The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-07/21/2010Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, July 21,2010 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Jim King, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert Ghosio, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lod Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney RECEIVED "=,,~-..~--' So.?~:oJ~ Town CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 21,2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening, everyone. Before we start the meeting, I know most of you are here for item number 16 on the Suffolk County Water Authority application. I just want to inform you that we will not be making a decision on this tonight. We are here to just gather information and listen to you, and we will be closing the public hearing and then keeping a comment period open for two weeks for written comments, and we'll reserve decision for a later date. So just, if it gets too late or people want to go home because of the rain, you still have time to put in written comments. So I just wanted to let everyone know that. With that, we'll get started. Before we get started, I would like to introduce the Board. To my far left is Trustee John Bredemeyer; next to him is Trustee Dave Bergen; we have Board of Trustees 2 July 21, 2010 Vice-President Jim King; myself, Jill Doherty; Lauren is our office staff; Bob Ghosio is a Trustee. We'll have Lori Hulse hera as our legal representative. Jack McGreevey is here representing the Conservation Advisory Council who reviews all our applications as well. Wayne Galante is hera, he's keeping track of the minutes. So when you do want to make a comment, please come up to the mic, clearly state your name for the record and please keep your comments brief; five minutes or less. We have a long agenda tonight and we would like to get through it quickly and as efficiently as possible. With that, we'll get started. First I would like to go over any postponements we might have. Page four, number one, is postponed, Docko, Inc., on behalf of MARGARET ROBBINS CHARPENTIER, requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 89 linear feet of five-foot wide fixed batter braced wood pile and timber pier with associated rails, utilities and ladders; install five batter braced tie-off piles all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: East End, Fishers Island. So we will not be discussing that tonight, under Coastal Erosion permits. Under Wetland Permits, page six, number ten, Jeffrey T. Butler PE, on behalf of STEVE KUBRYK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x24' fixed dock attached to the existing bulkhead, 4x4" CCA piles with open-grate decking on surface. Located: 355 Lake Drive, Southold, is postponed. And page seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM & DOLORES KREITSEK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed catwalk (including entry ramp and seaward access ladder) measuring 3x100', supported by 32 pilings (4x4"), comprised of non-treated materials. Located: 2455 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, is postponed. We won't be discussing those items tonight. If anybody is hera for them, just to let you know that. Our next field inspections are scheduled for Wednesday, August 11, at 8:00 AM. Do I have to a motion? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting is Wednesday, August 18th. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, we do have a field inspection scheduled for Fishers Island, for August 4. I don't see that on the Board of Trustees 3 July 21, 2010 agenda. We might want to approve that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, we can set field inspections, even though we don't have a list yet, for Fishers Island, for August 4, that is our annual town meeting day is August 4, and we usually try to get some inspections done over there. That would be Wednesday, August 4, on Fishers Island. Thank you, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we have the Minutes of April 21. I did not finish reading through all of them. What I did read through, I had no problem with. Is anybody finished reading through them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did get through the Minutes and found no issues. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Likewise, I had no problem with the Minutes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of Apdl 21, 2010. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second the motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for June, 2010. A check for $10,795.94 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. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 21,2010, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to explain a little further, under SEQRA, it's state regulations, that the town has to, you know, go by. And it's very -- it's a very specific list, and we look at the applications that come in and we look down the list and it's not Board of Trustees 4 July 21, 2010 our choice to make it a Type One or Type Two. It goes by the list. So we, that's how we determine if it's Type One or Type Two. It's what the list says and what the application describes, then we look at the list and that's how we determine what type of action it is. So the following that are listed on the agenda are all Type Two actions. Nassau Point Property Owners Association - SCTM#111-9-14 James & Phyllis Rubin - SCTM#109-5-14.45 Roy & Dawn Ward - SCTM#137-1-8.1 Andrew & Elizabeth Greene - SCTM#73-4-5 Orient Wharf Co. - SCTM#24-2-28.1 E. Bmwnell & Karen Johnston - SCTM#86-1-9.4 Frank & Mindy Martorana - SCTM#115-17-9&10 William Adams - SCTM#13-1-2 Robert & Emerence Stickle - SCTM#71-2-4 Robert O'Bden - SCTM#136-2-11 Sheila Patel - SCTM#51-4-5.1 Steve Kubryk - SCTM#80-3-15 Joseph Zevits - SCTM#90-1-13 Jennie Pappas - SCTM#52-2-15 Thomas & Christine Falco - SCTM#70-6-32 Michael & Nancy Foley - SCTM#40-1-9 Matthew Stanton - SCTM#70-4-16 Suffolk County Water Authority TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll motion to approve that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions and administrative permits, number one, ERNEST SCHNEIDER requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites by hand to a height not less than 12" on an as needed basis and to clear a naturally created path no wider than four feet. Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive North, Southold. We all went out and looked at this. There is a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. Through that buffer there is already a created, naturally created path, as it's worded, and I don't have a problem with that being maintained, and I don1 have a problem with them clearing up 45 feet seaward of the deck, which just reaches the landward end of the 50-foot non-disturbance, so they would not go into that non-disturbance area at all. I Board of Trustees 5 July 21, 2010 don't see a CAC report in here, but the LWRP report is worried about getting into the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. The survey we reviewed clearly shows that it won't and I'll make a resolution to approve clearing the phragmites or keeping the phragmites down between the house and 45 feet off the house, but no further seaward than 45 feet, and keeping the existing four-foot wide path open. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not letting him go into the 50-foot non-disturbance aroa makes it consistent with LWRP. He wanted to clear further into that aroa but clearing just 45 feet from the deck will just give him to the landward end of that 50 feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, ROSEMARY SCHNEIDER requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to no less than 12" and to clear and maintain a four-foot wide path to Groat Pond. Located: 8095 Soundview Avenue, Southold. We all went out and looked at it. We had no problem. It was suggested a four-foot path can be mowed right down to ground level and to clear the phragmites no less than 12 inches on either side of that path, a couple feet on either side of it. I think that was our decision on that. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that was exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, SANDRA FELLMAN requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to a height not less than 12" on an as needed basis. Located: 2850 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. This was reviewed and found to be exempt under LWRP. We went out and looked at this and we didn't have any problem with this. Again, with the condition that it was cut by hand, not with machine. So with the condition of it being cut by hand, I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, JULIE ANNE & KARL HAERR request an Administrative Permit to prune and remove trees that may cause damage. Located: 305 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. There is a survey in the folder which we reviewed. I met with the folks and we determined what trees can and can't be Board of Trustees 6 July 21, 2010 taken down. That has been noted on the surveys. It is not consistent with LWRP because it's unclear what type of damage the trees may cause as reported in the application. Upon my inspection, I did find in fact that there is a danger of property damage to the house regarding these trees that have been blown and grown so they are so far sideways that one good storm will put them dght into the house. He has about a dozen trees back there and he's only taking four down. So for that reason I find it, suggest we find it consistent with LWRP and I would make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application on behalf of GERARD SCHULTHEIS requests an Administrative Permit to landscape, install landscape ties, and construct a trellis. Located: 1640 First Street, New Suffolk. The Trustees have a detailed project plan and are familiar with the site and we have a determination of consistency with the town's coastal program, so the activities proposed are fully consistent with the goals that we have set forth for protecting our -- (inaudible interruption). I believe it is a consistent project with the town's coastal plan. It's minor in scope. I don't see a CAC field report. The Trustees having reviewed it don't have any issue with the minor activities, therefore I would take a motion to, I'll make a motion to approve this application for Gerard Schultheis for these minor activities. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, DONALD MOYLE requests an Administrative Permit to construct an 8x6' garden shed. Located: 1920 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. There was a question after we inspected this as to some dimensions of the shed as well as where that would be on the property line and the bulkhead, and the applicant has provided us with those dimensions. It is an 8x6 shed and it will be 42 feet from the east property line and 40 foot from the bulkhead. I don't see go problem with that, as well as the LWRP finds it to be consistent with LWRP. With that I would make a motion to approve the administrative permit, adding the dimensions to the description. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 7 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Natural Images Landscaping, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL LLOYD requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites by hand on an as needed basis to no less than 12". Located: 2350 Clearview Avenue, Southold. This has been found to be exempt from LWRP. There is a survey in here that does show, it is highlighted and does show the area that they would like to maintain as far as phragmites are concerned. And on there, there is a marking for a 50-foot vegetated clearing offset. I don't think we have any problem with the phragmites, of course trimming that down to 12 inches is no problem since it's an invasive species. But I would like to stipulate that none of the other vegetation in that area be cut. These phragmites will be trimmed by hand as well. So I would make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that no other vegetation is touched and that the phragmites are trimmed by hand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Jeffrey T. Butler PE on behalf of JAMI & JOEL FRIEDMAN requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites and remove dead trees from wetland area and adjacent area. Located: 830 Clearview Road, Southold. This has been looked at a number of times. There is a designated non-disturbance area that was established by the DEC on this property. It's not on this survey, but I'm familiar with where it is. I'm uncomfortable with any activities taking place in that non-disturbance area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did I hear it's on another survey? Lauren? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have it on this. I'm just asking Lori. This area that they are looking to cut the phragmites is in the DEC wetland area and Lori advises that we really shouldn't be letting them do anything in a DEC non-disturbance area, and we really don't know their exact, the DEC's exact description of a non-disturbance area. So we can't really approve something that -- TRUSTEE KING: Originally we approved him trimming two feet on either side of the walkway of the phragmites. Evidently a lot more has been cleared than has been authorized to begin with. I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole thing. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Madam President, could we ask the Board to speak up a little bit so that we can in fact hear the proceedings, since we are here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Can you hear me all right now? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes, thank you. Much better. TRUSTEE KING: We could either deny it or table it and see if Board of Trustees 8 July 21, 2010 they want to go to the DEC with anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, at this point they have a lot of other issues on the property of clearing. I would rather move on it and make a decision and then in the future if they come back with something in writing from the DEC, then they can apply again. We can deny without prejudice. TRUSTEE KING: Sounds good to me. Any other comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds like a logical approach. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to deny this application without prejudice and if they want to pursue this further they would have to get something from the DEC to show us they are allowed to do this under DEC regulations. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of HUGH SWlTZER requests an Administrative Permit to replace two existing cesspools of the rear of the existing dwelling with new cesspools (inplace) and fully abandon two cesspools off the rear of the existing garage. Located: 2700 Mill Road, Peconic. This was an application where actually the Trustees back in 2004 considered identical application and approved it. The application ran out without the work being done so they have come back to request the same work to be done again. I went out and looked at it. I have no problem with it. It's just abandoning some cesspools that are close to the wetland and installing new cesspools that are much farther landward of the wetland. So I'll make a motion -- and it's found consistent under the LWRP. So I'll make a motion to approve number nine. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten and eleven will be together. The properties are right next door and it's the same consultant. Number ten, Richard J. Pdncipi, Jr., on behalf of GILDA PRINClPI requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing roof, siding, windows and doors and make inkind repairs to the existing framing as necessary to an existing one-story seasonal cottage. Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic, and; Number 11, Richard J. Principi, Jr., on behalf of VINCENT CURTO requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing roof, siding, windows and door and make inkind repairs to the existing framing as necessary to an existing one-story seasonal cottage. Located: 4730 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic. For both descriptions -- well, first of all, the LWRP report, we don't have an LWRP report on this. This was applied Board of Trustees 9 July 21, 2010 for in a different description and an LWRP report was done for then, so another one I guess did not have to be done for this. The Board has no problem with replacement of existing roof, siding, windows and doors. The inkind repairs to the existing framing as necessary is a little vague, so we questioned that as far as fitting under administrative permit or whether it should be a full permit process. Mr. Principi, I see you are here. Can you please maybe elaborate on that description? MR. PRINCIPI: Both cottages were inspected by the chief building inspector and we are going to basically rebuild exactly -- we did his inspection -- it will allow some emergency repairs for a few footings on this cottage and replace windows and door openings exactly as they are; no expansions, no second floor. The other thing we'll be doing is obviously, as per the site plan, is drywell, gutters and revegetation on, obviously the bluff and around any area around the foundation. That's basically it. We'll stay exactly the same size, shape, he'll inspect them and basically it will be a newer version of what is there. That's the scope of the work. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions? TRUSTEE KING: When you say replace the existing roof, do you mean the whole roof or shingles? MR. PRINCIPI: Just the shingles, maybe a few pieces of sheathing where the second cottage, the roof system is in difficult shape. The first cottage is re-roofing 100%. We won't disassemble anything, we'll just rebuild the second cottage roof just to kind of be to code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And rebuild it exactly the way, shape it is now and not expand it. MR. PRINCIPI: Exactly as per the plans, existing condition plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: While you are looking for the LWRP, I want to agree with Jill that I have no problem with the as-described replacing the roof, siding, windows and doors. The inkind repairs to existing framing as necessary, I do believe also requires a full wetland permit and review as a full Wetland Permit. Because, I know, I believe part of the reason this started was the new footings and pilings, concrete pilings were put down for the one property there, I believe, the one that is Gilda Principi? MR. PRINCIPI: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm just concerned that we'll find entirely new structures there. So I would feel more comfortable with either this being better defined or a full Wetland Permit being required for that part of this application. Again, I have no problem with repair of existing roof, siding, windows and doors, inkind. In other words no expansion of the doors, expansion of Board of Trustees 10 July 21, 2010 the windows, just inkind. MR. PRINCIPI: Same rough open, exactly the same. And this cottage, obviously my uncle did those about 15 years ago, emergency repairs there. The other cottage is I think is about half a dozen spot footings that have to kind of, a couple of girders are broken. But no machinery, all by hand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to maybe have him go through the full permit process and tighten up the description, make it a little less vague? TRUSTEE KING: I would be more comfortable with a full wetland permit. MR. PRINCIPI: The description was going to be outlined in the building permit as per Mike's inspection, but whatever you feel will make you comfortable. It will be -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A lot of times when we have a description that is a little vague, when we look back in history we say what did we do; why was this done? Then something is out there that is different than what is here. And we are trying on each application to really tighten up the descriptions and so both parties and everybody knows when it goes passed on from you to the Building Department to the contractor, that everybody is on the same page. So we are concerned that this is not -- MR. PRINCIPI: So the description that was put forth in that application is not clear enough? I mean, John, my engineer, kind of drafted that up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we want it, explain it, the inkind repairs to the existing framing, just like you verbally explained to us, maybe write that out a little more and also under the full permit process, the neighbors get notified. So then they have an avenue to come and review and give their comment. MR. PRINCIPI: Just as we did the first time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. I'm sorry for, you know -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the Board be comfortable segmenting this out and allowing the administrative permit for the roof, siding, windows and doors, and that's it, or is it something the applicant would feel more comfortable coming back in with a Wetland Permit for the whole project? MR. PRINCIPI: Honest, I have an understanding with Mike. He'll inspect it dudng the process of the work. I don't know what more I can say other than what is on the description, certified by my engineer, but, how about if we, is the other cottage a little bit more clear, that's just roofing, siding, gutters and drywell, or do you need to keep them together? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They both have the same exact description. MI:{. PRINCIPI: Right, it's exactly the same one. Except there is no foundation work on the westerly cottage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plans -- Board of Trustees 11 July 21, 2010 'I:RUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Principi, I think the Board's concern is if we were to grant a permit as it lies now and it became necessary to tear the structure down, we would be left without recourse to hold the process up for a permit at that point, which would create many problems for completing in one operation your building construction. I think that's a concern. We don't want to put you in a position to be disadvantaged -- MR. PRINCIPI: And I appreciate that. That's why Mike was nice enough to go out there and do his own inspection to see if it was, you know, rebuildable as per our proposed scope of work, and he basically, you know, verbally gave me a talk as far as what can be done to that cottage in particular as far as footings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The "Mike" you are speaking of is the building inspector? MR. PRINCIPI: Yes, Mike Verity. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would the Board consider the possibility of a written report from Michael Verity in verification of his findings? Obviously, the Building Department, we work with all the time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if he's in a position to decide whether it's an administrative or full permit from the Trustees. