Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/19/2011 Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD Of TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes RECEIVED //, FEB 17 2011 ut o d Town Clerk Wednesday, January 19,2011 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr, Vice-President James F. King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 15, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before I get started I would like to talk about a couple of postponements. Page three, the application of MICHAEL & GILLIAN WILSON request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5438 to change the dock from 20x4' to 30x4', add a four-foot fiberglass open-grate walkway along the bulkhead and designate a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the walkway. Located: 590 Tarpon Drive, Southold, is Postponed. Page four, at the bottom, number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of WINDWARD ROAD ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to construct beach access stairs consisting of a top landing 3x7', upper stairs 3x16', bottom landing 3x3', and lower stairs 3x5.6' on a right-of-way owned by Peter & Grace Gorman. Located: 440 Windward Lane, Orient, is postponed. Number 16, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 8x132' Thru Flow boardwalk in the area of "Grey Gulls" and construct an 8x300' Thru Flow boardwalk Board of Trustees 2 January 19, 2011 supported by helical anchors and elevated 18" above grade in the area of "Barleyfield Cove." As mitigation, constructJcreate an area of freshwater wetlands adjacent to the 1st and 18th holes of the Fishers Island Club golf course. Excavate the area down to elevation three feet and remove approximately 1,920 cubic yards of material and stockpiling it. At proposed elevation three feet, create approximately 9,650 square feet of open water wetlands and in that area between elevation three feet and elevation four feet, create approximately 26,450 square feet of vegetated wetlands. Regrade portion of the fairway located to the south of the proposed wetlands to control rainwater runoff by Wayne Galante Stenographic Services 631.835.7882 stripping sod off the fairway and stockpiling it. Approximately 1,050 cubic yards of fill shall be placed in the exposed area to raise the elevation of the fairway to elevation seven feet. Area shall be replanted with the stockpiled sod. Located: Plo East End Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed. And number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of EVAN GINIGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a docking facility consisting of a 4x46' fixed elevated catwalk supported by six 4"x4" pilings and six 6"x6" pilings; 3'xl 5' hinged ramp; and 6x20' floating dock secured by two 6"x6" pilings. Located: 315 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Those will not be heard tonight. Tonight we have Derek Bossen representing the Conservation Advisory Council. We have Wayne Galante here taking the Minutes, so if you do have something to say, please come up to the mic, clearly state your name and you may proceed with whatever you have to say. And please keep your comments brief, five minutes or less, as we usually have a long agenda. The next thing is there are a couple of things that we have been working on, starting the new year, we are going to be working on our code changes again and try to get them moving. Nothing really happened with them, they kind of died in code committee. So we'll revive them and get that done and hopefully that will make some of the process easier for everybody. And dredging season is over so I'll let Dave talk about that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Dredging season did end this past weekend. What I mean by that is the environmental window is closed for dredging. But for the year, Suffolk County and Southold Town dredged out Deep Hole Creek, Mud Creek, James Creek, Wickham Creek, Little Creek, Bud and then Halls Creek. Halls Creek was a brand new creek. That took about two weeks to do. It was a tremendous amount of material there and Suffolk County deserves recognition for all the work they did for Southold Town in getting those creeks done. TRUSTEE KING: Where did the material from Halls go? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The material from Halls went to the east of Halls, from almost immediately from the opening they left about 50, 60 feet free, and then up the beach past the end of the public road, there. And the only other thing I wanted to mention, Jill, was the town received a check from the state from a grant of approximately $9,500. This was to go toward partial reimbursement of operational expenses for the pumpout boats for the town. And I think it's fantastic that the Trustees here have continued each year to apply for these grants and receive Board of Trustees 3 January 19, 2011 these grants from the state. It shows us doing everything we can here on this Board to try to mitigate the costs of the services to the town through grant funding. Every little bit helps, as they say, and Liz, in our office, really worked very hard on this grant application and deserves to be recognized for all her work, as well as John Cushman. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anybody else have anything? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next field inspections are scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next meeting would be Wednesday, February 16, at 6:00 PM, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a resolution to approve the Minutes of December 15, 20107 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December, 2010. A check for $11,329.87 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:' Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 19, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. The list reads as follows: Paul Pawlowski - SCTM#122-9-7.20 Board of Trustees 4 January 19, 2011 Mary Huettermoser - SCTM#37-4-7 Joseph Pagano - SCTM#37-4-8 Barbara Pagano - SCTM#37-4-9 James & Kathleen Blackley - SCTM#71-2-4 Michael Behringer, Nisha Kumar & Elizabeth Gardner - SCTM#47-2-30&31 Michael Behringer- SCTM#47-2-31 Janet I. Doran - SCTM#119-t-3 George Baldwin - SCTM#57-2-21 Carol Kane - SCTM#33-1-18 June & Gordon Seaman, Jr. - SCTM#122-4-3 Windward Road Association - SCTM#14-2-30.6 Eric Koenig - SCTM#113-4-8 Doug & Ellen Ciampa - SCTM$81-3-6 Joyce Tese - SCTM#117-10-5 Donna Salminen - SCTM#31-9-13 Walter Gaipa - SCTM#31-9-12 Cardinal East Coast Development, LLC - SCTM#111-14-33.1 Old Orchard Homeowners Assoc. Inc. - SCTM#38-6-10 Michael & Kathleen Miggins - SCTM#38-6-8 Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Resolutions and administrative permits, number one, Burger Construction on behalf of NORA FLOTTERAN requests an Administrative Permit to rebuild existing walls and roof within the existing footprint of the dwelling and to repair the existing deck. Located: 1480 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. I did go out and looked at this. This was a very simple renovation. Actually it's approximately three feet of structure. One corner of this home is within our jurisdiction. And the other 97, excuse me, the rest of the home is completely out of our jurisdiction. What they are doing is just putting a gable on the roof there. So given the fact it's a very simple one, I would make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, we'll put number one and number two together. They are fairly straightforward. Number one is HENRY Board of Trustees 5 January 19, 2011 TRAENDLY & BARBARA CADWALLADER request the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6806 as issued on January 23, 2008. Located: 13000 Rt. 25, East Marion; and number two, Eh-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH & RITA DENICOLO requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7036 as issued on February 29, 2009, and Amended on November 18, 2009. Located: 3475 Wells Avenue, Southold. I'll make a motion to approve both of those. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Ellen Levin Wiederlight on behalf of LEVlN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP re. quests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5233 and Coastal Erosion Permit #5233C from EL JOANRAC CORP., to Levin Family Limited Partnership; and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5233 and Coastal Erosion Permit #5233C to conduct beach maintenance after a storm event. Located: 58855 Rt. 48, Greenpod. What I was thinking of this, if it's all right with everybody, that we make this a ten-year maintenance. We have done this before on Mattituck Park District and electric facility at the Della Beach Comber when they both have a ten-year maintenance beach cleanup permit. So I don't know how anybody feels about that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That way every ten years they can come in and · just clean. TRUSTEE KING: And it doesn't have to be after a storm event, it can be normal maintenance to the beach. Technically they are required to pick up after a storm event. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, under the Coastal Erosion, they have to. They don't really need a permit under Coastal Erosion to do that. TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve the transfer and approve the amendment to make it a ten-year beach maintenance permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'1t make a motion to go off the regular agenda and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7028 to place 70' of natural boulders along the southeast side of the wetland line; replace fill, soil and screening to restore property back to original condition; and replace native plants. Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. Board of Trustees 6 January 19, 2011 This is an application and hearing we held open from last month. We were looking to have better drawings of what the intention was here, and as I recall from the other day, we looked this over and it was all here. We were happy with all these drawings. TRUSTEE KING: It was shown on the survey where it's going. It's fine. I think there was a little profile up in the corner there how it was going to be done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we were just looking for a better profile of what was there. So with that I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE 6HOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment as applied for, noting that the drawings are now, the approved drawings are now in the file. And we noted the last time and we'll note it again, it was found to be consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other discussion on this resolution? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, JANET I. DORAN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4173 for the existing stairway and 8x30' deck. Located: 9575 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application to the amendment because the stairs should conform to their original permit and erosion control devices should be installed at the base of the support. Conservation Advisory Council also observed a small boat lift off the deck and there is limited public access. The LWRP came in inconsistent. The deck has undergone two expansion extensions since 2004. See photos. It was noted, aerial photos as showing an extension on the decking, between the two, between the bulkhead and retaining wall. See the little extension there. It shows where it's not here and then it's here. Most of the stuff is, was there prior to and platforms were on the stairs but not on the original permit from 1993. So we asked him to come in and upgrade the drawings and the permits, so that's what this amendment is. To make it consistent with LWRP, and also more consistent, and more in line with what we do, I would recommend that we reduce the 8x30 decking to 8x20 and, I mean, I don't know if that's a ten-foot extension, but it looks like it. And that would bring it into consistency with LWRP and more in the realm of the size that we usually deal with, that we usually let in that area. Any comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. Point of information. Is the coastal erosion line on those breaches? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a point of information to address the point Board of Trustees 7 January 19, 2011 of concern from the Conservation Advisory Council. That's not a boat lift. It's a device used to lift the stairs up and down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I was going to mention that. MR. BOSSEN: It looked too small to be a boat lift. We didn't know what it was. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They lift the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: It's hinged so it picks them up. MR. BOSSEN: We just wanted an explanation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's not an area with where people walk the beach. The high tide goes right up to the bulkhead, so that's really. Are there any comments from anyone? From the audience? MS. HULSE: Jill, isn't that much larger than what was permitted? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's one of the reasons I proposed to reduce it by ten feet. It's something that has been there for years and we have done, before, we have situations like this, I think even in Nassau Point, where the decking has been there and we approved something that has been there before. So I'm not hearing anything from the Board members. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Personally, I don't see much of an issue with the deck there. It's not easily traversed. It's sandy, it's not a beach, it's not a huge area with the possibility of emerging vegetation reestablishing itself there with great wildlife values. I think a reduction, like you said, makes sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing no other comment, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to wetland permit of Janet Doran for an exiting stairway and 8x20 deck. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which this would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other discussion on it? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, CARDINAL EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7182 to include modifications to the landscaping, swimming pool and retaining walls. Located: 4550 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. This is for the amendment to wetland permit, modifications to landscaping swimming pool and retaining wall. The LWRP found it consistent with LWRP. Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. This was the project we went out to numerous times and some things were built that did not conform to the plans that were submitted. I'm looking at the plans from Briarcliff dated 12/23/10. We all went out and looked at it. The pool was built Board of Trustees 8 January 19, 2011 not in the location it was originally designed and planned for. They moved it. And the retaining wall was built a little different than the plans that were submitted. Those are the modifications we are looking at. The existing wall is going to be moved to the northwest, approximately five feet, it looks like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the existing stairs. TRUSTEE KING: And the existing stairs going down through that now will be removed. That's one modification. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also adding, they didn't have a, in the description, an access stairs for LIPA. