Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/22/2010Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:00 PM RECEIVED 4 OCT 2 5 20~,0 (~ Southold Town Clerk Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Jim King, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert Ghosio, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 21,2010 and August 18, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Welcome to our September meeting. Before we get started, I'll just do the postponements because I know rll forget them. I think we only have the one, right? The last one, page six, Jeffrey T. Butler, PE, on behalf of STEVE KUBRYK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x24' fixed dock attached to the existing bulkhead, 4"x4" CCA piles with open-grate decking on surface. Located: 355 Lake Drive, Southold, is postponed. We will not be discussing that tonight. I'll introduce the Board. To my far left is Trustee John Bredemeyer; next to him is Trustee Dave Bergen; Vice-President Jim King; myself, Jill Doherty; Lauren, our office staff who Board of Trustees 2 September 22, 2010 does a wonderful job getting all this organized for us; and Trustee Ghosio; Lori Hulse is our attorney, our legal advisor, she is not hero tonight. And we have Wayne Galante taking down the Minutes, so please, when you need to speak, come up to the microphone and say your name clearly beforo you speak. With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspection, Wednesday, October 13, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion to approve? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, October 20 at 6:00, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). Minutes for July and August, 2010. I road both of them and didn't have any corrections. TRUSTEE KING: I just got them. I had no problem with July. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had no problem with July. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I road both of them and submitted the minor changes. As a matter of fact I don't think I had any changes for August, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to wait on August or do you want to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a majority. I have no problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of July 21,2010 and August 18, 2010. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August, 2010. A check for $7,177.71 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI'~( REVIEWS: Board of Trustees 3 September 22, 2010 Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 22, 2010, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. These are listed as follows: Eric Klodnicki - SCTM#123-4-7. Joseph Zevits - SCTM#90-1-13. Penn DuPont Sanger and House 57LLC - SCTM#10-3-19&20. Thomas & Maureen Dowling - SCTM#104-9-3. Carol R. Denson - SCTM#56-6-8.7. Kenneth & Elizabeth LeStrange - SCTM#123-10-1. Cedar Beach Park Association - Cedar Beach Inlet Way Road, Southold. Anna Costas C/O Renee Argentinis - SCTM#51-4-13. Davies Family Trust - SCTM#104-3-2. Cheryl Hansen - SCTM#78-5-17. Robert Black - SCTM#24-2-13.1. Hernan Michael Otano - SCTM#53-5-12.3&12.4. SiIvana Cadeddu - SCTM#35-5-23. Mark Hansen - SCTMf187-4-3. Annette Campbell - SCTM#137-4-27. Jack Biggane - SCTM#83-1-33. Alex Hillebrand - SCTM#115-11-23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions administrative permits. We have reviewed all of these, inspected them, they are pretty straightforward and simple. We have a couple of inconsistencies, though. So we'll have to take those out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can do them separately. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do them separately. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve: Number one, RALPH JEFFREY RUSSELL requests an Administrative Permit for the existing deck. Located: 4782 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Number three, GreenLogic, LLC on behalf of PETER & ANNETTE CORBIN requests an Administrative Permit to install solar panels onto the existing roof of the dwelling. Located: 275 Watersedge Way, Southold. Number four, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of SCOTT & Board of Trustees 4 September 22, 2010 SUSAN AMBROSIO requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 8x12' shed. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. And number six, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of MO AHMADZADEH requests an Administrative Permit to modify the existing plantings by adding native species. Located: 925 North Sea Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, ROBERT H. WHELAN requests an Administrative Permit for the existing deck. Located: 4782 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. It's inconsistent; policy six, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold; protect and restore tidal wetland; comply with Trustees regulations, recommendations and fourth; Trustee conditions. I don't know what that means, really, as far as inconsistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I honestly don't see how an existing deck could be found to be inconsistent, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says other reasons: Structures were constructed without a permit pursuant to 275 in shoreline wetland, which we know that, that's why he's in here getting the permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As a matter of fact the deck was built before 275 existed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he didn't need permits, at that time, but now he does. How do we make that consistent? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does granting the permit make it consistent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can say we found it based on our review with the application, we deem it consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve the application of Robert Whelan, and I find it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHO$10: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Did you have something to say, Mr. Herman? MR. HERMAN: I have nothing do with that application but -- of course your counsel is not here -- but it's my understanding in 268, if you are not proposing an activity, it's like a pre-existing structure, something like that, then it actually is not defined as an action under 268 and therefore it's not even reviewable. So you would obviously want to defer to Lori but that is my understanding of 268. If it's a pre-existing structure, it's there, they are not proposing to build it now, then by code under 268 it's not actually an action to begin Board of Trustees 5 September 22, 2010 with. So it should not even be getting reviewed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Appreciate that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of EDWARD FORTE requests an Administrative Permit to cut down evasive locust trees at specific areas on the bluff. Located: 710 Truman's Path, East Marion. It's inconsistent because maintain buffers to ensure adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided; maintain buffer to achieve high filtration, efficiency of surface runoff; avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance of buffer; maintain existing indigenous vegetation with buffer areas. In the event the action is approved, it is recommended, the applicant be required to replant areas where the trees are removed. TRUSTEE KING: I think the wording on is a little wrong. It's cut down evasive locust trees when we were out in the field. It's my understanding they were to be tdmmed down. No root removal or stump removal or anything. They were just going to be cut down, until another planting plan comes in place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE KING: I think he took that as meaning the trees would be removed. I think he misunderstood the language. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think by us reviewing it and finding they are just cutting them down and the knowledge of Mr. Chicanowicz telling us he's coming in with a re-planting plan, that we can find it consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. The big trees would probably cause more erosion and disturbance of the bank anyway. So judicious and careful cutting, leaving the stumps for now -- MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design. At this point we are only planning on pruning downward until we follow-up with a full permit plan as we had discussed prior about revegetating and keeping the integrity of the bluff in tact. So no intention of removing any root system, actually it will probably be left up about three to four feet high off the ground level, as we asked on our plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I think that Bob took that language as removal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I do, too. I'll make a resolution to approve the request for Administrative Permit to tdm down evasive locust trees at specific areas on the bluff and we find it consistent with LWRP as the root system is not being removed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 6 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHRIS & MARY PlA, requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 42xl 7' addition to an existing on-grade terrace and to construct two stone piers. Located: 5900-6000 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. Again, just as a reminder, this is not a public hearing, this is just a motion for an Administrative Permit. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent. No decks or platforms should be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than 32-square feet. Again, it's my understanding this is not a platform, this is a terrace. I went out and looked at this in the field on the 15th, and based on the plans that were submitted at that time, I also, excuse me, I had an issue with this project as it appeared as though the terrace, proposed extension to the terrace, was going right to the top of the bluff. Since then we, Jill and I, both met with a representative of the applicant and our understanding was that this project that is proposed was going to be reduced in scope tonight for our consideration. And I'm just looking, were there any plans -- I see a set of plans here stamp dated September 22. So these came in today, Lauren? MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And it appears as though this has been pulled back, the extension of the terrace has been pulled back from the top of the bluff, back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was 16. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, but I'm trying to determine what it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was pulled back eight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to determine, it looks like -- no, sorry, it's eight foot versus 16 foot. So what was originally applied for was 16 foot and it's reduced to eight foot. Hang on, I have to get a set of the original plans (perusing). Here we go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a curve, so it's eight foot at the longest. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. So what was originally submitted on August, plan stamped August 31, had a ten foot, excuse me, a roughly 16 foot extension to the terrace, and that's now eight foot. So it's been, the width of it has been cut in half, so that now it's no longer going out to the top of the bluff, it's now back from the top of the bluff by approximately eight feet. So, again, I know this is not a public hearing, but I see a couple of people at the microphone. If somebody -- it doesn't matter to me who goes first, if someone wants to make some very brief comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just another part of the description, what it's being reduced to is basically where the lawn ends and the buffer Board of Trustees 7 September 22, 2010 begins. So it's not going past the existing buffer that is there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was going to be the question I was going to ask. TRUSTEE KING: In other words the buffer in this area here (indicating). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, the lawn goes to here. Here is the privet hedge. There is a buffer between the privet hedge and the lawn, and this is where, this corner here, is where the lawn ends. So it's not going into the existing buffer that is here and they are actually going to extend the buffer a little bit. MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, Burger Construction. I want to mention both dimensions are pulled back by over 50%. It was 16'9" and ten foot and change. Now it's eight foot and four foot on the sides. And we agreed to take out the turf and put in native vegetation on that four-foot dimension out roughly 20 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Glenn? MR. JUST: I didn't realize he was sitting there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have any comments? MR. JUST: No, I didn't see Eugene sitting there before. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board on this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's a good compromise. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Great compromise. Protects the natural resoume beaches. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was also noted that the plantings are going to continue in this area. It's a double bulkheaded piece and they have been planting beach grass and everything, and they'll continue the native plantings all along the disturbed area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill was pointing to the bluff area. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see it, so I'm just looking at the contours. Is that a real steep drop off there? It goes from 44 to 42 in about not too many feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plan you'll notice the privet hedge, there is a very steep drop off just prior and after that privet hedge. TRUSTEE KING: Between the patio and here, what's it look like? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a drop off in there. Definitely a drop down in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you can walk through there. It's a path you can go through. It's a drop off but that's why we asked for replanting in that area. The privet hedge is pretty substantial and stable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And like I said, on the rest of the bluff they are planting beach grass. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? (No response). Board of Trustees 8 September 22, 2010 If not, I'll make a motion to approve number seven, JMO Consulting on behalf of Jim and Mary Pia as per the plans dated received September 22, 2010, and with the reduction of over 50% on the scope of this project versus what was initially applied for, and the maintenance of that non-turf buffer in that area where the reduction of scope of the project is taking place, I would deem it to be consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye).(Trustee King, abstain). TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see this. I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I'm inclined not to vote. So I'll abstain from the vote. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a note Trustee King abstained. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, the whole Board reviewed every one of these and they were inspected. And they are pretty straightforward, just procedural. So I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through six on the agenda. They read as follows: Number one, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of PAUL BETANCOURT requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6972 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6972C, as issued on October 15, 2008, and Amended on Apdl 21, 2010. Located: 1825 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. Number two, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of KIMOGENOR POINT COMPANY requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6980 as issued on October 15, 2008. Located: 50 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. Number three, CAROL & JOE KANE, request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4990 for the existing 3xl 2' ramp at the bottom of the permitted beach stairs. Located: 3100 Sound Drive, Greenport. Number four, YAN RIEGER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7210 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7210C to allow for two rows of stone at the toe of the dune. Located: 370 Harbor Road, Orient. Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of PETER & STEPHANIE COSOLA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7312 to add 3.5' to the proposed addition and provide an exit door Board of Trustees 9 September 22, 2010 from the kitchen area to screened pomh. Located: 2880 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. And number six, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7221 to authorize the relocation and downsizing of the previously approved dock, specifically the construction of a 4x12' inclined ramp; 4x84' fixed timber catwalk; 3x14' hinged ramp; and 6x20' float supported by two 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of MICHAEL & BETH NEUMANN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7237 to use six-inch piles to secure the approved open-grate catwalk instead of 4x4" posts and to allow the use of a 3x25' ramp instead of a 3x20' ramp. Located: 3329 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. I think the reason this was not lumped in with the rest of them was because it was a violation on this project. I wish Lori was here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's been taken care of. TRUSTEE KING: Has the fine been paid? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I spoke to her about it. TRUSTEE KING: It's been taken care of. It was a little troubling to me that the work was done before the amendment was approved. That's the bottom line. And the dock builder got caught. So as a result, the work is already in place. What bothers me more, I think at the time, I don't have of a huge issue with six-inch piles. The reason we went with the 4x4's is the DEC will not approve any docks unless it was 4x4 posts through the wetland area, and then usually six-inch piles and the use of eight-inch piles to hold the float in place. That seems to be a thing of the past now. So I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, the DEC you are saying is now-- TRUSTEE KING: They have a modification to their permit on July 27 to use the six-inch piles. So they had the modification from DEC. Like I said, the thing that troubled me, the work was already done before we approved it. I would request that the piles be hand dug instead of jetted in. Because it made a mess of the wetland area jetting them in. 4x4's should be put in by hand. Six-inch piles should be put in by hand, too. It's a little more of a responsible way of working in the wetland area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I believe you wanted to add overall length in there, too. TRUSTEE KING: The overall length, when you look at the plans, Board o f Trustees 10 September 22, 2010 the overall length was for 108 feet, and at the time of the hearing they requested a 15-foot ramp to the float. At the Board's suggestion, we suggested a 20-foot ramp because of the rise and fall of the tide in Mattituck Creek. Now you are asking for a 25-foot ramp, and as long as this does not increase the overall length of the project, I don't have a problem with it. But if you look at the plans now, and scale it off, that structure is supposed to be 108 feet long; from the landward end to the seaward end of the float is supposed to be 108 feet. What it measures now, I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would come out in the compliance inspection. TRUSTEE KING: When it comes to the compliance inspection, that will be the time for that. It's one of the things we have to tighten up when we write these permits is to put the overall length of the project, because what some folks do is add it up and the numbers come out a little different than what is on the plans. With that being said, I guess it's the issue is over. The dock has been constructed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Navigability, from your perspective? TRUSTEE KING: It's well out of the way of navigation. The big issue was when they go ahead and do something, specifically when they are told not to, you know, that kind of irks me. MR. BERGER: If I may, I just wanted to apologize for that screw up on behalf of myself, the Neumann's and Angelo. I want to just publicly say that to you. It was not intentional to provoke anything, it was just trying to move the job along and we didn't realize it. TRUSTEE KING: Well, you paid a price. MR. BERGER: I agree. I just wanted to say we are sorry about that. MR. JUST: Jim, if I may, I got a call from Angelo when he set that first offshore pile and I believe that was the first day you had stopped him, and he called me. And we had clarified that number of 100 feet offshore from the house. I believe he moved it four feet inshore after you talked to him and I talked to him. TRUSTEE KING: Good. Well, when it comes up for compliance inspection, we'll know. MR. JUST: I think that will be obvious. The thing, as far as the ramp, I was told some of these aluminum ramps, they come in certain sizes; 24, 25, 30, things like that. They might be made to order, I truly don't know. TRUSTEE KING: I thought I saw Jack Costello in the audience. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's hiding behind Glenn. TRUSTEE KING: Jack, do they come 20 foot standard length? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, 20 is stock. You can get them whatever you Board of Trustees 11 September 22, 2010 want. TRUSTEE KING: 20 is the standard? MR. COSTELLO: 20 is stock, yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought. I've seen an awful lot of 20-foot ramps around. MR. JUST: I understand the impression they are not custom made. Again, the reason for the increase in the ramp is not to make the float go any more seaward, it's because of the tidal flush in the creek. That was the only reason for that. TRUSTEE KING: If you still want to stay with 25, I don't have a huge issue with it. MR. JUST: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: So I would make a motion to approve this as it's been submitted and everything is taken care of now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. BERGER: Jim, if I may, I have a question. Mrs. Neumann asked me if it was possible to put ropes on the sides of the catwalk for the children. Is that an issue? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would have to be a request for an amendment. TRUSTEE KING: By the code, it's one handrail. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code allows for one handrail. I don't know if the code even addresses the use of rope. Since it's mute on ropes -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it is mute on ropes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To me, I have no issue with it whatsoever. Just thinking from a practical perspective. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's get back to you on that. I want to get Loft's interpretation of the code before we tell you can do that. MR. BERGER: It's since they have three young kids. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Okay. I'll make a motion to go off the regular agenda and on to the public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And before we go any further, I want to mention that we do have a representative from the Conservation Advisory Council, Jack McGreevey here. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION PERMITS Number one, David Corwin on behalf of VIRGINIA DIETRICH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 95 linear Board of Trustees 12 September 22, 2010 feet of deterioreted timber bulkhead and replace with vinyl sheathing in same location. Extend east wing eight linear feet, construct 28 linear feet west wing, backfill with 25 cubic yards sand from an upland source, and install rock toe armor. Located: 55755 CR 48, Southold. I have spoken to Mr. Corwin today. He cannot make it. He said he dropped off of a copy of the DEC permit, which I see is in the file. Mrs. Dietrich did not want to -- this was postponed from last month, because we requested maybe a splash guard, and Mrs. Dietrich did not want to go through that expense, she never had it before, and this served well for years. And the DEC did not request anything, they approved it as he submitted it. So. TRUSTEE KING: It was just a suggestion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this is found consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application based on the following: There is a storm water 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; bulkhead interferes with public access. There is a question as to whether or not the property owners own the underwater lands and location of actual deed line; the plans depict 131-foot bulkhead and the description states 95 feet of bulkhead; the toe armor is destroying the intertidal zone, modifying the environment and; there should be the requirement of an environmental impact statement. That's the GAO report. I was at a press conference this afternoon in this exact area. Ed Romaine had a press conference. This whole area is, it's not considered an emergency yet but there has been quite a bit of erosion in this area and a lot of damage from mother nature in the past few years. And since the 0R-48 abuts these properties and it's getting pretty narrow there, the monies are trying to be approved for a project in this area and it's been determined by different agencies, which is the towns, county and the state, that a study has to be done to see which is the best way to do this. So the county and the town and the federal government have given their blessing for this, and the county -- and federel government have put in their share, which is 50% from the federal government, 15% from the county, and they are waiting for the state to put their 35% in, which that is what the press conference was for today. This is an area that definitely needs something done, and with all due with respect to the CAC, I feel we need to move on something here because this property, this wall is deterioreted enough that if the next storm comes, it's going to break down that wall even more and Board of Trustees 13 September 22, 2010 take away even more of that property. The property lines, we did review carefully, because they were, the description of the property lines and the way they were on the map, once you are out there, you can see that it is correct. At least in our opinion it is, when the whole Board went and inspected it last month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a survey in the file? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just looking for the survey. I have a drawing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Doherty, a question. The conference today, does it sound the study will be looking for a more global solution? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's for the whole cove area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I know public access is an issue and there has been such a loss of beach there, with need for having a bulkhead, maybe the Trustees or Conservation Advisory Council in their capacity, advisory capacity, can communicate with the different groups that are putting together the funding so the issue of public access can be worked into the study so if additional beach nourishment or structure that allows people to move along the foreshore -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's part of the whole situation is the access, and they talked about a number of things they will consider. And we'll be part of that process. So, yes, we can make sure that is relayed. But it has been relayed already. TRUSTEE KING: There was tremendous damage just west of this site a couple of years ago. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I ask for this is one of the concerns from the CAC, from what I heard, this project was not on their property, it exceeded their property line. And we have a survey of the property here in front of us that shows that the deed line goes well beyond this bulkhead. So according to this survey, this entire project is within their property. That was one thing that I keyed in on of the CAC's comments, which is very interesting. TRUSTEE KING: I see that. MR. MCGREEVEY: A question, Jill. The potential study that will be done on it, including public access, is it also incorporating the CR-48 as it presently is? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that is why the federal government can put in their 50,% because it has to do with protecting CR-48, which is an evacuation mute, and as we all know, it serves for lots of people. So that is why the funding can be used for that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interject here, we are talking about something that is really not part of this permit application, and it's a public hearing for this permit application, so I would just like to keep the comments specific to this permit Board of Trustees 14 September 22, 2010 application and not talk about other issues brought up in a press conference. MR. MCGREEVEY: Just for information purposes for the Conservation Advisory Council. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's important information but it's not part of this application we are looking at tonight. MR. MCGREEVEY: I understand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Virginia Dietrich as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of ANNA COSTAS CIO RENEE ARGENTINIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to realign the existing concrete seawall and install 16 10" diameter batter pilings on front side and install 150 ton of rock armoring at base of seawall consisting of 1-3 ton rocks; repair and/or replace existing concrete splash slab as needed, inplace; remove sections of collapsing lower retaining wall and construct new rock retainer, inplace, install 16 10" diameter support pilings in void area and fill void area with 150 cubic yards of 20-50 pound core stones on filter cloth, and pour new six-inch reinfomed concrete splash slab, inplace; remove existing collapsing wooden deck and walkway and construct new deck and walkway moving new deck eight feet landward and revegetate open area of bank to match existing; repair and/or replace sections of existing stairway and handrails as needed, inplace. Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has listed this project as both consistent and inconsistent in part and (perusing) okay, the construction and repair to the existing bulkhead and other associated structures has been deemed consistent but they propose construction of a new deck and moving the deck eight feet landward has been found by the LWRP coordinator to be inconsistent. So that is where this particular application bifurcates. The Conservation Advisory Council had a written report on Board of Trustees 15 September 22, 2010 it, a copy of which I don't know if it made it into the file. Do I have it here? It's dght here, sorry. It was moved by the Conservation Advisory Council not to support this application to re-align the existing concrete seawall and install 16 10"-diameter pilings. The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because the project will intensify erosion elsewhere and it will prohibit public access along state property and there was an attached statement the Board approved, Doug Hardy, that was the statement I may have left for you before the meeting. I don't know if the Doug Hardy statement was attached here or not. MS. STANDISH: It was not attached to that. It was attached to the other application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can make it part of the record. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, because that was for Argentinis, was it not? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have an extra set of plans? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. It inadvertently ended up in another file. It is part of this record. We'll re-collect it. The Conservation Advisory Council cannot support the application of Anna Costas in care of Renee Argentinis. The present seawall is now footed below mean high water on state tidal public land. The placement of 150 ton of the rock on public land would illegally deny safe public access and lateral passage along the shore. This is of particular concern to the Conservation Advisory Council's extensive length of shoreline border of eastem section of Soundview Avenue has suffered recent major erosions involving a number of property owners who have been permitted to protect their property by armoring the base of seawalls and bulkheads, this effectively closes off thousands of feet of public land to adjacent town beach from lawful public passage. The hardening of extensive of lengths of shoreline by immobile rock placed on top of natural setting represents a habitat change with physical and ecological repercussions that are presently unknown and requires a coastal management or environmental review. This piecemeal approach of each application should be considered on its merits as isolated from the local coastal system is not sound management practice, and and last was combination of extensive lengths of vertical seawall and bulkhead walls which are basically armored by immobile rock will have fundamental affect on the littoral transport of sediment. This massive hardening of the shoreline will change the physical dynamics of how the sea interacts with a unilaterally modified coastline and unnaturally modified coast line with results that are usually unwanted. That's the Board of Trustees 16 September 22, 2010 Conservation Advisory Council's additional comment. So we have those comments of LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anyone here wish to speak on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. Do they have any ideas on how to rectify the problem and protect the neighbors' dghts? I mean, already one of the neighbors has approached me about their rights and not moving on this. And another question I have, is it still in code to armor bulkheads on the Sound by this Board? Did that come out of code yet? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it has not. It is in code committee. Our Board has acted on it but Town Board has not. MR. COSTELLO: So it's still code to armor. So, I mean, as far as all the recommendations go, as far as this Board goes, it's still in the code that bulkheads on the Sound have to be armored with stone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MR. COSTELLO: As far as the deck goes on the top of the bluff, can the size be decreased to 100 square feet to become consistent? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure MR. COSTELLO: That would be fair enough? Because that's not really an issue. It's protecting the person's property I'm really concerned about. Having a deck there would be nice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would still want to see it moved back. That was hanging over. MR. COSTELLO: We are moving it back eight feet. It's in the application. I think the size of the deck might be the issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You'll move back the existing deck. MR. COSTELLO: That's what it says. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The size, in Coastal Erosion, can be 200 square feet, but it should be behind the coastal erosion line. MR. COSTELLO: Right now it's overhanging the bluff. We were going to move it back eight feet so it's not overhanging the bluff. I believe that was the number that was established on site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were going to see with Lori if that constitutes a full removal, because under the code, if you remove a structure that is in coastal erosion, you can't replace it in coastal erosion. MR. COSTELLO: Would it be better to apply for where it is? TRUSTEE KING: What if it's under 200 square feet? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's unregulated, less than 200-square feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So when Jack asks if he could put it to 100 square feet then it's out of coastal erosion. TRUSTEE KING: Then it's unregulated activity. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not out of coastal erosion; it's Board of Trustees 17 September 22, 2010 unregulated by coastal erosion. MR. COSTELLO: How about if I leave it where it is? Is that an option? Or does that also remain inconsistent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it a permitted structure. If it's not a current and permitted structure, and I don't think it is, given how old it is, then it's not allowed to be replaced unless it's permitted. Looking at the structure, when we looked at the field, it didn't appear, it looked like significant damage, structural damage to this structure, to this deck, and it didn't appear as though, you know, it could be repaired. It looks like it's a repair to the extent of replace. And according to the code, that can only be behind the coastal erosion hazard line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unless it's under 200-square feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Then we have the 30-square feet on the end. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's talking about demoing a deck that is more than 200, reconstructing it so that it's 100, and you are saying then it would not comply, not come under -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not regulated -- anything under 200-square feet is not regulated under coastal erosion, as per the code. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are endorsing then is construction of a deck adjacent to the bluff within coastal erosion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The code endorses it. TRUSTEE KING: Then we have the wetland code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just talking coastal erosion here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just looking at coastal erosion. This is why, I'm sorry, I wish Lori was here tonight. Because I think we need advice from Lori. