Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/17/2009 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, October 17, 2009 6:00 PM Present Were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert Ghosio, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, at 6:00 AM WORKSESSlON: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve minutes of August 19, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, my name is Jim King, I chair the Board of Trustees. At this time I would like to introduce the rest of the Board. To my far left is Trustee Dave Bergen; next to Dave is Peggy Dickerson; next to Peggy is Jill Doherty. Jill Doherty serves as the vice-chair; myself; to my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren runs the office for us, along with her sidekick Elizabeth Cantrell, and next to Lauren is Bob Ghosio, Trustee. Next to Bob, eventually will get here, I guess, is Lori Hulse. She is our legal advisor, assistant attorney for the town. Down below we have Wayne Galante keeping track of what everybody says. If you do have comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it in the record. We also have Jack McGreevy from the Conservation Advisory Council sitting over there. On a real sad note, one of the Conservation Advisory Council members, Board of Trustees 2 October 21, 2009 Jim Eckert, passed away suddenly, Saturday. I'm very sorry to hear that. He was a nice man. Our condolences go out to the family. MR. MCGREEVY: I'll pass it on. TRUSTEE KING: We'll set the date for the next field inspection, Wednesday, November 4, at eight o'clock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) The next meeting will be November 18 at 6:00 with the work session starting at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of August 19, 2009? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read the minutes and forwarded it on. There were just a few minor changes, so I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it. I read them. I just had two minor changes, a couple of typos. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I had one to forward to you. Actually, if you give me that, I'll just write it on Jim's. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor to approve the minutes? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for September, 2009. A check for $7,466.73 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure what we should do with the first one on the SEQRA. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can certainly ~- TRUSTEE KING: We can approve all of them with the exception of that until we find out what is going on. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, until Lori gets here. TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of these. 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, October Board of Trustees 3 October 21, 2009 21, 2009, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: The exception to that is we have, number one, New Cingular Wireless. We have yet to have a determination on this. But the rest are included. They read as follows: John & Emily Breese ~ SCTM#70-6-24 Thomas Puls III & Donna Ricco - SCTM~97-6-1.2 Sylvia Safer- SCTM#98-5-13 Xenius C. Georgiou - SCTM#40-2-18 Marlo Abbate & Josephine Padovan - SCTM#135-1-23, 24.1 & 25.1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, rescind resolution dated 9/23/09 granting OTTO FERCHAU an Administrative Permit to install a trench for drainage, and plant bushes and trees on embankment. Located: 345 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. The Board went out there again. There was some miscommunication with the owner as far as where he wanted to put the trench. And we do not agree with where he wants to, so we are rescinding this resolution. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, OTTO FERCHAU requests an Administrative Permit to plant bushes and trees on property and chip brush along embankment, with no fill or regrading of the property. Located: 345 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. This also is consistent with LWRP as it is not regrading or filling the property. So I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wish Lori was here. TRUSTEE KING: I wish Lori was here, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we have questions on this. She is definitely coming, right, Lauren? MS. STANDISH: Yes. Board of Trustees 4 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just skip over this and come back? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Postpone number three to later in this meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll do that. I'll make a motion to postpone number three, under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, KATHLEEN BOWER, until our legal advisor gets here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I think we can lump four, five, six and seven together, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: What we are trying to do is we are trying to move things along, if we can. If we have these that are very simple and there are no problems with them, we'll put them together and approve them in one shot. That's number four, five, six and seven, will ail be approved. They read as follows: Number four, DOUGLAS GEROWSKI requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing cesspool. Located: 5705 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. Number five, JAMES HINSCH requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing septic tank and cesspool Located: 7290 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. Number six, Arthur Leudesdorf on behalf of PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD, INC., requests an Adimistrative Permit to install a seasonal 4x35' walkway with railings from the path across to the beach. Located: 1500 Brecknock Road, Greenport. And number seven, Trimble's Nursery on behalf of BETH LESTRANGE requests an Administrative Permit to install a 20' non-turf buffer with perennials and shrubs along the creek. Located: 960 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. That's my motion. Db I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of JILL 8, CAROL RIDINI requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6789, as issued on December 12, 2007. Located: 805 West Road, Cutchogue. It's a one-year extension to permit #6789. Permit Board of Trustees 5 October 21, 2009 #6789 was dated December 12, 2007. That permit was to construct an extension to a wooden deck, 104' by three foot fixed dock with stairs, mooring piles, retaining wall, and planting beach grass, with the condition that open-grate material was used for the dock decking. So I'll make a motion to approve this one-year extension. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And recommend a roll call vote for this one. Trustee Dickerson? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee Doherty? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Trustee Bergen votes yes. Motion carries. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DOROTHY SANDE LLOYD requests a Transfer of Permit #6749 from Ruth Falbel Schwartz to Dorothy Sande Lloyd, and a One-Year Extension to Permit #6749, as issued on October 17, 2007. Located: 2350 Clearview Avenue, Southold. This is for a dock that has not been built yet. There is no change requested, so I'll make a motion to approve this application, this transfer and one-year extension. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE KING: Let the record indicate Trustee Dickerson voted nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, ELIZABETH & DAVID BRANCH request an amendment to permit #6924 to reduce the size and square footage of the deck and eliminate the screened porch, remove the existing concrete walkway and plant grass to meet with grass that is already present on front lawn area. Located: 5160 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. I went out and looked at this, originally in July. And it was approved by permit #6924 in our July hearing on July 23, and they have and back and they decided to reduce the size of the concrete path going out to the beach as well as remove a screened porch. So they are actually downsizing this project. So I'll make a motion to approve this amendment to permit #6924. Board of Trustees 6 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers four, five and six we all reviewed. They read as follows: VICTOR & MARY ZUPA request a One-Year Extension to Permit #6762, as issued on November 14, 2007. Located: 365 Basin Road, Southold. Number five, Jeffrey T. Butler P.E., on behalf of KEVlN FAGA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #-6931 and Costal Erosion Permit #6931C to construct the proposed addition on the east side of the dwelling 25.5 feet from the bulkhead; square-off the structure on the west side of the dwelling; and replace or repair the original foundation. Located: 12580 Main Road, East Marion. And number six, Ron Morizzo on behalf of MO AHMADZADEH requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6936 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6936C to construct a second pergola on the deck. Located: 925 North Sea Drive, Southold. I'll make a motion to approve four, five and six. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, Set the 2009/2010 scallop season. Resolved that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following bays to scallop harvesting pursuant to Chapter 219 of the Code of the Town of Southold. From Monday, November 2, 2009, from sunrise to sunset, through Wednesday, March 31, 2010, inclusive, in all town waters as per Town Code with the exception of shellfish and eel grass sanctuaries in Hallocks Bay. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number two, under Resolutions, amend Wetland Permit #6289 issued to SUSANNA DOYLE on February 15, 2006, to construct a 95 If. fixed wood pile and timber pier elevated to clear tidal wetlands; install a new 3x20' hinged ramp and an 8x20' float all at or waterward of the apparent high water line, for a total length of 125' as depicted on the plan prepared by Docko, Inc., dated October 3, 2005. Located: Board of Trustees 7 October 21, 2009 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. Whereas we incorporate the prior testimony, findings and decision on the application on the hearings reopened on December 13, 2006, and testimony was taken by Steven L. Ham, Esq., representing that his client has deeded rights over a portion of the Doyle waterfront and; whereas the (inaudible) of deeded rights exist, the Board of Trustees are without authority to render a determination concerning the parties' respective rights to the structure or access thereto. Therefore be it revolved the Board of Trustees amends Wetland Permit #6289 issued to Susanna Doyle to construct a 95' fixed wood pile and timber pier, elevated to clear tidal wetlands, install new 3x20' hinged ramp and 8x20' float, all at or waterward to the apparent high water line, for a total length of 125', as depicted on the plans prepared by Docko, dated October 3, 2005, subject to the rights, if any, of the neighboring easement holder. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of the ESTATE OF DONNA LEVlN requests an Emergency Permit to temporarily place precast concrete blocks at toe of bluff due to storm iinduced collapse of existing timber bulkhead. Measure is proposed as a temporary stop-gap until all regulatory approvals can be obtained to construct vinyl bulkhead in place of damaged structure. Located: 21695 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Basically that was a bluff that has been eroded in a catastrophic way last week when the nor'easter storm came. It just washed out a whole section of the man's bluff, took out the pilings, took out the bulkhead and everything. And before it got any worse, on Sunday, they asked us to come and approve putting precast concrete blocks there to hopefully save the bluff from further damage in the storm. So I would make a resolution approving the emergency permit as stated, with the condition that a full permit be applied for to fix the damage that has been done to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: We'll go back to number three under administrative permits and resolutions. KATHLEEN BOWER requests an Administrative Permit to pick up and remove 40 dead oak, hickory and maple trees. Test bore Board of Trustees 8 October 21, 2009 remaining large oak trees for insect infestation and trat as necessary. Scrape up and remove sedimentation. Located: 12710 Soundview Avenue, Southold. I just want to read a little of this. It was found inconsistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like some of it read out loud. Any of the highlighted areas. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, it's found inconsistent. The proposed description of the action is vague, as the exact number; condition, live or dead; location of the trees, standing or falling; and method of removal, manual or machine; are not identified on the survey. The number specified results in the clearing of the wetland and wetland buffer area. It's contrary to 6.3, the proposed action does not comply with Board of Trustee permit #5260 issued in 2000, or representations made to retain the ecological value of the sensitive process stated in the file history. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can you speak up? TRUSTEE KING: Is that better. Can you hear me now? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes. TRUSTEE KING: The wetland system exhibits fluctuating hydro periods, vegetation growth and die off. These processes contribute to the functions and values of the system; that is habitat, nutrient cycle, control of storm water runoff, et cetera. The proposed clearing of vegetation, while vague in description, is located within the wetlands system and upland buffer areas, therefore the action as proposed could result in significant impairment of the wetland system. Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources, e.g., food, shelter, living space or change in environmental conditions, temperature, substrate or salinity, beyond the tolerance range of species of fish and wildlife who rely on the habitat values found within the designated area. Indicators of the significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but are not limited to reduce care and capacity changes in community structure, food chain relationships, species, diversity, et cetera, reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease or mortality. It is recommended that the applicant clarify the exact number; condition, live or dead; location of the trees, standing or falling, and; method of removal, manual or machine; of the action. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Basically, what he's saying is we need more detail Board of Trustees 9 October 21, 2009 on this. It's written kind of vague. And I'm pretty familiar with this property. I was on the Board when this house was approved, and that was a non-disturbance area. That's it. It's a difficult application. MS. BOWER: Kathleen Bower, Southold. I think the best -- the trees I wanted to pick up are dead. Only dead. I don't want to take way anything that is live. That's the last thing I want to do. But I could see that I'm not going to get anywhere. And that's just perfect. A waste of time. When you guys came to inspect, you didn't even come all the way into the property. You stayed at the perimeter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ms. Bower, she walked in and I have been there the couple of times in past years. That's the reason I didn't walk in this time. I have been there and seen the property multiple times before. MS. BOWER: You have not seen the number of trees that have come down in recent years and the number of trees the Highway Department has already taken way from the periphery. It's an environmental disaster. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would just like to say one thing while there are other conversations going on. I think our freshwater wetlands are greatly misunderstood and I think part of the scientific description in the LWRP was explaining that some of that debris and those dead limbs are part of that natural process, and the reason that certain animals need that habitat -- MS. BOWER: Yes. But certain animals cannot, you know, utilize that ecosystem because the habitat has become overdone. I mean, you need a certain amount of standing dead trees. You need a certain amount of lying down dead trees. But we have a phenomenal, ridiculous amount of dead trees that is causing an insect infestation throughout the community. And I can't stress this anymore. I have, you know, a petition with 60 signatures on it. I have gone through the neighborhood. People are suffering. Everyone has lost trees. People are suffering with carpenter ants infesting the inside of their homes. This is not an esthetic thing that concerns me. I'm concerned with the actual health of the community and the health of that ecosystem. That's what we are really concerned about. TRUSTEE KING: I think what we need to have is every tree marked that she wants to remove and go out as a Board and with Mark Terry and review this whole thing with him. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not going to change how I feel about it. MS. BOWER: So you would like to see every tree come down? Board of Trustees 10 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MS. BOWER: What would you like to see? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what Jim just said, he would like to see marked those trees that you wish to take out, the dead, fallen trees you wish to take out of there and have removed. Have them marked. Then bring Mr. Terry down there to review it also. And I just need to correct, I did walk into that. It was before you arrived down there to join us, but I did walk areund and walked into that habitat also. MS. BOWER: Truthfully, do you think it's healthy in there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I walked in there as well. Yes, it's a healthy ecosystem. I agree with Peg on this one. It was a non-disturbance zone to begin with. It's a wetland that is on the DEC map. I'm familiar with the project from back at the beginning and I agree. MS. BOWER: I beg to differ there. It's not on a DEC map. It is not. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the paperwork I have. MS. BOWER: The DEC was out there. They agreed with me; there needs to be some opening up. Ducks cannot fly in there and land on that little pond, when it is a pond. It's impossible. We have lost animals. We have lost, you know, a repair squirrel species. We used to have black squirrels in there. They are gone. They moved away. I don't know where they are. Deer can't even get in there. We have a deer in our neighborhood that has a breken leg that sticks out backwards. I know he breke it in there one night. It's disastrous for the animals. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, can I ask a question? If it's deemed non-disturbance with the permit given for the house, does that not lead us to be able to disturb it? TRUSTEE KING: That's what makes it difficult. It was a non-disturbance area. MS. BOWER: But things change. Situations change. The weather patterns changed. We got a lot more water in there, in recent years, due to building upstream, you know, and things have changed. There is a lot more water coming in there than you could have anticipated or I could have anticipated. A lot. No one would have ever expected that many giant oak trees would have come down within, you know, months of one another, in recent times. We could not have anticipated. The permit as it stood, you know, didn't anticipate this disaster that has occurred. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the complication of this, I mean, I hate to put it off again, but I think maybe what we need to do is what Jim is saying. If you mark all the trees that you want to clear out of there, and we go down there again with Mark Terry and we discuss it Board of Trustees 11 October 21, 2009 with him and whoever, maybe even get, you know other people in the town. MS. BOWER: Who is in charge of the ecosystem? Is it Mark Terry, the town planner? He's the town planner, I don't know what he has do with this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's the LWRP coordinator and we have to review his recommendations. And we have to make a decision based on his recommendations. And we can't just ignore his recommendations. We have to review them. And he's got, you know, this is a non-disturbance area. And he's right. It is kind of vague. And I even said that in the field; what trees are you taking down, and you were pointing this way and that. MS. BOWER: I said I was not taking down any. They are all down. There was one in the corner that was dead and I said, okay, yes, I know you need the habitat for little guys. I would not take that one down. I would only take the ones down that are on the ground. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think maybe if you could mark what you want down and we meet out there again, and try to work through it. MS. BOWER: The only problem is once all the leaves are off the trees you can't really tell what's living and what's dead, because there are some lying down that are still alive. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we want you to mark them so we'll know when we are out there MS. BOWER: Okay, I'll try it again, I guess. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry. It's difficult, like Jim was saying, because it's a non-disturbance area. I understand what you are saying, things change. MS. BOWER: Everything is a non-disturbance area when it comes to waterfront, essentially, so all these on this list, they are not to be disturbed, except they are disturbing them, putting up extensions and whatever, TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The difference here is when you bought it, you knew that was going to be an area that could not be disturbed. MS. BOWER: But I never dreamed this many trees were going to come down. Never in my wildest dreams. I'm sure the Trustees at the time who gave the permit didn't think so either MS. MOORE: In defense, just to give you a little background -- MS. HULSE: Pat, this is not a public hearing. MS, MOORE: Just to give you a little bit of background. MS. HULSE: One second, Pat. It's not a public hearing. It's for the Trustees to decide if they want to keep having additional comment on this. They are being sort of gracious enough to have much comment from the Board of Trustees 12 October 21, 2009 applicant, but it's not a public hearing, so. MS. MOORE: I was just going to add some information. MS. HULSE: It's up to the Trustees to decide what they want to hear. TRUSTEE KING: Make it quick. MS. MOORE: Real quick. Just so you know, the circumstances, I think have changed, and there is a record in that there is development up on Soundview Avenue, all the homes and so on, all the water that runs down the read, after she bought the property, there became a great deal more water runoff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are aware of that history, of the storm water runoff. This is what is taking so long to go through this. MS. MOORE: That's fine. I just know I sent a letter to the town asking the town to deal with the water runoff. That filled up the kettle hole to the very top. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I'm thinking even getting Peter Harris at this inspection might help, too. MS. MOORE: Sorry, just trying to help. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what is taking so long, because it's so much more involved than just a couple of trees coming down. MS. BOWER: It's really more than an Administrative Permit. Should I have done something else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. It's the circumstances, you did the right paperwork. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a lot of variables. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a complicated situation. TRUSTEE KING: Let's get the trees marked. MS. BOWER: I'm getting old and grey. TRUSTEE KING: The trees you feel should be removed, please mark them, red ribbon or some color on it. MS. BOWER: Okay, will do. TRUSTEE KING: And we'll finish this up next month. That will be the end of it. And by the way, I know it's not a regulated New York State DEC Wetland, but it has been flagged on the survey, wetland area has been flagged by them. But it's not a regulated wetland. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I was referring to. TRUSTEE KING: It's not a DEC regulated wetland, no, it is not. But it has been flagged by them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I was referring to when I was speaking. MS. BOWER: Right. It is confusing. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to table this application to next month and go out and reinspect with Mark and see if we can get Pete Harris out there with us. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 13 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Now we can go off regular hearings and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we do that, John, I don't know if you are here for the Levin application, but we already did that and we approved it subject to the full permit being applied for. MR. HOCKER: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't see you here before. MR. HOCKER: I have a photo with me if you interested in having them in the file. TRUSTEE KING: We can throw them in the file. MR. HOCKER: (Handing). TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Motion to go off our regular hearings and go into our public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: Anybody that has a comment to make, please keep it brief, five minutes minutes or less, if we could possibly do that. COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, under Coastal Erosion & Wetland Permits. MARLO ABBATE & PADOVAN request a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the sand excavated from the bluff and to restore the bank along the edge to the original configuration/breadth. Located: 22615 Soundview Avenue, Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because of insufficient information and detailed restoration plans should be submitted. While this was submitted for review under the LWRP on September 30, we have not received an LWRP review yet. So we cannot move on this application tonight. But certainly we can take comments related to this application tonight. Is there anybody here on behalf of this application? (No response.) I know when the Board went out and looked at this, we had concerns about the drainage coming down the driveway. As you can see, in the left-hand, bottom left-hand corner of that picture, there is a drainage grating there, but that does not handle all the runoff and what has happened is this runoff has come down the Board o f Trustees 14 October 21, 2009 driveway, it channels to the west of the driveway and it has taken out some natural vegetation going down to the beach and drains right down to the beach. So what we are suggesting to the applicant is -- if we go back to the first picture we were at. Thank you -- on the right-hand corner there, in the grassy area just adjacent to that concrete, that a drywell be put in there to help capture that runoff as it comes down the driveway, before it actually heads to that concrete pad and channels down to the beach. We also want the re-planted area restored. And then there was an issue with drainage coming off the second floor of the house where it was draining straight down, without any drywells, down into the wetlands. And we want the applicant to address that. Those are the concerns in the notes. Were there any other concerns that any other Board members had that they want liked to put on the record tonight? TRUSTEE KING: That one section has been filled over the top, the beach grass has to be removed and restored. On the west side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, those are the drains coming down. What Peggy was showing is the drains coming down coming down from the second floor. We wanted to have that done. What Jim was addressing, we are looking at a picture now, looking landward toward the shed where the applicant put a lot of fill, and we are going to ask for that fill to be removed, placed back where it was originally taken from and that that be revegetated. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have another shot of it toward the beach, Peg? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, I didn't. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was extensive fill come in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the file we do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have old pictures. Not this last one. We have been there so many times. I know what Jim is talking about. They are in the files; the corner where all the dirt was removed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to table this application until we can receive an LWRP evaluation and hopefully we'll receive that this month so we can act on it next month at the November hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number one, Costello Marine on behalf of MICHAEL KENNA requests a Wetland Permit to Board of Trustees 15 October 21, 2009 construct a 3x60' fixe dcatwalk with a 32x14' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 2-pile dolphins six inches in diameter. Located: 3200 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of Mr. Kenna. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have Conservation Advisory Council review that supports the application with a condition the overall length of the proposed dock is shortened in order to maintain the pier line. Conservation Advisory Council observed runoff from the dwelling being directed into the creek and therefore recommended drywells and gutters installed to contain roof runoff, which is two of the comments that we also have as a Board. This has been deemed inconsistent, and one of our concerns, also, that you can see from the next slide here, is, again, the pier line. So we have an inconsistent report here also from LWRP. The comments are: The installation and use of proposed structure may promote power boat traffic and the possible following negative impacts may occur: Degradation of water quality, impact to submerged aquatic vegetation and rs-suspension of bottom sediments and turbidity. To follow the above policy and reduce turbidity in the event the proposed action is approved, the following best management practices are recommended: The encirclement of the entire project area during construction with a silt boom or floating turbidity screen to control the dispersal of suspended solids in the water column. The review further goes on to say: Activities during dock construction can destroy vegetation either above or below the tide line by pulling them from the substrate or destroying their root system. The peat beds underlying salt marshes can also be compacted through the improper use of heavy equipment. Vegetated wetlands have been identified in the area however the proposed construction practices of the dock have not been identified. It is recommended that the applicant identify the proposed construction practices. It also comments that aerial photos indicate that the proposed extension would project seaward of the existing dock line and therefore would not conform to the below-cited sections. I'm just trying to get through all the comments here to see if there is anymore (Perusing.) The structure proposed to project into the waterway and will impede and/or hinder the use of the public seaward of the mean high water. The proposed action has been identified for private use and therefore does not meet Board of Trustees 16 October 21, 2009 the above policy. It is recommend the proposed action be amended to further the above-listed policies to the extent practicable. Overall, we would like it shortened. MR. COSTELLO: Okay, the DEC wants it longer. I have a letter from the DEC that they want it 20 feet longer than applied for. So I actually have new plans drawn up for them based on what they wanted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that due to water depths? MR. MCGREEVY: Yes, they want 2.5 feet at the end of the float. They don't seem so concerned with the pier line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's the challenge that applicants face between the DEC and this Board. You know, when we went out and looked at it, as staked, it far exceeds the pier line. We were also concerned that that is a channel along that shoreline, that runs along that shoreline, that goes around to a community dock. MR. MCGREEVY: It doesn't reach the channel, though. That's one of the issues, because of the water depth, but it doesn't actually reach the channel. That was the DEC suggestion, lengthen it 20 feet, amongst other things. They have the new 60% see-through decking they want me to use. They denied through-flow on the application. There were six little points they made, but I think the sticking point for you guys is going to be the length. So then I'm going to be at the point of going to a stationary dock, right, I mean, because I'm not going to get the DEC to approve the float any less than, you know, a 20 foot, an additional 20 feet. So I mean, really, which direction do you want me to go with this. Because I won't get a float unless I go the extra 20 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Does this problem sound familiar? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Well, this Board has consistently tried to maintain pier lines, because it just stops that; one guy bumps it out, then the next door neighbor says well he went out so now I can go out and get more depth of water, and you have this leap frog effect, everybody keeps bumping out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it in line with that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Dave was on the dock. He walked on that dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. In that picture I'm down on that dock that has the Sunfish on one side and the power boat on the other side. I was standing at the end of the dock, by line of sight, and the stake was out much farther. MR. COSTELLO: Than just the two piers next to it, not the whole entire basin. Because if you go further, I mean, WHICH docks are you concerned with, just the two neighboring docks or are you considering the whole Board of Trustees 17 October 21, 2009 shoreline? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The closest docks is what we are concerned about, not all the way along the whole length of the creek shoreline, no. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Didn't we talk about taking that section off? (Perusing.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He was saying DEC wants it longer. TRUSTEE KING: They want depth of water. MR. COSTELLO: The drawing you have now, the DEC wants 20 more feet of catwalk. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The drawing I'm looking at, which is stamped dated August 26, 2009, received in our office, is a July 30, 2009 drawing, shows the depth at the float at two-and-a-half feet right now. As proposed in this drawing. MR. COSTELLO: Right. The DEC says to achieve that I need another 20 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To achieve that. But you are saying it's at the end. TRUSTEE KING: So what we saw staked out was the 92 feet overall length? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The assumption I made, the outermost most stake, that was at the outermost end of the float. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was at 92 feet. And they want another 20 on top of that. MR. COSTELLO: DEC wanted another 20. TRUSTEE KING: We thought this was too long as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. COSTELLO: You have the one with the 3X60' fixed catwalk, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. So the option is to go to a fixed dock that could be pulled back slightly. MR. COSTELLO: Do you know the measurement of the pier line you are trying to achieve? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I couldn't tell you offshore what that pier line is. I didn't walk out into the water with a measuring tape. MR. COSTELLO: You would not have made it very far. So what do you suggest now?. TRUSTEE KING: It's interesting to know what the water depths are of that dock right there. MR. COSTELLO: Not much. TRUSTEE KING: Because that dock is not that old. I think that was one of the first open-grate docks that we did. Now, if that was DEC approved, how did that happen? MR. COSTELLO: Well, inconsistency, depends who comes out here and does it. TRUSTEE KING: That's my point. I have seen docks in Board of Trustees 18 October 21, 2009 other places where they have approved it yet the next door neighbor wants a dock in the same depth of water, and they say no, no, you have to go out further. So I would like to see the depth of water. We probably have it in the file. Because I remember approving that dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what i'm saying. And see if they approved it at that depth. TRUSTEE KING: I imagine they did. Or they would not have built it unless they built it without a DEC permit. And I doubt that. MR. COSTELLO: And the analyst I had would not approve flow-through decking. That's 45% light through. They want 60%. You know. So now, and I think -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You called on the wrong day. MR. COSTELLO: it's not just the DEC and the Board doing this, it's just this particular analyst who came up with that. So I don't know what to tell you. TRUSTEE KING: It's not getting any easier. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So is it the feeling of the Board and also the applicant that we should further investigate the neighboring dock depth? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need a survey with water depths on it of this property because it could very well be, the contours of the property line do change from the adjacent property to this property. So the bottom depths easily could change, so -- MR. COSTELLO: They only have 75 feet of waterfront on this piece of property. It's not a lot. The DEC actually wants me to move the dock further to the north, if you remember there was a little path where people were getting access to the water. They want me to extend the dock in that path. So I'm moving it over. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's silly. It's already there. MR. COSTELLO: I moved it down further to the middle of the property to maintain setback. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why move a structure and disturb another area WHEN it's already there? MR. COSTELLO: There is no structure there. There is a walkway down through the mud. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: it's just this little opening. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, all right. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, if we were concerned at the present length we looked at and DEC wants another 20, that's out of the question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only option that I could see the Trustees looking at here -- because the DEC is the DEC. They are their own agency. They'll make their own determination -- because of this pier line issue, is to pull it back and have a fixed dock. TRUSTEE KING: Without a float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Without a float. And again, we need Board of Trustees 19 October 21, 2009 that survey that has water depth, because I'm looking at the cross-section here and it looks, again, without, there are no numbers here so it's hard to imagine, but it could very well be the 2.5 depth that's there on the floating dock is also back there where the proposed seasonal ramp is. And if so, we would pull back so it's within the pier line, you could still have two-and-a-half feet of water there. And that would meet the Trustees' guidelines. MR. COSTELLO: But we don't have exact number on the overall length as of right now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. MCGREEVY: Originally, what were you going to suggest? We have 3x60 feet coming in here. What were you going to suggest? How far back do you want it pulled? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a portion, we didn't measure that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no way of measuring it without going out into the water, measuring the pier line without going into the water. So if the applicant wishes to put a stake at the end of that pier line and a Trustee would try to meet them out in the field to assist with that project, so we all agree where the stake is, then take a measurement from there. MR. COSTELLO: Okay, easy enough. I can go and put a string up to get the pier line. It's not an issue. But am I going to have to call Bob Fox and get a hydrographic on this property? Because it seems there is a conflict between my measurements and the DEC, I mean, you know. I don't know what -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the Board's feeling? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see some accurate depths. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think it's important because of all the comments and concerns. TRUSTEE KING: Again, even on the water depth is a lot of variables here. MR. COSTELLO: Okay, so we'll establish a pier line and establish where the float will be and hopefully you'll be happy with that. TRUSTEE KING: We can get an aerial of the whole area and check out the pier line that way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's true. It would be less, it would make more sense. TRUSTEE KING: And we can have a visual picture of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We still want it staked, to go out there and look at it. TRUSTEE KING: Definitely. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So table this, get it staked and again go out and see it in November. And accurate water depths. Okay? Board of Trustees 20 October 21, 2009 MR. MCGREEVY: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table this application for Michael Kenna. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we act on that motion, the applicant did hear the other concerns that came under the LWRP, so if you could address that next month also, that would be great. It would help us out also. MR. COSTELLO: Very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number Two, Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS PULS III & DONNA RlCCO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing swimming pool located on the west side of the dwelling, conforming to BP~22397 dated 10/19/94; replace the coping around the pool; replace the sandstone around the pool with bluestone, existing wood retaining walls removed and retaining walls pushed landward, flush with pool, and replaced with new cement retaining walls for the reconstructed deck and new steps; replace wood decking with combination of Ipe wood, stone and grass; existing 12.3'x8.2' shed, replace existing wood gate with retaining wall and gate; expand existing driveway entrance to 15' in width; connect existing gutters and leaders to drywells; and maintain a line of staked hay bales throughout construction. Located: 1350 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue. This was an application that was approved by the Board and has been changed, for whatever reason, and they never came back to us. Now they are coming back to us. It is consistent with LVVRP. However the couple of comments are: It says the area of stock piling of soils and other materials as depicted on sheet L-13 of the plans are located in such an area that will impact the natural area wetlands. Further, red cedar trees are also located within the area. It's recommended the the area be relocated MS. MOORE: Sorry, what? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Stock piles of soils and other materials. So they want that stock pile to be moved to a different area. It's in the wetland, in other words, I think is what he's saying. MS. MOORE: I think it's showing on the plans. I'm not sure it's actually there, though. I don't remember seeing it, but we'll make sure it's not there. TRUSTEE KING: What was the sheet number? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: L-13 MS. MOORE: For the full plans, okay. Board of Trustees 21 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he also wanted a bigger buffer in front of the -- recommended, just a bigger buffer area. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because of lack of information concerning the drainage for the site and there should be a ten-foot, non-turf buffer in front of the dock. We have a couple of comments. On the original application we had a buffer area on the west side of the pool. MS. MOORE: Oh, the '94 permit, you are talking about? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, whatever, I don't have it in front of me. But I know we had that as a buffer area and it's kind of right on the line, of the property line. But we would like to see that. MS. MOORE: Here is, I think, the confusion. Back in 1994, Briarcliff Landscaping got a permit to put the pool on the east side of the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MS. MOORE: And the buffer was part of the east side. So what happened is the DEC said we don't want you putting the pool on the east side. Relocate it to the west side. So they, Briarcliff, again, this is all, my client didn't have any idea about this, but anyway, relocate it to the west side, which is where the pool ultimately got built, and got a CO and everything. So when you are talking about the buffer, there was no construction on the east side because it all got relocated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm talking about the buffer on the west side. MS. MOORE: West side buffer, help me out. Where? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: West side of the pool, along the property line. MS. MOORE: Are you talking about where the existing -- because there is an existing patio. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That area there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That area here. This is the west side of the pool MS. MOORE: Well, there is patio there that was there. We just resurfaced. It was sandstone base. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, are you talking this was here before? This was here? MS. MOORE: Everything was there. Everything. This application is cleaning up the 1994 permit that apparently got, that the pool and all the structures were relocated to the west side. And most likely, the Building Department didn't, felt that it was, it could have been outside your jurisdiction at that time. And 75 feet was your jurisdictional limit, and it looked like it was far away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what was, where the pool is now, in this picture, what was there? You are saying a patio Board of Trustees 22 October 21, 2009 was there? MS. MOORE: Everything was there previously. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pool was there? MS. MOORE: The pool was there, the patio was there. Everything was there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was in this location before the pool? MS. MOORE: The pool. It's always been the pool. Since 1994. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe I can shed a little light on this. Because I went out to this property when this originally was an administrative, I believe, when an Administrative Permit was applied for just for a garage. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And at that time a pool was present where this pool is presently located. The challenge that the Trustees face was that the permit the Trustees gave back in 1994, showed the pool on the other side, the east side of the property. So the applicant, excuse me, the owner at that time, placed the pool on the west side of the property. We now have a concern, and what I heard the Conservation Advisory Council's concern, is drainage from that deck area -- well, there are several drainage concerns -- but drainage from the deck area between the western edge of the pool and the adjoining property line. That the drainage, if that deck was allowed to be put back in, the concern was that water will be draining from that area over on to the adjoining property owner's property, which is not allowed under 236. So we wanted to see if that deck area could be made into a pervious area to address the drainage issue. And then we had other drainage issues on the property, in addition to that MS. MOORE: Okay. We don't -- that's kind of your decision. Do you understand what they are saying? MR. PULS: No. MS. MOORE: Let me just show it to him so we know what we are talking about. (Colloquy with client.) I'm trying to remember the design. In that area where the patio is, on the west side of the pool, there actually, there is pervious materials that are being applied. The replacement of surfaces and materials has actually made this project more environmentally appropriate and pervious. And one of the things that the material choices on the west side, I think at one point was going to be wood. But, well, the problem is wood is pervious but the Building Department says wood would require a variance. Which is ridiculous for us to go to a variance for a small area of wood. So maybe it could be some kind of pervious stone instead of the Board of Trustees 23 October 21, 2009 cement. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually, Pat, the material in the driveway -- MS. MOORE: Yes, the rocks. The drivable grass. MR. PULS: That's the product name, drivable grass. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Talking about what would be pervious, that's certainly -- something like that. MS. MOORE: Something, perhaps not as industrial. Is there something that would work with your architect that would be more pervious? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just come up to the microphone and introduce yourself. MR. PULS: My name is Tom Puls. My wife and I own this property. We have owned it for the last 15, 16 years. So we originally had sandstone, which was a foolish choice for this climate, around the pool. It split, it got laminated and it got discolored. So we need to put a coping around the pool because drivable grass has a flexibility and you have to, it's sort of anchors in, the grass anchors and it grows through. So it actually takes maybe a year to establish itself. MS. MOORE: But you still need the coping around the pool, so you would not be able to convert that area. We stopped, at the time you asked him to stop, we stopped everything. So the coping stopped. But there is additional patio area beyond the coping, which I think is the area we might be able to treat. MR. PULS: Yes, I mean, I could look at cutting that back somewhat, because there is already a planting. There is a dirt planter or planting area that you can't really see. MS. MOORE: It looks to be about five feet, would have been five feet between the patio and the property line. What you see, the vegetation you see there, I believe is their vegetation. MR. PULS: Yes, that's our vegetation, so. And as far as the pool getting to the side, I mean at the time this was a Briarcliff project for us and -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I misunderstood. I thought the pool was new. I didn't realize it's just being redone. MS. MOORE: No, that's okay. I'm cleaning up the record because somehow the flip from the DEC never got back to you as a flip. MR. PULS: This is all news to us. MS. MOORE: He had a CO, so it's a little surprising when you have a CO for structures and there is a document problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This became a challenge because, again, in the original permit application, actually, it was an amendment or administrative, was just for the garage. MS. MOORE: Exactly. Board of Trustees 24 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And when we went out there we saw all this additional work was underway, and that's why everything changed. Because it was a lot of work, this project, the work for this project increased over what was originally asked for. So now we are looking at it as a new, completely new project. MS. MOORE: Just to clarify that understanding, he submitted a building permit to the Building Department for all the work that is here. And because it was a resurlacing of materials, and they saw the Trustees permit and they actually cut back, what used to be a wall closer to the shoreline, was removed and cut back. That wall there is several feet landward. MR. PULS: About five feet. MS. MOORE: About five feet landward of where the original wall was. The Building Department probably assumed that it would not be a problem because it was all existing structures. It was, again, re-sur[acing and improving on existing structures. I understand your comment, and had they asked me, I would have said hey, let's be conservative, bring it in here and show it to you. It was not an intent to avoid anything. It was really a lack of understanding at the time MR. PULS: The original, the resurfacing this area, was not completed as a plan. The builder that we worked with was awarded the garage and he applied for your permit as well as the DEC, and as well as the building permit. So we had our three permits. It was everybody's, you know, mistake, that when we said to the same builder, we didn't realize he did exterior hardscape, that he could have that portion of the job as well. He should have then gone back and gotten this permit. I don't know what was going through his mind. He is so happy he had his permits, but there was one more he missed. That's how we ended up at this juncture. MS. MOORE: What we could, do as an alternative, because we do have five feet of buffer between the patio area, is you could put a drain, some kind of drainage for that patio, if you tip it and provide -- MR. PULS: We can have it go into a drywell. MS. MOORE: That would be the easier solution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, as long as it conform to Chapter 236, whatever the drainage code is. MR. PULS: Drywells are pertectly fine. MS. MOORE: In fact one of the things we saw is some of the gutters and drywells, I'm sure you'll ask us to do, when we were looking, we thought they were connected to drywells, and we don't know where they are. MR. PULS: The house gutters, when it was built or renovated by us 15 years ago, they just had gutters and I don't know that there was a code at that time. Board of Trustees 25 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was not. MR. PULS: We didn't want to do anything because we were told stop work until this meeting. So drywells will be going in, in all those places. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just need it shown on the plans. TRUSTEE KING: And a buffer area for that, too, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll get that. MS. MOORE: I'll have the contractor identify where the logical place will be for the drywells. Because there is holes in the concrete for drainage. So I'm assuming you want me to put it on the -- realistically they would go on the seaward side of the concrete wall, if that's okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever the engineer feels would work. We are not going to tell you where to put the drywells. MS. MOORE: Right, but it will be closer to the wetland, the drains will be there, otherwise I don't know how to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know where they have drywells. Are there existing drywells on the property now? MR. PULS: Yes. There is one in the area in front of the garage. There is another, one that was original, just off to the left of that, in the area between the read and the garage area. And then we would be putting them where the drain from the roof comes down. MS. MOORE: We'll show them to you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the engineer might say you can connect this and pitch it toward the other drywell. You may not need to -- MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. We'll do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the survey it says "proposed floating pool deck." What does that mean, in that area? MS. MOORE: That's what they called the deck. The architect. It's a high tech -- because it was going to be wood, he called it that. It was not going to be at the same level. It was because it was a little elevated freom the coping. And we just really didn't think it merited going to the Zoning Board for that small portion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you need to take that area off. MS. MOORE: We'll change that to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we want to see those hay bales maintained during construction as well. Seaward of the hay bale line, we were wondering if we could maybe make that buffer a little bit wider. We don't say how. We just said buffer -- MS. MOORE: We have a pretty extensive buffer already. It's beautifully landscaped, so. TRUSTEE KING: This says edge of lawn and natural here. Board of Trustees 26 October 21, 2009 But that to me doesn't look like a natural area. That looks more like lawn. On the survey -- MR. PULS: That was always there. TRUSTEE KING: On the survey it shows this is a natural area. MS. MOORE: That's what the surveyor identified that as. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are saying it should be more native natural plantings. MS. MOORE: Before construction it may have been lawn and that was more rough. TRUSTEE KING: It shows natural area 20, 25 feet landward of the wetland line. So that area there is considered a natural area, according to the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That looks like the natural area is being mowed. TRUSTEE KING: It's not to be mowed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can have a four-foot wide path to the dock, but if you can leave the rest of that natural MS. MOORE: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like 25 feet as it's on the survey. MS. MOORE: I don't have the right survey. MR, PULS: Doesn't this actually reflect existing conditions? MS. MOORE: No, I have an existing-conditions survey in front of me. They have the proposed. Sorry MR. PULS: Okay. I don't like the grass anyway. That's how it was actually -- that's how it's always been sort of there and that's how -- MS. MOORE: I think you have a better survey than I have because mine is not very good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to come look see what we are talking about. MS. MOORE: Oh, good. He already drew it in for us. This, (Perusing). Just leave this area open, then this, ten-foot non-disturbance. MR. PULS: If that's all right with them. MS. MOORE: I'll show the Board. Courtesy of the Conservation Advisory Council, and lots of scribble, but. I couldn't read the top. TRUSTEE KING: This is already shown on the survey I'm talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You see this area shown, the natural area, is not what is there. That's what we are saying. This natural area - MS. MOORE: You want this to be natural area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Just the way it's depicted on here. The way the natural area is here, it's all natural. Up here it is, as you go further up that way but -- TRUSTEE KING: I think it would clarify if we just said no mowing. That's a lot. MS. MOORE: Okay, we can make that simple. MR. PULS: I know exactly what they are doing. Because Board of Trustees 27 October 2 I, 2009 we have been trying to move it in, it takes a couple of years or so for it to move in, and then keep telling the yard service to stake it and move it in. So that's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) So we definitely want drywells connected to -- the whole house into drywells; the west side of the pool area to be put into drywells; a new, an updated survey showing the hay bale line during construction and I guess the proposed floating pool deck off. And showing the pervious, show that area of how you are going to make it pervious. And how you'll connect it to drywells, to drainage. Just show on that area how to do that. MS. MOORE: Show drained. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the hay bale line and extend that natural ama closer to the dock. MS. MOORE: Actually, they did put in hay bales them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We want them showing on the survey, and to be maintained during construction. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are trying to get what is them in the survey. MR. PULS: What you am seeing them is a little stepped on because -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's fine. We just need this on the survey. MS. MOORE: They just need one survey that cleans this all up so when they stamp it approved we'll all know what is approved MR. MCGREEVY: Will the new survey indicate where these drywells are going? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. MCGREEVY: Because I don't have anything on hem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have it here. We want it shown on the survey showing where the drainage will be, the no-mow area. MR. MCGREEVY: You are addressing the overflow from the pool into a drywall? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. That's what we am talking about, the west side of the pool, yes. You have to show the drywells for the pool area as well. MS. MOORE: 1'11 put for impervious and pool, okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that was it. MR. MCGREEVY: There is a comment from the Conservation Advisory Council. Not in reference to the environment or anything but on the west side, southwest side of the present building, right alongside the patio, just take a look, is sliding glass doors right here, there is a vent coming out from, I would say the foundation of the Board of Trustees 28 October 21, 2009 property. Now any water, any storm water runoff off this patio area will go right into your home. It's an open vent. MR. PULS: Yes, I'm aware of that. There was a cap that goes over that and it has some kind of baffle on it so, I'm aware ever it. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Thomas Puls and Donna Ricco as applied for with the condition of a new survey showing the drywells for the house, the pool and the west side of the pool; hay bales during construction and the no-mow area to be extended through that dock area and shown on the survey. MS. MOORE: Through the dock area, but you are allowed a path, aren't you? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, a four-foot path, yes. And it is consistent with LWRP. And I'll make that motion TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. MR. PULS: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOHN & EMILY BREESE requests a Wetland Permit to relocate the existing 8x24' floating dock and piles, maintain a 2.5' deep water depth; and replace existing ramp with a 30x28' ramp. Located: 3689 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This is a reconfiguration, I believe. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at the field notes. This was not consistent with the original permit, if I remember right. What is there is not consistent with the permit. MS. MOORE: Right. Apparently back when the permit was first issued, which it looks like there had been a dock there, because it had on the drawing "existing." They got approval for the bulkhead and some, the dock work, but on that permit they showed, actually, what we are asking for, which is having the float go perpendicular to the shoreline. When my client bought the property, it was like this. And when we actually had the permit transferred, nobody noticed it, including us, that the old permit had it going the opposite direction. So. Board of Trustees 29 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: When was it transferred, Pat? MS. MOORE: We did it not that long ago. My letter was back in October, end of October, so. TRUSTEE KING: Last year? MS. MOORE: Last year, yes. Not that long ago. A year ago, but yes. TRUSTEE KING: We have seen more of this in recent years, where what was permitted and what was built is two different things. Now what we have been doing lately is go out before there is a transfer to check and make sure what is there. MS. MOORE: Which is why I was surprised it wasn't caught in '08, because that's usually when you catch things. I mean it's the same float. All the structure was correct as far as sizing and everything else. It's just that the placement of the float had been flipped, so. I don't know why. My client has been using it for many years, ten years, like this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we did transfer it but requested that you come in and amend it. I recall that. Because it was an older couple that lived there. You have been there ten years. There is one on that block that we went to that was selling and we had to transfer. MS. MOORE: No, it wasn't this one. I'm sure you wouldn't call him old. MR, BREESE: That's the next door neighbor. TRUSTEE KING: This is found inconsistent with the LWRP. The proposed dock doesn't conform to Chapter 275 regulations. More specifically, if any part of a residential dock structure includes a float or floating dock, the float or floating dock portion shall be designed so that with the exception of the pilings it is no larger than than six-feet wide by 20-feet long. Except on Fishers Island. So the question here is the 8x24 float. MS. MOORE: Although it's an existing with a permit. That was a permitted structure, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we say when it needs to be replaced. TRUSTEE KING: It was 24x8' float that was approved. So we have not taken these away from people. If they were already approved, even though it exceeds the code today, I can't, particularly I'm thinking of Howard's Branch in Mattituck Creek, there is a lot of 40-foot floats. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Except it can't be replaced as 8x24. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we could bring it into consistency saying when it needs to be replaced that it conforms to the current code. MS. MOORE: I don't think that's what the code says, though. Board of Trustees 30 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can't say that, I'm trying to figure out how we can make it consistent. TRUSTEE KING: We were talking about removing the two offshore dolphins. That would shorten the amount of bottom the structure takes up. MS. MOORE: Here is our problem with that. One, there are oyster beds that my client does the oyster, what is it called -- spats. And he uses those for the oysters, and it's been very, very good. Those piles, he thinks, you can see this for yourself, but he thinks they are about 30-years old. Those very old piles and they are very useful when we have storms. Because of the - by Laotis' house (sic), that peninsula is deteriorated. Now the storms come in and it's very helpful to have those extra piles. So he would really like to keep them, so. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend that this is turned around and if it's extended out like that, that the two dolphins be removed. That's my feeling. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: Because the float will go straight out and it's almost out as far as those two poles. And the oysters could be hung off that float, I suppose. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Couldn't we, again -- TRUSTEE KING: That might help bring it into consistency by taking up less of the public bottom. MS. MOORE: But how much square footage public bottom are you talking about? That's a ridiculous, as far as square footage goes. TRUSTEE KING: You are probably looking 60 to 70 feet, between those two piles. That's public bottom that is being monopolized. Especially if you tie a boat between them. If you stop and think about it. It's not the pile itself I'm thinking about. I'm thinking of the area that restricts. From the public use. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about saying they can't be replaced? Once they deteriorate, or maybe removing one set and leaving one set. Because if you remove one set then he can have just the one set he can hang the oysters on and use as a storm boom. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind they should be taken away because this is a complete reconfiguration. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just saying they have been there for 30 years. The town can't take something away that has been there already 30 years. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. But he's already getting his enlarged float that is inconsistent, which he's keeping. MS. MOORE: That's not true. It's a permitted float. I think that's the problem, the LWRP doesn't recognize permitted structures, so. MS. MOORE: Are you replacing the ramp? Board of Trustees 31 October 21, 2009 MR. BREESE: Just for the water depth, we have to go out. MS. MOORE: Can the ramp be replaced with something -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you step up to the microphone. MS. MOORE: What kind of ramp are you using, as far as making things more consistent, to make the LWRP happy? MR. BREESE: Well, again, as we saw in the previous one, the water depth forces us to go out a little bit. The inside of that float at a Iow tide is sitting on the creek bed, so it is a good thing to move it out. As far as the seaward end of the float, once it turns around, is basically in line with those two, those dolphins that are there. So those dolphins at that point are not really obstructing anything in the creek because the end of the float is out there as well. So basically those floats, I mean those piers being there, just provide an opportunity to hold a boat off in a storm or in excessive high tides, things like that. And it seems removing them might cause more disturbance than leaving them there. TRUSTEE KING: I can't scale this because it's a short conversion. MS. MOORE: Bob Fox actually drew them in, so you can see where they are. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to scale off the old drawing, what was there before. MS. MOORE: It's too hard. It's a different scale, I think. TRUSTEE KING: I'm seeing if I could find a scale that fits. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are proposing a piling at the end. So you'll have three in a few here. And it's in line with them. TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council recommends supporting it with the condition existing pier line is maintained. Here is your two dolphins. Here is your pier line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the two dolphins. TRUSTEE KING: It's extended out beyond the pier line MS. MOORE: No. Here is an aerial that I have. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm looking at. MS. MOORE: Because I'm looking at it, too. Look how long this one is. This one may not have the float attached to it because it looks like just the fixed portion, and this one looks like it, just from the, looks like the float. TRUSTEE KING: This is drawn between this one, this one and this one. He has not included that extra long one over here. MS. MOORE: And they all look -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In terms of the float, they are uniform. MS. MOORE: But it's not that much further out, I mean - Board of Trustees 32 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The aerial is as it is. MS. MOORE: I understand that. But just flipping it around, the extension is not that long. Certainly this one is much longer. MR. BREESE: It's right alongside this one. That's Brewer and this one is about the same. TRUSTEE KING: It's 65 feet off the bulkhead. Well, what's the Board's pleasure? MR. MCGREEVY: Excuse me, Jim. I don't know if it's a possible solution, but the proposed dock going directly out from the ramp, if that was angled into a two o'clock position, in other words it would be angled off to the right at two o'clock, to the northwest, and that would reach a depth that would be acceptable and would possibly bring it in alignment. If that's the problem. If it's the alignment that is the problem. I don't know if it can be angled. TRUSTEE KING: That would mean moving the whole dock, basically. I don't think they want to do that. MS. MOORE: Yes. It's already slightly angled over to the east. TRUSTEE KING: I wish I could scale that off. MS. MOORE: As a compromise, we could move back slightly, have the length of the ramp a little bit shorter. We have to -- it's, we probably, I mean we can take a look at it. What's the distance; another -- what's the width of this? 30 inches. (Colloquy with client.) MS. MOORE: We could move it back a foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The suggestion that was just mentioned to me by the representative of the Conservation Advisory Council is not moving the entire structure toward the northeast, but just the catwalk, since we are moving the catwalk and the floating dock anyhow, moving that slightly toward the northeast. TRUSTEE KING: Northeast or northwest, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have the plan in front of me. To the right in this picture. So it's in a two o'clock position. TRUSTEE KING: To the right is northeast. There is less water there than to the left. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) TRUSTEE KING: See what I'm saying? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right now, on the view at that I'm looking at -- MR. BREESE: I don't think that changes anything. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, what it would change is it would pull the structure in a little closer to the shoreline so it would not create any issues with the pier line. If that's what I'm hearing. MS. MOORE: We were already willing to cut it back a little bit. Board of Trustees 33 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE BERGEN: During this conversation you were also carrying on the conversation of shortening the ramp by four feet. And that would achieve the same final product. MR. BREESE: I think that makes a lot more sense in terms of access to the dock itself rather than having it angled out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. It achieves the same goal that way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Shortening it would bring it more into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: How much are they shortening it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Four feet. TRUSTEE KING: They're coming in four feet with it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be 30" by 24 foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you are addressing the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: So is this going to be shortened? MS. MOORE: We were trying to figure out a distance because we don't want to get in a bind with the DEC. MR. BREESE: It seems to me coming in four feet, if that would help in terms of the pier line, I would be happy to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As long as he maintains the minimum water depth required there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it goes to 4.1. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But look on the inside end, the landward end. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 2.1, yes. Your bow may be sitting on the bottom. MR. BREESE: That's why it was drawn as is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the issue that was just pointed out, if you move it back four feet it could run into an issue with the DEC because you go to 2.1 depth rather than the present 2.5. MS. MOORE: That may cause problems, so. TRUSTEE KING: I know we talked about taking those dolphins out in the field. I thought it was agreed upon. Maybe I was wrong MS. MOORE: I was not there. TRUSTEE KING: The applicant was. MR. BREESE: No, I think Jill, we discussed with Jill the concept of leaving them there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you walked, you guys walked away, that's why when you said he agreed, I didn't think he agreed. When we were all walking up, he wanted to think about the pilings. So I said all right, we'll discuss it at the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody want to make a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the rest of the Board feel about the pilings? MR. KRAMER: Can I just say something. If you lived on that creek for the last five days, with 40-knot breezes Board of Trustees 34 October 21, 2009 blowing right down what used to be protected by the sand spit out there, you have three and four foot waves flying down there for four days. You want every bit of piling you have out there. You really do. It would be nuts to take them out. That creek is no longer protected. It's a horror show on an east wind. And it's a horror show all the way back to here (indicating.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with the pilings staying in given the fact they have been there for 30 years. We could mitigate it in some other way. Maybe bring it, shortening it could bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can't shorten it, you'll have problems with the DEC and water depth. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can compromise and remove one set of pilings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With what was just described, which I thought was a very valid point, that was a nor'easter, so the piling that is on the eastern side there would assist with tying up the boat, in that type of nor'easter. The piling on the other side though would be protecting from the northwest, and I'm not sure you have the same wave fetch that is being talked about with winds of that velocity from the west as you do from the east. Because I think what Mr. Kramer pointed out is exactly correct. We do have a great deal of fetch that builds now in this creek from east to west, because of the loss of that sand spit. I think with the rotation of this float around, as proposed, the float is now going to extend out into that area where those dolphins are. So I would agree with, I can't remember who made the comment, but it does decrease the public access challenge here, or concern, because right now with the float presently parallel to the shoreline, yes, that area in there is between the present float location and those pilings as public access issue. But again, with what has been proposed in changing this float around, I think it takes away that issue. So for myself, personally, I feel that I would just -- and I would not recommend moving the dock in because you run into depth issues with the DEC. So the only thing t would recommend is, is there an opportunity here for the western dolphins to be removed, since you don't get the fetch, from what I heard described, you don't get the fetch from that direction? MR. BREESE: That would be all right with us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that a compromise the Board is willing to accept? TRUSTEE KING: I'm still thinking. You are talking Board of Trustees 35 October 21, 2009 about easterly coming through, by the same token by turning the float the way you want to turn it, it will get a lot more damage than the present configuration. Just by the shape of the float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what the tie off piling -- TRUSTEE KING: Now you have the float coming, has its beam on an east wind. MR. BREESE: That's what we are permitted for. We don't really have a permit for this configuration. MS. MOORE: The alternative is to be out on to two-and-a-half feet, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you, Jim. That's why I was saying retain the tie off dolphins there on the eastern side, that would enable the applicant to tie his boat off so in easterly winds it would not be, yes, it's taking a beam, but the boat won't be up on the dock. TRUSTEE KING: Somebody make a motion here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need to close the public hearing first. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? MR. BREESE: I would just make one small comment. If I look around at the other docks that go across the way, in terms of the piling footprint of the dock, even with those dolphins in there, is relatively small to what I see as I look around in terms of fixed docks. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm leaning more toward Jim's thought of removing them because one of the things we do try to do, as you have commented from what you are seeing, is we are constantly trying to bring structures and reduce structures, so when we feel we have the opportunity to reduce structures, whether it be a dolphin or whatever, we try to take that opportunity. So I understand what you are saying, you are seeing structures that are much larger, but we try to look at each one individually and see what we can do. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's all the discussion we need on it it. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone want to make a motion on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to, Patricia Moore on behalf of John and Emily Breese, to approve the permit to relocate the 8x24 floating dock and piles, maintain a two-and-a-half foot depth of water, replace existing ramp with a 30"x28' ramp and remove the western set the of pile dolphins and to keep the eastern side of pile dolphins. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And in doing so that will address the Board of Trustees 36 October 21, 2009 inconsistency of the LWRP. MS. HULSE: LWRP refers to the float, and it's out of conformity with code but it's a pre-existing float so it's not new construction. And I don't know that the LWRP correctly assessed that as a new float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: There is an existing, permitted float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's an existing, permitted float. TRUSTEE KING: That was 8x24. It's nothing new. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do a tell call vote. Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Dickerson? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay, due to the fact it's inconsistent because of the pier line and also the request for reducing structure was not agreed on, to one of the requirements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. And I vote aye. Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show that the application, the motion was lost. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Denied. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not denied. It's lost. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this point, what do we do Lori? Do we make a another motion? MS. HULSE: The motion is denied. It's done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MS. MOORE: So is the permit denied? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The motion was denied. MS. HULSE: The motion as read into the record has been denied. If there is another motion, that should be made at this time, and if not, then we move on. MS. MOORE: (Conferring with client.) MS, HULSE: Pat, the hearing is closed. MS. MOORE: No, I'm just saying - TRUSTEE BERGEN: She's talking to her client. MS. HULSE: Because I could hear it. I thought it was on the record. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to make a different motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need to reopen the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just do another motion. We can reopen the hearing to discuss it first or just do another motion. If someone wants to do another motion. TRUSTEE KING: I would make motion to approve it with the removal of the two dolphins. Board of Trustees 37 October 21, 2009 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is not an application from the applicant to do that. MS. HULSE: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that what the applicant is requesting? MS. HULSE: At this point there is a motion on the floor to consider this without the pilings. Is there a second for that, is the next question. MS. MOORE: Could we reopen this? MS. HULSE: Pat, there is a motion that is on the floor. There needs to now be a second or no second at this point. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, you are saying to turn it and remove the two dolphins? TRUSTEE KING: Approved as submitted with the removal of those two dolphins. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to reopen the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should reopen the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a motion on the floor. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do a roll call. TRUSTEE KING: Roll call vote. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Dickerson? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Doherty, nay. Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DONERTY: Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye MS. HULSE: A permit has been issued for what is on the agenda, without the two dolphins. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I think that addresses the concern of the LWRP. MS. MOORE: I think the problem is the LWRP was not addressing that issue. TRUSTEE KING: I think they considered that as a new float, but they also considered the pier line, and this helps toward the pier line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The vote has been taken. I think we need to move on to the next application. TRUSTEE KING: I think you're right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of SYLVIA SAFER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and garage; Board of Trustees 38 October 21, 2009 construct a new dwelling and garage; new terrace on grade; and install a new sanitary system. Located: 5600 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. LWRP has found this to be consistent with the suggestions that there be a vegetated buffer and that all driveways be constructed of pervious material; inhibit the use of synthetic herbicides and fertilizers. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of hay bales are installed prior to any construction activity; that there are plans to secure the bluff; the runoff from the southeast corner of the new patio is contained, and an effort is made to save all trees above eight-inches in diameter. Is there anybody here who would like to address this? MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom Samuels, on behalf of the applicant. I'm basically here to answer questions. I'm not sure what you mean by securing the bluff, or what they meant, perhaps. It's vegetated already, as you can see. I don't think we plan to do anything with all of that Montauk daisy. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The comment the Conservation Advisory Council was to secure the bluff. Do you want to expound on that? MR. MCGREEVY: I'm trying to recall. Yes, that was an observation, Bob, that consideration be done to that area. I see the vegetation, but there was something there, maybe additional planting to secure that. It is a steep bluff there. It's a consideration. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know the Trustees were out there. As I understand, this is a project that is actually going to be moving things further away. MR. SAMUELS: Right. That little house you see there on the right will be demolished and the new construction is fully behind it, so. They are essentially in line between the two houses and 75 feet back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody on the Board have any comments to make? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a problem with it at all TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What are we doing for drainage on this? MR. SAMUELS: Drywells on the site plan. You see "DW" indicates the drywells. So you have drywells, leaders and gutters. It's essential a flat site. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe I'm looking at the wrong site plan. (Perusing.) What kind of materials are you proposing for the driveway? MR. SAMUELS: We have not actually discussed it yet but I would imagine -- actually we have not discussed it. I'll leave it at that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's probably out of our jurisdiction, Board of Trustees 39 October 21, 2009 most of it, anyway. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The driveway would be out of our jurisdiction, but I was asking anyway. MR. SAMUELS: He has a long driveway. I would be surprised if he wanted to pave it all the way back to the read. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the neighboring driveway? MR. SAMUELS: I think on the lower side, that we did put asphalt in. Hard to believe. And the one to the north, I mean, sorry, to the top of the page, I know is gravel on top. But it may be paved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see a hay bale line. Sorry, I see it. Good. It has everything. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MR. MCGREEVY: Just a question. The terrace being put in, is that pervious? MR. SAMUELS: It's stone, but will not be set on a slab. So it will be bluestone stone pavers on gravel. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to approve the application by Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Sylvia Safer as described. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Gennaro Paul DeFiore on behalf of XENIUS C. GEORGIOU requests a Wetland Permit to construct a sinigle-family dwelling with patio, garage, crushed stone driveway, retaining walls and sanitary system. Located: 585 Homestead Way, Greenport. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And it was, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The Board did go out and looked at this project. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. DEFIORE: Yes. Gennaro Paul DeFiore on behalf of Mr. Georgiou. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had just a couple of questions. First off, we want to make sure this complies with 236 of the Building Code, that all runoff water will be retained on the property. Between the two retaining walls, we saw an opportunity there to do some plantings between those two retaining walls, just to retain the soil in there and esthetically we thought it looked Board of Trustees 40 October 21, 2009 nice also. The only other condition that I wanted to address is a hay bale line at the 12-foot contour line during construction. If that would be okay with the applicant. MR. DEFIORE: Urn, the only thought I had, Mr. Bergen, on the 12-foot line, with the excavation of the material for the foundation, and for the trucks to navigate around, I probably can have them pour the foundation work, I could probably have them go to the south central and the northern and the eastern sides of the property to do the pours. I'm assuming that those ramps will be satisfactory for them to come around, and even on the northern side, and leave the natural grade at least and to the point of backfilling, that we can have the 12-foot contour line kept in place. The site water management, I had submitted this to Mr. Reichter, and he has approved the swaling. This is, I guess somewhat of a new position by the town that they are allow this, which the DEC is more favorable of, that natural percolation by the fact that we swale away from the retaining wall and leave a shallow around the house on all sides so that the water can percolate, and those swales have been demonstrated to hold five times the surface water that will be generated in a two-inch rainfall. So he has approved those swales. They will be covenanted with the C&R on the property that whomever will be the buyer and whomever thereafter must maintain them. It also restricts, the condition Mr. Reichter accepted is the engineers will come out and seal and stamp it to show these swales do demonstrate the capacities to hold these waters. So this would be in lieu of actually area wells for the property. No water will migrate past those retaining walls. The only other thought, I have considered possibly, the material that we are using has the ability to go in one vertical height on the retaining wall rather than two, stepped. You know, we do plan to put some hedging along the landward side of that retaining wall anyway. If it is is an issue the Board would rather see two 3-foot stepped walls rather than one 6-foot wall, if you want that, I would do it, but I just felt it was would give the yard area a little more usable space and putting the hedging right up on the landward side of the inside part of that retaining wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to understand completely what you are taking about. You started off talking about swales, I guess were to address the runoff and comply with 236. MR. DEFIORE: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The retaining walls, if you have two retaining walls there, with the height of those retaining walls, you know, my feeling is, just on the Board of Trustees 41 October 21, 2009 surface looking at this, that that would retain that water on to that property. So what I hear you asking is the use of swales would enable you to maybe remove one of these retaining walls and just have one retaining wall rather than two, along with the swales, and it would still comply with 236. MR. DEFIORE: Well, the reason for removing one of the retaining walls is we just have one vertical height of six feet rather than three feet, a step and another three feet. The retaining wall material is rated with geo-grid to handle that height with no problem. I actually spoke with the Building Department if they felt a necessity for a railing. They said there is really no need for a railing on a retaining wall like that. I'm surprised to hear that, but. TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see the two-step retaining walls myself. MR. DEFIOP, E: But the intention is to put a hedging along the inside of that retaining wall nevertheless. So that it has some protectiveness and also will keep the water with the swales from migrating over the wall anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm interested in hearing some other feelings of Board members. TRUSTEE KING: When we first looked at it, we discussed the two retaining walls rather than one six-foot wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from other members of the Board? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with the two walls. I think the six-foot is overbearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Two walls makes more sense. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so what you hear the Board saying is retain the two walls and if you want to include swales in there between the house and those walls, that's fine. So then that gets to the location of the hay bale line because we can't put a hay bale line at the 12-foot contour if you are going to be creating swales in there. If the two retaining walls are built first, there is no need for a hay bale line during construction of the house MR. DEFIOP, E: Yes, that was my plan of attack. If I can get in there, and again, I don't know if it will cut it with the season closing in, but get the retaining wall in before we backfill the foundation, then I would recommend maybe the hay bale line in the non-disturbance zone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are ahead of me. That's what I was going to say. If we put a hay bale line five-foot seaward of the most seaward retaining wall, proposed retaining wall, that will handle the runoff situation Board of Trustees 42 October 21, 2009 for the construction of the walls, and once those walls are completed and plantings are in place, the hay bale line could be removed. MR. DEFIORE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Seeing no other comments from the audience, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Gennaro Paul DeFiore as stated at 585 Homestead Way with the condition that a hay bale line be placed five foot seaward of the most seaward retaining wall during the construction of that retaining wall, and that the rest of the project conform to Chapter 236. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. DEFIORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want revised plans on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can just draw it in. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, last but not least, number six, Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re, on behalf of NEW ClNGULAR WIRELESS, PCS, LLC AND METROPCS NEW YORK, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to erect a public utility wireless communications stealth monopole, install antennas therein, and install related equipment on ground. Located: Orient by the Sea Marina, 40200 Main Road, Orient. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, sir. John Coughlin. The firm name has changed, just for the record. The new firm name is Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin. Additionally, just so the record is complete, I have the secondary affidavit of posting I'll submit to Ms. Standish. We have two different finds, one can speak to the actual posting of the sign and one can confirm it has been up for the eight days prior to this meeting date, which is the reason for the secondary affidavit. TRUSTEE KING: This is another file we could weigh. MR. COUGHLIN: You should see mine. That's revision seven of the drawings. TRUSTEE KING: Was an LWRP done on this at all? In '08? Board of Trustees 43 October 21, 2009 MS. HULSE: There was one done in '07, I believe. Or '08. TRUSTEE KING: This looks like 10/2/08. MS. STANDISH: That's the latest one, but it has been done in the original file. Here it is. It's been done. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). All right. Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however questions of liability of hazardous materials or potential storm surge. I guess that would be concerning for the - MR. MCGREEVY: Electrical equipment, the elevation. TRUSTEE KING: And ground equipment. MR. MCGREEVY: Right. TRUSTEE KING: I have a note from Mark Terry here. Setback. It says the applicant is requesting is non-specified, numerous structures are proposed and setback requested need to be identified. Additionally, the map scale is referenced incorrectly. Lastly, this application requires a special exception consideration from the ZBA and SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. Board of the Trustees may want to reserve their decision until these decisions have been made. Please advise. We all looked at this. We looked at this numerous times. I was out there probably three years ago with the DEC. I believe they have a DEC permit for this. MR. COUGHLIN: There actually is a DEC amended permit was issued following feedback from the town. The original location of the pole was moved slightly to bring it further away from the water line. Since we have revised the application further to reduce the height of the pole, we have submitted a further amended application to the DEC. It is still pending. We are following up, but we understand that further amended permit, based on this reduction of height, will be issued soon. But as we heard earlier in the evening, DEC will issue its permit in its time. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I had in my mind is how could the DEC issue a permit without a SEQRA determination? MR. COUGHLIN: I believe DEC is acting on the fact that we already obtained the initial negative declaration frem the town in 2007 on the previous version of the proposal and that conditional negative declaration is actually what breught the applicant here before the Board, notwithstanding the fact we fully recognize we need to get site plan approval and special exception appreval from Planning. TRUSTEE KING: I think one of the concerns was -- there is a building. Is there equipment in this building that is mounted on the ground? Board of Trustees 44 October 21, 2009 MR. COUGHLIN: What is being proposed is a couple of raised platforms. TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious what the elevation on those will be. MR. COUGHLIN: I think that in part addresses the concern of the Conservation Advisory Council and also to not add concrete pads to the area so close to the water line. The platform will be four feet above grade. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since the LWRP has been done, they moved it back and the height has been reduced. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that's what I'm saying, it does still need to be addressed, but those are two big issues that can be -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was 2006. MR. COUGHLIN: Right. TRUSTEE KING: So it's been modified since this was done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark had a concern that it's difficult to read the setback lines. MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, I have this size, just so I could read them on the podium. Maybe because it's I'm familiar with them. But I could find them. I would imagine on the full scale, if the Board wants, I can identify them for you. But they are on there. They are to all lines, the closest residential line, which is across the street, the closest residential structure is across the street. I believe there is ten or eleven setbacks included on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I saw them. There is one setback, he was questioning me where we would take the setbacks. And I said from the bulkhead, we would start. MR. COUGHLIN: I think there is both. That's why there are so many setbacks, from every line from the center of the pole and setbacks to every line to the closest equipment cabinet piece, depending on what line it is. TRUSTEE KING: I could remember going out a long time ago, one of the original measurements, was really it would have put it out of our jurisdiction, but the measurement was wrong because they went way over the high water mark to the west. And it was inaccurate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's what Mark was I guess confused with. When he went back upstairs and called down he said no, it's definitely within your jurisdiction. Because it's 75 feet, I think. He measured something that was 75 feet. MR. COUGHLIN: I believe the original setback distance was just from the pole, as opposed to the equipment area, and that's why there was some question as to whether we were obligated to come before this Board as Board of Trustees 45 October 21, 2009 well. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, our issue was about the environmental concerns. To me, this is, I believe that property -- is it zoning marine two on that? MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's a highly developed piece of property. I, myself, can't see this having a huge environmental impact. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. MR. MCGREEVY: A question from the Conservation Advisory Council, was if the cabinets that house the machinery were compromised by rising tides would the PCV, I think that's the initials, would that come into the picture as far as a concern? Because once that is in the local waters, you have a dangerous condition, environmental condition. The Hudson River is a prime example. And I'm not saying that it's appropriate in this situation. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what kind of equipment is in there, Jack, to be honest with you. I don't have the slightest idea. MR. MCGREEVY: That's our concern. We don't know what is in there. But if it does get flooded with a rising tide, it might be a serious concern. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to see if there is any elevation we could actually see how high the wall is. MR. COUGHLIN: The elevation shows the platform is four feet above grade. The equipment cabinets are actually on top of there. The depth of the platform itself is probably half a foot but it's not reflected on the plans. The batteries as shown on the plans are not PCV batteries. If the Board would like, I could get a spec sheet on them for further consideration by the Board, Conservation Advisory Council, but I don't believe that's a concern with this type of battery. MR. MCGREEVY: We don't know. MR. COUGHLIN: Understood TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be irresponsible of the company to put a building there that would flood. They should know enough to raise it high enough to say it's not going to get flooded. MR. COUGHLIN: And the plans are signed and sealed to say the design meets and exceeds all applicable building codes. I'm sure that's a consideration of the Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you would have to go to the Building Department to review it with the full plans as well. MR. COUGHLIN: Correct. Everyone gets a whack at this one. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? Board of Trustees 46 October 21, 2009 MS. HULSE: So you are aware, Mr. Coughlin, they have an amendment on October 20 of our cell tower code. MR. COUGHLIN: I am. I was just getting comfortable with the one that came into play in late February, but yes, I'm aware of the changes. I don't believe it impacts the application. MS. HULSE: I don't think it does either. It's really supposed to be more to assist the applicant to make it easier to use and streamline but, I just wanted to let you know. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: In my mind this has been going on a long time. We were all familiar with it. I would like to move forward with it. So I would make a motion that we approve this application with the stipulation that the permit will be released conditioned upon the applicant obtaining all the proper approvals from all departments and other agencies that are necessary for approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they go through SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: And that will include SEQRA review by the Planning Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you all. Good evening. TRUSTEE KING: The permit will be released when all the other -- MR. COUGHLIN: Perfect. We are not going anywhere until all the approvals are obtained anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close and adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.)