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was access stairs -- TRUSTEE KING: Access stairs for the electrical meter coming off the road, so they could read the meter. Those are all there now. We want to see a ten-foot wide native buffer that is going to be increased to 20 feet TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Increased by 20 feet. They have ten so it will be 30. TRUSTEE KING: So it will be 30 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Will that be an undisturbed buffer or non-turf? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Non-turf. TRUSTEE KING: They'll increase the size of the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have an undisturbed native buffer on the plan, then they have additional ten foot of non-turf. And we want to expand that to 30 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Make that 30 feet instead of ten. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what they proposed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, that's what we are saying. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we want them to do. They have proposed ten-foot wide native buffer and we want to make it 30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And around the pond. TRUSTEE KING: And around the existing freshwater pond we want to see a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, and the remainder of that area, from the non-disturbance buffer to the retaining wall to be a native vegetation. No turf. The pool stays where it is. I think those are the things we discussed on this project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they can have that path coming from the driveway to the pool, but eliminate those stairs. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And we want to see a new set of plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to see it on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: On the survey, showing all these requirements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And when they talk about the retaining walls, they also put a decorative retaining wall in front of the house. That's on the plans also. TRUSTEE KING: That's not a huge -- it's a planter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is also some steps going down to the pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They'll have a path and steps right by the pool. And steps on the other side. TRUSTEE KING: Anything else? Anybody here in the audience to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was consistent with LWRP. Board of Trustees 9 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Any other Board comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have comments. I really appreciate what the applicant has done as far as increasing the buffers and also the recommendation of the Board here tonight to increase these buffers. I am going to vote no to this application and I'm encouraging my fellow Board members to consider voting no for the reason being we went out and specifically had a pre-submission conference with the applicant and the contractor where they originally asked to put the pool exactly where it's on the this plan, and where it is. We told them no, we were concerned for the freshwater wetland and we reached an agreement with them for the pool to be in a different location. That was what was approved on the original permit was that location. Instead, they went ahead and put the pool exactly where they wanted it, after meeting with us in the field beforehand and us saying no, you can't put the pool there. And so I think if this Board votes to approve this permit tonight as stands, with this pool in this location, it will set a very dangerous precedent for people to just put things where they want them and to disregard this Board's concern, in this case, for a freshwater wetland that is down there. So those are my comments. TRUSTEE KING: I don't appreciate the fact that we went out there and we discussed it and they said they would do something and they do something different. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Particularly it's exactly where they said they were going to put it and we said no. They put it there anyhow. And we all agreed to the other location, it was better. They just totally disregarded it, put it where they wanted and to me it's just thumbing their nose at the Trustees. TRUSTEE KING: I just don't have a huge problem with where the pool is located. That's my issue. I don't like being snookered. But my main concern is the small pond down there, if we can protect that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that was the reason for the different location. And now they are closer to the freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE KING: And we want to make sure they have provisions on this Board for drywell and backwash and also make provisions in case it overflows, so a secondary, we get a heavy rainfall or something, so that doesn't go flowing down into that pond. So there has to be adequate drainage for that pool, both for the back wash and to take care of any overflow. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, they can build that. TRUSTEE KING: We need to say see plans on the survey reflecting ail these changes we've just made. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with you, Jim. And I agree with Dave. I don't like what they did but I don't have a big problem with where the pool ended up. They changed the shape of it and as long as we add all these other conditions and keep that a non-turf area I think it will protect that wetland. So I don't have a problem keeping the pool that way. TRUSTEE KING: Any other Board comments? Board of Trustees 10 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Should this be tabled then pending new plans to reflect all these changes? It's a lot of changes the Board has talked about tonight with these plans, with drainage issues and buffers and things. TRUSTEE KING: It's not a bad idea. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That way we have an exact plan and we know exactly what is coming in. TRUSTEE KING: That way we can review the plans before we approve anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We usually do that anyway, even if we approve it subject to. I mean, the permit won't go out until we all review it. So it's up to the Board but I'm just saying a lot of times we do approve stuff subject to receiving new plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we do, it's just with this case there is a lot of changes. MS. HULSE: Is the work completed, Jill? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's completed. Most of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The removal of stairs and modifications would be additional work. TRUSTEE KING: Retaining wall is to be moved, stairs to be removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Planting has to be done. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem tabling this until we get new plans that we can review. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: The only thing I would say about tabling, since we are pretty much in agreement in what we are doing with the buffers and mitigating the situation is that if we postpone it another month, they can't work on it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Which also brings in mitigation. They should have to put a row of hay bales up around the pond, with the other things we want to ask them, I think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we approve it tonight, subject to the plans coming in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They won't be doing and landscaping -- sorry, planting in January and February. They won't be doing any planting in January or February. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: They can do the steps and retaining wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That's true. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have some hay bales up there. They can put more hay bales up. It's all dirt there now, all the way to the road. The hay bales are just around the pool area. You know, we can have them do the hay bales during construction so they can, until they can plant. To me I don't see a difference because we are not going to give them a permit until we all review the plans anyway. They might not get the plans to us until next meeting anyway, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, but it's totally up to them TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then that puts it in their hands. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I tend to agree with Jill on that. I think keep it moving along. Board of Trustees 11 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean even if you guys want to make sure it's reviewed at a work session where we all review it together, that's fine. We can put that condition on it, that we all review it together. TRUSTEE KING: Just subject to new plans reflecting exactly what we want them to do. If they don't meet the specs, they don't get approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on us receiving new plans with all the changes that we have made tonight reflected in those plans. MS. STANDISH: Jim, would you mind listing them so I have them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Straightening out the wall as per Briarcliff plans dated 12/23 2010; removing the stairs; adding the stairs to get to the utility; 50-foot non-disturbance buffer around the entire freshwater pond there. The remainder of the area around the pond, all the way to the wall and to the road, on either side, to remain as a non-turf planted area; increase the buffer from a ten-foot non-turf buffer to a 30-foot non-turf buffer on the northwest side of the property -- sorry, the northeast side of the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Northeast side abutting the retaining wall? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, abutting the dock area and the undisturbed native growth area. Also the pool, pathway to the pool and a backwash to the pool and a secondary drainage system for the pool, for overflow. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To contain any over flow in the event of a large rain. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could we request a line of hay bales? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hay bales to remain. Hay bales there now around the pool area, to remain there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we ask for a row of them at the limit of the non-disturbance zone and non-turf buffer to prevent runoff during all phases of construction from getting into the wetland? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the northeast side here, around the pond? TRUSTEE KING: Between the pond and the retaining wall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we don't have to go on the other side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to leave them there. They don't have to remove them. They can let them -- how far up do you want them? Right now they are up just around the pool. Do you want them up further toward the road? TRUSTEE KING: Where they are doing this work, they should have a row of hay bales so nothing can go down into the pond. They are going to do a lot of excavating there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's basically the hay bales extend that way to the 50 into the non-disturbance line so when they do the Board of Trustees 12 January 19, 2011 landscaping and it rains, it doesn't wash into the pond. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's Jim's motion. Do we have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on it? (No response). We'll do a role call vote. Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The motion has been carried with the conditions, four to one. And it's been found consistent with LWRP. COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under wetland and coastal erosion permits, Number one, CAROL KANE requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install a 2x62' long retaining wall on the edge of the bluff to prevent erosion and strengthen bluff edge. Located: 3100 Sound Drive, Greenpod. The Board did go out and looked at this. The CAC looked at it and resolved to the support the application with the condition of an engineer plan for erosion control on the bluff. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found inconsistent and the reason for the inconsistency is the structures were constructed without a permit pursuant to Chapter 275 of the Wetlands and Shorelines. As I said, the Board did go out and looked at this. This is actually an as-built, already constructed project, and unfortunately for the applicant it's already failing. I don't know if there is another picture of the structure itself, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This picture doesn't show the structure that was built at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is one in the file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. But it is already failing, we could see while we were out there, and so that was it. Anybody in the audience wish to make any comments pertaining to this application? MR. BURKE: Jim Burke of the Iaw firm of Lewis Johs LLP. We represent the neighbors adjacent to the east, the Erinwright's. We don't have an objection to the retaining wall itself but we do have concerns there is runoff coming from the retaining wall on to their property and, as you mentioned, Mr. Bergen, the failure of the retaining wall seems to be already happening. I have pictures here, kind of showing the wall kind of buckling Board of Trustees 13 January 19, 2011 already. I don't know if you want to see those. TRUSTEE BERGEN: These pictures depict what we saw also. Now, you mention also you felt there was a runoff issue to the neighbor's property? MR. BURKE: Yes, the fissure is heading toward the, out my client's property which is to the east there. That's the same in some other pictures where it shows it goes into their, they have a terrace, they put a lot of plantings to preserve the bluff and they are saying it's actually running off into their plantings and causing some type of erosion on their property. Actually that picture there is pretty much my client's property there. That walkway down is pretty much the dividing line. So most of that plantings there is actually what my client has done over the years. So they are just concerned that any runoff obviously be contained on their own property, on the Kane's property and it looks like, as you said, the retaining wall needs to be repaired already, so we would just ask to make sure if they do the retaining wall it does accomplish both of those issues. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? MR. CORSO: I'm Joe Corso and I'm kind of speaking for my sister, Carol Kane. And basically, the situation, there is more to this than, and it's really no concern of the Board, it's kind of like a Hatfield/McCoy thing going on between the Erinwright's and the Kanes right now. What would the Board recommend they do with this retaining wall; leave it in, take it out, do something different with it? I mean we are looking at a small little piece, and they are amenable to doing whatever the Board requires. TRUSTEE KING: They could move it landward TRUSTEE BERGEN: What Trustee King just said, he is recommending removing this and putting a new one in that is engineered appropriately to retain the top of the bank, probably more landward than where the current one is. It's just, as we know, as we have all seen, what they did, didn't work. And it is going to collapse, eventually, and then you'll have a bluff that will fall. So I'm thinking if this was removed, you know, if they submitted a permit for a new wall to be constructed, which included the removal of this wall, and something a little more landward and something engineered appropriately to sustain the weight of the top of the bluff it would probably be a lot better. MR. CORSO: What if they just took it out completely and didn't leave a wall there? Is that an option? TRUSTEE KING: You can try it. Try some plantings. MR. CORSO: Sometimes they do things, my sister and brother-in-law, they jump on things before they think. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is the opportunity to do some plantings on top there and, as you have probably seen, to the east of your property is very heavy vegetation -- sister's property, sorry -- there is very heavy vegetation there, something similar to that, that might help in holding it up and take the chance that that Board of Trustees 14 January 19, 2011 will work. MR. CORSO: Personally, I know the property well and I'm thinking why did they even need to put it in. I would have just left it alone. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe just up around that corner a little bit, try some plantings to stabilize it. MR. CORSO: Some kind of vine in there. Would they need a permit to put plantings in there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Normal horticultural plantings don't require a permit from this Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can give them a permit tonight to remove what the structure is. They need a permit for that. And if they need to bring any fill in for the plantings, they need a permit for that. But they don't need a permit to just put plantings in. MR. CORSO: All right. But they will need something to take everything out now or can they just pull out the wall that is there now? TRUSTEE KING: Can they just amend the permit now to remove the wall? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can give approval tonight to remove the wall. MR. CORSO: All right. I think that would be reasonable. You know, I was like why did you even do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we saw it, we were kind of thinking the same thing, it just needs to removed. I think that's what we were going to be recommending tonight anyway. MR. CORSO: All right, fair enough. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments? Members of the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? MS. HULSE: The violation has been resolved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question for counsel. I'm just trying to get the wording correct now on this. On what we are about to do here. Do we deny this permit as applied for and amend it to state that the removal of the structure that is there. MS. HULSE: I think since the applicant is speaking for Ms. Cane, if he's legitimately able to do that, he is, then he can amend it and you don't have to deny it. You can just read it in as amended. If he's willing to do that. TRUSTEE KING: So we'll approve an amendment to this permit to remove the wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is no permit. MS. HULSE: Amendment to the application. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to amend the application and, Mr. Corso, if you could step up to the mic. I just want you to be Board of Trustees 15 January 19, 2011 on record saying you approved this. I'll make a motion to amend the application of Carol Kane under Wetland and Coastal Erosion to remove the 2x62' long retaining wall along the edge of the bluff at 3100 Sound Drive, and to feel free plant some native plantings along the top of that bluff to help retain, to prevent erosion. MR. CORSO: Fair enough. I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? MS. HULSE: I think we can refer to the LWRP now would be considered consistent TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. In doing this would make it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also just to note, again, if they need to bring in fill or anything, you would have to come back and amend this again. MR. CORSO: Yup. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is the application of En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL & KATHLEEN MIGGINS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 71 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and six inches higher than) existing timber bulkhead; construct 3.5'x6' steps to beach in place of existing beach steps; and revegetate with native plantings along disturbed portions of embankment. Located: 640 South Lane, East Marion. The application is deemed consistent under the LWRP. The CAC supported the application with the condition that the applicant demonstrate a need for the additional six inches higher and wanted to wish there be consideration of alternatives such as a revetment. The Board went to the site and is familiar with it. We didn't really see any issue with the construction and the six inches, I don't believe, at least on our field inspection, felt it was a huge issue. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. Did the Board want to open this and the next one, since they are a contiguous project? I don't care. We can do it one at a time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can. We'll simultaneously open the hearing also in the matter of OLD ORCHARD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 146 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and six inches higher than) existing timber bulkhead, construct 3x3' wood platform, 3x10' stairs and 3.5x5' beach steps in place of existing platforms and steps; backfill with up to ten cubic yards clean sand as necessary to restore embankment, which is also to be replanted with native vegetation. Located: 550 South Lane, East Marion. Like this one for the Miggins, this is deemed consistent Board of Trustees 16 January 19, 2011 and the Conservation Advisory Council had a lost motion on the matter. So there is, I guess there is no recommendation. Let me read this more carefully so I get this correctly. (Perusing). Yes, it says a recommendation was made however the motion was lost so it remains there is no actual recommendation from the Conservation Advisory Council. MR. HERMAN: Thanks, John. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Old Orchard Homeowners Association as well. This is a pretty simple, routine project. It's the inplace replacement of existing bulkheading. The bulkheading to the east is six inches higher than this stretch of wall, so it's not incredibly critical one way or the other, but the hope by the homeowners, you can see, the more newly replaced bulkhead to the east. So we are just looking to continue that off with the Board's usual practice of trying to get one consistent elevation across this stretch. The only change, I don't know, Lauren, I'm not sure if I caught you while you were in or out, but I had E-mailed and I handed up to Lauren tonight, just a revised plan for Old Orchard, because it is an association of a significant number of homeowners in that area that use this area, use this beach, this commonly-owned beach area, they just wanted to increase the size of the deck behind the bulkhead to 6x20. I think we were, had been showing 6x8, which is a little more similar to what has been there. Apparently there were some issues in terms of who was going to fund what and the usual association issues, but they got together a common idea to try to put a little bigger area just for recreation down along the back of that bulkhead. This is within Coastal Erosion, again we are well below the 200 square feet, where you would actually need a coastal erosion permit for that deck. We are not in a bluff situation so, as even mentioned earlier in the evening, I think we are within the realm of what the Board would typically allow behind a bulkhead within what will be a non-turf buffer. So other than that, there was nothing unusual about the project. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments from members of the public? Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That being for both applications, closing both matters. I'll move the approvals individually though because I think we may want to amend the application on the second. In the matter of Michael and Kathleen Miggins, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And noted that it's found consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I did note that during the hearing. And so a motion made and seconded. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. All in favor? Board of Trustees 17 January 19, 201 I (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And in the matter the Old Orchard Home Owners Association, I move to approve the requested amendment and submitted plans for a 6x20 wooden deck to provide access for the members of the association. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This, too, was consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wetland permits, number one, PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a detached garage and a 16x32' inground swimming pool. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The CAC supports the application with the condition the drainage for the garage and swimming pool complies with drainage code. Conservation Advisory Council requires more information regarding elevations. This is an application that was under a previous name that the Board had spent a lot of time on, and they made the house in such an area where there was minimal clearing of the property, and we put buffers on the area. It's basically a filled area, and we checked the previous permit and there was no conditions of a non-disturbance area. We did talk about in the Minutes how we didn't want any further expansion of the dwelling, but we didn't make any mention there is no condition of no clearing, for further clearing of the area. We all went out and inspected it. I don't know if, how we -- I don't think that the area for the pool is the best area, so I don't know if that, I'm not really inclined to approve that. Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or against this project? (No response). The other condition I would like to put on this, whatever approval we do, is that the existing 30 foot buffer and the existing 50 foot buffer, that we make it a non-disturbance area so there is no further clearing in those buffer areas. Is there any comment from the Board? (No response). It's found consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think in lieu of the things we discussed when we did the original permit on this and knowing, you know, where the pool is going to be, I think encroaches on an area that we didn't want to see this, I would recommend that we don't allow the pool. As far as the detached garage, that's up in the front over by the road, and in a different spot. I didn't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. Any other comments? Board of Trustees 18 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Jill, we tried to keep the house at a minimum size because it's a pretty sensitive area there. I agree with Bob, I don't have a problem with the garage. It's up in the front between the house and the road. I think it's an inappropriate place for a pool. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: We should probably make a note on the file when we do the consistency compliance, certificate of compliance, that we just check the clearing to see what is going on in the back there. Because based on this picture you can see they have done some clearing, we were not really sure where they were doing it. So. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and we surmised, basically, that was just a lot of it was broken and not sawed off. So just clearing up. All right, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the detached garage with gutters, leaders and drywells, and deny -- let me interrupt myself here. Lori, should we do two separate resolutions? I mean it's all applied for one. Can I do one resolution? MS. HULSE: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So to approve the garage with the proper drainage, and deny the swimming pool. And with the conditions set on the property that the 30-foot buffer area and the 50-foot buffer area are non-disturbance buffer areas, so they can't be cleared at all. And I also want to put on, if it's okay with the rest of the Board, no further structures to be placed on this property after the garage. TRUSTEE KING: No further development of the lot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No further development. And we resolve to find it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question. On the original permit for the house, the buffers, were they designated at the time non-turf buffers or -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, just says 50-foot buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, Lori, do we have to amend that original permit to change those from buffers to non-disturbance buffers or can we just go with this resolution where we are designating them as non-disturbance buffers? MS. HULSE: They are the same areas? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. HULSE: And on the old permit they are designated as -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just buffers. MS. HULSE: It's like putting an added condition. That's fine. You can do that now and it will basically trump the old permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: All in favor? Board of Trustees 19 January 19, 2011 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Madam Chairwoman, as we discussed, I have to take leave of the meeting at this point. The storm last week rescheduled some mandatory fire department training that I really can't miss. If I could take leave and have the record reflect I had to leave. (The time noted is 6:53 PM). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, ERIC KOENIG requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, single-family residence with 1,890 square foot first floor and 1,605 square foot second floor, 406 square foot two-car garage, 1,755 square foot cellar, 233 square foot front porch, 198 square foot second floor roof deck and 295 square foot rear decks. Located: 610 Jackson Landing, Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition trees over six inches in caliper are depicted on the survey. The area seaward of the house up to the six foot contour should be non-turf and non-disturbance seaward of six foot contour. No filling seaward of the house. I believe we went out here on a pre-submission last year and they have now come in for an application. The house is approximately 98 feet from the wetland line, so it's just jurisdictional, and we talked in the field about it. We are just looking at the Conservation Advisory Council recommendation. They wanted non-disturbance and six foot contour seaward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So more than the 50 feet we are talking about? TRUSTEE KING: That's more than what we inspected. MR. BOSSEN: Jim, I was the one that made the recommendation. The recommendation that the Conservation Advisory Council made was that there is the six foot contour, they were going to do the limit of the ground disturbance, so anything seaward of that would be non-disturbance, non-turf, and then there is the other dashed line, the limit of, I guess, I assumes is the 50-foot Trustee buffer, pretty much no fill in from here back. TRUSTEE KING: What we talked about in the field was possibly from the wetland line landward a non-disturbance buffer, to 25, and then from landward, another 25 feet non-turf. Just to kind of, because the next door at that neighbor has turf right down almost to the end. MR. BOSSEN: I just saw it as a really Iow spot. TRUSTEE KING: It's a good idea, really. MR. BOSSEN: They are saying no ground disturbance. I mean, it's a well-treed site, so turf will not grow anyway without removal of the trees. And the main thing is the Conservation Advisory Council saw was the removal of the large trees would exacerbate erosion on the site. TRUSTEE KING: If we did 25 and 25, it gets you almost ten feet landward of the six foot contour. MR. BQSSEN: Fine by me. Board of Trustees 20 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: This was flagged by En-Consultants in 2001. MR. HERMAN: It's actually a pretty old line. The DEC won't accept that line. It looks right, based on the topography. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments? Any comment from the audience? MR. KOENIG: Eric Koenig, I'm the owner of the property, and we are asking to build a house. It's the last vacant lot in that area and we thought we could build on there. I have a rendering here of the proposed house. TRUSTEE KING: We have it, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That one is prettier. It has more color. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's got landscaping. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anybody on the Board had a problem with the house here. Like I said, it's barely jurisdictional, another couple of feet it would be out of our jurisdiction. Do you understand what we are talking about on these buffer areas? MR. KOENIG: Not quite. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to come up here and I'll show you. MR. KOENIG: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: This is the wetland delineation. That's the limit of the wetlands. What we want to see, from the wetland line landward for 25 feet, this area is to be non-disturbed, to be left alone in it's natural state. And from that line, 25 feet landward to here, is to be non-turf. It can be native plantings but can't be sod, turf that is irrigated and fedilized. Those would be the conditions we put on this, all right? MR. KOENIG: All right, very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would there be a need for a four-foot path through non-disturbance area? TRUSTEE KING: In the event they apply for a dock, we could put a path through there to get to the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just thinking now, if they want to have a kayak or canoe down there or something like that. TRUSTEE KING: If you want a four-foot wide access to get to the shoreline through that non-disturbance area to get to the shoreline, that would be acceptable. MR. KOENIG: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we have a non-disturbance -- TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think we've done enough. So if there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer 25 feet landward of the wetland line, and a non-turf area 25 feet landward of that non-disturbance line, so we have a total of 50 feet. I see drywells to the roof runoff, so that's all taken care of. That's a gravel driveway getting into it, so, I think Board of Trustees 21 January 19, 2011 it's pretty straightforward. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second it. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No response). LWRP finds it consistent. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. STANDISH: So the wetland line and then the non-turf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 25 feet beyond that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of JUNE & GORDON SEAMAN, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing 3.5x9' wood walk/step and 3x5x10' fixed dock with a new "L" shaped fixed dock, consisting of a 3x5x24' fixed timber walkway and 4x12' fixed platform, connected to one another by a 2x5' fixed "bridge" section. Located: 1570 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because the position of the proposed dock exceeds one-third across the width of the creek. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. As the Board would know from having been on the properly, this is basically end of this little section of the James Creek. I'm actually happy to hear about the consistency determination because the one issue that we had with respect to the 275 requirements was the width of the waterway issue that was mentioned in the Conservation Advisory Council report, and I addressed that in detail in the application and on the waterfront consistency application. So hopefully it sounds like that went over well. Basically we are about four feet beyond what would be one-third of the width of the waterway, and that would include the boat, because of the tightness of the situation, we did actually depict a craft on the plan here. As the Board knows, the width of the water way rule is intended to protect not only interference with private navigation from a dock occurring on the other side of the shoreline but of course to protect public navigation for pass and repass. And in this case, there is no pass and repass to the north of this structure because it's the head of the surface waters up here by the marsh, and because the shoreline to the west is actually still part of the publicly owned marshlands and waterways of Suffolk County, it would never be another private dock extending toward this one from the other side of the creek. So what we have done in order to stay out of the way of navigation through that little outlet there to the west, is to go out just with an extension, the fixed dock that is there, and basically just turn the whole structure to the north, so that you have almost 50 feet of passage there, which would be significantly more than adequate for any craft to get through there. This is not a deep water area, so you are not Board of Trustees 22 January 19, 201 I going to have very large boats going through here. You'll have nine, ten, 12, 15 foot boats to get through. So we just can't bring it in any tighter because then we would get in a situation with the water depth. We are sort of at the threshold here where the DEC will not approve a float but they'll approve an end fixed platform like we are showing here as long as we can hover around two feet of water or so. So that is what we proposed. And again, to stay in a position we are not blocking access to that outlet. And again, I think we are like 39% instead of 33% across with the boat. So obviously if we had a smaller boat we would be in more conformance with it but we are showing the boat we think the applicant would actually have. And that's it. TRUSTEE KING: What's the beam of the boat you are showing now? MR. HERMAN: Nine feet. TRUSTEE KING: I doubt that would be a problem up in there. MR. HERMAN: I wanted to err on the side showing something that would be about as big as he would have as opposed to showing a four-foot boat just to show we are conforming. I'm trying to keep it realistic. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, a couple of questions from when I was out looking at this. In the description here, okay, I see you included the water and electric in the description. There was also a flag pole there, in the area of this proposed dock, and I was wondering if you wanted to go ahead and permit that in while we are doing this. MR. HERMAN: Sure. You always get me with a flagpole. It's unbelievable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you stad putting them in, that's when we'll have them exempt. MR. HERMAN: Does it show on the survey, Dave? I mean is it out near the dock? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on the way out there, yeah. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's not located on the survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is there, as you walk down toward this. MR. HERMAN: It's existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERMAN: If you could just include that language in with the application, that's great. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can draw it in the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience want to comment on this application? (No response). Any other comment from the Board? (No response). Okay, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of June and Gordon Seaman, Jr., as described at 1570 Ole Jule Lane, Board of Trustees 23 January 19, 2011 adding in to the permit the flagpole that is located down at the waterfront edge of that properly, and this was found consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry, did you add the flagpole? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERMAN: In its current location. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, James V. DeLucca RA on behalf of MARY HUETTERMOSER requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing first floor elevation from 18.6' to 20.6' by adding three courses of concrete block to the existing concrete block foundation walls; remove soil against the rear basement foundation wall to expose the wall to provide a walk out on grade basement area at elevation 11 feet and install windows and doors in exposed rear foundation wall; regrade rear and side yards to install decorative concrete block retaining wails to terrace existing sloping grade; rebuilding deteriorated concrete block walls; and in rear, side and front yards install wood decks and exit wood stairs in side yards. Located: 2235 Cedar Lane, East Marion. This has been found to be consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of a drainage plan and a top ten-foot non4urf buffer along the southeast corner of the property. We were all out there in the field saw it. We did wonder if the replacement of the bulkhead had been planned, because that was not on the application. We were going to request a hay bale line during the process of construction, ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the retaining walls and also we are requesting gutters, leaders into drywells. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application. MR. DELUCCA: Jim DeLucca, I'm the architect of the job. Basically, we do have drainage plans on the application that I gave in; drywells for leaders and gutters. And to address the business of the bulkhead, yes, they plan to replace it, but the permitting cycle in DEC, I know takes a while, so they figured they would do one part now and later on come in for the other part next year. For the bulkhead. Because they wanted to do this over this spring time. TRUSTEE KING: Did they get non-jurisdiction from DEC? MR. DELUCCA: Yes, I gave letters in from both the DEC and homeowners association. Non-jurisdiction from DEC, and what would you say, agreeability from the homeowners association. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: l do have one question. Because you have, came Board of Trustees 24 January 19, 2011 up, a couple of folks asked, what is it you are doing; why are you raising the house? MR. DELUCCA: The basement is actually kind of Iow and the thing is they have heating ducts down there, and it really makes it Iow. So what they would to do is raise it up and put windows so they can actually utilize the basement. It's too Iow now the way it is. The ducts really, they are probably two foot in depth and it really cuts down the height in the basement to use it. And by raising it up and putting the windows and doors you could create habitable area out of it, to use as a recreational room. TRUSTEE 6HOSIO: I don't think we really had a problem with it. It seemed to make sense. And we saw you were obviously trying to make what is a fairly unusable backyard into a usable one. And I don't think any of us had any problems with it. Any comment from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I have is make sure we include proper drainage from the house in the resolution and also the use of, because of the precipitous slope that is there, hay bales and silt fence during construction. MR. DELUCCA: I actually provided also drainage for the front. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we see that on the site plan. MR. DELUCCA: I put it off to the side because if he ever wants to go, he may want to add on in the future in the front, a garage, a little more room on the front, I put the drainage to the side this way we don't have to put it in and take it out again, and in the driveway I put a trough to pick up the drain, any runoff in the driveway. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's very proactive. Any other comments from the audience or the Board or anybody else? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSiO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as applied for and with the condition is that the drainage be installed according to code and according to the site plan that has been submitted, and that it has been found to be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I would like to add the hay bales and silt fence to the motion, during construction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a location, a contour line or something to help them out as to where they can do that? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: He has proposed retaining walls. I was going to say at the top of the lower retaining wall I think would probably be a good idea. The most landward retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, Jim, do you still second that motion? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Board of Trustees 25 January 19, 20l 1 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, B. Laing Associates, Inc., on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests a Wetland Permit to add 8' long extensions to the bulkhead's existing returns; add gabions up to 24 linear feet to the northeast; add four tie backs to existing lower wale; and install a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of AMHW. Located: Island View Lane, Greenpod. This is an application that has been approved before. I believe most of the work is done but the permit time ran out so they have to re-apply for everything and then they have some amendments to it. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and it is found consistent with LWRP. Is there anyone here to speak on, for or against this application? MR. BONTJE: Mike Bontje from B. Laing Associates. As pointed out, this has been previously approved and a lot of the work was done, but there was a mistake. There was three permits for the work, there was dredging, there was a floating dock, platform, then there was a bulkhead. We didn't realize the third one had expired back in July. The one small change, since that the initial approval was to add four tie backs because the existing tie back system was found to be inadequate. No additional wale. We'll be using the lower wale. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). All right, I don't think we had he any problem with the changes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It all made sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It all made sense, yes. All right, hearing no further comment, I'll close the hearing TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of George Baldwin as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it is consistent with the LWRP. All in favor? (ALL AYES), TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DOUG & ELLEN CIAMPA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and abandon the existing sanitary system; construct new dwelling with attached garage; new sanitary system; swimming pool and stone terrace on grade; and subsurface drainage. Located: 4380 Paradise Point Road, Southold. This was found consistent with the LWRP. I don't remember us talking about an addition to the existing deck. MR. SAMUELS: When we met up in the field that day, before the Board of Trustees 26 January 19, 2011 blizzard, I made reference to it. I think I mentioned it to you, but I'm not sure. TRUSTEE KING: I must not have been paying attention, because I don't recall us talking about the deck at all. I just happen to notice here, the proposal to add 130 square foot addition to the existing deck has been found inconsistent. So we have a consistent finding on the house but inconsistent on the deck. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as submitted. We were all out there. I don't think anybody had any issues. I guess we need to talk about the deck MR. SAMUELS: You also were mentioning, Jim, when we were out there, about the bluff, condition of the bank and in certain places, I think within the area we show as non-turf, which is landward of the top of the bank as surveyed and it had been disturbed over time, not by my clients but just, by water, perhaps, running over the edge and naturally our intention is to try to keep surface water from going out over the edge and then obviously plant that out in a way to further assist that condition of water not going over the edge. Yes, as far as the little deck is concerned, there is the little deck there now behind the bulkhead, and it's one of those things where it's so convenient right there behind the bulkhead, steps from the beach, I know you would not consider any little structures anymore than maybe a deck. We've done it before, but. TRUSTEE KING: Is that proposed to go out beyond the bulkhead? MR. SAMUELS: No, the existing stairs are to remain and it's really just an extension on what is now sand and maybe there is some beach grass there as well. TRUSTEE KING: What's the size of the present deck that is there now? MR. SAMUELS: Hold on (perusing). TRUSTEE KING: Is what is shown on the survey existing now? MR. SAMUELS: 16x13 exists. So it's 200 square feet. That would be about 210 square feet existing. TRUSTEE KING: What is shown now on the site plant I'm looking at is ten by -- MR. SAMUELS: What I have drawn in there as a proposal is 10x13.5. 10x13 is what I'm showing as a proposal to extend the deck that amount. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: is this the erosion line there? TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. SAMUELS: It's facing toward Shelter Island. I believe that's the way the surveyor has it. Noyac Bay. It's not really Southold Bay because it's west of Paradise Point. Is that enough information? TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any comments on this? I would prefer to leave the deck alone. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's size of the deck there now? MR. SAMUELS: About 210 square feet existing. We are adding another 50%, let's say. Less than 50%. Have you formulated a policy about decks behind bulkheads or catwalk? Board of Trustees 27 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm just concerned about the consistency of it. I don't know how we are supposed to make it consistent by enlarging it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the size of it now? MR. SAMUELS: 210 square feet TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say that's sufficient. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. That would bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: We'll leave the deck alone. MR. SAMUELS: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: The rest of it, I don't think anybody had any issues at all. Any other comments from anybody on this application? (No response). There are no other comments, Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the exception of the deck. The deck is not being approved. The addition to the deck. The deck that is there now can remain with no problem. And can be rebuilt. But no enlargement of that. And the non-tun' buffer we talked about, there is a little area there where there has been some runoff problem, just to kind of build that up and plant it up a little bit. Other than that, I think it's a pretty good application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So just restate the motion again. TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve as submitted, but the deck is to remain in its present size, not to be enlarged. And everything was found consistent. The house, everything, was found consistent. The enlargement of the deck was found inconsistent so we are not allowing that. So it brings it into consistency, the whole project. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of JOYCE TESE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new four-bedroom addition on the east side of existing residence with new sanitary system and alterations of existing residence, include facade facing water. Located: 800 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with existing structure complies with the drainage code. I just want to note -- and it's found consistent with LWRP. I just wanted to note on the survey that you have, you are taking the measurement from the bottom of the bank. We would basically take the measurement from the top of the bank on this property. However that still, it doesn't really change the project. The sanitary is still out of our jurisdiction and the proposed Board of Trustees 28 January 19, 2011 addition is well behind the existing addition. It is a little further in front of the neighboring house but it is kind of inline so, and you have the drywells on there. Is there anybody who wishes to speak for or against this application, MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman, on behalf of Joyce Tese. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing I want to add to the condition is the gazebo. MR. SAMUELS: It exists. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know but we want to add it into the permit, in case they need to repair, they can. Do you have an estimate of size on the gazebo? MR. SAMUELS: It's on your drawings but I don't have it actually -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just thought if you had it, we would mention it. It's on the drawings. That's fine. MR. SAMUELS: I think it's 15-foot in diameter. I think it's an octagon, 200 square feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And at this time, I didn't get out there that day, I got there after it snowed. I saw, are there drywells on the existing house? Probably not. MR. SAMUELS: I'm not sure. It would not be a problem to install them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see that while you are doing this. MR. SAMUELS: I haven't looked at it carefully, to be honest. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if that can be on the whole entire structure. MR. SAMUELS: Not a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there are any other comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Joyce Tese as applied for with the condition that the entire structure be hooked up into the gutters, leaders and drywells and the gazebo added to the description. MR. SAMUELS: As built. MS. STANDISH: What was the as-built? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The gazebo, as per survey dated 12/21/10. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on this? It is consistent with LWRP. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of WALTER GAIPA requests a Wetland Permit to install a vinyl-sheathed retaining wall along the bottom of bank within the eastern portion of subject property, measuring 73' long overall (inclusive of a six-foot long vinyl-sheathed return), Board of Trustees 29 January 19, 2011 which is to measure four-feet in height; backfill behind the proposed retaining wall with 100 cubic yards of clean fill obtained from an approved upland source. Located: 360 Lake View Terrace, East Marion. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent. The reasons for the inconsistency was a concern for the disturbance to the existing vegetation during the construction of this retaining wall, and the recommendation is to re vegetate the disturbed areas or backfilled areas. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that drywells are installed to contain roof runoff on the dwelling. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. And I would like, if I may, to combine this hearing with the Salminen application, which directly follows, because what we have here are two property owners that are working together to solve a mutual erosion problem on the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was going to recommend that, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stand by a second while I get that folder. (Perusing). For the record, I would like to also simultaneously open the public hearing number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of DONNA SALMINEN requests a Wetland Permit to install a vinyl-sheathed retaining wall along the bottom of bank within the eastern section of subject property, measuring 65' long (inclusive of a six-foot long vinyl sheathed return), which is to measure four-feet in height, backfill behind the proposed retaining wall with 100 cubic yards of clean fill obtained from an approved upland source. Located: 320 Lake View Terrace, East Marion. This project was also found inconsistent under the LWRP for the same reasons as indicated previously, a concern for the disturbance, the damage to vegetation from the disturbance with the construction of the retaining wall, recommending revegetation and possible erosion control measures. And this project was also reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. They support the application with the condition of drywells are installed to contain roof runoff from the dwelling. Now we have those both open and I read those into the record. Feel free to proceed. MR. ANDERSON: Several months ago, Mr. Gaipa came to me and Joe Fischetti, a local engineer, because his property was sinking and it was threatening the house and the deck. And we initially thought that the problem there was likely to have been a clay lens that is commonly found in some of these areas, and that clay lens provided a very unstable platform. And we see eroding bluffs and sloughing off bluffs in response to clay lenses. So we had a test hole done by Mark McDonald in the vicinity of the bluff and found there was no clay lens. Which left us sort of Board of Trustees 30 January 19, 2011 scratching our heads. And what we next did is we reached out to Suffolk County Soil Conservation District and I provided you in your files, you'll see correspondence from Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District as well as two other E-mails, one from the United States Department of Agricultural Natural Resources Conservation Service and a second who is also an employee of the conservation service. One fellow was consulted up in Syracuse, another fellow from Staten Island, had come out and thoroughly looked at the property and we had of course a third fellow from Riverhead, also looked at it. And so I provide you with all of those notes. And what they found was that, several things, that there was an entire sloughing off of this bluff, and part of this is because there is a thick, heavy, organic mat that has essentially leafed up. And the plants that grow on this particular bluff are all shallow rooted plants. And these include the bittersweet and the garlic onion, which is invasive, that cover this bluff. But they don't root deep enough to actually protect it. And so they came back and they recommended, they recognized the need in order to stop the sloughing, that some sort of vertical pile structure would have to be constructed at the toe, which is what we proposed here. And that the bluff should be planted up with double rows of switch grass and intervening wild rye seeding, and upland vent grass. So we have given you a proposed native planting plan today that follows those recommendations, and the basic approach would be that we would remove the invasive shallow-rooted plant and we would rake the bluff clean and we would install a jute mat which would stabilize it. We would install these plants, instead of doing three double rows, I added a fourth one, because I could, because there was enough room to do it. So we have four double rows of these plants extending down to the pile, the sheet pile, installed at the bottom of the bank, which is consistent with what these three professionals are saying, in my opinion, and also the engineer. So that's really what the whole project is about. I will tell you that with the inconsistency I'm not sure what is meant. When we say we are going to disturb vegetation, well pad of this is to remove the invasive vegetation that is part of the problem that is sort of rooted in this leaf stuff. We need deep rooting plants that will actually attach to and affix themselves to call it the terra firma face of the bluff and if we can't do that, then none of this will work. So that's integrated into that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If l could interrupt for a second. The recommendations under the LWRP is recommended erosion control methods including natural vegetation, revegetation of disturbed areas, so I think what you have described here to us with the plantings would address the inconsistency, in my opinion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original descriptions didn't include plantings at all. Board of Trustees 31 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So now this does, with the inclusion of these plantings you have been talking about here, I think that would address, in my opinion, would bring this into consistency under the LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: Then if the Board has no further concerns, I think I have adequately described that, what we intend to do down there. And I listened to earlier, I think we have a flagpole, so we would like the flagpole approved on the Gaipa property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't notice it, so. One got past me. MR. ANDERSON: But I11 answer, of course, any further questions, but it's nice we have two neighbors working together to address a common problem. I do like that aspect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And for the Board's knowledge, I reviewed the correspondences as Bruce had described from the USDA and it's the recommendations are exactly as Bruce has described here; double row of plants at the top, middle and base of slope is encouraged. And again, saying I would plant a few double rows of plants nine inches between and 1.5 feet between the double row, et cetera. One of the recommendations here, and I put this out to the Board, is gutters, leaders and drywells to contain roof runoff on the houses. Now, normally, this Board, when they have been talking about retaining walls or structures down at the base of the bank or near the waterfront, we have not addressed in that permit roof runoff issues. But this is a case where the roof runoff is possibly directly relating or adding to the problem. So I wanted to know what the Board's opinion was on the recommendations both from the Conservation Advisory Council or, excuse me, from the Conservation Advisory Council with requiring an addition to this project, that the roof runoff be addressed on both homes. MR. ANDERSON: Just quickly, Mr. Gaipa is here with me today. He tells me he already has drywells installed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Super. If they are there, gutters, leaders and drywells there. MR. ANDERSON: And we are, it's a little unclear about the other house but it has a gutter system so it could be installed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that would only help. You are putting all this work into the bank, you might as well add that now while you are doing that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the plans here, I was looking for them, I didn't see a side profile of this wall at all. MR. ANDERSON: It's in the lower lefthand corner. It's very simple. It's right here (indicating). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bingo. MR. ANDERSON: And the idea was to use the helical screws so we didn't have to dig into the bluff itself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you'll revegetate the disturbed area where the fill has been brought in? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: How much penetration on that sheathing? Board of Trustees 32 January 19,2011 MR. ANDERSON: Oh, we anticipate going down about six feet. I think we are going to buy ten-foot lengths. And the feeling was it could be done by hand. The tie rods, the helical screws, are screwed to a cedain torque, so that can vary depending on the firmness of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: That's going to be a job. MR. ANDERSON: It's going to be a job. But it will be better than the wall next door, which is really too high, and its caused problems. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody else in the audience? (No response). Any other comments from any Board members? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I would be kind of interested to see, after it's all grown in, maybe next fall or something, if you send a couple of photos, I'd appreciate it. Because I like the idea of planting with these grasses. I think it would look really nice, too. So I was just curious in seeing what it looks like. MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the public hearings, of number eight, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Walter Gaipa, at 360 Lake View Terrace, and number nine, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Donna Salminen at 320 Lake View Terrace, with the conditions that if they not currently there, gutters, leaders and drywells be added to the homes, and with the condition of the addition of the plantings as depicted on the site plan dated January 19, 2011. And with the plantings included with this project, as per that site plan. That would bring it into consistency under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on it? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten is postponed so we are moving on to number 11. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Why is number ten postponed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry in the beginning meeting we mentioned number ten was postponed. Sorry. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We didn't know that. Sorry. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We announced postponements in the beginning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The applicant postponed it this afternoon. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are the owners of the property. Could we know why it's postponed? MR. ANDERSON: On behalf of the applicant, we had heard there was a concern relating to erosion down there. And so we thought Board of Trustees 33 January 19, 2011 that best to give it another month so we could evaluate that and modify or add or change, if appropriate. We simply didn't have the time to look at it, and the conditions really are not great for looking at it right now anyway. So we would like to come back. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): And no interest to talking to the owners? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we could interrupt this and you guys can finish your conversation later. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It's just that we drove out from the city. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 11, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JAMES & KATHLEEN BLACKLEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, inground swimming pool, drywell and pool mechanicals, remove portion of existing rear decking, construct a patio with wall, install steps to the remaining existing decking and construct a deck addition. Located: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. This application has been found consistent by LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as written. We were all, all out there and took a look at this. We did have a question, two questions, really. The pool fence location, where it was going to be. And also we noted the deer fencing on the side. And we had some discussion on that deer fencing. So we can open this up. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, the Blackley's. The first thing I want to bring to your attention is we made a slight modification to the plan. That is we dropped off a survey dated January 13, 2011. I think the survey that you were probably looking at was featuring a pool that was 30x18. The pool is slightly larger. It's 32x20. But we held the setbacks. And this was sort of a last minute change. So please be advised of that. The second thing is when both side yards, you'll see there was a chainlink fence, and of course the property is bulkheaded. I believe those two chainlink fences and bulkhead satisfy the fencing requirements for the pool. The bulkhead satisfies it because the purpose of the fencing is to keep it from entering the property. Not leaving. So it becomes the barrier to enter the property from the seaward side. And of course the fence on either side is the fence on either side. Now, the deer fence, I may be wrong, but I thought the deer fence was up off the side of the house. Do I have that right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It goes all the way down and follows the other fence all the way down to the bulkhead. MR. ANDERSON: On both sides or one side? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's on both sides. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it was on both sides. And it was on the back, too, on the road side, too. MR. ANDERSON: I don't know what to really tell you about that. I was not prepared to address it. I recall seeing the Board of Trustees 34 January 19, 201 I chainlink. Was it on top of the chainlink, next to it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was attached to it. It seemed to rise above the chainlink. MR. ANDERSON: A permanent structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We didn't study it that hard but it seemed to be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't see how it was attached into the ground but it was right up against the chainlink and then going a few feet higher than the chainlink. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think the code would allow for the deer fencing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why we brought it up. MR. ANDERSON: So it has to come down. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And all the strings that are there, it's our understanding it's there to keep the geese from landing? MR. ANDERSON: I don't think that's a structure. I think they could probably do that. But a fence, you can't have more than four feet on the side yard. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just have never seen that. Does it work? MR. BOSSEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Animals can get through it and around it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just asking if it works. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's kind of neat. I would never think of doing that. MR. BOSSEN: It works mostly for geese. That would, with ribbon on it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It scares them. MR. BOSSEN: They can't land. It's like a double fence for deer, they feel uncomfortable in that area, they can't land and take off, because of the clearance and things. MR. ANDERSON: Because of the Iow trajectory TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any discussion or comments from the Board? Any ideas from what we wanted to do from the deer fencing and the fence going all the way to the bulkhead? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think the fence going to the bulkhead has always ben there, the chainlink. I think we are talking about the height of the deer fence. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are those gates at both ends of the bulkhead? MR. ANDERSON: I know there is one on the one side. I don't remember on the other side. But there is definitely one on the north side. Or I should say the west side. The western side line, near the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say the bulkhead serves as a fence? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it can, TRUSTEE KING: It passes muster with the code? MR. ANDERSON: It prevents children from entering. So you could have a four-foot retaining wall, for example and if you have an elevated pool with a four-foot retaining wall, that would cure that. Now, they may have a concern about falling off the deck, but that's a different issue. But we have done that in past, for example. It's really the Building Department's call, but Board of Trustees 35 January 19, 201 I for our purposes and for safety purposes, there is really no reason to bulkhead, I mean to put a fence up along the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question for counsel with regard to deer fencing. I know this has been a topic that was recently addressed through legislation by the Town Board. Is there -- what is the town's, what is the town doing with all the deer fencing that is up already all around town that doesn't meet code? Is it grandfathered in, is it just being excused until such time as they come in for something else? I mean, what is the position? MS. HULSE: I believe they are grandfathered in at this point, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So in this case, this would also be grandfathered in? MS. HULSE: (Affirmative nod). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That still doesn't -- that's just with the town. They still have to come to us for it. Because it's still in our code TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's correct. But if the town is already grandfathering it in and that's the town's interpretation, I think we should follow that. I don't think we should be more restrictive than what the town has already determined. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that, I just want to make it clear, just because it's grandfathered in doesn't mean it's grandfathered in with the Trustees. MR. ANDERSON: In that event can we treat it like a flagpole. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now that you mention it, there is a flagpole. It's right there in the picture. And it's on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, there is. MR. ANDERSON: Where is the flagpole? TRUSTEE KING: Hiding behind the tree MR. ANDERSON: Jeez, you're right. It's on the survey. We would like a permit for the flagpole, too. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response). Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the addition of the flagpole, which is located, which has been shown on the survey. And it is consistent with LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: And the deer fence? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And leave the deer fence. I don't think the Board is motivated to removing the deer fence. Do you want include the deer fence? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we are allowing it, we should include it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we'll include the approval of the deer fence. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? TRUSTEE KING: Beyond the deer fence, this is basically only Board of Trustees 36 January 19, 201 I approving that because it's going down to the bulkhead, correct? It's an established yard area? It's this were a wetland area we would probably not approve it, down to the wetland. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it would have to be back ten feet, I think. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue, it's in an established yard area and it's bulkheaded. MR. ANDERSON: I just wish the town does something about the deer. It's too much deer. TRUSTEE KING: They'll all come in the front yard now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a motion. It's seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Patricia Moore, on behalf of MICHAEL BEHRINGER, NISHA KUMAR & ELIZABETH GARDNER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing stairs, repair/replace existing timber dock, add new 32"x20' ramp and 6x20' floating dock and construct stairs from dock to beach running parallel to the bulkhead. Located: 1665 & 1755 Shore Drive, Greenport. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the dock facility is constructed with lateral access combined with original approval dated 2/27/08 and consistent with public trust doctrine. It's consistent with LWRP. Is there anyone here for or against this application? MS. MOORE: This application, and number 13, both had gotten approval just a little over two years ago, and by the time they, all the other permits were in place, urn, the permit ran out, so they were getting ready to start on the project and realized that we had to renew the permits. So it's just the same project that had previously been approved and all the other permits are in place. So they hope to start. That's all. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, is that a shared dock between the two neighbors? MS. MOORE: it will be. When I first looked at this project two or three years ago we did the research to try to figure out an old dock, whose it was. Nobody could figure out whose it was. It was kind of sitting between the two property lines so the two homeowners decided, you know what, it works, it's fine, we'll just share the dock and split the cost, and that's how they worked it out. TRUSTEE KING: That's good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see any notes on this, so this is the, this property does not have the fence, right? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's pretty much what was approved last go around. MS. MOORE: I didn't change it at all. The only difference is number 13, that only deals with the bulkhead. Number 12 is the shared dock. Number 13 is the bulkhead. That's why we had to do it separately because one is on one property alone and the ether is shared. So. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This one has the fence on it. Board of Trustees 37 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: It got me confused, too. Because I'm looking at it and they are both identical. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was looking, because this shows re building of the bulkhead, but that's not what is applied for. TRUSTEE KING: And this is different. Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board on this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there was no goose fence on this piece of property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On number 12, I don't believe. MS. MOORE: Number 12 was only dealing with the dock. So there was no fence, there was nothing regarding the fence. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had in my notes goose fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the next one there is a fence. It wasn't on both property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had goose fence on one properly and the other property also having a fence. MS. MOORE: I think they already had a fence from way back when. So I think it's already existing. The Kumar property had a bulkhead replacement and believe it already has a fence. That's why the confusion. TRUSTEE KING: I see. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the fence does go all the way. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the Behringer and Bescher it says. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a fence across the bulkhead on this. It's, and this is also the one with the drainage. I thought t had the one next door. I have the one to the west. MS. MOORE: You have the one that is already a bulkhead. That doesn't need a new bulkhead, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The old permit shows it has a new bulkhead and it also shows that there is a piece of wood on top of the pilings and wire fence there. MS. MOORE: The way those bulkheads, and it's not just that property, but the whole line of properties, must have been done all by the same contractor at the time. He extended the pilings up. And then with like a wood top on it, then some mesh. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, the mesh is not allowed. That acts as a goose fence. MS. MOORE: But that was there, that's not part of -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was that ever permitted? MS. MOORE: It was, whenever it was done back in whenever -- that project was done many years ago. It was all done the same way by all the homeowners in that area, so it leads me to believe it was all done consistently with -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The neighbor doesn't have it. MS. MOORE: Yes, the neighbor does, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a picture showing the neighbor doesn't. MS. MOORE: There are several houses all the same way. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean they may have it on the one side, but not on the other. And only one of them has the goose fence. TRUSTEE KING: Now, is it the Gardner property that has the new Board of Trustees 38 January 19, 201 I bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the new bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's this one. That is the Gardner property. TRUSTEE KING: So this other property is owned by all these people. It's the same property. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, Behringer and Kumar are the ones getting a new dock. They are the ones who I've asked for a fence that is that split rail and just add some baby mesh because they just had two infants. That's the next one. TRUSTEE KING: But isn't that the shame piece of property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's two separate properties right next to each other. MS. MOORE: The one that is the Gardner, had gotten the bulkhead. Gardner replaced their bulkhead several years ago, probably at the same time the other, the neighbors did as well because it looks like it's all the same vintage, the same construction time. And all that Gardner is doing is joining in with my client's application to build the common dock. So does that make sense to you now? TRUSTEE KING: I'm still confused now. MS. MOORE: Let's see which is which. TRUSTEE KING: I know there is a new vinyl bulkhead. Whose property is the vinyl bulkhead on? That's my question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's on the Behringer. MS. MOORE: Behringer needs the new bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Behringer and Kumar -- MS. MOORE: No, they got a permit but they never built it. That's why we are here. We need to renew our permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a picture in the Gardner file showing there is a new vinyl bulkhead existing. MS. MOORE: That's an existing one that was done a couple of years ago, before my time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows, this is from our, this is from 2008 showing the vinyl bulkhead is there already. MS. MOORE: Well, because it is. It's still there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is it staying? MS. MOORE: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm confused, because you said it needs a new one? MS. MOORE: Sorry, are you talking about Behringer or Kumar? You kept saying Gardner. Didn't you just say Gardner? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's Behringer, Kumar and Gardner. MS. MOORE: That's the confusing part. Because they are all common property. TRUSTEE KING: The Gardner property must be the one with the vinyl bulkhead. MS. MOORE: Yes. And the only new thing to the Gardner property is the shared dock. That's it. That's all I have here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we are telling you we don't want that mesh fence there. Board of Trustees 39 January 19, 2011 MS. MOORE: I'll tell her. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we told her in 2008 we did not want it there. MS. MOORE: You told me about Behringer. We removed it off Behringer at the time. TRUSTEE KING: Behringer had a split rail fence landward of the bulkhead. They had goose wire. We want the goose wire off it. MS. MOORE: And Gardner was already built out and already done. I had no application with respect to their bulkhead whatsoever. So do you want me to tell her you don't want -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That will be a condition of the permit that the mesh is to be removed. MS. MOORE: But you understand we need some form of mesh on ours because we have infants. So my application specifically is asking, not for the metal because that's will probably cut babies. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the next application. We'll talk about that. MS. MOORE: That's fine. But they need something there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go to the dock. Does anybody have any problem with the dock, the way it's proposed? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions about this property? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing on Behringer, Kumar and Gardner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for of Patricia Moore on behalf of Behringer, Kumar and Gardner for the 32"x20 ramp and 6x20 float and construct stairs from dock to beach running parallel to the bulkhead, at 1665 and 1755 Shore Drive with the condition that the goose mesh be removed, the mesh fence be removed. MS. MOORE: You didn't mention the reconstruction of the existing dock. I just want to be sure -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's describing it, the reconstruction of the existing stairs, replace, repair existing timber dock as applied for. MS. MOORE: Fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on that motion from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: This dock is on the property line and it will be shared by the two property owners; am I correct? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are being told. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now, in the future, does that preclude each lot from being able to have their own dock in the future? MS. MOORE: I believe your code does -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Board of Trustees 40 January 19, 2011 MS. MOORE: No, they understood that. If they want to take down what they had and each build their own, t guess you could do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a motion on the table. It's been seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Patricia Moore on behalf of MICHAEL BEHRINGER requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead to be rebuilt inline with neighboring bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing, install two new 12' returns and split-rail fencing with child-proof mesh at top of bulkhead. Located: 1755 Shore Drive, Greenport. This was found consistent. I don't see anything in the file, but it was found consistent. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to suppod the application. It supports the application however the bulkhead is inconsistent with the public trust doctrine. MS. MOORE: The bulkhead is up high, how could that be? Okay, whatever. TRUSTEE KING: I guess they feel seeing the high water mark is along the bulkhead that it's intruding into the public domain. MS. MOORE: I think actually the bulkhead is about six feet high above the -- TRUSTEE KING: They show the high water mark along the bulkhead in the survey. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments on this at all? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do we do about the mesh fence? TRUSTEE KING: We can get into that. MS. MOORE: Give me a suggestion. They have two end fences and it's very high up. That's the problem. TRUSTEE KING: As far as replacing the bulkhead in place with the vinyl, that's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do they have a buffer on that? TRUSTEE KING: Ten-foot non-turf buffer. My suggestion would be put the fence along the landward edge of the non-turf buffer so the kids don't go anywhere near the bulkhead. MS. MOORE: The properties are so tight over there that you would be giving up a lot of your backyard. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's only ten feet of the non-turf buffer, so right at the edge of that. MS. MOORE: If you move the ten4oot non-turf is going from the bulkhead, so ten feet out. If you put your fence on the end, you have given up ten feet of your backyard, and it's a very small yard. I think the yard itself may be 20 feet at most. It's not that large. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It depends, if it's a planted buffer I would not want my kid running in it anyway. MS. MOORE: But the non-turf is not planted, it's just non-turf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying, if it's planted. And it adds that further protection. So the fence is not right on the Board of Trustees 41 January 19, 2011 edge. MS. MOORE: If you went down there and took a look, you would see actually everybody's property is exactly identical. In fact most of the other bulkheads have the piles that have gone out and they've created a fence at the pilings. TRUSTEE KING: Don't they have the split rail fence? Right now it's landward of the bulkhead. Why don't they put a fence in where the split rail fence is now? MS. MOORE: We are keeping the split rail fence where it is now. We just want to add mesh. TRUSTEE KING: But that's not at the bulkhead, the split rail fence. That split rail fence is up in the yard, further from the bulkhead. MS. MOORE: It's maybe three feet. TRUSTEE KING: It's more than that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if there is a picture there, but it is up on the yard. MS. MOORE: Well, can they unmesh their fence? It doesn't really matter if it's not on their bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the way it is there. They have a split rail fence. TRUSTEE KING: You are right, Pat, it's maybe three feet. I mean you are going to lose seven feet if you leave it at the edge the of the non-tuff buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would rather see it at edge of the non-turf buffer rather than right at the top of the bulkhead. MS. MOORE: It will look like hell over there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They don't have to put a split rail fence, they can do some other kind of -- I mean, you have a split rail there anyway. TRUSTEE KING: That will be disturbed because they'll have a ten-foot disturbance. The split rail fence will be taken out anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just move the split rail fence back seven feet and there you go. MS. MOORE: All because they want baby proofing? That's it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: They don't have to build it if they don't want to. MS. MOORE: I guess -- what's the problem with putting mesh on the fence? What is the environmental issue we are doing this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just we are being consistent with not allowing this type of fence to block the wildlife corridor. MS. MOORE: But there is -- just go take a look, you'll see -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have been there. MS. MOORE: I'm sure you have. Because this would be the only house that has the fence landward and all the others with the bulkheads that have the piles. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They are not. I'm familiar with it. I have done every house down there. Even Evan's house doesn't have that. Evan has a terraced area. MS. MOORE: I don't know which one he is. Sorry. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Evan Axelrod. Board of Trustees 42 January 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: I think if it was me and I had young kids I would prefer a picket fence, really. Put it on the landward side of the buffer, nice picket fence, keep the kids out of there. MS. MOORE: Ill ask them. I'll offer it to them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean there is different fencing they could do. TRUSTEE KING: A split rail with mesh on it, to me that doesn't make sense. MS. MOORE: The only reason it was split rail last time is you guys insisted it be split rail. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it was that close. Because we allowed it that close. But if it's ten feet back, then you have the wildlife corridor that can be used. MS. MOORE: Okay, picket fence. I don't know what they want, to be honest with you, so. TRUSTEE KING: Well, do you want to do a resolution to approve bulkhead and we with can approve a fence on the landward side of the buffer. MS. MOORE: That's fine. And if they want, I can come back and amend it. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). If none, 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 with the stipulation that a fence will be allowed but it would be on the landward side of the ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to meet the building code. TRUSTEE KING: It would have to meet the fence code, yes. Building code, if it's for the security of the children. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on this motion from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's something we have to look at in the code, some of these fence regulations. You know, we established those with these wild life areas and the undisturbed areas, but if it's a lawn area, it's an established lawn area, what difference does a fence make on it. MS. MOORE: Here you have an area that has no vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, we are in motion, it's just a discussion amongst the Board. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: So that's my motion. Approve the bulkhead replacement and we would approve a fence on the landward side of the ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Jim, sorry, was it specific to a picket fence? I think it was just mentioned fence. Board of Trustees 43 January 19, 201 I MS. MOORE: Do you care what kind of fence or does my client get to choose? TRUSTEE KING: As long as the height is all right and meets the zoning code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It can be a split rail fence or it could be -- MS. HULSE: Is that specific? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The motion was that it conform to the Building Department regulations. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it's on the landward side of the ten-foot. MS. HULSE: So it can be the mesh. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, David Corwin on behalf of JOSEPH PAGANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing bulkhead, install in same location 159 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, remove existing 6x13' wood float, install new 6x20' wood float, 3x14' ramp, install two anchor pilings and replace approximately 20 cubic yards lost fill. Located: 2335 Cedar Lane, East Marion. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. He does have a recommendation of erosion control to address storm water retention. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer to both sides of the driveway ramp on the seaward side of the dwelling. Is there anybody here who wants to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to note for the record that I'm abstaining from this application and discussion. MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin, I don't have any comments. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple of things here. Now, I noticed what the proposed plan is, I just want to make sure I understand completely, is to remove the existing float that is right now pretty much contained in a cut out, landward cut out of that property, and you now want to extend a catwalk and float out into that waterway. Is that correct? MR. CORWIN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are extending this 17 feet out from the current, from where the current existing dock is. MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just to address the buffer, I know right now there is currently a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the length of the bulkhead. You want retain that, correct? MR. CORWIN: Yes. And I'm showing that on the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also notice in the description, you talk about use of treated lumber. Treated timber decking. And we have not been approving treated lumber used on decking. We have for pilings and suppod but not on the decking. So we would ask you Board of Trustees 44 January 19, 2011 to use non-treated material on the decking instead of the treated material. MR. CORWIN: We'll use fir instead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just bear with me, I want to read something into record here also. I also want to read a letter that is from George Peter, President of the Gardner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association, dated November 2, 2010. Upon receipt of the revised plan, October 19, 2010, the association giving permission for you to proceed with the permit for construction of the new float, ramp, anchor piles, exactly as shown on these plans. I think that's important because of this extending out, they own the bottom, so what they are doing is giving, the association is giving you permission to extend out. A question came up as to whether, in the code for docks, it states that docks or floats related to docks must be 15 feet off the property line. And I just want to make sure this proposed new structure dock is going to be 15 foot off the property line. We are just measuring it out. It looks like it's right at the 15 foot mark. We want to make sure it's 15 foot as per code. MR. CORWIN: The DEC, I showed originally less than 15 to the DEC, which gave us the permit, said move it, which I did, of course. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I see you have a DEC permit dated 12/17, 2010. And the drawings and conditions of the DEC permit match these that we have before us today. I didn't know if any Board member, when they went out and looked at this, since I went out and looked at this, it was not staked, if the Board members when they went out if they noticed it was staked, and I'm just interested if there is any issue with any pier line with adjacent docks? So, Board members, when you went out -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if it was staked. MR. CORWIN: Just by matter of how this location came about, there is a mooring off the dock about the middle of the property that the homeowners association authorized out there, and I wanted to put the floating dock more in the middle of the property. The homeowners association objected to that so we ended up moving it closer to the property line, the south property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at pictures contained in the file that the applicant provided us and I see it looks like a dock south of this property and it appears to extend out at least as far if not farther than what is proposed here. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's perfect there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just I noted here when I was out there, there is a flagpole on this piece of property, would the applicant like to include that in the property so the flagpole is now permitted? MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also, I think what mitigates the environmental effects of the new structure is the removal of the one float and ramp that is currently there in that one cutout, as we Board of Trustees 45 January 19, 2011 discussed. So those are all the issues I had or all the questions I had. And these anchor piles, are they single anchor piles? MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience who wants to comment on this application? MR. PETER: Hi, name is George Peter. I wrote the letter of approval for Joe. When he notified us in October, our marine committee went down there and took all the measurements and pulled in an "X" number of feet because, as David said, the swing of the sailboat moorings would impede, even on Joe's access to his deck. So they pulled it back accordingly to this plan, which I wrote the approval at. Just to let you know that was all measured by our marine committee and so forth, and it was done. So everything is right now on schedule, so to speak. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Now, the only other concern I had, Mr. Corwin, and this comes from the Conservation Advisory Council's recommendation, we have this concrete ramp, so to speak, that goes down there and right now all the water just flows from the concrete ramp straight into, appears straight down into that cutout area of the bulkhead, ts there, so it's not being, it's not being strained at all. Is there an opportunity here, and I propose to the Board also, for a drain to be cut at the base of that concrete path with a grating over it so that that would pick up that water from flowing down that concrete path and keep it from going into the water. MR. CORWIN: I don't remember which way that concrete is pitched. Did you notice when you went out there? While I'm sitting back there, I thought -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The ramp that was going underneath and goes into the house? MR. CORWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm assuming it's pitched downhill toward the water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's for a boat ramp. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm asking is there an opportunity to here to cut down at the bottom of that ramp, a drain to collect that water and send it into the drywells, prior to -- TRUSTEE KING: Does it go over the wooden deck here? I don't remember. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that the only picture we have? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the only picture I have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I just throw it out there to the Board for consideration. MR. CORWIN: Let me make this representation. We will do whatever it takes not to have runoff from the ramp go into Spring Pond. So if it's a wood deck that is there existing and we put it back as wood, the water can't go into Spring Pond. Well it's not going to be concrete all the way to the bulkhead because of the buffer TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, because we don't have pictures. But Board of Trustees 46 January 19, 2011 the plan does show a wood deck there and for the CAC that water then would go, hit the wood decking and flow down first before it goes into the pond. Okay. If there are no other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: ~'11 make a motion to approve the application of David Corwin on behalf of Joseph Pagano as described at 2335 Cedar Lane, East Marion, with the condition that non-treated lumber is used for that decking on that proposed ramp and will include in the permit the flagpole that is there and will be maintaining the ten-foot non-turf buffer that is currently there. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion on the motion? Are you going to include drainage as part of the motion, or -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The drainage is already there as per the non-turf buffer that is there and the wood deck that is there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nothing on the ramp or anything? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, David Corwin on behalf of BARBARA PAGANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead, install in same location 56 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, reconstruct existing 6x20' wood float, 6x10' wood float, 3x14' ramp, 3x6' platform, install two float anchor piles, and replace approximately ten cubic yards lost fill. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record I'm abstaining from any discussion on this one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This has been found to be exempt from the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Counci~ resolved not to support the application because the proposed dock does not adhere to the existing pier line and two floating docks are not permitted in accordance with Chapter 275. The Board when we were out there taking a look at it, asked if there was a letter from the association because we didn't have one in the file. And we needed to discuss the 6x10 float. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. CORWIN: If you have any questions, I'll answer them. And what I probably should tell you at this point is I think Mr. Peter and the homeowners association may have some objections as far as how far the dock extends out into Spring Pond and just let me tell you how I came about putting out 28 feet. I looked on Google Earth and scaled, April 1, 2001, as 33 feet, they show. This dock goes in and out every year. April 2, 2004, the dock was 30 feet. Now those are the only two that I could scale that the picture was good enough. The others were either spring Board of Trustees 47 January 19, 2011 and the dock had not been put in or was a very bad photograph. So what I did was I took what was there, existing stuff and I said I don't want to go anymore than 30 feet. So I brought it back to 28 feet. So that's how I ended up with 28 feet, using the existing dock that has been put in every year. But I think this past season it was not put in place. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What's the reason for the having a 6x10 float instead of just having one float and just a ramp? MR. CORWlN: My assumption is just to get out there to deeper water. I couldn't -- I measured the depth on the other parcel, went out two steps and was stuck in the mud in waders, so I didn't try to measure to get out 28 feet because I knew I couldn't do it. My assumption is it's a question water depth. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So if we wanted to make that a hard structure instead of float, we could make that 6x20 instead of the float and that would be all right? MR. CORWlN: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That would make it consistent with our code, anyway. MR. CORWlN: What I would probably like to do is put a little platform off the bulkhead and put a ramp down to a 6x20 float. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay. There is an existing platform there now so we would just utilize that, I guess. It shows it as six feet. TRUSTEE KING: But the ramp would have to be quite a bit longer, right, without -- TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It would have to either be that or extend the platform. MR. CORWlN: I would like to extend the platform to get out there to 28 feet. TRUSTEE KING: You don't see that too often. Creosote on the waler and the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The bulkhead plan shows a creosoted waler. TRUSTEE KING: That's prohibited. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's right. I had notes about using non-treated lumber. The creosote we can't approve. It's against code. You would have to use CCA. And on the decking, of course, we would want non-treated lumber, like we did on the last one, so it's essentially the same thing. MR. CORWlN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: In terms of eliminating that float, how far further out would you like to go with your platform to accommodate the removal of that float? MR. CORWlN: I probably need to go out about 12 feet, without analyzing it carefully. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay, and then that would give you a ramp, then you would have a ten-foot ramp, essentially. MR. CORWlN: Yes, and that would land on the float. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: On the last one we noted there was an approval letter from the association, What are we doing on this one? MR. PETER: George Peter, President of Gardner's Bay Estates Association. Two weeks ago we got the plan in the mail for his Board of Trustees 48 January 19, 2011 wife Barbara's thing, which never came up in the initial discussion back in October. And it was so big, it was further out than Joe's original plan, which we modified back in to the current approved size. He said, Joe said something about, well, when he bought the property in 1996, his wife's property was the original house from the previous owner, whose name is Parrot. That was the specs of the original dock. So I went to the Trustees department and I got the copy of the grandfathered permit from 1995 from the previous homeowner and it has all the specs right here and the dock only goes out 21 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: How far? MR. PETER: 21. So the question is if he wants to go out seven feet beyond the one that was previously approved, which is immediately next door, until our marine committee takes measurements and depths and all that stuff, we can't approve it. And I told Joe that he may have to wait for the spring because our marine committee are basically snow birds, and they are gone. And he understood my point. So I said I'll be at the meeting tonight to make that point out to the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay, well, I was going to suggest, why don't we table it so you can come up with a revised plan, including this, as well as reducing down to the one float, increasing the size of the ramp. Does that sound like a good idea? MR. CORWlN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had a question. Mr. Corwin, on this property, are there returns on this bulkhead also? MR. CORWlN: No, they tie in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so there are no returns, because I had that down on my notes, asking about returns, replacement also. Okay, that was the only question I had. Thank you. MR. CORWlN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I would like to make a motion to table this application in lieu of addressing the questions for the association and also to get a revised plan for the structure, the depth that are they want to put out there and make it only one float instead of two. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED //; ,gm FEB 17 2011 5outhold lown Uerk