Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/24/2010Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hail Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, February 24, 2010 6:00 PM 2070 Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Jim King, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Robed Ghosio, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, Mamh 17, 2010, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 18, 2009 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our February meeting. I'll introduce the Board. To my far left is our newest member, John Bredemeyer; we have Dave Bergen; Jim King is the vice-president; I'm the president; Lauren is our everything in the office, I don't know what to call you anymore. She does everything for us. Bob Ghosio is another Trustee and Lori Hulse is our attorney. We have Wayne Galante keeping track of everything we say, so when you do speak, please come up to the microphone and state your name for the record and then you can speak. And we have Peter Young here representing the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory Council, who reviews the same applications we do, and gives us their advice on it. Board of Trustees 2 February 24, 2010 Is there anything anybody wants to add on anything? (No response). We are all working on a lot of the same projects that we have been working on; like with storm water runoff, it's a lot more than just reviewing applications, and even though the economy has slowed down a little, we are still pretty busy, as you can see from our agenda. With that, we'll get started MS. HULSE: We just had amendments to 275 at the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that public hearing set up yet? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we just did some more amendments to 275. As we work through this with everybody, we find these little glitches and things and we try to make the process easier, so we made some minor changes and presented that to the Town Board. And they set up a public hearing, and then hopefully those changes with will go through and it will simplify the process for everyone. So we work on all these things. So, before we get started, there is one postponement. Page five, number 18, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of KEVIN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dwelling to top of foundation; repair foundation and elevate to make flood compliant; rebuild house with addition and square off house on west side. Located: 12580 Main Road, East Marion, has been postponed. That won't be heard tonight. The next field inspections we have for Wednesday, March 10, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, March 17, at 6:00 PM, with the worksession at 5:30, and you have to wear green. It's a holiday. For me anyway. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the minutes of November 18, 2009. Has anybody reviewed them? I have. TRUSTEE KING: I did. I didn't have any problem. There was one misspelling, that's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have one word change and I gave it to Lauren. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second it. All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye, Trustee King, aye, Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee Bergen, abstains). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record I abstain. I was not present for that hearing Board of Trustees 3 February 24, 2010 I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January, 2010. A check for $11,102.70 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II, PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. IlL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee Agenda dated Wednesday, February 24, 2010, are classified as Type II Actions pumuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are listed as follows: Arthur Cody - SCTM#116-4-2. Mattituck Fishing Station - SCTM#99-4-23. Amy Orr - SCTM~65-1-23. Spiro Geroulanos - SCTM#104-9-13. Luke & Rita Licalzi - SCTM#70-4-46.1. Edward Fergus - SCTM#70-12-39.3. George Baldwin - SCTM#57-2-21. Michael Carlucci - SCTM#57-2-22. Virginia Bontje - SCTM#57-2-23. John Mulholland - SCTM#57-2-24. Robert Swing - SCTM#53-6-24. Joseph & Heidi Battaglia - SCTM#64-3-3. Patricia & Austin Lance Lawther - SCTM#86-6-8. Martin Kosmynka - SCTM#138-2-25. Mattituck Park District- SCTM#126-5-20.1. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV, RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions-Administrative Permits. Bob, do you Board of Trustees 4 February 24, 2010 want to take number one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Patdcia Moore on behalf of MAIN ROAD, INC., requests an Administrative Permit to renovate an existing restaurant, including roof alterations and site improvements. Located: 64755 Main Road, Southold. This has been found to be exempt by LWRP, and I took a look at it. Essentially, anything that is done with the building will be better than what is there now. That's a good thing. It's a good project. The only question I have is just a technical one. On the site plan, site plan it shows, it has wetlands delineations and it shows, essentially, that the parking lot is 200 feet away from the wetlands delineation boundary. But there is an awful lost phragmites 50 feet away from the parking lot. MS. MOORE: Unfortunately, Rob Herman, who actually flagged it for us, he went out there several times and he identified the wetlands for us. So based on the soil conditions and hydrology and the plant species, he actually identified the wetland line. We think it's accurate. I mean, we hope it's accurate. And we also have submitted it to the DEC. There is tidal on one side and fresh water on the other, so I have actually submitted as a joint application, an application for the DEC for both sides. Well, actually, on the DEC side, they have it, it's in their jurisdiction but 200 feet away. So I have not heard anything back from the DEC disputing that flagging. That's all I can tell you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do we plan on doing with large pine trees and all of that? MS. MOORE: Right now there is no plans for -- well, they'll try to do as little as possible to the site conditions, but most of the money has to go into making the building attractive. We are in the process of getting Health Department approval and John Condon has been doing that work. He, we just filed the application and it may require, we have to leave it up to the Health Department to tell us whether or not we can use the existing system or whether they'll make us replace the system. And we don't know the answer to that yet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I thought that might be the case, which is why I bring up the wetland line. Because if the wetland line is where -- if we are going to use the phragmites as an indicator and then call this wetlands, then this falls under our jurisdiction. I don't think the Board really has a problem with this. I don't. If we stipulate there is not going to be any further work done from the parking lot toward the wetlands without first coming in for a permit. MS. MOORE: Well, the sanitary, is part of it. That has to be, we'll probably be doing some testing and so on for the Health Department as part of the process, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only question I had, it says here renovate the existing restaurant. I thought there was a sign on there, Board of Trustees 5 February 24, 2010 something to the effect the demolition of the facility. Will the facility be demoed? MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MOORE: I don't know about it, put it that way. In fact I think there is a trailer there that has all the restaurant equipment waiting. They were hoping reopen immediately and it got delayed as soon as the Building Department couldn't give us the permit. Now it triggered everything to all being reviewed. TRUSTEE GHOStO: It's not being demoed? MS. MOORE: Not to my knowledge. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Peconic Cesspool on behalf of WILLIAM & JOAN STILES requests an Administrative Permit to install an additional overflow cesspool. Located: 12700 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. We all went out to this because it is, we try, when people re-do their septic, we try and get it out of our jurisdiction and this, we can't. But we did get it further away from the wetlands and Peconic Cesspool did come in and initial the plans and we have the revised plans showing what we discussed in the field. So based on that I'll make a motion to approve the application of Will and Joan Stiles. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Tom Wickham on behalf of the NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC. requests an Administrative Permit to remove some concrete rubble; add compose materials; till the soil and plant native beach grass, wild flowers and other Iow-maintenance vegetation. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. We all went out there. I think we had a couple of questions. I don't know if anybody can answer them or not: How much compost material is going to be added, and there is a lot of old ground up asphalt on the premises. Is that going to be removed. So those are the two questions we had. Is there anybody here that we could ask? (No response). I don't know what the Board's pleasure is but it sounds like they are going to try and do some plantings there and restore the area. But I'm kind of curious as to how much compost they are going to bring in. Board of Trustees 6 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I also looked at the area involved. There is a whole lot of ground-up asphalt there and I just want to make sure when they say till the soil, that they are not talking about tilling the asphalt into the soil. We would rather see the asphalt removed. So if there is nobody here, I guess make a motion to table this until a discussion could be held. TRUSTEE KING: Either that or we can condition it that all the asphalt must be removed from the site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you don't know how much fill they'll bring in, too. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just table it and see if we can get an answer from these folks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because most likely they are not bringing all that much, but if we approve it and they end up bringing a lot and change the elevation, that will be a problem. TRUSTEE KING: Right. I'll make a motion to table this until we get the information we are looking for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want number four, Dave? Pat, do you have Santorini? MS. MOORE: I think I'm done. See if that does it TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). This is the EDUCATION AND CULTURAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., requests an Administrative Permit to construct a new sanitary system in accordance with Suffolk County Health Department. The new sanitary system will be outside of our jurisdiction. Remove existing sanitary system pursuant to Suffolk County Health Department. Trench new sanitary lines. Abandon old pipes, septic pools. Fill rings or remove as directed by Suffolk County Health Department. Located: 3800 Duckpond Road, Cutchogue. Is there any comment the Board on this? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to clarify, I don't have anything to do with the Health Department or it's approval, so I'm not in conflict. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any need for hay bales seaward of the proposed old, abandoned cesspools? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I personally don't think so because it is flat and they do have that cement bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't know how the others feel, but. TRUSTEE KING: The concern I had was along the edge of the road, when you go along the road, there was three or four pools along Board of Trustees 7 February 24, 2010 the side of the building. If they are not going to be doing any excavation and if they are just filling it in, it's no problem. If they have to dig everything up, they need hay bales. So it's conditioned on how much work they'll do. MS. MOORE: And they won't know until they are there. If you want to add hay bales or protect against -- TRUSTEE KING: If there is a lot of excavation, I think they need it. If they are simply filling in pools, they don't it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In removal of abandoned pools is required, then hay bales would be required. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to make that motion, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just add it to the description. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to add it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can add it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have it on the record. MS. MOORE: And I gave all the description of this particular plan so when I bring it over it will be the plan that matches this Health Department approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's on the west side of the property?. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: Do you want the hay bales along the road or along the bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: Just along the edge of the road. It's on there. It would be on the east side of the road. I know there is not a lot of road between the road edge and the motel. MS. MOORE: Along the west side of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, correct. It would only be for a short distance there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the Education and Cultural Property Holdings, Inc., to remove existing sanitary system pursuant to Suffolk County Health Department standards, trench new sanitary lines, abandon old pipes, septic pools. Fill rings or remove, as directed by Suffolk County Health Department. If removal of the pools need to be done on the west side of the property, hay bales shall be placed along property line and road. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And conditioned upon receiving a full application for administrative permit. V. RESOLUTIONS-STAKES/MOORING PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Resolutions Stakes/Mooring permits. We have one this month. FRANK KLOS requests an onshore/offshore stake in West Creek for an 11' boat, replacing Stake #3. Access: Public. Board of Trustees 8 February 24, 2010 I did review the file and it is replacing a similar size boat, so Ill make motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want the next one? TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Amendments. What we try and do, we have been pretty successful in doing it, to speed things along a little bit. If they are all basically pretty simple and there is not a lot of problems with them, we all agree on everything, we'll just lump them all together and approve them all at once. So number one through seven TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of information before we move forward. Item four, are we going to ask for the hay bales? MS. MOORE: It's been done. TRUSTEE KING: Hay bales have been put in place. That was one of our requirements to allow the extension. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we have a picture of it. MS. MOORE: In the rain. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to approve one through seven. The read as follows: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6821, as issued on February 27, 2008, and Amended on August 19, 2009. Located: Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion. Number two, MICHAEL MCGOLDRICK requests a Transfer of Permit #2273 from Joan LaCaille to Michael McGoldrick, as issued on April 23, 1987. Located: 1255 Waterview Drive, Southold. Number three, GIROLAMO GAMBINO requests a Transfer of Permit fl6559 from Inger Boyajian to Girolamo Gambino as issued on March 21, 2007. Located: 3590 North Road, Greenport. Number four Patricia Moore on behalf of GREGORY K. JOHNSON requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6826, as issued on February 27, 2008. Located: 2870 Henry's Lane, Peconic Number five, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOSEPH & HEIDI BATTAGLIA requests an Amendment to Permit #7028 for the revised footprint of the proposed single-family dwelling located no closer than 75' from the wetlands. Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. Number six, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN (PORT OF EGYPT) requests an Amendment to Permit #7185 to reduce the depth of the deck from 30' to 20' thereby moving Board of Trustees 9 February 24, 2010 it 10' er back from the retaining wall and bulkhead. Located: 62300 Main Road, Southoid. And number seven, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of SPIRO GEROULANOS requests an Amendment to Permit ~6836 to relocate the proposed swimming pool further back from the edge of the wetlands and modify the proposed retaining wall along the 50' non-disturbance buffer; and a One-year Extension to Permit #6836, as issued on 3/19/08 and Amended on 8/19/09. Located: 2130 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearing and on go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are on to our public hearing section, and if you do come up to the mic, please state your name and, for the record, please try to keep your comments five minutes or less. Bob, do you want to start and we'll work our way down? COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Patricia Moore on behalf of MARLO ABBATE & JOSEPHINE PADOVAN requests 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. This is a continuation of a hearing we opened last month. MS. MOORE: I tried to clean up my client's paperwork, which I hope was acceptable. I took all of the comments that you guys made to me last time I was here and I tried to synthesize it and put it into the conditions of the permit. So my cover letter has all the different items that I had, we had talked about on the record, and then I also included the list, one through five, incorporated into the permit. So I was trying, again, to clean up the paperwork that my client had submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to summarize, we do have a letter here from Pat Moore to the Board which does summarize just that. The roof, gutters and leaders are addressed, the debris and wood stored on the bank is going to be removed. Sand placed along the north side will be removed by hand and re-deposited on the bank, to re-fill the excavated area on the bank. The owners will advise Board of Trustees 10 February 24, 2010 the Trustees prior to the commencement of the work and will advise us when the work is to be performed. And that way we can -- the Trustees had offered to make progress inspection, and she has advised her client to that. So we can make that inspection if we would like. After the sand is removed, the area will be restored with native sea grasses and grasses will be planted within six months of the issuance of the permit. And the as-built stairs to the beach and the existing wood retaining wall are included in this permit. Any questions from the Board? Comments? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: In that case I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I make a motion to approve the application on behalf of Marlo Abbate and Josephine Padovan as we just read into the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wetland Permits, number one, MARTIN KOSMYNKA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock consisting of a 3x8' ramp and 3x28' fixed dock with a ladder at the seaward end, and a piling and pulley system. Located: 5800 Skunk Lane Cutchogue. This comes in consistent under the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports a dock in this area however the project was not staked and there was concerns about the size of the lot location and navigability. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. KOSMYNKA: Martin Kosmynka, the property owner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did receive drawings that we asked for, and I see from the drawings that your proposed dock will be going out further than the other docks that are in the area. When we were out there, it was not staked and we did measure it. And I walked along the other dock that is existing, and it didn't seem like it was. But according to the drawing, it looks like it. MR. KOSMYNKA: Yes, I believe with the DEC permit it ran equally with the same one that was given right to the south side of me. It's supposed to be identical. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, because this is a drawing that we received. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: There was one that was pre and one that was Board of Trustees 11 February 24, 2010 post. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even the post seems to go out further. MR. KOSMYNKA: That was on the side. I'll follow the one that the DEC has issued. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have that? MR. KOSMYNKA: It should be in your file, but I do have a copy. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the problem with the one we have with the DEC. We just had a side profile. We didn't have -- MR. KOSMYNKA: You don't have this one here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All we have is the profile. MR. KOSMYNKA: This one is projecting looking down. So the question is it looks like I'm protruding further than the one to the -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. KOSMYNKA: I can't tell for sure but can it be because of the contour the way the property is going? Because it kind of bellies. I'm just going by what they did there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even with the contour that goes out, we still -- that means your dock will be shorter than the other. I almost want to see the outer staked. I know it's a hard time of year to do that. MR. KOSMYNKA: I had it staked. It was staked and with all the ice and snow, it was all covered up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are going out March 10. If you want to stake it a day or two before that. MR. KOSMYNKA: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you can make maybe meet us out there. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. It's just with the contradiction of what we saw in the field and what we tried to measure and the surveys, I'm not comfortable -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm not comfortable with the whole application, to be honest with you. Because I know there is a denial in the record in 2006 to put a dock there. The property is only 12 feet wide. It doesn't meet any of the standards. In my mind it may be a spot for onshore/offshore stake, but not a fixed structure like that. I think the property is just too small. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For my part I would like to have a lot more information. I'm uncomfortable, considering not having docks where we can, because I think the comfort, order, convenience and safety of people is of paramount concern. I would like to see more information, even including possibly the corners of the property staked to get a relationship of other docks in the area so we don't create a hardship or unnecessary conflict between the neighboring docks. TRUSTEE KING: There is not much room there. MR. KOSMYNKA: I'm unaware of a permit being denied in 2006. The only thing I saw in the file that Lauren gave me was you went out there, the folks went out there and inspected it and said Board of Trustees 12 February 24, 2010 they would be recommending a post and pulley system. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was done with the previous owner. MR. KOSMYNKA: It was. I have a letter in the file addressed from Beth, who was the property owner at the time. It was just a recommendation the Board to do a post and pulley system, and that was over in August of '06. And since then the neighbor just to the south of me, I mean, I don't know when, he's fairly, his dock looks fairly new. It looks like it was built at the same time. And he is consistent with what I asked for or what I'm asking for, and what the DEC has given me as a permit. He has the same property dimensions as I do and as, I believe, there is probably six or eight of these parcels along with the other 30 that are running along Skunk Lane in all different lengths. These are deeded lots, been paid taxes on for the last 70-some odd years and they were deeded out to everybody in the neighborhood. TRUS'~EE DOHERTY: And they were deeded for this purpose, for access to the water. MR. KOSMYNKA: Yes, that's what they are. TRUSTEE KING: That doesn't necessarily mean to build a dock. MR. KOSMYNKA: As I went through the process with the DEC, the one thing they look when they saw me and spoke, they said, look, we would rather have you have a fixed dock there rather than you dragging a boat on the shoreline. And now having the fiberglass being put in decking material and they felt they really wanted to keep the shoreline intact. And that's the reason why I believe the guy next door to me is looking for the same thing. I believe that's why he was granted. And as you go along, again, everybody has, these lots are there. They have been there. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought most of those lots were 25, 30 feet wide. Not 12. MR. KOSMYNKA: They all vary. They definitely all vary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall,they do vary, because I recall the property farther to the south just a year ago there was a dock put in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the same size. According to this survey -- excuse me for interrupting. But according to this survey here it's 11.96 and Mr. Kosmynka is 11.96. It's the same size. MR. KOSMYNKA: I don't know how many are right there by me, but there is at least five or six that are deeded the same size and then they go up 15 feet, 20, 18. There is some people that have 36 that have three or four boats on it. Urn, TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just, personally, agree with one of the statements that has been made is that the purpose of all these parcels there, as I understand it -- and I don't know this is fact -- but as I understand it, was to allow individual owners access to the water. And obviously there have been a lot of docks put along there. A number of docks put along there, rm Board of Trustees 13 February 24, 2010 not sure if there are any stakes or pulleys in that area also. I know we have the dock, as we can see immediately to the south, it's exactly what you are applying for is a dock with essentially a pulley system out to a piling. MR. KOSMYNKA: I have photographs of a lot of the properties running along the whole thing here. If you want them in the record. I have photos, shot photos of everything. And I have an overall map showing all the individual lines. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there is no objection from anybody, I have no problem postponing for a month so we can get it staked. When we were out there, the ice was very thick. I believe you there was a stake there, but the ice took it away. Just so we can at least confirm the application, what is being proposed as far as length goes. MS. HULSE: If I could, just to be consistent, and this is just an opinion I have given you before, on vacant parcels, a dock is not a permitted use in this town. It would just be on a vacant parcel, a dock in and of itself, is not permitted. With a house, yes. But not in the zoning code, the way it's written. I know I have made that point before, and it's not the policy of the Trustees, perhaps, but consistent with the code, you can't put a dock on a vacant parcel. It's not a permitted use. TRUSTEE DOHERTY; These are all zoned residential, right? MR. KOSMYNKA: There is no commercial here, again. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How did they get all the docks there to begin with? MS. HULSE: If there is a home attached to it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not physically attached to it. MS. HULSE: A vacant parcel, without a home, that's not a permitted use in the code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are attached by deed. MR. KOSMYNKA: There is actually three lots over, a dock just went up four, five months ago. MS. HULSE: We had this issue last year and I made the same point. But I know the Trustees may not agree with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, thank you. So what does the Board want to do; postpone it in order to see the seaward side staked and maybe the landward corners of the lot staked, which I believe they were. MR. KOSMYNKA: There were steel posts on each side of the property line. There was a stake out there but with the ice and everything going over it, it disappeared. But I'm under the impression it's the same dimension as the neighbor. Nothing changed. We are looking to do the same thing as the neighbor. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if you can stake where you'll start the dock and then where you'll end it. And if you can, where you'll end the dock and then where the pilings will be. MR. KOSMYNKA: And you'll be out there March 10 Board of Trustees 14 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And for some reason if you can't do it, we can just put it off to the next time. MR. KOSMYNKA: Okay, thank you, very much. We'll figure out a way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table the application of Martin Kosmynka in order to reinspect the property, to see it staked. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FREDERIC ENDEMANN requests a Wetland Permit to resheath approximately 36' of timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing, construct approximately 160' of Iow sill timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and to plant area with Spartina Alternaflora 12" on center. Located: 840 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. This was an application which we opened and had a discussion on at a public hearing last month. And just to review, the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the Iow sill bulkhead does not conform to code and recommends rip rap or gabions. And it was found consistent under the LWRP. Now, last month when we discussed this, we had suggested to the applicant that the proposed Iow sill bulkhead be moved seaward of the originally proposed construction because as we had it on the proposed construction that was before us last month, it was basically at the very toe of the bank that is there, and we had proposed, we had asked for the applicant to consider moving it a little farther seaward so then there was room to dredge in front, put the dredge material behind that Iow sill and that would give you an area to plant and also it would not require any work on that bank. So with that, is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. I think I resubmitted some new plans that showed exactly the Board had asked for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see in a letter dated February 16, 2010, received February 17, in our office, where you have referred to these new plans. MR. JUST: What I'd done, the original plans showed the bluffa little more sloped. It's a lot more steeper than I originally had shown it. And also the apparent high water/apparent Iow water line, was not as accurate as I thought they were. I moved the apparent Iow water out to about the first line of piles on the line of fixed docks you see there. And that's what we are proposing to put the Iow sill bulkhead in, just seaward of the Board of Trustees 15 February 24, 2010 apparent Iow water line. The original survey had shown the apparent high water about the location of the second set of piles, and we went back there four or five times, and it was inaccurate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also noticed this is, just for clarification, this Iow sill is a straight line shot from where the bulkhead is going to end to the southern piece of the property. It doesn't go all the way along the entire length of the property. MR. JUST: Exactly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think originally we thought maybe it was going to go along the entire length and which would require a turn and a Iow sill. MR. JUST: It's not necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And just so everybody knows, we had talked about, last month, the 36-foot timber bulkhead with sheathing, and we didn't have any problem with that. TRUSTEE KING: Is that Iow sill still going to be that much above high water, Glenn? MR. JUST: About 18 inches. So it gets flooded every new moon, full moon. TRUSTEE KING: Why wouldn't we lower that so it gets flooded at every high tide? MR. JUST: This is my first Iow sill bulkhead I've ever done and I'm just going with the recommendations of the DEC and trying to work it out with all the different agencies, to be honest with you. TRUSTEE KING: Because all the ones we've seen is a foot below high water so it gets flooded twice a day. MR. JUST: I have modify that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is DEC giving you why they are suggesting it that high? MR. JUST: When we were out there, it was on ice and it was pretty hard to establish what they wanted to see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So how about we have it at apparent high water height. TRUSTEE KING: Or six or eight or ten inches below average high water. The whole idea of the Iow sill is they flood every high tide. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the feeling of the Board on it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with Jim. Especially in this area. I mean it's -- TRUSTEE KING: All the ones we have seen, a couple around Deephole, there is a couple in the bay. MR. JUST: It seems like there is a lot of water pushed up there on tides, so the water stays up in that basin. I could drop the elevation down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could drop it down to eight inches below mean high tide. Apparent mean high tide. TRUSTEE KING: I think that would work better than this height here. Board of Trustees 16 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you have to go back to the DEC, because it's less than? MR. JUST: I'm still in the room with them, for a long time, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since it's less, I would not think there would be a need. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any comments from the Conservation Advisory Council? Any additional comments? MR. YOUNG: No, those remain. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of JMO Environmental on behalf of Frederic Endemann as described at 840 Old Harbor Road, as per plans dated February 17, 2010, with the stipulation that the height of the Iow sill bulkhead will be no higher than eight inches below the apparent high water mark. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, sorry, I would also like to recommend the use of a silt boom in that area to help contain the silt in the area, to the area of construction. I would like to add that in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave, do you want to revise the resolution to take out the date of the plan, because we'll need to see revised plans. Just to be technical. TRUSTEE KING: Based on new plans showing the lower height. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to approve the application of JMO Consulting on behalf of Frederic Endemann at 840 Old Harbor Road, subject to receipt of new plans which will depict the Iow sill bulkhead no higher than eight inches below apparent high water mark and the use of a silt boom during construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of MICHAEL & BETH NEUMANN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x75' open grate fiberglass catwalk supported by untreated 4x4" timber posts, a 3x15' ramp and a 6x20' float secured by two 10" piles. Located: 3329 Grand Avenue, Mattituck I guess you have this one here, too, Mr. Just? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application. The Council questions the need for 10-inch pilings and recommends the dock is constructed parallel to the shoreline to minimize intrusion into the channel. I think it was found consistent with LWRP. It was found consistent. I'm kind of Board of Trustees 17 February 24, 2010 familiar with this area. I think years ago there was a dock there. Many years ago. MR. JUST: Yes, there was one. TRUSTEE KING: And there used to be a mooring when the Wiggley's owned the property, they had a mooring in front of the property. MR. JUST: I believe I submitted an old Van Tyle survey as part of the application that shows you what that fixture out there was at one time back in the '70's. TRUSTEE KING: You had that staked. I took a look at it. When the whole Board went there the first time, it was not staked. I guess you staked it. I went back out by myself. Is that stake the seaward end of the float? MR. JUST; The one out in the water? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's tucked in pretty good, really. MR. JUST; I tried to make it as short as possible. If we had to turn it parallel with the shore we would have to put the fixed structure up a lot longer. There was a suggestion by the Board about that. It's a five foot tidal range. You need to make it a longer ramp. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we'll do that. But what size piles are you -- MR. JUST: It's two-and-a-half feet, three feet of water. Right now it's about 50 off the edge of the edge there. TRUSTEE KING: What size piles will you use in the water?. I know for a while we were doing 4x4's, six-inch piles and eight-inch piles holding the float. That's kind of been the standard in that area because DEC would not approve anything else. I don't have a huge problem with ten-inch piles on the float because that's a main part of the creek, where you have a long stretch from north to south. So I don't think a ten-inch pile is out of line there. MR. JUST: I'm only going for two of them, so. TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any comments? Does anybody else in the audience have any comments about this application? (No response). Being no other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with one change. We have about a five-and-a-half foot rise and fall of tide in Mattituck Creek. Sometimes up to eight feet, depending on the moon and the wind, so I think a 4x20 ramp or 3x20 ramp is going to be a little less of an angle on Iow tides, and I think that's the better way to go rather than what you had proposed the first time. 157 I think it should be a 20-foot ramp. It won't change the overall length of the structure but Board of Trustees 18 February 24, 2010 it gives you better access at Iow tide. Much less of an angle. MR. JUST: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So I would make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, that's 4x75 open grate, 3x20 ramp and 6x20 float. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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. We have a report from LWRP that it is inconsistent. It centers specifically on language in the wetland codes concerning construction operations standards involving individual stairs are prohibited on bluffs; that the part property is part of an association that maintains a common stairway within a reasonable distance. So that will center on, I guess, the notion of what is reasonable. The Conservation Advisory Council had supported the application with some recommendations to -- specifically, they support it with a recommendation that the applicant consider realignment to more favorable gradient and consider shared access with the adjacent owner. In an effort to preserve the bluff, the Conservation Advisory Council recommends the bluff stairs are constructed with erosion control device at base of supports and with best engineering practices. I went to the site, walked it, as well as the common access. It's a remarkably well-vegetated bluff and no signs of current erosion. The comments of the Conservation Advisory Council seem to somewhat, some of my concerns, obviously with the stable bluff you want to maintain some control over construction aspects. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. And I also have the Zoitas family here with me because the last time with the storms, they couldn't make it. I gave you the aerial that had the markings by the surveyor, because quite frankly, I couldn't, I wanted to rely on professional measurements, so that provided the proof. I also gave you the subdivision that it comes up on the town's records and you can see the number of lots that use that one access point. Also, the aerial photograph that I gave you that has the measurement shows you that the house to the west, which is the house that is between the, I don't know there is extra lot there or not, but between the stairs -- is there another lot? MR. ZOITAS: Yes. Board of Trustees 19 February 24, 2010 MS. MOORE: Okay. So there are three propertias east of the staircase. There is one lot that is vacant, then there is the house that is next door to us that has a staircase, but it's on the opposite side of our property. Then my client is the dead end. The end of the road for Pebble Beach, The Long Way. So I also want to point out we have the DEC approval but part of the DEC approval was that the horizontal structure, any horizontal structures will be grated material, so that we can make it as consistent as possible and certainly keep the vegetation healthy below. So we tried to address all of the factors originally. That's why we gave it to the DEC that way. The reason it bisects the property the way it does is because it's steep. It's very vegetated but very steep. And if you were to go straight down, you would actually have these huge "Z"s going across and it's actually much more damaging than if you take a more natural angle diagonally. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is very steep. When I see the contour line drawing, that seems to be consistent with the line drawing. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: From my personal perspective, I didn't see a problem with this. I guess I have a bigger problem with the code language that is asking us for a degree of reasonableness of something. I, personally, believe in access, I believe in private access. Personally. I think the community is well served when individuals have access to our waters, that private access to common lands promotes good stewardship. So I know there might be a divergence of opinion on that, but particularly in sites such as this that appears to be stable and where the bluff as a natural resource feature should be able to be protected, it would be a wonderful place for children to explore and learn a little bit about the environment. Is there any anyone else who wants to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MOORE: Well, my clients are all here in support, obviously, but I'm waiting kind of to hear what the Board feels then we can try to address your concerns. I was just asking about, in the, on the aerial, because you don't really see it when you are there, since you are at the dead end. On the aerial you can see the adjacent property has a dirt path and there is probably deer paths that have been created. So what happens, the down side of not having a staircase is that you end up with the kids that get a little older and they start damaging the bluff by taking some of the deer paths down, just because that's, you know, the quickest, easiest way. So my recommendation is always to have safe access. MR. ZOITAS: George Zoitas, I'm the son of John and Maria Zoitas. Board of Trustees 20 February 24, 2010 Also another concern, another thing, during the summer it's really busy there and everybody is parking like right along the public entrance, and it's just like a million cars moving in and out. And my sister's kids are young, and I'll have kids in the future. And I feel like there is no reason why it shouldn't be granted for someone that, you know, has been a resident for more than ten areas there. My dad acquired the land, I think, in 1997. My dad is 65. He has diabetes. You know, it's a big distance from a 1,400 versus 200 feet. MS. MOORE: I think it was 300 from the back door. We actually had the surveyor measure from when you open the back door. MR. ZOITAS: Our neighbor has it. They use it. And everybody is fishing. Once you enter the public area, by that time, you don't even want to walk toward your side of the beach. Walking on the sand is tiring and with the kids and my sister and everything. And everybody is fishing right in front. I don't know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with what Jay says about the code. What is a reasonable distance. And for me, personally, we explored that, we looked at it, we asked you to do some measurements. And for me, I think it might be beyond a reasonable distance. I'm thinking if I was there with my family, carrying everything going down, you know. MS. MOORE: Particularly with the young kids. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I have been there. MR. ZOITAS: And it's like gridlock with where the entrance is. Everybody is leaving their cars everywhere, and the kids are going no get older and will want to go by themselves. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see less structure, and that's something we can work toward with the Planning Board, when they are planning subdivisions, is putting these restrictions in the subdivisions so when you buy the property you know you can't have a set of stairs there. That's what we are doing for the future, to have common stairs, so we have less structure on the bluff. This is a well-established bluff and I reali~ hate to see it cut into, but. MS. MOORE: It's being done very carefully. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But I believe the access should be granted to enjoy the beach. So that's my personal view. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: About the only concern I had with doing the site inspection was that your managed lawn right up to where would be a landing or the first portion of the steps, I would be concerned that by maintaining lawn cut shortly and maybe not letting it grow taller and more robustly might start to create erosional problems right at the inflection of the bluff. So I guess it would be a concern to protect the bluff as a land form feature, that consideration be given to a minimal amount of lawn cutting and landscaping, allow the natural grass and vegetation Board of Trustees 21 February 24, 2010 which now exists right below the inflection or at the inflection, to maintain and be strong up at the top. MS. MOORE: Just let the grass grow higher, essentially, don't cut it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, let the grass grow up there. There is concern about wash coming off that, obviously storm weather like we have now, winds from the east can be a fair amount of wash coming off that first landing that could affect the soils, particularly for this time of year. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you wanted to make that buffer area bigger, plant it or anything, you can do that also. MR. ZOITAS: We don't mind, I mean -- TRUSTEE KING: Do you want a dimension on it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say at least ten feet, minimal cutting it and disturbance. MS. MOORE: It's the area around the staircase, that you are talking about, so it doesn't have the runoff going down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you talking the whole length? MS. MOORE: No, because it's a vegetated buffer. What I'm understanding, is the area where you are cutting a staircase, because that area will be exposed to a certain extent, you want 1o have the water not to run down. MR. ZOITAS: No problem. Ten feet is more than reasonable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about if we say ten foot on either side of the top of the stairs. In other words there would be a 20 foot total in length there we would be trying to protect. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds reasonable. MR. ZOITAS: No problems whatsoever. MS. MOORE: So you are this, the 20 feet goes ten and ten. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ten and ten. Correct. It's for your own protection, the investment you are making with these stairs. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments or questions? (No response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve subject to conditions of a minimal disturbance to the lawn area ten feet either side of the upper landing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe by doing that it would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 22 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: High Point Engineering on behalf of MATTITUCK FISHING STATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove one 3,000 gallon single-wall fiberglass gasoline UST, install one 3,000 gallon double-wall steel UL #2085 Fire Rated A.S.T. with new piping and dispensers along bulkhead. Located: 2275 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. I take it you are speaking on behalf of this application? MR. WRIGHT: Correct. Good evening, my name is Kyle Wright, with High Point Engineering. TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as submitted, and I believe it was found exempt from LWRP. I think we are in pretty good shape. I went and looked at the site. I'm familiar with the area. I question, myself, why do you have to remove a fiberglass tank. Evidently these additives now they are putting in gasoline is deteriorating the fiberglass. So, it's becoming a problem for all the boaters also. MR. WRIGHT: What happens is a Suffolk County mandate required all single-wall tanks are to be removed and so all tanks need to be double-walled. TRUSTEE KING: This will be an aboveground tank with the roof, bells and whistles and all that, right? MR. WRIGHT: Correct. It will have the dyke and the dyke will be able to support a spill containing 110% of the tank capacity. It's also a double-wall, so you are really having three layers of protection from leakage and spillage. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have, and I didn't ask the owner. I thought of it afterwards. Are you going to replace the lines going to the bulkhead? Is there going to be much excavation there? MR. WRIGHT: There won't be much excavation. We are replacing the piping just to make sure the piping is double-walled. And with the double-walled piping we are going to have the electronic leak detection, that way if there is a leak within the first wall of the piping it automatically shuts off the pumping system so nothing spills through the second wall. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I thought, if there is going to be a lot of excavation in that area, we should have hay bales along the top of the bulkhead so the spill doesn't go over the bulkhead. But if it's a minor excavation, it won't be needed. MR. WRIGHT: It will be a small trench. Just to get the two-inch pipes out there. TRUSTEE KING: I really don't think it should be mandated as far as the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's one of the code changes. TRUSTEE KING: They're pretty environmentally conscious over there. I think if they need hay bales, I think they would put them in place. Because the rest of it is upland, behind the Board of Trustees 23 February 24, 2010 wall. I have didn't have any issues with it at all. Are there any other comments on this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you say it's exempt from LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Any other comments from the Board? Anybody (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. Have a good day. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRIClA & AUSTIN LANCE LAWTHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 85 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing concrete bulkhead; construct a ten feet westerly return and a 12' easterly return in place of existing seven foot easterly return; backfill with approximately 25 cy of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; replace (inplace) an existing dock structure consisting of a 3x18' fixed timber catwalk, 3x12' hinged ramp and a 6x18' float secured by two eight-inch diameter pilings; and replace (inplace) 3x12' steps off dock. Located: 705 Wood Lane, Peconic. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have an extra set of plans, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Handing). Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of 15-foot non-turf buffer, drywells are installed to contain the runoff from the dwelling. LWRP found this to be consistent. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? (No response). The Board was out there and took a look at the project and I don't recall there being any issues. There was a note on the field inspection about a 15-foot non-turf buffer, which coincides with what the Conservation Advisory Council had asked for. Is thero any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Rob Herman called me about this. He couldn't be here tonight. I told him I didn't think the Board had any problems with it, but when we got into talking about a non-turf buffer, he would like to see a ten-foot rather than 15 because the yard is not that big. It's only like 40 feet. I don't have a huge problem with ten foot rather than 15. If it's going to Board of Trustees 24 February 24, 2010 be a problem for us, he requests that we postpone the meeting until he can be here to represent the people. I personally don't have a problem with ten foot as opposed to ~15. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically you can go to the flag pole TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I have the ruler for a second, please? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jim, was there a discussion that the concrete material all going offsite? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And I think, Dave, didn't you have a question about batter piles? TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are not in the description at all. TRUSTEE KING: They are not intending any batter piles at all. Just a new bulkhead. I guess the batter piles were put in to try and shore up the concrete, to stop it from falling over years ago. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I'm measuring here and it looks like the closest that we have is, it looks like probably about 50 to 55 feet from the building at the closest end. At the far end it looks like at least 60 feet from the building. TRUSTEE KING: Are you happy with 157 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to put on the record what it was according to measurements. That's plus or minus a couple of feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we go basically to where the flag pole is, roughly, is ten feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's roughly ten feet? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have of a problem with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have of a problem with that either. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is the bulkhead coming up higher than the graded area? TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe so. I don't think they showed any indication of raising it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Actually it is. It's coming up a few inches higher than what the current grade is. But it does look as if they are going to be filling that in. So it will be flattening it out. I don't have of a big problem with ten foot, in this particular case. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't think it was a battle. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MR. YOUNG: The only other issue that we had -- Peter Young with the Conservation Advisory Council -- the only other issue we had was the disposition of the concrete bulkhead and that there should be a plan for the disposition as it's removed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words you are asking if the materials will be moved offsite? MR. YOUNG: Yes. Board of Trustees 25 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: We can put that in the permit; concrete to be removed and taken offsite for disposal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we need a silt fence and all that? Silt boom? TRUSTEE KING: In that location, I don't know. It depends what tide they do it at, lots of times, whether you need the silt boom or not. We could make it part of it. It's usually recommended, but this is coming in as exempt so it's not an issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's part of best management practice. TRUSTEE KING: So use a silt boom during construction. MS. HULSE: I don't think it was exempt. I think it was consistent. TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, I misread it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Consistent. TRUSTEE KING: That's good, then. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? (No response). Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for with the condition that any of the concrete that is removed be moved offsite; that there be a ten-foot non-turf buffer and during the work that the contractor uses a silt boom. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Cindy Schmidt on behalf of AMY ORR requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dwelling; abandon existing septic system and install new system; enlarge existing deck on eastern side of house by 8x13'; permit existing deck structures, wood walk, steps, and outside shower. Located: 625 Terry Lane, Southold. The whole Board inspected this. It's exempt from LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council didn't make inspection therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. SCHMIDT: I am. I'm Cindy Schmidt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One question we had or comment we had, was the septic system, obviously we like them out of our jurisdiction. But we realize that's kind of far. We are wondering if you could maybe move it back, landward, ten feet, to make it 50 feet away from the top of the bluff. We kind of have a 50-foot policy for pools, swimming pools and septic and trying to, you Board of Trustees 26 February 24, 2010 know, so if it's possible that can be moved back ten feet. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Just ten feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean if you would like to move it back further, but I understand that it kind of becomes more of an expense if you are going to move it 100 feet back. That would be moving it back 60 feet to get it out of our jurisdiction. So we are compromising saying at least make it 50 feet from the top of the bluff MS. SCHMIDT: That would probably be okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. We saw the deck was repaired recently and rebuilt. Was it rebuilt inplace, do you know? MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Same size and everything? MS. SCHMIDT: Yes, it was. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had no other field notes. Am them any other questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just have a question. Am you going to be compelled to put in a new sanitary by the Health Department or Building Department? MS. SCHMIDT: We have gotten, I'm five minutes away from a permit from the Board of Health for the septic. Them had been some odor detected, that's why we want to do the right thing and get the septic system going now. We do have DEC for it. So, and we want to pump it up to the second level and get it away from the water. And then -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So they have jurisdiction that they'll be writing standards for your sanitary? MS. SCHMIDT: I have that, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think them is any other -- we am not worried about the runoff, it's all sand underneath. It's not like we need drywells them or anything. TRUSTEE KING: It is what it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Cindy Schmidt on behalf of Any Orr as described, moving the septic system back ten feet, so it's 50 feet away from the top of the bluff. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL. AYES). MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you submit new drawings to show the septic moved back ten feet, please? MS. SCHMIDT: Yes Board of Trustees 27 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of LUKE & RITA LICALZl requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new addition to an existing dwelling with interior renovations to the existing dwelling. Located: 2105 Calves Neck Road, Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made by them. And it was found consistent with LWRP. We all went out and looked at it. It looked like it was pretty simple. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels. One thing that complicates this a tiny bit. I don't see any stakes there. He did stake it. It was after the snow storm. It looks like we need to go to the Health Department, we are intending to go to the Health Department and revise the existing system, which will be done, and I can give you drawings and make it subject to their approval, but it will be outside of your jurisdiction that way. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anybody had an issue with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. TRUSTEE KING: Any questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looks pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the audience on this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Condon Engineering on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to remove a 66' long timber groin, 45' long timber bulkhead and replace an existing timber groin with a new 80' long Iow-profile timber and vinyl sheathing groin and repair 14' of an existing timber groin. Existing deteriorated timber groins and bulkhead to be removed from the site and disposed at an offsite location. The western timber groin is proposed to be reconstructed 12-inches Board of Trustees 28 February 24, 2010 above the existing grade utilizing vinyl sheathing and eight-inch diameter timber piles. The damaged CCA sheathing on the eastern timber groin is proposed to be replaced with plastic lumber sheathing. Located: Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they've resolved to support the application with the condition signs are being removed from publicly-owned land and there be compliance with LWRP. Also recommend that a request is made for a report from the coastal engineer. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. Before I ask for comments, I'm looking, just for clarification from the Conservation Advisory Council representative here, I'm looking at multiple pictures of the area here and I don't see any signs. Can you help us out what signs they are referring to? MR. YOUNG: There are signs on the groin to the east, on the easterly boundary of the properly. That is the Park District. It's not their signs. But they are on the public property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I don't see any here. MR. YOUNG: No trespassing and -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On this one? MR. YOUNG: No, on the groin to the east of this groin. There is another groin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a picture of that here. Like I said, I don't see any signs from the end of the groin up as far as this picture shows, which is up almost to the top of the beach. MR. YOUNG: They are below mean high water in the public domain and the Conservation Advisory Council felt it was inappropriate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the groin in question that's in the picture there, right? MR. YOUNG: That could be it, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't notice any signs there. MR. YOUNG; Maybe it's the next groin over. And then on the study, which you already mentioned, what would we call it, a hydrological study or whatever, we felt, there are micro-issues here and macro-issues in terms of the accretion and erosion of the beach, and we thought that that really should be considered in an overall plan for the placement of the groins. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We did go out and look at this. And this is a project where we had gone out previously during the summer and have done a review of this project with the applicants, and they have now come back with a formal application here that matches pretty much what we talked about. What you are doing is removing one groin and then replacing it with a Iow profile groin; removing the other groin completely and in this picture, the one closest to us is being removed. And then the groin that is down farther east to the property is basically going to be repaired. Board of Trustees 29 February 24, 2010 There is also a pipe that comes out, actually starts at a pond across the street, goes under the street, comes over and ends just to the west of that closest groin that is shown there in the picture. I know, basically, I'm familiar with this from the historical perspective that that was a boat-launching area many years ago for sailboats. And obviously over time it's become destroyed. One of the questions we did have -- before I ask for comments, because I'll ask you to consider this in your comments - is when we looked at the Iow sill bulkhead, while the plans here show the littoral drift going from west to the east, it almost appeared like the opposite has happened here because if you look at where the sand is accreted on that bulkhead there. So I don't know if you noticed that also when you were out there making your plans but I would ask you please introduce yourself and then go ahead and give us your comments. MR. CONDON: My name is John Condon, I'm representing the Park District. I have the green cards. I'm very familiar with this area because I grew up in town here. I'm familiar with this area back until at least 1985. And sand does accumulate and has accumulated in that area over the past. And it has increased over the years has the groins have been destroyed by ice. I notice it does shift from, depending on the time of year, sand seems to build up in the west during the summer and when we get a string of large storms, nor'easters, tends to build up sand on the east side. I just wanted to make another clarification, too, on our applications. There was a note made about the outflow pipe being relocated -- TRUSTEE KING: That won't be touched at all. MR. CONDON: We won't touch that at all. I wanted to clarify that TRUSTEE BERGEN: No problem. TRUSTEE KING: Normally, I know, I did a lot of inspections with the DEC a few years back and we were doing the elevation on the down-drift side, and in this instance the down-drift side is the higher portion of the beach. So where do we go with the Iow profile? You know what I mean? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is where do you measure from the down-thrift side to the height of the Iow profile -- MR. CONDON: I was using the east side, you know, we were going from 50, we are going 50 feet back from the bulkhead portion, and then 30 feet east. We were going to use that as the elevation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I noticed in these plans that it shows the new, reconstructed groin to actually be shorter than what was there, so it will pull it back to the average Iow water mark, which is something that we also encourage people to do. So we Board of Trustees 30 February 24, 2010 appreciate you doing that. MR. YOUNG: Dave, on one of their sheets they talk about a 66-foot long -- this was confusing for us -- was to be replaced by an 80-foot long. So there was a longer groin going in. So are we saying that this eastern groin is being removed and then the other one is going to be lengthened? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, we are talking about the groins within this old abandoned boat basin. Because when you say easternmost, you go farther down the property. MR. YOUNG: Right. Just these two. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are just limiting our discussion to this. MR. CONDON: Yes. You are removing the eastern groin, which I believe is 66 feet, and there is 40 feet of bulkhead and then reconstructing the western groin. MR. YOUNG: Will that be the same length or longer? MR. CONDON: It will be shorter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plans show it's -- TRUSTEE KING: It shows it as 110. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It shows it ending at the average Iow water mark. MR. YOUNG: That's what was confusing to us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's being reduced by 30 feet. MR. CONDON: Basically, the new one will basically end where the sheathing starts to disappear in that picture. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Once this is removed, where will the outflow pipe terminate? MR. CONDON: The outflow pipe will stay in its current location. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So right now, does it come under or does it go through the bulkhead? MR. CONDON: It used to go through it, but it's pretty much destroyed there. The pipe is really just sitting there now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And that won't cause a safety issue? MR. CONDON: It will be safer after this is done, this whole thing, the kids play on the bulkheads. And I know my son actually got hurt on it last year, he fell off. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be safer to get rid of all that structure. MR. CONDON: Yes. It will provide more beach for the activities on the beach there. TRUSTEE KING: Will the seaward end of the new groin be just about at grade rather than stick up like it is now? MR. CONDON: It will go down, yes. TRUSTEE KING: It will follow the contour of the beach more. MR. CONDON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does water still flow through the pipe? MR. CONDON: Yes, water flowed out from the pond. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Has there been consideration to repair and stabilize, I'm thinking from a safety standpoint, with kids, Board of Trustees 31 February 24, 2010 because sand can get fluidized and you can create a hazard with a pipe that is partially broken and you have fluidized sand and have kids fall through. MR. CONDON: The problem we've had with this pipe, we don't know for sure who owns it and who maintains it or where it really starts. TRUSTEE KING: Let's not kick a sleeping dog. MR. YOUNG: The pipe is constricted probably 50% at the outflow. MR. CONDON: I was down there on New Year's Eve when I did some of the plans and I looked and the pipe was fully exposed and water was really flowing out of there. TRUSTEE KING: Last time we were there, there was quite a flow coming out. MR. YOUNG: Does it flow inwardly, also? MR. CONDON: I don't believe so. Most of the time it seems to always come out. MR. YOUNG: It like a big check valve then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We understand there is a check valve in there. MR. CONDON: In the back, behind home plate of the ball field there is a break in the pipe back there. And there is a check valve on the northern end. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the pipe is not connected to the pipe that goes across the street? MR. CONDON: Yes, it comes from across the street to that sump, then there is about a 40-foot break, then it comes down to the bay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So there is a distance of 40 feet between the pipe and this pipe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to comment for or against this application? (No response). Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a good project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Are you familiar at ail with any of these signs that have been discussed? MR. CONDON: I know, further down the beach, I know someone painted "no trespassing" on the bulkheads. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about if we can make a suggestion that any signage conforms with Town Code, any signage that is there on the groin or on the jetty just conform with Town Code. MR. CONDON: Okay, no problem. MR. HUSING: I'm George Husing. I'm the property owner, fourth generation there, and have beach cottages there. I'm the one who placed those signs there. My summer rentals say it's been there almost 200 years in my family, are family orientated people with young children, There are people who come down on the sides to the beach and do not respect the area. To be Board of Trustees 32 February 24, 2010 blunt, people come in, there is food debris, beer cans, underwear clothing is left there. There has been nude bathing at night. And hence I put those signs there to try to prohibit people from coming down. And use your imagination, it's worse than what I have said here this evening. I hope that explains why you are seeing the signs. MR. YOUNG: Just being compliant, our recommendation is to have the signs comply with the code. MR. HUSING: I don't want the idea of signs, but I have no place to go because I do have people who trespass and leave a lot of debris, et cetera. Thank you, gentleman, and ladies. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. MS. HULSE: Just to let you know, it's a violation of the Town Code to have those signs there. So, I just wanted to warn you of that. If you would like to, you can contact, just contact the Town Attorney's office and ask for Lori and I'll go over the code with you. Just so you know. Because you came -- I understand the issue and the problem, but maybe we can talk about what would be okay. MR. HUSING: Wonderful. Do I request to speak with you? MS. HULSE: Yes, that would be best. MR. HUSING: And what is your name? MS. HULSE: Lori. MR. HUSING: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments? (No response). If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Condon Engineering on behalf of Mattituck Park District on Peconic Bay Boulevard as described and as depicted in the plans stamped received January 27, 2010. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. CONDON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ARTHUR CODY requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 822 square foot single-family dwelling, 45 square foot deck, 200 square foot driveway, sanitary system and public water service. Located: 630 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. The project is determined by LWRP to be consistent with the town's coastal policies. The Conservation Advisory Council Board of Trustees 33 February 24, 2010 supports the application. The Trustees have been to the site and performed a field inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, the Cody's. You have the survey. I want to hand to you, tonight, a revised survey, and that survey will show a couple of things. It will show a four-foot path toward the water and a 10x10 patio-type sitting area. You may already have those. And this was sort of an afterthought but the idea was to provide some access toward the water. It's really not a waterfront lot. The second thing I'm providing is an aerial showing how it fits with the remainder of the neighborhood. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What was the actual survey date? TRUSTEE KING: Is this survey any different than what we already have? MR. ANDERSON: We simply added a four-foot path and 10x10. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: The other thing we added to, since it's typical for the Board to require drainage control and since the structures were, are regulated, we also added that to the survey. So what you'll see are two filtration centers on either side, chambers on either side of the building. And we kind of are anxious to try these because they are easy to install, they are easy to maintain. And they involve less ground disturbance than some of the precast. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are prefabricated elements? MR. ANDERSON: Right. Here are some specs. They may be useful for you on other applications. They are particularly effective in situations where you have high ground water. If you go to the second page, that's the sort of thing we were thinking of installing. I would provide you with a drainage calculation as well. Other than that, I don't think we have anything more to add. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We taped off what I think, we were looking at a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer that did fit the house as staked. Is anyone else who wishes to speak on this application? MS. SILSDORF: I'm Marie Silsford. MS. AYLWARD: Patricia Aylward. MS. SILSDORF: I and several of our neighbors received certified letters in the mail informing us that a gentleman we don't know, Arthur Cody, and I guess he's representing himself as the owner of this property but he's unknown to all the neighbors, is applying for a wetlands permit to build a house on an empty, extremely tiny plot. So we have questions, if not concerns. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You brought that up to us and we did look into it. We asked the agent to supply us and he supplied us with a Board of Trustees 34 February 24, 2010 contract, which the attorney reviewed, and it is all, the paperwork is all in order and we may proceed with it. MS. SILSDORF: He has permission from all 18 shares? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't answer that exactly. But whatever the contract says, our attorney reviewed it and feels that it's sufficient for our purposes for review. MS. SILSDORF: Okay. One of our concerns is that perhaps this house is being built on speculation and I don't know how the town feels about that; if there is anything in the Town Code about that. Being built on speculation meaning the person who might be buying this house in the future has never been here, has never seen a house, has never seen the land and why get variances and special permits for someone who has no connection to the plot of land whatsoever. MS. HULSE: The town doesn't prohibit that. MS. SILSFORD: I was curious about that. MS. AYLWARD: Also, in that particular area, the description of the home to be built is 822 square feet. I believe that is incorrect. That's the footprint, according to the letter that was sent. Can you tell us what the total square footage of the proposed home would be? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could ask that of the applicant. But really what we are concerned about is the footprint. We are concerned -- the Trustees are concerned about the footprint from an environmental perspective but absolutely -- MR. ANDERSON: It's a two-story house. TRUSTEE KING: It will have to be a two-story house, because, by code, I think 850 feet is the minimum. MS. AYLWARD: Right. But it's a very small piece of pmper~y. Are there any restrictions as to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are asking questions of the Building Department. As Mr. Bergen said, we are concerned with the footprint and -- MS. AYLWARD: The footprint then, the code is to be 100 feet from the wetlands? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our jurisdiction is within 100 feet of the wetland. It doesn't mean you have to stay 100 feet back. It just means if you are within that jurisdiction, you have to come to us for some type of approval. That's why they are here. MS. SILSFORD: You don't feel it's too close to the wetlands; you feel the cesspools are safe and the leaching pools are safe? MS. HULSE: They have not made that decision yet. That's why they are having the public hearing tonight. They have a public hearing and they hear the application and comment on it, they accept public comment, if there is any, and then they make that decision. They have jurisdiction over this application, so that's why he's here. They have not yet voted to approve it or deny it at Board of Trustees 35 February 24, 2010 this point. MS. AYLWARD: Okay, well we are just concerned as a homeowners association about the pristine creek that is behind this piece of property. And it does not flow very well, in fact it was supposed to be on the dredging list. We were hoping it might be done this winter, but I don't think it was. So we are very worried that this house being so close to the edge of that wetland could disturb the creek. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's part of our review. And that's what we look at in our review. According to our code. So that's a process we take. MS. SILSFORD: If you grant the permit, then there is another meeting that the Building Department does that's where we would hear if they are meeting the proper setbacks? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Building Department has a different procedure than the Board. The applicant would apply to the Building Department. They don't have public hearings and public meetings. They do their review inhouse. MS. HULSE: If the applicant required any variances, they would have to go to the ZBA for that. MS. AYLWARD: Also, there were some additions I understand that were just passed out to the Board that we don't have any access to. And there was some description of a path? MS. HULSE: If you would like, the file is available in the Trustees' office. If you would like anything in the file, you can FOIL that. And you can also submit a FOIL to the Building Department. It's public records, so you do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can come up and look at it now. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to come up and look at what we received? MS. SILSFORD: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Generally, when we do a non-disturbance area or there is an area where we don't want cut down or anything, we generally want a four-foot wide path for access. TRUSTEE KING: This is probably the plan you have seen. MS. AYLWARD: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE KING: This is the one that was just handed to us tonight. It shows a path down through here with a ten-foot square patio. MS. AYLWARD: Which would probably have to clear beach grass. Is that permissible? MS. HULSE: You have to step back, ma'am, for your questions. He has to get it on the record and the applicant has the right to hear it as well. MS. AYLWARD: The question was: Would beach grasses have to be eliminated and disturbed to create the path? Which I believe is the problem. MR. ANDERSON: This may help a little bit. Board of Trustees 36 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a wooded area, not so much wetland vegetation. MR. ANDERSON: This is where the house fits. This is a swath of 50 foot of woods here. This is where the grass is. This out here is where the actual water is. These are mosquito -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me. MS. AYLWARD: Where does that go? MR. ANDERSON: About halfway way down to where that arrow is. Maybe a little more than halfway. But not much. TRUSTEE KING: You did mention the sanitary system. I just scaled it out. The sanitary system is completely out of our jurisdiction. We have no say. MS. AYLWARD: 105 to 110 feet -- TRUSTEE KING: The closest pool is 120 feet. Our jurisdiction is 100 MS. SILSFORD: So the Health Department would deal with something like that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: I don't mean to argue with you. The closest is actually 98 feet. It is maximized, but it is actually 98 feet because of the wetland to the south comes up. From the wetland straight to the west, it's at least that. TRUSTEE KING: Not by my scale. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we agree it's outside our jurisdiction? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not if it's 98 feet. TRUSTEE KING: You must use a different scale than use, I guess. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you show us how you are measuring, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I just want to make sure it's factually accurate. Measure from this -- oh, this is an architect scale. So we are, I'll say we are 98 feet here but I couldn't get it any further. I ran out of land. TRUSTEE KING: I stand corrected. He's two feet into our jurisdiction. MR. ANDERSON: If it helps, this whole house was designed to fit the lot, given the constraints. MS. SILSFORD: So the ten foot off of the north property line. MR. ANDERSON: It complies with all respects of the zoning. MS. SILSFORD: Was I mistaken before -- MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, all comments have to be directed to the Board. If there is any additional conversation you want to have outside, that's more than appropriate. MS. SILSFORD: Was I mistaken before when he said there was a patio on the property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A 10x10 sitting area at the end ofth~ path. MS. SILSFORD: We have never -- MS. AYLWARD: Would that be provided to people who received the Board of Trustees 37 February 24, 2010 certified letters? Will they receive all the new updated -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, like Lori said, you are more than welcome to FOIL this new plan in our office. We just received this tonight. So we are just seeing it now. It's a minor change that sometimes this happens, people have an afterthought, and we do accept that at the last minute, sometimes, if it's a minor change. MS. AYLWARD: How about runoff from the house into the wetlands? Will there be stipulations as to drywells, gutters, whatever? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and there is Town Code Chapter 236 that regulates the runoff, and it basically says that you have to contain your runoff on your own property. It's not a Trustee code, it's a Town Code. So there are additional codes other than what we would condition on the permit. MR. ANDERSON: The revised survey would demonstrate compliance with the runoff code. MS. AYLWARD: Now that the cesspool is in your jurisdiction, we would ask that you take that into consideration. Thank you, very much. MS. SILSFORD: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here to speak on this application? (No response). That being said, I make a motion to -- TRUSTEE KING: Just one comment. I'm uncomfortable with that patio that close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was going to ask about whether we have past precedent with the Board. TRUSTEE KING: Usually it's just a four-foot walking path down to the water, not a patio built in that close to the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What if it's made with the grating on the deck? TRUSTEE KING: Either that or back it up a little further from the wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: Can we do this: We don't really feel strong about it. I don't really want to get into that. Can we withdraw that and if we feel it's worth while at a later point, we'll come back? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Withdraw just the 10x10 patio, not the four-foot path? MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. It was really just an afterthought. We have not thought it out either. I would rather not get bogged down. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To clarify that, do you wish the extent of the four-foot path to run to what would be the end of the patio length; in other words, ending at where the patio is or going through to the -- MR. ANDERSON: Going through the patio. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You would have to revise your plans anyway. MR. ANDERSON: We'll provide that anyway, but I would simply just Board o f Trustees 38 February 24, 2010 call it a path and if it's something we want to do in the future. Because quite honestly, once the house is built there may be better places, given the existing spacing of the trees. TRUSTEE KING: Right. MR. ANDERSON: So I don't really know where that is on the land. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment? (No response). Hearing none, motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion with respect to this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, did we talk about that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 50-foot non-disturbance buffer is what we had indicated in the field, subject to submission of a revised plan to show the withdrawal of the patio. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the inclusion of a four-foot path. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and garage 3,725 square feet; decking, 600 square feet; detached garage, 288 square feet; French drain, 160 linear feet; attendant sanitary system, gravel driveway and public water. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. This is an application that had come before us, actually I forgot what year, but it has expired. We did an extensive review on it in 2007, I believe. So basically this permit has expired and they are coming in and applying for exactly what they had before. LWRP finds it consistent and the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. It is essentially the same plan. The house itself was in fact smaller than originally appreved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. The Board reviewed it and we really didn't have any other comments. Is there any other comment from the audience on this? MR. LANE: Dennis Lane, from Cutchogue. Board o f Trustees 39 February 24, 2010 MS. LANE: Joanna Lane, from Cutchogue. I'm the owner 1852 North Bayview, which is the immediate neighbor to the east of the Fergus property. And we appreciate this is a renewal of an existing or recently expired permit, so we take that on board and are not going to go over a lot of old ground. But we do think there are a couple of issues that need to be clarified, especially bearing in mind this is currently on the market for sale. So we feel that the future owner may not be so sympathetic to some of the concerns we have as the present applicant. There are two issues and one point of clarification. The first issue is that we have had a number of grading and water runoff concerns in the past, and we still have those, and the adequacy of the French drains and the drywells. In the previous application we brought in a hydrologist who gave us advice and obviously we rely on those experts to give us the information that we need and did the calculations. And I have some copies here of some of the original documentation which you may or may not have seen. Mr. Bredemeyer may not have seen that. So at the risk of giving you too much information, I would rather at least you have that to your benefit you when reviewing this. The concerns, we had concerns about the, I don't know if you want to go through the concerns, but what it is, it basically amounts to, is that we are concerned with the accuracy of the applicant's calculations on the contours and the fact that the existing grade will have to be raised 13 feet from what is currently, you know, eight feet, maybe. And because of the clay strata that is four foot below the existing grade and that the clay will prevent the effluent from going underwater to the table and it will have to flow horizontally and the steeper grade is going to increase the velocity to which the runoff goes, and the fact that there is a basement in this house, that we understand. So we have concerns about the adequacy of the French drain. Which we appreciate the applicant doesn't agree with us but there is no maintenance plan we can see for the French drain and, you know, the new owner may not have a clue as to what is required in order to maintain it. So that's one concern. But we feel that what we would like the Trustees to do for us is to add a covenant to the permit which would be make it a slightly less arduous task for us to bring an enforcement action, should it be necessary, in terms of the Chapter 236 Town Code which requires the applicant to maintain the runoff on their own property, because the elevation on our property will be so much lower than theirs. So if we could have that actually added to the permit. MR. LANE: There is some supporting material there that states that because of the elevation change that the grade is going to increase the velocity of the water running off which, to me, it Board of Trustees 40 February 24, 2010 may overflow that French drain and not ever stop there. MS. LANE: I think the point we want to make is this will have a significant alteration to the drainage patterns on that sort of peninsula formed by the description and because their property is going up, and we understand this is only a review of a permit that has already been granted, but this would just give us some supporting mechanism that if we are proved right and they are proved wrong, that we have that. That's the first point. The second point is relating to the Environmental Conservation Law 11-0312 which is protects the Diamondback Terrapins as protected species New York State which, prohibits locally taking, destroying and disturbing in any manner the eggs or nest of the Diamondback Terrapin in the wild, and obviously we encloses that for your convenience, that regulation. It establishes an open and a closed season. We are aware of the fact that these Terrapins can be taken at certain times of year. But the code, the regulation, is pretty clear cut that you cannot take a Terrapin at any time of year under a certain size in the wild, and that you cannot disturb a nest. And the closed season is May 1 to July 31, so we wanted to request, and I don't know if this is possible, but we wanted to request that, again, you put something in the permit that prohibits the excavation, which is considerable excavation of these Diamondback nesting sites and we do have supporting evidence in there that we, where we have found them. The DEC has said that 50-foot buffer zone is sufficient for the nesting sites for the Diamondback Terrapins, but we have a lot of evidence to show, some of which I've included for you, that they are nesting 250 foot from the water. MR. LANE: There is a photograph there of one of the people that found one of them. And if you remember the property, you can see where that hedge is, if you'll remember, it's way up on the property. And the one border line is 300 feet on the northern side of that property and it's almost that full length up there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll make this, what you gave us tonight, part of the new record. I know it's part of the old record but I'll make sure it's part of the new record as well. MS. LANE: I'm not sure what you have in the old record so I apologize if I'm repeating myself. But I do have concerns for these, because there is going to be significant amount of excavation there and it should be done outside, you know, to give this species, the best, the least, I mean it's going to lose, they'll lose their nesting site, but to minimize the impact on them, on the breeding, to minimize when the excavation is done. I mean it can certainly, according to DEC regulation, be done between April -- sorry, whatever the dates are. The definitive dates. MR. LANE: The DEC says they also acknowledge the Terrapins do Board of Trustees 41 February 24, 2010 exist on the property. So there is no dispute on that point. MS. LANE: There is no dispute it's a nesting site, and we are providing evidence the nesting site is large[, perhaps, than they are acknowledging. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So tell me again, what's the timetable? MS. LANE: The open season, which is when you are allowed to, under certain constraints, take them with a license, for game, is April 30 -- is August 1 to April 30. So you are allowed to hunt them, basically. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are suggesting that would be the best time to construct -- MS. LANE: I'm suggesting that would then not be in conflict with the DEC regulation that prohibits them being taken or disturbed in the wild at any time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, would that part of the DEC permit that they have? MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me. This was examined under the old permit and those concerns were dismissed. DEC issued a permit still in effect today containing no such restrictions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have in front of me, and actually the last part of that letter that is talking about that, says, I'll just read the one sentence: Therefore we find that there are insufficient grounds to revoke this permit and it shall remain in effect. MR. LANE: Yes, but that's only touching on one issue. The issue is not whether you can build. The issue is, by your own requirements, is not disturb the nest at a certain part of year. That's the only part. So it's not really a conflict. MR. ANDERSON: Then in that regard, then, the argument properly rests before the DEC and not before this Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say that sounds appropriate. Everyone likes the turtles. I see them a lot in the environmental work that I do, and they typically chose nesting sites that are very proximate to the water and with a very sandy substrate. I remember catching my first Diamondback Terrapin crossing the road into Goose Creek when I was about six-years old. They were so rare at the time we had to pull a book out to find out what they were because they had been almost totally decimated in marketing days when they were sent to New York City by the barrel full to make soup in the shops in the city. And that particular turtle was about 12 inches across and probably was the prime progenitor of the most of the ones that are still there in that creek. I think the DEC, they are very active putting windows on activities relating to natural resources, as you know, and -- MS. LANE: The code was amended since this application first went through. If you look at the notes that I have given you, it will say it was adopted January 31, 1990 and it was amended Board of Trustees 42 February 24, 2010 February 20, 2008. This application was going through 2006. So this code has been tightened up. So the code has changed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you talking with respect to the drainage? MS. LANE: No, I'm talking with the Terrapins now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, I think, on a DEC permit, they give the permits out for a ten-year period and it's up to the applicant, from what I understand, Bruce, correct me if I'm wrong, even though a DEC permit might say one thing, if the law changed during that ten years, they have to conform to the new law. So even though it might say one thing on the permit, if their construction has not been done, they have to conform to the new law. I believe that's correct MR. ANDERSON: That is sometimes correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MS. LANE: So it would be under the -- MR. ANDERSON: The point is this debate doesn't belong here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it's a DEC issue. MS. LANE: Okay, it's a DEC issue. The third point was the garage. I'm a little confused, and I apologize, I didn't get down to FOILing additional documentation other than what was mailed out to us, but the survey is showing an attached garage and the permits, the original and the renewal, and the description that was just read out, is talking about a detached garage. So which is it.'? MR. ANDERSON: There is a shed on the property and there is an attached garage. MS. LANE: All right, so it's a mistake then. Because the original, the permit you are seeking renewal for has a detached garage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: She is absolutely correct. The proposed shed is what you are referring to as the detached structure there. The garage itself is attached. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce, do you have any problem changing that to a 280-square foot shed? MR. ANDERSON: A what? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The detached garage is actually a shed? It's not a garage? Is that what we are saying? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's always been that way. It was simply mistyped on the application. That's what she is talking about. The actual garage, you can see from the survey, it connects directly to the driveway. There is a proposed shed that measures 12x24 feet, which is to the south. SPEAKER: I think what Jill is saying, she wants to change this description we are looking at to say a shed. 280-square foot shed. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Board of Trustees 43 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Just to correct the typo. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Very good point. MS. LANE: So the covenant, in the permit, to ensure the water runoff is what we are asking for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I had done, while you were giving your presentation, I wanted to check to see when Chapter 236 was implemented. And Chapter 236 was almost implemented at the very same time as this permit was originally awarded. So obviously, now with this permit here, it would have to comply with 236. The applicant would have to comply with 236. MS. LANE: It was presented really for the ease of enforcement, that the town has difficulty enfoming that kind of thing, and it really falls on us to defend it, and that we were, what we were, we actually took advice on it and we were advised that, to ask for that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We often say that you have to conform with Chapter 236. That's part of the permit. MS. LANE: In the permit, just to give something, bearing in mind to say, for someone that may not have a clue about Chapter 236. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MS. LANE: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just one questions. Who enforces 236; is that the Building Department or engineer? TRUSTEE KING: The Building Department MS. HULSE: Building Department, building inspector, the code enforcement officer, even the town engineer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Interestingly enough, this application was approved before I was on the Board and some time after I was elected, I came up with some questions, I don't remember what it was, to be honest with you. It may have had something to do with the proposed French drain or extension. But I remember commenting, when I saw, you know, when we were discussing it, that I really didn't feel this was an appropriate place for a house of this size. My mind has not changed on it, since this opportunity is here and we'll be voting on it anyway, I tend to agree with the Lane's. I have a concern about the habitat corridor that is there, the wildlife corridor that is there. Perhaps not just for the Terrapins but also for the other animals that have used this swath of wetlands, one of the only pieces left over there, as a habitat. So I'm, I probably will not be voting to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just for the record, I want to -- Resolution November 19, 2008, came in for One-Year extension and we said be it further revolved the Southold Town Board of Trustees approves the amendment to permit 6302 to amend the septic and include additional drainage to comply with drainage code as depicted on Board of Trustees 44 February 24, 2010 the survey, bla, bla, bla. So when they came in for amendment, that was also placed on a condition back in 2008. But that has since expired, so. Are there any other comments on this? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll say I'm really uncomfortable voting on this myself without having seen the application or the site or any of the supporting material. So I would have to abstain, if it's going to figure in anyone's discussion here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Edward Fergus as applied for, with the change of the description of the 288-square foot detached building to be called a shed, not a detached garage. The French drain, proposed French drain is to be maintained. And the property is to conform to Chapter 236, the drainage code; a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer with hay bales during construction at the 50-foot non-disturbance line. And of course drywells, gutters, leaders and all that on the house. And it did come in consistent wit the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: This is suggested a 30 foot buffer. They have a 50-foot buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And all in accordance with the plans we received in our February 9, 2010. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. Do you want to do a roll call vote? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do a roll call vote. Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I abstain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So for the record, the majority voted aye, therefore the vote is carried to approve the application. (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye). (Trustee Ghosio, nay. Trustee Bredemeyer, abstains). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Frank Notaro on behalf of ROBERT SWING requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing structure and include the addition of three courses of concrete block to existing foundation to conform to FEMA. Located: 4295 Bayshore Road, Greenport. It continues here to say revised description as of 2/11/09, to demolish the existing one-story dwelling (966 square feet) Board of Trustees 45 February 24, 2010 with the existing foundation to remain; add three courses of concrete block to the existing foundation to comply with FEMA flood regulations; construct a new I 1/2 story dwelling on the existing foundation/footprint including a second story IoftJstorage containing 580 square feet +; construct an addition to the landward side of the existing foundation/footprint containing 627 square feet; remove the existing sanitary system and replace with an updated sanitary system within the front yard, install a retaining wall surrounding the sanitary system measuring 118'xl .3' high, install a French drain along the southern side yard property boundary and establish a five-foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. The LWRP coordinator finds this as exempt and the Conservation Advisory Council resolves to support the application with the condition that a 12 to 15-foot non-turf buffer is put along the southeast side of the property. As I understand it, there is a violation on this. Has that been resolved? MS. HULSE: No. MR. SWING: I'm Robert Swing, homeowner. MR. SWING: What is the violation? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You don't know about the violation? MR. SWING: I know we have a building permit and we were halted in our construction, but I don't know what the violation is. We built everything to what was approved by the Building Department. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What is the violation? MS. HULSE: I don't have it with me. All I know is there has been no violation resolved in this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The violation has been issued and it's not been resolved. The homeowner doesn't know what the violation is. MR. SWING: I communicated with the Building Department and Jill and the Trustees to try to resolve it, that's why I'm here tonight in front of this Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I suggested once you get served to speak to Lori to resolve that. MR. SWING: No, I was instructed to come to this meeting. This project was under way. We got stopped by a building inspector. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MR. SWING: We have a building permit, and that's where I'm, my misunderstanding is. I have been five years in the permit process to build this house. We, if you look at -- and Frank Notaro is here, my architect. If you look at the plans, we have done everything to the plan. If you look at the violation that was, the stop building, the inspector is incorrect on his interpretation of the plans. MS. HULSE: Was there a stop work or was there a violation issued in this? Board of Trustees 46 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know, I have not seen it. MS. HULSE: Were you issued a violation in this matter?. MR. SWING: No. Jill -- TRUSTEE KING: Were you issued a violation by the bay constable? MR. SWING: No. I have no violation at all. MS. HULSE: I haven't gotten any arraignment date on this yet. I don't know if one is if the works or not. MR. NOTARO: My name is Frank Notaro, I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Swing. We were going for a foundation inspection on this project. It, at that point we were then given an inspection form that said stop work, do not continue. Approved plan show an existing dwelling. That is 110% incorrect. The drawings that were submitted to the Building Department show demolition of the existing structure and a foundation to remain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the Building Department, and we are here tonight because of the drawings that the Trustees approved. MR. NOTARO: If I just may give a brief kind of keynotes on this, a little bit. From my involvement on it. If you -- is that okay?. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. NOTARO: The client hired Suffolk Environmental Consulting to file the Trustees and ZBA applications. After Suffolk Environmental Consulting files and obtains permits, the question of FEMA flood zone height is raised. That's when I got on board with this project. The client is in a flood zone has to be changed. Also, the house had rotted structural sill plates and floor joists. And I attested to that. Suffolk Environmental Consulting re-applies for adding two courses of concrete block to the existing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Re-applies to who? Sorry. MR. NOTARO: To the Trustees and an amendment to the ZBA. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. NOTARO: After removing the structural sill plate and first floor structure. First off, it should have been three courses of rock. Next, architect completes the construction documents and submits them to the Building Department. The department requests that an additional course of concrete block be added, making it three additional courses of concrete block. This has changed directly to the construction documents I submitted. Mr. Verity then requested we go back to the ZBA for the additional course of block and full demolition on the building. In which we then complied. Two months later we received the approval from the ZBA. They had the three courses of block, demo the house and proceed. The client -- we then got approval from the Building Department to proceed on this. We started the work and then we were stopped with this. MS. HULSE: If there is a violation that is pending, there has not been service yet. There is going to be a violation on this. Board of Trustees 47 February 24, 2010 MR. SWING: There is a violation they can you give me eight weeks later? I have not received a violation. You stopped me six weeks ago on this project MS. HULSE: As I indicated, there was an issue with service, with making service. MR. SWING: This is becoming a detriment to myself and my family. I have been working to make this project happen. I was under the assumption I was coming here tonight to get an approval to continue this work. And Jill and I, we had a conversation on this and you knew how adamant I was about this. So if there is a violation shouldn't that violation be issued the same time that I'm stopped? When can we start our construction? MS. HULSE: No because it's not by the same person. The fact of the matter is, if it's a violation on the property, it's a violation regardless whether you were served two months ago or two months from now. MR. SWING: What's the violation? MS. HULSE: The point of the fact is if you are having a violation that is going to be served on this, the Trustees can not issue a permit. They can hold the hearing, they can close the hearing, they can vote. They cannot issue a permit if there is a pending violation. If it's an issue of service, sir, it's been existing in the town it's just a matter of you actually being handed the violation. What I think the president the Board of Trustees was trying to do is move this along and have you deal with the violation with me, with my office. It has nothing to do with the Building Department or the Trustees -- MR. SWING: I was never instructed to call the office. MS. HULSE: I'm trying to explain to you the process. And get that rectified so the Trustees can move on this as quickly as possible. The Trustees are not holding this up. The justice court matter has to be resolved by code in order for them to move forward with this. MR. SWING: I still don't understand what violation I am in. MS. HULSE: If you like you can make a appointment to come to my office and we can deal with it all in one meeting, if you'd like MR. SWING: Then why am I on the schedule? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can continue with this hearing. I think we should discuss what our issues are, if we have any, as far as our permitting process. And then we can move forward. MR. SWING: Jill, now you're telling me I have to come back a month from now? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know. We haven't brought that up yet. What we have done in the past is approve things subject to other things happening. That's a possibility here. I don't know if that's going to happen tonight. So let's put this pad aside for now and talk about any other issues that we might have. TRUSTEE KING: This is not the first time this has happened. Board of Trustees 48 February 24, 2010 Don't think you are the only one. What happens, people come to us for an addition, we go out there and the whole house is gone. Well, we had a rotten sill, we had to take it down. At that time you find that out, that's the time you should come back to Board and amend the permit to include demolition of the building. I believe that's what this violation is all about. You went way beyond the scope of the Trustees' permit. That's what this violation is about. MR. SWING: No, we came back -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You came back to the Building Department and Zoning but you didn't come back to us. TRUSTEE KING: You came back for two courses of concrete blocks, you never said you were taking the building down. MR. SWING: Nobody instructed -- well. TRUSTEE KING: How are we supposed to know that? MR. SWING: How do you add two courses of block without taking the building down? TRUSTEE KING: Good question. This is the problem. This is probably the fifth or sixth case we had in the past two years, same situat!on. And every builder has gotten a violation, paid their dues and we corrected the problem. MR. NOTARO: Jim, if I may say something. We complied with the construction documents which I stamped and were approved by the Town of Southold. We didn't take it upon ourselves to remove something and then come back to the town and say we removed it. We removed it in accordance with the Building Department approved plans. MS. HULSE: That's incorrect, according to the Building Department. You know what, any reference to what happened with the Building Department is really inappropriate. The issue that you have here -- sir. The issue that you have here is with the Trustees. That is really what we should be discussing now. Nothing outside of that. And I'm just going to caution you, if you have a pending violation, you may not want to make comments about that here. MR. NOTARO: May I present the new set of construction -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's irrelevant to what we are trying to review here. We don't look at those. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The wetland permit that was issued is a wetland permit to construct an addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling doesn't exist anymore. MR. SWING: That's correct. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: And it's no longer an addition. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's what our issue is. And now you are coming to us tonight to amend that, for us to very -- I shouldn't use the word "amend." You are coming to us tonight to try to get a permit from us that will reflect the work that you now have to do. Board of Trustees 49 February 24, 2010 MR. SWING: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And so, I'll repeat what has already been suggested. Let's work through that here tonight and try to concentrate to that right now, because I think that will be more beneficial for you right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a survey, there, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Does anyone else want one? TRUSTEE DONERTY: This is the survey that goes with the application. This is July. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is '08. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the original one. This is the newer one right here. We only have one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here is a copy. This is a floor plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what we approved. TRUSTEE KING: This was the proposed addition. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. What's the overall square footage of the footprint? Foundation footprint contains 627-square feet. Doesn't look like it's any closer. Do you want to see if it's any closer 1o this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question. Because I remember last time, a discussion, because I was the one who worked through the permit last time. On the southern piece of the property, along Island View Lane there, there was a French drain proposed, and I believe we talked about this last time, to help the runoff coming down off the property there. I don't see any garage. Is it missing a garage on this property? MR. SWING: There is no garage on the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there going to be a driveway? I'm just concerned about parking in that area of that French drain. Will there be any parking in that area of the French drain? MR. SWING: There was parking shown on the area. MR. NOTARO: Dave, remember, this joins the town beach. So, there town property there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE KING: Is this footprint, it looks to me it's a little smaller than the old one with the addition on it. Is that true? MR. NOTARO: The actual extension that was poured is actually about six inches smaller than what the plan is. To comply. And the existing house doesn't change one inch. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here's the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Here we go. (Perusing). Okay, I apologize. I didn't have the newest one in front of me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What plan should we be looking at right now? MR. NOTARO: This is the plan that we had the survey of. In order to continue -- and it's a ZBA question, Trustee question, we have to have a surveyor go out and actually survey where the foundation was poured to make sure it's in compliance. I also submitted -- that's this plan. This plan right here. And it's Board of Trustees 50 February 24, 2010 actually under a little bit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the one last dated January 12, 2010. MR. NOTARO: Right. John Metzger went out there, the survey was actually poured. So this part of the house didn't change at all. This is actually under by about six inches. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's on the landward side. TRUSTEE KING: It's like we are looking at apples and oranges here. Why does this look like the old plan? MR. NOTARO: This seems to be a different scale. You can see -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is one inch equals 20 and this is one inch equals 20. MR. NOTARO: Believe it or not, I'm looking at the two. They look different. Basically if we can just turn this over like this -- TRUSTEE KING: This is a different shape. MR. NOTARO: No. (Perusing). Look at it this way. This is the extension part. We actually cut in a little bit on that, so it's less area. On that here, this goes in here. So it's actually the same overall footprint, minus six inches. So that's that. And this is the existing dwelling that was not changed. Right there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what plans -- MR. NOTARO: You can go by this plan. This is just what we did for the Building Department to say we complied with this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Essentially on those indentations there is going to be structures cantilevering all of them. MR. NOTARO: Correct. It's just a porch area, so we have like a stoop there, that didn't protrude out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One is the actual foundation and one chose the actual footprint. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the January 12, 2010 shows the foundation rotation. For our purposes tonight we are reviewing the April 8, 2008, revised April 8, 2008, that was received in our office, January 26, 2010, just for the record. TRUSTEE KING: So this is the one we are looking at. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. NOTARO: If I may, if I can say something else. When Bruce Anderson came back to you folks, to the Board, to get an amendment to the Trustees about his two courses of block -- TRUSTEE KING: That should have included demolition of the building. If that had happened, you would not be where you are right now. MR. NOTARO: He said to remove the sill plate, which holds up the house and the first floor. You can't raise a house when the floor is gone and the sill plate is gone and you just have four walls and a roof. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe in the minutes we asked if this was going to be raised. You know -- MR. NOTARO: Unfortunately I was not at that meeting. Board of Trustees 51 February 24, 2010 MR. SWING: There was no plan on raising this house at all. If you saw this house, it was a tear down. TRUSTEE KING: Let's just try to move forward and get this rectified. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's just stop talking about that and let's figure out what environmental concerns we have now. Bob, I think this is the only copy of this plan. Do you have another one? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: January 12, 2010. It's one other. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should be stamped received January 26. The April 8 -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, January 26, 2010. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The correct one was with parking installed. There was no parking on the old one. MR. NOTARO: The foundation plan is the latest plan. Nothing has changed from that. TRUSTEE KING: I have the old one. It doesn't show the parking area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, Bob, that's the map we'll be acting on. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This with the lot coverage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I think that's the only one we have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know the Conservation Advisory Council was concerned about the drainage along Island View Lane because of height elevations. They discussed that. Seems like we lost Mr. Young. MS. STANDISH: He's gone. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application is calling for five-foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: CAC was requesting, as I said, consideration of some sort of buffering along Island View Lane, I think it is, because the properties are so flat they are concerned about runoff from the yard going into the street. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where they have a French drain on this plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a French drain covering that, okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I think that addresses that. Is there anything that we need to address and change in this? TRUSTEE KING: Is there a proposed parking area there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a proposed parking area. TRUSTEE KING: Will that be pervious? Blacktop? What's it going to be? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could the proposed parking area be pervious? MR. NOTARO: Absolutely. That was in the previous application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, we have a legal question as far as the proposed parking. It's proposed as pervious, and we just requested pervious. I don't know what the regulations are for the town roads. The town roads are generally 30 feet wide, but they have another ten or 15 feet, so he's actually proposing his parking in a town area. Is that something we should be Board of Trustees 52 February 24, 2010 concerned with, if we approve this plan and it shows this? MS. HULSE: They can't have it encroaching. They do it at their own risk. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we vote on this plan, we are essentially approving parking all the way on the town right-of-way. TRUSTEE KING: We could approve it but we can say we are not approving any parking area that impinges on the town right-of-way. MS. HULSE: You'll have to make that note on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: You can have a parking area but we can't say, yeah, go ahead and put it out into the town right-of-way. We can't do that. MR. SWING: We can move it on to the other side of the property as well, right? TRUSTEE KING: If you can put it there without getting into the town right-of-way, I don't care. Find out where the edge of the town right-of-way is. We had an incident where there was a French drain belonged to the town and people came along and built a berm and planted flowers on it and they had to rip it up and get it out of there because it was in the town right-of-way. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was on Gagen's Landing. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Most people see the pavement and think that's the edge of the read. But most of the town's right-of-way is 15 feet wide. MR. SWING: You are correct, the town line goes a little closer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we are not addressing the parking at all then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We should mention that we are not approving or not -- TRUSTEE KING: We can approve that set of plans and just stipulate that the parking area is not to encroach on the town right-of-way. We can't be any plainer than that. If you have reom to put parking there, fine. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Okay. Any other comments? (No response). Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as it's been revised noting that the Trustees are stipulating that the parking area is not to encroach on the town right-of-way and that the permit will be issued upon our approval after any or all violations are taken care of at town hall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SWING: I have one question. Lori, I contact your office to find out about the violation? Board of Trustees 53 February 24, 2010 MS. HULSE: Yes. I'll give you my card right now. MR. SWING: Thank you. Do you know where, how far in the process that violation is as far as the paperwork and everything? MS. HULSE: It's done. They are just waiting to serve you. If you come in, we'll just take care of it all in one meeting. MR. SWING: Next week is good? MS. HULSE: Next week is fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next matter is the matter of B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requesting a Wetland Permit to construct 4x3' access platform, 2.5x9' reamp and a 3x12' floating dock. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport. We have a note from LWRP that it's inconsistent. Some important points that are questions, and one question I think might be a factual matter, the Trustees have to be mindful of any whether the dock will impede navigation or be located where it might cause congestion in high vessel treffic and whether the dock will unduly interfere with public use of waterways, swimming, boating and fishing and more specifically one of the factual areas might have to do with whether the dock will cause degradation of marine resources. There is a good amount of issues here. But they are also looking for vessel width. They make note that it is located within a critical environmental area. And I'm mentioning some potential impact to marine vegetation. We have a report from the Conservation Advisory Council which indicates they supported the application. I know the Trustees went to the site. That was some of the facts in the matter. Is anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BONTJE: I'm Michael Bontje, I'm here on behalf of George Baldwin, who is the applicant in this case. Just some thoughts, to begin with, we deliberately went with sort of a minimalistic approach here in terms of an access platform to minimize the structures. The float is only three feet wide. Frequently the town is approving floats up to six feet wide. The idea was to keep it obviously as parallel to the dock as possible. The closest structure, actually, Mr. Carlucci, who is the adjacent owner to the east is the closest structure. The tip of that structure is 31 -and-a-half feet from this particular dock and the outer portion of what we have, the corner of this dock. The other thing, too, is it's in a location where there are three other docks kind of tucked in to the back of the creek. In an area where in the next set of hearings we'll be talking about maintenance dredging that was previously approved for a variety of reasons need to be re-upped. Anyway, in terms ever being a new dock, my feeling was if there is a dock where there was a dock to be approved this was a really good one Board of Trustees 54 February 24, 2010 because of the fact it's so tucked back. It has sufficient room available and you are not adding structure to a shoreline that is absent structures now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other comments from the Board members or any other comment with respect to the application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there any proposal for flow-through decking to help mitigate the inconsistencies in the LWRP? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll be quite frank with you, not being super familiar with those reports, I didn't see any. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm talking in the plans. MR. BONTJE: Oh, in the plans. In the plans, no, those are not shown. The access platform could be done in thru-flow or material like that. It's not a problem TRUSTEE BERGEN: Groat. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other comment? (No response). Not appearing to be any, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve the scale of the project and the review of the Trustees and the Conservation Advisory Council seems to indicate that we have mitigated the concerns of the LWRP consistency review based on our site inspection and allowing for flow-through decking as recommended by Trustee Bergen. So I move to approve subject to flow-through decking. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BONTJE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next we can entertain as a group, if the Board had no objection, and if there is no comment to the negative from those wishing to speak on behalf, the next applications are: Number 14, B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 25 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. All dredge spoils will be placed to the north on undeveloped land owned by Carlucci. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport. Number 15, B. Laing Associates on behalf of MICHAEL CARLUCCl requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 25 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. All dredge spoils will be placed to the north on undeveloped land owned by Carlucci. Located: 865 Island View Lane, Greenport. Number 16, B. Laing Associates on behalf of VIRGINIA BONTJE Board of Trustees 55 February 24, 2010 requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 25 cubic yards to maintain navigable water depth. All dredge spoils will be placed to the north on undeveloped land owned by Carlucci. Located: 802 Island View Lane, Greenport. Number 17, B. Laing Associates, Inc., on behalf of JOHN MULHOLLAND requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge 25 cubic yard to maintain navigable water depth. All dredge spoils will be placed to the north on undeveloped land owned by Carlucci. Located: 725 Island View Lane, Greenport. I have visited the site to inspect the dredge spoil site. The project has been supported by the Conservation Advisory Council. They have made requests of additional non-turf buffers be considered, if possible. LWRP indicated that it was considered inconsistent based on not having proof of a history of maintenance dredging, although I recall a maintenance project here, probably 18 years ago or so, when I was a Trustee. It's been historically dredged. I don't know how the Board feels about the operations here but I think there is a history of operations that would address the concerns of inconsistency MR. BONTJE: Two things. One is, Michael Bontje, on behalf of all four applicants. And secondly, Trustee, you are correct, that there was maintenance dredging operations here. Within about the last 20 years they were done first by Baldwin & Carlucci and then also done by Bontje & Mulholland, secondarily. Those occurred within the last decade. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question: My understanding is it is private bottom there, right? MR. BONTJE: Yes, it is. It's owned by Mr. Mulholland under a separate lot than he is applying with. But it's owned by Mr. Mulholland. Another issue, too, is as a matter of fact Mr. Carlucci's property, and I think part of my wife's property, were actually created properties from the 1950's. That was the original dredging. And I think on the last submissions we made, which were like 15, 20 years ago, actually provided receipts for that effort, that had been saved by the elder Carlucci's in that regard. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When I went to the site, I did check, and the plans include two circular spoil retention areas with silt fence and hay bales and the site seems well suited for retention of spoil material. It seems almost impossible for anything to flow out of that area into the creek. It seems like a very suitable spoil area. MR. BONTJE: And it's across the street, too, so the street provides a barrier as well. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comment or concerns? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. Board of Trustees 56 February 24, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application as submitted and that it meets LWRP consistency for having continued maintenance operations here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That we have been provided sufficient proof tonight for us to believe or understand that this has been previously dredged. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which would bring it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: And private bottom. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BONTJE: Thank you, again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second, (ALL AYES). RECEIVED ~'~"'~ ~ JUN 2 2 2010