK & MARGARET BURR requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and regrout 52 linear feet of existing concrete capped, mortared stone seawall, as necessary. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. NEILSON: My name is a Keith Neilson from Docko, Inc., and I prepared the application documents before you tonight. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state. And I believe that this project, which is specifically to maintain or retain and maintain the stone seawall at the Burr property is consistent with all of your codes and guidelines and the LWRP. The Board of Trustees 23 August 19, :2009 Burr's have noticed over the last couple of years a loss of grout throughout a large part of the seawall and the area right around, adjacent to the pier, some of the stones have bulged, indicating that maybe the freeze damage beneath the pier and the shadow of the pier has been and excessive, so they would like to reset some stone, replace lost mortar and just restabilize. It's almost all routine maintenance, so it does not appear to be controversial and certainly does not appear to have any adverse environmental impacts. I've made the necessary certifications in the application documents and hope that you have had the chance to see the project and concur in our findings. TRUSTEE KING: Did we talk possibly about a little buffering behind that wall, in place of the lawn? Did we talk about a little five-foot non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's what I have in my notes, Jim. Five-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right behind the seawall. TRUSTEE KING: This is just going to be rebuilt and is not going to be completely refaced like the existing neighbor's wall? MR. NEILSON: Right. They don't want a concrete seawall. They just want to retain the stone the way it is and replace the mortar to make it structurally sound and wave proof. TRUSTEE KING: There was also, I noticed a little pipe coming out through that wall underneath the stairs. Do you know what that is, Keith? I don't know if it's some sort of drainage pipe or electrical conduit. MR. NEILSON: Yes, it was for an electrical conduit, and it's not being used at this point. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Because occasionally we find these drainage pipes and we try, if we can, we try and fix them up. MR. NEILSON: Seal them off. TRUSTEE KING: The suggestion was made, we would like to see a little fivelfoot non-tuff buffer behind the seawall where the lawn is, put plantings in there so there is no sod. MR. NEILSON: Okay. I had not discussed that with the Burr's, but if that's the determination of the Board, I'm sure they'll abide by it. TRUSTEE KING: That's pretty much how we all felt. Five feet is a small buffer, but it helps. MR. NEILSON: Do you have a preference of what you would like to see there? TRUSTEE KING: No, just as long as it's not sod. Could be sand, natural plantings, beach grass. American beach grass sometimes gets a nice look to it. MR. NEILSON: Okay. Board of Trustees 24 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: With that, any other comments? (No response.) Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) This is exempt from LWRP. It's maintenance and repair with no substantial changes, so it's exempt. So with that I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to approve this application with the addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer behind the seawall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. NEILSON: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Wetland Permits, number one, JOHN & MARIE SHACK request a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one-stow dwelling with attic space, remove/replace the existing deck, replace siding, new roof and doors on existing garage, and remove the existing shed. Located: 1265 Shore Drive, Greenport. We had approved an addition to this house a couple of years ago, and the permit has expired. They have come back with a new application, because it's expired, but also to demolish the whole thing and rebuild. But it's quite a reduction in size. And the whole Board looked at it. It is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. Is there anyone here to speak on this? MR. BASSOLINO: My name is Robed Bassolino. I'm the architect for John and Marie Shack. I'm here basically if you have any questions. This was approved as is. The permit was issued but the owner was not able to start construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it was straightforward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone in the audience that has any comments on this? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. Board of Trustees 25 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of John and Marie Shack of the survey revised and dated August 12, 2009, with the condition that gutters, leaders and drywells are there. And do we want hay bales on there? We have notes in the file something about hay bales. I don't know if it's really needed there. During construction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend the use of a hay bale line. You have to figure out the contour line or something. MR. BASSQLINO: If you look at the plans that is submitted, one of the requirements of the Board is to put hay bales all during construction. It's on the drawings, and we'll do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm trying to figure out where to put it on the drawing, on the August 12 drawing, where to be stamped to be approved. MR. BASSQLINO: I could put it on now, if you want. Or ten feet from the water line, whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten feet back from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Was there a buffer on the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DQHERTY: The neighboring bulkhead had a buffer. Do we want to put a buffer on this property? TRUSTEE KING: I hate to make people disturb stuff. There is really going to be no excavation there. But the next door neighbor, I believe that was the bulk of the replacement, so we had them put a buffer in. I think when the time comes for this bulkhead to be replaced, then that's the time for them to put a non-turf buffer in. Rather than make them to it now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to just say hay bale line ten feet off the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because you have 47 feet from the deck to the bulkhead, so ten or 15 feet off the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there is plenty of room for construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL EYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve as per revised plans dated August 12, 2009; gutters, leaders and drywells and a hay bale line during construction ten feet off the bulkhead, landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Costello Marine Board of Trustees 26 August 19, 2009 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 walkway 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 in place. 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. MR. COSTELLQ: Jack Costello, Costello Marine on behalf of the Maino's. It seems there is a little bit of confusion about the placement of the float as to where it is now. As we submitted, we are moving the float eight feet further to the north and making the dock narrower. Right now it's a 6x10' float. We'll be straightening the bulkhead up and moving it back an additional six inches of float. I know you have been there a couple of times, too. It's going over into the creek. So we are actually moving the structure back two-and-a-half to three feet. Because of some of the concerns with the neighbor across the creek. So we are moving to the float eight feet to the north already on the original submission and moving it back further across the creek. TRUSTEE KING: Are we downsizing that float? MR. COSTELLO: Right now we have it proposed as a 4x50. That decreases it by about ten-square feet from what is existing now. So I mean it seems that, the float there now is like a little obscure because it has like a six-foot bump out. It puts the boat further into the creek. And the way the Maino's have to tie the boat up leaves the boat sticking south of the float a great deal. It's kind of an awkward situation. The boat seems like more of the problem than the float or any of the structures. Certainly the cantilevered ramp has nothing to do with the neighbor across the creek. Like I said, this whole floating dock system coming out from underneath the ramp will slide eight feet to the north. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This whole piece. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, that whole piece will get straightened out. That's a 6x10 section. What we'll do is straighten that to four, we'll straighten the bulkhead back, so we'll be pushing this whole thing back about two-and-a-half to three feet. And then shifting it eight feet further into the creek, which is to the north. I guess there were concerns for the neighbor who is directly across. We move it further and further down. It doesn't seem like any of the structure is the problem. It seems the way the boat is Board of Trustees 27 August 19, 2009 tied up, seems to be the main -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the boat will end up being -- MR. COSTELLO: Right now it's just a weird way to tie the boat up. He's tying to a 10x6 platform. So he's centered on that. And the boat is actually sticking 14 feet that way. Now the boat would get shifted back. The float is getting shifted back eight feet. So he'll actually gain 20-something feet. The boat is the issue, not the structures. TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest concern with the Board was the length of the float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. COSTELLO: It was cutting back about ten square feet. TRUSTEE KING: I think the recommendation was to make it 4x30 instead of 4x50, so it meets the code. Because unfortunately there were never any permits on this. It was an unpermitted structure. We have gotten caught up on this before. And other people we have made downsize because of what was never permitted, if we are not consistent, it causes real problems for the Board. Particularly when you get lawyers involved. And we just had a recent case where things were completely removed from the water because there were no permits. MR. COSTELLO: If it has to be 4x30 foot float to go with the 120 square feet, which is fine, I just don't want, there was talk of moving the whole structure further into the creek and have us dredge it, which I don't think is logical. You know, once we change the float to 4x30, 30 he'll be able to shift the boat back and tie the boat up in a reasonable manner. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with that. I think the biggest issue was the size of that float because there was no permit on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we originally, in the field, we said move it 12 feet, and you are saying move it eight feet, so. MR. COSTELLO: Right. It will be moved further back to the north. Like I said, the structure actually doesn't have anything to do with the neighbor. TRUSTEE KING: There is a slight bow in that bulkhead, when that gets straightened out that will help, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what Jack was saying. MR. COSTELLO: It will move everything back two-and-a-half, three feet probably. TRUSTEE KING: My only issue was the unpermitted float and the length of it. MR. COSTELLO: Fine. So can we approve it with a 4x30, then we won't drag this out for a couple of years? I'll submit my plans. TRUSTEE KING: We'll take other comments, too. Board of Trustees 28 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm looking to see if anyone else would like to speak. MR. WILSON: My name is Michael Wilson. I'm the neighbor across the street. I'm unsure as to whether or not the dock is going to be moved, because I had requested that it be moved so it didn't overlap our dock and make it easier for us to turn. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My understanding is it will be moved eight feet north. MR. WILSON: ~ had requested three pilings. Three pilings is like 17 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I think eight feet is sufficient. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Board's feeling is the eight feet that Mr: Costello has said that will be done is sufficient. MR. WILSON: So up at the top, the deck and the dock, deck and dock will both be moved eight feet? TRUSTEE KING: The platform where the ramp is attached, Jack, will that be moved to the north also, or staying where it is? MR. COSTELLO: The cantilevered platform will be moved approximately two feet to the north, down the canal, west for them. MR. WILSON: This red is the existing structure? MR. COSTELLO: Where it's proposed is right here. I don't want the ramp underneath the float. You see the red there. The red is the existing structure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Wilson, we need to have one of you addressing us at a time, please MR. COSTELLO: Sorry. MR. WILSON: Sorry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we understand what Mr. Costello is saying. I want to make sure Mr. Wilson understands it. MR. WILSON: I had not seen this before. The black is the new dock? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. And the red is what is existing there. So we don't want the ramp underneath the float. Now the float will be narrower. Once the ramp lands on the float, you won't be able to use the float. So we'll shift the float down. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My understanding is what you are asking for will happen. This will be moved two feet. Eventually this will be moved eight feet and it's moving two-and-a-half to three feet landward. MR. WILSON: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So this boat will end up out of your way. MR. WILSON: That's not what I wanted. But I understand you are the Trustees. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Is there anyone else here this evening? Board of Trustees 29 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding most of your concerns are because you are going to buy a larger boat? MR. WILSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Perhaps you could move your platform further to the north to give yourself a little more room there. MR. WILSON: I would be happy to consider that. When we originally put the dock in, and this was one of the set of questions that the Maino's put in a recent letter, we had Enviro Consultants do the plan and they said that they thought to get your approval it had to be where it was. So that's why when they said it had to be there, because it didn't overlap, that was the least overlap to the Maino's, that's why we actually put it there. Not because we suggested that was the best place. We were taking the advice of the person that was trying to get your approval, so I don't know whether it should be where it is, but at the time we put it in, we were taking the recommendation of the consultant that said we should put it there and that would happen get your approval. So. TRUSTEE KING: I understand MR. WILSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak? (Negative response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of James Maino's request for a wetland permit to remove the existing shed, bulkhead and wood walkway; construct 110' of new bulkhead and new four-foot wide wood walkway inplace. Remove existing floating dock, ramp and access platform and install 4x4' cantilevered platform, 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp and 4x30' 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. This is all with the stipulation we have new revised plans. TRUSTEE KING: I have a question. I notice it says seasonal floating dock. Does that mean it will be removed for the winter? MR. COSTELLO: It will just be tied off. It will remain in the creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With new revised plans. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. All I have to do is change it to Board of Trustees 30 August 19, 2009 4x307 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Is there a second on the Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Mark Schwartz AIA, on behalf of ANTHONY CAMPO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and reconstruct a new two-story dwelling, remove and relocate sanitary system with retaining walls and install new drywells for runoff. Located: 1165 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. The Board went out and looked at this, actually, in July, and we reviewed this at the July hearing, but because it had not been reviewed under the LWRP, it had to be tabled unti} this month's meeting. Since then it's been reviewed by the LWRP coordinator and found to be consistent. And just to remind everybody, from last month, CAC supports the application with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer seaward and limit the clearing and ground disturbance. Now, in our discussions last month, and I'm looking at plans dated received July 22, 2009, we had asked that the frame shed located on, actually within the Haywaters Road or Fishermans Road right-of-way would be removed and the applicant agreed to remove it last month, as a condition, to remove that shed. And everything else was in compliance with Chapter 236. So that's where we left it last month. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect. I'm just here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I said, I think we worked through this last month and I don't think the Board had any issues with it once we removed that frame shed that was within the right-of-way. Were there any other questions though, from the Board, since last month, that you might have for Mr. Schwartz? (No response.) Is there anybody else here in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody running to the podium, I'll make a motion then to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 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 Anthony Campo as described with the addition of the removal of the frame shed that is located within the right-of-way on Board of Trustees 31 August 19, 2009 the plans stamped received July 22, 2009. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Kathleen Goggins on behalf of EDNA MCNLILTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4x90' fixed timber catwalk (elevated four feet above grade of marsh), a 3x20' hinged ramp and a 6x20' floating dock suppoded by two eight-inch diameter pilings. Located: 875 Westview Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. MCNULTY: My name is John McNulty. I'm the executor of the estate of Edna McNulty. MR. MCGREEVEY: I would like to hand up a copy of the DEC permit which expires in 2012, the Army Corps which expires 2011, and of course your Trustee permit which expires -- TRUSTEE KING: We had issued a permit that expired. I understand. MR. MCGREEVEY: And before you expired, she expired, so. It's the same application. TRUSTEE KING: So - MR. MCGREEVEY: It's the same application as before. TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with this. There's been no changes to the original application. It's just that it expired MR. MCNULTY: An extension of time is what we wanted. TRUSTEE KING: Right. Any other comments? MR. WEINER: My name is Norman Weiner. I'm the owner of the adjacent property. TRUSTEE KING: Are you to the north, south? MR. WEINER: To the north on the sight plan. I received, a notice that the adjacent property owner was including a sketch and this is the sketch I'm referring to. This application was two years ago, if I remember correctly, because at that time, too, I spoke. TRUSTEE KING: I believe it expired in May of this year. MR. WEINER: My question, when the Board reviewed it the last time, we asked that they move it, they move the dock somewhat further southward. As you notice in the plans, 12 feet from the property line and the property is probably 250 to 300 feet across. And you had commented at the time that you would recommend they move it some 20-odd feet. And that satisfied us. But I don't see it on this document. But I notice the document is dated May of 2007. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at the stamped plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe, if I remember correctly, this was wetlands. Board of Trustees 32 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: That was part of it. l'm looking at the scale here. MR. WEINER: It was my impression you had approved moving that planned location to get the permit. But we don't see it on this one. TRUSTEE KING: I'm scaling this off on the set of plans and it shows me it's 30 feet off the property line. One inch is 60 on the scale on this, and I'm just measuring now using the scale. It's exactly 30 feet. MR. WEINER: I think I'm quoting the mark that says 12 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I see that. I don't think that means, I don't think that's the dimension from the dock off the property line. MR. WEINER: I don't quite agree with you. I think we ascertained that last time and here we are requesting it still to be moved further. And you, I think, the Board said they would move it somewhat. TRUSTEE KING: This is 30 feet off the property line now. Like Jill indicated, there is less wetland to go across. I'm more comfortable staying with what we previously approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: I thank you for your comment. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) Anybody on the Board? (No response.) Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. It's identical to what was already approved and unfortunately the permit expired. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, 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" above grade on the down-drift side. Located: 360 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. We postponed this from last month to take another look at the area. Jim and I went out there. We met with somebody from DEC. This particular groin has a DEC permit for what they are applying for us. And it is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Board of Trustees 33 August 19, 2009 Council does not support the application and recommends complete removal of the groin. This is an area of a lot of groins in the area, which we have approved some. I happen to agree there is too many in the area, but that is something that was put there years ago. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) Mr. Giacone, I have a question for you. I was wondering if you would consider shortening this even further. MS. GIACONE: I don't really think that would help us because what used to be a Wickersham property is now the Powers property, and that jetty is way, way out. And so is the Ross jetty. So we are only trying to even it up. Hopefully everybody on that point will do something about it. TRUSTEE KING: I think they have a DEC permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a DEC permit. We have it in the file. TRUSTEE KING: Is it identical to what we are looking it at? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's identical to what we are looking at. The DEC permit reads inplace removal and replacement of existing jetty structure, all in accordance with the plans dated 4/20/09. And ~ believe that's what these are. I know in the field we looked at that. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to be consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know. This says 35.8. That's the original. Then this is what they wanted, 28 feet, at the end there. TRUSTEE KING: They shortened it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They shortened it to 73. It was 85 feet total length and they are shortening it to 73. "They" being the applicant or DEC, whatever, it's being shortened, and that's what they are applying for us but I feel if we go even shorter. That goes out to Iow tide. This is average, this line here, I guess, and it comes up this way because of the groin. So it is actually meeting our code with the way it comes up. See the average Iow goes here. So it is seaward of average Iow of that point, but the whole entire area average Iow is like 20 feet further seaward. So if this goes further seaward I think this beach would straighten out more. So that's why I'm saying I think it should be shortened even more than this. I mean I agree she needs something, only because the neighbor's groin is so big. I wish we could just tell everybody it to come in and get rid of them, but. Board of Trustees 34 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: This shows the neighbor is running at 60 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying if this was shodened. Even the neighbor's groin currently, the one Ms. Giacone is talking about is much higher, it is a little bit shorter. But the average Iow tide goes around the groin, but then goes in deep. And I'm thinking if we shorten this groin then the beach would be more even. It would not get that scalloping. According to the survey, they are saying this sand is average Iow. I don't know if that's correct, but that's what is on this survey. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we have done in the past. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but I'm saying -- TRUSTEE KING: Wherever the groins should be, putting in Iow profile and shortening them, we've never shortened them up to say this midsection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but this is a unique area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Unless we hold off and see if we could do both of them. Are they next door to each other? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are, but there is two houses in between. So it's not directly next door. It was just my -- TRUSTEE KING: This whole area is a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean when the people next door come in, we approve the 73 feet, the people next door come in and say she's got 73 feet, now I want to re-do mine, I'll do Iow profile but I want to stick it out further. So we're not reducing anything here. TRUSTEE KING: I think they want to take eight feet off it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Eight feet, yes. So they've reduced it by eight feet. (Perusing.) Actually this says 78 feet, so they have only taken five feet off. If you look at the two different plans. TRUSTEE KING: It says existing 78 feet and next page is proposed 73 feet inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was reading this before. They are taking five feet off. TRUSTEE KING: And this says replacing existing 81 foot. So what is it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Replace existing 81 foot groin with 73 foot. That's how they worded it. So they are saying it's 81 feet and they want to put 73 feet. That's where I read 81. But the plan shows 78 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did they measure it in the field? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so because it's high tide. So we have three drawings here. TRUSTEE KING: The scales are off at almost 80 feet, including the piles at the end. It's 80 feet on the outer edge of two those piles. The scale is off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On all three plans? Board of Trustees 35 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's over. It's 84 on this one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Each plan is a little different. TRUSTEE KING: It's the same scale. TRUSTEE KING: This is off 83. (Perusing.) And 73 on this one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the rest of the Board think? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Two if Jay is coming out to look at the other one, I don't know why -- she said she might consider shortening more to have a professional consultant make a recommendation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll repeat my comments that I made last month. This was, by the way, this was discussed at last month's hearing. When I looked at this in the field, I felt that this is a classic case down there where if these groins were removed, that beach would normalize. Right now it's completely scalloped due to these groins. I don't see where this is necessary. I agree with the Conservation Advisory Council's recommendation, and myself, personally, I don't feel there is a need for this groin here. As I stated last month, I think the only structure that is needed along this section is a jetty to protected the inlet that is on the adjoining property. So for myself, I'm not in favor of this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ms. Giacone, we are in the process of getting Jay Tanski to come out here to inspect Mr. Celic's property. He is a coastal resource specialist, I believe with the Department of State or Sea Grant. He is the professional. We are not. So we talked to Mr. Celic and Mr. Celic has postponed his application in order to have Mr. Tanski come out. Mr. Celic has four groins on his property and his property ends at the mouth of the creek. So it's a little more intense over there. And that's where Dave is talking about, that it almost, we feel it's better if Mr. Celic's last, it would be the jetty protecting the creek, was longer and more substantial and then the other groins were not there and that we believe the beach would even itself out and then it would protect the inlet as well. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I just mention one of the things that might be beneficial to your yourself, if you were agreeable to this, we have had his expertise before and it might be very insightful for yourself to meet with us when he's there to hear what he has to say. Because he's very current and knowledgeable. So it might be even informational for you also to hear, to the benefit of your property. MS. GIACONE: As of today at Iow tide there was absolutely no scalloping. I don't know if it's the way the winds have been going or what. But the picture you show is not really a true picture. Board of Trustees 36 August I9, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are trying to get Jay Tanski out as soon as possible. MS. GIACONE: What is he, part of the town or what? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he's a coastal resource specialist with Sea Grant, which I believe is a federal government agency. I'm not sure. We have not contacted him yet. We are trying to contact him because this all just happened last Friday that we decided to contact him and Mr. Celic agreed with that. So we are trying to see what his schedule is and we are trying to get him out here as soon as possible. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: His title is Coastal Processes and Facility Specialist. MS. GIACONE: Do you have his card? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have his information. MS. GIACONE: Can I see that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think it would benefit, like Peggy was saying, your son is the owner of the property, I believe -- MS. GIACONE: There are seven of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Well, we can give you plenty of notice if you want to get whoever wants to come out and meet with him as well. MS. GIACONE: They are all up in Albany and we'll be leaving this good town in September. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we'll try to do it as soon as possible. But if he's a specialist and he says it would benefit you to shorten it, then it would benefit you to shorten it not only environmentally but also financially. MS. GIACONE: That's my concern. But what about these other, longer jetties, are you going to have them chopped off so all is equal? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't exactly go up to them and say they have to chop them off, but as they come in to replace theirs, we'll be reviewing them the same way as we are reviewing yours and we'll reduce it as well. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And those are the questions you can ask him. If you did reduce yours, what would be the effect of the others in the interim of the others being reduced. So he could answer those questions. MS. GIACONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you agreeable, we'll table this? MS. GIACONE: Yes, I think it's best. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. GIACONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this to get Mr. Tanski out here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 37 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: En-Consultants Inc., 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 there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman, Eh-Consultants, on behalf of applicant. That project description reflects the originally submitted plan and as the Board knows, we met out there at the property to review the prospects of a Iow profile open-grate "T" dock. There are a lot of docks in this area, most of which are floats, and many of those which sit on the bottom at Iow tide. So we were wrestling with the idea of how to provide some sort of small dock here for small craft. The Board had seemed receptive to the idea. Subsequent to meeting with you, I had a brief meeting with Karen Gorelick, regional manager for DEC, who has adopted this as an alternate to a floating dock in other situations and she also seemed receptive to the plan, so we had the proposed structure staked out. At your request, had a path cut for you. I hope it was there when you got there, and hopefully you were able to review the stake out which reflects the plan that is in front of you now, last dated July 10, 2009. This would be a dock that would allow for about a six-and-a-half foot beam boat on the outside of it at maximum. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Anyone else here with any comments? (No response.) That's the stake out there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The feeling in the field was that what was staked was larger than what was depicted on the plans. That's what I have in my notes. TRUSTEE KING: If I remember right, the two stakes were a lot further apart than 12 feet, and I was wondering if there were any tie off piles you were looking for, or something, there. MR. HERMAN: Nope. TRUSTEE KING: Because they are a lot more than 12 feet apart. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They were pretty wide apart. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because you actually can't even see between this one. I couldn't even get it in the frame. MR. HERMAN: Jim, I don't know. Honestly, I have not seen the stake out since it was done. It was done just immediately prior to your inspection. So the only thing I could do is ask the surveyor to verify it. I mean Board of Trustees 38 August 19, 2009 it's unlikely that he got it wrong but it's not impossible. TRUSTEE KING: They were nowhere near 12 feet apart. I was there. They looked 25. MR. HERMAN: I can't explain that. He had an electronic -- TRUSTEE KING: I have the new plans. MR. HERMAN: The outside "T" is only 12 feet, and it's only 18 feet seaward. TRUSTEE KING: How much seaward of the original steps is the "T", Rob? That's what I was looking at. MR. HERMAN: The original -- TRUSTEE KING: The original set of stairs ended at 1.7 feet. MR. HERMAN: And that was about eight feet seaward, about ten feet closer to shore, which is what it takes to get out to the two-and-a-half. See, the idea is, and as you know, this policy has evolved over time, for lack of a better term, with the state. TRUSTEE KING: I know. MR. HERMAN: It used to be you could put a float as long as the outside of the float was in 30 inches of water. But now they require the entire float sit in 30 inches of water. So there is simply no way to install a float here in a way that would meet with the DEC depth requirements while at the same time leaving enough room in the channel. So as I talked to you in the field a month or so ago, whenever it was, this is something the DEC has, seems to be receptive to, is the idea of a fixed "T" because the only place -- and much smaller in scope. I mean obviously it's not a fixed 6x20 in lieu of a floating 6x20. It's a much smaller structure because it can be much smaller because it's stabilized as opposed to floating, then they would require only the two-and-a-half feet of water on the outside of the "T", not on the inside. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is what it looks like down the creek MR. HERMAN: Yes. And at a good Iow tide, that looks like it's getting pretty close to Iow tide there, but I have a sneaking suspension the insides of those floats are not in 30 inches of water. TRUSTEE KING: It's all over town, particularly most of these creeks you are getting a lot of sediment over time now and floats that had two or three feet of water ten, 15 years ago are sitting on the bottom now. MR. HERMAN: Right. That's what we are contending with in terms of proposing any sort of new structure. A lot of these are out of character, not that that's necessarily a negative thing, but they tend to be out of character with a lot of the historically existing docks. TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious, even if we could pull Board of Trustees 39 August 19, 2009 it in a couple of feet, it would give them the opportunity to have a little bigger boat. What are you looking at the beam of the boat now? MR. HERMAN: It would be six-and-a-half feet maximum, in order to comply with the code. It would be a dinghy, basically. TRUSTEE KING: So it would be a Boston Whaler or a very small boat. You could see the boat tied to the float, that boat has at least an eight to nine foot beam. That was just my thought, if you get this in a little. MR. HERMAN: We are trying to tuck in what we could get. The problem is the tighter we go, you know, one Iow tide, it will be 30 inches on the outside and other Iow tide it will be 26 inches on the outside and you start to get down to what is the condition when the state gets there and they decide it's deep enough or it's not deep enough. So I could say that maybe we could come in 12 inches or 18 inches but I don't know if I can really say that. And still, I mean the only thing we could do is go out again at Iow tide and just go out exactly from the same points and measure out and see what we could hit at Iow tide, and see if we could get the DEC to agree to it, depending on what we find. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking if the seaward edge of the "T" is at that 2.03 feet, that would put the boat in 2.8 feet of water. MR. HERMAN: But the outside the dock would not be. So you have on the inside of the dock you have less than 30 inches. And that's the problem. But having said that, I can ask Karen. I mean we got into a situation in Shelter Island where there was a four-foot differential between what the Town Board would approve and what the DEC would approve. And eventually the Town just stood their ground and denied it. They went to a lawsuit and lost, and so then we went back to the DEC to say we have exhausted every possible remedy here and then this is what came as a result, so. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but I would like to see these docks tucked in as close as we can get them and still make them usable for the people. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, here's the other thing. Our LWRP is inconsistent and it needs to be deemed consistent by us in one way, shape or other. MR. HERMAN: Why would a dock here in the midst of all these other docks be inconsistent. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, let me read it for you. It says that: Construction and operation standards of the Southold Town Code prohibit the construction of new docks in West Creek over vegetated wetlands. It's a prohibited location. No new docks will be permitted Board of Trustees 40 August 19, 2009 over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands in the following areas, West Creek being one of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe that the intention of the code with that West Creek is a different West Creek within the town. It's West Creek off Mattituck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what Jill is saying. That's referring to the West Creek in New Suffolk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that would certainly deem it consistent then. MR. HERMAN: But having said that, we are happy to see what we could do because we don't want to create a situation where the boat does end up intruding and it becomes a problem later on. My sense is you don't object to this conceptually, you are just trying to get it as tight as we could possibly get it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what Jim is saying. We are just, we are setting ourselves up for future problems or challenges when the owner comes in with a boat with an eight-foot beam and all of a sudden the Board has to play the bad buy and go out there and tell them, sorry, you can't have your boat with an eight-foot beam after he already has it. And it just creates a real challenge for everybody. So I agree with what Jim says, if there is any way we could possibly pull it back. I, in concept, had no problem with it as depicted on the plans, but again, going out there and sighting it, I think the surveyor did make a mistake because it is much wider than 12 feet there out there. MR. HERMAN: I need to check with John and I could even meet him out there at a dead Iow and we could verify the depths from a known point. I mean, assuming the inside stake is right, at least that's a fixed point, I could measure the distance out and I could do it, take a measurement at every two feet and see if we could, first of all, find if there is a depth that may show a little more in our favor. Because normally it doesn't matter but we are literally talking 12 to 24 inches here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In this case I think it's a big difference. MR. HERMAN: Yes. That's why I'm saying we're really trying to thread the needle here. If the Board is more comfortable with that, I'm happy to look at that and I'll try to talk to Karen again and see if they would allow it. I know I'm almost certain in at least one other case in Southampton where we had a very similar structure there may have been slightly less water at the seaward end of the "T" but as you are saying, as long as the boat was -- I mean if you get the extra Board of Trustees 41 August 19, 2009 depth another foot or two out1 that's where the engine would be, so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So would you like this tabled? MR. HERMAN: Yes, we'd better do that and hopefully we can just revolve this next month. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: So we'll reinspect it. MR. HERMAN: I'll call Lauren and let her know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, En-Consultants, on behalf of CARDINAL EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace inplace approximately 87 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace inplace and raised 12 inches, approximately 130 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace inplace and raised twelve inches, variable width (23' max.) X 130' deck (including 4x5' stepdown); remove and replace inplace 2.5x10' ramp and 6x30' float; backfill with approximately 35 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; and temporarily remove, reside, reshingle and refurbish existing +14.5x14.5' boathouse; and a letter of no-jurisdiction for the proposed swimming pool. Located: 4600 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because the dock is on town property, it's in violation of the public trust doctrine, and the bulkhead should be replaced in the same dimension/height as per Town Code. We do have one letter here that we received that I do want to read into the record, from a Barry and Gayle Mallin, 4525 Wunneweta Road. It says: We wish to register a comment in objection in connection with the above proposal. We are the property owners across Wunneweta Road from the subject property. The map of the property shows a 15-foot right-of-way for Nassau Point residents between the subject property and the Russ Family Partnership side of the properly. The proposed scope of work is not clear on whether the owner will be encroaching on the right-of-way. In fact, at present, the right-of-way is blocked by hedges and trees making it impossible for other residents to reach the water. There are no stakes showing the property line. We ask as a condition of approval that the owner provide stakes showing the Board of Trustees 42 August 19, 2009 property line on the sight; that the owner not encroach on the right-of-way, that all obstacles, hedges, trees, preventing legal access to the water be removed. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions. Sincerely, yours. All right, the Board did go out and looked at this, and we had, we have a lot of questions related to this project, just as the Conservation Advisory Council did. So first off, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of applicant. There are a few different elements to this application. Let me respond first to the question, because at least that is easy to answer. On this site plan, on our project plan, the 31 foot section of bulkhead on the south side of the property that abuts that right-of-way between the subject property and the Rust Family Partnership property, does not include the 15-foot right-of-way. There was no proposal to do anything with the bulkhead that fronts that right-of-way, as the applicant and owner realizes that is not part of his property. So that would not need correction. Otherwise, the application is, on its face, straightforward. This is obviously a structure including the deck that if this were unoccupied today and proposed to the Board today is not something the Board would consider approving, of this scope. Like some of the other applications that have been before the Board and including some even where the Board members have made a communication to the public that you were approving something that would not have been approved today if proposed anew, but is either a permitted or legally pre-existing structure. This deck dates back to the early 1950's. We have various documentation in support of that assertion. One I will submit up to you, I just received the original copy of today, which is from Col. Robert Rust, retired USMC; that's the property, the Rust Family Partnership to the south. And it is a sworn statement that says: Our property is located south of the property owned by Cardinal East Coast Development LLC located at 4550 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue, New York. East Coast Development seeks a permit to remove and replace 871 feet of timber bulkhead, remove and replace deck, remove and replace ramp; reside, reshingle and refurbish existing boathouse; and a pool and a patio. We support this application. The above structures and floating dock have always been there since our purchase in the early 1950's. in fact removal and replacement of these structures would be consistent with our Board of Trustees 43 August 19, 2009 neighborhood and an obvious overall improvement. We respectfully ask the Board to approve this application. ~'11 submit that to you for the record. Again, that's from the Rust ownership to the south. What I have obtained is a series of aerial photographs, and I can bring them up to you. I can provide copies. One set of photos, this is from 2004, that is the clearest of all the photos because it's the most recent and the only one in color. And all of these eight-and-a-half by eleven photos are obtained from historicaerials.com and they had suggested that if you need a sworn affidavit attesting to the dates in the photos, they'll provide them. That is a 1980 photo. It shows the same structures. 