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understandably, but it may be with his report we would be in a better position to move this forward. I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, that would not allow under the full Wetland Permit the opportunity for the neighbors to provide comment. Again, I'll put forward my same request, a recommendation that, if possible, we consider segmenting this and approving the replacement of the roof, siding, windows and doors, inkind. And that would end the language for this administrative permit. And if he wanted to do work beyond that, he could come in for a full permit. That gives him the opportunity to at least get doors, windows and a roof on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have no problem with that. I just want to know, too, on the plans, the scope of the work, it does say repair/replace any rotted/damaged roof, wall or floor framing inkind. Replace existing roof, windows, door, siding inkind. Install new roof drywell. So that's a little more descript than the actual description. So here we already have a little more -- MR. PRINCIPI: I think that's more reflective of this cottage than the westerly cottage. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we segment it, it will cost the applicant more money, right? To me, you know, I would wait the month, do a full application and save myself the money, but if you are all right with it. MR. PRINCIPI: I would just like to get started. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you say cost more money, it will cost him Board of Trustees 12 July 21, 2010 to apply for a full Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, because if we segment it, obviously he won't be able to do what he wants to do so. He'll have to come in for a full permit for the other one, then he'll have two permits for the work for each cottage and it would cost more money. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. Correct. But what I'm proposing at least allows him to button up the cottage, so to speak, the roof, siding and windows, and that we have clearly on our code as allowed for under administrative permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure, I'm just pointing out it would cost more money, that's all. MR. PRINCIPI: Would that be for both cottages? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I think we feel the same about both cottages. It's up to you how you want to proceed. MR. PRINCIPI: Could you explain one more time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, under our code we don't have a problem with replacing doors, windows, roof, shingles, siding, under the administrative permit. Some of that is even exempt, actually. But then once you get into the other part of the description, we feel it goes beyond the administrative, so that means replacing the floor, the footings, all that we want to go under the full process so we can take a better look at it. MR. PRINCIPI: Well, in all fairness, I would agree on that, on the second cottage. The first cottage I don't have to do anything on the structure at all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can adjust the description tonight and take out some of that wording. MR. PRINCIPI: That's fine. And this one, in all fairness, I have to make about six or eight footing repairs, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, then we would need a plan reflecting what that description is changed to. MR. PRINCIPI: Okay, you mean for the second, this cottage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the first. If we change the description tonight for the first cottage, we need the plan to reflect that description because in that plan you already have that you'll change certain other things that we would not approve. MR. PRINClPI: The other option is a full Wetland Permit for the both of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. MR. PRINCIPI: So we can't get anything resolved here tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's up to you. We can segment the application and approve the windows, replacement of windows, doors, siding, tonight, and then come back later for the rest of the stuff. MR. PRINCIPI: Yes, at least I can get to work that way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Board of Trustees 13 July 21, 2010 MR. PRINCIPI: If that's okay with the Board then I'll amend the scope of work on the two cottages. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you would have to fill out all new paperwork, all new application, new fee and everything for the other. MR. PRINCIPI: If that's possible, I would to at least get started. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just recommend not approving these together, do it separately. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we have to do two separate resolutions. All fight, if that's okay with you, that's how we'll move on it. TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see -- I'm a little concerned about the coastal erosion hazard line, too. It shows it right at the seaward side of the house there. The coastal erosion hazard line is ten feet wide, so which side of the coastal erosion line do they use, the seaward side or the landward side? If it's the seaward side, coastal erosion hazard line goes right through that little house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify for the record, we are looking at the plan for the house labeled as Principi, not Curto. MR. PRINCIPI: I just had verification from my surveyor about the width. Jim is right about the ten foot. I questioned it myself, and he did an overlay and GPS, whatever he did, and he gave an affidavit to verify and certify that work. But you have to be comfortable with his information. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right -- TRUSTEE KING: It just shows it is a line. It doesn't show it at the ten foot width, so I don't know which side of the ten foot is on the survey. MR. PRINCIPI: It's the northeast corner that was in question. That's what I had him go out and reconfirm. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll go ahead and make a motion, number ten, Gilda Principi, I'll make a motion for the administrative permit to replace the existing roof, siding, windows and doom and subject to a survey just reflecting that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Survey or set of plans? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Set of plans, because we already have the survey in the file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Replacing the existing roof, shingles, siding, windows and doom. The roof shingles, existing roof shingles, siding, windows and doom. And if the roof has to come off and a whole new roof, that goes on to a full permit. If you have to · tear that out then you have to stop and wait for the full permit. MR. MCGREEVEY: Is there any stipulation for gutters and leaders going to drywells on this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a very good point. Thank you, Jack. Board of Trustees 14 July 21, 2010 MR. PRINCIPI: They were designed and drywells were calculated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's shown on the survey here. Thank you, for mentioning that. Subject to gutters, leaders and drywells. Thank you, Jack. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. TRUSTEE KING: I'm still uncomfortable. I'm going to vote no (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee King, nay). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record reflect Jim voted nay. The motion is carried four to one. Number 11, Richard Principi on behalf of Vincent Curto, resolved to approve the administrative permit to replace existing roof, shingles, siding, windows and doors, subject to gutters, leaders and drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Including gutters, leaders and drywells, correct? MR. PRINCIPh They should be on that too, dght, Jill? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I believe they are. And showing the new plans reflecting that description. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. TRUSTEE KING: Same vote, nay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm voting nay on this also. The scope is a little different than the other one. (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee King, nay. Trustee Ghosio, nay). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show that the motion was approved three to two. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Trustee King and Trustee Ghosio voted no. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. A lot of these are just regular procedure extensions. We reviewed each file and I'm going to lump a few of them together. Number one, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a One-year Extension to Wetland Permit #6943, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. Number two, GARY GUJA requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6947, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 372 North Drive, Mattituck. Number three, Garrett A. Streng, Architect, on behalf of PAUL BENTANCOURT, requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit Board of Trustees 15 July 21, 2010 #6951 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6951C, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 1825 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. Number four, Joy Alessi on behalf of ESTATE OF GRACE R. LEWIS, CIO JOHN NICKLES requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6944, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 885 Rogers Road, Southold. Number five, Proper-T Permits, Inc., on behalf of FRANK J. POLACEK, JR., requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit fl4019 from Eustance Eriksen to Frank J. Polacek, Jr., as issued on May 28, 1992. Located: 1085 Westview Drive, Mattituck. Number eight, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP on behalf of the ESTATE OF BETTY R. DEROSKI REVOCABLE TRUST, requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #2271 from Nicholas Micciche to the Estate of Betty R. Deroski Revocable Trust, as issued on January 4, 1987, and April 23, 1987. Located: 260 Oak Street, Cutchogue. Under the extensions and transfers, I'll make a motion to approve those applications. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have, for number six, is LES Associates, Inc., on behalf of JONATHAN TIBETT requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7293 from Richard Kubiak to Jonathan S. Tibett, as issued on April 21, 2010. Located: 185 Willow Point Road, Southold. The reason we are segmenting this one out is basically because we are being asked to transfer a permit and the work has not been done. So in fact what is out there in the field is not what is on this permit. So we just wanted to make sure that was in the record and that it's exempt from LWRP so we can go ahead and make the transfer. Is there anybody here for this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I suggest in the approval letter, if that is what we do, we note the description of the permit so the new owner knows what the exact description is so it's built to what the permit is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I'll make a motion to approve the transfer, knowing that the work has not yet been done. MS. HULSE: Is it going to be a timeframe for the work to be completed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, our, I would say it should follow the timeframe of the existing permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That gives them two years. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not two years from today, but two years from the date of the original approval. Board of Trustees 16 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, I'll make that stipulation that if they get that work done with the time allotted by the permit and by our code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does everybody understand that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That can be noted in the letter as well, so it's clear for the applicant. I'll second it. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of PATRIClA FITZPATRICK requests a Transfer of Permit #7050 from Mildred DiCarlo to Patricia Fitzpatrick, as issued on March 18, 2009. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Road, Southold. This is a transfer that has the same issues. The work has not been done yet, so what is out there is not what is actually reflected in the permit. And we don't see any reason not to make the transfer, we just want to stipulate that the permit and the work be completed in the timeframe allowed by the permit and by our code. So I'll make a motion to approve with those stipulations. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: I would just ask that in those letters if there is a line in there that it is required to be in compliance with the permit by the end of the term of the permit, otherwise it's subject to a violation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's a good idea. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, CHRISTINE RIVERA requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #6104S to extend the existing fence to within ten feet of the mean high water mark. Located: 250 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. This has been kind of a contentious issue down there on the beach. Mm. Rivera has ownership to the high water mark. It was settled in court, and I believe they have a permit for part way down and she wants to go down now to within ten feet of the high water mark. It's her property, I don't think we have much of a choice. I say we should let her have it. But I also would like to stipulate if there is erosion there and the high water mark moves landward, then the fence should also move landward in the same amount to keep the ten feet off the high water mark. So that would be my recommendation, we approve it with that stipulation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. Board of Trustees 17 July 21, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, is Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of CONSTANTINOS MARKOTSIS requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge a 25x35' area to a depth of -2.5' below mean Iow water removing approximately 75 cubic yards of spoil. Approximately 30 cubic yards of dredge material will be removed from a 10x35' area that encompasses Town owned bottom. Spoil to be trucked off-site to an approved location. Located: 6540 Main Bayview Road, Southold. Last month we did a resolution on this and since then we have found out the ownership of the underwater land, partial ownership of the underwater land, is the town of Southold. So I would like to amend the resolution. What we did last month is to just let him dredge where he owned his land because we thought the other part was private and somebody else's. We found out it's the town's. I would like to amend the resolution to approve the full area of dredging, and it's approximately 30 cubic yards of matedal that would come from the town owned, so he would have to pay the fees according to our fee schedule of removing town-owned property. So I'll make that resolution. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions moorings. There are three moorings on the agenda tonight. The Board has reviewed each one, and two of them are replacing existing moorings, and one is a new area which we, in trying to reorganize the creeks and better situate the moorings, the office has moved this mooring. So all three are fine. I'll make a motion to approve all three moorings as applied for. They are listed as follows: Number one RICHARD BIRD requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 16' boat, replacing Mooring #873. Access: Public. Number two, WILLIAM BLATTNER requests a Mooring Permit in Richmond Creek for a 16' boat. Access: Public. Number three, THOMAS MCMAHON requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a 22' boat. Access: Pdvate. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS: Board o f Trustees 18 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public hearings, amendments to wetland permits. I'll make a motion to go off the regular agenda and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to remind everybody, we have quite a few public hearings. We have 18 of them or so, a couple of them are postponed, but please keep your comments brief, five minutes or less, and please keep your comments to the application, pertaining to the application, pertaining to Chapter 275 as it reads on the agenda. Number one, this is amendments to wetland permits, E. BROWNELL & KAREN JOHNSTON request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5217 to remove the stairs at the seaward end of the existing catwalk and construct a 4xl 5' extension to the catwalk and 4x10' L-section. Located: 4001 Wells Road, Southold. This has been looked at by the whole Board over the years, they recently got DEC approval to put the catwalk and it really, it says the word "extension" here but it's really not going any further out than what is existing now, because once we remove the stairs and add the other structure, it's not going out any further, and there is plenty of reom in that creek and it's such a pristine area that it's kept that way, and the catwalk is already there so he's not disturbing any area. It's just basically out in the creek. I'll make a motion to approve. And it's consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: It's actually out further than the base of the stairs. It's not a problem but it is out further than the base of the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation is made, and it's consistent with LWRP, so I'll make a motion to approve this amendment for Brownell and Karen Johnston. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of ROBERT O'BRIEN requests an amendment to Wetland Permit #7206 to allow a 145' fixed dock with a 42"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp and seasonal 6x20' float placed in an "L" configuration, and secured in place by two eight-inch diameter anchor pilings. Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. I believe this originally came in consistent with the LWRP. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the Board o f Trustees 19 July 21, 2010 application with the condition the added overall six-foot length is consistent with LWRP and there is no conflict with the original permit. Ten foot non-turf is installed and the addition of gutters, leaders and drywells. Usually ten-foot non-turf buffer goes with the bulkhead replacement, not with building a catwalk. I don't think that's necessary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One thing we talked about, I know the DEC, wants to make this longer to get to depth. Is there an opportunity to make the catwalk lower and use the open grating? Will the DEC allow that? TRUSTEE KING: I thought we approved that at that height. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did we? I don't remember. I know we talked about it in the field. But I don't know what the permit says TRUSTEE KING: That was part of the bulkhead. There was a ten-foot wide buffer in there, in the bulkhead permit. This is for a new fixed dock, 125 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This says 145 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Now we are adding 20 feet. This is November, 2009. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the permit is not expired yet. That's why I was looking at the date. TRUSTEE KING: The dock is to be constructed no more than two feet above grade at the bulkhead. Use of open grate decking on the fixed dock. The reason this is back is because the DEC wants you to go out to deeper water, right? MR. COSTELLO: Six feet. TRUSTEE KING: Is it 20 feet? MR. COSTELLO: Is this open for public comment now? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. It was just six feet. They wanted six more feet to get to 2.5 feet of water. At the present length is just shy of that, 2.3 feet of water. The only difference is the bulkhead will be above whatever it was. They want six more feet on the overall length of the dock. They want it turned into an "L" so the offshore side is in 2.5 feet of water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we have a discrepancy between what the permit says and what your description says. The permit says 125 and you are asking for 145 feet. That's a 20-foot difference. MR. COSTELLO: Maybe that's something I messed up in the wording of the permit. The plans should be accurate. Maybe the wording is wrong in what was written up. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should look at the Minutes TRUSTEE BERGEN: But what we have done here is we've changed it to an "L" configuration. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the fixed portion of the catwalk. Board of Trustees 20 July 21, 2010 It's 125 feet and now the fixed portion is 145. So it's 20 feet, in my mind. MR. COSTELLO: But we are changing the dock to an "L". TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, so what was on there, what was approved originally, as far as the length of the catwalk and the length of the dock, if it was straight out, so the overall length. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The overall length is only going to be six feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you add up the overall length it might come out exactly how Jack is implying here. TRUSTEE KING: 160 and 165. All right, so we are looking at five feet MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE KING: All right, that's straightened out in my feeble mind. The only question I have, is there any way we can kind of cantilever that north end of the float with the beach a little more so we stay more or less in that pier line? It looks like there is enough water depth MR. COSTELLO: The pier line, we'll go back to this again, those docks are nonconforming, all of them. I see you guys went there at high tide. If you went at Iow tide you would see the boats are all sitting on the bottom. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's all over town with all these old permits. MR. COSTELLO: I'm just worried if we do that -- TRUSTEE KING: The DEC is fighting us with six inches of water, eight inches of water. They have floats on the beach at the new installation at Peterson's, that's okay. They sit on the beach at Iow tide. So it's a little inconsistency here, between us and them. MR. COSTELLO: Right. MR. COSTELLO: It would look a lot better for the property owner to keep everything square and uniform. I mean, tilt it a little bit in, I don't think that makes that much of a difference. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind it's not a huge issue. How does the rest the Board feel? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem what is applied for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a problem either. TRUSTEE KING: Is everybody clear on it? (Affirmative response). TRUSTEE KING: The original was inconsistent. We approved a dock, so we found it consistent, by issuing a permit, we found it consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, with the open grating and lowering it, we found it consistent that way. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. We went through the inconsistency of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Conservation Advisory Council still recommended we still do some kind of buffer there. TRUSTEE KING: It's in there. A ten-foot buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The bulkhead and the buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that will be a condition of this. Board of Trustees 21 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: That's still a valid permit from last November. It's got all that stuff in it. So if there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a headng, it's an amendment. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve as applied for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next one is postponed. Who has file number two? COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of JULIO RAMON requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approximately 221' of existing wood bulkhead inkind and inplace. Approximately 77' of wood bulkhead will be reconstructed along the western property line; 47.7' of bulkhead will be reconstructed along the southern bulkhead line; 96.2' of bulkhead will be reconstructed along the eastem bulkhead line. Place approximately 110 cubic yards of fill landward of the bulkhead to meet existing grade and plant a portion of the area with beach grass. Located: 480 Rabbit Lane, East Madon. We have a report in the file for the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan indicating the project is consistent with the town's waterfront goals and plans, and we have the Conservation Advisory Council supporting the application. They indicate recommendation that we consider it, because of increased sea level and northeast storms, they recommend the present bulkhead elevation, increasing the present bulkhead elevation to a height with returns and the allowance for public access over the bulkhead. And the Trustees performed a field inspection of the site and we are in general accord that the project was a good project but specifically concerned that no treated lumber would be used in this case. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Okay, hearing none, any comment from the Board specific to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. Board of Trustees 22 July 21, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There being no great concern, I think the project, as it was, we didn't, I'm not sure that we have a large issue with trying to raise the elevation on this site, and I don't think we really had a problem with this. I would make a motion to approve this application subject to that no treated lumber be used in this construction. TRUSTEE KING: I have just one question. What about the supports? I understand vinyl sheathing, but what about like the walers. We've allowed CCA on the walers. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we say treated lumber as per code. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, can't use it for sheathing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to amend my resolution to no treated lumber on sheathing, as per code. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jill, is there any consideration for that public access, because that will become more and more of an issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That should have been brought up -- we already closed the public hearing. Do we wish to reopen the public hearing to discuss this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we are going to discuss this, you have to reopen the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to open up the public hearing on number two, Julio Ramon. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion to reopen for discussion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: How is a new bulkhead stopping public access? That's my first question. MR. MCGREEVEY: You're asking me? I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: You brought it up. MR. MCGREEVEY: With due consideration to where the present average high water mark is at this present time and the bulkhead going to be in place, you are going to close off public access of the beach. So as far as engineering goes, I'm not an engineer, but it would have to be engineered in such a way, because we are going to be facing this issue on a regular basis, now so I think it has to be addressed. The Conservation Advisory Council thinks it should be addressed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe, on this, I don't have the survey in front of me, but I don't believe the high tide is up to this bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: It shows it on the survey of being seaward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The seawardness was pretty much apparent on the field inspection so the public can still pretty much move along the foreshore and exert their riparian rights. Board o f Trustees 23 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Mean high water is ten foot seaward of the bulkhead. MR. MCGREEVEY: If we could make that part of the language then as far as the Conservation Advisory Council request because it may be language you might want to use consistently where it applies. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would rather not start that language until it's discussed with legal. And this shows mean high water ten feet below the bulkhead, so that will be the plan that will be stamped. So they'll have to abide by that. Thank you. MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services. I just want to agree with the Board. This is private property. We are getting into all sorts of liability questions if you have people coming up over the bulkhead, walking on private property and going down. It's a real can of worms and certainly not acceptable for this particular project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you. Jay? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? (No response). I'll move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this project subject to no treated lumber in the sheathing aspect of the bulkhead. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it has been deemed consistent under the LWRP, as part of the resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Lark & Folts, Esq., on behalf of GLENN R. MEYRAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. This was an application that was considered last month. It was tabled just for review. A part of this was found consistent under the LWRP. That part of the application found consistent was the stairs, to repair and maintain the existing stairs. What was found inconsistent under the LWRP was the repair and maintain the observation deck. The Conservation Advisory Council last month supported the application with the condition the observation deck conforms with current code and the LWRP, and the stairs are constructed with enough strength to support and accommodate erosion control devices at the base of the support posts. Board of Trustees 24 July 21,2010 Again, there was considerable conversation about this last month. And unless, correct me if I'm wrong, fellow Board members, but we didn't have an issue with the stairs. It was the observation deck on this property that had been removed and reconstruction had started and was stopped for the applicant to come in with an application for this, and so what we had recommended to the applicant last month was consideration for expanding the top deck of the stairs to the maximum allowed by code, which is 32-square feet. And that would then enable them to have an area to sit on to observe the Sound from. So that was our recommendation. And again, this was tabled from last month. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. What you stated, Mr. Bergen, is correct. It's my understanding that you were going to grant the administrative permit to maintain and repair the stairs where necessary, and then deny the permit for the application for the deck, the observation deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's where we got to, I believe, also, last month. And to correct, you said administrative permit. It's a full Wetland Permit. Just for the record. MR. DOCK: All right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that is what we are again proposing tonight is to grant a permit for the existing stairs to the beach. Now, again, we offered the opportunity for that top landing of the stairs to be increased and you discussed that with your client. Is that an option? MR. LARK: I would just assume you deny the permit and then we'll take that further as necessary and then bifurcate it by granting the Wetlands Permit for the stairs to repair and maintenance of the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you like to change the description of the stairs and make the top landing 32 square feet? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what he just asked. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not what the description said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct me if I'm wrong. You asked for us to deny this permit tonight and give you the opportunity to come in and re-apply. MR. LARK: I thought you were going to bifurcate it. That's not my understanding. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I misunderstood. That's what we recommended and I thought you just said no, you prefer us to deny this permit to give you the opportunity to come back in. MR. LARK: No, for the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I go back to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He wants us to approve the stairs and deny the Board of Trustees 25 July 21, 2010 other. That's what he is agreeing with. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jill, why don't you restate your question, for clarity. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. If we move to approve the stairs, the description of the top landing is not quite 32-square feet. Do you want to change the description now of the stairs to have the top landing 32-square feet? MR. LARK: No, just what it is for present. That's what was there when the original permits were granted by the DEC and this Board back in -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And we are just saying the code allows you to make it bigger, if you would like to do it at this time. MR. LARK: No, just leave it the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application? MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council would like to have a comment from the Board as a matter of record in regard to our suggestion, a recommendation, that stairs be strengthened so the erosion control devices can be adapted to the supports. We would like something on the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that was discussed last month, so it's already, that discussion has already been in the record in the discussion that occurred at last month's public meeting. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? Any comments from the Board on this? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the application on behalf of Glenn Meyran at 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, I'll make a motion to approve the repair and maintenance for the existing stairs from the top of the bluff to the beach, and in doing so we are denying that part of the application for the repair and maintenance of the observation deck as per plans stamped May 25, 2010. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: So for the approval you are approving both the Coastal Erosion Permit and the Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the denial is denied under both. But the deck you do, the top -- all in favor?. Board of Trustees 26 July 21, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was not sure, because we were interrupted. I wanted to make the record clear. TRUSTEE KING: MICHAEL & NANCY FOLEY request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the bluff face by installing a row of rocks at the toe of the bluff and at the midpoint of the bluff. Add approximately 200 cubic yards of fill and replant bluff with native plants and grasses. Final grade shall be in line with existing adjacent slope. Install a berm along bluff top to catch excess rainwater. Located: 62675 County Road 48, Greenport. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit applications. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me, can you just identify where this property is located? Where on the bluff. MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, you have you step up to the microphone and identify yourself by name. MS. NORTON: Melanie Norton, Greenport. Where on the bluff is this property located? You are giving a county road address. TRUSTEE KING: It's off 48, on the north side of 48 on the Sound. MS. NORTON: But where on the Sound. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to give an easy answer here. (Perusing). I'm trying to see where a landmark would be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It looks like it's west of Moore's Lane in Greenport and east of San Simeon. Between San Simeon and Moore's Lane. MS. NORTON: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Okay? It was found consistent with LWRP and it was recommended the Board require a planting plan be submitted which includes species spacing and survival requirements of planted vegetation. Is there anybody here to make any comments on this application? MS. FOLEY: My name is Nancy Foley, I live at 62675 CR. 48. I have a planting list with me, if you wanted one. TRUSTEE KING: Sure, great, we'll put it in the file. I'm just looking at the plans here. I would like to see a profile drawing of the bluff. They usually have it in most of the applications. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we had it. TRUSTEE KING: No, that's what's on the survey. Is there a profile? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought in his drawing -- TRUSTEE KING: We need to see -- you know what I'm talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the side-view. I thought we reviewed this with Mrs. Foley in the office and said this would be fine. TRUSTEE KING: We should see something like this, rocks, back down and then rocks on the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we move subject to receiving. Board of Trustees 27 July 21,2010 TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think we can. But that should be part of this, a nice profile drawing of what is going on there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we had the profile. TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any comments? Anybody else in the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application but we need to see a profile drawing on the plans, a profile of it. MS. FOLEY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: And I guess you could draw in a little planting plan what you are going to plant and where you are going to plant it. MS. FOLEY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I think that would satisfy everybody. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MS. FOLEY: A profile drawing with a planting scheme. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. FOLEY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application and the permit will be given out upon receipt of the planting plan and profile drawing of what is going on there. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's consistent with LWRP. That should the be part of the motion. Number five, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of SHEILA PATEL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 147' of existing bulkhead; construct 147' of new steel bulkhead inpiace; construct 146' of new lower sheet steel retaining wall, and revegetate any areas disturbed with Rosa Rugosa plantings. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This is been found consistent with LWRP, however it is recommended that the Board require spacing and survival requirements for the planting and vegetation. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the Board of Trustees 28 July 21, 2010 condition the bulkhead is constructed with returns. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. This will be less structure than the original proposal because we were just going to armor the wall with stone. Now we are going to do a steel bulkhead and hopefully make it less structure. But you know the dynamics of the area down there with all the bulkheads being destroyed. You are down there every day. So this is what we are looking to do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, it was my understanding out in the field you are no longer doing the lower sheet retaining wall on this project, or am I just confused with a different project? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just going to ask that. Because this was the description that came in and this is what we had in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we met with George in the field he talked about, on this property, a challenge due to the amount of clay in the bluff and he thought it would be impossible to do the lower sheet steel retaining wall. MR. COSTELLO: Well, the upper retaining wall. The lower bulkhead will go in. TRUSTEE KING: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I'm just looking on the description as described. I'm asking do you want us to remove in the description of the application here, that 146 feet of new lower sheet steel retaining wall, maintaining the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: I mean, I would rather leave it in and amend it later if we choose to change it. At this point I would like to leave it in there, if that's all right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response). Jack, from CAC, what is your reasoning for requesting returns? MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't inspect this property for this permit but I think I inspected the same property on an earlier date where they had an application just for stairs and, if I'm not mistaken, I looked at the project at that time, and in my estimation, I'm not an engineer, but I thought returns coming up from the bulkhead on the side of the property would stabilize that steep bluff to a greater extent. I know it entails a lot more work, a lot more structure, a lot more money, but if I'm not mistaken, in talking to the owner on this particular property, he agreed. He could see the worth of considering, if it was okay with Mr. Costello. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In our conversations with George Costello in the field, and Jack can confirm this, it's a lot of clay underneath that sand and it's very difficult to bore into that Board of Trustees 29 July 21, 2010 clay. Everything just slides down. So I would imagine it would be difficult to do the returns. And there are bulkheads on either side of the property, so it can tie into that. MR. COSTELLO: It's a fear of compromising the bluff. The other properties are bulkheaded, both of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So there is no need to go into the bluff. Are there are any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for, and we find it consistent under LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Walter Bundy on behalf of the ORIENT WHARF COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing asphalt vehicle and access paving (an approximately 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. This has been found to be consistent by LWRP. We have all been out there and we've looked at it. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. In the field notes, from our visit out there, just a reminder, field notes say removal of all asphalt material to a suitable upland site. And we were looking to get plans of the new deck, and we do have those. They are here. And with that, I'll ask if there is anybody here who would like to address this application. MR. BUNDY: I'm here for Orient Wharf. Walter Bundy, I'm an agent for Orient Wharf. When we were looking at this, we met with the DEC to get an understanding of what was permitted at the site. And because we found out there was a couple of issues. One of them is that Orient Wharf does not have a maintenance permit in place for a wharf facility. The DEC maintenance permit is only for the moorings and for the floating docks. So therefore anything that is done on the wharf itself has to go for a DEC permit to make that happen. What we are looking at doing was come up with a way of providing immediate, safe access over the area that is deteriorated. The landward side of that section has an existing seawall, concrete seawall, with already beam pockets from the original bridge that used to be there back in the early 1900's and that. And the seaward Board of Trustees 30 July 21,2010 side, the waterward side, actually has the timber impdnts there also, the beam pockets. When we did the investigation, we dug up part of the asphalt there, and we agree, the material directly below the asphalt, is not really suitable to be there, and we are proposing to remove, for a depth of a foot-and-a-half, remove all of that material that is down to the bottom of the beam pockets, so that whatever is left in there appears to be clean. We found asphalt, we found nails, we found metals and everything in the top layer. So it is our intention of removing that. And the Orient Wharf will be coming back to the Trustees in the future for separate projects to modify the Tidal Wetlands maintenance permit, to include dredging around the floating docks and mooring areas, and permit maintenance and rehabilitation of the actual wharf facilities, and at that time the actual wharf will be addressed in any kind of reconstruction or maintenance. All we are looking for dght now is approval to put in the timber deck so we don't have to keep using the asphalt pavement. You can see the areas, it's all, just erodes. There is a lot of water also flowing down in this area, all the way down from almost 25. The water runs down through an outfall pipe here, which is adding to the problem. Our permit application did include removing the portion of the pipe that was added by the town back to the rip-rap so that it's more stabilized on that area. So that is included in the project that is proposed. But other than that there is no other modifications being made to the bulkhead structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a town pipe. I would assume you would have to go to Highway and work that out with Pete Harris. MR. BUNDY: Yes, we have been talking with the town to come up with some filter systems to be installed at those sites to eliminate a lot of the silt that is coming through the pipe. And the maintenance dredging that the Odent Wharf wants to do also will take out a lot of that material at a future date. TRUSTEE KING: Can you tell me what kind of decking that will be? You say timber decking. What kind of material? MR. BUNDY: I believe the wharf was, I thinking of a synthetic material, Green Harvest. Any other questions? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The project documents here has some very interesting historical photographs, and it's from 1900, which is 110 years ago, it's amazing how little has changed there, at least in the background of the photographs. MR. BUNDY: Yes, I apologize for the lengthy photos, but there was a lot of good ones and I didn't even include all of them. But there is a lot of historic photos that exist of the site. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does look to me, at least in the photographs, it looks, at east to the south of the bridge, the beach is Board of Trustees 31 July 21, 2010 there now is considerably more than it was in 1900. MR. BUNDY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So there definitely has been some migration of sand. MR. BUNDY: To be perfectly truthful, we just allowed the wharf to stay functional while all those issues get addressed. On an overall plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to just point out there are some letters in the file. There is a rather lengthy letter here from some attorneys for one of the neighbors, David and Claire Aher (sic) and Timothy Frost and Margaret Mininuci (sic) I believe. And it's very large. I know we all have a copy and assume we all had a chance to review it. And it is in the file. If there are no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion to close -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. MR. PASCA: Are you going to open the floor?. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: By all means. Come on up. MR. PASCA: Anthony Pasca from Essex, Hefter & Angel. I'm the one who sent you the long lengthy letter. I do represent both neighbors, immediate neighbors to the wharf on each side. The north side is the property of Claire and David Air and on the south side Tim Frost and Ms. Minichini. We do have several concerns about the project. They are not insurmountable concerns, but we want to bring them to the Board's attention. I did a lot of that in the letter, so I'm not going to take a tremendous amount of your time going through the entire Petter, but I do hope you read it and I do want to highlight some of the issues and, you know, create a discussion about it. Because as I said, I don't think these are insurmountable problems, but they have to be considered carefully, because if you start going down one path you may find yourself too far down a path to stop something that could cause serious problems. The first section of our letter we deal with, we consider inaccurate information, incomplete information, vague comments, and I'm only going to deal with one of them at this time, which is future plans that they talk about. And they talk about this over and over and over again. Their future plans, we have future plans. We want to recreate a bridge that existed 40 years ago. We want to restore water flow. We want to make the bulkhead underneath the bridge unnecessary. And what they are not saying is what will happen to that bulkhead. And it's an important question because what happens if they make that bulkhead expendable and they let it ret, they let it go out and Board of Trustees 32 July 21, 2010 they don't covenant right now to maintain it. You've got a coast line and you have four or five-hundred foot solid wall, basically, and if water is flowing this way, water is flowing this way, it's basically all funneling into this one spot, the spot dght at this so-called bridge. And the bridge happens to be over a nice beach right now. Now, if you end up cutting a 17 foot hole in that spot, and this is a velocity zone, velocity flood zone, you have a heavy wave velocity action all funneled to one of these spots, that beach will be gone in the first storm. It's inevitable. So our concern is about what these future plans are and whether the future plans include maintaining that or not maintaining. Right now they have to maintain it. If you go to this timber deck structure where you say it will make the bulkhead superfluous, the question then becomes what happened to the bulkhead. Are they going to covenant to maintain it. The next section of our letter talks about the coastal erosion issues. I mean you are charged with upholding the Coastal Erosion Act and we have seen very little in their submissions about how they meet these criteria. If we right, the purpose of this project is to create that cut and basically erode the beach, it's the antithesis of what your Coastal Erosion Hazard Act is supposed to protect. It's supposed to stop erosion, not cause erosion. I'm not sure I have seen a project whose purpose is to cause erosion to a beach. It certainly can't meet your criteria. So you have to ensure if you are going forward with the project like this, that at least certainly studies are done to determine what is really going to happen there, to ensure those bulkheads will be maintained. The same is true for the Wetlands Code. We deal with that in our letter as well. If the beach is destroyed then all the wetlands adjacent to the beach will be destroyed as well. There is a seawall, I don't know if their goal is to eventually dispose of the seawall or not. But your job is protect the wetlands, not to help them cause erosion. And there my be silting problems, nobody denies that. But there are other ways of dealing with silting problems. It's called dredging. Nobody is opposed to dredging. There may be other solutions as well that can be explored. The point is you can't automatically head down a read that is going to create a 17-foot hole, funnel, basically a hole right in the funnel that will destroy a beach on purpose. It's contrary to your codes. It's contrary to the Wetlands Code, contrary to the LWRP. I'm not sure you have ever done it. This may be the first time, but we'll find out. My clients are here as well to address the Board, as is their consultants. I think he'll say a few words first. I hope Board of Trustees 33 July 21, 2010 you read our letter carefully. We don't want this to lead to litigation. I think there are ways of avoiding it but I think this Board has to take this matter very seriously. Thank you. MR. BOWMAN: Good evening, Chades Bowman, President of Land Use Ecological Services. I got called just to really go out and take a look at it and try to assess the impacts of this proposal on the natural resources, which I think is very important. I'll be honest with you, I'm very surprised that the Conservation Advisory Council, you know, recommended approval of this. I have a problem just with the plans. It shows the tidal wetlands line on it that is totally wrong. It labels areas of high marsh, extensive areas of high marsh that are landward of the open beach area as beach grass. It's not American beach grass, it's Spartina patens. It has seaside golden rod and all sorts of good wetland vegetation in it, on both sides, north and south of the roadway. The plans are wrong. The spring high water line that is shown on it, as I know the Board knows, Spartina patens salta which usually grows below spdng high water, gets flooded during storm tides, moon tides, so I would even question the spring high water line. There are no elevations on the plan, so there is no way to assess what will happen when you remove that top part, create this bridge, how much water and during what tides will that flood through. No way to assess it. There is no elevations, no topography on it, no depths offshore. If you did want to assess the impact of this proposal, there has been no surveys, which I think are always required, submersion vegetation, astaira, there may be some eel grass beds there, if the beach goes away, they'll go away. I'm not saying it would but there is no information provided to say what will be the impact to this wetland system, to the beach area. The beach area is, as you all said, there for 100 years. It's grown. It's a very valuable resource for shore birds, for horseshoe crab nesting, all sorts of activities and natural resources that are important to that area. You can't lose it. It's very important. And I believe that the Board should be asking the applicant to show what that impact will be. You don't know right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time we are not reviewing the opening of that. We are reviewing just replacing the top of it. MR. BOWMAN: But that creates an opening. If you look at his plans, that creates an opening. I think that's what you have to do. I think their counsel has also brought up a very important point. Under SEQRA, you are not supposed to be segmenting applications. If there will be future plans, great, show us what you are going to do. Let us assess it. Do a natural resource inventory. Do the right things. Have a topography. Board of Trustees 34 July 21, 2010 Have some elevations. How can you possibly even make a decision when you don't know what the elevations on either side are. You don't even know where the wetlands are. I know where it is. It's not where it's on the plans. That's for sure. And I believe the Board probably saw that as well. You know, and I think all we are asking at this point is to get the right information so that it can be assessed. If you look at the sections view on the plans, okay, there are no elevations. There is no elevations of the beach, no elevation of spring high water. You don't know how much water will be coming through that top when they remove it and put the decking in; how much water will come through. At what flood tides, at what storm tides. You don't know, you can't tell. I think it's a very reasonable expectation to have construction groins that will give elevations so that can be assessed and see what the impact to that beach area is. I think the Board would agree, the beach area is very important. Why take a chance? Why not ask for the information? In the plans it says something about storm water control, that somehow this will increase the flushing, you know, of that basin. If water does go through and increase the flushing sure, but money is better spent, as you know, doing upland improvements so you don't get the contaminants in the water to begin with. You don't want the contaminants flushed into the bay faster. That's for sure. Put the money into where you can stop it from getting into it. Is that is the real goal here? We don't know. I think all we are asking for is to have proper plans with good information, an assessment of the wetlands, proper wetlands line, topography, depth, where is the beach and be able to look at the construction drawings and say these are the tides, this is the velocity of the water that will be coming through and be able to see if it really will or won't have an impact to those beaches. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, do we have any other pictures of this or is this the only picture? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do you want this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean for our pictures that we took. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's all we have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. BUNDY: Walter Bundy again. MS. HULSE: Sorry, sir, you already addressed the Board. Does the Board wish to continue hearing comment on this? It's going into pretty extensive comment here. MR. BUNDY: No, we have a survey with all that -- MS. HULSE: One second, Mr. Bundy. The Board has to recognize Board of Trustees 35 July 21, 2010 you want to speak again. There are other people who wish to comment, apparently, as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Go ahead. MR. FROST: My name is Tim Frost, I'm the owner of the adjacent shore front property to the south of the proposed project for 25 years. As our lawyer has already pointed out, the errors, omissions, inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims with the applicant submission, I won't reiterate them, but I would encourage you to actually read the document and not just hear his testimony because he goes into significantly greater detail and enumerates a number more. Given the agenda tonight is difficult and long, in the spirit of cooperation and good will, I would rather try to seek agreement and compromise. First, there clearly are concerns that we share regarding the access and egress to the dock. Second, we share the concern about the water quality and road runoff silting in Orient harbor that negatively impacts the application and we remain willing to work with the applicant to address this issue. To best address the issue will require a comprehensive, and I would underline "comprehensive solution" that includes various departments of the town, the Trustees, the applicant, the property owners of Odent and perhaps other state agencies. Third, I do not believe that we have a concern with a new timber deck structure in and of itself. Rather, our concern is the proposed modifications that may create conditions as outlined by our consultants, allowing for significant reconfiguration of the shoreline and as evidenced by the applicant's own statement in his submission, and I quote. The replacement of the wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber bridge structure which is proposed to replicate and reconstruct the original wharf configuration and features will greatly enhance the water quality in the immediate harbor area and will also restore the natural functions of the shoreline. Will restore the natural functions of the shoreline. It's in their document. This lack of clarity and inconsistency as to intent in the application, naturally causes concerns. Definitively laying our property erosion concems to rest will allow us to support the timber deck proposal so we don't have to take further steps to protect our rights and our interests. In fulfilling your role as Trustees, I would respectively ask that you share our concerns and exercise your authority to safeguard the wetlands and near shore of the Town of Southold by clarifying the full intent and purpose of the applicant's submission. I believe the Airs may have some additional comments regarding their concerns and some more specific ideas to offer in the spirit of good will and compromise. Thank you. Board of Trustees 36 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to comment on this? MS. AIR: Hi, my name is Claire Air, I'm the northerly neighbor. My husband and I own, we are the abutters on the northern side. Since the engineering drawings for this project were not submitted to the Trustees file, we didn't know exactly what was proposed. The sketches that were provided and the narratives seem to contradict each other. We have no issue and can support a wooden bridge or a wooden roadway. Even though the engineering drawings still have not been presented, the project documents sketches and narratives supplied appears to indicate that the existing northern and southern bulkheads will remain in place with the existing fill. We only ask that the permit language include a requirement that these bulkheads and pilings remain in place and be adequately maintained for the life of the bridge. Our only other objection to the proposal is the shortening of the outfall pipe. As drawn on the sketches we have seen, all the unfiltered road runoff effluvia, would be deposited directly on our property. That would be particularly unfair as we are one of the few homeowners in Orient who has consented to the installation of the outflow pipe on our property without an easement or compensation from the town. If these changes are written into the details of the permit, something we believe the Board can do, we can support the plan and finally lay this issue to rest. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response). No other comment from the audience? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point, I would like to hear Mr. Bundy's comment. I'm just speaking for myself. MR. BUNDY: We submitted a plan that was only to get the permit. We also submitted a survey that was prepared just recently with all of the depths, all the elevations, all of the boundaries were marked and demarcated, so for someone to say none of that information exists in the file that was submitted, that is not correct. It was done by John Ehlers, and he has all of that was submitted along with it. Including the odginal survey from 1978 showing what existed when the tidal wetlands law went into effect and just what conditions were then. We also are only looking to keep a road surface in place and if it has to be with a rider or a condition on to it, I believe the Wharf would be acceptable to talk about that. But I was just looking at, as some of the terms were read out of our permit application, I don't even see some of the information. We had a preliminary Board o f Trustees 37 July 21, 2010 that was drafted earlier which did call for the replacement of it and to create a bridge, but it was withdrawn and we have submitted an application only to replace the surface that you are riding on. And the underlying fill, which is pretty poor. So if it's necessary that when we are all said and done that once the bridge timbers are in place, you dump in some clean fill in between them all and then put the decking down, that is a moot point. Because then how do you maintain that even. So you are asking for an aspect of a project to be put on that can't really be accomplished in a very meaningful manner, without removing the timber deck to add additional fill as keeps washing away. So, you know, I would agree that we would like to resolve it all and we would be open to recommendations. MS. AIR: Can I ask a question? Are there any engineering drawings available? That would real solve a lot of problems. We could really understand what they were building and what they were keeping and what they were taking away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't require engineering plans if we need, because we don't, it's not part of our requirements. And I believe we feel we have sufficient paperwork in the file. MS. AIR: They really only are sketches there is no north/south picture of what they are building or taking away. You know, if -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have a side profile. MS. AIR: That's east/west, unless there is something new in the file. If they would guarantee to maintain the northerly and southerly bulkheads under the bridge surface, under the road surface, I think we could all get along. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right now that is not part of the application. According to the application we have before us is they are maintaining that. That's what it says in the application. So what we are talking become really doesn't pertain to what we are reviewing right now, and I think we discussed it enough and we should move on from that point. MR. BOWMAN: One other comment, if you don't mind. I respectively disagree with that. Because Mr. Bundy just said if you put fill under where the bridge is, the fill will disappear. If you take out the bad fill and put in new fill, there is nothing keeping it there. So even he is saying the water will wash that fill right through. You will get water washing on through. If there is a survey in the file that shows elevations, they are not used on his plans. All we are asking is take his plans and the survey that apparently they have and to show elevations on his profile views. You don't know what will happen unless you take the two. That's all we are asking is to have him amend his plans to show what can be done. A very reasonable expectation. Board of Trustees 38 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I just have one other comment with regard to the pipe. I personally do not want to see that part of this application, as it is a town easement and the town maintains it, so it should be not be part of an application for somebody else. If the town wishes to shorten the pipe and do work on it then the town can go through the process it normally goes through to do work on a pipe. That's just my personal feeling. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if that pipe is actually part of this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, Mr. Bundy mentioned it, that that was part of their work. But I don't want to make it part of the resolution, if we do one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mr. Bundy, I have a lot of photographs and historical information in the file that shows this bridge was always open from underneath I'm just curious how all the fill got there to begin with? How did it close up? MR. DUELL: My name is Linton Duell, I'm the President of the Orient Whan~ Company. The question you have about how long is the bridge, that opening been closed, I believe it was done by Floyd King who was the dominant or pre-eminent shareholder at one time before the yacht club purchased the majority of shares. I believe it was 1964, but I can't swear to it, but it was in the 60s, they had a bridge, a wooden bridge there, and at the time -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason I ask, I have a drawing here from 1978 that shows that was open back in 1978. MR. DUELL: Then it was '78. But at the time Floyd King decided to close it in and fill it in, because he didn't have the money to put in a new bridge. Basically it was an expedient way of going. TRUSTEE KING: On the project description it says, paragraph three, the space was filled in after November 19, 1978, because the majority shareholder at the time Floyd King did not want to incur the cost of re building the bridge and thus filled it in with who knows what. MR. DUELL: There you go. At the time Floyd King was the owner of both properties that Mr. Air and Mr. Frost presently own. And that pipe that comes down, every time we had a snowstorm, ice storm, whatever, Southold Town comes down Village Lane and part of a Orchard Street and they deposit sand on the read. The next rain, that sand all gets deposited through that pipe at the base on the north side of the dock, so if you go down there and take a look at what has accrued -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have seen that. We are aware of the problems there and we bdng it up in the storm water runoff committee, and that's where it should be taken care of. MR. DUELL: Anyway, that was the question you asked and I think I Board of Trustees 39 July 21, 2010 answered it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the Board or the audience? (No response). I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What does the Board feel we should do? TRUSTEE KING: You closed the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For what reason? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to take a longer look. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to take another look also. I'm concerned with all the testimony I'm headng here. I'm uncomfortable with some of the testimony concerning the wetlands line and the potential, and I want to look at it in light of the Wetlands ordinance and Coastal Eresion Hazard Area. MS. HULSE: There is a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's take a rell call vote. John Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In favor of tabling. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll vote nay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. (Trustee King, aye, Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee Doherty, nay). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel that we have a survey in the file that is done by a licensed surveyor that shows the wetland line. It shows the information, and that's what we require. And we reviewed that. So I feel the application is complete and I feel we can make a determination at this time. What the motion shows is that it's four to one to table. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To the folks at the Orient Wharf, I'm not inclined to table things very often. Most people up here know that. I think there was some concerns breught up and I would tike to see if we could put together some kind of elevation from north/south just so we can see and have the file complete. I know the historical data shows what it shows and I happen to feel that there is good information there. And I understand what it means. But I would like to see, with the concerns brought up, those elevations and a little more details, and then I would have no problems making a decision and moving along. Board of Trustees 40 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the Coastal Erosion here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand that. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Moving on to wetland permits. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, A&E KOEHLER requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing stone rip-rap. Located: 1595 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. The report from the LWRP is that it is considered an exempt from the LWRP for being a minor action. According to the CAC the Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the conditions the rip rap is landward of the mean high water and the location is in compliance with public trust doctrine. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Again anyone from the Board wish to speak on this application? I know we were all out in the field. TRUSTEE KING: There are some questions about the waterward decking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there existing permits in there? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are existing permits in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we wanted to find out, we tabled it to see what existing permits there because the applicant was vague on what permits existed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are certificates here for the construction of the deck to the existing house. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are looking for permits for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And any other structures that were in the area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees have the resolution, they approved the deck attached to existing house as per the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we did, that was for the deck -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was for the deck attached to the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so that's included. Is there any permit for this structure we are looking at in the picture now? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not familiar with the prior actions of the Board and I don't see anything here, but let me see if I could find something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It should be right on top. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All I see is a certificate of compliance for the deck attached to the existing house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So now the question for the Board is do we want to include this structure in this current permit process, to have both structures permitted. And would we permit something Board of Trustees 41 July 21, 2010 like that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know when I was out there, I had a question about what I saw as two large decks connected together sitting on the beach and I don't know that we would approve them, actually, if it was not approved in the past; sorry, four sections there, as the picture shows. I don't know that we would ever approve anything like that. So that's what I had an issue with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. MS. HULSE: That's already been decided, hasn't it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the gentleman last month was indicating he had a permit for it but he couldn't produce it, so we tabled it to see if there was in fact a permit. We could not find one, and he didn't produce one. MS. HULSE: That's not what it says. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, he was here for the rip rap but we also were discussing what we should do with this, at this time. If we should include it with the permit for the rip rap. Then he indicated he already had a permit for it. It's not something that we normally would approve, even though it's a temporary structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we don't approve it -- MS. HULSE: It's not part of the application at this point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So let's move on the rip rap. And we can notify him that he does not have a permit for it and he'll have to remove it. We can give him notice. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any further comments from the Board? (No response). I'll move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In this matter I would, since it's an exempt action frorn LWRP, and for the rip rap, the Board and the Conservation Advisory Council has no problem, the dp rap is landward of mean high water, permitting movement along the foreshore to protect our riparian rights, I would move for the application solely for the rip rap, so moved with notice given to the applicant concerning the lack of permit for the removable platform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Don't make that part of the resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, just as concerns to approve the rip rap. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 42 July 21, 2010 a TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, ANDREW & ELIZABETH GREENE request Wetland Permit to construct an inground swimming pool 53x22' with retaining walls and surrounding fence, and to revegetate a section of bluff face approximately 35' wide by 25' high with beachgrass and Spartina patens. Located: 30653 County Road 48, Peconic. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent because the face of the bluff is eroded, so if the proposed action is approved, it's recommended the bluff be stabilized with indigenous vegetation to prevent future erosion loss structure. It is further recommended a natural vegetated buffer be required from top of bluff landward to include existing trees. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was found. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of the Greene's. Andrew Greene is here as well. The application is for the placement of a proposed pool 80 feet from the top of the bluff, and we dealt with this before where the LWRP, they use, rather than go out to the field, they used an old aerial photograph from like 2005, I think, so if, you probably all recall from your inspection, there is a 70-foot vegetated buffer, which we have a photograph of to remind you. The bluff was also vegetated by my clients after the house was built, some time after 2005, for that pedod of time. There was a very small blowout, like a 20-square foot blowout, which is actually part of this application is to plant some beach grass in that area, to revegetate it. So again, the LWRP is, I think not accurate. Here is the -- I have -- if you can pass them down, you can see the photographs of the vegetation, vegetated area. The bluff is actually at elevation 32. The pool will be at elevation 26. So the whole property slopes, the house is at one elevation and the property and the pool, and then the property slopes back up to the bluff. So this is a very protected, very stable property. I can go through some additional things, but it's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had pictures in the file from when we were out there that also depicts the distance that exists between the proposed pool and the bluff line, and as the survey shows there is 80 feet there. We also have a picture dated in the file, stamped dated received June 25, 2010, which shows 30 foot of bare bluff. If you would like to step up, you could see this picture MS. MOORE: That was the blowout from the March -- June? TRUSTEE BERGEN: June 25, 2010, is when it was received in the office. Board of Trustees 43 July 21,2010 MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I don't know if the applicant submitted this picture or, I don't know who submitted this. MS. MOORE: He's right here. He can help me. MR. GREENE: Andrew Greene, Peconic. When I amended the original application to seek to replant the part of the bluff which had been lost in March, they suggested that we submit a photograph of that section of bluff, and that's the photograph which was taken on the day before it was submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Was there anybody else here who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, I've got to admit that I'm a little taken back also by the LWRP review, since this is 80 feet away, and obviously the pictures do show that there is quite an area of vegetation between the proposed structure and the bluff. I don't see where the addition of this pool would have any impact whatsoever on the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I would note that most of the pool, not most, but a portion of the pool, is out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Additionally, the site is unusual in that there is a general swale from the Sound front, there is not the general flow, we see most Sound-front properties with the flow toward and over the bluff. But this is quite to the contrary. It slopes back toward the house and the remainder of the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel if we put a condition on the drywells for the pool that would bdng it into consistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And there are drywells shown on the plans that are submitted dated June 17, 2010, for pool drywell. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Andrew and Elizabeth Greene as described at 30653 CR-48 and given the distance of 80 feet from the top of bluff plus topography there, which shows that the water would run landward rather than seaward, and there is already a natural vegetated area in there, I would find it consistent under LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. Board of Trustees 44 July 21,2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of THOMAS SHILLO requests a Wetlaqd Permit to remove 182 +/- square feet of existing wood deck, 22 +/- linear feet of concrete retaining wall and replace with boulders, 30+/- cubic yards over 500+~- square feet under pier along edge of water, construct 68+/- linear feet of wood pile and timber pier, install a 6x20' float with associated 3.5'x24' ramp and restraint piles, at or waterward of the apparent high water line Located: The Gloaming, Fishers Island. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection of this, therefore there was no recommendation. LWRP found it consistent. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON: I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc. I prepared the application documents and the application drawings that you have before you tonight. To recap briefly on some of the discussions from the May discussions from the May meeting, your principal concern with this application was that the pier or the dock facility was too long and projected too far out into the inner bay of Pirates Cove. My initial reaction to that was that we had tried to keep the floating dock at about four feet of water in order to minimize bottom sediment resuspension and turbidity, which would be, in our opinion, an adversity for the Fishers Island Oyster Company which operates just a little further out in the throat of inner bay. And, after the meeting, I called on several occasions, finally reached Steve Melnowski who runs Fishers Island Oyster Farm and asked him his opinion on this and asked him to talk with Tom Shillo to see if some kind of agreement could be reached on shortening the pier. Mr. Melnowski was supposed to write a letter to the Board. I have not received a copy so I don't know if he did. But he indicated to me in a conversation that he would appreciate anything that could be done, any consideration by the Board to minimize the turbidity and bottom sediment resuspension. So having not heard anything from Mr. Melnowski, I just bring that forward to you. And I would like to also indicate that in speaking with Tom Shillo about his dock facility, he was agreeable to reducing the length of the dock facility by ten feet, and so I prepared application drawing revisions that I have for you tonight. And I would like to hand those out, if you are agreeable to that. I opened them up to page three, which shows the plan view and the new details. In my letter of July 15 to the Board, I asked, I presented some information that we have done on similar projects over in Connecticut and indicated that maintaining a depth of approximately four feet yields 1/20th of the suspended solids Board of Trustees 45 July 21,2010 and silts and sediments that are in operation in less than three feet of water would produce. And so we feel there is a substantial benefit to keeping the float out, about where we had it before the agreement by Mr. Shillo to reduce the length was to accommodate the Board's request and also to make sure that his neighbors were not adversely impacted by this dock facility, in particular his discussion with John Skee just earlier this week. And so I respectfully request that you reconsider your request to reduce the length by 40 feet and reduce it by ten feet. And we are ready to agree with that. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take another look at this in August with the whole Board, because not all of us saw it. I still have some concerns there. And we had an E-mail from the Oyster Pond, there was a letter written to Jill Doherty in the E-mail. MR. NIELSON: All right. One other issue I would just like to offer, we have received comments from the New York DEC, that their only concern with the project was that I specify the wetlands on the site and there is sporadic tidal vegetation that exists in and amongst some of the rocks. But we are not affecting that. The area where we are going to be taking the deck out and putting the boulders on the shore for armor protection, there is no vegetation under the deck. In addition, we have received the New York Army Corps of Engineers permit. In the next couple of weeks we'll be responding to the DEC with these revised plans and look forward to seeing your visit on the 4th. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For point of clarification, Mr. Nielson, you are referring to the minus ten feet of the proposed amendment, I'm confused which is a pending approval from Army Corps and DE(:;. MR. NIELSON: The DEC and Corps of Engineers has approved the full length of the original proposal. The DEC has asked two questions, as I recall, and they are regarding the -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on the questions you just outlined, still based on the full length. MR. NIELSON: Based on the full length, right. And we'll be providing them revised drawings. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application. We'll take a look at it again in August. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ROGER PRAETORIUS requests a Wetland Permit to install a docking facility consisting of a fixed walkway with open-grate decking 4x85' supported by 8" diameter marine piles seaward of Board o f Trustees 46 July 21, 2010 the ordinary high water line, hinged ramp 3x16' and floating dock 6x20', with the float secured by up to four eight-inch diameter marine piles. Located: 975 Westview Drive, Mattituck. We have been reviewing this application since last year. We have tabled it for new drawings and we have been -- I have been out there a couple times, Jim has been out there several times, and we have new drawings now and so here we are back again. It is consistent with LVVRP as it is in Mattituck Creek, which is an area where docks are allowed. MR. FITZGERALD: Even with my new hearing aid, I can't hear you back there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry. The new drawings are showing what we have asked for, which is different than the description. 4x4 posts landward of the high water mark; six inch diameter piles seaward of the average high water; open-grated decking on the fixed dock and landward ramp; two eight-inch diameter piles to secure float. So with those, we requested those changes and we have before us a survey, drawing showing those changes. Are there any comments from anybody? MR. FITZGERALD: I think it's really nice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: It's what we asked for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Robert Praetorius based on the new plans dated June 23, 2010, as revised, and submitted to our office July 19, 2010. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Denise Heyse on behalf of ROY & DAWN WARD requests a Wetland Permit to remove an existing cottage; construct a two-story addition landward of the existing dwelling; and construct a porch. Located: 4075 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. LWRP has found this to be consistent with LWRP. The Board has all been out there to see this, and the Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the application with the condition that a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead and that the turf is removed from underneath any elevated decking. Our field notes show we had a question about the septic location. We don't see that from the information that we had. Is there anybody here who would like to address Board of Trustees 47 July 21, 2010 this application? MR. THOMAS: Good evening. Chuck Thomas, architect for the project. Right where the cottage is, we'll remove the cottage, we have to go back to the Health Department and install a new septic system. That is where the septic system is going to be. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Where is it going to be? MR. THOMAS: If you look at the site plan. I don't have it shown, but it's going to be right where it says "remove existing cottage." TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So you'll be putting it where the cottage currently is. MR. THOMAS: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: From the looks of it, that takes it out of our jurisdiction. MR. THOMAS: It should. It should be about 160 feet away. 170 feet away. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). As I recall, it looked pretty straightforward because everything was landward of the existing building, so. Anybody have any questions or comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Questions or comments from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, noting that the septic is being placed in the area where the existing cottage is, and that will place it out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of JENNIE PAPPAS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 14x27.1' as-built trellis and 5.2"x12' storage addition. Located: 85 Beverly Road, Southold. We have in the file a report from LWRP that indicated it was inconsistent, concerns surrounding that the structures did not have a Trustee permit. We have a report from the Conservation Advisory Council indicating that they supported the application with the condition of no treated lumber being used. I'm not exactly sure specifically what that was relating to in the project. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of Board of Trustees 48 July 21, 2010 this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. The areas that are the subject of this application are an as-built trellis over an existing patio that was included in the CO that was issued in 1974. There is a 5.2x12' shed storage addition that was clearly added at some point in the past but subsequent to the original construction of the house. I don't know any more about it other than that. The setbacks were not reduced in any manner by any of this activity. I don't know what kind of questions the Board might have so I would rather address your questions rather than just go on aimlessly. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Ghosio looked at it. I don't believe we have a problem with the project. Ordinarily the issue of consistencies becomes an inconsistent would be the question of whether there was an outstanding violation on this project and I see no file entry that leads me to believe there was any problem with it, so it was applied for as an as-built, as you had. MS. MESIANO: Correct. I reseamhed it. There did not appear to be any violations, at any level. And everything that was CO'd exists with the exception of that shed addition. Everything else, the footprint is the same, there was some questions that we had, the Building Department spent a lot of time on it, before we got to this point. I'm going before the Zoning Board next week because it's quote, nonconforming, but it is what it is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Any other comments from the Board or any questions? (No response). Okay, headng none, I move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application noting that the absence of a standing violation of a project of relatively minor, insignificant project, that it will become into compliance by virtue of a granting of a permit due to its nature, so I would move the application as applied for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MESIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Vincent LaBate on behalf of MATTHEW STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to rebuild and construct an addition to the existing deck attached to the dwelling. Located: 2725 Wells Avenue, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with Board of Trustees 49 July 21, 2010 the condition there is no turf underneath the deck. The Board did go out and looked at this application, looked at the site. Is the there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Or against this application? (No response). Okay. When we went out and looked at this, we didn't have any problem with this addition. I agree with the Conservation Advisory Council, I don't see there is any reason to install turf under a deck, so -- MR. MCGREEVEY: Our concern was there might be turf already there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha. I understand. TRUSTEE KING: It'll die. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve the application of Matthew Stanton as depicted at 2725 Wells Avenue, Southold. Again, it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of FRANK & MINDY MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing house and construct a new house on the existing foundation/footprint of the existing house. Reconstruct existing deck with stairway in place and install a pervious driveway. Remove or abandon the existing sanitary system and install a new sanitary system. Located: 3450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. This was found exempt from the LWRP review. Replacement, rehabilitation and reconstruction inkind. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that creosote logs are removed from the wetland area and a landscaping plan is submitted for the area seaward of the deck on the creek side and the area underneath the deck is non-turf. We all went out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to comment on this application? MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, President, Land Use Ecological Service. I have no problem with the creosote logs. As you know, there was a 2001 permit that was actually for a larger structure, but Mr. Martorana, given the current economic Board of Trustees 50 July 21, 2010 conditions, decided it would be much better just to keep the small house. The sanitary will be upgraded. We have applied for a new system right up against the road as far as possible, from the Suffolk County Health Department. The only other addition is the stoop in the front and we construct everything as it is on the same foundation. TRUSTEE KING: I think the Board's feeling at this time is now is the time to move that house landward, to move it landward. It's really close to the creek there. So I think that will be the direction we want to move on this; am I correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know in the code there should be an attempt to bring it on line between the two neighboring homes. MR. BOWMAN: I think the 2001 house was further back, but it was a much larger structure as well. It was a four-bedroom house, a big house. So I think Mr. Martorana's concern really was this is just a very small cottage, to keep it at that, just to maintain that functionality. If he's going to start moving everything, I would have to go back to see if he wants to go back to the larger house, four-bedroom house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So would you like to table this and discuss it with him? MR. BOWMAN: I have no problem talking with him about it. I have no disagreement with you. It comes to economics. TRUSTEE KING: The foundation is in pretty bad shape. MR. BOWMAN: He has Joe Fischetti, the engineer. I'll talk to Joe about that and see which direction he wants to go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is a fragile area of Deep Hole Creek that is closing in, and there is less tidal flow every year. You know, if we have an opportunity to move a structure back further away and have more filtration. MR. BOWMAN: It's just a question I could talk to him about. If he just wanted to repair, siding, windows, redo the inside, just to maintain it as it is until maybe, you know, market conditions got better and then he could go back to his original plan, would that be something that would be acceptable to the Board? If the sanitary system is okay, that's my biggest question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have the right to apply for that. It's just a matter of, I mean at this point, is that enough to even make this house livable? MR. BOWMAN: I don't know. I'm just trying to get the information on the Board's feeling so when I talk to Joe and Mr. Martorana I know your feelings. If you are telling me that even -- and I don't even know if it's possible, but if it's structurally sound enough to reside it, remove the roof, put new windows in and redo the inside and put in new sanitary system up Board of Trustees 51 July 21, 2010 near the road, that is something that would be acceptable rather than tearing it down. This application is to demolish it. TRUSTEE KING: We were kind of happy to see this type of application. Lots of times we get the ones we are just going to put new siding and a couple of new windows, we drive by a few weeks later and there is no house anymore. MR. BOWMAN: I agree with you. That's what I'm trying to explain, the reason for this application is that, you know, he really would like to build a bigger house but he can't afford it right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY'. To answer that question, is not really giving you the answer you want to hear, except that you have the right to apply for that and we would definitely review that. But I don't think we could answer that. MR. BOWMAN: Fair enough. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. BOWMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark Schwartz, Architect, on behalf of JAMES & PHYLLIS RUBIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 535 square foot addition to the existing dwelling and to expand the existing deck. Located: 745 Cases Lane, Ext, Cutchogue. The whole Board looked at this, and the proposed addition is landward of the existing structure and it's 85 feet away from the pond that is on the property, and it is well out of our jurisdiction as far as the West Creek. We did not have any issues with it as far as the notes say. And it is consistent with LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of drainage plan to include drywells, leaders and gutters, and the turf is removed from underneath the deck. Is there anyone here who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any comment from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were drywells noted on these plans? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. That's in our notes, we have to add drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I bring it up. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jill, just a question for my own information. In relation to that, I'm assuming it's a manmade pond. Is that why this property is under your jurisdiction of the Trustees? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. MCGREEVEY: Not the creek. Board of Trustees 52 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's why I noted the creek is well out of our jurisdiction. It's because of the pond. MR. MCGREEVEY: So if a person puts in a fresh water pond, they might be creating their own -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we are not so sure this is manmade. We have taken a non-jurisdiction approach to manmade ponds like irrigation ponds on farms, we said non-jurisdiction. In the case that we don't know if it's manmade or not, we take jurisdiction. And where this is so close to the creek and the topography of the property, it might not be manmade, so. MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response). Heating none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Mark Schwartz, Amhitect, on behalf of James and Phyllis Rubin as applied for with the addition of drywells, leaders and gutters and to note this is consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this point I would like to take a five-minute break. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. (After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH ZEVlTS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 4x10' catwalk, 3xl 7' hinged ramp, and to replace the existing floating dock which currently measures 4x16' with a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 1945 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. The LWRP has determined this to be inconsistent. It states in 1988 the Board issued a Wetland Permit to construct a dock structure and the dock constructed does not conform to permit conditions. The Conservation Advisory Council report, resolves to support the application and does not have any stipulations. The Board, as I recall, didn't see any problem with this and, with that, I will open it up to whoever would like to speak on this. MR. ANDERSON: This is really about just putting in a float. The float that is there, the float that services the dock, is very Board of Trustees 53 July 21, 2010 unstable. The Zevits', the brothers, are big people. They are about 260, 270 lbs., and they have trouble safely getting on and off the boats. So 6x20 is the standard float, so that's what we ask for. That's it in a nutshell. TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand why it's inconsistent. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's inconsistent because it's a little different than what was on the odginal permit. TRUSTEE KING: When we went down and looked at it, it looked like everything was quite identical to what was on the old permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what it says. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any difference. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the only other thing the LWRP says is the applicant fails to prove that the application meets the following requirements: Chapter 275 requires the determination of the length of dock must include the dimensions of the vessel and the dimensions of the vessel are not specified. There are pictures in the file that do show the vessel. And the vessel is no longer than the dock, within the confines of the tie-up post on the dock. Any comments or other questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: There is a big expansion of a dock that is found consistent. I just, it baffles me, I'm sorry. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know. We measured it and it was consistent. So with that, if there are no other comments from the audience, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as written and noting that we went out there and we measured it and what's there is consistent with the application. So we find this to be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of THOMAS & CHRISTINE FALCO requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 252 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland site. Located: 945 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. The entire Board went and visited this site. We also have a report from the LWRP considering it an exempt action because it's essentially a rebuild, which is considered a minor action for maintenance and repair of an existing functional structure. And the Conservation Advisory Council went to the site and Board of Trustees 54 July 21,2010 supports the application. They wanted to see a non-tuff buffer, as did the Board of Trustees. And the Trustees have a note to request to raise up the bulkhead to match that of the neighboring, to provide a consistent approach to protecting that section of waterfront, which is subject to a little bit of a wave fetch. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf or against this application? (No response). Seeing no one, are there any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: What's the limit of disturbance behind the bulkhead? Is that on there? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The approximate limit of backfill was ten feet, which is consistent with the Board's thoughts of making it a 10-foot non-turf buffer. For those of you who are wondering what that means, it means that because this is going to be getting a replacement bulkhead, we'll require that the replacement will have an area of buffer behind it that will not allow fertilizer or intensely managed area so that we avoid getting nitrates and other assorted pollutants into the creek through the constructed area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And also with the raising of the bulkhead by one foot will decrease that steep slope. That will also help with the runoff situation. Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC again is concerned about allowing public access. It will be a comment that will be attached to a lot of our recommendations. It has to be considered. It's part of the LWRP and it should be part of the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Comment noted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: In an area like this there is not much you can do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless New York State, along with all the towns, develops a new coastal standard which may allow also recapturing materials that we lost to regenerate beach areas, we are much at a loss. MR. MCGREEVEY: I can appreciate that. The Conservation Advisory Council is concerned that it should be on an individual basis. It should be judged on that basis. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any further comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll close will hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve this application with a ten-foot non-turf buffer and increase the elevation by one foot Board of Trustees 55 July 21, 2010 to match that of the neighboring Hodgkins. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Ryall Porter Sheridan Architects on behalf of WILLIAM ADAMS requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing two-story dwelling; construct a new screened and covered porch on concrete piles; construct a 1,100 square foot single-story artist studio on concrete piles; install new sanitary system replacing the existing system shared with the house; and install a new driveway. Located: 1060 Northview Drive, Orient. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent with one recommendation; that the proposed driveway be constructed of pervious materials. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition there is no turf underneath the deck. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just one second before we move into the comments. I have labeled this picture wrong. This is not the Falco home, this is the one we are talking about now, the Adams home. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. It would be a shocker to both parties. MR. RYALL. I'm Bill Ryall, I'm the architect for the owners Bill Adams and Alexandra Pearlstein, who are also here this evening. I'm really just hear to answer any questions you may have. I just wanted to point out we have the DEC letter of non-jurisdiction because we are at the elevation of 75, the house, and we have the Health Department approval for the new septic system. The house is -- existing house, is about 200 feet from the high water line and there is also a proposal for a new artist studio to be built on the property which is about 300 feet from the high water line and 160 feet from the edge of the bluff. So I'm not sure that structure even is in your jurisdiction, but it's in the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also note, it says on the plan, the proposed driveway, dirt and gravel driveway. It could be that is describing what is presently there but would your client consider the proposed driveway to pervious? MR. RYALL: Absolutely. They didn't even want us to call it a driveway, but the surveyor John Ehlers in Riverhead had said we should actually note the driveway is there and it stops there because he didn't want the Health Department to go back and imagine they could go back and drive on the new septic system. Board of Trustees 56 July 21, 2010 That's why we have it there at all. But it will probably not even be gravel, sand. The soil itself is quite, it takes the water very, very well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other question the Board had out there, it looks like the proposed septic is approximately, looks like 65 feet from the top of the bluff. And we were wondering, given the depth of that property, is there any way of moving that back to take it out of our jurisdiction, in other words moving it so it's 100 feet, to take it out of our jurisdiction. MR. RYALL: 100, to take it out of your jurisdiction, right. There is a reason for putting it there, actually. But yes, you want it back 100. I think it was just so we wouldn't have to dig so much for it. But, you know, and also it's putting it back approximately where the existing system is already. Oh, I know, the reason for it being there is so that you could run horizontally from the existing house. The sewage line from the existing house goes to the bottom of the basement level. There is a laundry, washing machine down there. So you want it to run horizontally from there and not have to do even more excavation, which would be necessary the farther south we go, with the septic. Because you can see from the contours it's a steep site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we did note that. MR. RYALL: That's the reason why it's there and in your jurisdiction rather than pushing it back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As you noted, it's proposed at about the very same distance as the abandoned one, the one proposed to be abandoned, and if we could move it back in any way, it would sure help us out. But like I said, it's just a matter if there is an opportunity to move the septic back in any way, shape or form, even if it's not the full hundred feet, but move it back some so it's farther away from the bluff than the current system that is being abandoned is. MR. RYALL: I'll call Mr. Ehlers tomorrow morning. He'll do it the best he can about it. Something I didn't mention, there is a small screen porch to be added to the existing house, which is on the land side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see that in the plans. MR. RYALL: Okay. Can I give you the affidavit of posting? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, please. Was there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak with regard to this application? (No response). If not, any feeling on the Board, any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I would say if we could move the septic landward, it would help. If we can't, we can't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have no problem approving it subject to Board of Trustees 57 July 21,2010 moving the septic back, or do we want to table it to find out if that's possible? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to follow the contour lines here. It looks like it's currently at approximately the 74-foot contour line. And if we can move it back to where the proposed clean out is on the plans, if it's moved back to there, I see the contour lines there at 78 feet. So we are looking at a difference of about four foot in elevation. Is that something that could work? MR. RYALL: I see it. Yes, we could do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That probably will take it outside of our jurisdiction, looking at it. MR. RYALL: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any comments from the Board at all? MR. MCGREEVEY: Can I make a suggestion. I didn't inspect the property, Dave, but is there any consideration or should there be consideration of runoff from the roof to drywells, gutters and leaders? I don't know, I was not on the site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are absolutely correct. Jack, thank you. And I'm looking on the plans here. I do not see.that noted on the plans. MR. RYALL: Yes, he doesn't, Ehlers doesn't have them on these plans but they are definitely on the DEC plans. And both the existing structure and the new drywells to catch all of the runoff. And they are located, again, on the landward side of the existing house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would need to see them on the plans. MR. RYALL: Okay, if you like, I don't know how your procedure goes, but we can say conditional, we can give that to you and have it added to your plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And we just measured it out. With the septic moved back to that area as marked as proposed clean up, it will take it out of Trustee jurisdiction. MR. RYALL: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to chose the public headng. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Ryall Porter Sheridan Architects behalf of William Adams as described at 1065 Northview Drive, Orient, with the condition that a new set of plans will be submitted that will show the inclusion of drywells, leaders and gutters on the house and the studio, and that the proposed septic will be moved back to what is noted on the plans stated stamped received June 18, 2010, where the proposed clean out is, thus taking it outside, the Board of Trustees 58 July 21, 2010 septic, outside our jurisdiction. And doing so will find it consistent with the LWRP. So I make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of ROBERT & EMERENCE STICKLE, requests a Wetland Permit for the existing enclosed screen porch, rear deck and hot-tub. Located: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. This was found inconsistent with LWRP. I guess it's because the structure is constructed without a permit. That's the only reason. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition height and location of the existing fence conforms to Town Code; there is a drainage plan for the entire property; and the installation of non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. LENHERT: Yes. Rob Lenhert for the owner. Actually in June of 2001 there was an application and permit from the Trustees for the deck. They built the deck, never finished getting the COs. Somewhere in the process they enclosed the screen porch. That's why we are back here, again, for all this today. And as per the fence, we have to go to the Building Department for the deck, so with the hot tub we have to meet the code requirements for a pool. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was concern about the deer fence on the one side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was an additional fence attached to the chainlink fence. MR. LENHERT: He had a deer fence by the chainlink around the house. TRUSTEE KING: I believe -- I'm trying to jog my memory, I think we issued, not too long ago, a permit for that bulkhead there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we've been to that house before. MR. LENHERT: Yes, there is a bunch of old permits. The bulkhead is all legal. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anybody had a huge issue with anything there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we didn't. TRUSTEE KING: The inconsistency is only because it says it was built without a permit. You are saying it had a permit? MR. LENNERT: It did when it was built. They never finished out the process. TRUSTEE BERGEN: By applying for a permit we can determine it's being consistent. I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: What is there has absolutely no impact on the environment, or the creek. Board of Trustees 59 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Looks fine to me. It has the proper drainage. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second, all in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, and evidently there was a Wetland Permit for it, so it brings it into compliance and brings it into consistency with the LWRP. I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 15, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a wetland permit to replace the beach access stairs. Located: Little Peconic Bay Access Road, Cutchogue. This is exempt from the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the stairs are constructed with erosion control devices at the base of the supports and there is an engineered approach to slowing down the runoff down the slope, such as flow interrupters. Before I ask for any comments, I'll make a comment about the drainage. A lot of the drainage, the way the property is sloped, comes from the road. And so it's also, it's not the drainage of the property itself. It's coming on to, from the road on to the property. So that would be a request if the applicant wants to do some drainage erosion control in that area. It might benefit you in the long run. MR. LENHERT: We are speaking with Pete Harris about that road anyway. All the sides of the road are eroding. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Thank you. Are there any other comments for or against this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: It's straightforward. MR. LENNERT: As you saw, it was, you know, the bottom of the stairs blew out in a storm. Since then we replaced the bulkhead at the bottom and now we are looking to replace that last section of stairs to get down to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's pretty straightforward. If there is no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted for Nassau Point Property Owners Association. Board of Trustees 60 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we go on to the next application I would like to remind people to keep their comments to what we have before us. I know there are a lot of issues with this next application, and they are valid issues, but we are not here to discuss all the issues about this project. We are here to discuss what is described in our agenda tonight. So if we could keep our comments to what is on the agenda that relate to Chapter 275, that's what we are here to review. In the beginning of the meeting I let you know we are taking your comments, we will probably close the hearing and we'll leave a two-week public-comment period for written comments. So if you want to make additional comments or somebody else that is not here, that could not be here, they could most certainly E~mail us or mail us a letter. So if you could please state your name for the record, keep your comments brief, as there are a lot of people here that I'm sure want to speak. And again, just let's concentrate on what we are here for, not on all the issues that surround this application. Thank you. Number 16, the SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests a wetland permit for the installation of a water trensmission main in roadbed of Rt. 25. Located: Rt. 25, East Marion to BrownsHill Road, Orient. We do not yet have an LWRP report. As you can imagine,there are severel lettere in the file which are part of the record, and the Board has reviewed them. The Conservation Advisory Council tables the application and recommends the Board of Trustees require an Environmental Impact Statement to consider special impact to water levels in the subject areas and what the importation of an unknown volume of water would have on the water table and potential runoff of waste water. Again, as I described in the beginning of our meeting, the SEQRA state rules and regulations determine what type of action it is. We can't -- we can't say, well, there is a lot of other issues, so we want to make it a Type One. We have to go by the state guidelines and we follow the state rules. So under the state guidelines, this is a Type Two action. Therefore we cannot require an impact statement. MS. HULSE: Jill, just to let you know, legally, there was an Article 78 filed and it was dismissed, challenging the SEQRA, so you are correct in stating that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was upheld in court that we properly reviewed the SEQRA on the previous application. With that, I'll open the floor to any comments. MR. HOPKINS: Sure. Tim Hopkins, generel counsel, Suffolk County Water Authority. I would also point out for the record that theTown of Southold did do a full environmental assessment and found there were no negative Board o f Trustees 61 July 21, 2010 environmental impacts as a result of the project. For the record, I would also like to submit proof of mailing of the notice and affidavit and affidavit of posting, for the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. HOPKINS: Separate and apart from that, I believe most of the members are familiar with the application. The materials are rather comprehensive and I would be willing to take any questions you may have about technical aspects of the project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think tonight, as I said, we are going to just gather more information and listen, so if there is anybody who would like to make a comment, please come up to the mic and state your name. MR. MURRAY: Good evening, Trustees. My name is E. Christopher Murray, I'm an attorney with Ruskin, Moscou & Faltischek in Uniondale, New York, and I'm appearing today on behalf of Frederika Waschberger, Venetia Hands, Marianne Libertor, Amel Tandry and Betty Well, who are all residents of the town. As you are aware, this is a controversial project. There was a lot in the paper, I'll confine myself to discussing some issues under Title 275. Section 275. The first question I have or first issue I think that has been raised, is the Suffolk County Water Authority has specifically come out and said that it's not going forward with this project. Under 275-6 subparagraph two, the application for a wetland permit requires the schedule for the proposed activities with the completion date. I looked at the application that is on file. I don't see any proposed schedule or completion date. And in fact if they are not going forward with the project, they should not be applying for a permit. In fact section 275-10 of the Town Code requires that any permit that is issued contains a schedule when the operations will be conducted. So in even the DEC general permit, which they rely on in their application, requires they file a report with the DEC stating the dates they'll do the work and the completion date. And the whole purpose of these provisions is so that you don't give permits for hypothetical, theoretical projects. There must be a concrete project that is going forward at a specific time with a specific proposal, completion date, in order for a permit to be issued. Here, the application is deficient on its face because it does not contain this proposed construction or proposed completion date that is required under the Town Code. So I think, as a matter of law, the permit is deficient under the Town Code. Also, under 265-6(11 ), any permit application is required to have documentary evidence of any approval of any needed permits. Now, as I think you are aware, the town has specifically refused to amend the water supply map to permit this project to go forward. I would, under that section, since they have not been able to obtain the amendment to the town map, it has not complied with 275-6(11 ) of the Town Code, which requires that they have all permits in place in order to go forward with the project. In addition, I looked, I think it was mentioned, that there Board of Trustees 62 July 21,2010 is no LWRP for this. There had been one issued for the prior permit, which was only for the Dam Pond channel. They have not obtained the LWRP for the full project. So again, it's deficient on its face. The application is deficient on its face since that has not even been issued at this point. With regard to the merits of the application -- so I feel there are prerequisites that have not been met by the Suffolk County Water Authority that precludes the issuance of a permit, and I think the major one is the fact they said they are not going forward with the project and they don't have a schedule in place, which is black and white in your Town Code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could just comment on that. We understand that we heard there was an agreement made, but officially, this office has not been told that and we have not officially gotten anything to withdraw the application, so our obligation is to go forward with a review. MR. MURRAY: I understand that. But your Town Code for the permit application requires that they specify when they'll do the construction and when they are going to complete it. That's a Town Code requirement for the application. They don't have that on their application. So their application does not comply with the requirements of the Town Code. MS. HULSE: I think you are reading that as a hard and fast and Idon't think it's as restrictive as you are indicating that it is. However, I mean, it's also the applicant here is the county and there is other funding contingencies that are still, I'm sure, outstanding. But for the Trustees' purposes, at this juncture, there has been no indication they are going to be withdrawing it. In fact I would assume it is just the opposite. But at this point, the Trustees are going to take information from the public and whoever wishes to speak and are not going to be dismissing or not considering - MR. MURRAY: Well, I think it has a legal obligation to determine whether or not the application meets the requirements of the Town Code. There is a black and white requirement in theTown Code that spells out that all applications have to have a construction schedule and a completion date. If the permit application does not have that provision, I don't see that as a matter of law that you can grant the permit. So you obviously, you will listen to the town board, I think there is a lot of other reasons why the permit should not be granted and I think people will go forward to it, but there is a definite legal preoblem with their application. And I think it is also disingenuous of them to come forward, make these public announcements they are not going forward with the project and basically ask you to give a hypothetical permit. And both under the, even the DEC permit they are requiring, requires that it be concrete. You are not supposed to be able to come before a Board and get a wetland permit for a project you may or may not undertake. And that is -- MS. HULSE: I understand your point, I just think your interpretation is a little rigid and I don't think the Trustees -- and I have not seen them require that of anyone as hard and fast as you just stated. You are basically placing the burden on the applicant to guarantee that they'll complete the project, and as a matter of fact that is often times is not the case. It just has to be a going forward showing Board of Trustees 63 July 21, 2010 that they are intending to do this, and that is what they've done. So your point is made. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And your comments are noted. MR. MURRAY: But that is not what the Town Code says. And I would draw your attention to 275-6(2). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. MURRAY: With regard to the merits, under 275-12(i), this Board has the ability to determine whether or not to grant the permit based on otherwise, a determination whether otherwise it adversely affects the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town. It's a pretty open-ended criteda that this Board can consider and I'm sure the residents of the town will express their opinion as to why they feel that this does adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the town. And in fact the Town Board rejected this project. They did not, the Town Board did not include this as an amendment to their water supply map. The Town Board made a determination it did not help the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town. And I think it's a relevant factor for theTrustees to consider, that the Town Board has in fact disapproved this project. I think the community that is purported to be served by the project has not, does not approve of the project, and you'll hear from them tonight with regard to their opinions regarding the project. Um, with regard to the application also, there is an environmental assessment form that is attached and they also site Local Waterfront Revitalization Program consistency assessment form that they attached. And in there they have some very general conclusory statements. It's really not a hard look as to what this water, this extension of the water pipe and the access to the water will entail for the people of the town. And in fact under policy 12, under the assessment form, it just says no new development may hook up to the main. That's just, it's just a statement out there. There is no analysis as to whether that is possible and in fact there is representations that has been made that is not what this project is going to entail. So I don't feel that the form that they submitted to the Board is sufficient to take a hard look at the specific areas where there is required to make an explanation. And to just have conclusory statements contained in the LWRP program consistency assessment form and just put it there, I don't think complies with their requirements, again, for the application. I'm a lawyer, I'm looking at the legal requirement and whether they met the legal requirements for a permit. And I think their submissions are inadequate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry to interrupt, can you kind of wrap it up so we can have time for other people? MR. MURRAY: Sure, just quickly, other points, and I appreciate you indicated there will be a two-week pedod to submit additional comments, of which I'll take advantage of. But they also, in their application, they talk about the excavations and the backfill, however there is no statement as to what will happen to the excavation dudng the project and what effect that will have on the wetlands and the storage. They are supposed to give an indication of what other work has been taken in that same vicinity, and in their application they talk about the utilities that are there. They do not have any description, of that work, Board of Trustees 64 July 21, 2010 whether there were problems with the utilities or the permits and what that process took for the Board that was done for that very same location. So again, the application fails under 275-6(10). Also, under 275-6(6), they are supposed to give the depth of the excavation, and although they give it with regard to the Dam Pond channel, they have not given it for the additional part of the project that they are here seeking a permit for here. As you are aware, they submitted an application just for the Dam Pond channel which was approved without any kind of disclosure as to their requirements for this additional permit for the additional part of the construction project. And so their plans do not show the requirements of the construction with regard to the excavation for that portion of the project. I believe, as I said, there are plenty of people here who will talk about the impact on themselves, but I submit that even under this section, 275, the application and the process, they have not met their requirements, and I think as a legal matter they are not permitted, it would be an error to issue this permit based on this application. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment? MS. NORTON: I would just like a point of clarification, if I might. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Please state your name. MS. NORTON: This is to the lawyer who is present -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Please state your name. MS. NORTON: Melanie Norton, Greenport, New York. Because the Trustees have not upheld the terms and conditions of 275 in other cases is not a justification for them to disregard it in this case. And I think that sounded awfully flippant to me. I mean, we either have laws and guidelines as to what the article is or what it isn't, if it requires certain things of theTrustees, and because they have waived them in the past is no justification for them to waive it at present. Is that what you are saying, that they don't have to uphold the laws as written? MS. HULSE: My point was that counsel -- MS. NORTON: You have to speak into the mic. I can't hear you. MS. HULSE: My point was the applicant said that the application should be dismissed as a result of that. That's the purpose of a public hearing, so that -- MS. NORTON: No, that's not what was stated. Okay, that's not what was stated. MS. HULSE: I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you what my interpretation of what he stated was. The application is not dismissed if there is questions of fact that the Trustees have. If the Trustees can simply flush that out during a public hearing if there are any remaining questions. And I didn't say that they have given or issued permits in error. You misunderstand. MS. NORTON: No, no, no, I didn't misunderstand anything you had to say. I had understood it quite clearly. You were justifying the Trustees in the very past -- excuse me. I've listened very patiently to you and I will speak. You justified in the past that the Trustees didn't have to uphold the terms and conditions of 275 -- MS. HULSE: That's not what I said. MS. NORTON: (Continuing) in other cases, so they may not have to do that here. Board o f Trustees 65 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we get back to the application at hand. MS. NORTON: This is germane to the application. The question is whether you are required as a Board to uphold the terms and conditions of 275. You wanted us all to address 275. The lawyer representing these people actually in fact addressed it. Now your lawyer is saying but those terms and conditions may or may not apply. So I'm asking please cladfy. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, I think we are misinterpreting what she said. MS. NORTON: Clarify it for me, please. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think, we just need to get back to reviewing the application. MS. NORTON: No, but I would like for you to clarify for me what the terms and conditions of 275 are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is a legal issue that can be done at a different time. MS. NORTON: Why a different time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 275, we can be here for hours. We can be here for days if you want me to clarify 275. MS. NORTON: Fine, we've been here for three hours patiently listening to everything on this agenda, and you asked us to address the article. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, ma'am, he cannot take dictation from both of us. MS. NORTON: Fine. I'll speak more slowly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you can please let me -- I think Lori was misinterpreted from what she said. Lod, if you want to try to explain one more time. MS. HULSE: No, I think I stated it pretty clearly. I think you just mis-stated what I had previously said. MS. NORTON: So let's cladfy it one more time. MS. HULSE: What my point was, ma'am, is that an application is just to get before the Trustees. If there are any issues that are questions, questions that the Trustees have as they pertain to 275, that can be flushed out during the public hearing. My point was, which is what you were missing, is that counsel said that the Trustees should reject it, should not consider it, should dismiss it. That's not something theTrustees do. They don't have to dismiss it. That's not a result of an application that counsel perceives to be in some way inadequate. That was my point. MS. NORTON: Well, I must very respectively disagree. If your laws in 275 indicate that there is a beginning and an end to a permit process and that an applicant has to define when that process is going to be begin, that is either true or it's not true. If the applicant doesn't define that, and it's in your 275 to say it has to be defined, then, yes, probably, that would make some sense that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Article 275, ergo, that application is inadequate. And that's the only point I'm making. And you seem to have implied that somehow because the Trustees in the past in other cases did not uphold the terms and conditions of Article 275, they may not have to do so right now or in this case. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry, but that's not -- Board of Trustees 66 July 21,2010 MS. NORTON: But I firmly disagree. I believe the Trustees need to take into consideration every requirement that is written in Article 275 and uphold it. MS. HULSE: That's not what I said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the point has been made on the record and we need to move on. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, there is a gentleman at the microphone. (Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously and out of order). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Please, if you could hold your comments. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Everyone will have a turn. MR. HOPKINS: In order to expedite the process -- (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): No, he spoke already. (Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously and out of order). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you please hold your comments MS. NORTON: He already has spoken. MS. HULSE: The President of the Trustees recognizes a speaker. She has indicated you'll have your turn. There can't be this disruption. The President recognizes the speaker and theTrustees hear from them. (Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously and out of order). MS. HULSE: Listen, if there is a disruption, it will only delay this process. That's all it will do. MS. NORTON: Let the rest of the public have an opportunity to speak before he speaks again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, can we please -- everybody settle down. If you want to speak, please come up to the microphone and speak and let's not have everybody speak out of turn. I recognized him to make a brief comment and that is my choice. So, sir, make your comment and then we'll move on to other comments. MR. HOPKINS: Sure, I apologize for coming up again, but I did it with the intention of trying to expedite the process to clarify the record. To the extent the application doesn't include a schedule, it would likely begin shortly after Labor Day and the project would be completed by October 31. To the extent any portion of the project was not completed due to weather, a final restoration may be done, from a pavement perspective, the following spdng. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, very much. Next, please. MS. WASCHBERGER: Freddie Waschberger, from Orient. I want to address the fact I also feel this is an incomplete application and it's because of SEQRA. I know you guys work with SEQRA all the time and must be very familiar with it, all of you, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and I'm sure you understand the requirements, the issues, that are raised by segmentation. Now, the first application before you, last time, was just for Dam Pond, and that was clearly segmented, but you didn't know the whole facts of what Suffolk County Water Authority intended to do. This application does take it all the way to Browns Hill, but we have subsequently -- we have many documents demonstrating that the whole project actually goes to Orient Point. So this is still a segmented application. As such, I think it should not be considered, it should Board of Trustees 67 July 21, 2010 be rejected and you should ask Suffolk County Water Authority to come back with a complete application, completed application and complete EAF. The documents that I refer to, the application for the stimulus funds references 774 homes in Orient. The governor's award of stimulus funds references 700-some homes in Orient. A resolution passed by the Suffolk County Water Authority Board on April 26 of this year, which talks about a main extension, it references 772 homeowners who will subsidize or amortize the cost of this extension. So this is still an incomplete and segmented application under SEQRA and should not be accepted. I would like to address the reference to the EAF that is in this application. This EAF was ordered from the consultants by the town. The EAF for the amendment to the law, which was to extend the water map. It should not be referenced by Suffolk County Water Authority. It's quite a different thing. But I'll just also cite that in the consultants' discussion of this FAF, they look at the possible implications of the water going all the way to the Point because it's understood that this should be considered because this is the inevitable outcome, and in the EAF, they talk, the consultants posit an additional 187 houses that would be possible if this water main goes through, and the areas that are -- now can access public water were billed out. And an additional 11 beyond that, depending on the -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me for interrupting, but this is getting away from our application at hand. You are talking about -- MS. WASCHBERGER: This is in the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking about laying the pipe in the ground. That what is before us right now. MS. NORTON: You don't seem to understand the application. This is all part of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's not. This is what I talked about in the beginning, that there are other issues that -- and valid issues -- with this, but it's not -- that part of it is not before us right now. MS. WASCHBERGER: This is the application that is in your file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Future development and building houses is the Planning Board. MS. WASCHBERGER: I understand that, but this is in your file.This is referenced by the application. This EAF. Now, they should be coming in with an EAF for any application. They didn't come in with their own EAF. They reference this EAF and therefore this EAF is part of your application. So can I address the EAF which is part of the application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you can briefly wrap it up, please. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can I make a suggestion. It may be a time limit and allow a little more free-ranging discussion because I think I'm hearing people trying to tie in notions of a segmentation as for a bigger project that is on the table. Now, we already had something that started before I came back on the Board with something happening under Dam Pond. And now we have another proposal before us. If verification can be made on other applications and materials before other governmental agencies, including the governor's office, I just assume let the public speak and I would like to maybe Board of Trustees 68 July 21, 2010 suggest they keep their comments as cogent and compressed as possible, but I think I would like to hear those sorts of comments myself. MS. WASCHBERGER: Thank you. What I wanted to refer to in the EAF is that although the consultants do posit the additional 187 or 198 houses, depending, in filling out the EAF, and particularly, if I can draw your attention to page 19, some of the EAF that you should have in front of you in your file, they don't take that into consideration in filling out this EAF. They say present population is likely to grow my more than 5%. They say no. But if actually the application grew or the number of houses grew by 187. that would mean an estimated population of about 25% increase. And with that, it introduces a conflict with the official goals of the town which include the preservation of open space. It comes in conflict, it's a change of density of land use in the EAF, they said no, but it should be yes; and the demand for community services with the addition of 187 or 198 houses, which would increase the pressure on the schools, and certainly there would be an increased demand for community services. There is also the increase of traffic to be considered. Therefore, I think this application should be sent back and asked for a full, complete application, including all of the way to Orient Point, which is the intention, clear and stated intention of the Suffolk County Water Authority, and the EAF should, that they submit, should include a reference to all of those. And at that point, I think one does have to reopen the issue of whether this shouldn't be a Type One SEQRA. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. HAND: My name is Venetia Hand. I'm a resident of Browns Hill in Orient and one of the guilty people letting the Suffolk County Water Authority anywhere near Orient. I had no idea when we sold our system to them what I was unleashing. I had not even heard of them. It feels a little bit like the situation you were in a year or so ago when nobody was here to raise a flag when all they wanted to do is go four-hundred feet around Dam Pond, and you didn't know it was a piece of something much bigger. As if they were here looking into the piece going to Browns Hill. But again, it's still a segment. The Suffolk County Water Authority, as Freddie has been saying, and there are other evidences within their own Board minutes, have agreed to allocate the cost of this project across 772 houses in Orient because, and I quote, that is the procedure we follow whenever we enter a new area. Now, I also submit to you I was with Congressman Tim Bishop, in his office in Coram on Tuesday of last week, with Arnold Chaldrey, with Mr. Hopkins, with the new chairman, and the chief engineer and with Scott Russell. And the first thing Congressman Bishop said was this project is dead. And the three members, senior members of SCWA did not say that is not true, we are still applying. They did say we have an application. We don't expect it to go through. I am interested in hearing these dates of Labor Day through October, when I'm being told it's dead by people I hope I can trust in forums I hope I can trust. So I submit to you that you have a right to demand honesty, integrity and consistency in one forum and another. SCWA has a habit of saying one thing - chairman says it's dead -- and then another. The CEO says we are going to get an application just in case the people of Orient change their mind. And so on and so forth. I really do think you Board of Trustees 69 July 21,2010 have that right. Since this application was put in place, it has been declared dead. And I think you have a right. You are so burdened here with work to do. Look at this time that you are having to spend on real applications. Why spend time on one that is hypothetical. And the only other thing I want to say, I have submitted a letter, you may or may not have read it yet. I hope you will in the two weeks. But I would like to appeal to a higher authority, which is the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which does not recognize the existence of a transmission main, which is what the Suffolk County Water Authority is calling this. If by calling it that and saying they are connecting from East Marion to Browns Hill, they are thereby being lead agency declaring it as a Type Two, that it doesn't need a SEQRA review and they don't need to ask the people in Orient for their permission or their interest. They would never go into an area without that otherwise. It's not a good business deal. So I would submit that the Suffolk County Department of Health should be listened to here as well, and that this application is wrong from the start in calling it a transmission main. And I hope you will listen very, very carefully to all we said. We sat here very patiently as well. And I really hope for your consideration on this. Thank you, very much, Trustees, and I would really love it if you all listen to us as we are talking and not have side conversations,Mr. Ghosio. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. HAND: I would like to be heard. Mr. Ghosio, are you listening? I would like to be heard. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I heard you. I'm getting a point ofclarification on something. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Laughing and scratching the whole time? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Does it look like I'm laughing and scratching? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes, it did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your comments, please. MS. LIBERTOR: My name is Marianne Libertor and I am thrilled that you have seen and heard what has just transpired dght in front of you. It's what we have been battling now for almost a year since you all issued that first permit. You've read the newspapers. You've read our letters, hopefully. These people at SCWA have said that the deal is dead. The pipeline is dead. Tim Bishop said it's dead. Everybody is congratulating everybody. The Suffolk Times wrote a big cover article, cha, cha, cha, it's all over. And you just heard the man come up here and say he wants to commence construction at Labor Day. So my question to you all is do you see now what we have been going through for the last almost a year. You are actually entertaining an application which our counsel indicates is incomplete. You have read the newspapers, they say the deal is dead. And then they come in and say, oh, no, it's not dead, it's on for Labor Day. This is the point of all of this strife and stress. They just do whatever they want. They disregard law. Look at the people here. We are all from Orient. We are tax paying, law abiding US citizens and yet this out-of- control organization here, this abusive public authority, is just doing whatever it does, and actually, counselor, I'm surprised you would even entertain an application that has blanks and does not conform to the law. We conform to the Board of Trustees 70 July 21, 2010 law. We come to speak to you. We do everything in a proper and appropriate fashion, and yet for some mysterious reason this vaunted Suffolk County Water Authority is permitted to just do what they damn please; toss in an application that is incomplete, bring in dates that nobody knows about, contradict what they said last week. I don't see how you can possibly, possibly, entertain this application: On its face, based on their behavior, it's a fiction. Everything- they say is a fiction. You can't trust a damn thing they say. So please, please, we are going to get our fellow citizens, our esteemed neighbors, to wdte you all. Please read every letter. They will phone you and communicate with you. Do not let this abortive pipeline go through. We don't want it. We don't need it, and after a year of dealing with them, we don't want anything to do with them either. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would anybody else like to speak? MS. SINCLAIR: I'll be very brief. My name is Siber Sinclair. The SCWA applied for a grant to the federal government for three million bucks. I'm a taxpayer. To supposedly supply water to seven hundred residents in Orient. Now, they only asked you for a pipeline on the Dam Pond. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty damn fraudulent. I think it's also disgusting that in a time when this country is in such trouble and money is so desperately needed for real stuff, that you can let this kind of garbage go through. MR. FEGER: Bob Feger, and I live in Greenpoint -- Greenport. Not Greenpoint in Brooklyn -- and I'm representing the North Fork Environmental Council tonight. We've met with Freddie and some of her colleagues in this fight against Suffolk County Water Authority, and we strongly support their position. And I feel bad that you are sitting here and listening to all of this emotional upset and upheaval. I recognize that you have to look at this permit. If a permit is brought to you, you have to deal with the permit. I would strongly recommend that you reject this permit and decline it, because you have been part of the segmentation process. You have been taken to the cleaner like everybody else in this room by Suffolk County Water Authority. They sat and gave you a permit just to go under Dam Pond. And you, in good faith, you approved it. In absolutely good faith you did it. And now they are here for another section of road. And if I were sitting in your chair, I would really be annoyed, because they pulled the wool over everybody's eyes. And if they are allowed to do this, I mean, their actual name is pulling the wool over everybody's eyes. They are not the Suffolk County Water Authority. They don't have anything to do with Suffolk County. They are not a Suffolk County agency. That's just a name that they pulled out of a hat to give them power. Ten years ago I sat at a meeting when Suffolk County Water wanted to bring its pipeline down Nassau Point Road, and they came to the Nassau Point Property Owners Association. And we went, the entire association, some 200 people showed up for a meeting with the then representative, and we were all told about how this was going to be good for us and it would stop our salt water intrusion and things like that. The big argument against having Suffolk County Water bring their pipeline down was that everybody who agreed to sign on to Suffolk County Water Authority had to cap their well, had to disconnect their well. And when that became the focus of the conversation, the then representative of Suffolk County Water Authority said Board of Trustees 71 July 21,2010 publicly at this meeting, nobody is going to check. Just sign that you will. Nobody will check. That was the day that I lost all faith in Suffolk County Water Authority. And if you have any faith in it, I think it's misplaced and I hope you decline their application. MR. DELUCA: Good evening, my name is Bob DeLuca, I live at 175 The Crossway in East Marion and I serve as president of Group For The East End which is located right down the street here in Southold. We represent the conservation and planning interest of approximately 3,000 member households across the east end, a couple hundred members here in Southold Town. I want to focus just briefly on a couple of questions. The rest of my comments I'll probably put in writing. One of the issues, my background is in SEQRA review, environmental review, and I have done it for a number of years. One of the issues here is the discussion about whether or not we can or can not live with SEQRA. So the question I put to you, and maybe you can answer it or just think about it, is whether or not the project we are here testifying about is a separate project than the project that you originally approved. And the reason I bdng that up is because the Water Authority's action that was subjected to the court case and basically the judge was persuaded that it was a Type Two action, if I go back to the record of that, I was in the courtroom when the decision was issued, he said, listen, I'm persuaded that the Water Authority has a Type Two action, it's good enough for me. If you all are looking at a new action, I would ask you to very seriously consider whether your are going to apply the same Type Two standard you put on the administrative review and the Water Authority's uncoordinated review. Because the law allows you to look at this anew. It's a new application. It's in front of you. You have an environmental assessment. I'm not saying to make it a Type One action. I'm saying look at it anew. Look at an environmental assessment form and look at an environmental assessment form that is accurate and current. If you open up the environmental assessment form that is in the file, one of the things which is very interesting is nobody has signed the environmental assessment form. They have Russell's name on it, the Town Board's name on it. There is nobody who has put their ink on this that says I am responsible for the content. And I think you ought to have that. I think for your record to be complete, you ought to have that. The other thing, is you notice, if you look through it, it says total anticipated water usage is: Unknown. Does the project involve local, state or federal funding: Yes. And they go on to talk about the $1.9 million in federal stimulus funds. Well, if you read the Suffolk Times, it looks like the money went away. If you listen to the Water Authority, it looks like the money is there. As a decision- making Board, unfortunately, it falls to you guys to do some of the detective work here because we can't get a straight answer. So if this is going to be the basis for a decision, you ought to make sure the documents that are in your file are as best as you could possibly make them, and I think you need to take a look at this and see whether or not this environmental assessment form is suitable for the application that is in front of you. Also, you better look very seriously whether or not you want to apply a Type Two classification to this because another Type Two classification on an uncoordinated administrative permit was subjected to Board of Trustees 72 July 21, 2010 litigation and a lower court found in favor of the applicant. It's a brand new application. So you don't throw it all away. SEQRA is about looking at the overall context of the overall project, and whether you want to say it goes to Browns Hill or Orient Point, you can't not look at anything and say another decision that we made way back when will hold forever. You can look at it, I'm here to tell you I think you ought to look at it for your own wellbeing and I think you ought to have an environmental assessment form that you are really comfortable with that it actually answers the questions. You can go through page by page, and some people have. It's an awful lot in here that just doesn't reflect reality, and I think you want to get that straightened out. So basically, you know, what I would say is this. I think fundamentally from the get go, one of the issues here was alternative. What else could be done if not a pipeline. It was never looked at. The other issue was growth inducement, which the State of New York basically tells you to look at when you look at a project. So how much potential development, and not just based on the zoning that is here, but what could come down the line, and the statement I gave in front of the Town Board, and if I could find it, I'll give it to you too, in the SEQRA handbook that is current as of 2010, the State of New York basically says the extension of public utilities, including water mains to agricultural areas, that could affect the overall agricultural nature of that area is growth inducement. And that's what you look at. Now, you can decide the growth inducement is fine, or it's not there. But you can't not look at it. So I urge you -- and, by the way, I think of your service and it's late and there is a lot of stuff going on, but try to find out what reality is. Is there an application or not. You guys have plenty of things to do. If this is not real and the money went away and there is not going to be a pipe dropped in the ground on Labor Day, you ought to know that. You have a right to know that. And if the Town Board thinks it has a deal with the Water Authority that says the pipeline is going away, well, they shouldn't be in here wasting your time. If in fact there is going to be a water pipe that is going to be put in two days after Labor Day, you might want to know about that, too. So I think what everybody is asking for here is to the extent that any Board listens to anybody, please help us answer these questions and find out what reality is so that everybody can make the best decision. And I think the tools in front of you, including SEQRA, are still available, and I do not subscribe to the idea that a decision made on an uncoordinated action that was not this application somehow holds forever. So, that's it. I thank you for much for your time and we'll put the rest of our comments in writing. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? MR. LATHAM: My name is Jim Latham, from Orient. I believe a majority of the people from Orient are against this water line and I ask that you, as one of our representatives, or representatives for the town, reject this application. Thank you. MR. GIBBONS: Good evening. My name is Bill Gibbons. The reason I'm here is because I'm in favor of public water coming to Orient. This group here has a phantom website that has raised $35,000 through Bob DeLuca's organization. have an E-mail in my pocket that says so. Board of Trustees 73 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That does not pertain to what we are reviewing now. If we could just stick to what we are reviewing, please. MR. GIBBONS: My well has been contaminated since I moved in there. There has been gasoline in it. It's totally contaminated. My nitrate level is ten times more than it should be. Most of the people in my area, the wells are the same way. Most of the people on the main road want the public water. Most of these people, if the main road goes through, they are not even entitled to it. They live far off the main road. So I don't even know why they are even here. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. The man in the back first. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): If you could just give me a minute first. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, I recognized him first. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I'm going to pull a Tim Hopkins. I'm going to speak now, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, I recognized him first. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I'm sorry? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I recognized him first. Can you wait and let him speak and then you can go afterwards. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I Have been extremely patient, as evidenced by this lengthy meeting tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. DIFIORI: Good evening, Board, my name is Jerry DiFiori from Harrison Avenue, Miller Place. I have been before you on another application or two out here in Southold. You have always been fair and reasonable in your assessments. Quite honestly, the civilness in this room is not what it should be. There are adults here and they should act as adults. We have been ridiculed and yet it is a need to speak for those people who are truly the majority. Those people who are afraid to come, who are afraid to speak. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Oh, come on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me -- MR. DIFIORI: We didn't react to your statements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, sir, if you could just make your comments pertinent to the application before us. That's what we want to hear tonight. Thank you. MR. DIFIORI: We are going to solicit people who are in favor of this, besides the 80% who did respond favorably to the questionnaire, who are in direct access and have standing for this water main and directly front on it. The Water Authority, and I dealt with them for over 25 years, with many water main extensions on projects that I've done throughout Brookhaven. They have always been a very professional firm. I have never been disappointed. I believe they have always acted in environmentally responsible ways. I have yet to see of anything where it denies that. And for the service of the 1.2 million people in Suffolk County who are served by public water, and those of us who pay forward and who do subsidize the people in Browns Hill tenfold for what they are paying for their systems right now. We want to the pay it forward for the rest of those people who suffer in silence who are persecuted. And they have a choice. If those choose not to have it, by ail means, don't have it. But don't deny those other people the right of a consistently monitored, reliable drinking water from Board of Trustees 74 July 21, 2010 larger aquifers, and leave the situations aside. Think upon these applications on the merits and professionalism of the firm, the equipment and procedural aspects that they will bring to this project, as they have brought to other areas of concern, such as Montauk, and that they have done an exemplary job. This is really the crux of the situation before you. These other issues are really non- related. Thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Ma'am? MS. LIBERTOR: I would like to state on the record that we do not have a phantom E-mail address, phantom website. We certainly don't have $35,000 in proceeds. In my wildest dreams I would love to have that much money. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That doesn't really pertain to this application. MS. LIBERTOR: I know, but I think the record should show there are some really wild statements being made here and, constitutionally, I just can't let them stand. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Would anybody else like to say something? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Do we correct factual inaccuracies or not? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can state whatever you would like. MR. CHAUDRI: Arnold Chaudri. The former CEO of the Suffolk County Water Authority Steve Jones, stood at that podium and read up the numbers for the survey that they did. They surveyed 137 homes on Main Road. They have 40 replied. 13 people said they wanted it, they would sign up. 17 said they would sign up at some later date, and ten said no. That's out of 772 homes in Orient. So, you can do the math as well as I can, but that's not 80%. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Would anyone else like to make a comment? (No response). Hearing no other comments, I would like to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision for a later date and keep the written public comment open for two weeks. Two weeks from tonight, which would be August 4, I believe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Okay, I make a motion to go off our public hearings and go back on our regular agenda. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to propose a resolution to this Board that we send to Suffolk County Department of Public Works the dredging priority list for 2010 as we discussed, which this Board considered in the work session. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ill make a motion to adjourn this meeting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). RECEIVED r~ /o7 .'/~-pw/7 C_--P 2 S 20]0