Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/16/2009Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer 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, December 16, 2009 6:00 PM Present Were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President 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, January 13, 2010, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 23, 2009, and October 17, 2009. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Good evening everyone, welcome to our December meeting. My name is Jim King, I chair this Board of Trustees. At this time I would like to introduce you to the rest of the crew. To my far left is David Bergen; next to me is Jill Doherty; to my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren runs the office for us; Trustee Bob Ghosio, and Assistant Town Attorney Lori Hulse is our legal advisor for tonight. We also have Wayne Galante down here keeping track of what everybody says. If you do have a comment to make, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record. RECEIVED APR 2 7 2010 outhold Town C[erl Board of Trustees 2 December 16, 2009 We have Peter Young from the Conservation Advisory Council, here tonight. We have one member absent, that's Peggy Dickerson. Unfortunately she couldn't be here tonight. She is not feeling well. And this would be her last meeting. She didn't run again for the Trustees, so she is off on her own. I wish she was here because I would like to thank her for her service to the town. This is a very difficult job. It takes a lot of time. I think anybody who sat up here realizes how difficult it is, and it's not getting any easier. The displays we have, the videos, this was Peggy's idea, so I think we'll carry on with that. Even though she is not here, the show is going to go on. So with that, I think we'll get going. Does anyone else have anything to say? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I just want to say that the Board has continued working on storm water runoff projects and we found out a couple of weeks ago that one of the areas that people have complained about for years, it's been going on for 20 years or so, is off Locust Avenue going down into Deep Hole Creek and also up Maratooka going down into Deep Hole Creek. And this week the town is going to put some drains in. And the farm off Locust, the owner of the farm agreed to deed pad of the properly so the town can do a proper drainage ditch in there so all the farm runoff will not run into the creek. That whole creek just gets so muddy when it rains. So it's a big accomplishment and so we have one down off of our hundreds on the list. I just wanted to mention that. Despite the financial problems of the town, we are moving ahead with some of these projects, and that one was a significant one. TRUSTEE KING: We'll set the date for the next field inspection. Wednesday, January 13, 8:00 in the morning. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting will be Wednesday, January 20, six o'clock, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) We need to set the date for our organizational meeting. It will be for January 4, at 5:30. Do we have that down as well? Board of Trustees 3 December ! 6, 2009 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the minutes of September 23 and October 177 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I read them, I didn't see any huge issues with the minutes. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for November, 2009. A check for $7,053.63 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the town clerks bulletin board for review. II1. 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 16, 2009, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. we have a number of them, they are listed as follows: NSHE Williamston LLC - SCTM#80-5-4.1 C JCl Corporation - SCTM#45-4-4.1 Gary Salice - SCTM#104-5-2&3.1 John & Maria Zoitas - SCTM#21-5-14 Harriet J. McNamara - SCTM#10-4-12.3 Scott & Susan Ambrosio - SCTM#104-7-16.1 Charles & Carolyn LoCastro - SCTM#115-12-21.1&21.2 Steven & Olga Tenedios - SCTM#23-1-14.1 Robert H. Whelan * SCTM#122-4-41 Kevin Faga - SCTM#31-14-8.2 TRUSTEE KING: Is there a motion for approval? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 4 December 16, 2009 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINiSTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, number one, KATHLEEN BOWER, requests an administrative permit to pick up and remove 40 dead oak, hickory and maple trees. Test bore remaining large oak trees for insect infestation and treat as necessary. Scrape up and remove sedimentation. Located: 12710 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This description really is not accurate. It's not really true of what is going on there. We have all been out to this site on numerous occasions. It was found inconsistent with LWRP because of the number of trees, the vague description and possible clearing of the wetland area. Like I said, we have been out there. What's happened, Trustee Dohedy and I went out there. Mrs. Bower had marked some of the trees. Believe it or not, we didn't see the markings. They were kind of vague. You can just make it out, it has a red "X" on the tree. We went out with a few inspections and we didn't see that. We went back out and met with her and we decided to let her take out six trees. We went out and marked them with yellow ribbon, yellow caution ribbon. So there will be six trees that we'll allow her to remove. That's to be by hand only. The stumps are to remain in place. In other words she is basically going to cut those trees up for firewood, I believe. There is to be no ground disturbance, no regrading of any kind. And every one is to be done by hand. There is no machines to be going in that area originally this was a non-disturbance area with a house permit, but there has been a lot of storm damage there and the trees have gone down. It's kind of an unnatural situation, so I think by letting her go in there and take out those six trees it will actually enhance that wetland area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's also important to note a lot of the road runoff is going there. TRUSTEE KING: That's some of the problem. It collects a lot of runoff from the whole area. So I would make a motion to approve the removal of six trees, by hand only, the stumps are to remain; there is to be no ground disturbance; no regrading and no machinery in that area. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also by putting those conditions on, I feel we make it consistent with LWRP. Board of Trustees 5 December 16, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it's downsized tremendously from what she originally applied for. And that's what the inconsistency was based on. And I had talked to Mark Terry about this quite a bit. And just those few trees being removed, he didn't seem to think it was a bad idea. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Number two and three we'll group together. Number two is JAMES & MARK KING request an Administrative Permit to install a waterline from residences to road for public water; remove four trees; and install a cesspool approximately 25' landward of the existing cesspool. Located: 200 and 220 East Mill Road, Mattituck. Number three is the SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests an Administrative Permit to install a six-inch water main in pavement in order to get public water to homeowners on East Mill Road, Mattituck. The Board went out there and inspected this and we don't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion to approve both applications. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one question. I thought that we wanted the condition on number three of hay bales at the end of the road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you're right. Put hay bales at the end of that road, since it is quite a steep hill. Thank you. MS. HULSE: Just for the record, Jim, you are recusing yourself from the deliberations and the vote? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I'll recuse myself from number two and number three. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I made that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.) (Trustee King, recused.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: It should be noted that both of those were deemed consistent under the LWRP. MS. HULSE: Note for the record, that's three yes and one recusal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, five and six we have reviewed and I'll make a motion to approve. They are listed as follows: Number four, RICHARD RANNO requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 16'x6' porch over the front door of the existing dwelling. Located: 2855 Bayshore Road, Greenport. Number five, GreenLogic, LLC on behalf of INA HASDAY Board of Trustees 6 December 16, 2009 requests an Administrative permit to install a roof mounted solar photovoltaic system onto the existing dwelling. Located: 100 MacDonald's Crossing, Laurel. and number six, Joseph Fischetti, PE, on behalf of the ESTATE OF CORNELIA SCHILKE requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 11.2'x14.4' addition to the dwelling and wood decks. Located: 890 Ruch Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the notation four and five are exempt, and six is found consistent under the LWRP. And I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Maureen Cullinane on behalf of MARY BETH HENSON requests an Administrative Permit for the pruning, landscaping and gardening activities that occurred within 100' from the top of the bluff. Located: 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport. We went out there and looked at it and this is what she's done. Assuming the violation has been taken care of, I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a five-foot buffer, and did we want her, we just wanted her to leave it so it all grows back? TRUSTEE KING: I think it will revegetate. We want to see the buffer on the top of the bluff there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The five-foot buffer would in line with those bushes as it comes straight across. That's my motion. That will make it a little more consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Actually, that buffer should be planted. I think that would help. Remove the sod and put some plantings in there, native vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So change the motion to approve subject to a five-foot planted buffer on the top of the bluff, and that would make it consistent with LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, applications for extensions, transfers and amendments. The Board has reviewed all 13 of these. We reviewed any letters that have come into the files and we find that these are, these are all consistent or exempt from LWRP. There is a couple when they came in for an original application, they were found inconsistent, Board of Trustees 7 December 16, 2009 but through the approval process we found them consistent. So therefore I'll make a motion to approve all of these, one through 13, as listed on the agenda as follows: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does number five, Donald Bayles, that's the one with the pipe coming through the bulkhead, did we want to take care of that at the same time or do we want to take that out and deal with it separately? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll revise my motion to approve one through 13 and exclude number five. They are listed as follows: Number one, MARY ZUPA requests the last one-year extension to Permit #6528, as issued on January 24, 2007. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold. Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of STEVE TENEDIOS requests a one-year Extension to Wetland Permit #6790 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6790C, as issued on December 12, 2007. Located: 1625 North Sea Drive, Southold. Number three, LOUISE PREZlOSA requests a Transfer of Permit #2059 from Margaret White to Louise Preziosa, as issued on August 1, 1985, and to Amend Permit #2059 to increase the size of the seaward end of the fixed dock from 8x8' to 8x10'. Located: 760 Old Pasture Road, Cutchogue. Number four, JOSEPH BUCZEK & CHRISTINA SPORNBERGER request a Transfer of Permit #4283 from Thomas and Karleen Schultz to Joseph Buczek and Christina Spornberger, as issued on February 24, 1994. Located: 3895 Wells Avenue, Southold. Number six, GEORGE & GAlL STARKIE request an Amendment to Permit #4371 to replace existing rotted piles by sistering new pilings tangent to same. Located: 630 Tarpon Drive, Southold. Number seven, BETH NEUMANN requests an Amendment to Permit #6473 to include the outdoor barbeque area. Located: 3329 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. Number eight, ROBERT H. WHELAN requests an Amendment to Permit #1716 to change the dimensions of the permitted 2x20' ramp to a 3x28' ramp and replace the existing 4x18' floating dock with a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 4780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Number nine, Patricia Moore on behalf of STEVEN & OLGA TENEDIOS requests an Amendment to Permit #6973 to construct a 20x40' inground swimming pool, patio on grade, pool house and detached two-story framed garage. Located: 17327 Main Road, East Marion. Number ten, Patricia Moore on behalf of WILLIAM HAMILTON requests an Amendment to Permit #7040 to reduce the size of the proposed swimming pool and relocated the steps. Located: 2674 Grandview Drive, Orient. Board of Trustees 8 December 16, 2009 Number eleven, Mark Schwartz AIA on behalf of ARTHUR & MELISSA BEISEL requests an Amendment to Permit #6969 to add a second-floor deck with two deck columns to grade on the north side of the house. Located: 3760 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Number twelve, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP & JENNIFER STANTON requests an Amendment to Permit #7140 to eliminate the 6x4' stairs from the proposed inplace replacement of an existing 6x88' fixed dock, resulting in the proposed construction .of a 6x12' walk and 6x76' fixed pier in place of the existing dock structure. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold. And Number thirteen, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP & JENNIFER STANTON requests an Amendment to Permit #5974 to authorize the installation of water and electrical services on the docking facility. Located: 720 Town Creek Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, DONALD BAYLES, requests an Amendment to Permit #4329 to add sister piles to be installed and bolted to existing damaged piles as required. Located: 785 Albacore Drive, Southold. I'll make a motion to approve this application, which is exempt from the LWRP, with the condition that the pipe that is coming through the bulkhead be capped off. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter in the file that objects to number eight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I just said, that we reviewed the files. Do you want it read that into the record? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You don't have to read it. Just as stipulated. TRUSTEE KING: Just say there is a letter in the file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On number eight that we approved, the letter that is in the file will be entered into the minutes, for the record. (INSERT) TRUSTEE KING: One thing I want to mention - I apologize. We have two postponements. Number 11 Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to replace three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50', using 10x15' wood piles @ six-feet on center and C-Loc vinyl sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number 12 on page five, Proper-T Permit Services on Board of Trustees 9 December 16, 2009 behalf of ROGER PRAETORIUS requests a Wetland Permit to install a private recreational docking facility consisting of a fixed walkway with open-grate decking 4x85' supported by eight-inch diameter (nominal) marine piles seaward of the ordinary high water line, hinged ramp 3x16' and floating dock 6x20', with the float secured by up to four eight-inch diameter (nominal) marine spiles. Located: 975 Westview Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed. We will not be reviewing those applications. And number one on page four, MARLO ABBATE & JOSEPHINE PADOVAN request a Wetland Permit and 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, has been postponed. so there are three postponements. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearings and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: This will just take me a second. This was a last minute -- (perusing.) Number one, HARRIET J. MCNAMARA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 14.5x8' addition, a 20.5x8' enclosed porch and to remove the existing deck and balcony. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. I reviewed this in the office with the survey. It doesn't look like it's problematic, but it's difficult sometimes to get out to Fishers Island. Very seldom do we go out there for one application. At the same time we don't want to hold people up if it's a simple thing. Which this appears to be. Until you read letters from the neighbors. These are pictures of the house. We haven't seen these. (Perusing). Mark Terry suggested a buffer area. I want to see how far the lawn goes there. One looks like it goes pretty much down to the water. (Perusing). We may have to put this on for next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to take a look at it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Didn't we try to take a boat there in January of last year? TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with the LWRP. With a suggestion. It's recommended that a vegetated buffer be required. And I can understand that because it Board of Trustees 10 December 16, 2009 looks like the lawn goes right down to the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean the pictures show pretty much, it's not going any further seaward. TRUSTEE KING: No, everything Es either to the side of the house or landward. But there are two letters here. We'll get them into the record. I'm not going to read them. I can just give you a quick idea. They are concerned with the lots that are subdivided, it's such a busy area, I guess. They are saying sheds are not shown on the drawing provided. It looks to me on the survey everything is there. It shows two sheds, the house, the other house here. I think they are concerned that this proposed addition may be another bedroom or something and they are concerned about the septic. But it's not. That's not under our purview. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are applying on the porch, right?. TRUSTEE KING: It's enclosing the porch and putting a small addition on the side of the house. I would be - it's the Board's pleasure, but I would be inclined to approve this with a 15' vegetated buffer by the wetlands. Up into the lawn area. Like at the end of where the dock is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Looking at the pictures, I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak to this application on Fishers Island? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Any recommendation from the Conservation Advisory Council? (Perusing). They didn't inspect this, so no recommendation is made. This looks to me -- I think it's environmentally, I don't think it will have any impact whatsoever. It will actually improve the area, with the buffer in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what it looks like from the pictures. We can inspect the buffer area when we, next time we go out there, and if we need to make it larger, we can -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if we can go back and ask him to make it bigger. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't do that. Are there gutters, leaders and drywells on the plan? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to condition that, too. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 11 December 16, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that a 15' vegetative buffer is in place where the lawn area goes down to where the dock area is, and we have gutters and leaders to drywells to contain the roof runoff TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, to allow a four-foot path through that buffer area to get to the dock? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Actually I think the buffer area probably ends right where the dock is. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And there are two letters about this that will be entered into the record also. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) (INSERT) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, ACE, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD VlTO SESSA requests a Wetland Permit to replace inplace. I'm not going to read the whole thing. The description is a little different than what we agreed on. I won't read the whole thing. Lauren, did we get the updated survey yet, since our last field inspection? I didn't see it in the file. MS. STANDISH: We didn't get it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll work through this. Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however the area is congested and there is a concern with potential navigation problems. And the LWRP is inconsistent. TRUSTEE KING: Why did they find it inconsistent? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm trying to see. (Perusing). It says the area where the dock structure as proposed is subject to high use by large commercial vessels. The plans fail to show the dock in relation to navigation and mooring of such vessels. 275 only permits one float and the original application was for two floats. TRUSTEE KING: I think we solved that in the field, I believe. They were down to the 6x20 float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is Mr. Colefield here? MR. COLEFIELD: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have the updated surveys that we spoke about? MR. COLEFIELD: I sent you via certified mail the project plans with the updated items that you wanted on there. That was with the one float, moving the structure over five feet to include wetland vegetation and remove the cement foundation, slab, that was there. That was the things you had suggested. TRUSTEE KING: That's pretty much what we talked Board of Trustees 12 December 16, 2009 about in the field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Let me just look at these plans for a moment. (Perusing). He still has two -- TRUSTEE KING: The new plans are here. The second page. This is the new revised plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Gotcha. All right. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like what we asked for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So what we talked about in the field and what is on these plans is -- I'll just start. A 27x48' planting area. The remnant concrete slab will be removed and replanted. The retaining wall, proposed 30' retaining wall replaced with a proposed 20' return. Replacing the ten-foot return with a 20-foot return. That's all landward of the retaining wall. The proposed install 40x4' vinyl grated deck pier extension landward of the existing pier; propose and replace and elevate two feet on existing 40x4' pier with a 40x4' grated vinyl deck pier. Installation of eight to ten inch by 40 foot mooring plies. Propose replacement, replace one existing 20x6' float with secured four 10"x40' float piling; proposed replacing existing 3x6 ramp with a 3x28' ramp. Sorry. 3x16 with a 3x28. Proposed two 3x4 beach access stairs. Beach access stairs is so people can walk on the foreshore. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind those beach stairs are not even necessary. It's state property to the north. No one will be walking through there. It's private property to the south. MR. COLEFIELD: The Department of State, it's a requirement. I don't think they are necessary either. But they want them in there. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say you had a DEC permit for this? MR. COLEFIELD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Did they specify 4x4's only through the vegetated area? Normally that's what we have been doing with them. Through the vegetated wetlands, 4x4 supports. MR. COLEFIELD: I want to, I would want to plant all of it to keep the rap and stuff from floating up there, and we'll put some iva in there, which is a bushy plant. TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about the pilings supporting the pier, in the vegetated area MR.COI_EFIELD: Yes, that's what is on the state permit. TRUSTEE KING: Are they 4x4's? MR. COLEFIELD: No, they are not 4x4's. I don't think a 4x4 will hold up in there, considering what the state facility has in theirs and what I have seen in Board of Trustees 13 December 16, 2009 the other -- and there is also like a four knot tied in there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about the vegetated area. They only have been approving 4x4's in there. And we are going along with that. MR. CQLEFIELD: If you want them up there, we'll put 4x4. From the high tide line up? TRUSTEE KING: Yes MR. COLEFIELD: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And do we want ten inch or reduce that to eight inch in the water? What are the other pilings? TRUSTEE KING: These are 8x22 and 10x 40. I'm familiar with that area of the creek. There is a mud tide there. I know most of the pilings to the north on the state property are all ten inch and bigger. So I don't have a huge issue with ten-inch piles in that area, because of the tide action. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: This pretty much looks like what we were asking for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there are any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: Does this include water and electricity MR. COLEFIELD: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That should be noted on the plans. MR. COLEFIELD: I think it's already down there somewhere. We had to put it on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Where do you see that, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, on the proposed activity. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Because I didn't see it on the survey itself. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will certainly be a vast improvement from what is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I think the only thing we actually waived is the distance off the property line. It's closer to the south side. But that was to give him more maneuvering room. I think we should make a note there should be no vessel tied to the south side of that float because there is really not enough room. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's it. We covered it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the project as per the plans dated December 7, 2009, for Board of Trustees 14 December 16, 2009 Leonard Vito Sessa with the condition that the catwalk landward of mean high tide uses 4x4 posts and not the ten-inch pilings and there should be no vessel tied to the south side of the structure, as there will be no room. And we'll waive the 15-foot side line setback. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COLEFIELD: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: We need the revised plans showing the 4x4 posts. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. We can write it in. Mr. Colefield, we'tl just change your plans and we'll write it in. MR. COLEFIELD: I'll send you four more sets. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Three is good MR. COLEFIELD: Absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Costelto Marine Contracting On behalf of MICHAEL KENNA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3x60' fixed catwalk with a 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 2-pile dolphins six inches in diameter. Located: 3200 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. We have been out and looked at this several times. It was originally determined to be inconsistent under the LWRP because the proposed location might promote boat traffic that impacts, as a negative impact, on the navigability of the creek area. It was reviewed back in October by the Conservation Advisory Council who resolved to support the application. Now since then we have worked with representative Costello Marine Contracting on the location of this dock because of our concerns about how far back the original dock extended out into the waterway. Since then the applicant has revised the plans and when we went out there on the 2nd we okayed a 63' dock where it was staked out on the south side of the property, with the condition that the bacharus that will be removed from that location so that, where the proposed dock is going to be placed, actually the catwalk is placed. And there is an open or bear spot there amongst all the bacharus so when that bacharus has to be removed because of the placement of the catwalk, it could be transplanted into that open spot and it will actually be beneficial to the applicant so there will be a line of bacharus all along there. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Board of Trustees 15 December 16, 2009 MR. COSTELLO: Yes, Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. The stake is at 68 feet, not 63. I don't know if that's going to be an issue. I didn't submit new plans because of the fact that, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I was just noting I didn't see a new set of plans. That's fine. Obviously that will be a condition, if it's approved tonight by the Board. The condition is receipt of new plans. Go ahead. MR. COSTELLO: That's fine as long as 68 feet is permissible, and I'll bring you in the plans first thing in the morning. TRUSTEE KING: The stake there is 68 now? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple of things we had talked about before was a condition of open grating to be used on this catwalk. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to make sure we have that in the record here .tonight. MR. COSTELLO: Is thru-flow going to be permissible? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Absolutely. Were there any other comments from the Board on this application? TRUSTEE KING: No, I think we all went out and looked at it and thought it was a vast improvement over the original design. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response). Not seeing anybody, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'II make a motion to approve the application of Michael Kenna at 3200 Minnehaha Boulevard, and this is just for the record, it's a 3x60' fixed catwalk; a 32"x14' ramp on to -- sorry, 3x68'catwalk. MR. COSTELLO: It's 3x34' with a 14-foot ramp and 6x20 float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. 3x34' fixed catwalk with a 32"x14' seasonal ramp, with a 6x12 seasonal floating dock. MR. COSTELLO: 6x20. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, 6x20. Secured by two pilings, six-inch in diameter, and you'll be submitting new plans that will show the relocation of this or the location, I should say, of this dock, as it was staked in the field on December 2, and with the condition of open grating or thru-flow grating to be used with the construction of this, and the bacharus Board of Trustees 16 December 16, 2009 that will be removed for the installation of this catwalk, will be moved over to the area to the nodh where there is a spot where there is no vegetation, no shrubbery here. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And by moving it over, shodening the length of it and moving that plant, it will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: Number four. Jeffrey T. Butler on behalf of KEVlN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dwelling to the top of foundation; repair foundation and elevate to make flood compliant; rebuild house with addition and square-off house on the west side. Located: 12580 Main Road, East Marion. This is an application that had been given a permit previously, however it was for a renovation. The house had been taken down instead, down to the foundation. It was issued, I guess, a verbal stop work order MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: And subsequently it has come before us for a new permit, taking into consideration the house has been essentially removed. I did find out today that it's been determined that this needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. So i'm not confident that we'll be able to do much with this tonight since it has to go before the ZBA anyway. But I thought I would open the hearing. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the application subject to review of best practices in the building codes. LWRP does find this to be consistent provided best management practices are implemented, including providing adequate buffers, maintaining buffers, and that a permanent vegetated buffer be included along the bulkhead. With that, I'll ask is there anybody here who would like to comment on this application? MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey Butler on behalf of the applicant and I'm here with the builder, and the builder's attorney as well. I was at the ZBA today. I had written a letter to the chairman asking for an interpretation and clarification because when we were before the ZBA, this is exactly the situation that came up, which he was trying to prevent from happening; by having to go back to him with damage to the foundation and making the house compliant and filling in the foundation and Board of Trustees 17 December 16, 2009 the possibility of the floor system coming up. They found that, they told you that today? MS. HULSE: It's my information that you have to go back to the ZBA, yes. I know it wilt probably require being put back on the agenda and having another hearing. I know that you did submit the letter and have not heard back from them. I think that was last month. But the newest information is, yes, you'll be required to return back to the ZBA. And I would recommend to the Trustees they don't act before the ZBA has made a decision, obviously, to obviate the problem that we had initially. MR. BUTLER: All right. Does anybody have any questions for me? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to see what the ZBA decides before we make anymore decisions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think one thing we were thinking is there any possible way at this point you can move it back landward. Because it is so far seaward, you know, we generally try to keep them in line with the existing houses, which we know we can't move back that far because the property is not that big. But at this point, the block foundation, is there any way he could move the structure back? MR. BUTLER: It's an economic question, as you know. And the hardship for that is both the economics of demolishing an existing foundation and creating a new foundation further back. Um, which was the goal here was try and save that foundation, which is what was done. But also the additional hardship to that is the loss of use of the house for this coming season. Right now we were, the builder was hoping to get back to work so he could deliver that house to the applicant by July, as he was contractually obligated to do. So there is those two hardships. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Does it make sense if you take the landward end of the foundation and just demolish that, keep the rest of the foundation there and then add on to that foundation, since it's a block foundation? Then you can just move the house back that way and maybe just have a porch there or just fill that area in? I mean -- MR. BUTLER: Are you talking about the slab area? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. BUTLER: Take that off -- the area that was a slab, in the field you are talking about? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was the slab on the north side of the house? MR. BUTLER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, take that off and extend the foundation that way. Then kind of abandon -- on the Board of Trustees 18 December 16, 2009 north end. No, the slab is on the south end, on the bay side. I'm talking about the landward side. MR. BUTLER: Yes, the slab is on the south side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the landward side, if we take that, the north side, take that foundation and just move that landward, then you don't have to demolish the whole foundation. Since it's a block foundation, maybe you can do that. I don't know. And then therefore then we can move the structure back a little bit. And it won't be quite as costly, I assume. I don't know if that can be done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the original hearings, when we asked about this, the answer was, I'm quoting from that hearing, Mr. Faga had a conversation with the contractor. Well, I'll tell you who the question was. Are we talking about the house being moved back? This is Trustee Doherty. I missed the first part of the conversation. Is it possible to move the structure back at all. Mr. Butler said Mr. Faga had a conversation with the contractor since you and I spoke and the difference is about $200,000 in cost to demolish and rebuild, versus making use of what is there, which represents a substantial percentage of the project. It seems to me if it was a $200,000 difference, that money has already been pretty much spent. MR. BUTLER: Well, what transpired since then, certainly the economy has changed, but house had to become flood compliant, we found out later. And in doing so, that took care of, to make the front part where the slab was, flood compliant, obviously those walls had to come off. We were always going to cut the front back, one-foot ten or two foot, whatever it is, out of coastal erosion, to the area we are talking about, which, again, was, this is what happened when we went to the ZBA. The ZBA said how are you going to fill in that foundation and make it flood compliant. I said, well, the floor system will probably have to come up. That's when his decision, he wrote in that we were allowed to repair and replace the foundation to achieve that. As long as the footprint was maintained. Then when I got to the Building Department and the Building Department saw the discrepancy between the ZBA decision and your initial decision, which was the public hearing Mr. Faga spoke at, we wrote a letter for review to make your decision consistent with the ZBA decision, which you then did in whenever it was, August or September. And obviously we got a building permit based on that, and that was the work that was done. To take that section off and put it in the back, Board of Trustees 19 December 16, 2009 that's -- MR. GUIDO: John Guido. You know how I feel about that. Our zoning board decision, bottom line, was the footprint was to stay the same. Which we achieved. Your Trustees permit says replace or repair the foundation. And I have a building permit that tells me to remove the existing floor beams. So as far as I'm concerned, the way I feel is that all these bases are covered. It's seems like we are going backwards now. I mean the building permit told me to do something, and I did it. Now I'm being penalized because of that. MS. HULSE: We had this conversation with you, sir, and that's not an accurate statement. ,&nd I don't think we really want to get into all this again because the fault is not with the Board of Trustees or with the town in this matter. You have to go back to the ZBA. So this Board, to open up this colloquy right now, is absolutely of no use at all. The ZBA has to make a decision based on new, different plans, essentially, and I'm not going to get into the whole issue again, because we have had lengthy conversations about that. So I'm going to just counsel the Trustees that you won't be able to make a decision tonight. So, and I think that has already been the consensus here. MR. GUIDO: Can I ask a question? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir? MR. GUIDO: We have to go back to the Zoning Board now, to a public hearing? MS. HULSE: Unless you heard differently from the ZBA. MR. BUTLER: I haven't heard anything from the ZBA MS. HULSE: The Trustees can't act right now. They would Jove to. They cant We have been through this before. We'll be in the same position we were in the first time if they do that. You'll have something from the Trustees and you'll have to go back to the ZBA and the ZBA will decide what they decide, and you would have to come back to the Trustees again. I would hope you would appreciate that. MR. LOSQUADRO: Steven Losquadro, attorney on behalf of the contractor. I think, as all of you may appreciate, the contractor here finds itself in a very difficult position and is trying to honor a contract into which it entered and it is also trying to operate under guidance that it was provided by the town, specifically the Building Department, with respect to a building permit. I can appreciate counsel's point, in part, with respect to there perhaps being no fault on the part of the Trustees, Board of Trustees 20 December 16, 2009 and certainly I think that it's admirable for her to set forth that position here based on the facts that she is aware of. I think it might be overreaching, however, to say there is no fault in a very broad sense on the part of the town because there is certainly things that transpired in the course of the various applications, most notably the issuance of a building permit that provided very specific directions to the applicant. If the applicant follows the building permit, and it did so according to the circumstances that Mr. BuUer set forth, you know, in explaining the various applications that have taken place, then there may be fault with respect to certain agencies, not perhaps with respect to others. The one thing that I'm just trying to clarify, or I would wish to clarify if I can, is that the applicant, who is Mr. Faga, and the contractor, who clearly has an interest in trying to complete the work that it was contracted to complete, both have attempted through Mr. Butler, to be quite diligent, visa vie the Board of Appeals, the ZBA, and find out whether or not they do actually have to return there. You seem to know that that has been directed, but we have never been told that. And I was wondering is that something that has been stated informally or has there been a decision issued or correspondence that has been sent? MS. HULSE: My concern is how I advise the Trustees, and I don't want to put the cart before the horse, because that has been done before and it's inadvisable to do that. And I do take issue with statements that you just made, Steve, because it's inaccurate to say any town agency is at fault. I know the history of this case, I reviewed that with this Board, I reviewed that with your client and I disagree, is the best I can say, without getting too in depth with it. What they originally applied for is not what was done out there. So I don't know that placing even a modicum of fault with the town is even really fair in this instance. So all I could advise the Trustees is any decision they make tonight would be ill-advised because if there has to be a decision by the ZBA, which is my understanding, then we'll be back here again to essentially give another, yet a third review of this, which makes no sense. MR. LOSQUADRO: And I can appreciate everything you are saying, and of course with respect to certain aspects of this, reasonable people, perhaps, can differ as to how they view the actions taken by Board of Trustees 21 December 16, 2009 certain agencies. Certainly I think one thing is very apparent to me is with respect to the Trustees, there is no issue and of course the applicant is here tonight to just try to obtain clarity and guidance. What I'm really trying to ascertain, just so they can move forward in the most meaningful manner possible, is when might, based on what you know, perhaps, when they might expect something in the form of guidance from the ZBA? MS. HULSE: Sorry, I can't speak for the ZBA. I can only tell the Trustees what I think they should or shouldn't do. MR. LOSQUADRO: Is it your understanding at least that that is how the Board of Appeals intends to act and they may expect something from them soon? MS. HULSE: I'm not opining on what the ZBA is or isn't doing. I'm just advising the Trustees. MR. LOSQUADRO: Okay. Well then hopefully based on what you believe will happen, we'll hear from them soon. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think we should table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one comment, if I may. Just to clarify, because you said you heard there is no problems or issues with the Trustees. You have already heard, just something for your client to think about before he comes forward to us again, to think about the opportunity, if it's there, to move the house back. We are not saying that has to be a condition, just to think about it for the next time you come before us. That's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's an open discussion at this point. MR. LOSQUADRO: That's fair enough. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who are you representing tonight, Mr. Losq uad ro? MR. LOSQUADRO: I didn't mention, I represent the contractor. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOHN & MARIA ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct 4x86' stairway down a bluff with steps to the beach. Located: 5405 The Long Way, East Marion. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Board of Trustees 22 December 16, 2009 MS. MOORE: Good evening. It's pretty straightforward. The drawings that were provided were, we show it's a tight, I mean, it's a small-scale survey. But that's what I have here. We did get DEC approval and I believe I submitted that with my application, so. TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council recommended to support the application. Recommends the bluff stairs be constructed with erosion control devices and supports. We have been through that before. It's kind of a thorny issue because I don't think the DEC would approve it. MS. MOORE: No, I have what the DEC will approve, which is posts without cement, so. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, is there a homeowners association here? MS. MOORE: There is one down the block. Yes, Pebble Beach has a homeowners association. TRUSTEE KING: Are these folks members of it? MS. MOORE: I don't know. I would assume as a property owner you are automatically a member. But I did check, there is no prohibition on the stairs, individually, and in fact there are other property owners in this development that have stairs on the beach. TRUSTEE KING: It seems to me, we put in the code if it's a property owner's association and they have a set of stairs, if it's a reasonable distance, then they are to use that stairway rather than have a separate stairway down the bluff. I believe that's in the code. MS. MOORE: Well, the property here -- TRUSTEE KING: When we went out and looked at this, it's actually a shorter walk to walk to the community stairway than it is to go across the lawn to a proposed stairway down the bluff, believe it or not MS. MOORE: I don't know about that. TRUSTEE KING: The Board's feeling was this stairway is not really necessary or appropriate in that location, seeing there is a community stairway very close to it. MS. MOORE: That's a matter of subjective interpretation, whether it's close or not. TRUSTEE KING: Lauren will look it up in the code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, are you familiar with the section that's in? MS. HULSE: (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: That was one of the comments from the Conservation Advisory Council also. It was considered shared access with the adjacent property owner. MS. MOORE: I think the way these properties are developed, they are pretty much, they are large Board of Trustees 23 December 16, 2009 properties and they are pretty much developed all on their own. There is significant vegetative buffers between properties, so I don't see any sharing. I think the house next door has a stairway. I have to look in my DEC application. I have photographs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I found it, Jim. Specific code 275-11, which is construction, operation standards. (b)(1)(j). MS. MOORE: Docks? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, this is shoreline structures. I'll read it specifically. Individual residential stairs are prohibited on bluffs if the property is part of an association that maintains a common stairway within a reasonable distance. TRUSTEE KING: That's also in the inconsistency finding. I just saw it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I do remember this being put in because I personally objected to this. So I do not remember when it was put into code, but it was put into the code. MS. MOORE: I understand that the reasonable distance is a very subjective standard. So my clients requested a stairway to the beach and they don't feel that the one that the association has is convenient for them and their family, so. TRUSTEE KING: Our finding in the field was it was actually closer than a walk across their lawn. MS. MOORE: No, you have to walk across their front yard and down the block. It's down at the bottom of the hill. Their property is the last one in the subdivision on the east side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. If you go out their seaward door, I guess they call it the back door, and you walk all the way to where the stairs is, we feel it's a longer distance than if you go out the front door and walk down the road and go to the stairs. MS. MOORE: If you want me to measure it, I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we observed when we were there. MS. MOORE: I was there and walked it as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But then to sit in front of their house, they would have to walk to the beach. MS. MOORE: Yes, you would have to go back to your own yard or beach, so. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is it is a reasonable distance. MS. MOORE: Well, environmental issues are really the issues, and the DEC has approved this, these stairs. I went through the whole process and here we are, based on subjective standards, you are asking them to Board of Trustees 24 December 16, 2009 give up a stairway. MS. HULSE: Isn't it based on the code? MS. MOORE: Yes. MS. HULSE: It's based on the code. MS. MOORE: Yes, but what they just read is it is based on the distance that is subjective, whether it's reasonable or not reasonable. And again, you are pointing out that their beach is in front of their house, and the end result is you .end up having people cutting down their own hill and damaging the bluff just to get a shortcut. So it just makes more sense to have proper stairs. I tried to locate the stairs in the closest, shodest spot, which is why it runs at the far, at the east side of the entrance way from the top, runs to the east and kind of angles to the west, because of the slopes. That was the most environmentally appropriate location. And the DEC agreed with us. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody else? (No response). MS. MOORE: Do you want me to come back with measurements? I'1t come back with measurements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, regardless, if it's one or the other, what we are saying is we still feel it's a reasonable distance. MS. MOORE: Well, in that case I would ask to postpone and I'll give you measurements for the record in case my client disagrees with you. MS. HULSE: You have already been out there and reviewed it. Haven't you already been out there? MS. MOORE: Yes, they were there, but I want to put on the record that this is a subjective -- MS. HULSE: Or they can make a decision tonight. MS. MOORE: If I ask for a postponement. I have a legal right to a postponement. MS. HULSE: Not if it's based on that, Pat. You don't have a legal right to make measurements. MS. MOORE: I'll leave it to the Board. MS. HULSE: Sure. That's what we always do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no issue postponing this at the applicant's request. That's just my personal feeling. I have no problem with a postponement at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have an issue postponing it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if it's going to change anything. MS. MOORE: That may be the case. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if the applicant wants to postpone it, there is no harm no foul to the town, so I don't see any problem with it. MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you. Board of Trustees 25 December 16, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4x12' inclined ramp, 4x88' fixed elevated catwalk, 3x14' hinged ramp and a 6x20' float secured by two eight-inch diameter pilings. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. The Board has gone out and looked at this project. It was found inconsistent when reviewed under the LWRP, for a couple reasons. One was Chapter 275, I'm just reading from the report. 275 requires the determinational length of the dock must include the dimensions of the vessel and the dimensions of the vessel are not specified. The proposed action is located within the New York State critical environmental habitat area, so the recommendation is if it can be some type of a non-disturbance buffer included in the application to mitigate the impact of the dock. The construction methods have not been identified. And that is -- and important viewsheds and vistas to the community have not been identified or discussed. It was reviewed by Conservation Advisory Council. The CAC resolved to support the application, however they have a concern about the impact issues on the prime shellfishing area. Reducing the size and number of pilings may possibly mitigate or minimize the potential impacts. There are several plans, I don't know if you need to see a survey. There is a survey also. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. This is a project for the location of a dock in a portion of the property where there previously existed docking facility and bulkheads, the remnants of which are still visible on the property, I'll hand up to the Board but I must get back to the Ambrosio's hand.(Handing). This is photographs of the conditions in the 1980s. We included for the pondering of the vistas this aerial photograph showing at least 15 other similar docks within a reasonable distance of this property, and included that with the LWRP Board of Trustees 26 December 16, 2009 application. In order to take into consideration, primarily the Board's standards and past practices but of course also the wonderful LWRP requirements, we have tried to limit the actual scope of this dock to the maximum extent practicable by proposing the use of an existing trod in and previously mowed path down almost from the landward limit of the wetlands almost down to the high water line. Currently that spans a length of marsh that is about 110 feet in length, which we are proposing as a means of access as opposed to the construction of an additional walkway. I had a brief conversation, I think with Jill, or maybe Jill had left me a message, and Jill, correct me if I'm wrong, but after your site inspection, that the Board was interested in seeing, that you were supportive of our concept but wanted us to push it even a little further and continue to go down that path and start the catwalk out even farther seaward. I've spoken with Scott Ambrosio, who is here. He is amenable to that idea. The reason we started it where we started it is because you can tell from the property the high water line represents where there is normal tidal flooding but at highest high tides this property floods all the way back, obviously, to the tidal wetlands boundary. So we were trying to pick a point along that pathway that stayed reasonably dry, although Jim made the point to me when I spoke to him about this as well, the wetness factor between where we started it versus if we started it another 20 feet or whatever closer to the water is really not much difference. And my client agrees. I also had an oppodunity for a pre-application conference with the DEC because based on a prior meeting Mr. Ambrosio had with the DEC, they contemplated siting the dock on the west side of the property. We chose this location, again, taking all Chapter 275 and 268 standards into consideration. It's a much more heavily wooded wetland area on the other side of the property. So we really wanted to stay in the area where we could build the shortest dock, get to it the easiest, disturb the least possible marsh and also cross the least possible amount of wetlands, all of which would be jumbled into the term "best management practices." We had pondered the idea of showing this, using this geo-synthetic mesh walkway. The DEC had tried this in Westhampton Dunes. It failed miserably. So while I was trying to please them, they reported back Board of Trustees 27 December 16, 2009 that their experiment failed and they absolutely did not want the use of that geo-synthetic walkway here. So we would withdraw that from the application, which again would further reduce the amount of structure that would be constructed. If the Board has any further concerns, I'm certainly willing to entertain them, or respond to them, I should say. But we really have tried to do our due diligence here in terms of really limiting the scope of this dock and keeping it in the most reasonable location on this property, considering all the various standards before the town. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, as far as where we would start this catwalk, what we had noted was there was a survey marked there in the ground and that we would recommend starting the catwalk of the dock there at that survey mark, so that would be the landward end of the catwalk. Is that okay with your, with the applicant? MR. HERMAN: I can't place off the cuff where that point is. I know what you are talking about. I think there is, it's like a pink ribbon nailed or something there. That was a reference point for Nathan Corwin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERMAN: So I'm not -- that was farther seaward than where we had the stake showing the beginning, but it was still along the pathway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was located within the pathway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you can start the catwalk there and do a ramp up to it. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I mean I would just stipulate that we want we would be willing to revise the plans to show that, to further reduce the scope of the dock, and if we go out there and find that is a problem we would have to come back to you. But I have some recollection of where it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking on the through section of the dock and what are the size of the pilings there? Sorry, here it is. 4x4. Sorry. It's 4x4. MR. HERMAN: That's out to the edge of the vegetated marsh. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are they ten foot on center? MR. HERMAN: And then six-inch pilings seaward of that. No, the posts are shown at eight foot. And I don't know if any of the Costello's are still around but I would caution using a ten-foot spread with 4x4 posts. It's an awful lot of distance far that. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, I'm looking at this. It shows the dotted line for the existing path. It looks like the Board of Trustees 28 December 16, 2009 beginning of a ramp, is maybe 30 feet to the end of that? MR. HERMAN: Scott just handed me a note. He thinks it's maybe about 24 feet farther seaward than where we are showing it now. Which means we are starting maybe ten feet landward of high water. So by the time we get to the elevation -- TRUSTEE KING: If he was seaward, we would get father to the west. More or less right on the path itself. MR. HERMAN: You follow the path so you actually you would adjust the dock so it's coming more like this, out to the same point. But again, you are reducing the amount of marsh you are going over. I thought that seemed fine. TRUSTEE KING: To me it makes more sense. MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And would the applicant be willing to use grated material for this dock? I'm thinking of the LWRP issue. MR. HERMAN: Yes, we actually have in the plan notes that, at a minimum, for the portion of the catwalk that would go out from starting point to open surface waters would be open-grate with at a minimum of 60% open space, and we also have a notation in the notes that the dock would be equipped with water and electric service. TRUSTEE GHQSIQ: Will there be any lighting on this? MR. AMBROSIO: Scott Ambrosio. As far as lighting, I guess we may put a light at the end. I guess my question is if we decide to ask for that now and I don't put it, is that an issue? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MR. AMBROSIO: Then I'll ask for the light TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why it's better to ask for it now. And what we would ask for now for the light fixture is a Iow voltage light pointed down, so it's not pointing out into the marsh or up into the sky. MR. AMBROSIO: Okay, that's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: And by code, it's used only when the dock is in use. That's hard to enforce. MR. HERMAN: Motion sensor. TRUSTEE KING: There you go. The raccoons would turn it on and off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant be willing to entertain the thought of using a silt boom during construction to help mitigate or help retain the suspended sediments during the construction project itself? MR. HERMAN: That would be highly unusual for a catwalk construction, because you would have to try to keep moving the curtain. You would probably Board of Trustees 29 December 16, 2009 create more bottom disturbance trying to manipulate the curtain than you would prevent any real environmental impact. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Was there anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). Were there any other comments from the Board with regard to this application? (No response). I know we have seen the pictures so, obviously, historically, there had been a -- and we saw this while we were out there, we saw historically there had been a dock and vessel there on this property. If there are no further comments, 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 En-Consultants on behalf of Scott and Susan Ambrosio at 1940 Mason Drive, with the conditions that the geo-grid mesh walkway that is included on these plans stamped received November 18, 2009, is removed; that the landward end of the catwalk be shortened to where there is presently located an orange survey stake; that grated material is used on this catwalk, and given the fact that there are docks in the immediate area, and these conditions that we have outlined here or are requiring, we would deem it to bring it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you want new plans showing that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we would like a new set of plans to depict what we talked about tonight. MR. HERMAN: Dave, I just want to clarify, that the open-grate is over the marsh. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, yes. MR. HERMAN: He could always use it the whole way out if he wants to, but otherwise I assume it's got to be non-treated timber as you get out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, as per 275. As per code. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of CHARLES & CAROLYN LOCASTRO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock Board of Trustees 30 December 16, 2009 consisting of a 4x12' inclined ramp, 4x88' elevated catwalk, 3x14' hinged ramp and a 6x20' float secured by two eight-inch diameter pilings. Remove existing stoop and concrete walls from existing dwelling; construct roofed-over attached deck with step-down; construct 4x8' stoop and step in place of existing stoop; install new cellar door; install a drainage system of drywells; replace existing did driveway with pervious gravel driveway and parking area; clear up to 50 feet from tidal wetlands boundary; selectively remove individually marked trees located within 50 feet of the wetlands boundary; and establish a 15' wide non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the tidal wetlands boundary. Located: 1475 & 1500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. The Board has gone out there and we have a couple of comments. But first, the CAC does not support this application. First of all, the project was not staked when they went out there, and recommends gutters are installed on the existing dwelling and connected to drywells, and floating dock removed from the wetlands and no removal of trees greater than eight inches in diameter seaward of the dwelling. The LWRP is inconsistent. There are several comments. Construction method has not been identified. The land form in the area forces the dock structure into the navigable channel seaward of the existing dock line. Further, the width of the vessel moored has not been identified and therefore the assessment of how far the dock structure projects into the channel is not clear. Note to the west of the dock structure across the channel another dock structure with two pilings exists. This dock must be assessed in relation to the proposed action. We went out there and looked. I don't believe the dock across the channel has any bearing on this. It is wide enough. And it fits within our code, the proposed structure. So that being said, is there anyone who has comments on this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The channel here is about 214, well, I shouldn't say the channel. The width of the creek here is 214 feet wide from Iow water to Iow water as it has been surveyed, and that shows on our plans. The proposed dock extends out 40 feet from Iow water. So we would have to have a boat that was wider than 30 feet before we were able to exceed our one-third allowance, and I can state for the record the LoCastro's boat will be much, much skinnier than Board of Trustees 31 December 16, 2009 30 feet. This, again, is another property that we submitted with our application, aerial photograph of the area, that gain shows that this entire area of the creek is rife with docks at every conceivable location, many of which do not conform to current DEC or Trustee standards. And what we have attempted to do, again, with this dock, is to use best management practices to locate the dock in the portion of the property that would traverse the narrowest stretch of marsh and reach the deepest water the soonest. It would put the dock out farther than the adjacent docks but those docks both have floats that sit in the mud at Iow tide, which of course now is not permissible. This was a site that I had had a pre-application conference both with Jill and Jim at, because I think you had been called there about a tree that had been cut down or something like that and you advised them not to do any further work, which is how this tree issue ended up in this application. So this was the location of the dock that we had discussed and you had seemed agreeable to. Unlike the last location, this is not where the dock had historically been. There was a dock historically on this property where you see the old vintage float now. But we chose to place it on the north side of the properties, again, because we could build a shorter dock than if we went back out on the south side. As with the other, as we discuss.ed again, on the prior application, this would be constructed with 4x4 support posts over the vegetated marsh. Also with open-grate decking on the portion of the catwalk located over the vegetated marsh. With respect to the upland improvements, there are very, really, minor renovations, if you want to call them that, proposed. I had an opportunity to discuss this also with Marine Habitat Protection staff from the DEC and their request to us was that the 32' long roof over deck on the west side of the house be trimmed back by a couple of feet, to 30 feet, so we would not encroach further upon the pre-existing wetland setback of 52-and-a-half feet. We show that on a revised plan which I submitted to you. So you should have. That revised plan also shows an increase in the width of the proposed non-disturbance buffer from 15 feet to 25 feet. So as the plan now stands, there would be no felling of trees, or any other clearing for that matter, within 25 feet of the wetlands boundary. Board of Trustees 32 December 16, 2009 That non-disturbance buffer would reclaim a small portion of area now that is already cleared. It reduces, just on the CAC comment, it basically reduces the tree removal down to I think four trees that would be located between the 25 and 50 foot setbacks. Where we had shown less selective clearing landward of that point. Again, if we draw a line, if we draw a non-disturbance buffer line for the purposes of your permit, then it really eliminates the proposal to do any selective tree clearing anyway because any tree clearing that would be done would be done outside of your non-disturbance buffer. But just to, in case it enhances the application in your mind, there would be no non-selective clearing within 50 feet of the wetlands. It would just be hand selection of those several trees that are noted on the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. It looks like you have answered our concerns. Let me just make sure there is nothing (perusing) -- do you plan on putting any gutters and leaders on the house at this point? MR. HERMAN: Yes, and those are the on site plan as well. Actually, yes, I should have mentioned. That was also a change from the plan that was submitted with the original application, to the extent that we have moved the drywells landward so that they are more than 75 feet from the wetlands boundary. So we are now proposing leaders, gutters and drywells but now drywells that would be set even farther back from the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Great. Thank you. And I have to mention this. At any point that you will be doing any further construction, you must come back to the Board for a permit MR. HERMAN: We certainly know that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. HERMAN: Part of the roof over a deck will not result in that house being gone. At least not that I'll be aware of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: But they'll be taking down some trees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, on the survey you'll see the trees, on the north side of the property. Which we were concerned with the trees in the front of the house. You could see there. You could see, those trees there. They wanted to take those down. Those will not be coming down. MR. HERMAN: Atl the trees we had previously shown between the 15 and 25 foot setbacks, which was the majority of them, you have extinguished that from the Board of Trustees 33 December 16, 2009 application. You just saved Charlie a lot of money and chain saws. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). All right, Ill make a motion to close the public hearing TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Charles and Carolyn LoCastro based on the survey dated as amended December 8, 2009, and the drawing dated, as amended December 7, 2009, showing a 25' wide non-disturbance buffer, and leaders gutters and drywells. MR. HERMAN: Yes. And Jill, and probably this is more for Lauren's interest. But for our, for En-Consultant's plans for the dock, we completely eliminated all of the upland proposals. All of the upland proposals are now on the site plan and just the dock is on this. The site plan has the drainage, it has the buffer and all of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's why I mentioned both. MR. HERMAN: I knew you did. I wanted to be clear we were not adding the buffer or anything on this, because it's really unrelated to the dock. Although, sorry, my plan does show the buffer, but none of the structurally. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And I believe by us widening the buffer from 15 to 25 feet, by eliminating the removal of the, non-removal of the trees, that brings it into consistency with LWRP. Should I restate that motion? Is that clear? MR. HERMAN: It's clear to me TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of C JCl CORPORATION requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 80xl 12' two-story building with two dry store units on the south side and a general industrial unit on the north side; install an attendant sanitary system; and construct a pervious gravel parking area. Located: 74495 Rt. 25, Greenport. The LWRP report finds this to be consistent, as there were no significant changes to the site plan, Board of Trustees 34 December 16, 2009 the recommendation stays in effect. This had been before us once before and there were some changes. That's why this is here today. CAC resolves to support the application with the condition a containment facility is installed to capture any effluent from catastrophic spillage, be it outside or inside the building. We noticed that when we looked at it, we went to the field and looked at the plans. We noticed one of the changes was, I believe, in the parking lot. The corner of the parking lot had actually been brought in to accommodate more space, more distance away from the wetland. So that was, I thought that was a good thing. TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't there part of that that actually went closer to the end of the property area? I know one side was pulled in but I thought the other side went out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: While we are looking at that, is there anybody who would like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. This Board looked at this site. We obtained a permit In September of 2007. We then had significant amount of interaction between the applicant and New York State DEC; and this plan before you is a culmination of that interaction. You should know as part of that, there was a violation settlement that resulted in the approval of this plan. And also the creation of wetlands in the Village of Greenport adjacent to Silver Lake. The plan is substantially the same. We are here, really because we are now told by the Planning Department to come back here and obtain this permit, obtain this permit before they move forward. The only other thing I have to add is I didn't quite hear what you said about the CAC and some containment system. We will be storm water compliant in all respects. Maybe that's the same comment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to address that? MR. YOUNG: Peter Young of the CAC. I guess it relates to the intended use of that northern portion of the building. You indicate that you have five parking spaces. I inspected the property. There was significant large vehicles, heavy equipment, and I assume that the contemplated use of that space on the north side would be for some of those vehicles. We have no idea what tanks you are going to have or in the event there is a catastrophic leak from some of the equipment you may be storing there, we felt that it was wise to have a containment facility so that it didn't go out into the wetlands. Board of Trustees 35 December 16, 2009 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I understand. So that everyone is clear, this is a contractor. This is used as a contractor yard. So you'll see stuff moving around the site. It's probably the best benefit, the benefit of this application is really probably threefold. Number one, you'll formalize the use. Number two, you'll clean up the site. Number three you'll improve the esthetics so you are not looking at what you are looking at now. The building, the north part of the building, is like a contractor's garage. It would be a poured slab. There will be no floor drains of any of kind. And also the rear portion of it would be separated by a curb, so you'll have a physical barrier between the wetlands, the adjacent area and the area of use. That curb will be recessed above ground and the containment around it will be dumped offsite. I think that will be, and the drainage will be compliant in all respects, not only with respect to the building but also the parking facilities. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob, did I put in any notes planting in that area? I believe we discussed that in the field. TRUSTEE KING: That will be a curbing around that north end? MR. ANDERSON: DEC is looking -- we are looking to contain the use of the area. Because that has been, quite honestly, the problem all along. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the field notes, you did write, include plantings on the north side of the parking. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I and I actually have those. They are not part of your application. They are part of the DEC. Ill submit that to you. Because that was part of the back and forth between us and the DEC. Because there is disturbance in that area. There will also be some fill that is straight back and some plantings, and it should have been part of the application. I'll provide that to you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: This is a DEC violation, you say? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And this is part of like a consent order, whatever? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's both a consent order and a permit. And it was done that way because part of the mitigation was done offsite, with the cooperation to the town, including this Board. You may not remember but we. were all at one time out there, back in freezing weather of I think it was last year. And it was quite a lot of people involved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else who would like to address this? Board of Trustees 36 December 16, 2009 MR. DOMINO: Good evening. Mike Domino. My wife and I own the property to the west of this proposed building. And as Mr. Anderson correctly states, there were quite a few people there. It was actually, December 19 of last year. It was a very rainy day. I had arranged a meeting, Supervisor Russell was there. Mayor Nyce was there. Part of the reason for that meeting was to address a reflagging that occurred here. If you look at the application, there is DEC flags one through seven. And they were done in May of '08. There are other flags that are found and verified by R. Foxx, 11/04. Now, the point I'm trying to make here is earlier we had a little discussion, you had a discussion with the term reasonable distance. And it's important to watch the wording. Mr. Fox located and verified the stakes on 11/04. But the stakes, the DEC flags one through seven, he just notes that they were located. I asked him why that was. Because I had serious questions about the validity of the reflagging that was done by the DEC on the 5th of May. I hate to quote someone else, and you can verify through him. But he said that he had serious concerns about why it was reflagged. That he could verify the stakes in the back. That's the ones done on 11/04. But he was concerned about the ones up front. Mr. Ratsey is attempting to move this forward and I really applaud him and I'm in support of this. I, with your permission, will give you some documentation later on, in written form, to verify my concerns. Very quickly, the DEC flags number one and number two on the Franken property, as Mr. Anderson may recall, I asked Robert Marsh of DEC why they were placed there, and he specified a plant frenum vegetatum and a swamp oak. Neither of which is a wetlands indicator. So Mr. Ratsey was then forced to do some mitigation somewhere else to, and I don't blame him, to move his plan forward. And he even cut,, as you noticed, the parking lot. He made attempts to move his plan, for economic reasons, but there really is -- I taught science for 31 years, and I have an engineering degree, and I believe in the scientific method. I'm really questioning the objective value of the science that went into the DEC decision to reflag this on the 5th. I in no way intend to harm this application. I'm in full support of this. And I applaud -- I know the work that the Trustees do in going out. A lot of people don't, are not aware of how much work you do. And I applaud your efforts. You need a good deal of common sense in reviewing these applications. There are no significant wetlands on the Franken property. It Board of Trustees 37 December 16, 2009 should not impact Mr. Ratsey. And there are no significant wetlands on my property. Prior to purchasing it, and I'll submit this now, I did a phase one and phase two with a qualified environmentalist. No wetlands were found on my property. Again, in writing I'll give you further details. I don't want to go on and on about that. In no way should those things impact this particular project. It should move forward. I thank you for your attention. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: I would like to make a couple of points, if I may, for the benefit of Mr. Domino and the benefit of this Board. I hoped not to be here. I'm here because of a, really a Planning Department that continues to question the approvals of this Board and the DEC. They are unhappy with the way the wetlands are delineated because they would like to be even more extensive. The Planning Department has no jurisdiction over anything. It really is the Planning Board. And the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over wetlands, per se. Having said that, we are here because we can't move forward because of the Planning Department. But, there is a recognition, I think here in this Board, and a recognition on the part of the DEC, that these are commercial properties. People have to earn a living. And what you see is, regardless of where one might believe the wetland line is, whether it be the DEC line or the Bob Foxx line, there has been, I think, a reasonable amount of flexibility on the part of this Board and the DEC in terms of the setbacks from those areas. And I hope that comforts you. Because we can argue about where the wetlands are, but what is more important is what we are able to do with that area adjacent to the wetlands. And here we are two years later finally with a consensus of where the wetlands are and how close we can be. We are satisfied with that and we don't think Mr. Domino's property will be damaged by those determinations. MR. DOMINO: Can I just add a point? Another comment? I fully agree with his statement about business property. For me the concern is, and furthermore, it has become the personality issue here. In the past, things like that have occurred in the Planning Department, and that is not beneficial to the town. We need consistency here. Mrs. Domino and I are concerned because in the interaction with Mr. Ratsey and the Planning Department, the DEC attempted to move the line further on my property and also on Mr. Franken's Board of Trustees 38 December 16, 2009 property. And that might impact us in the future. I'm speaking out here and i'm very glad to see that it's being recorded. Because in the future if I were to ask for an addition on my building or something and if something comes up and someone asks why did I not speak out, well, I've covered that. And once again, to be absolutely clear, Mr. Ratsey went through the same process I did before he purchased the property. It's not listed in the Trustees or New York State Wetlands maps. I did that before I purchased my property. So did he. These things come about later on and it puts a dampening effect on it. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: May I suggest that we send a copy of these minutes to Scott just to FYI him on this discussion, because a lot of this that has been said doesn't have to do with the Trustees. It's a planning issue and I think the Board needs to hear it. MR. ANDERSON: Then I have one more statement, and that is, if members of the Planning Department are unhappy with the decision of this Board, they can take up residence in the Town of Southold, run for office and get elected. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes it puts the Board in a difficult spot. MR. ANDERSON: But that's not fair. TRUSTEE KING: We had another piece of property, we had three wetland experts, and every delineation was different. And we are the ones that are supposed to say here is where the wetlands are. MR. ANDERSON: You know what, you have more expertise than they do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is interesting because Mr. Domino does make a good point. As a matter of fact, when we were out in the field and looked at that, I know it really has no bearing on this application, but when we looked at it, it was questionable whether or not the new flagging was really correct. But, it is open for interpretation. And I don't know how to solve that problem. In any case, are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). Any other comments from the gallery? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, just requesting that you Board of Trustees 39 December 16, 2009 submit revised plans showing plantings on the north side of the parking lot, which you know you have to do anyway. It seems it was found consistent with LWRP, I would make a motion we approve it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of NSHI= WlLLIAMSTON LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 14x35' swimming pool within the western portion of subject property. Located: 220 West Shore Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. This is a case where someone wants to place a swimming pool on the property. We are well in excess of 100 feet from surface waters. We are building in the side yard on the side of the house so as not to unreasonably encroach the top of the bank. We will employ the usual containment measures such as silt fence and hay bales. We have provided the equipment and the drainage for this pool landward and I think the application is fairly straightforward. TRUSTEE KING: I'll start with the Conservation Advisory Council first. Resolved to support the application with the condition the location of the pool is modified in an effort to save the large oak tree which absorbs the water and helps prevent runoff. That would be moving the pool to the south, then. Does anybody else have anything to say? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Move the pool farther landward. I say this only because I attended the Conservation Advisory Council meeting. That was just a recommendation that they had. MR. ANDERSON: I normally try to be flexible, but I have a shower, I have plumbing, I have a wood deck there. Right now I'm two feet from that structure. I can't do anything meaningful there. I could offer to plant another tree seaward of it, but I can't -- I don't have that flexibility. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We thought it looked kind of neat in the picture keeping the tree there. TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with LWRP. He's looking for identification of the bluff line. MR. ANDERSON: It's the top of the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: 25 feet landward of the receding edge. When we were out there, I would say the bluff line is way down here some place. Not up near the house. Board of Trustees 40 December 16~ 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that LWRP says it's up there? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. He's looking for identifying where the bluff line is. Has not been identified pursuant to 275-2. MR. ANDERSON: The bluff line runs parallel to the bulkhead, adjacent to the top of the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: That would be my feeling. MR. ANDERSON: We can label the map. TRUSTEE KING: That puts it roughly -- we can scale it off. We have two letters in here objecting to it. One person is at 150 West Shore Drive, on the east side of the property. I won't go into detail. We'll put it in the record. It's not enough buffer. The pool will infringe on the neighbor's privacy. They are worried about the odor of the pool chemicals, noise from the pumps, other visual impact. And the pool will diminish their enjoyment of their backyard, for us and for the neighbors to the west. There was also a letter from the neighbors to the west, concerned about the large volume of chemically treated water. This person has a sensitivity to swimming pool chemicals, will be unable to fully enjoy the patio area, and the same thing with the pumps. That's basically a quick summary of what these two neighbors are concerned about. The property has been listed for sale, so they are asking us to consider these comments in our evaluations. So we'll make sure these get into the record. MR. ANDERSON: May I make a suggestion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure MR. ANDERSON: I'm not concerned with the neighbor to the east because you have a house between the pool and the neighbor to the east. This pool is designed to comply with zoning. That is why it's five feet off the side yard, because that is what zoning permits, and that's why it is 75 feet from the bulkhead. Having said that, I think it's a neighborly thing to do to buffer it by planting along the side lot line, and we are willing to provide you with a plan to do that. I also think, we are doing pools now that are salt water pools that involve almost no chemicals. And I think that's reasonable, too. And a pool five feet, although compliant, is close. So I would offer that, for consideration of the neighbors, because it's important to be considerate of your neighbors. I don't think it's an environmental question, but it's something I would do. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's reasonable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We've recommended salt water pools in the past. It worked out pretty good. I've had one. Board of Trustees 41 December 16, 2009 It makes it easier to clean. MR. ANDERSON: I think the days of the heavy chlorine pool are behind us. Honestly. And now they are making kits that are conversion from chlorine to the salt. Reasonable in cost from an engineering standpoint. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from the audience? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think providing the plantings on that side will bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation there will be a screening by planting on the west side of the pool to the next door neighbor there, in the small area, and it will be a salt water pool TRUSTEE BERGEN: How do you address the inconsistency? TRUSTEE KING: I think that will bring it into consistency in doing those two measures. And again, it is well landward of the top of the bluff. It's not anywhere near the top of the bluff. That should bring it into consistency. That's my motion TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Can you show us your planting plan? MR. ANDERSON: On the side of that pool, yes, I will. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of GARY SALICE requests a Wetland Permit for the resurfacing and the squaring-off of the existing rear patio. Located: 6370 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. Conservation Advisory Council made a recommendation, resolved, I should say, to support it. This was a project that was, that is an as-built project because the Board had discovered the construction going on without a permit. A violation was issued. Lori, was this violation taken care of? MS. HULSE: I believe it's still pending. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So if the violation is still pending, we cannot act on this tonight but we can certainly discuss the -- MS. HULSE: Dave my understandings was there was of a conditional discharge recommended on this? Is that accurate? Board of Trustees 42 December 16, 2009 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was not part of that discussion. I take it back. We could, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, but if we were to approve this we could say pending the resolution of the violation. MS. HULSE: That would be fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this myself. Now, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. This application that is before you is filed as a condition of disposing of this in Justice Court. That's why we are here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: What we are looking for is an actual IJermit to take back to Justice Court. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, as I stated, I went out and I looked at this, and just like all the Trustees had looked at it when it was first discovered, it is what it states here, it was just the resurfacing and squaring off of the existing patio. So it essentially is an as-built and the project has been completed at this point in time and I didn't see any problem with the project. Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want to just make a comment of make sure there is no clearing in that area that we thought there was some clearing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to be more specific for me. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not familiar with this. I don't remember this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We went out and saw it in October, Jim. We drove past and stopped, when we were on our October field inspections, and walked out there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess it's just the edge of the wetlands to make sure the edge that is showing on the survey that it's not, that the bacharus bushes are not trimmed or anything, or touched. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as a condition that none of the /TKABG/RUS that are located seaward of this concrete patio are trimmed in the future. MR. ANDERSON: Without benefit of a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well -- MR. ANDERSON: I might want to plant or move them around but I need your permission to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's what I was getting at. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, a question for legal counsel. If I understand Mr. Anderson here, they need to take a permit to Justice Court to prove that this has been -- I don't want to get into which goes first. Board of Trustees 43 December 16, 2009 MS. HULSE: That was part of my conversation with the defendant in my action. I said he had to make an application to the Trustees which is why I tell everyone who has a violation that is pending and has not made an application so, if we proceed, if the Trustees proceed as they normally do, and I will get that resolved, that of course is part of any condition of a plea. You have to apply, you have to get your permit. So it's really the norm. So it's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as I stated earlier, if this Board was to, and again, I don't want get ahead of myself, if we were to approve this, but with the condition that the permit could not be released until the violation is taken care of, that would suffice. MS. HULSE: Sure TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). if not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number ten, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Gary Salice, as described, located at 6370 Skunk Lane, with the condition that the bacharus and vegetation wetland of the patio are not touched without a trustee permit, approved trustee permit, and that this permit will be released upon a resolution of the violation number 4167 that was issued by the Town of Southold on 9/21/09. That's my resolution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a motion to adjourn? TRUSTEE DOFIERTY: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) December 14, 2009 To :Southold Town Board of Trustees Hand debvered to the office on December 14, 2009 Glenn & Angela Brisotfi 4700 Ole Jule Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Robert H Whelan's Proposed Dock expansion project under permit number SCTM# 1000-122-4-41 - 4780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Sir or Madam: A few days ago I received a Certified Mail letter from our new Neighbor Mr. Robert Whelan. The letter is a "Notice to Adjacent Property Owner" and describes a proposed revision to a permit that's in place to greatly expand the width and length of an existing dock on his property. I am writing this letter due to the fact that my wife and I have some very serious concerns about this new proposal/expansion. Our house is located at 4700 Ole Jule Lane and is in front of Mt. Whelan% house; his property is on a flag lot behind ours and is actually on the inlet. When we purchased the property it also came with a small piece of land along the inlet as well (SCTM# 473889 122.4-42) with a right of way along the Driveway that Mr.. Whelan shares with our other next door neighbor. This right of way goes around Mr. Whelan's property and provides us access to our parcel. Unfortunately I don't have the survey map available but I beheve that our waterfront parcel buts up against Mr. Whelan's property and is located at the very end of this inlet. We receive a separate tax bill from the town of Southold for this small parcel evety year and we pay property taxes for it. Our concerns are in regards to the "Usability and or Marketability" of our parcel if a larger dock takes up even more space in that area then it already does. We are not even sure if the existing permit, when it was approved at the time, took into consideration the difficulties it would create with the use of the parcel next to it (ours.). The proposal sheet that we received with the Notice indicates that the canal is dredged but as far as I know its not where the dock exists. If you look at some of the attached photos, you will see it is very shallow where my parcel exists, less then a foot deep going out several feet, and it wasn't even low fide when the photos were taken. In the satellite images I grabbed from Google earth, there was an existing dock to the south of us that sticks out as well, however, it wasn't in place when I took the photos last week, perhaps it gets pulled for the winter; but the existence of that doc would mean we would have to maneuver a boat in between both of these slips, a difficult prospect to say the least with the existing size of the dock. Mt. Whelan's dock to the West already takes up a considerable mount of space at the end of the inlet as it exists today. One of the satellite images also is seems to indicate, that the orientation Mt. Whelan's dock (prior to his ownership) appears to have been kept or used in a criss cross pattern, not sticldng out like it normally would, however the other shows it in its correct orientation. Perhaps that was also for winter storage I'm not sure. As it exists right now, I am not sure what options we would have, if any, if we wanted to place some sort of dock there so we may enjoy access to James Creek as well. If Mr. Whelan's proposal were to be approved, it would make it even more difficult for us to be able to use our property in the manner it was indented, to give us access for a boat to James Creek and peconic bay. Therefore we regretfully feel we have no choice at this time but to protest this proposal. We feel that this proposal threatens our rights to the usal~dity and marketaWdity of our property, a parcel of land we pay separate taxes for every tingle year, and fed compelled to protect it to the best of our al~dity. We respectfully request that this letter and attached exhibits be put into the minutes of the meeting (unfortunately I wont be able to attend the meeting itself) and that this proposal be rejected as proposed or reworked, so that our rights for the usalgdity of our property are protected as best as possible. Sincerel;>~. Glenn Brisotfi Attachments: Copy of Notice of Adjacent Property Owner, and proposal sheet, 4 Satellite images and 4 photos 30 Toper Road Plainfield, CT 06374 (860) 376-3168/cell (617) 331-9335 December 13, 2009 Trustee Town of Southold Dear Trustees, I am writing in reference to the hearing that is being held on Sept. 16, 2009 in Long Island for the building permit of Harriet McNamaraTs property, which borders mine on Fishers Island, NY. I understand the need to increase living space as families and generations grow and share a dwelling. ! have two adult children and we now have two growing grandchildren. I worry with Darbies Cove less than 60 feet fi.om existing dwellings on lot 67 & 68, we need to be environmentally conservative for the welfare of the cove and future generations. I write to you in hopes of clarification on current septic/leaching requirements for a property of this kind with 3 families sharing 4 or five buildings on very closely divided lots, all part of one original family owned lot. Is the lot/building being proposed "up to code" for the proposed living capacity being added to the house overall, not just the part on Lot 67? A large portion of the McNamara house and two sheds not shown, overlap lot 68 (owned by the brother of applicant). Secondly, how could these lots be divided truly if the buildings overlap? If the committee were to look at the lots in terms of utilities, there is only one original lot being charged (67,68 or 69?) and serviced that is how the infrastructure (Septic, utilities etc) was originally intended, one dwelling with a cottage. There has been continual development (permitted and un-permitted) to these original dwellings over time that should be evaluated more closely. I would ask that the committee review the current permitted and un-permitted buildings on this set of 3 lots, including sheds and outbuildings which are not shown on the drawing provided, which add to the density/capacity and septic system demands of these lots. Sincerely, Mr. Paul J. Collins Adjacent Property owner Page 1 ofl From: Elbert Burr[elbyburr@c0mcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:27 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Fw: Notice To Adjacent Property Owner Hi ,here lily IIOIC. acsl Elby .... Original Message --- From: Elbert Burr To: David Berqen Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:02 PM Subject: Notice To Adjacent Propeay Owner Good Morning Davkl, Hol)c MI is wcll will) you. 1 havc a rcqucsl and a qucstion lbr you a~s a mcmbcr of fl)c Soud~old Board of Truslccs. I just rcccivcd noficcd l?om Iht towu of a applica6oa pcninsula ownc(I by H~cl McNmnara. SCM 1000 sccfion 01 Block 4 lot 67. Your mccfiug Io rcvicw Ihis al)plication is schcdulcd on Dec. 16Ih. My conccrn is aol with thc a(ldiliol~ ~ it is IM(I out bul more ~lh thc sizc ~(1 l~adon of thc cxisli~ scplic Im~k m~d lcaching liclds flxal suppo~ Ihis home. This house lies within a ~oup of houses which have been in their ofi~finM slate prc cxisfing.. However as lime h~s gonc Mong fl~cy have bccn cxpm~dcd on slowly covering a m~jor potion of Iht land m'ea Ibc Ihrcc dwcllin~ ori~nMly occupied. I cslimalc Ihc aclu;fl mMn [loor lcvcls Io sca lcvcl is no morc thcm 4 l~cl and since thc Ihrec dwelling MI shmc Ihc ori~nal lbolprint of thc properly they havc vc~T litllc room il' auy lbr adequate seplic and lcaching liclds. In l~ct Rfivcn Ihc Ihcl thai sca lcvcl is only approximately lbur l~el down leaching can bccomc Mmosl impossil)lc. During thc sammcr monfl~s Iht fin'cc dwelling ;wc hcavily used m~(l a bcdroom m~(l bath room corral should bc made Io bc sure thc Ihrcc dwclliug mccl septic and leaching licM code. One home actu~ly overlaps Ihc applicanls home. D~by's Cove which IYouts fl~c three dwelling is a rclalivc sh~low water basin and tid~ chm~gc is limilcd. I 1~ should auy of fl~c leaching systems ovcr flow or reach Iht bay under ground wc would have all bul boating aclivilics. This is a mailer of major concern hcrc on Fishers and whilc wc push to l)Unll) ~1 Ix)als wc nccd lo also bc sarc that ;al our homes lllccl wifl~ hc~lh code rcquircmcnts. I rc;flizc thc fl~rcc owniug p~lics havc scparalcd thc l)ropc~ics lbr ~ purposes thc land usc h~s not changed.Thank you lbr your allcntion to my concern. Best Ell)ca Bu~ 12/11/2009