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This conversation started post-field inspection in the office when we were trying to come to grips with the very specific issue of the size of this deck. So it's not come to fruit yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Look it up in the code. Do you have that section in the book? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we know, we have it on the record exactly what the code says, so we all understand it. MR. COSTELLO: Maybe while John is looking that up, the deck is not really an important issue. I wanted to move it back to make you happy. Where it is would be nicer for the view and everything TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have it right here. Unregulated activity. It goes to say except activities which are not regulated by this chapter include but are not limited to elevated walkways or stairs. Stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and built by individual property owners for the limited purpose of providing non-commercial access to the beach, docks, piers, wharfs or structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles Board of Trustees 18 September 22, 2010 or other similar open-work supports with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet or which are removed in the Fall of each year. So that is the unregulated aspect. Unregulated under coastal erosion hazard. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in my opinion this is not a wharf or structure built on a float, column or timber piers. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Read the end. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or similar open-work supports with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet. TRUSTEE KING: That would be a deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be a deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, let's move on to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have anything further to say on the application? I had a question MR. COSTELLO: Well, as far as the deck goes, I'll build it any size, put it any place in the back of the bluff. I'm willing to work with you guys and put it anywhere. Even if it had to go down to 100 square feet. Whatever the code says. If it's 200 square feet, fine. I'm willing to work within the parameters of the code, whatever it may be, and we be can certainly adjust the plans to show that. TRUSTEE KING: I think you have the wetland code to contend with. It's basically exempt from coastal erosion but you still have wetland to look at. MR. UELAND: I have a question on this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, if you could step up to the mic and introduce yourself for the record. MR. UELAND: My name is Steve Ueland and I represent the owner of the property, east of the applicant's property. And the owner is my mother, Mrs. Ueland. I had a question. You read these environmental impact reports, I guess or requests, about erosion, and I was concerned, since the rock armoring is going to extend the bulkhead out beyond the plain of the bulkheading that already exists on the property just east of the applicant's property, whether this will create an erosion on the eastern side due to wave action and will undermine that particular bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The reason why the rocks are placed in front is to break the wave energy. MR. UELAND: I understand that. But in effect it will act as a jetty to create erosion on each side. Because on this particular beach when jetties are put out, erosion occurs on the east side while the west side builds up. And I don't want that bulkhead on the east side undermined and eventually collapsing because of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point well taken. Board of Trustees 19 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSiO: I think it would help prevent it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm thinking. Jack, you can maybe explain it better than I could. MR. COSTELLO: I mean, a more major concern would be the bulkhead not being addressed. It's a massive piece of concrete. It's basically unmovable. If we were to do nothing and not secure this bulkhead, that would put his mother's property in a far greater risk than worrying about what might become. I mean, it's not a jetty. We are talking about going out eight to ten feet with rock armor. What affect that will have on that coastline, I don't know. That whole coastline is slowly dropping because we have the issue straight down that beach, and I'm sure you guys spend the lion's share of your time out there. Eight or ten feet of armor whatever it may be, I don't think it will affect. TRUSTEE KING: The plans only show four feet MR. COSTELLO: I didn't open it up. Whatever it might be. TRUSTEE KING: The plans show four feet from the base of the rock. It's not very much. MR. COSTELLO: It's not very much. Will it act as a jetty, I would hope not but I think the greater concern would be not addressing the issue. If that bulkhead were to go, were to fall over, than that bulkhead would certainly go with it. And I'm sure you have seen that plenty of times, where the neighboring bulkhead was at fault, and it would certainly be my client's. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, on the placement of the armoring, how do you place the armor, what configuration do you put to either break up wave energy or stabilize it at the base of the bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: The base of the bulkhead has been compromised. So we basically want to hold it in place with the piling and place the rocks directly at the foot of the wall to hold it. That's what we are hoping to do. And we'll backfill the wall with rock so there was not sand and small granular material to run through whatever cracks may develop. That's what happened to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: These are one to three ton stones. Physical how much space to they occupy? Is one stone that four-foot width? MR. COSTELLO: It's large stone at the bottom and smaller stone on top. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are those stones put at any particular elevation relative to mean high or mean Iow water?. MR. COSTELLO: The bulkhead is continuously in the water. That will be an issue down the line anyway, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, when we keep going down the permitting process. But it's what to do with these monolithic slabs that are basically unmovable. TRUSTEE KING: So that initial stone is setback. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see. It's fairly clear. MR. COSTELLO: The elevation is changing, but it's changing more dropping than anything. That's been apparent. Board of Trustees 20 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there, we met George out there, George Costello, and he explained everything. And I think we went out and met you also, we went out twice. This seems to be the best solution there. What Jack said, you can't remove that concrete. TRUSTEE KING: When do you plan on doing this work, Jack? Because we'll start getting some northedies here pretty soon? MR. COSTELLO: Whenever you tell me I can. TRUSTEE KING: This is something to think about. We'll have bad weather coming out of the north and that place takes a shellacking MR. COSTELLO: I know. This is a difficult application. The committee process is going to take a while. Of course I still have to deal with the Army Corps of Engineers. They have not responded to the application yet. Because it's confusing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a possibility of coming back to us to amend it? MR. COSTELLO: There may be. Like I said, I submitted to the other agencies and they have not responded on it yet. But being that, it's in the town code that the bulkhead, if I'm going to do anything with the bulkhead I feel it's still in the Town Code, it should be armored with rock. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I happen to agree with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Me, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as the deck is concerned, I think we are pretty much limited to 32-square feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, under the wetland code, under 275, 32-square feet. MR. COSTELLO: As far as the deck goes, it's not a major issue. It's losing bulkhead. And I'll work under whatever parameters. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under 275 it's still an issue with it being near the bluff. It says no decks on or near the bluff, according to 275. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he's proposing to move it back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if he moves it back and reduces it to no larger than 32-square feet then it would fit under the 275 requirements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a concem about the problem moving along the foreshore also. I know the Conservation Advisory Council has been a regular champion of us being able to move along the foreshore. It just seems with all this material going in there, there must be a way we can work something out so we don't infringe upon people's ability to move along the shore going forward. Maybe the study with CR-48 can start to look at Board of Trustees 21 September 22, 2010 some of these issues, because we don~t necessarily want to hook an individual applicant up who is trying to protect property and there, where there is issues that can even damage neighbors, but it's a really important area. I'm thinking that probably we have to look at some kind of new coastal standard here because going forward. The sea levels are increasing, we are getting, these high energy, and these areas are getting blown to pieces. And people still want to access the shore. So I want to stay I'm very sympathetic to the thinking and attempt by the Conservation Advisory Council to try to come to grips with this. TRUSTEE KING: The problem is it's late in the game. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is late in the game. It's early in the game considering we are going to have, at least for the foreseeable future we'll be dealing with issues of maybe higher energy and maybe more water coming in on us. MR. UELAND: So is the answer to my question it will not create accelerated erosion at that point? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think any of us can predict a definite yes or no on that. We have not seen, I have not seen, since I have been on the Board, that happen, in such a small going out. It's only going out four or five feet, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Mother Nature, we can't predict. But it generally does not happen, from what I have seen. But I can't tell you no. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe Mr. Costello or others that are very familiar with coastal process here can indicate any opportunities to remediate, if there is issues with, you know, that stone armor. MR. COSTELLO: By dispersing the wave action you get less of a backlash effect. If it was a smooth faced concrete wall, I'm sure it was much more of an erosionable issue, having that straight-faced concrete wall causing a backlash of wave action. If you disperse the wave energy, I feel it would help maintain the beach. But that whole beach level is dropping. I mean it will continue to drop. That's why these bulkheads are failing in that area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The stone won't disperse the wave energy to east and west, it will have it become more perpendicular to the shoreline, which should help your situation. MR. COSTELLO: I would think. Just logically thinking about it, with a flat-face concrete wall, you'll get 100% backlash. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will help your situation. MR. COSTELLO: And if the bulkhead were to fail, I mean then it would be cataclysmic on their part, too. MR. UELAND: Well, that was per east to west wave motion but most of the wave motion is west to east on that particular shoreline. That's why the, you see that where jetties have been put out Board of Trustees 22 September 22, 2010 there is considerable erosion on the eastern side of the jetty, and build up on the -- because the sand is not allowed to flow through. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is different than a jetty. MR. UELAND: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any further comment? (No response). I'll take a motion to close the heating in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we close, what is the recommendation as far as addressing the inconsistency of the deck in the application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did. He said he'll reduce it and move it back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we move it back behind the coastal erosion hazard line? MR. COSTELLO: On top of that bluff, where is the coastal zone established? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you come and look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't you come up and look at it. It's on the plans here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't require him to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just asking if he would consider doing it. TRUSTEE KING: That puts it back quite a ways. MR. COSTELLO: And at the top, where that piece of property dips down, the contour of the property, and the deck becomes useless to move it back that far unless we build it up and the deck is elevated. It would kind of be -- the topography of it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I thought we might hammer that part out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's about 28 feet, if we move it back. MR. COSTELLO: Because when we had originally met on site it was moving it back eight feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it's 32-square feet -- stay with me on this. If it's 32-square feet and it's associated with the stairs, okay, it can be on the bluff, all dght. And it can also be in front of the coastal hazard line because it's less than 200 square feet. So we don't have to make him move it back behind the coastal erosion hazard line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it's attached to the stairs. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As long as it's attached to the stairs. And it is. MR. COSTELLO: Because there is a walkway that goes across and that is in the area of the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, because it's attached to the stairs. That's interesting, Bob. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you take into consideration then that walkway as part of the structure, part of that 32-square feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. So if you move it closer to the stairs you'll have a larger deck area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, put it at the top of the stairs and you have 32-square feet that you can put behind the bluff. Board of Trustees 23 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Admittedly it's 6x6. It's not very large, but. MR. COSTELLO: And then the 200-square feet that we are talking about. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 200-square feet can't be associated with the stairs. It would have to go behind the coastal erosion hazard line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a excellent idea. MR. COSTELLO: So move the 200-square foot deck just behind the coastal erosion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's not what I just heard. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If it's under 200-square feet -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's 199 behind the line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you make a 32-square foot deck, you have to move it back to where we agree. But you can also attach it to the stairs and it can be in the coastal erosion line because it's under 200 square feet. MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think what we can do is just -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are we -- question of point of order here -- are we addressing the inconsistency as part of the public hearing or part of the permit vote? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You make a resolution of inconsistency along with your other resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: After we close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After we close the hearing. But the wording is that, because we don't know where he wants to put the deck at this point. Does he want to attach it to the stairs or move it back. So how do we address that. We could say approve the deck less than 32-square feet subject to receiving plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it might be easier if we just remove the deck from the application, approve everything else and he can come in as an amendment in the future for the deck, and just leave the deck alone. MR. COSTELLO: That would be fine. Like I said, I'm not really concerned about the deck right now. Let's strip the deck from the application and we'll come in for an amendment afterwards. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That makes it simple and easy. TRUSTEE KING: I think it makes it lot simpler. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, absent the portion which was deemed inconsistent: The deck and for subsequent submittal of a potential amendment, if any, I would so move. Board of Trustees 24 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And in doing so, removal of the deck will deem it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Thank you, Dave. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For my own edification, the application stays the same except for the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Robert Barratt, PE, on behalf of ROBERT BLACK requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing 6x21' concrete dock, install an eight-inch diameter piling positioned 32' off seaward end to support mooring line pulley, six-foot wide access steps and boarding ladder. Located: 1440 Village Lane, Odent. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they resolved to support the application. We did go out and looked at this in the field and it looks like a pretty straighfforward application. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? MR. BARRATT: Good evening. My name is Robert Barratt and I'm the engineer who has put the application together. And it's a great pleasure, actually, that I could tell you that Robert Black, the actual applicant, is here in the room, and I'll ask him to come up here and stand by me whilst we hear the discourse, and we are ready, of course, to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. As I stated when we looked at it out in the field, we didn't have any issues. It was a pretty straightforward application. Is there any comment from anybody from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Subsequent, going back to the office, we did the check on the unregulated activity section of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act, and because the applicant is simply trying to put a set of steps or stairs, rather, and a pulley line to a moodng, which is an open stake, it actually comes under unregulated activity under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, and the wetland ordinance applying for that for which essentially is a moodng is a pretty thorough application review in and of itself and would allow for minor repairs for the existing structure we had discussed. I don't know if it was further discussion in the office but it seems like since it's an unregulated activity to accept these on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act where it was not warranted, so I want to bring that Board of Trustees 25 September 22, 2010 up to the Board because of the post field inspection, I don't know, other than maybe Jim King, I think there was only a couple of us discussing it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It sound like it's exempt. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it needs a coastal erosion permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A couple of years ago it would not have needed any permit, it would have been an unregulated mooring, practically. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we should do a resolution to refund the coastal erosion fee. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that can be part of whatever we do. Thank you, Jay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not I'll make a motion to close the public here hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Robert Barratt on behalf of Robert Black as described at 1440 Village Lane, under the wetland permit; in other words Chapter 275, and with regard to coastal erosion permit it's deemed to be an unregulated activity, so as such there is no need for a coastal erosion permit and we'll refund that fee to you, to the applicant. That's my motion. MR. BARI*ATT: Thank you, so much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving into Wetland Permits, number one, CHERYL HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, install a gravel ddveway and sanitary system. Located: 405 Williamsburg Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE KING: Which one are we doing? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry, all I saw was "Hansen." TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do both. Bob, just do both. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what just happened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he'll do both. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have two Hansen's. I had the second file. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application with the condition that every effort is made to save the large trees. LWRP has found this to be consistent with Board of Trustees 26 September 22, 2010 LWRP, and in fact this was a permitted project in the past. The project was expired and they have just come back in for the same thing as what they had before, in an effort to extend their time to do the project. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. HANSEN: Cheryl Hansen. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the audience for the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does the applicant wish to speak? MS. HANSEN: No, I was just going to say, I just put an application prior to this and we are doing the exact thing we had done in the past. So we just did some other things in the interim. We put in a new bulkhead. So now we are applying to have the building done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So again, I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as stated, noting that it is consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HANSEN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, MARK HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing bulkhead. Located: 680 Windy Point Lane, Southold. This application -- again, this was for a project that had a permit previously and the project was not done. It expired and the folks are coming back in to re-apply. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application and recommends a Iow sill bulkhead and rebuilding of the salt marsh. LWRP has found it to be exempt. Is there anyone here to address this application. (No response). Any comment from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: No changes? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm taking a look at it now. (Perusing). The original application said to replace the existing 82-linear feet of timber bulkhead inplace using vinyl sheathing and a nine-foot return extension with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. And it references plans from 2007. The new application does not reference any of that. Board of Trustees 27 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it was the same plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He has a permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember our field inspections we were looking at the previous plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see any changes. Lauren told me the DEC has shortened the return. That was the only difference. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, they did. It's nine foot. I'm showing nine foot here. (Perusing). Okay, the DEC permit is showing, that was issued back in August of 2010, is showing a return of 12-and-a-half feet instead of the 15 that they had originally applied for in their first permit. They actually extended it from nine to 12-and-a-half. And also allowed them to have a ten-foot non-turf buffer, reduced from 15. I guess I'll just read the DEC permit and the buffer instead of what we normally do. It makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: The previous permit had a 15-foot non-turf? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I would keep it the same. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And a nine-foot return, and the DEC approved a couple of weeks ago a ten-foot non-turf buffer and a 12-and-a-half foot return. TRUSTEE KING: The return is not an issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just make the return 12-and-a-half. TRUSTEE KING: And the buffer stay at 15. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application, to remove and replace inplace 82-linear feet of bulkhead; construct a new 12.5 foot return landward of the existing; backfill with 20 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source; establish a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead and plant with native species. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: 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. Board of Trustees 28 September 22, 2010 Remove or abandon the existing sanitary system and install a new sanitary system. Located: 3450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. We all went out and looked at this a couple of times. It's exempt from the LWRP. It's found exempt. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the wetland permit with the condition the creosoted logs were removed from the wetland area and a landscape plan is submitted for the area seaward of the deck along the creek side and the area underneath the deck is non-turf. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. BOWMAN: Good evening. Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services. I know this is a continuation. I think we'll go on with a continuation. I think the Board, when we met in the field, had requested I send you a sketch, which I hope you have. And what we have done is we took the approval that was issued in 2001 by this Board and outlined that. We came to the conclusion out there and agreed with you that the house could not be repaired. Therefore, we are going to give you a whole new modified application saying we'll be moving the existing house, demolishing it and moving the foundation landward and what we did is we moved it landward to the line of the house that was approved, much larger house that was approved, in 2001 by this Board. What that does is the existing house and deck is approximately 17 feet from the wetland line. We move it 15 feet further. That deck line would now be 32 feet from the wetland line. And of course the sanitary system would be moved up toward the street. And the only question that I had from the Board is, no matter what you approved, how wide a buffer you wanted -- 15 feet seems to be reasonable to me -- and we would include that in the new plans that we have to submit to you with a new project description. So I guess all I'm looking for is some guidance on what you would like so I can go back and have the plans drawn up. TRUSTEE KING: Okay so are you going to look for what was previously approved, the same size structure? MR. BOWMAN: No, it's a much smaller house. TRUSTEE KING: So just this dark green -- MR. BOWMAN: The dark green, which also includes the deck area. You can see the house is not quite small. It's a two-story house but it's hopefully showed up as kind of a pinkish color, that's the house part, and the, it shows the deck and just an entry porch and stairs out the street side. The house is the same size as what is there now. TRUSTEE KING: So this new structure will actually be a little bit seaward of the previously approved larger house. MR. BOWMAN: Actually, we held it right in the same line. And on Board of Trustees 29 September 22, 20 ! 0 the plans I submitted to you, there is an extension, if you see, on the north side of the previously approved house, which was kind of a deck and stairs area. We held that line for our deck as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). The house was here, now the house will be here and the deck will be there. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). I'm confused. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the original -- yes, the existing house. MR. BOWMAN: Would it be helpful if I came up? TRUSTEE KING: Show me how you moved it, that's what I don't understand. MR. BOWMAN: No problem, Jim. I think this is easier to look at. This is the existing approved house from the 2001. And this deck and stairway projected out this far, which is about 32 feet from the wetlands line. So what we did is hold that line for our deck. The house is actually further landward than the existing house. TRUSTEE KING: So this will be decking in here. MR. BOWMAN: Correct. Because the orange is decking. This is actually the structure of the house with a new entryway and stairs here on the landward side. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MR. BOWMAN: And again, I understand I have to get the plans changed and send up a new project description. TRUSTEE KING: That clarifies it for me. I think it's pretty much what we talked about in the field. MR. BOWMAN: The only question I would have is that a sufficient buffer, because I want to include that with a planting specification in the plans as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How many feet is that? TRUSTEE KING: Six-foot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where would we measure it from? Currently if you go down there now it kind of looks where the flood zone line is. TRUSTEE KING: You could do it right to the -- make that a buffer area, the flood zone line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm thinking. It kind of looks like that now, when you go on site. MR. BOWMAN: I have no problem with that. It slopes down toward the creek, and I know Mr. Martorana doesn't have any problems with planting a buffer either. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm good with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just measure that out. Because I'm just thinking when someone physically does it, they won't know where the flood line is. MR. BOWMAN: I'll have some distances off the existing house put on there and distances down the property line from the street. Board of Trustees 30 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Give us a distance from the deck to the flood zone line. MR. BOWMAN: I have to actually talk to the surveyor and engineers and get this all redone. So that's not a problem. And I would just ask that we have a continuation until we get this to you. TRUSTEE KING: So we can move forward on this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can move forward subject to receipt of plans. MR. BOWMAN: That's wonderful. I would appreciate it. That's great. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why we can't. Any other comments from anybody on this application? (No response). Anyone from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: 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 based on the new plans showing what we discussed here with the house being moved landward and a buffer area being installed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To the flood plain line. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. BOWMAN: Thank you, have a good night. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Frank Notaro RA on behalf of CHRIS MESKOURIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new I 1/2 story dwelling on pilings, attached deck and sanitary system. Located: 530 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. This is consistent with LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of drainage plan for the new construction and a pervious driveway. The Conservation Advisory Council has a concern with the septic system flowing into the water. And we also have, are in receipt of Zoning Board of Appeals approval of, I believe it's lot coverage. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. MESKOURIS: Hi, I'm Jim Meskouds. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have been out there a couple of times. One of our concerns is the location of the house. We do try to keep it in line with the other houses. So we would request that this house be moved, proposed house be moved back; moved back about 15 feet. And that would put it in the line of houses that are on that block. MR. MESKOURIS: Well, the last time we were here you asked for a survey. We sent to you a survey to give you an idea of how the Board of Trustees 31 September 22, 2010 other houses are lined up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we inspected it, again, the whole Board went out there this past month and inspected it and we feel your proposed house sticks out that much further than the line. MR. MESKOURIS: In other words you are comparing it with the adjacent house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole line of houses. The adjacent house is-- MR. MESKOURIS: The adjacent house has the little garage covering on the left of the site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. MESKOURIS: Then you have the house to the right is ours, the bungalow. And you see the house on the corner, that protrudes out way past the erosion line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry for interrupting, we have an aerial also to show. And that's what we based our decision on also. We would like to proposed house to be moved back 15 feet. MR. MESKOURIS: Moved back 15 feet, I'll be stuck with a bungalow over there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a small piece of property. Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think we all felt the same, downsize the house. MR. MESKOURIS: 15 feet will put me way behind the adjoining property and way behind some of the other properties on that beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, if you want to come look at the aedal, we'll show you what we are talking about. Here the aerial. We drew this line here. MR. MESKOURIS: This is the existing house. That's my house. And we want to build here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. MR. MESKOURIS: But we have a structure here, a structure here and her property is protruding out here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We understand that. What you are talking about is a house that is not adjacent to the property. If you look at what the code says, it says immediately adjacent homes, and you'll see, this is the survey you submitted. And so I'm demonstrating here -- MR. MESKOURIS: I understand that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we went by. MR. MESKOURIS: The thing is this house is in pretty bad shape and I know the property is going up for sale or whatever, but the thing is that somebody that takes this house won't be able to live in this house. It doesn't have heat, it's falling apart. They'll use this house to set some sort of precedence to bring this out, house all the way out here (indicating). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't allow, just because one house is Board of Trustees 32 September 22, 2010 protruding, it has to stay within the line. So we would not let it go out past that line. MR. MESKOURIS: See, these houses here, if you go down the block, you see how these houses are way out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As per the code, it's the adjacent houses. These are the houses. This is the most current aerial we took off the computer. And it matches with your survey, so we would like to have it moved back. MR. MESKOURIS: I thought it was just the whole line going down the road. It can't just go with the adjacent houses. And she doesn't object, she has 125 feet of property. She doesn't object. I spoke to her already. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you scale the 15 feet out I think you may find is actually may approach more of an average than what you are requesting. It's a generous pull back, not to the protective side, but -- MR. MESKOURIS: It brings the house back to almost 30 feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In relation to the overall setbacks it doesn't appear that it's as severe -- MR. MESKOURIS: I followed the coastal erosion line, I'm behind the coastal erosion line. I really don't understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll read the code for you. It's 275-11(a), section three: New and remodeled homes. New and remodeled homes cannot be situated or modified such that they project closer to the wetland boundary than homes on either side of the subject lot. So that's either side. It doesn't include houses down the street. MR. MESKOURIS: So in other words, these three houses, these three houses have to be in the same line, and it will be setback compared to the other line of houses? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not addressing other homes. We are just addressing your application. And what we looked out now in the field twice and have determined is that we feel your home, the footprint of the home must be pulled back at least 15 feet from its present location. MR. MESKOURIS: That's a lot of footage. I don't accept that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table this application so you can work it out with your amhitect? MR. MESKOURIS: What do you mean "table" it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In other words we won't make a decision on it tonight. You can take it back to the drawing board and come back to us next month. MR. MESKOURIS: What do you suggest, Frank? MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro, I'm the architect for the Meskouris'. Basically we are dealing with a ten-foot deck there on the house. So you are suggesting another five feet of the actual house plus the deck be removed. Board of Trustees 33 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, the overhang of the house went out the extension of that deck. We went through this last month when we looked at the plans, and it's not just the deck. You have an overhang of the entire structure going out above that deck. MR. NOTARO: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we are looking to move the whole footprint back 15 feet. MR. NOTARO: Right. Obviously we went over this before. The septic is where it is. We have Health Department approval on that. We can't move the house closer to the road at this point. Now, if we built the deck without the covering, is that constituting, including in that 15 feet? We had discussed that briefly at the last meeting in terms of not disturbing -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about taking the deck off and the overhang above it. MR. NOTARO: Taking the overhang off and leaving the deck on. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are not back 15 feet. Even if we were to say yes to that, the house without the deck would still be in front of the line, as we measured it out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what he's saying is take the overhang off the deck, make it just the deck, no covering, move the house back five feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did I misunderstand? I apologize. MR. NOTARO: That's what we discussed at the last meeting. You discussed that possibly and now I'm resuggesting that back to the Board, you know, to be included in that 15 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My understanding is decks are not, as long as they don't have a cover over them, are not included in this code. It's just the actual covered structures; is that correct? TRUSTEE KING: I think that's pretty much the way we interpreted it. MR. NOTARO: If I could produce a drawing in the next three or four days, can we send it for your approval, to look at it? In other words with the deck, cutting back an additional five feet of the structure itself, the building, everything moves back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would the Board feel comfortable moving the house back five feet and no cover on the deck and then subject to new plans, or do you want to wait until we get the plans and look at them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would wait until we get the plans. I'm interested in the footprint of the home, excluding the deck being back behind the lines we determined to be appropriate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see it staked that way and we could go out and look at it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine with me. I'm just one person. MR. NOTARO: You just basically said the deck is counting as the footprint of the house. Board of Trustees 34 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as you take the cover off, it won't count. So you can't cover the deck, now or in the future. MR. NOTARO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It always has to remain an open deck with no covering. MR. NOTARO: So am I to understand the overall movement back is from the edge where it is now toward the wetland, 15 feet, so we are basically moving the actual occupied space back five feet plus {he deck would be uncovered? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And I think we are inclined to table this. You have to stake it out to what we are talking about, and we'll go and inspect it next month, with the new plans. MR. NOTARO: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we make sure we are all on the same page and know exactly. MR. NOTARO: Okay, we'll submit those new plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a small lot. TRUSTEE KING: It's putting ten foot of house in a five pound bag. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application to review it further with the changes next month. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of ERIC KLODNICKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 12x18' elevated deck and 3.3'x13' stairs. Located: 2350 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. The project has been deemed consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has moved to approve this with their support. Trustee field inspection has found no problem with the application. I open this matter to any comments for the public hearing. MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if there are any questions from the Board and public. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a straightforward application for a small deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looked at it. It's straightforward. It's just really squaring off what is existing, and it's even with the house. There is plenty of vegetation and it's far enough away from any wetlands. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And even with the existing elevated deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? (No response). Hearing none, I move to close the hearing in this matter. Board of Trustees 35 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of SlLVANA CADEDDU requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-12'x+/-23' second-story addition over one-story portion of existing two-story, one-family dwelling; construct a +/-10.5'x22' two-story addition; and construct a +/-55'x+/-9' deck and steps. Located: 1380 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. The Board did go out and looked at this. This was determined to be exempt under the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Again, we went out and we looked at it. It looked like a straighfforward application. The only condition we wanted to make sure was met, that it complies with Chapter 236, the drainage code, so the home would be, with the changes, the home would be brought into compliance with 236 with the use of gutters and drywells. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of applicants. Just a couple of quick things, Dave. I just handed up a revised site plan that essentially improves the overall scope of the project. There is an existing asphalt driveway on the east side of the property, so we would just like to amend our application to replace that asphalt driveway with a pervious gravel driveway, which would actually bring the lot coverage by impervious surfaces down by about four or 5%. It's not an issue of coverage with the town because the Building Department does not treat driveways as coverage but, anyway, it would be an additional improvement to the property. We did show a proposed drywell for roof runoff associated with the proposed addition, that's on the survey, just to the north of the house, near that driveway. But otherwise you are right, it's a straightforward project, it's exempt from LWRP due to the fact that it's less than a 25% increase in the footprint of the existing dwelling. And otherwise it's just a vertical addition over the existing garage, which is currently the only one-story portion of the house. And you probably saw that as required by your prior permit for the bulkhead replacement there is a non-turf buffer that is established now, and bounded with a railroad tie down near the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Board of Trustees 36 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Jim is just stating, we had talked about this with the permit application from the bulkhead. It's unfortunate there is a drain, a town drain on Wiggins Lane that has a drain pipe running all the way through and goes out under their bulkhead and out into the water. It's just frustrating for the Board, we go through all these steps to try to address 236 and we are telling the applicant to address 236 and here our Town-maintained drain is in violation of 236. TRUSTEE KING: It's frustrating for me. It really is. I don't know. MR. HERMAN: You have to put the water somewhere. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But getting back to the application with the addition of the asphalt driveway, just a portion of it is within our jurisdiction. But again, I think you are absolutely correct, that this improves the proposed project from an environmental prospective. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). 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 En-Consultants on behalf of Silvana Cadeddu as described at 1380 Wiggins Lane, as per the plans stamped received August 30, 2010, which shows the asphalt driveway replaced by a pervious driveway, and the plan is in compliance with Chapter 236 and it is exempt under the LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Dave, if you just wanted to reference the actual date of the plan itself, it's September 16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, the plan -- MR. HERMAN: You mentioned stamped received. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stamped received August 30. It's August 18, 2010 update, I have here. MR. HERMAN: September 16 is the last date on the map I just handed up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I apologize. You are absolutely right. We want to make sure all the technicalities are there. That's the motion. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of ANNETTE CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to add an 1 lx21' covered sunroom to the southeast of the existing structure; raise the existing roof over the existing kitchen/living room Board of Trustees 37 September 22, 2010 area; and add 24-square feet to the existing deck. Located: 1185 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. This is found to be consistent with LWRP, with the recommendation that the vegetated buffer be required landward from the edge of the tidal wetlands. Did you look at this, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council moved to resolve to support the wetland permit with the condition of a drainage plan to contain the roof runoff from the dwelling. Conservation Advisory Council also observed a public safety issue with the location of the existing driveway. What's that all about? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know. That's well outside our jurisdiction, but. MR. MCGREEVEY: It was a notation we felt it was worth while mentioning because the one that did the inspection of the property brought it to our attention. I didn't see the property myself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So they are talking about this is a hazard area up here, in here somewhere. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess. TRUSTEE KING: This looks pretty simple. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it helps you out, Jim, I was the one that went out and looked at this property. I had no problem with this. The only question I had was to make sure, again, that it complies with 236, the project complies with 236. And also, again, if this turns into a demo, in other words if dudng the construction phase you find that this whole structure has to be demolished, that you need to return to the Board for an appropriate permit. MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you wish to speak on this application? MR. WILLIAMSON: Just don't wish that upon us. Nigel Robert Robert Williamson for Mrs. Campbell. And I will submit a drainage plan. TRUSTEE KING: Looks pretty simple to me. Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response). Board comments? (No response). Hearing none, 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. Does it show, do we need drywells for roof runoff? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I recommend, under 236, there be gutters, leaders and drywells to address the roof runoff. Board of Trustees 38 September 22, 2010 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll give you a drainage plan. TRUSTEE KING: With that being said, I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Mark Schwartz, Architect, on behalf of THOMAS & MAUREEN DOWLING requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition between the existing house and existing garage apartment; construct alterations within building; second-floor expansion; proposed rear deck; and screened-in porch. Located: 1200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. This is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because of possible wetland code violation on the property. The area seaward of the limits of clearing is being mowed and should be addressed before consideration of this application. Dave inspected this. His notes are clearing toward water with a question mark. So he noted that also. Only the deck is in our jurisdiction, and to comply with Chapter 236, hay bale and silt fence. Is there anybody here to speak to this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. That area down by the flag pole, apparently has been a mowed area for many years previously to when the current owners, the Dowling's, had purchased it. So they have been doing exactly what everyone else has been doing in that property, probably for 20 or 30 years. It doesn't really, visually it doesn't really look like wetland. It's more sandy. This just came up about a month ago when we had the wetlands reflagged because our original application showed that the wetlands was kind of on both sides and not in the middle. We do have a new survey that shows that we have an upland area along the bulkhead, upland along the flag and in this area is considered wetlands, but it's kind of more like a beachy, barely wet area, and it's been mowed for many, many years. I would say probably 20 or 30 years. It's nothing that is new to this property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have the Dowling's recently moved? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMERY: So there should be a photographic record, there might be a photographic record. Not that that would be an issue. That might be an issue to avoid a violation. I don't know the feelings of the Board may want to put it under review. We don't want patens or wetland grasses being mowed on a regular basis. MR. SCHWARTZ: It's really more sandy than grass. If you want to go out there and take a look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we can do, in our review here, we can decide if we want you to stop mowing and it we'll give you a Board of Trustees 39 September 22, 2010 four-foot wide path. That's our general. So we'll discuss it further during this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Two things to recommend. First, since this is, I'm not sure whether that flag pole was ever permitted, so I recommend including that flag pole in this application so that it's permitted and we don't have to worry about that. Again, if it was previously permitted, I'm not worried about it. But I'm just thinking it's so old it was probably was never permitted and I'm just putting it in here just to protect the property owner. The other is obviously the CAC had the same concern I had, and I recommend, as we have done commonly, is approve this with a four-foot wide path going down there to -- when I say going down there, from the upland area near the house, down to the boat basin, pretty much straight, four-foot path, that would not include the area of the flag pole. In other words I understand it has to expanded around that flag pole, slightly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you say up to the area of the house, what do you mean? The edge of the wetlands line here? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is on the survey is edge of wetlands down to the boat basin. That would be fine. That would address the CAC's concern also, I'm thinking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So landward of that edge of wetlands line they can continue lawn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's pretty much lawn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to clarify for the record. MR. MCGREEVEY: As part of that report, I don't see it on the disposition here, the C^C recommended at least ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the designated wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come up here, Jack? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see what he's asking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the survey they just submitted to us, and they have edge of wetland line all the way up here. MR. MCGREEVEY: This is what is in question here (indicating). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The home is here. Here is the edge of the wetland line (indicating). We are saying from here down they cannot mow. MR. MCGREEVEY: Right. And what we are recommending is wherever that wetland line is, is then we recommend at least a ten-foot buffer landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. MCGREEVEY: Because it is lawn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I wanted to clarify where you were talking about. How does the board feel about that? MR. DOWLING: I'm Tom Dowling, the property owner. I bought the property, it was obviously being mowed at the time, I'm sure there is photographic evidence of that. I think the combination of shrinking to a four-foot wide section what amounts to lawn, Board of Trustees 40 September 22, 2010 from my point of view, and adding another buffer, ten feet wide, greatly reduces the property that I purchased. I'm not entirely sure I would have purchased it if I knew these restrictions would have applied. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I have to disagree. It doesn't reduce the size of the property at all. MR. DOWLING: No, the usable property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And again, non-turf buffer, it usable property, as far as we are concerned. We have people put in gravel non-turf buffers that you can put chairs on. Decks you can put chairs on. Limited plantings with combination of mulch and gravel you can put chairs in. So it's usable area. MR. DOWLING: It just can't be grass, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, it can't be turf, that's all. MR. DOWLING: I'm fine, in that case. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the Board feel? Do you want to see an additional ten-foot, non-turf buffer?. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree, I don't think it's necessary in that area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think it's necessary either because essentially what we are creating is a very large non-turf buffer between the edge of wetlands down to the boat basin and we are limiting a four-foot path. So I think in doing so that is a very large non-turf buffer, so I don't see the need to go farther landward than edge of wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, any other comments? (No response). From the audience? MR. SCHWARTZ: One other thing, that area that is mowed is not fertilized. The fertilized you can see the difference. It is not touched. It's a good wetlands area, it's purely natural. MR. DOWLING: That's the intent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Any comments from the Board? (No response). Motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Thomas and Maureen Dowling as submitted, with inclusion of the flag pole and with the condition of the area from the edge of the wetlands seaward, not to be mowed, and a four-foot wide path may be maintained. And subject to a survey dated August 24, 2010. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. Board of Trustees 41 September 22, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark, do you want to give us new plans showing the area not to be mowed and the four-foot wide path, and we'll stamp those. MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number nine, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC, on behalf of PENN DUPONT SANGER AND HOUSE 57LLC request a Wetland Permit to combine lots 19&20; demolish the existing dwelling on lot 19 and renovate the existing dwelling on lot 20 with an addition on the west side. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. We were -- were we all there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Jim, you and I. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: The majority of the Board did see this application. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. LWRP has found this to be consistent with LVVRP, and I guess, just to summarize, essentially it's two lots, each lot having a house on it. One will be removed. The lots are essentially going to be combined. The notes we have from our field inspection is we would like to see the septic moved back and the non-turf buffer, the one non-turf buffer extend into the other lot so it's a continuous non-turf buffer across both lots. Also it should be noted at least here in the hearing, in doing this, it will create a non-conformity in the sense there will be two docks on one property, which is not allowed by code. However, it is a pre-existing condition, historically this has had those two docks, and I don't think the Board really wanted to see you remove one dock because you were taking down a house and extending the other house. MS. RUTHERFURD: Billy Rutherfurd, Kinlin & Rutherfurd. We submitted a revised site plan since your visit which shows the septic moved back, I think three feet. That's basically as far as it can come back without going under the driveway, and the Health Department, you would need to have penalties and a covenant in the deed for the owner if we need to put the septic under the driveway. TRUSTEE KING: It's close to the garage. MS. RUTHERFURD: And the other concern is there is a well near the garage, which is currently used for irrigation, but if the septic is moved under the driveway, that septic would have to be abandoned. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did anybody see this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's moved back a little. So that's something MR. KINLIN: Bruce Kinlin, Kinlin Rutherfurd. We had a discussion, actually with Dick Strauss, head of CME, we had a discussion as part of our team with the Health Department. Not specifically, didn't show them this site plan. But when we, after your visit, which we were not at, which I have a question Board of Trustees 42 September 22, 2010 about also, I just was not sure whether you wanted us there or not. So we just, anyway, we were not there. Anyway I spoke with Penn was there, Penn Sanger, and he gave us the feedback that was one of the comments. So we spoke to Dick Strauss of CME and they said they wanted the septic pulled back further, even under the driveway, perhaps. And his concem was we can do that. I'm just not sure the Health Department will approve that. Then he had a conversation with the Health Department. Not specifically looking at this. He didn't forward them a plan and have a discussion. But he said can we put the septic under the driveway. And the feedback we got from Dick was that in cases where people have done that before going to the Health Department, they have been fine, they have been allowed to keep it, they have been fined, and they were required to put kind of a structural slab above it with kind of an extension of the access to the system. So he asked further and he feels that if we pull that back, that the Health Department might allow us to actually do it, the owner would have to pay a fine, then the owner has to sign a covenant saying the Health Department is not responsible for issues that arise from the system being under the driveway. So our thought was to, in consultation with Dick Strauss, was to follow your, try to implement your request and pull it back. And so in the new drawing it's a little different, not much, from the one you saw originally, it's pulled back a little closer to the driveway. Anyway, that's -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I thought the Health Department allowed them but you have to have a traffic beadng top over the cesspool. MS. RUTHERFURD: It's not only that. It needs to have a traffic bearing top. You have to pay a fine to them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a process for that. It's called a review board and you make an appeal much like you would appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals or any appellate boards. So that it can be done if it's deemed or it certainly can be applied for, if it's deemed a direction this Board wants it to go. As far as fines, the review board is a review body much like a Zoning Board of Appeals and they have their own individual standards for applying, if an individual decides to thwart the intent of the sanitary code, then they might be looking at fines. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the upland side of the home there is not really very much room to work at all when you consider you have the garage and driveway. MR. KINLIN: The other potential location we looked at was further on the northwest corner closer to the northeast corner, sorry, closer to the, far enough away from the house to be allowable but closer to the neighbor's property. And the issue Board of Trustees 43 September 22, 2010 there is the neighbor has a well just on the other side of the line. Sanger approached the neighbor and asked them would he consider abandoning the well and removing it and running off town water, but he didn't want to undertake that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it's still 52 feet away from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it is pretty raised over there. Pretty high off the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: It is what it is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Any other comments or questions from the audience? (No response). The Board? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion we approve the application noting the change on the new plans which are dated September 21, 2010, showing a new location of the septic system and also noting a hay bale line which is to be maintained during construction. And that is already on the plans. MS. RUTHERFURD: The date on the revised drawing is actually September 8. It may have been received on the 21st. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Received September 21. Dated September 8. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. KINLIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Fairweather Design Associates, Inc., on behalf of HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing deteriorated and collapsing foundation of the existing cottage and install a drywell for roof runoff; construct a non-habitable attic space, replace the existing waterside porch; construct a landward entry addition, an outdoor shower on the south side; and replace the windows, siding and roof framing. Located: Unit 5, Sage Blvd., Southold. The project is exempt under the LWRP. The Trustees have been to this site twice now; previously for a wetland permit issued that dealt with the foundation replacement and the drywells, and now a more expansive set of plans for these other items and elevations of the proposed construction on the house. The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to, was not able to make an inspection, so we do not have a CAC report on this job. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MARTIN: Good evening, Amy Martin here for Fairweather Design Associates representing Hernan Otano. As you know, you issued a Board of Trustees 44 September 22, 2010 permit to lift this house, repair the foundation, previously, and then at this point in time we have done further discovery and certain parts of the structure are in serious disrepair and we were advised by your department to re-apply as there could be considerable damage in the moving process, and as such, major repairs will need to be done and would like to be done to this structure. I have -- there is an error on one of the application documents which just shows -- the draftsman didn't change a two foot above grade marking, it's actually a 3'9" when we reach the eight foot necessary for the flood plain elevation. And upon discovery with the designer, the existing roof is 2x4's three foot on center. So in an effort to keep it from imploding, we will have to re-roof, and in the process, the applicant has asked that he get a four foot over addition of height to it. The only thing I'm not totally sure of is your review of the exterior shower. I assume we would need to make sure that that also runs to the runoff or is the water usage there not considered enough to deem that. I mean we obviously would have it pitched away from the foundation so as not to do any damage there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say in that area it would not hurt to be attached to it, because it's such a Iow area and it's so close to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And very clayey. MS. MARTIN: Very clayey, as we all know. The renovation is totally keeping with the character. It will be a seasonal cottage. We are not trying to be anything else. We are just trying to keep it from falling down. And the only thing that we have that was not on the original application that is closer to the bulkhead is the stairs were not included in the original application. Which would be needed, as it is now. It needs five steps to get down to grade level. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the house. MS. MARTIN: On the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have those revised plans you want to issue to us now, or -- MS. MARTIN: I do not have the one that just shows the 3'9". I'll submit that tomorrow. I only realized that tonight that that was a typo. The elevations show the property, proper amount, it's just that one -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional questions or concerns? (No response). We all went to the site. I think we didn't, based on the configuration, the land slopes significantly back toward the house from the bulkhead, so we didn't feel it needed a hay bale line during construction. At least that's the field discussion I recall when we looked at the site. Board of Trustees 45 September 22, 2010 MS. MARTIN: So we had included the hay bale line and it's not necessary?. Even though we are replacing the seaward porch? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The DEC may require it in their permit, so you may not want to remove it. MS. MARTIN: We have a revised approval from the DEC. They have approved it and I do believe it has the hay bale line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I stand corrected. I was under the impression I didn't see a line on the plans I was looking at. I know there was a brief discussion concerning it. It's pretty straightforward. Any further comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: What happens if you pick it up and it falls apart? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just moved but we have not seconded yet. MS. DOWDE: Hi, I'm Mary Dowd. My husband and I own two cottages at Breezy Shores. And I have a question. This is going to, if the expansion of footprint is approved, I wanted to know will it be setting a precedent? No one at Breezy Shores has expanded a footprint. And I'm curious to know from you how that will affect other shareholders because I imagine it will probably prompt a lot of the different shareholders. This is a co-op and we own the land communally. Will it allow other shareholders to, because now we are using buildable, areas being built up more with housing. Can we -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't believe it's expanding the footprint. I believe the footprint is the same. MS. MARTIN: There is a landward porch/mudroom addition. That's expanding six feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I'm sorry. MS. DOWDE: So my question is: How does that affect people down the road, ten years from now, if 15 people want to expand the footprint, will that affect other shareholders, since now the land mass is being filled up with more housing? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any restrictions or anything on the deeds or co-ops that would not allow them to do it? MS. DOWDE: Yes, we have within our own community, we have restrictions. MS. MARTIN: I believe the restrictions, if I may interject, from what I understand, the restrictions have so that no more bedrooms or whatever can be, because of the septic system, so there is no more drain on septic systems that exist. For non-livable space and for egress-type things, I don't believe that they pick that out as something that can't be done. MS. DOWDE: You can apply for a variance within the Board. TRUSTEE KING: Were these restrictions put in by the town or -- MS. MARTIN: It's not a town issue. We checked that out. Board of Trustees 46 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: We have nothing to do with that. If it's not town imposed, that's a private situation we are not part of. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Although the bedroom issue might be with the original approval. MS. MARTIN: I think that's part of the covenant with the property owners as far as not stressing the existing septic systems that are there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this area is so old we would not have C&R's on any subdivisions and planning at this point. I think it's way before that time. TRUSTEE KING: It's something we don't get involved in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not town imposed, so. MS. MARTIN: No, we checked that out. MS. DOWDE: Say everyone decided to expand their footprint by 15 or 20%, does it limit future owners of cottages by one cottage being larger, do you look at it from that point of view or how do you decide? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, each -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not from the Trustees' perspective. From the Trustees' perspective we are just looking at it in terms of how it affects the wetlands. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were looking to see it doesn't go any closer to the wetland edge. By the same token, the Building Department would be looking at the town building requirements as far as setbacks and setoffs. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This may indeed be one permit out of several the applicant has to get to be able to do this work. MS. DOWDE: I see. Thank you. MS. MARTIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I made a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted per the plans. We have two separate dates for a site foundation plan, which is dated July 22, and the elevations, plan of elevations which is dated on August 16, 2010. I so move. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, Condon Engineering, PC, on behalf of CAROL R. DENSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 1,400 square foot second-floor addition to the existing building, install a French drain throughout the parking lot, install a 25' vegetated buffer along the landward side of Board of Trustees 47 September 22, 2010 the retaining wall, and install a post and rail fence or an approved equal at the edge of the buffer zone. Located: 750 Old Main Road, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP. It was found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of lateral public access path. The Board did go out and looked at this and this is what was the Old Barge Restaurant. And so we have looked at it. So is anybody here to speak on behalf of this applicant? MR. CONDON: John Condon, on behalf of the owner Carol Denson. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a couple of things, just to confirm. It appears on the plans that have been submitted this second floor addition is clearly within the footprint of the first floor addition, it's not expanding outside of that footprint. MR. CONDON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we looked at this, as people who are not engineers, it was pretty apparent, our concern was that the structure is -- anybody familiar with The Barge -- leans in about three different directions, the roof is sagging, and structurally, will it be able to handle the weight of putting a second floor addition on it without the whole thing collapsing? MR. CONDON: When you come into the harbor there on the boat, you can see it very well. From what I understand, the second floor structure will be supported by piles separately from the rest of the building. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha. Because you understand if this becomes a demo or a teardown, you have to come back before the Board. MR. CONDON: Absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you propose to do with the sagging part, that has to be fixed before -- MR. CONDON: That is something the owner will have to look into. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have to come back to us for that as well. MR. CONDON: I'll bring that up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anything you do, if it's a repair, even if it's just raising it and putting another piling, you have to come back to us. MR. CONDON: I know that floor always had a -- it was never leveled. We noticed it. I'll bdng it up to the owner, definitely. TRUSTEE KING: The bottom line is this second floor would be basically self supporting. MR. CONDON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: You are not relying on The Barge itself for support of the second floor. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The structure itself is actually larger than what is there, unless you plan on putting supports through the restaurant. MR. CONDON: The piles will actually go through what is below. As part of the work we have a permit to do some floor repair and Board of Trustees 48 September 22, 2010 they airs going to provide a space to allow the piles to be drifted through. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification, looking at the plans heirs. The post and mil fence you airs proposing -- I find it now. It runs parallel to the floating dock in the non-turf buffer area. MR. CONDON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just didn't see it when I first looked at the plans. MR. CONDON: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is theirs anybody else in the audience that wants to speak on behalf of this application, either for or against this application? (No response). Again, we would want to make sums this complies with Chapter 236 of the drainage code of the Town the Southold, which includes the use of gutters, leaders and drywells. MR. CONDON: Okay, we do have very large gravel drain going in that will accommodate a four-inch rainfall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The French drain, yes. MR. CONDON: Yes, that was approved by DEC. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it fits into Chapter 236, that's fine. MR. CONDON: And runoff will be directed to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think given the scope of the construction project we would also like to see a silt fence and hay bale line between the proposed construction area and the mean high water mark. I know theirs is very little room in theirs to work, and so I would try to tuck that up as close as you can to the structure. MR. CONDON: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, is theirs any asphalt parking area theirs that should be taken into consideration? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's all existing gravel parking ama. MR. CONDON: Might be a small ama for handicap parking, if I recall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, but that's further, it's landward of the building or landward end of the building. MR. CONDON: Yes, it's up by where the entrance is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Condon Engineering on behalf of Carol Denson described at 750 Old Main IR with the condition of the inclusion of a hay bale and silt fence line between the mean high water mark and the proposed constructed ama of the structure, and then to make sums that the project complies with Chapter 236 of the Southold Board of Trustees 49 September 22, 2010 Town Drainage Code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it is found consistent under the LWRP. MR. CONDON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of ALEX HILLENBRAND requests a Wetland Permit to install a retaining wall adjacent to the house ad renovate wetland plantings to native species. Located: 50 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck. It was found consistent with the LWRP. I don't see anything from the Conservation Advisory Council. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, can we go back to the other, to the last one. I want to re-do the resolution. First I'll do a resolution to reopen the public hearing. I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then I would like to add to Dave's resolution that if there is any demolition, that they have to come back to us for an amendment. So Dave's resolution, what he said, but add to it if there is demolition. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I included that in the discussion. It was not in the resolution, you're right, but in the discussion I addressed that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it should also be addressed in the resolution letter. We have to put it in the resolution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Okay, number 12, again, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of ALEX HILLENBRAND requests a Wetland Permit to install a retaining wall adjacent to the house ad renovate wetland plantings to native species. Located: 50 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck. Like I said, it was found consistent under the LWRP. I don't see anything in here from the Conservation Advisory Council. Probably because I had the file. Did anybody go out and look at this, Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: I did. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: We don't support the application because the project was not staked at the time it was inspected. There is a serious drainage problem presently flowing directly into the wetlands. And there is also a serious runoff condition from the town road into their property and into the wetlands. So we do Board of Trustees 50 September 22, 2010 have a problem. TRUSTEE KING: Is that a highway drain? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob and I have been out there for that and met with Mr. Hillenbrand a couple of times, and we spoke to Pete Harris about it. It's on our list on the Stormwater Runoff Committee. That's all I could say about that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As a matter of fact, we recognize that as being an issue, particularly in our town, but while I was there, in one particular meeting with Mr. Hillenbrand, somebody, I don't know who it was, pulled up with a whole trailer full of leaves, you know, it was dudng the Fall and took everything and threw it over into the wetlands and took off before we could do anything about it. MR. MCGREEVEY: The wetlands are part of the Hillenbrand property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it goes right all the way down the read there. They dumped everything right over the guardrail. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, on the town property. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there on a pta-submission, all of US. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I went and looked at it the other day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we felt this would enhance the wetland and help the filtration of the water that is running off there. The town still has to do their part on the read. TRUSTEE KING: That's my feeling. He's improving a bad situation. Are there any comments from the audience, pre or con? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design. Again, our proposal is just to help correct some of the problems that exist. The retaining wall adjacent to the house will allow Mr. Hillenbrand access around the house, because right now it dramatically slopes off toward the wetland. Along with the application it would be noted that we retain the gutter water to drywells landward of the wetlands, which do not happen now. So we'll be improving several issues with this permit. TRUSTEE KING: That was my feeling, and I guess the feeling of the Board, too. Any other comments from anybody? MR. MCGREEVEY: One other comment, Jim. If I recall correctly, at present it says "cesspool," I think it says "cesspool." If it's indicated on the diagram. It's very, very close to the present wetland. I don't know if that's a problem, though. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The whole property is close to the wetland. TRUSTEE KING: There is nothing we can really do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no place to put it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we had a discussion in the field. We noticed that also. Board of Trustees 51 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You could put it across the street and it would still be closer than it normally would be. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of JACK BIGGANE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a timber stairway on the bluff. Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because of the following: There is a serious drainage condition on the bluff, the location is questionable for beach stairs because of the close proximity to the property line and in the area of the blowout, and the CAC recommended a best management plan. We don't have an LWRP report and it has not been 30 days, so we cannot make a decision on this tonight. Before I open it up to the floor, I will comment on the stairs are close to the property line because the Biggane's are sharing it with their neighbors. So it will be a shared stairs with the two properties. So we felt that in this case that that would be fine. And we thought that the blowout area, which they have a permit to revegetate and repair, since it's already blown out and there is no vegetation to take out, it's the best place on the property to have that. Are there any comments from the audience? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design representing Jack Biggane. As per the plans we submitted, again, they, the neighbor to the east Jose Suquet and Jack Biggane are actually making some legal documentation so they both have access to the staircase and will be sharing the expenses, at that point. But keeping it located close to the property line on Mr. Biggane's property. And again, we do have the permit to repair the blowout of the bluff and this is the perfect opportunity to, while this is being reconstructed, to coordinate the reconstruction or construction of the new staircase, as per plan. Again, noted on the plan, we are trying to keep the elevation of the staircase walkways a minimum of three to four feet above the vegetation to allow enough sunlight for good erosion control through the slope all the way down to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The catch basin that was placed there many Board of Trustees 52 September 22, 2010 years ago on the guidance of the Trustees that everybody feels has failed, has that been abandoned yet? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Currently not, but will be probably within the next week. It's actually going to be converted to a smaller size catch basin piped back inland 100 feet to a new drywell. That's all part of the other permit process that was approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's what I thought. MR. CHICANOWICZ: The drywell is part of that permit process, the other one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So I'll make sure that other permit is forwarded to the LWRP so they can review it as well. MR. CHICANOWICZ: That should have a major impact on what they conclude. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because I did speak to Mark and that was his major concern is the drainage in that area. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Right, as well as ours. Because we determined that's the soume of the blowouts on this these bluffs are these drywells. We also found out the pool companies have been dumping all their water in there. So I'm make a strong notation to these owners they'll never put another drop in this or anywhere near this area. TRUSTEE KING: Would that water have to be pumped landward? MR. CHICANOWICZ: They can pump it landward. There is plenty of farm fields for acres. TRUSTEE KING: I mean from the present drywell now, if you use that as a small catch basin. MR. CHICANOWICZ: We are using it because it's actually at the lowest point of the two yards. TRUSTEE KING: That water has to be pumped landward from that. MR. CHICANOWICZ: We'll actually have some fairly deep trenches going back. TRUSTEE KING: That will be a big change in elevation there. MR. CHICANOWICZ: One property, not so bad. The other one, a lot more. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that addresses the drainage. MR. CHICANOWICZ: We'll also be maintaining the slight berm that is existing there along the bluff edge so that we can contain any rain water back to the catch basin and, again, pipe it landward. MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council would also like to make a recommendation pertaining to drainage. There is a small drainage pipe on your eastern property line that comes down parallel with the stairs, and it just empties itself right on to the top of the slope. It's a plastic -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we noticed that, too. TRUSTEE KING: Couldn't figure out where it was coming from. MR. MCGREEVEY: I couldn't figure out where it came from but that Board of Trustees 53 September 22, 2010 should be addressed. MR. CHICANOWICZ: It's something that will be removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (No response). Unfortunately we'll have to table this until next month until we receive the LWRP report. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion that we table this application for the LWRP report and also, Lauren, if you can make sure that Mark gets a copy of the -- MS. STANDISH: He has it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Great, thank you. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JOSEPH ZEVlTS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, northerly deck and a second-story deck and stairs facing the water, staked hay bales and silt fencing along the six-foot contour line prior to construction, 10' non-turf planted buffer area with a four-foot wide access path to the water, pervious driveway, and gutters, leaders and drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: 1945 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. The Board was out there and we have all seen this. This is coming back to us, as I understand, because it expired, right? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The CAC resolved to support the application. LWRP finds it inconsistent with LWRP because of the setback issues. If the action is approved, LWRP does ask that the applicant use best management practices and require a 25-foot non-turf buffer. That being said, again, it's just, this was approved once before. It expired. I just want to double check to make sure -- everything is the same? MR. ANDERSON: It was approved in 2008. It was amended in 2009. It expired last July 23 of this year. We filed the exact same application that was approved. LVVRP issues were mitigated by the ten-foot active planning to runoff controls that were made part of this application. So these are conditions that were exacted on this property by this Board. It ovemame the previous. So to my mind since there has been no change in law, there should be no change in conditions. It should simply be re-approved. TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent the first go around? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Bob, the date of the first LWRP review? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: July, 2008. Board of Trustees 54 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it was found inconsistent at that time. This Board amended to address that, found it consistent. So it should remain consistent under the LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: Precisely. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll just copy the same permit that was there the first time. That's all. MR. ANDERSON: That's what I would like. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions, comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application and just copy the existing permit and change the dates on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would just, also, with regard to the inconsistency under LWRP those inconsistencies were addressed in the permit of 2008. So as such we find this application consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVIES FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x64' fixed elevated catwalk; 3x15' hinged ramp and a 6x20' floating dock on the eastern shoreline of the subject property. Located: 2385 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. The Board went out and did field inspections on this project. The entire Board was there. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has voluminous comments to bolster its inconsistent review, which will probably take a bit of time. I'll go through them point by point. And the Conservation Advisory Council supported the application and recommends the dock be constructed in an "L" to reach adequate water depth. I believe there was some discussions at the CAC meeting that I attended as the Trustee liaison that parallel some of the Trustees' concems on field inspection concerning having adequate water depth but not extending out beyond the existing pier line. Now for the LWRP comments. The application does not include the dimensions of the proposed vessel for the dock and standards under 275 that LWRP believes should be considered is to whether the dock will unduly interfere with public use of waterways for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, waterskiing, other water dependent activities. We did feel the Board of Trustees 55 September 22, 2010 proposed dock may stick out a little beyond the pier line so it conceivably could be a problem for water skiing in Little Creek. There was a vessel moored beyond it that was a concern when we were out there. Again, relating to the length of the dock. Whether the dock would unduly prevent people from moving along the foreshore, the elevation of the dock was in fact discussed by the Board while we were doing field survey. The project is located within a critical environmental area so the Board may consider modifications to the structure to protect elements of critical vegetation in the critical environmental area. I think that was also part of the Board's discussion during the course of the site inspection. I mean the comments are voluminous, but many are exactly what the Board was looking at at the time of the inspection without the benefit of the inconsistent review -- excuse me, the determination of inconsistency. The water depth at the terminus of the dock of the structure is indicated to be 4.3 feet and it was recommended to be shortened to reconfigure the dock to achieve minimum water depth of 3.8 feet or less. That is also in keeping with what the Board determined independently on its inspection. And preserve the public interest in the use of lands and waters held in the public trust by the state and Southold. There was an indication the applicant could access the waters obtaining a temporary vessel moodng permit. This is purely discretionary for the Board of Trustees. I don't think it really has a place in the LWRP determination but, anyhow, that's what we have from the LWRP on this. Anyone here wish to speak on behalf of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I put together an aerial photograph to give you an idea -- TRUSTEE KING: This dock is pretty much surrounded by docks, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is how the neighborhood looks. And I'm not going to quibble with if something is two feet longer than the dock next door. I would be happy to shorten it two feet. TRUSTEE KING: There is plenty of water depth. MR. ANDERSON: There is clearly no impact to navigation. We all know no one water skis here. As far as movement along the foreshore, I would be more than happy to put in a set of stairs to go up and over it, if that's what the Board requires. It seems that would mitigate that concern. Whether or not the LWRP or through the LWRP they designate the area a critical environmental area does not preclude the construction of a dock. The temporary moodng permit we don't feel is a reasonable alternative, given what is out there. We don't have the dimensions for the boat. I suppose I could ask what kind of boat would be docked there. I will tell you this, though, we did consider making the dock an "L" shaped and we are requested Board of Trustees 56 September 22, 2010 to make it straight because it's the fellow's grandchildren who will be using the dock, it will be much easier to get in to and from the dock. That's why it's made out straight. The dock directly south of it is laid out in an almost identical condition and hasn't apparently caused any kind of navigational hazard or any of the impacts that are listed in the LWRP. Having said that, we can be flexible and we could reduce this by a couple of feet. If you have a recommendation, I would certainly consider that. And as far as we are suitably elevated off the existing grade because it comes off the top of that stairway. So I don't think there are any shading impacts. And because the dock extends, essentially eastward into the creek, and the sun travels across the southern sky, I don't believe there is any shading concern that rises to the level of changing it here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that is fairly the discussion; the Board was looking at the vegetation heights under neighboring docks and didn't feel vegetation was a large concern. I would just like too refer to the field notes for the inspection. Actually I think the Board was inclined to feel that the height of the proposed dock could actually be lowered because neighboring docks are much lower than what you propose. And they still have very ample Altema flora growth right up through the floor boards. The Board's concerns was to move the dock, I think in the field we were discussing some three or four feet. Which would still give you the depth. MR. ANDERSON: I think that's fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we were going to request that you lower to match the height of the neighbor, which would be to the south. There was some open discussion on the fact of whether or not we would suggest open-grating or not, but that might help address additional concerns for the LWRP for what would span over water, so if we are looking at widgeon grass or other beneficial vegetation in the water column, that maybe open grating would suffice to meet some of the legitimate LWRP concerns for habitat protection. MR. ANDERSON: I don't personally have a problem with the open-grating dock. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That pretty much, that was the configuration -- we tossed it around and I don't know, maybe the Board has additional comments concerning configuration. TRUSTEE KING: No, I think that's it. Just make it shorter. If you chop four feet off it, that's more than enough, I think. MR. ANDERSON: We would be fine with four feet shorter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we would amend the 4x64 to 4x60 fixed elevated catwalk. MR. ANDERSON: All right. Board of Trustees 57 September 22, 2010 MR. MCGREEVEY: Would the stair case be recommended by the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, relative to what the neighbors have, the neighbors are, correct me if I'm wrong, approximately two-and-a-half to three feet below what the proposed is, and that would put the level at the mean high water, that would be traversed. It's not particularly an area where we want a lot of walking anyway because it has such a heavy, emerging line of vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: Who will be trampling through the wetlands. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it's one of those areas, if it's below Iow tide, you are moving below Iow tide and you can duck under the structures. Otherwise it's very uncomfortable to walk through heavy Spartina. MR. MCGREEVEY: That would be a condition in the future, specific sites, whether a staircase is appropriate or not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: If you have an open beach area, sandy beach area, people like to walk, of course. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By having open grating and the dock lower it allows for persons to walk. TRUSTEE KING: In a heavily vegetated wetland, why would anyone walk through that? Just to have public access. MR. ANDERSON: Why would you want people walking through that. TRUSTEE KING: Right. MR. MCGREEVEY: So it's specific to the site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Hearing none, I move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting in this matter subject to conditions that will address concerns of the LWRP in that we require open-grating decking; that the decking be moved approximately three feet lower than the proposed, to match that of the neighbor; and submission of plans consistent with that elevation; and that the terminus of the dock be moved landward four feet. MR. ANDERSON: Shortened. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's right. That's what I mean. Terminus, the end of it, moved in four feet. MR. ANDERSON: So we have the 4x60 foot catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, adjust the description to 4x60 foot catwalk. Board o f Trustees 58 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I would move that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With those changes find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 16, Costello Marine Contracting, on behalf of CEDAR BEACH PARK ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing cross-over stairway to beach; remove existing face pilings and cut down top of existing 40' bulkhead section; construct 40' of new bulkhead to match adjacent east bulkhead immediately in front of old bulkhead; regrade northwest corner of beach area to match grade at east bulkhead; and construct new cross-over stairway to beach. Located: Cedar Beach, Inlet Way Road, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that there is lateral access for the public. The Board did go out and looked at this application, and we found it to be a very straightforward application. There is plenty of reom between the high tide mark and the structure to allow for public access along the beach there. So is there anybody here to comment on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. We are the agents for the Cedar Beach Association on this application. And basically it's a bulkhead that is in dire need of repair. People have used this bulkhead as access for rebuilding some of the bulkheads there. They are picking the machinery off the top of it. And the age of the bulkhead, it's probably more than 40 years of age. It's creosoted and it's just so deteriorated it's going to fail somewhere in the future just because it's totally rotted right now. And it's a replacement with vinyl sheathing, consistent with both parcels, adjoining pamels. If the Board has any questions. TRUSTEE KING: Did you build the original one, John? MR. COSTELLO: I could have. But I didn't. 48 years, to tell you the truth -- I'll tell you who did, though, it was original James Rambo. You could tell by the design of the sheathing and the wood they used. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). No other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. Board of Trustees 59 September 22, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Cedar Beach Park Association as described on Cedar Beach Inlet Way Road. And it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE requests a Wetland Permit to construct 136' of Iow sill bulkhead with two ten-foot returns and 136' of retaining wall with two ten-foot returns. Sheathing for low sill bulkhead to be driven in place and supported by batter pilings. No excavation to be done in inter-tidal marsh area. Located: 960 Willis Creek, Mattituck. This was found inconsistent with LWRP because -- MR. COSTELLO: Could I present new plans to the Board? Because some of the original plans submitted show going into the, through the wetland, and I'm sure that the Board would object to that. So I had the plans revised after the meeting that we had onsite to make sure that we did not interfere with any of the existing wetlands. And I also requested that we excavate a short area adjacent to the property going into the Deep Hole edge of the creek. Instead of spending the additional money to haul in fill and/or try to bring it in by barge, there is minimal access through the property. The only access through the property is through the northwest side, where there is wetlands. It would be difficult. So by taking off a point that is a navigational hazard to the next communities to the west, we would try to excavate the amount of yardage necessary to fill the retaining walls and then revegetate with Alterna flora and native vegetation. That was discussed and we have altered the plans to include that. TRUSTEE KING: You are sure that second wall is 80 feet, John? MR. COSTELLO: Originally we were going to go longer, but we went through and walked through the phragmites. It's only phragmites. But the only spot that was severely eroded into the bank was adjacent to the stairs for about 60 feet. There were a couple of trees that are reots are being undermined, and we stopped right there. The elevation of the land going up hill, too much excavation, so we stopped with less of the upper retaining wall. The upper retaining wall is only two-and-a-half feet out of the bottom, and basically it goes to zero on the west end. So there is no use digging a trench and installing it, so we stopped. TRUSTEE KING: Some of the comments now on the LWRP. File photos indicate the shoreline is relatively stable, except in two areas Board of Trustees 60 September 22, 2010 around the dock pilings and under the existing stairs. The areas lack vegetation. It is recommended the Board require alternative erosion control methods, replanting of vegetation, fiber controls, selective stone armoring in areas where erosion has occurred. It is recommended the Board consider requiring the applicant retain existing vegetation where practical, restore vegetation within the intertidal zone to control erosion. The Iow sill bulkhead proposal includes replanting of disturbed areas, however the species specifications and spacing of the vegetation have not been identified. Those are the comments from the LWRP. MR. COSTELLO: I would like to -- could I submit this as part of the record. How stable that bottom is. TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the wetland application. CAC does not support the application because the barrier is not necessary, it's an intrusion on public land. We have a little history in this area. I know, I think it was the Keith property and Scollard. We had a lot of erosion problems there. I think one of the original concepts was to put a rock revetment in or rock retaining wall of some kind, and when it went to the DEC, the DEC recommended a Iow sill bulkhead. And in my mind, I think it worked out well. There is a wetland area behind it now that would not have been without that Iow sill bulkhead there. I think this type of project is an improvement, environmentally, of the area. It stops the shoreline loss, increases the wetland area, and in my mind they are a good thing to do. I'll listen to any comments from the audience. MR. COSTELLO: Well, I just submitted one photograph which shows, you know, the bog in the area. And I have a couple of more. The bog in the area is not a stable vegetation. What happens is those clumps of bog break off every year and reduce the wetlands. You could see to the west of that project where the beach was barren of any vegetation because the bog has disappeared over a pedod of time. Going through it the other day, I have some photographs, and I gave one, there is no vegetation. And the bog is chunks of bog in the last storm, broke up, and washed around the corner. And that's an ongoing project. TRUSTEE KING: Same thing was happening on Keith's property years ago. MR. COSTELLO: I know. Well, you've seen it. Some of the people have not seen that occur. And that's the irregularity of that shoreline. But it could be stabilized. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And your Iow sill bulkhead, you have open slat? MR. COSTELLO: No, with the elevation of it, it allows, it is Board o f Trustees 61 September 22, 2010 between high and Iow water, so every tide goes above this and feeds the Alterna flora. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So at maximal high tide you are allowing killifish and other products to wash in and out. MR. COSTELLO: A foot point two of water to go over. And it's working next door incredibly well. MR. MCGREEVEY: When you say work next door, you are talking to the east of the present? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, to the east of it is Scollard and Keith. And Keith had a permit to continue the Iow sill bulkhead but I believe it's expired, and I told Rob Herman. You know, I'm not going to go into Rob Herman's backyard, but he should renew that permit for Mr. Keith, and Mr. Keith would like to have it renewed. There is 91 feet that will be open there. It will erode. And I'll submit two additional photographs; one showing the shoalness going into the Willis Creek. It's the area that we propose dredging and I have one area, and I would only take the yardage that I could utilize, and it will probably, for two or three years, help the water flow into Willis Creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to take a little extra and bring it home with you? MR. COSTELLO: I'll tell you, the town, actually, it would be nice if we could get it out of there. It would be asset to the town. Where people have erosion on the shore front, but, it's too bad. TRUSTEE KING: We did another one in Mattituck not too long ago by the Hess station. And I think -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That came out nice. TRUSTEE KING: And the batter piles, that was a suggestion by the DEC. They didn't want deadmen up in the wetland area there. MR. COSTELLO: We changed it. Absolutely. You could put helicais in, without disturbing it, but that drives the cost up considerably. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, I didn't get a look at the new plan but what is being considered is one bulkhead versus two on the odginal application? TRUSTEE KING: No, there is still a second landward retaining wall. Probably 20, roughly, I would say roughly around 20 feet landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It looks like everything we discussed. TRUSTEE KING: I think it will improve the situation there. In my mind. With the experience we had with the Keith and the Scollard properties, I think it's an improvement. Of course those projects were done before we had the LWRP, so there is no reference in their mind on what went on there and how it looks today, compared to the way it looked. MR. COSTELLO: I don't know if the LWRP personnel went and looked at the site and compared. If they did, it was evident the other day, you have to go at Iow tide, when you see the vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know that they physically go out and look Board of Trustees 62 September 22, 2010 at the site or if they look at it from aerials. I don't know MR. COSTELLO: Google. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: With the adjustment, Jim, with the new application, the adjustment, is all the construction on private property and not on public land? Because the original one was, the one nearest the water was on public property. Is it all within the property line? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. MR. MCGREEVEY: Well, that's a question then. TRUSTEE KING: It's hard to tell from this survey. MR. MCGREEVEY: The original application, the bulkhead nearest to the water was definitely, no question about it, off the private property on to public land. TRUSTEE GHOSIO' Is it below the high tide mark on the survey? MR. COSTELLO: I could address that. The proposed Iow sill bulkhead is on public property. And the intention is to preserve the wetlands. It works both ways. By preserving the wetland, it's preserving whatever erosion may future occur to the upland portion of the property. We are using the wetlands as the erosion control device. The vegetation will help everyone. MR. MCGREEVEY: What might happen here, Jim, I'm just taking the devil's advocate side, you set a precedent, then you leave it up to debate with other applications later on. I don't know if you want to go there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this is a unique area. It's like the mouth of the creek, it's not something that is ever going to be walked across. TRUSTEE KING: I could think of four Iow sill bulkheads we did in Mattituck: Scollard, Keith, we did Finora and we did another one down on Deep Hole, and they are all outside of the property line. MR. COSTELLO: This doesn't give this owner the ownership of that. It does not give him the ownership. TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. COSTELLO: He only owns what's in his deed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Functionally it would not make sense to pull it in because then it would diminishing the wetlands you are trying to grow. MR. COSTELLO: No, you would be going backwards. The town will own the wetland, still own the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: Of course. MR. MCGREEVEY: Is that part of the agreement with the town when that takes place, that that bulkhead becomes public property then? I'm just, I don't know. MR, COSTELLO: No, The person that has the permit to put it in has the responsibility of maintaining it. Board of Trustees 63 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Actual ownership, I don't know. MR. MCGREEVEY: Liability. TRUSTEE KING: You are opening up a hell of a can of worms, Jack. MR. COSTELLO: We have the CAC lawyer here tonight. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments before we beat this to death entirely? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, on replanting the wetland area, Spartina Alterna flora 12" on center. And as far as the inconsistency goes, we have had experience with these Iow sill bulkheads and every one has turned out to be a plus environmentally because of the increased size of the wetland area. And just that alone, in my mind, brings this into consistency with what we want to do in the town. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus the plantings we are requiring as part of this. TRUSTEE KING: We are actually creating a good size wetland area. The neighboring properties, just go look at them and see what an improvement it is. I'll make that motion. MR. COSTELLO: What about the dredging? TRUSTEE KING: That's part of the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not in the description. So let's approve it as per these plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are, your approval is as per -- TRUSTEE KING: This is based on these plans you submitted to us on the 22nd of last month and dated September 21,2010. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which includes the dredging. I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have two more resolutions to do that are not on the agenda. One, I'll make a motion to allow Bob Terry to have his 30x90 barge in Mattituck Inlet until October 31, 2010, as per his letter that he submitted, at a fee of $500. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The second resolution would be in the matter of Clair Mather, located at 805 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, to resolve that the buffer can match the neighbors on both sides, which would be from ten feet going down to eight feet. The one neighbor has eight feet, one neighbor has ten, so the line can match to the neighbors. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 64 September 22, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED OCT 25 2010~ ~Town Clerk