Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/18/2010Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hail Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, August 18, 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 Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 15, 2010, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May 19, 2010 and June 16, 2010 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our August meeting. Before we get started, I'll introduce the Board. To my far left is John Bredemeyer; next to him is Dave Bergen; Vice-President Jim King; myself, Jill Doherty; Lauren Standish is our office staff and; Trustee Bob Ghosio. Our court reporter will not be here tonight. If you do speak, come up to the microphone and state your name clearly and loudly. We are recording it up here. And we should have a CAC member here tonight representing the Conservation Board of Trustees 2 August 18, 2010 Advisory Council. I do not know who that will be yet. And our town attorney also will not be here tonight. So that's where we are. With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspection is scheduled for Wednesday, September 15th at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). And our next meeting is set for Wednesday, September 22nd at 6 PM with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Minutes. The Minutes of May 19 and June 16, 2010. Did anybody review them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did review both of them. I've made some minor changes, I forwarded in some minor changes, and didn't have any problems with them. So unless someone has an issue with them, I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of May 19. TRUSTEE KING: I made one minor change in June's, just a typo. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. rll make a motion to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2010, and June 16, 2010. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2010. A check for $8,990.13 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. IlL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., August 18, 2010, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Chris Meskouris - SCTM#99-1-12.1 Virginia Dietrich - SCTM#44-1-15 Martin & Elizabeth O'Reilly- SCTM#31-12-12 (2) Board of Trustees 3 August 18, 2010 Charles & Stephanie McEvily - SCTM#52-5-6 Matt-A-Mar Marina, LLC - SCTM#114-3-1 Nick Pologeorgis - SCTM#1315-1-26 Roy & Joan Berman - SCTM#31-18-11 John Pearson - SCTM#70-4-5 Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc. - SCTM#111-2-12 Frank Marsilio - SCTM#115-12-15 Robert McMahon cio David Moore- SCTM#135-1-12 Kenneth & Elizabeth LeStrange- SCTM#123-10-1 Ronald & Eileen Breuer-SCTM#116-4-3.1 Joan Shannon - SCTM#126-11-7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we move on, there are a couple of postponements on tonight's agenda. Page three, number ten, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of MICHAEL & BETH NEUMANN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7237 to use 6" piles to secure the approved open grate catwalk instead of 4"X 4" posts and to allow the use of a 3'X 25' ramp instead of a 3'X 20' ramp. Located: 3329 Grand Ave., Mattituck, has been postponed. And at the end, page six, number 13, Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of STEVE KUBRYK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'× 24' fixed dock attached to the existing bulkhead, 4"X 4" CCA piles with open grate decking on surface. Located: 355 Lake Dr., Southold, will not be heard tonight. And page seven, number 14, 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 3'X 100', supported by thirty-two (32) pilings (4"X 4"), comprised of non-treated materials. Located: 2455 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck, will not be heard tonight. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one, Morgan Wheelock, Inc. on behalf of JAMES BAILEY requests an Administrative Permit to raise the grade of a chip and seal parking area; enclose with brick wall and wood fence; add perennials and native shrubs; add rustic stone steps on stone dust; and add three (3) raised wood planters, surrounded with a gravel path. Located: Private Rd. off East End Rd., Fishers Island. We all looked at this. We didn't have any problem with it. It's just a modification to a parking area. It will be walled in and drainage will be provided for it. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can you speak up a little bit. TRUSTEE KING: This is on Fishers Island, we looked at it. It's just a parking modification where they are building a brick wall around the parking lot, adding some stone steps. And they are going to provide drainage, so it's all a very simple project. I don't have any problems with it. I'll make a motion to approve. Board of Trustees 4 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: and it's consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, DENNIS HICKEY requests an Administrative Permit to install a pool fence on the bluff. Located: 175 Clearview Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#118-5-2.2 We all went out and looked at this. We didn't have any problem with it. It was consistent under the LWRP, so I would make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This next application is on behalf of LEONARD & KATHLEEN ROSENBAUM request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1704, as issued on October 11, 1983 and to conduct ordinary repairs and maintenance to the bulkhead. Located: 965 Osprey Nest Rd., Greenport. I visited the site, it is washed out in two locations. It would be silting up the waterway in front of their home, so that a repair is in order. The transfer of the permit seems to be proper and orderly. The only thing I would do is to request, as a condition of the permit, that they block two six-inch diameter plastic pipes which are overflows from a lawn drywell, so that the drywell is not discharging into the creek. I would move that as an approval subject, the transfer, subject to the inspection of the two pipes being blocked. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). The next few, in order to move things along quicker, are just procedural and we have no problem. We all reviewed them and they were inspected, so I'll make a motion to approve the following: Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of CLEVELAND/LANG requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7297A from Clement Cleveland IV to Gregory H. Lang, as issued on May 19, 2010. Located: Winthrop Dr., Fishers Island. Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of DAVID PAGE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7247 from Edward Fergus to David Page, as issued on February 24, 2010. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. Board of Trustees 5 August 18, 2010 Number four, ROY & LINDA ARGENT request the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6720, as issued on September 23, 2009. Located: 6429 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number five, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of GREG & MARTHA CUKOR requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6954, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 7070 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number six, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects on behalf of PETER BACCILE requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6706, as issued on August 22, 2007. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. Number seven, ROBERT TOMAN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5239 to reflect the dimensions of the existing deck. Located: 3485 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. Number eight, JUDIE LIZEWSKI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6066 to reflect the single-family dwelling, deck, driveway, and sanitary system as depicted on the survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin last revised August 19, 2008. Located: 145 Fleetwood Rd., Cutchogue. Number 11, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL & CAROLEE LEVISON requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7255 to modify the proposed one-story addition from a 10'X 17.7' sf. addition to a 12'X 17.7', 212 sf. addition; and to modify the configuration and reduce the size of the proposed deck from 186 sf. to 168 sf. Located: 1025 Albacore Dr., Southold. Number 12, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of THE ESTATE OF DONNA LEVIN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7204 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7204C to authorize the placement of approx. 122 If. of 200-300 lb. toe stone and 6' wide gravel splash pad landward of new bulkhead; to establish small berm landward of top of bank; and to stabilize backfill before planting with jute matting (anchored by toe stone). Located: 21695 Soundview Ave., Southold. And number 13, Gluckman Mayner Architects on behalf of LAURA WElL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6702 and 6702C to show the location of the new generator, condenser, and relocated existing condenser unit along the north side yard, to be installed on pressure treated wood plinths, elevating the units approx. 2'8" to meet FEMA required design elevation height of 9'; new 6' wood slat fence enclosing the units; new 4' wood slat fence extending east-west along percolative paving at entry to house; replace existing asphalt driveway with gravel; remove existing access well to crawl space at south-east corner of house and fill to grade; install new buried gas line capped below grade for future fire pit; fire pit to be an above ground unit not requiring any footings; new plantings along street side, east edge of property continuing along eastern portion of south property line returning west, along existing fence and north property line; new plantings up against the house along south and east edge of house and along entry deck adjacent to driveway. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient. They are all, as I said, procedural, straightforward requests. So I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. Board of Trustees 6 August 18, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Douglas McGahan on behalf of HOPE SCHNEIDER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7064 to amend the 5' non-turf buffer to a non-turf buffer covering the entire rear yard area with bricks in sand and extend the existing pea gravel driveway at the front to cover the front yard area with pea gravel. Located: 1960 Mill Lane, Peconic. I looked at this. I think we should keep the five-foot, non-turf buffer to be beach stone or plantings, and have the bricks on sand for the rest of yard would be okay. But I think it's a little too much to run that right down to thewater's edge, practically. The front yard where the driveway is proposed, that's no problem at all. But I would approve this with the stipulation a five-foot non-turf buffer be maintained as a planted buffer, or beach stone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: rll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS - MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions-Moorings, number one, KATHLEEN BECKER requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 9' boat. Access: Public And number two, JOSEPH MELLY requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a 24' boat. Access: Public, we've reviewed these and reviewed the locations. They are replacing locations that are existing, so I'll make a motion to approve those two. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, LYN GOLDSTEIN & CHRISTINE RENDEL request a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 9' boat. Access: Public I went and looked at this. They want to move from the east side of Mattituck Creek to the west side, where they live, I think it's on Bayview Avenue. It's a nine-foot boat and there were three moorings there. I only found two when I was there. It's tight but I think it's do-able if they can maintain the 50-clearance between the moorings. I think it's do-able. It's close, but it's only a nine-foot boat. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to put a restriction on the size boat, if they come back with a bigger boat next year?. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I don't think there is room for any more than a ten-foot boat there. On that one mooring. They'll have to try and juggle it in and we can always go and check it to make sure it has the proper clearance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, so do you want to add in no larger than ten feet? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, no larger than a ten-foot boat. I would make that motion. Board of Trustees 7 August 18,2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the new location? TRUSTEE KING: In the new location. It's going to be to the south of the other two. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, again, I noted in the audience people said they can't hear us. We'll have to make an effort to speak up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. VII. RESOLUTIONS: OTHER TRUSTED GHOSIO: Under Resolutions, SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of a water transmission main in road bed of Route 25. Located: Route 25, East Marion to Browns Hill Rd., Orient This is an application that we are all familiar with. This was, we had the hearing last month and we extended the comment period two weeks. And we did get quite a number of letters and correspondences, as would be expected on this. The LWRP report has been done and it was found to be consistent with the LWRP, and I would like to open it up to the Board for any comments, questions or concerns that you might have before we move on this. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can you speak up, please. It's very hard to hear. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? Questions concerning the application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we certainly have gotten a lot of correspondence from it and I think we all have reviewed every piece of correspondence that has come in, so I think we are ready to make a decision on this tonight. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's good. For my part, to put it out there, and if there is any other discussion after this, we'll see where the conversation goes. But for my part, I believe there comes a time where, as an elected official, rm required, or compelled, to vote the way my constituency asked me to. And in a lot of ways I feel that is consistent with the way I'm going to vote tonight. I know there are some issues, many issues that were brought up. Some of them I agree with and some of them I don't. And, you know, I think it's a tough decision. I think the Trustees have, despite all things involved here, have been put into a pretty difficult position by Suffolk County Water Authority in this. And it's a very hard decision for us to make. And I think it's a very important decision as evidenced by the amount of people and the amount of correspondence that we've had concerning the water pipe in Odent. I think this is a very important decision and I want us all to be very comfortable on how we vote on this tonight, individually. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Could you speak up a little bit, please. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Bob. My thoughts go much along the same line as Bob. I have been impressed by how much the community has learned about their water supply and I believe that I have to listen to my constituents. In name they are against this, but they are also saying they want to conclude the Town's master plan process. But I believe what they have learned Board of Trustees 8 August 18, 2010 so far and the dialogue they have staRRed with this Board will and probably should continue with the Town as we go into the master plan process. I would have a lot of personal reasons to go for an approval for public water as a 35-year public health sanitarian in the Department of Health Services, with a history in the fire department in Orient and two fathers who precede me whose name I share who are New York City firemen. So the decision has been, for me, and you can understand, a very difficult one and very difficult to come to grips with because I understand inherently the public health and safety benefits of public water, and at the same time I am deeply conflicted that we would move too quickly before the Town's master plan has been properly vetted by the people. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, John and Bob. As for myself, this is an application that should not be before the Trustees. And rll tell you why it shouldn't. We have not required utility companies or agencies of the state, the county or the town to come before us when they wish to do work. For example, when the state built a bridge in Greenport a couple of years ago, they didn't require Trustee approval for that. When gas lines were laid along the causeway and when work is done on those gas lines, there is no approval required of thi~ Board. When Suffolk County Water took water down to New Suffolk, there were pipes laid along Grathwohl Road, which is, you know, immediately adjacent to our jurisdiction or was well within our jurisdiction. That didn't come before us. When the Town does their road drainage project, as they often do, within our jurisdiction, they don't come to us for a permit. So, you know, this is one that should not be before us. Yet it is. It has been given to us and so we have been forced into the corner with this. I'm concerned that it is going to set a precedent so when other agencies such as the Town want to do work in our jurisdiction, they might have to come to us for permits now. I don't know. But that concerns me. There has also been a lot of sentiment about if they are not planning on doing the work, why would we even consider the application any further. Why aren't we automatically dismissing the application. And I think what people who come regularly to our meetings here and see, is we have a lot of people - not a lot - but we have people that come in for applications for projects and they never complete those projects. They get permits but they never do them. And they have their own individual reasons for that. Sometimes it's so they can sell the property and permits are in place. You've probably seen them, where it says permits are in place. So we do act on applications when the applicant doesn't intend on doing the work. Because I know that was a question. As for myself, the level of intensity on this issue, obviously, with the public, has been very high. We have certainly heard from many, many people; many against this, some for approval. But many were against it. And what is key for me was advice from counsel with regard to Chapter 275, because that's what it comes down to for me, that we have to look at Chapter 275, our Town Code that the Trustees worked under, as well as Coastal Zone Erosion 111 and a couple of others, but 275, and make our decisions accordingly. And so that is how I am going to make my decision tonight as to what is stated in 275. So I'll wait to see what type of resolution is put on the table and go from there. Board of Trustees 9 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: I'm not much for speeches, and I know this is a very emotional thing for a lot of people, but we administer the Wetland Code and I could find nothing in the Wetland Code that would recommend a denial of this application. As far as the Wetland Code is concerned, there are no grounds for a denial. That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anything else? (NO RESPONSE). I thank you for the comments. I think that I'm going to make a resolution. I am going to tie it into 275. I'm going to tie it into 275-6(11 ), which is a part of the code that some folks have pointed to, along with some others, but this is the only one that I feel comfortable enough to use to make the following motion. While 275-6(11) requires documentary proof of permits as part of the application, and since the Town Board has not approved the modification to the Town water map that I believe would allow the application to move forward with all required permits in place, as required, I'm going to make a motion to deny the application without prejudice. I would like to make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, we'll do a roll call vote. Bob's motion is a denial. I vote for denial also. Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And John, you seconded, so your vote is yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show that the Suffolk County Water ^uthodty request for a Wetland Permit has been denied by a four to one vote. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to just take a moment and thank everybody who participated in the process, sent in your letters, your comments. I think that those of us that read them found them to be a very important part of the process. So on behalf of the Town Trustees I wanted to send that out to you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions, number two, the SOUTHOLD BAYMEN'S ASSOC. to plant seed clams along the southeast portion of the channel in Hallock's Bay in an area +/-20'X 500'. This is a program they have been working towards and they finally raised enough money to buy all the seeds, and I think it's a good area to do it. So I will make a motion to approve this request subject to them notifying the bay constable prior to placement so they bay constable can be there while it's being done and also subject to, even though we are all familiar with the area, to give us a map showing us the area, so we have that on file. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 10 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a resolution to go off our regular agenda and go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Amendments to Wetland Permits, number one, Samuels & Steelman Amhitects on behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7256 to eliminate existing outdoor stair from the deck above grade to the deck at grade and replace it with a deck at grade; provide a new outdoor stair and deck; relocate existing on-grade wood walkway; rebuild new outdoor deck at the area below the existing above grade deck; and rebuild a new foundation at grade level under the existing portion of the residence. Located: 960 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this and it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt, and the CAC did a review and they resolved to support the application. And as I said, the Board went out and looked at this and really didn't have any issues with this. Is there anybody to speak either for or against this application? Just step up to the microphone and introduce yourself, please. MR. SEIFERT: I'm Fred Seifert, rma contractor for the client. It's pretty straightforward, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I said, we went out and looked at this and we didn't have any issues with what has been proposed here. MR. SEIFERT: We are actually improving the situation. You can see we are moving the stairs and putting them behind the 75-foot setback. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to make a comment on this application? (NO RESPONSE). If not, 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 Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of Kenneth and Elizabeth Lestrange as stated at 960 Willis Creek Ddve, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). COASTAL EROSION PERMITS Board of Trustees 11 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Under Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Docko, Inc. on behalf of MARGARET ROEIBINS CHARPENTIER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 89 If. of 5' 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. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. NIELSON: Good evening, my name is Keith Nielson, with Docko, Inc., and we have prepared the application documents that are before you tonight for the Charpentier family on Fishers Island. It is their desire to put in a fixed wood pile and timber pier and we have made simultaneous applications to the New York Army Corps of Engineers, the New York Dept. of State and the NY Department of Environmental Conservation. I have copies of the two mailing certificates that were retumed to us, so I would like to bdng them forward. I can see from your photograph on the wall that you have been to the site. And the Charpentier's are here. This photograph appears to have been taken if not at mean Iow water, somewhat close to mean Iow water. I think the water line would be ten to 20 feet further out from shore at mean Iow water. And the pier would be originating in the vicinity of the second groin that is shown in this photograph. So along the right-hand edge of the photograph. The alignment that was worked out during our work session back in the Fall, the pier at first goes out in a northeasterly direction to clear the eel grass bed that we documented in our survey, and then turns more or less perpendicular to the shoreline to get to the deeper water as quickly as possible. This project meets all of the current DEC standards and the DEC has issued their permit. The Corps of Engineers is working on going to public notice with their inter-agency public notice, and we expect to hear from them shortly. There was some concerns raised by the DEC prior to the issuance of their permit; they wanted the width reduced to four feet instead of five. We customarily try to get five feet on exposed sites where we can get batter break piles in under the pier structure without having the batter piles interfere with berthing capabilities of the pier. In addition they asked for open- grate type decking for the pier, which we put on the last 32 feet of the pier in the vicinity of the eel grass bed, there being no need for open-grate decking on the inner part of the structure. As you'll recall from the work session, we terminated the pier about five-feet short of the existing stairs so we would not have to elevate the pier and make it unsightly or oppose any esthetic considerations that are mentioned both in the LWRP and the New York State Coastal Management Act, and so public pass and re-pass will landward of the pier and waterward of the steps. One thing I think would be appropriate and I