1969, it shows the same structures. 1960 and 1954. This is an April 1, 1964 dated aerial photograph from Aerial Imaging Resources that also shows the same structures. TRUSTEE KING: Are you trying to tell us they have been there a long time, Rob? MR. HERMAN: I'm trying to tell you they have been there a long time, and we can prove it, darn it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, just so you know, personally, since I grew up on this creek, I can tell you they have been there at least 40, 45 years. So we can stipulate they have been there a very long period of time. MR. HERMAN: I had a feeling you would know but I didn't want to have to rely on the Board for my own testimony. So again, what we are proposing is to replace these structures as they currently exist. The bulkhead is proposed to be raised by a foot. One of the things the Board has done on other application where there are some of these steep inclines or declines leading to the water where runoff is a little faster moving, is to try it raise the height of the bulkhead a little bit to try and soften that at the bottom. And we have, are trying to propose that here in conjunction with what I assume the Board would request will be some sort of non-turf buffer. There is to a degree a non-turf buffer there now along most of the back side of the deck. Obviously that vegetation would have to be dug up in order to replace the bulkheading but we would certainly replace it with some sort of vegetation within the buffer. Really, the raising of the bulkhead is not the entire structure. There is a section of the bulkhead which is closest to the Rust ownership that is about a foot higher. So we are not proposing to raise the higher bulkhead even higher. We are really just proposing to raise the rest of the bulkhead up to the height of that section. So that is important to note because on that side, and it's to the left of your slide, that bulkhead Board of Trustees 44 August 19, 2009 is in line with the Rust bulkhead. So we are not proposing to raise that. It's a slightly different situation over here. Now, holding that thought for a second, the other element of the application was a proposed swimming pool. And the applicant had advised me that on your inspection you had identified what you believe is a small freshwater pond over on the north side of the property. Again, I'll look to you for your historical observation of this. I don't think I was over there. I would not in a million years be looking for something like that at that elevation. If that is in fact the case and if I'm recalling the story correctly that you would want to see the pool actually shifted closer to the bulkhead, am I okay so far? Or is that not correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had in the field, yes, noted the freshwater wetland, frog pond, but yes, I used to play in as a kid, is there. And as so this pool was within Trustee jurisdiction. As part of this application you requested an NJ letter for this and we could not do it. While we were there, I believe he was a contractor, but the gentleman -- who is here -- he also stated that that would be, in his opinion, a very unusual area to put the pool where it was depicted, so we looked at an area that obviously would have to be placed on plans, but was farther seaward bearing down in the, I'm looking at the survey that is stamped July 29, 2009, is probably approximately in this contour area where there was a 12 to 11 foot contour. It's almost oval shape as the pool is oval shape, as a possible area to place the pool. It seemed it would be a lot easier from a construction standpoint and it is much better for us as far as jurisdictional issues go. MR. HERMAN: If we could do that I think it would make everybody happy. As it is placed now, it would require a variance because of its location in the side yard. Obviously our fairly simplistic goal is to keep it more than 100 feet from the bulkhead. Now, under 275, your setback for swimming pools, unless it changed unbeknownst to me, is still 50 feet. We would want to be at least 75 feet from the bulkhead so as to comply with zoning and also stay above the ten foot elevation contour of the DEC. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you have a 75' setback noted on the survey there. So I think there is room to put a pool in there. MR. HERMAN: So if we have to shift it around, we are more than happy to do that. That would resolve that problem as well. Obviously we'll have to have the surveyor play around with the location and setbacks and report back to you with a modification for that. And if Board of Trustees 45 August 19, 2009 it's in your jurisdiction we would also want to show pool fencing, pool equipment, pool drywell and the other elements you would want to see if it were part of the permit. So that about summarizes my presentation and I assume you may have other comments and questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Again, just to kind of knock out some of the smaller issues before we get to the larger issue of the dock, because the dock is going to be a large issue. With the request from the neighbors for the right-of-way as a condition that those shrubs at the roadside, while it's well outside of our jurisdiction I would ask that the applicant consider the request from the neighbors so they do have access to the right-of-way, which is currently blocked. Again, it's outside our jurisdiction so we can't require that, but I would ask that the applicant consider that. MR. HERMAN: Qkay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the frame boathouse, we would want to make sure that there is, with the work that will be done on this boathouse, and I'm not saying we are approving this part of the application right now, but we want to make sure that does not turn into habitable space whatsoever. So that definitely will be a condition. MR. HERMAN: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were curious as to whether or not, I mean we were told in the field that the boathouse has to be picked up, moved back in order to do the construction of the bulkheading and the other structures that we'll get to in a minute. And when that boathouse structure is put back, if that could be moved back so it is not over the water, so it's actually on land rather than projecting out over the water. Because this goes with, the entire dock structure, just as the Conservation Advisory Council stated, we also, the entire Board, had an issue with this dock. We know it was there. We are willing to stipulate to that. But we also know that when people come in and want to rebuild something, we look to comply with current Town Code and current town policies. And the entire Board, I can just tell you, was very troubled with even suggesting approval of this structure as it stands or as depicted here. We are going to want this downsized. We are going to want it pulled back. We are going to want it downsized. We can work on it, we'll have to work out how much, but we'll want that done. Because there is no way today we would ever approve something with this much structure going out over public bottoms. Board of Trustees 46 August 19, 2009 So with regard to the shed, is there an opportunity to move that shed back; landward? MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure that you can separate those two topics. I mean I think they are inextricably bound in terms of what your goal is here. I can star[ my response whenever you are ready. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are supposed to limit our comments to five minutes or less when we are working on these applications. MR. HERMAN: You surpassed that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know we have surpassed that. But you heard us tell you, we looked at, when we were in the field at some options here. We looked at an option of where the floating dock area is depicted, removing that entire structure so that the floating dock will end up going back against the bulkhead, and then a smaller deck area going over toward the framed boathouse. That was one option we looked at. We looked at another option where the entire deck area was removed and so there was just the bulkhead replaced with the floating dock in front of the bulkhead, which would be what we normally look at with a lot of applications today. I think what I want to do is throw it back to the applicant right now, with your understanding that there is no way the Board is going to approve this structure, we want it downsized. You've heard the comments from the Conservation Advisory Council. And so I throw it back at you. And I'm sorry, one other thing. And I apologize. Yes, with the raising of the bulkhead from the framed boathouse to the west as depicted there, we would require a non-turf buffer in back of that, and that has to be part of the application. MR. HERMAN: Much of that was anticipated when this application came to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I figured. MR. HERMAN: Unfortunately this brings us back to this same debate that we have had, not just myself, but other agents and attorneys in front of the Board and not just in front of the Board but also with the Town Attorney's office. There is, this Board has drawn analogies on these things in the past where if you reconstructed a house that was legally pre-existing you would have to quote unquote bring it up to code; you would have to do a different kind of roofing, different kind of windows, different kind of insulation. The difference is, when that happens, the town doesn't say but you can only rebuild half your house. So while I would anticipate that there may be design criteria that the Board would apply here, I think we return probably to a philosophical divide as it relates to a legally pre-existing, nonconforming structure. If you have a Board of Trustees 47 August 19, 2009 structure that has legally pre-existed and been maintained for six decades, I continue to argue with the Board and have argued with Lori Hulse that there is nothing in your code that suggests that you can effectively arbitrarily eliminate some or all of that structure upon application to replace it exactly as it exists simply because you would not approve it today. The Hodgeson application is a perfect example of a very, very large dock both in width, length, scope, step downs and everything and Peggy sat there and made announcement, the Board is approving a reconstruction of this structure. We would never approve this if it were proposed new today. But the Board has stipulated that this is legally pre-existing and we will allow its replacement. Which you did. We are asking you to do the same thing here from the start. If the Board was able to effect a policy wherein you were able to substantially reduce or eliminate every legally pre-existing nonconforming structure in the town, there would be absolutely nothing for a purchaser of a property to rely on when purchasing a property. Even in the state title wetland code there is an explicit written section that says nothing in this code shall allow the department to require the removal or prevent the reconstruction inplace of a legally pre-existing structure, even if it does not comply with all the standards. So I understand your position but I'm not sure where it is legally founded. And I continue to think that it is a precipitous position for this Board to take whereby you feel that you have the power to take either a permitted or a legally pre-existing structure and do away with it because it doesn't meet today's code. You do it with, I mean, whether it's groins or bulkheads, there is bulkheads all over the creeks in Southold that you allow the reconstruction of every month, every year, for the past 16 years I have been doing this, in places now that you would never allow a new bulkhead to be constructed. So it is -- my feeling about it is that you pick and choose which sites you are going to stand by that policy. And this seems egregious to you. This is unusual. I mean this is more like Freeport than Southold. But it is also a significant feature for a buyer of the a property to come and get this kind of deck over a the water that would never be permitted today. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, since you referenced my name to Rose's construction, I'll say that the reason I do have a different opinion between the two, is over the many years that I have been part of this Board and prior to that, my understanding of structures is the environmental effect it's going to have. And the Board of Trustees 48 August 19, 2009 bulkhead that was being replaced as it was, where it was, to me, didn't have an environmental -- MR. HERMAN: I'm speaking to the dock, not the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And we reduced the dock, as far as I'm remembering, in some way, shape or form. MR. HERMAN: We came back and proposed to reduce some parts. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My point is when I look at this I don't see it denying the replacement of what is existing. What I'm seeing is the coverage that is shadowing that area, which is why when we do, when we rewrote the code, the wetland code and revised it three times, I believe, was to reduce the structures when and if at all possible. So my belief and my votes are because this is a tremendous amount of structure in an area that, again, if you came before us, we wouldn't give. But we have this opportunity now. One of my questions would be what is the purpose of that tremendous amount of dock area. I mean, are things being unloaded? Is that a dance floor? To me I don't see the usage of that much structure. So was one of my reasonings behind, with the rest of the Board, saying this can't be replaced at this size. MR. HERMAN: Right. And I don't begrudge you any of those opinions. And I know where you are coming from. My initial argument relates to policy, precedent, legality, et cetera. To answer some of your questions in terms of substance, one issue here would be the water depth that exists for boat dockers. This obviously for 60 years has been a very large boat dockage area. It probably has also been a unique entertainment area, as you said, when you say a dance floor. I don't know, maybe Dave can attest to some of the things that have gone on down there, I'm sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not dancing, I'll leave that alone. MR. HERMAN: But one possibility would be reducing the width of the deck, but then you would not have the depth to dock boats. And I really don't foresee the likelihood of being able to dredge that area to make it more dock friendly, as far as the state is concerned. In terms of shading, I mean the condition that is there, again, has been there, and you seem to accept the fact that it has been there now for six decades. I mean, even reducing the width, you are not going to have any ecological gain from doing that. There may be some philosophical triumph of reducing structure over the bay bottom, but you are not really talking about an area here where you are suddenly going to have growth of any vegetation unless you just completely outright eliminated the entire structure and then planted marsh along the bulkhead. I would have to check with the Board of Trustees 49 August 19, 2009 client but I'm sure they would be inclined to just leave it the way it is and repair deck boards as they rot or break, as opposed to doing the reconstruction. So, again, I mean in the interest of trying to do something here -- because I mean obviously one option is to either withdraw the request or say deny it and we'll challenge the decision -- is to try and do something to reduce the structure. I mean the structure on the far end where that, I don't know who that is -- where Jim is walking -- that would be an area from really where the end of the float is seaward that we could potentially get rid of that entire section and get rid of about 300 square feet of deck. Except where the float is, there is the possibility to narrow somewhat the width. It's the widest where the boathouse is. But otherwise it's more or less 19 to 19-and-a-half feet wide as you run around. That could potentially be cut back to say 18 feet, then you are talking about two by whatever the distance is. I mean, you could reach a point where you are eliminating four or five-hundred square feet of deck. Again, as you might expect, I have discussed this with the applicants. But there is a point beyond which they are not going to compromise because there is a significant feature of this property for them at the time of purchase, knowing how long it had been there, knowing that it legally pre-exists, is to have this unique feature. So they are not going to be in a position where they are going to accede to the elimination of it or diminution of it to the point where it no longer holds the character that it holds. We don't have to waist a lot of time fighting that. I can just tell you up front that's not something we are going to. For better or worse. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do at this point, there has been a lot of dialogue here, I would like to see if other members of the Board have comments, or people in the audience have comments. And we'll come back to further dialogue. But I would like to see, first off, if other members of the Board have any comments related to this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: None really that have not been made already. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want it to say, I don't think we ever discussed eliminating, not providing or allowing -- MR. HERMAN: That was one of the options that Dave mentioned. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, I had stated that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know that it was anything I was saying. I was thinking more of a reduction. TRUSTEE KING: I think it needs to be downsized. That's Board of Trustees 50 August 19, 2009 my personal opinion, even though it's been there longer than I've been alive. MR. HERMAN: I mean allowing for other comment is fine. I would say, maybe the best possibility would be to try to meet at the site and see if some compromise is reachable. Because there is no sense in the two of us grandstanding here for hours or months. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I was going to suggest. MR. HERMAN: If it can be reached, we'll do it. If it can't be reached, we'll have to let the chips fall where they may. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's what I wanted to suggest but I wanted to see if there was any other comments from people in the audience. People may have come here tonight to specifically comment on this. I want to them, give them the opportunity. Yes, sir? MR. HARDY: Doug Hardy of the CAC. Just as a rebuttal that this would be, is a grandfathered structure, and the applicant would put it in a replacement, or inplace, that he wants to raise it 12 inches, that certainly is not inplace. The other factor is, I have been told, that at certain conditions of tides, the water level reaches about the level of the green boards there. In other words, the deck is flooded. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to comment on this application? (No response.) Rob, I agree, I think the best thing for to us do is meet out there in the field at our next field inspection, which is September 9. And so that we can walk this together, and if you would like, have the owner there to be part of the conversation and see if we could reach some type of compromise on this. MR. HERMAN: It will be the most efficient way to see if we could resolve it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. Being no other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to table this application and we'll put it on the agenda for our field inspection on the 9th to meet the applicant and the agent out in the field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: And Peggy, I didn't mean to throw you out as any proponent of that application. It was just in principle, the Board has acknowledged publicly that there is a difference between new and old. That's all. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want these pictures back, Rob? MR. HERMAN: Yes, and I'll provide copies of them, unless the Board feels it's not necessary. Board of Trustees 51 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of SUSAN CEBULSKI, ARTHUR FARNBACH AND PAUL FARNBACH requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto existing one-story, one-family dwelling a second-story addition over the existing first story (to remain), a covered porch and steps, one-story fascia addition beneath proposed second-story, 2x16' one-story addition, 5x10' second-story deck; construct a 13x28' wood deck and 5.5x8' steps in place of existing concrete patio and wood deck and steps to be removed; remove existing sanitary system and install relocated, upgraded sanitary system; and install a drainage system of drywells and public water service. Located: 2600 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. It is a fairly straightforward application. It proposes the second-story expansion of a one-story dwelling. That would be similar to several other two-story homes in this area. There is an expansion with a porch toward the road, which I don't think the Board would be particularly interested in, although it is within your jurisdiction. There is a deck proposed in the back that would sit in place of an existing concrete patio, and then as the application sits in front of you, there is a two4oot, one-story bump out that is in line with the existing bump out on the water side. Then there was a proposed second-story deck above that. Which I'll get back to in a second. In terms of the mitigation for the expansion, is typical types of things that the Board would like to see. First of all there is a existing ten-foot, non-turf buffer there, that was established by the Board as part of the bulkhead replacement and has been maintained. There is a sanitary system, as you see, very, very close to the existing bulkhead that would be moved as far to the road as is physically possible here. So that would be a substantial improvement to the site condition. Susan Cebulski had an opportunity to speak to some of the people around, and there was, seem to be a couple folks who had a concern not related to wetlands but related really esthetically to the second-story deck. Which is really the only expansion in the back that goes closer to the bulkhead and wetlands than is the existing house, and she has indicated that she would like to remove that proposed second-story deck from the application. I have a letter from a Joseph Gonzalez who is the adjoining neighbor to the west that just says, simply, to whom it may concern, I'm a neighbor of the Farnbach family, I have no objection to the home improvement at 2600 Ole Board of Trustees 52 August 19, 2009 Jule Lane. It would add value to the neighborhood. I'm 2700, the house next door. Joseph Gonzalez. There also was reported, I think indirectly to Mrs. Cebulski, some concern about the parking in terms of where her cars are parked in relation to the road. Now this would not really be something that would concern this Board. But if we can, and I don't know if we can because of the sanitary system, she might like to explore the possibility of having a little gravel parking space indented into the driveway somewhere, which I assume the Board would have virtually no interest or objection to. I would have to give you a he revised site plan as a condition anyway to eliminate the second-stow deck. So if we were able to do something like that with the parking space, we would simply add that to it. Otherwise I really don't have anything else to offer that is not apparent from the application TRUSTEE KING: The whole Board didn't go out there. I went out there with Jill because I felt it was a pretty simple application. I personally didn't have a problem with the second-stow deck. But if they want to take it out, that's their prerogative. MR. HERMAN: Susan is here. I don't know if you want to speak. But she apparently has agreed to do that and so we would honor that agreement to remove it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think either one of us had a problem with it. It was straightforward. Get the drywells in, moving the septic is very important. MR. HERMAN: It's one of the more substantial moves that you'll get. TRUSTEE KING: It came in as consistent with the LWRP. Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the condition the existing ten-foot non-turf buffer is maintained. Which it has been MR. HERMAN: And that is shown on the site plan as existing. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) Anybody from the audience want to comment on this application? MR. SHEPARD: My name is Dan Shepard, I live across the street from the Farnbach's. My only concern was the fact that when the septic system gets moved to the front yard, as this gentleman addressed, that the cars that are parked in the front yard on either side of the driveway might be forced out into the street. On the right-hand side of the driveway there is a car typically parked there pretty near the mailboxes also, and I thought that, you know, if they were, if they didn't want to park over the top of the new septic Board of Trustees 53 August 19, 2009 system that will be put in there, it might force that car further out toward the street also. I would just like to see some kind of accommodation made with the driveway, possibly widening it, so maybe cars could be parked two abreast. MR. HERMAN: I thank the gentleman for his comments because that clarifies what we have heard, I think, sort of third hand. If there is a car parked outside of the perimeter of the driveway, there is nothing to prevent the car from continuing to be parked there by the septic system. This is not going to be a mounded, retained system. The cesspools will be at and below grade. But again, if we can do something that would sort of formalize parking in one of those places -- TRUSTEE KING: Most of that area is outside of our jurisdiction. MR. HERMAN: I know, just as a courtesy to the concern. If we can do something, we will, but even if we can't, the location of the septic system there will not preclude the continued parking of a car in that location. With the Health Department it's typically a question of a formalized driveway because of having access to clean out the system. They don't want driveways paved over septic system because they can't get to it. But they wouldn't even have the authority to prevent you from parking a car and there is nothing about the physical design of the system that would prevent you -- TRUSTEE KING: It's not like it's a raised system with retaining walls. MR. HERMAN: No, that actually would change the parking situation. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, any other comments from anybody? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on new plans showing the removal of the second-stow deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES. ) MR. BURDEN: I just want to ask one question. Is the footprint of the new house, the second stow, exactly the footprint of the present house that is there now? MR. HERMAN: With the exception of the small changes shown on the site plan, yes. MR. BURDEN: With the two little bump outs -- MR. HERMAN: That's just a fascia on the front. That's Board of Trustees 54 August 19, 2009 not a true expansion. The only true footprint expansion is two feet in the back. MR. BURDEN: The one in the front is not a-- because it's an R-40 zoning correct, and that's 35 feet total on each side; 15 on one, ten on the other, and the house doesn't conform to that. TRUSTEE KING: That's a zoning issue, not for us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 11, Patricia Moore on behalf of HENRY KAMINER requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing deck, extend screened-in porch over deck, reconstruct screened porch and new stairs off deck, and replace the existing windows with sliding doors onto deck and access to top of porch/balcony. Located: 130 Midway Road, Southold. The whole Board looked at this. We didn't have a problem with this application, that I recall. It is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports this application. Ms. Moore is not able to be here right now. She said if we had any questions or problems, to table this. The only thing we noticed in the field is they did maintenance trimming on the bushes on the water. So I don't know if we wanted to add that to this permit, if we wanted to continue to allow it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, included in there is bacharus that was trimmed. So for maintenance trimming of phragmites. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, phragmites only. I have no problem with that. MS. STANDISH: He got a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, so we can address this issue through that permit then. Okay. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? (No response.) Does the Board have any other comment on this? (No response.) We also saw there was putting lawn debris in the marsh area. That need to be removed and we would like to see drywells placed. Any other comments? (No response.) Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Henry Kaminer with the condition that leaders and gutters go into drywells. Ad we'll address the maintenance, trimming maintenance with the other permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. Board of Trustees 55 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 12, 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. We have a support from the Conservation Advisory Council and a consistent review by the LWRP. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. This and the next application are very straightforward. They are simply to reapprove permits that have expired. It's kind of like public hearing number four tonight. So this is one the Board has looked at. There is no change in location of wetlands, size or location of the buildings, the structures and the setbacks. It's only that the permit has run off. Nor has there been a change in the law that I'm aware of. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did have, I think, Jim, I think there was one comment from the Board when we were looking at it that asked if there was a possibility if the house could can angled to move the deck out of the non-disturbance? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we discussed that and then we realized -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's on the edge, yes. MR. ANDERSON: We are trying to maintain a 35-foot setback. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, just reading my field notes. I don't think the Board had any other comment. (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit to construct a two-stow single-family dwelling, deck, sanitary system and driveway, and the Board agrees this is a consistent review from LWRP and I'm looking for a second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 56 August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH MANZl requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story single-family dwelling, inground swimming pool, deck, garage, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. The entire Board did go out and looked at this. It was deemed consistent under the LWRP providing that the buffers are maintained. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. This is similar to the last permit. This is a situation where there was a permit issued for this project on September 21, 2005, and in August, 22, 2007, there was a one-year extension given to this with the condition that a split rail fence or line of cedar trees 15-foot on center be placed along the edge of the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. We noticed when we were out in the field this had been done. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. It is, as you said, the exact application, we assume with the exact conditions that would be proposed, which are acceptable to the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And as I stated it looks like it's the exact same so we would want to see the same conditions that were originally placed into the permit as I just stated on the record into this, that the non-disturbance zone be maintained and that either a split rail fence or the line of cedar trees be maintained along there. There is a proposed four-foot path through there to gain access to the waterfront. Were there any other comments from the Board pertaining to this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the audience pertaining to this application? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Joseph Manzi as stated at 405 Cedar Point Drive West, with all the same conditions and stipulations that were listed in the September 21, 2005 permit as well as the August 22, 2007 one-year extension to the permit be maintained with this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 57 August 19, 2009 (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, all, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JAI~ES I~IANNING requests a Wetland Permit for the existing four-foot wide stairs to beach, total run 33' with three 4x4' landings and 1 lx15' deck, and a 5.3xl 5.1' boat shed. Located: 1370 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Manning. We know how the Board feels about decks on bluffs, but it's there and you never know if you don't ask. We would like to, at the very least, maintain the steps. And if the Board is so inclined, we'll remove the deck and just have a four-foot wide stairway to the beach. The boat shed has been there since 1970 and we do not propose to touch it in any way. We will not move it, not fix it, nothing. And I mention it only to be sure that you understood that we were aware that it was there and that you should be aware that it was built at a time when it was okay to build. TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's feeling on the deck? I personally thought, it's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was thinking, it's there. TRUSTEE KING: If it has to be replaced, if the deck ever has to be replaced, then we'll have to make it meet the code, but we don't want to see him tear that all up now. MR. FITZGERALD: As I said, if you don't ask, you don't know. Of course in the long run it would cause more damage taking it out than leaving it in. It's been there for a long time. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like it's been there for a while. It looks like it's been well maintained. Anybody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just what our notes say. We are fine with it. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. I believe it was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: CAC supports application with the condition the slope is maintained as a non-disturbance Board of Trustees 58 August 19, 2009 buffer. And it's obviously is maintained. I don't think that will change. Pool backwash is contained within a drywell. I didn't even look at the pool backwash. So I don't think we know if it's a problem or not. Do you know whether there is a backwash drywell for the backwash for the pool? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: I don't either. That was one of the recommendations from the CAC to have a drywell for the backwash. MR. FITZGERALD: I could find out. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. FITZGERALD: I'll find out and let you know. This is for the next one (handing.) TRUSTEE KING: So there are no other comments, 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 if the deck ever has to be replaced or rebuilt it will have to conform to the present code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 15, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of RYAN STORK requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling; construct a new two-story single-family dwelling approximately 32x70' overall, with a full basement and in a new location 75' from the bulkhead. Demolish an existing garage/guest house; construct new garage approximately 22x37' overall in new location landward of new dwelling. Abandon existing onsite sewage disposal system; construct new sewage disposal system in a new location more than 100' from the wetlands. Located: 3270 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was found consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of ten-foot, non-tuff buffer, hay bales and silt fence are installed prior to all construction activity and gutters and drywells are installed to contains roof run off. Jim and I went out and looked at this and we didn't, we also said non-tuff buffer and hay bales. The only question we had is the, on the survey line, the property lines didn't match. It looked like it was going over, like the house was into the neighbor's property. Board of Trustees 59 August 19, 2009 MR. FITZGERALD: Our house? The neighboring house is on our property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever way it is, but we noticed that the stakes that were at, that were on site, kind of follow this line right here, and we were just questioning. There was a stake here, a stake here, a stake here. MR. FITZGERALD: Those stakes were left from a number of different efforts to locate the house. I could assure you that the property line as they are shown here are accurate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, because this is just an architect drawing and not a survey. MR. FITZGERALD: Funny you should mention that. I happen to have a survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be nice. That's why we are questioning, because we don't have a survey. MR. FITZGERALD: (Handing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: We have been here before, with a previous owner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I remember. MR. FITZGERALD: You had approved it contingent upon moving the house back to a line between the two adjoining houses. It has been moved back now much farther back than that which was required. We had the ZBA approval for the house because of the side yard setbacks and we intend to pursue approval for the garage with them, again, for the side yard setbacks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the garage is out of our jurisdiction, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had an issue with the second buffer, did we? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE KING: You have the buffer between the two bulkheads. It's not necessary to go up on the lawn to have another bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's talking about the Conservation Advisory Committee comment to have another buffer and when you have two bulkheads and the buffer in between, as long as that's maintained as is, we don't have a problem putting a second buffer there this but it is steep in front and the hay bales are probably a good idea during construction. MR. FITZGERALD: And I'm not sure that drywells are shown. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was my next thing. MR. FITZGERALD: They are not. We will do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if you could show the drywells and hay bale line during construction. All right, any other comment? Board of Trustees 60 August 19, 2009 (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the permit of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Ryan Stork with the condition of receiving revised site plan showing drywells and hay bale line during construction at the, looks like the eight-foot contour line. Sorry, that's elevation. I don't know, if you just go straight across 25 feet. TRUSTEE KING: You have 75 feet from here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the elevation, where it steeps down. Because that elevation line goes up. TRUSTEE KING: 20 feet. If you put a row of hay bales 20 feet landward of the bulkhead, behind the second retaining wall. That gives you plenty of room. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: So the conditions are gutters, leaders to drywells as shown on the survey and hay bale line 20 feet up from the secondary bulkhead, landward of the secondary bulkhead. I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 16, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN SCOPAZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to an existing dwelling with an eight-foot extension of the seaward facing wall of existing dwelling, parallel to the bulkhead. Located: 6300 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of John Scopaz who is also here with his sister Mallory Scopaz. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good evening. I went out and inspected this. The Board didn't see this. You have a consistent review from the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Committee supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer from the patio to the bluff, and gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. I did go out midday on a really hot day. And I at first thought it was all landward, the work was all landward of the building, the existing building. But there is an eight-foot extension seaward? MR. SAMUELS: Not seaward, it's to the west side which is to the lower side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'm looking here trying to Board of Trustees 61 August 19, 2009 find it. I keep readin§ "patio." MR. SAMUELS: The patio is there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, so it's just to the -- that's what is confusing me. So you are just talking about this bump out. MR. SAMUELS: Correct. Nothing seaward. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought I was not finding the eight-foot bump out. And the only reason I'll ask the Conservation Advisory Council, is that lawn is so small. I don't know if, I don't really see the need for a ten-foot non-turf buffer. There is a very, very small lawn and the entire bluff is very, very well vegetated. MR. HARDY: I don't think either of us inspected it. MR. SAMUELS: We are making that lawn a little smaller, of course. And it's very heavily vegetated to the west and will remain so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying. I didn't know if they had a comment, if either one had seen it. But I didn't see a need for it. It's very small and the bluff is very well vegetated. So I didn't have a problem with this at all. Anyone else? (No response.) If not Ill -- I did want to say that does have DEC non-jurisdiction. MR. SAMUELS: Correct. Which we may not have submitted, but I actually have it here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I mentioned the drywells and gutters. MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 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 to construct the addition to an existing dwelling with an eight-foot extension -- Ill take out the "seaward," it's very confusing -- wall of existing dwelling. It says parallel to the bulkhead. It's not -- let me see if I could find a direction on here. That's what I was looking for before. (Perusing.) The eight-foot bump out is southwest of the building. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 17, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN FISCHETTI & DEBORAH DEAVER requests a Wetland Permit to retrim and shingle the Board of Trustees 62 August 19, 2009 existing dwelling, provide new front porch with roof; provide six-feet addition to existing deck; new roof deck; and construct an addition to the existing mud room. Located: 1675 Pine Neck Road, Southold. You've won the Lottery. You're the last one tonight. MR. SAMUELS: I'm so lucky. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was reviewed and found to be consistent under the LWRP. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. They resolve to suppod the application. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels of Samuels & Steelman on behalf of John Fischetti and Deborah Deaver and also Mr. Fischetti's father Vincent Fischetti, who is here tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't have any problems with the plan. We know you've stated in the application that you'll comply with 236 and have gutters, leaders leading to drywells. We did find what appears to be a drainage pipe down near the water's edge. It was a corrugated pipe that goes down and drains to the water's edge. Or we were guessing that's coming from that, what was that corner of the house there. MR. SAMUELS: Oh, look at that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So obviously we'll ask that be removed. MS. SAMUELS: I had never noticed that. Sorry. Obviously that will be removed and taken to a proper drywell. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And that was it on the field notes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did we talk about, somebody mentioned possibly bringing the lawn back there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we discussed it was enough. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe it was a discussion I remembered. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it was a discussion. We were just discussing that one side having a bigger buffer, along that side, because it's such a narrow buffer, and not mow so close to that edge. That's a recommendation. MR. SAMUELS: I understand that. It seems legitimate to suggest that. As long as they can access their dock, of course. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. MR. SAMUELS: It's all phragmites. I guess some bacharus there, too. You'll put that in our application or is that just a recommendation? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's kind of a recommendation because there is a buffer there, obviously, and it's just a suggestion to make that side wider because the right side is wider and nice. Board of Trustees 63 August 19, 2009 MR. SAMUELS: That sounds legitimate, of course. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody, are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Is that an abandoned house next door, that little shed? MR. FISCHETTI: It's a shed. It's an old boathouse that is abandoned. They have not done anything with it for years. MR. SAMUELS: Somebody owns it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looks like that and the boat, both. MR. FISCHETTI: What happened, an older woman in there died recently and her son has been cleaning up the property for a while. That's his old boat he stores there. He's slowly trying to clean it out. It would be nice if he got to it. There's nothing we could do. It's a lot better than it was before. We just purchased -- in fact that drainage line must have been there from the previous owners. It was not put in by us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill make a motion to approve the application of Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of John Fischetti and Deborah Deaver as described at 1675 Pine Neck Road with the condition that there are gutters, leaders and drywells and the drainage pipe that we had discussed is removed as part of the proposed project. And that's my motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good night, everyone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES. ) RECEIVED 23 2009 Southold Town Clerk