would like to include, even though it wasn't in the official description is reconstruction of the stairs. I don't know if you had any trouble getting down the stairs but I know that they were only in fair condition when I went down them a year ago and it occurred to me the other day that reconstruction of those stairs should be considered at the same time. I don't see that it is going to create an adverse environmental impact, so I'll just make that request. Board of Trustees 12 August 18, 2010 If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. My narrative is as complete as I can make it to include your environmental considerations, the necessary certifications and permitting agreements required by the law. So I look forward to your thoughts. TRUSTEE KING: Keith, the drawings indicate there is absolutely no eel grass to the east of this proposed dock? MR. NIELSON: Well, within our survey area. Once we zeroed in on the most likely configuration, we didn't go any further than 50 feet beyond the end of the existing pier, the way it's shown in the drawings. TRUSTEE KING: You say you do have a DEC permit? MR. NIELSON: We do. TRUSTEE KING: Did they give you a permit for all those five batter braced tie-off piles also? I'm just curious as to why you need so many tie-off piles. MR. NIELSON: There is a possibility we will not have to install all those batter braced piles. What sometimes happens in shorefronts that have so many boulders in it, if we can't get down to ten feet of embedment and there is a concern about our ability to have the restraint piles or tie-off piles hold their position, we put the brace piles in. And so - TRUSTEE KING: It looks like the neighboring dock has piles there. They don't seem to extend out as far as these do from the dock. But I guess - I know there is quite a reach here. Northeast of this is going to take a good beating. MR. NIELSON: Right. That's one of the reasons we put the brace piles in. The Sperters (sic) dock has a float and the float is turned broadside to the waves, so their tie-off pile configuration is different than what we are doing. We have - even though we told the Charpentier's that they should not anticipate leaving this boat unattended, when they are not there, the boat should not be there. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. MR. NIELSON: The bow on both tie-off arrangements is to the northeast so it would be facing into really the only fetch that they are exposed to. rve just looked through this permit quickly and I don't see any preclusion on the break piles. If you would like, I'll leave this permit with you and you can make a copy and mail the original back to me to you have it for your records. TRUSTEE KING: Or you could just mail us a copy. MR. NIELSON: Okay, ril do that. It will be in the mail tomorrow. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any LWRP on this. MS. STANDISH: There isn't. TRUSTEE KING: So we can't move on this tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we can. It's been over 30 days. TRUSTEE KING: Is it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's over 30 days. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original date we have is back in May. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, remember we tabled this to go look at it, so it's been a while. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Well, it's a lot of structure but it seems to be the way they do things on Fishers Island. Board of Trustees 13 August 18, 2010 MR. NIELSON: Actually, we don't want it to fall down. Actually, I forgot to mention, the piles, we are recommending 12-inch piles on this. I know that you don't like them, but - TRUSTEE KING: This decking on the initial catwalk going out, that's going to be untreated lumber?. MR. NIELSON: Untreated lumber. What we are finding is a lot of residents on Fishers Island prefer fir or oak to the southern yellow pine, so that's what most of them are ending up with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there, we were discussing, do you really need all that structure. Can you walk down the stairs, walk down the beach a way before the structure starts? Do you need it to go all the way to the stairs. MR. NIELSON: Vvhat I'm afraid of is if we terminate the pier too close to the mean high water, high tide line, that there will be wave damage to the structure that is Iow in that area. So what we have done is we've come up the beach four feet above the bottom sediment so that we are above most of the wave damage potential, until we get about 15 or 20 feet from the end, then it levels off and comes to shore. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I can imagine the storm tide probably hits the bottom of the bank there. MR. NIELSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. TRUSTEE KING: On this end here, you are showing a four-foot deck width. MR. NIELSON: Yes, the DEC required us to change that. TRUSTEE KING: So it's been downsized. MR. NIELSON: It's been downsized. Those drawings you are looking at are the revised drawings. TRUSTEE KING: These are the new drawings. MR. NIELSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: any other comments from anybody in the audience? (NO RESPONSE). Board comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know there is a natural resource concem, conceming the eel grass there, and Chris Pickerell at Cornell had been diving and doing some work in the area. I mean, we don't have an LVVRP review, which might deal specifically with natural resource concerns, but I would suspect somewhere behind the DEC making and requiring the structure be narrower and having the grating was probably to protect the eel grass. Do you think the Charpentier's would be adverse to making eel grass plants in the location where the pilings go and be available for re-seeding or scientific reseamh? I have reason to believe people at Cornell might be able to make use of the individual plants that might be otherwise disturbed during the placement of the pilings and actually could use that material for culturing purposes. MR. NIELSON: I've never discussed this option with them, but knowing the Charpentier's, I don't think they would object to that. TRUSTEE KING: The drawings indicate there isn't any eel grass - Board of Trustees 14 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When we were there, the eel grass did not emerge on first inspection Jim and I were there. So if you don't feel that the new configuration is not there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can always say if there is eel grass in that area - TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Even if it wasn't part of the permit, if they were amenable, I'm sure we could make the contacts and information available. MR. NIELSON: Why don't we leave it that way. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be showing the eel grass is not in that area. Because I think your original plan was to go straight out but you found the eel grass and moved the other thing over, correct? MR. NIELSON: Correct. We also moved the tie-off piles out an additional five feet to clear the eel grass. TRUSTEE KING: The easiest place to put it would have been between those two groins, but that's where the eel grass is. So, any Board comments? Anybody else? (NO RESPONSE). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application as it has been submitted, and if there is any eel grass found in that area that doesn't show in the chart, there should be some transplanting done if it is found. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is 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 approx. 17' portion) over fill at an existing wooden bulkhead structure with a new timber deck structure. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? LINTON DUELL: This evening Mr. Bundy is in the hospital. Since he is representing the Orient Wharf Company and I am the treasurer of the Wharf Company, I thought I'd do his job. I hope you received on Monday the modifications. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did. LINTON DUELL: The first part of the modification was complete removal of any - or deletion of the outfall pipe modification. That was put in, in many ways in an erroneous position, because we don't own the pipe, we don't own the rip-rap, and it doesn't go over our property. That belongs to Southoid Town. So all mention of the outfall pipe was removed in those forms you are looking at now. That's part one. Part two, and I'll read what he says, Orient Wharf section existing bulkhead Division B, dated August 12, 2010, indicating deletion of the outfall pipe Board of Trustees 15 August 18, 2010 modification and the reduction in the amount of fill proposed to be removed with the project. In lieu of the removal of all underlying fill beneath existing asphalt pavement which is proposed due to the apparent unsuitable material that was observed during our reconnaissance activity, it is now proposed to remove only that fill located between the existing beam pockets to allow placement of the new support beams. Which means they'll probably do very small trenching along the lines where those beams would go. Which would decrease the amount of fill removed. Also, on item three in there, it should be an engineer's drawing which is proposed to be the timber dock structure prepared by Mr. Dave Corwin, public engineer. And that was dated Apdl 1. the odginal design still stands. If you have any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have any questions. As a point of information, it was disclosed at last month's hearing this proposal does have the approval of the Conservation Advisory Council and was found to be consistent with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and I should have performed that reiteration I had and I just wanted to bring that forward. LINTON DUELL: I also believe if you look in our file you'll see we have a permit from the DEC;, complete permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Any questions? (NO RESPONSE). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this application? (NO RESPONSE). Hearing and seeing no one who wishes to speak on this application, rll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on the plans submitted where the outflow pipe will remain in tact and a new project work plan dated August 17, 2010, I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, C;ostello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT McMAHON CIO DAVID MOORE requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 55' of existing bulkhead. Located: 21225 Soundview Ave., Southold. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, however recommends that the bluff be stabilized with returns approximately 55 linear feet perpendicular to the bluff. LWRP report finds this to be consistent with LWRP, and when the Board was out there, the only comments we made out in the field is we recommended replanting the bluff. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 16 August 18, 2010 (NO RESPONSE). Seeing none, are there any questions or comments from the Board? (NO RESPONSE). It's a pretty straightforward project. It needs to be done. Seeing no other comments or questions, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as stated with the stipulation that the bluff be stabilized and replanted with native vegetation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, David Corwin on behalf of VIRGINIA DIETRICH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 95 If. of deteriorated timber bulkhead and replace with vinyl sheathing in same location. Extend east wing 8 If., construct 28 If. west wing, backfill with 25 cy. sand from an upland source, and install rock toe armor. Located: 55755 CR. 48, Southold. This was found to be consistent with LWRP, and the CAC does not support the application based on the following: There is a stormwater erosion condition to the east of the property of County Road 48 coming off the Corwin property; vinyl sheathing is inadequate because of the fierce wave action; the bulkhead interferes with public access. There is a question as to whether or not the property owners own the underwater land and location of actual deed lines; the plans depict 131 foot bulkhead and the description states 95-foot bulkhead; the toe armor is destroying the inter-tidal zone, modifying the environment; and there should be the requirement of an environmental impact statement. Those are the comments from the Conservation Advisory Council. The Board proceeded - we were all out there on inspection and saw the project. Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of or against this project? MR. CORWlN: My name is David Corwin, I don't want to speak for or against, but if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One question we did have is we thought since you were doing all this and you have to remove the deck to do the project, that we should add the deck description into this project, so you have that permitted. Because you have to remove that and replace it. MR. CORWlN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think, Jim, you had a comment of maybe not doing the deck all the way to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: The thought I had, I had thought maybe a rock splash pad just behind that bulkhead might help, if you had an overwash, shorten the deck up a little bit and have a rock splash pad there instead of deck all the way over to the top of the bulkhead. Something to think about. Board of Trustees 17 August 18, 2010 MR. CORWlN: It was in my mind. And I'm still waiting to hear from the DEC and I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with that, too. TRUSTEE KING: I know there was a property further to the west where they made them, they had done some work there, they made them put in a rock splash back. That's why I kind of thought of it in the same area. He'll probably have to come back for an amendment on this part if they go that route. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or we could add it tonight subject to revised plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, if it's added in, then it's a requirement of the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Right. What's your pleasure? MR. CORWIN: I would like to wait to see what the DEC says and then come back before you. TRUSTEE KING: We'll table this, then? MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. CORWIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: That keeps it simple. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we table it, are there any other comments from anybody else? (NO RESPONSE). I'll make a motion to table this application until the applicant comes back to us with DEC plans. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NICK POLOGEORGIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install approx. 105 linear ft. of +/-2' dia., 250-500 lb. fieldstone on filter cloth along seaward toe of eroding vegetated berm and backfill stone with approx. 25 cy. clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source, stabilized with jute matting, and replanting with Cape American beachgrass (12" on center); and replace and extend portion of existing wood walk with 4'X 15' wood walk and 4'X 3' steps over stone. Located: 22655 Soundview Ave., Southold. The CAC reviewed this and the CAC supports the application with the condition that no disturbance to the vegetation and recommends the returns are extended landward. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent for reason of the possibility of adverse impact to adjacent properties. And I'll read what is stated here. The applicant fails to discuss the potential impact to the adjacent properties that could occur as a result of placing erosion control structure in this location. The seaward projection of the development of the area is relatively consistent. The placement of erosion control structures further seaward may result in a deflection of storm event wave energy to the east and west of the structure, which would accelerate the losses of soil and vegetated areas. A full engineer's report is recommended. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? Board of Trustees 18 August 18, 2010 MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Good evening, everybody. It's interesting, the comments of the CAC and also the LWRP coordinator, they almost counter each other a little bit and that's why we tried to design the project the way we designed it. We have curbing returns on the stone that wrap around to the property line so as to try to maximize the protection of the beach grass area, which I think is what the CAC is after. Except perhaps they are suggesting it be extended further. One of the reasons we didn't want to extend it further is because a little bit of what the LWRP coordinator is getting after, which is the idea you don't want to completely harden yourself out on to the beach. We did discuss in the LWRP application potential impacts to neighboring properties. Usually you would have, as the Board knows, the highest potential for impact where you have a vertically faced wall, several feet in the air, right angled returns, where you do actually get a refraction of wave energy during storms around those right-angle returns. That can occur with substantially constructed five or six foot tall rock revetments which very effectively dissipate wave energy, but if you harden yourself out onto the beach, you might still have some of those impacts. This is, basically, half ton stone. These are rocks that are going to be up to two feet in diameter, probably set about a half a foot into the ground and on the cross view you are seeing about 18 inches in the air. The purpose of this stone, this is not a shore hardening structure or wall that ks being designed to save this house. This is, we believe, consistent with the LWRP to the extent that we are designing it for the purpose of trying to preserve the natural protective feature that is there, which is this fairly Iow profile berm with beach grass around it. Since 2005 they've lost about ten feet of beach grass. So if you have a major storm where you might see those kinds of potential impacts on neighboring properties, these stones are going to be over-topped. So you are not going to get some - in other words, they are not high enough in the air to have some sort of refractive scouring affect around the edges, and certainly not big enough, heavy enough or tall enough to send energy up the beach somewhere. So actually the design here, we took the LWRP policies significantly into consideration and tried to come up with as Iow profile design as possible, really just to try to maintain this area of beach grass as a natural protective feature for the property. So we did explore those concems. We did discuss those very concepts in the LWRP application. I think the Board had actually met with Nick Pologeorgis before we were retained - TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERMAN: (Continuing) and so I'm hoping this is what the Board had in mind, because Nick Pologeorgis came to us indicating he had met with you. We also met with Marine Habitat Protection of the DEC prior to coming to you to have the same conversation that Mr. Pologeorgis had with you all and they also supported this particular design for all the same reasons I just articulated TRUSTEE KING: It looks like you've lost almost ten feet there, since 2005, almost ten feet of beach grass. MR. HERMAN: And he had the benefit of having had that survey from 2005 and we asked the surveyor to go out and leave that line on and then survey the current toe of that. Board of Trustees 19 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: That's a nasty section. That whole beach along there gets beat up. MR. HERMAN: Yes. So, again, you are talking about stone that won't be much higher than that tree or whatever that, right in front of the stone there, in the background of the picture. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking at the field notes, the only thing we wanted to do is firm up the line of stones. We took a measurement from 25 feet seaward of the existing wood retaining wall, that that would be the limit, most landward limit of the stones. MR. HERMAN: I have measurements on the plan from the corners of the deck out to the corners of the stone. You probably don't have it there. (Perusing). Yes, that's exactly what mine is. That's what we show on the plans. And obviously he'd have to elevate that one section of walkway just to get over those stones. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? (NO RESPONSE). If not, I'll make a motion to close this Public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: rll make a motion to approve the application on En- Consultants on behalf of Nick Pologeorgis as described at 22655 Soundview Avenue in Southold, as per the drawings dated July 22, and with the use of the stones being 250 to 500 pounds, and that we limit it to the stones no farther landward than as depicted on the plans, I would find it consistent under the LVVRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ROY & JOAN BERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 37 linear ft. of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill (by hand) with approx. 10 cy. sand to be trucked in from an upland source; temporarily detach/remove and reattach/replace portion of existing deck as necessary to install new bulkhead; and temporarily remove and reattach/replace existing 3'X 7' steps to beach. Located: 520 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC supports the application and they recommend the bulkhead is constructed with returns ten feet in length on the north side of the house and 12 feet on the south side of the house. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants Roy and Joan Berman. This is the standard maintenance project. We are seeking to replace the existing treated timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead, in the same Board of Trustees 20 August 18, 2010 location. And there is a return that I suppose that someone finds points more toward the retaining wall if it goes far enough landward away from the bay, and 12 feet I think is the number mentioned, that we are seeking, up to that 12 feet to replace. There is no return, no new return proposal on the north side only because the bulkhead ties into the adjacent bulkhead to the north or to the northeast. I guess the only unusual element to this is that the backfills will have to actually placed in by hand. So I indicated the backfill will have to be brought really to the front of the site, dumped, stockpiled, transported and then placed by hand. Because they won't be able to take out enough of the house and deck area, obviously, to backfill it by machine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Rob, I was the one who did the field inspection and that is consistent, it's a very reasonable maintenance project. The only question I have, and maybe I missed it, the coastal erosion hazard area line, do you have it on that survey? MR. HERMAN: Yes, I apologize. I should have mentioned that. Lauren had made a point of asking me for that, I think more than once, if rm being honest, and I E- mailed over a PDF version of the plan to her and I just handed up the hard copy. TRUSTE KING: I don't think anyone had a problem with this project. Any other comments from the Board or 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 KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next, under Wetland Permits, number one, Docko, Inc. on behalf of THOMAS SHILLO requests a Wetland Permit to remove 182+/- sf. existing wood deck, 22+/- If. of concrete retaining wall and replace with boulders, 30+/- cy. over 500+/- sf. under pier along edge of water, construct 68+/- If. of wood pile and timber pier, install a 6'X 20' float with associated 3.5'X 24' ramp and restraint piles, at or waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: The Gloaming, Fishers Island. The CAC was unable to perform an inspection there, so we don't have a CAC report. The project was found to be consistent under the LWRP, and I know the Trustees have been to the site twice; once on the early Spring inspection, Jill and myself; and subsequently, I have in the file notes from field inspections when the Board was recently there on August 4. There were field notes associated with that requesting additional shortening of the non-turf buffer. I'm not the one to Board of Trustees 21 August 18, 2010 speak to the most recent inspections. I think it addresses some of the concerns that the Board had. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, shortening the structure was a major stumbling block. MR. NIELSON: Good evening. Again, for the record, Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., and earlier this week, my secretary Joan forwarded some information to Lauren, and I was a little apprehensive that if I had mailed it, it would not have gotten here in time, so I brought the signed and sealed drawings myself tonight, and I would like to hand those in. This project has been discussed at a couple of previous meetings and the latest decision was to meet on August 4 and review site conditions and make a determination in the field about suitability of length and possibly some other considerations. As a result of that meeting, a suggestion was made to shorten the pier and additional ten feet, so a total of 20 feet off the original proposal and that has been documented in the application drawings that you now have before you. That settlement was agreeable to Mr. Shillo. And I mentioned to him the ten- foot non-turf buffer at the toe of the slope, and he was agreeable to that. I also asked him about Jill's concern about our leaving the concrete block wall in place and placing armor stone in front of it. And he is agreeable to that as well. So I believe there is consensus on the configuration of the pier and shorefront facilities at this point. We have also recently, as you see in the memo to Lauren, the DEC asked for clarification on the specification of the stone to be placed. That has been added to key four of the drawings so now I believe that all of our permit agencies have the same drawings and we are on the right track. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them, and appreciate your consideration tonight. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to say, that was nice and accommodating. It was great. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions for Mr. Nielson? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he's done everything we asked for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so those of you who were there most recently. So hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing on this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application according to revised plans stamped in the Trustees office August 18. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number two, 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 Dr., Mattituck. As I remember, we opened this last month, discussed it and tabled it. Just to reiterate, the CAC supports the application with the condition the creosoted Board of Trustees 22 August 18, 2010 logs are removed from the wetland area and a landscaping plan submitted to the area seaward of the deck along the creek and the area underneath the deck to be non-turf. LWRP report shows this to be exempt from the LWRP. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? TRUSTEE KING: I think last month we had suggested now is the time to move the house back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Which is why I think we tabled it. On August 4 we got a letter from - I'll just throw this out there - on August 4 we got a letter from Land Use Ecological Services, please consider this a formal request to have the above-referenced project added to the upcoming Board of Trustees hearing date. The project was initially reviewed at the July 21 s~ hearing, however we would like the opportunity to meet with the Board again in order to discuss the proposed project and come to a resolution. There is nobody here from Land Use? TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should put it on for next month's field inspection and meet him there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we postpone it to the end of the meeting in case he shows up. At least then maybe someone will come in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table, temporarily. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, RONALD & EILEEN BREUER request a Wetland Permit to extend the existing bedroom and adjacent deck; enclose the existing porch; and provide gutters, leaders and drywells. Located: 100 Dean Dr., Cutchogue. I inspected this and it looked very well staked out. I spoke to the owner who explained it's really a minor renovation. The surveyor had staked out 75 feet from the Wetland line, and this is beyond the 75 feet. So it's barely in our jurisdiction. I did come back to the office and checked a previous map because I was not quite sure I agreed with the wetland line. But the previous map shows it was the same wetland line as this and I know we have all been out to the site before and we agreed on that wetland line. And that was a couple of years ago when they had the violation of storing vehicles in the wetlands. So the wetland line is the same. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, right in here. Because here is the driveway, and they put it in here. This little room here they are extending out. So it's really minor. And it's exempt from LWRP, and the CAC supports this application. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this application? MR. BREUER: Good evening, I'm Ron Breuer. My wife and I are present. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think I have any further questions. I spoke to your wife out at the site and she answered them for me. Unless you have any questions for us. MR. BREUER: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions? (NO RESPONSE). Board of Trustees 23 August 18, 2010 Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Ronald and Eileen Breuer as submitted, located at 100 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll just take a five-minute break. (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of CHARLES & STEPHANIE McEVlLY requests a Wetland Permit to construct alterations to the existing dwelling, install new windows, construct a one-story addition and two (2) new dormers in loft area, covered porch landward of the existing structure, shed addition to the existing garage and install drywells to contain the roof run-off. Located: 1795 Bayview Ave., Southold. This was found consistent with the LWRP. And the (3AC comments, CA(; supports the application with the following conditions: The Japanese green maple and tree located along the proposed one-story addition on the landward side of the dormer are preserved or relocated; installation of drywells, leaders and gutters on the dormer and garage. I believe this is indicated on the survey. And a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the stairs. I assume they mean the stairs going down to the beach. We don't normally approve a buffer in an alteration of a house. We haven't, traditionally. There is quite a slope there and it's all natural, to begin with. We all went out and looked at this, I don't think anybody had a problem with it. It's pretty straightforward. I'm thinking about this tree here. Where is this tree? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of tree is it? TRUSTEE KING: They said it's a Japanese green maple and tree located along proposed addition. Is it the big tree? Which one is it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's the one to the right, in the top right corner there. From here I can tell it's a Japanese green. TRUSTEE KING: Will that be affected by this? I guess it is, isn't it. Looks like on the one comer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do you think, Frank? MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank Uellendahl on behalf of the McEvily's. Yes, this tree will be right at the corner of the addition. The one-story is landward of the existing structure, so we are not encroaching the front yard to the pond. The tree was planted at a time where people didn't think it would grow, grow, grow. But this is what trees do. And the true nature of the maple, it's a beautiful tree, that grows all along Bayview and also Rich Lane, but this tree is really already affected by the larger one. So it needs to come out. If you want us to save it, we'll save it and put it someplace else on the property. Board of Trustees 24 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Can't ask for any more than that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm sorry, I missed it, what was the CAC recommendation as far as the garage? I believe the garage is outside our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: It is. They wanted to see drainage, drywelts, gutters and leaders on the dwelling and garage. They have them on the dwelling. I think it's unnecessary on the garage and it's outside of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and we can just request them to conform to Chapter 236, our drainage code, which is out of our jurisdiction. They have to do that anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I didn't have any issues at all with this project. Anybody else? (NO RESPONSE). rll make a motion to close the headng. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. And the applicant has voluntarily decided to save the tree. Sounds good to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of JOHN PEARSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 101 If. of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and +/-6" higher than) existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approx. 25 cy. sand to be trucked in from an upland source; construct 4'X 8' wood walk to existing dock in place of existing walk behind bulkhead. Located: 3575 Wells Ave., Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, with the recommendation of the use of a silt boom during the construction of the bulkhead. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition the bulkhead is not raised and is constructed in place with rip-rap within 12 inches of the top of the bulkhead and landward designed to minimize, must mean in front of, but designed to minimize and reflect wave energy and with a six to eight foot landward return on the west end of the new bulkhead. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant John Pearson. This is a site where they are proposing, essentially, just an ordinary maintenance application to replace the existing bulkhead, inplace, with vinyl. There is some marsh vegetation set off out in front of the bulkhead. You can't see it in that picture. But I believe there is some marsh in this area. I don't follow the CAC recommendation at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As a matter of fact, Rob, when we looked at this, we were recommending to raise the bulkhead 12 inches so it was more in line to the property to the east. That would also help decrease the precipitous slope that Board of Trustees 25 August 18, 2010 goes down to this proposed bulkhead. And we were also going along with the applicant's wish to keep the non-turf buffer as it currently is in place with the vegetation there, at the top of the bank. MR. HERMAN: I think probably the six inches is going to be enough though, Dave, that we show. It's a little misleading because the slope right now is a little steeper as there has been a wash out from behind. It actually drops a bit steeper below the level of the top of the bulkhead, really by a foot or more in some places. So if we go up to six inches on the top, that slope is actually going up about a foot-and-a-half from where it bottoms out there in the bottom of that picture. In other words, the grade right now is not up to the top, so it's a little steeper than it should be because it's washing out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. MR. HERMAN: So we are proposing to go up six inches above where the existing top elevation of the bulkhead is, which would flatten out the slope, I think sufficiently. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the feeling of the Board on this? TRUSTEE KING: Well, if you put the top of the bulkhead, would it be equal with the dock there, Rob? Or pretty close? MR. HERMAN: Yes, pretty close. And then that section - basically the elevation of the dock will stay, and as it is now, it would be about a foot stepdown from where the bulkhead is to the existing dock. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. I notice that this is using tie-rods to dead men is what is proposed here. I don't know if there was any discussion with the client about the use of helical screws so they didn't have to excavate up that entire buffer area. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I mean that always comes up. The problem with the helicals is they are so substantially more expensive that typically unless you are dealing with an area that it would be almost precarious to try to deal with it, this is - TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. HERMAN: We've seen them, I don't know if you remember Kaplan, where that house was kind of sitting right on the edge. Some places you just have to use them, but there is nothing that is not replaceable about this little slope. It will basically be revegetated. It will actually probably end up looking nicer when it's done than it does now. There is just a lot of lawn and weeds, not turf lawn, but grass and weeds that creep down there. So if they can get that replanted with native vegetation, I think actually it will come out fine. Just between where the edge of the lawn is now and where the bulkhead it. I don't think that's a concern. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And would the client consider the use of a silt boom during the construction of the bulkhead, as recommended under the LWRP's best management practices? MR. HERMAN: See, again, rm still chasing the LWRP, I guess, however many years later. Is there an explanation in the report as to why this is not an exempt activity, since it's an inplace replacement of a bulkhead that is on a creek that when they revised the definitions of minor actions, it's typically called out inplace replacement of bulkheads? Board of Trustees 26 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, there is no explanation as to why it was found consistent over exempt, only that it was found consistent. And again, he's just making the recommendation of the use of the silt boom during construction of the bulkhead to help eliminate as much as possible the sediment going into the waterway. MR. HERMAN: My only reluctance is, ordinarily we say, you know, on the bay, or whatever we say, that's fine. The only thing here is I'm pretty sure there is some marsh vegetation there. And I don't want to be too adamant about it because I don't remember it well enough, and unfortunately my photos are also not really showing it, but I have a letter from the DEC that has some questions whether we were seeking to replace the whole dock because of the intertidal marsh. So the only issue, is if you use the silt boom and you trap all the sedimentation right where the work site is, you are kind of burying the marsh. But I think we went through this on another application, where I don't see the use of the silt boom as being smart across the board because if you are using it in an area where there is wetland vegetation, I mean, we are really just talking about sand. You don't - want to bury the marsh while you are trying to prevent some, basically, some ephemeral turbidity from going out into the creek. I mean, it's your pleasure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: rm looking at the pictures that were submitted with this. And there are some very good pictures from the dock, looking landward towards the bulkhead, and I see what appears to be seaweed in there, but I'm not sure if there is any type of growth on the bottom. MR. HERMAN: There is a lot of floating material there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. Exactly. Again, what's the pleasure of the Board with this? MR. HERMAN: I don't think it's a huge imposition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Less silt than a clam would produce in a day, I suspect. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah, I don't have a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: all right, is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment on this application? (NO RESPONSE). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (NO RESPONSE). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: rll make a motion to approve the application of En- Consultants on behalf of John Pearson as described at 3575 Wells Avenue, with the condition the bulkhead will be raised approximately six inches from its current elevation, and the non-tuff buffer will remain in place as per the plans dated July 12, 2010. And this was found consistent under the LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Dave, would you want to include, just in the permit language, an allowance to go up to 12 inches if they get out there and it makes sense? Board of Trustees 27 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. I'll amend that to approve the application as described with the condition the bulkhead could be raised six inches to 12 inches over its current height, and the non-turf buffer to remain in place as stated on the plans dated July 12, 2010. MR. HERMAN: You don't need new plans, then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of FRANK MARSlLIO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing pier completely and construct in-place a new 4'X 27' fixed pier with a 32"X 12' seasonal ramp and 6'X 20' seasonal float secured by two 8" dia. pilings, and install water and electric. Located: 1080 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP and the CAC supports the application with the following conditions: open-grate decking on the fixed pier; the electric complies with the lighting code; installation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead; and downspouts on the dwelling are directed into drywells. We don't usually, with a dock like this, we don't require the non-turf buffer or the drywelis on the house. But that's their comments, anyway. is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. It seems like a pretty simple thing and it's the quickest one I ever got through DEC. I mean within seven days I got it back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wow. It's exactly what's there. It's straightforward, it's in line with the pier line, and Jack shows that on his drawing, and his drawings are accurate. I went out and looked at it. Are there any other comments? Does the Board have any comments? (NO RESPONSE). It's a pretty straightforward replacement of exactly what is there. Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Frank Marsilio as applied for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Gerald Lang on behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to install six (6) new pilings at highest elevation; attach tie rods with turn buckles; pull existing two-story deck and existing bulkhead plumb and straight. Board of Trustees 28 August 18, 2010 Located: 7080 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. This was found exempt from the LWRP and the CAC does not support the application, based on the following: Location of the existing structure is inconsistent with the public trust doctrine with overwhelming intrusions of public space; the structure is not in compliance with the town code; and the structure is in violation of shoreline best management practices. There are a bunch of pictures in here that gives you a feel for what it is. And there is one letter in here from a neighbor, and the concern is about the cantilever deck on the second level of the property near the proposed retention wall. It hasn't been inspected or an application applied for and received. It hangs out above a lower deck. It's just a question of whether or not it's been inspected and if a permit has ever been issued for it. I can't answer that. I think it's been there a long time, before we had jurisdiction in the bay. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. LANG: Gerald Lang, for the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: It's an interesting project. (Board members perusing documents). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we don't know if there are any permits in place with this or not. TRUSTEE KING: This could have been there for years and years. It started there and it's starting to lean a little bit. Doesn't look like it's too far out of plumb, though. MR. LANG: rye known the homeowner for ten years, and over the years it's getting worse. It's starting to push out. If you see the pictures, how it's starting to bow, the bulkhead, so the architect and I came up with to drive six piles in the back and pull everything straight again and hold it from getting worse. The first time, they did it before, only using 4x6's, obviously not deep enough into the ground, that's why it's starting to bow. TRUSTEE KING: The only suggestion I would make, on that upper deck, there's an erosion problem under that deck, it's because the lawn goes right to the edge. MR. LANG: It does. Didn't I give you pictures from under the deck. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, the one here kind of shows it. If you could possibly get a few boards down there or something to hold that back. This is the upper deck, when you look at the deck - if you had like a five-foot buffer of, not sod, but plantings or even something so you would not get that runoff going down under the deck causing that erosion. It would help stop some of that. That's what you should really do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Put it up in this area by the play set. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's sod right up to the deck and what's happening is you are getting rain runoff and it's going down under that deck and it's causing some of this erosion. MR. LANG: I don't know how long that's been eroding under the deck. It's rain water, it's obvious. TRUSTEE KING: That would help, if there was a five-foot buffer of non-turf there, between the deck and the lawn. MR. LANG: Okay. Board of Trustees 29 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: I think that should be part of the application. Other than that, it is what it is. Are there any other comments from anybody?. Anybody in the audience? (NO RESPONSE). rll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: rll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation there is a five-foot non-turf buffer to be installed between the edge of the lawn and the upper deck, on the landward side of the deck, and that will help with some of that erosion problem. Between the lawn and the upper deck. Right now the sod goes right through the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. LANG: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of MARTHA PAUL (NASSAU POINT CLUB PROPERTIES, INC.) requests a Wetland Permit to resheath on the landward side 119' of timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and replace wales as needed; to reconstruct in place 82' of retaining wall; construct 35' of new retaining wall; reconstruct in- place a 14' timber groin; reconstruct an existing 3'X 3' landing and 3'X 5' stairs; and to remove existing 4'X 4' platform, 3'X 7' stairs and decks from the northern end of the property. Located: 930 West Cove Rd., Cutchogue. The LWRP finds this consistent and inconsistent. The groin is inconsistent and the rest of the project is consistent. CAC supports the application with the condition the groin is removed and not replaced and the stairs are constructed with erosion control devices at the bases of support. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application. MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hi, Glenn. We all were out there and we felt that the one groin is not really functional. We not only would like to not see it replaced but if you can remove it during the construction. MR. JUST: I went back out after I heard the comments at the Trustees' inspection, I took a measurement of the three groins on the adjacent property and there is no difference in the elevation of the beaches. So I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. A couple of other questions we had. The retaining wall, what material do you plan on using for the retaining wall? MR. JUST: The applicant called me tonight. Is it all right to use treated timber back there? As long as it's not touching water? That was the question for the members: Can we use CCA treated? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the code say about that? TRUSTEE KING: For the retaining wall? Board of Trustees 30 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We've allowed CCA, yes. TRUSTEE KING: On the landward retaining wall, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Because right now it's concrete block is there and that's why we wanted to see what was being used. MR. JUST: They wanted to do timber and the question I was supposed to pose to the Board tonight was it okay to use treated material, otherwise we would use something else. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no problem. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's a huge issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other is we want to make sure there is no problem maintaining that non-turf buffer you have there, you know, the beach grass and whatever. And replant the sarbarius. The other thing I noted, too, is on the plans is that lean-to. MR. JUST: That's what I wanted to address as well. You can see it just on the far side of that walkway there that comes down where the timbers cross. Just behind that is like a 6x10 and 6x8, on the survey it's called the main full lean-to. I think it's just a place where people used to go and sit on the chairs and have a cocktail at the end of the day and watch the sunset. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see it's on the plans, I didn't know if you wanted to add it to the description. MR. JUST: It's like, that was noted by the applicant, they would like to maintain that or reconstruct that. And if that's okay with the Board, rll revise the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's already on the plans. I just need a dimension on it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It says just keep it the same size. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, that's the survey, sorry. It's not on the plans. Yes. Do you know the size of that now? I mean, we can scale it off from the survey, probably. MR. JUST: 8X10. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 8x10, okay. MR. JUST: And I have, if you would like to see, an old aerial photograph that shows it was there back in the 70's. (Handing). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Dave is reminiscing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). I'm looking at all the vacant land with no homes around there, at that time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I think we had another question. MR. JUST: Jill, what was the question the CAC had as far as the steps? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They always say that, erosion control device steps. I don't see it necessary here at all. It's more on the Sound where they do that. TRUSTEE KING: The survey shows the lean-to as being 10x15. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 10x157 TRUSTEE KING: That's what it's showing on the survey. Unless the scale is off. You can check it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. And with not replacing the groin, that brings it into consistency with the LWRP. Are there any other comments from the Board? (NO RESPONSE). Are there any other comments from the audience? Board of Trustees 31 August 18, 2010 (NO RESPONSE). All right. Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Martha Paul as applied for with the addition of lean-to no larger than 10x15 as on the survey and that be added to the drawing; and that the groin will not be replaced and it will be removed during construction of everything else. And that the non-turf buffer remain non-turf; and any disturbed areas to be replanted. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of Frank Notaro, R.A. on behalf of CHRIS MESKOURIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 1 ~ story dwelling on pilings, attached deck and sanitary system. Located: 530 Sound Beach Dr., Mattituck. The Trustees went out and saw this proposed project on field survey. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan has this as consistent. There is in the file an approval from the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. They support it with the condition of a drainage plan for the new construction and pervious driveway, and they had some concerns about the sanitary. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro, the architect for the Meskouris family, and I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, the Board, in viewing the site, we had no real objection to the overall concept but we were on the horns of a dilemma because the Wetlands Code has a very specific section in it which prohibits dwellings from being any closer to the Wetlands than the neighbors on either side. So we are left with the situation that we are probably barred from an approval based on the current standing of the Wetlands Ordinance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's as applied for. As I recall, when we went out there, the deck we were not as concerned about. It's the dwelling itself. If the dwelling could somehow be downsized so the seaward end of the dwelling ends up coming back in line with the adjoining properties. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here's the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. MR. NOT^RO: I don't have on the survey the other adjacent homes. I believe that sticks out a little further than the one that is directly adjacent. TRUSTEE KING: We really need to see it. Board o f Trustees 32 August 18, 2010 MR. NOTARO: That's on the survey, that's also owned by the Meskouris family. I believe when we eye-balled it, it was actually further out, then they have a covered canopy deck that goes out even further. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you look at the picture, that's the structure that's to the west. MR. NOTARO: Correct. I mean, this is that far off, again, it's a visual and I think if you shoot your eyes down the street, some of the homes come out even further. There is a lot of inconsistency along that whole strip. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we noted that when we were out there also, but the code is very specific as to the two adjoining houses, and it would have to be inline or landward of the two adjoining houses - two adjoining properties, the houses on those properties. Again, you know, the deck is not what we were concerned about, it was the dwelling and as I believe, and my colleagues can comment if they wish, there was not a whole lot we were looking at here, to downsize this. MR. NOTARO: Well, if you have something in mind. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you'll just bear with us for a minute. I know Jim is scaling things out right now. TRUSTEE KING: It looks about 15 to 18 feet. The basic building, excluding the structure is about 45x25. What was the zoning variance for?. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it was an area variance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I looked at that in field. It was an area variance. Lot coverage. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was not a setback variance. TRUSTEE KING: We don't know if the setback is off the road. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it doesn't look like they can go closer to the road because of the septic. MR. NOTARO: We are pretty tight dght there. And actually, we are in line with the other dwelling, to the read. TRUSTEE KING: rd like to see the other house more clearly myself. The adjacent house to the left. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is this going to be two-story? MR. NOTARO: Well, it's a story-and-a-half, on pilings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there is no reom to make it two, back it up, make it shorter? The length, I'm talking about. MR. NOTARO: Well, actually, Jim Meskouris is here. He can answer that question, but they kind of had something in mind for the family, you know, which this is what it's designed for. They have a rather large extended family. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with Jim we probably need to see the other house on here as well, to see the line on the survey. MR. NOTARO: What is your plans regarding the covered deck area on that house, does that count as an intrusion into the vista, so to speak? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you look at the roof. You are talking about that part? It's the whole roof. It's not like it's canvass cover. It's not enclosed, but it's an actual roof. TRUSTEE KING: It's almost like a portable garage, is what it looks like. Board of Trustees 33 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, not the blue thing. We aro talking the other side of the house. MR. NOTARO: The other side, thero is also something beyond the house. TRUSTEE KING: Oh, I see, the roof line coming out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The decking you show is going to be covered on this. I see the length you have is 48, plus the deck. TRUSTEE KING: This is going back. MR. NOTARO: Yes, that sticks way out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the same concern, the structure over the deck, it's part of the house, so the whole thing, the whole structure and deck have to come back behind the lines of the two adjoining homes. MR. NOTARO: Do you take the mean average of the one with the canopy and the other one? I don't think they are consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you just draw a line, if you put the other house on your survey hero, then we can see the line. MR. NOTARO: Meaning that house to that house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, then we draw, like we do with the docks, a pier line. And another thing we can do, you have the proposed deck, we see there is a cover on it, so we would count that as, you know, as structure. So one other idea might be to not have that cover that deck. So maybe if you shorten the house up a little and not cover the deck and see where the other house falls in line with it. MR. NOTARO: Make it so it's not covered but still a deck there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Did you guys hear what I said? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I follow the logic. MR. NOTARO: I mean, if I get this on in the next week or so, can I submit that to you - you know, the other house - can you do any kind of decision on that? My client is here right now, I can't speak for them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not comfortable making any decision tonight based on this survey. I want to see it on the survey. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we would have the additional need to make sure the Zoning Board of Appeals saw any change you had. I don't know if we could do it solely. I mean although it would not seem to change anything they have hero. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think that has any affect on it. But it has to be done at a public meeting, so it would have to be done at our next public meeting, which right now is not scheduled until September. So it would go into next month. MR. MESKOURIS: I'm Jim Meskouris. I'm Chris' brother. The house east of us are two bungalows probably built about 50, 60 years ago. They are two little, two- bedroom bungalows, probably not even heated. But the third house, which is the first house on the block, that extends way far toward the water side, even further than what my design is here. And this is my neighbor Star, you could see the top of her roof coming out, the gable coming all the way out. She also has deck that goes out even another 15 or 20 feet further past that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We aro asking to see that on the survey so we can see what it looks like on the survey. Board of Trustees 34 August 18, 2010 MR. MESKOURIS: It has to be the adjoining houses? Because if you go down the block. TRUSTEE KING: No, it's not an average. It's the two adjoining houses. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because we noted the very same thing. As a matter of fact, I stood out there and I made a point of noticing the house that you alluded to farther to the east. It does come out further. But the code is very specific as to the two adjoining homes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we are familiar with most of those houses on that block because they have, as you know, come in for various things along that block. So we have been out there the past couple of years quite a bit and we are familiar that it is not consistent. MR. MESKOURIS: All right, so, basically, we just need to get the house after us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, then we could further the discussion next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would recommend, in preparation for the discussion at that time, you'll be able to see, with the house depicted on the survey, to the west and east, you'll be able to see how much structure will have to be shortened, removed, whatever words you want to use, to make this happen. Because now you have an idea of what we are going to be looking for here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It might be helpful to show maybe the distances of other homes along there. I'm just reading a section of the code here, it says new and remodeled homes can not be situated or modified such that they project closer to the wetland boundary than homes on either side of the subject lot. It does not say a home on either side. So there might be some reason to maybe take a look at an average. It doesn't say a home on either side, bt says homes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we'll have to get a clarification from the Town Attorney, but in the meantime, either way, we still need something on the other side on the survey. MR. NOTARO: Would it help us to put the other two adjacent homes and the other homes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, if we are getting an interpretation from the Town Attorney, because we are seeing the word "homes" it might be different ways to read that particular code section. MR. NOTARO: I mean, directly to the east of the proposed home has never been improved. I mean, it's one of the original bungalows. I think a majority of the homes along that read have been improved, over time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would think an aerial would be a good idea, too. MR. NOTARO: Well if I can get the surveyor to put other lines to the other homes. Because I think it's probably like a saw-tooth pattern that you see on there. I mean, you know, this structure here is probably not on a survey. Should it be included or not included. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wouldn't include that temporary structure. I would go with the house next door, the actual structure. MR. NOTARO: They do have a fixed, covered porch on the other side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I would include that. MR. NOTARO: All right, thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Board of Trustees 35 August 18, 2010 (NO RESPONSE). I'll take a motion to table. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MATT-A- MAR MARINA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing boat storage building, demolish the existing office and relocate office, replace the sanitary system and install drainage system. Located: 2255 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. The Board has been out there to take a look at this. There were no comments made while out in the field. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that the lighting complies with the new town lighting code, and LWRP finds the proposed action is consistent with the LWRP. It's a fairly straightforward project. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to the application? MS. MOORE: Well, we actually have a site plan approval for the project, DEC approval, Health Dept. approval, and the reason the Trustees permit expired is because we were waiting for so long for Health Department approval because the complications with the marina with oil suspension tank, different departments of the Health Department take a long time. So we are really - I think my client is ready to start and unfortunately they picked up their file, the secretary put in the date that it expired so they contacted me the day after your last headng. So here we are, we are essentially renewing our previous approval. It's an extensive site plan and we would like you to approve the site plan that we previously had approved. TRUSTEE KING: There's been no changes to it, Pat? MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you know if this includes any pumpout facilities? MS. MOORE: I don't remember, to be honest with you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This says this was done before, and we have ~ince updated the code to include pumpout facilities. MS. MOORE: But I don't know, to do a pumpout facility might require extensive Health Department issues. I think when it comes to, I know for a fact we don't want to go back to the Health Department. It took us two-and-a-half years to complete the process, at least two-and-a-half years for this, for all the Health Department issues. We have a pumpout boat so they probably have already in existence when somebody needs pumpout, the boat comes out and they do it on site. I can check with the client and let you know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER'. You got hooked up on that as a requirement. I do believe they make portable pumpout facilities now that would not necessarily oblige you to go through as lengthy a review as you might dealing with with a fixed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can clarify this in the code 275-11(c)(2), commercial docks, marinas, yacht clubs. Construction of new marinas in addition to existing Board of Trustees 36 August 18, 2010 marinas shall require establishment of a pumpout facility for a vessel sanitary waste. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, now, to me, this doesn't fall under that definition. They are not expanding the madna. MS. MOORE: No, it's actually the existing boat storage building is being replaced. TRUSTEE BERGEN: rll read it again. For commercial docks, marinas, yacht clubs, restaurants. Construction of new madnas in addition to existing marinas shall require establishment of a pumpout facility for vessel sanitary waste. So if there is an addition to an existing marina, it's required in the code. MS. MOORE: Wouldn't marina imply boats? That means typically when you are dealing with a marina it's the actual boat dockage that constitutes the expansion. When you are using a building permit for storage boats - TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we are splitting hairs. Any part of that piece of property is a part of Matt-A-Mar Marina. It's all-encompassing marina, to me. It's just my interpretation. Other Board members can disagree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was already a permit that was already put together, right? MS. MOORE: Oh, we have site plan approval. I'm not going back to the Planning Board for additional plan, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody want to see these? TRUSTEE KING: They had a portable pumpout years past. They never used it. MR. KRAMER: John Kramer. A lot of marinas solve this problem with a little trailer and a tank. So I think it's $5,000, I think, and the state, the DEC shares half of that. So if we have that, that's no issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? (NO RESPONSE). I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for, that it's consistent with LWRP, and that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second it. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 11, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of MARTIN & ELIZABETH O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling, reconstruct new 2% story dwelling and install a sanitary system. Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion. This was found to be consistent with LWRP, however they recommend a minimum, 20-foot natural vegetated buffer be required landward from the edge of the Wetlands where existing vegetation trees occur. The CA(; supports the application with the condition of a 10 to 15-foot non-turf buffer and the existing seven to ten mature oaks are preserved. And we have basically the same comments on that. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Board of Trustees 37 August 18, 2010 MR. STRANG: Yes. Good evening. Garrett Strang, architect, on behalf of the O'Reilly's. it appears as though the concern, if you will, is the natural buffer, the placement of the natural buffer, how deep and where it will be. So if we could clarify that, what the Board's preference would be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we talked about a non-disturbance buffer but I feel the whole entire length to the association they created, we've already gave them permission to remove phragmites, so that would be right in the area we say non- disturbance, so I think we all want the same thing, to have that natural vegetation stay, so I think we have to just come up with what we want to call it. MR. STRANG: And looking at a distance of 20 feet from the edge of the Wetland? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: From the top of the bank. MR. STRANG: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How many feet does this Board want: 10, 25, 20? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I believe on the field notes we said 15. and that 15 was from the top of the bank landward? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I was comfortable with that out in the field, with a four- foot path allowed. MR. STRANG: There was some discussion, I think, at the field meeting with respect to allowing some of that vegetation to be maintained so it can become invasive? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where we got into a discussion of non-disturbance versus a non-turf. Because non-disturbance technically means there is no cutting. And I know there were mixed opinions of the Board whether or not that should be allowed. I, for one, felt that there should be allowed some cutting because that wild bramble would grow up and keep growing and growing and completely block the view from the house. MR. STRANG: Exactly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we call it a natural vegetated buffer that would allow you to trim - MR. STRANG: That would allow maintenance of the invasive. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. STRANG: Okay, I don't see any challenge to that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just stand by. Jim is measuring it off here. MR. STRANG: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: It would be about like up in here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's about where we - because the neighbors really don't have nearly as much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: From the top of the bank. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, from the top of the bank. MR. STRANG: The neighbor's lawn basically goes right to the top. The neighbor on the other side, the bank is a little less. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we were just looking at was 15 feet landward from the top of the bank. Board of Trustees 38 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: There are some very large trees in that area, I wouldn't want to see them knocked down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can stipulate that as well. All right, are thero any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: My biggest concern is maintaining a nice buffer there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, because it shows drywells, gutters on the plan. Nothing is moving seaward of what is existing, so. All right, hearing no other comments, rll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of Martin and Elizabeth O'Reilly for a two-and-a-half story dwelling as applied for, with the condition a 15-foot natural vegetated buffer remains, measured from the top of the slope back and also depict that on the survey. So we need a new survey showing that. And that's my motion. MR. STRANG: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. STRANG: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of MARTIN & ELIZABETH O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit to construct stairs and landing down a bank, 3'X 72' catwalk with a kayak/canoe rack and steps down to the water. Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion. MR. STRANG: Again, Garrett Strang, on behalf of the O'Reilly's. I just wanted to make a quick correction. We've opted to reduce the length of that catwalk from our application to now. It's now going to be a 3x44' catwalk as opposed to 3x72' catwalk. The reason for that being is when we had the surveyor out there to stake out the actual location we were able to determine there was adequate water depth dght at the edge of the phragmites that aro there, which is only about 10 feet out into the water. So we felt that that was as far as we needed to go, just to get us out past the phragmites. TRUSTEE KING: These are revised plans? MR. STRANG: You should have a revised set in front of you that shows the catwalk 34 feet from the bottom of the steps out to the edge of the shore and then 10 foot further out to get past the phragmites. TRUSTEE KING: What was the decking going to be on the catwalk? Open-grate, I hope? MR. STRANG: I believe we were going to use the, it may have been on the application. I don't know if I showed it. (Perusing) Flow through. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I see it. I didn't pick up on it. I think it's reasonable. It has been found inconsistent with the LWRP. The applicant has not demonstrated that the action fully meets the policies below: protect and restore Board of Trustees 39 August 18, 2010 tidal and fresh water wetlands. It's a whole list, will cause habitat fragmentation. Recommends we consider a seasonal alternative to a permanent dock structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think by shortening the way he did, brings it further into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: There are other areas with stairs going down. MR. STRANG: The neighbors on both sides have them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So by shortening it, it's not going out any further than the existing neighbors. MR. STRANG: Yes, it brings it to what the neighbors have. I certainly think, from an environmental point of view, it's certainly better to go across a catwalk than to be tromping through the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think from an environmental standpoint, I have a problem with the notion that docks truly cause habitat fragmentation since they are not destroying anything, they are not doing what is typically considered fragmentation. I checked the wording. They are actually removing habitat for available use. Since the structure is small enough that a deer can climb or jump over or possible other mammal can crawl under or easily around, the notion of making it fragmentation is maybe a very general notion. It will provide more homes for swallows and potential habitat than cause fragmentation. TRUSTEE KING: I think a lot of us have a status issue too. The CAC supports the application with the condition of erosion control devices at the base of the supports of the stairs and the small tree located on the slope and within ten to 15 feet of the non-turf buffer is preserved. I don't remember seeing a tree. MR. STRANG: I don't recall a tree either. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know where it is or what they are talking about there. And the erosion control devices, they are doing this on every application, they want to see these boards across the base of the posts. DEC will not approve those. MR. STRANG: Yes, that's my understanding. TRUSTEE KING: They have not approved them. It's kind of a sticky point here what to do. But with the flow-thru grating and the shortening of the pier, I would make a motion that the Board finds it consistent with the LWRP. Any other comments from anybody? (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 and the Board does find this consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. STRANG: Thank you, and good evening. Board of Trustees 40 August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll need new plans showing the vegetation line. MR. STRANG: Do you want it for both? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you would, please. Just in case they get mixed up MR. STRANG: Well, I mean, it's one plan anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I'll stamp the revised plan for both because if the housebuilder gets the dock plan, and if that's not done together- MR. STRANG: Fine, I'll have that for you by the end of the week. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Going back to Frank and Mindy Martorana. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess we'll table that. They never showed up. Do you want to - TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a recommendation that we contact them about our next field inspection. He can meet us out in the field. The letter seemed to indicate he wanted to meet with us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Bob, do you want to make a motion to that effect. We tabled this to the end of the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't say meet us out in the field. It says to actually meet here tonight. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's better if we meet him in the field so we can show him what we want. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would rather do that than just deny it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. I don't know if we need to make a motion. It's already been tabled, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I'm just being Lori. We tabled it to the end of the meeting to further, so we should - TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this to the September meeting, with the intent to try to get together with the applicant out in the field inspection. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). RECEIVED /~: 2 3 20]0 Town elm'[