Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/18/2011 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 Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:00 PM RECEIVED / !; V.~-~ Sou:hold Town Clerk Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Jim 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, June 15, 2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening, everybody, welcome to our May meeting. We have Wayne Galante here taking the Minutes of the meeting, so if anybody needs to speak, please come up to the microphone and state your name for the record, and speak clearly, and please try to keep your comments five minutes or less. Today from the CAC, representing the CAC, is Audrey Horton. That's the Conservation Advisory Council. And Lori Hulse will be here, she is our legal counsel. She will be here shortly. With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspection will be Wednesday, June 15, at 8:00 AM. Do we have a motion? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And our next meeting will be June 22, 6:00 PM with a worksession at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Board of Trustees 2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March, 2011. A check for $9,712.41 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. May 18, 2011 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 VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., May 18, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: William Galliard - SCTM#9-3-5 William Turnbull - SCTM#52-1-1 James & Denise Martin - SCTM#123-4-11 Michael & Gilliam Wilson - SCTM#57-1-6 Debbie Grillos - SCTM#44-1-14 Maria Stanisic - SCTM#51-4-1 Eugene C. Burger, Jr.- SCTM#104-3-2 Denise Voegel- SCTM#121-4-24 Michael Phillips - SCTM#33-4-3 Ann Marie Moschitta -SCTM#104-9-10 Joan Prager - SCTM#14-2-1.10 Four-S-Properties, LLC - SCTM#111-5-11 Glendalough Properties, Inc. - SCTM#111-10-14 North Fork Kiwi, LLC - SCTM#111-10-13.1 East End Seaport and Marine Foundation- SCTM#132-1-31 Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Assoc. - SCTM#37-4-17 Joseph Brantuk - SCTM#75-6-7.2 Nick Pologeorgis - SCTM#135-1-26 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, ANTHONY CAMPO requests an Administrative Permit to remove four dead trees in the right-of-way and two dead trees on Lot # 18. Located: 1165 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. Board of Trustees May 18, 2011 The Board went out there, and this is a town right-of-way, but it's more of a paper road in any sense. The town does own part of this and it's diseased trees right on the water's edge and it really needs to be taken care of. The Board really didn't have a problem with it. I'll make a motion to approve this subject to Highway, Peter Harris' approval as well. Since it's on the town right-of-way and he's responsible for that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, ANTHONY GRAZlANO requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12" by hand, as needed. Located: 915 Lakeside Dr., Southold. This is exempt by LWRP. This was something that we do allow by our code. As long as it's maintained and taken care of by hand, it's no problem. It's four phragmites only. No problem in this area. ©nly phragmites to take down, it's an invasive species, so I'll make a motion that we approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's except from LWRP as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did say that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: ©kay. TRUSTEE KING: Number three is Raymond W. Nemschick, RA on behalf of JONATHAN P. WENDELL requests an Administrative Permit to add a new 680 sf. slate upper patio to the existing structure; new 17'X2' slate retaining wall; replace existing ramp with stairs in same location; and replace all existing brick retaining walls and lower patio with slate in same height and dimension. Located: 355 Terry Lane, Southold. This is found to be consistent with the LWRP. We have a few comments in the Minutes, I mean on the field inspections, about the trees on the east side. Are they going to be removed? I don't think we got an answer to that question, did we? We also want to see drainage, drywells for drainage for roof runoff. Nothing is shown on this plan that we have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see the applicant is here in the audience. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak about this? Just a couple of questions we have. MR. NEMSCHICK: Raymond W. Nemschick, I'm the architect. TRUSTEE KING: The question was about the trees, if you face the water, on the leff-hand side, are any of those trees going to be removed or are they going to be left alone? MR. NEMSCHICK: The whole line of trees all the way on the left side as you face the water? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. NEMSCHICK: No, they won't be touched. TRUSTEE KING: And we need to see drywells for roof runoff. MR. NEMSCHICK: It's an existing structure, is there any reason why you need to put in drywells on an existing structure if we maintain all runoff on the site? TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a question as to where the runoff was going. Board of Trustees 4 MR. NEMSCHICK: We are not touching the structures, so I don't see any reason why he needs to go through the financial hardship of putting drywells in for that. Any work we are doing to install the new driveway, we'll have a basin and retainage for that. But it's also a pervious surface. I'm doing a gravel driveway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was also some question in the area that we are concerned with, the runoff around the corner of the house. You can come up here and we'll show you where we are talking about. There was a gentleman on site that said they are redoing the patio, too. So that was not in the description of what you were asking for. The runoff right down in here, it all comes off this whole roof, and there is no gutters at all and it runs all the way down here and runs right straight through here, and that's why we were saying gutters and leaders to drywells. MR. NEMSCHICK: This tree, we want to remove. It's dead. These trees we are not touching. I can certainly put a retention in here to take all the runoff from this point and bring it down in a safe manner and keep it onsite. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the area we are talking about. MR. NEMSCHICK: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also, what about the patio under here? We were told that's being removed and redone. That would be in our jurisdiction as well MR. NEMSCHICK: That's on the drawings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it was not in our description. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was some confusion in the field between the two patio areas. MR. NEMSCHICK: That's why, right here it says stone patio underneath, wood deck, and that will be all brick retaining walls and patio with replacement slate in exact location and height. TRUSTEE KING: So this will all be replaced with slate. MR. NEMSCHICK: Yes, we'll just reface it with slate. TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest, our biggest problem was the runoff problem. MR. NEMSCHICK: Right. TRUSTEE KING: So maybe give us a set of, just show us on the drawing where you'll retain this runoff. MR. NEMSCFIICK: Absolutely. We'll make the amendment and drop it off before the end of the week. TRUSTEE KING: With that being said -- and we talked about a five-foot, non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, landward of the bulkhead, to try to ease some of those runoff problems. MR. NEMSCHICK: Understood. TRUSTEE KING: And show that on the plans also. MR. NEMSCHICK: We will. TRUSTEE KING: With those two modifications I'll move to approve this based on the new plans showing the five-foot non-turf buffer and the drainage taken care of. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP TRUSTEE KING: I said that. We were talking it's consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of 1900 MILL LANE, LLC/TEDALDI requests an Administrative Permit to remove 315 square foot of phragmites, utilizing selective cutting techniques, to 18" above grade and removed to an approved upland site for disposal, and re-plant areas void of vegetation with Spartina patens. Legalize structures that were constructed without a wetlands permit including: Removal of existing deck in the rear of the dwelling and construction of a 2'X12' wood step off the rear of the dwelling, construction of a 15.5'X12' paver patio area in the rear of the dwelling, paver walkway 4'X19' leading from the existing stoop to the driveway in the front of the house; and to replace the existing 12' wide RCA driveway with 8' wide parking area with pervious gravel. Located: 1900 Mill Lane, Peconic. This application has been deemed consistent with LWRP. Trustee inspection revealed that this site is particularly well suited for the phragmites removal as an invasive species because a very healthy Spartina marsh exists right at the same elevation, so when the invasive is removed through selective cutting and replanting takes place there is a very good opportunity for a full restoration, unlike a lot of times it's difficult to get the elevations where you have regular intertidal flooding. Based on the Trustee inspection, we have two requests; that selective cutting be done by hand only. It's a fairly small area. And that the property, to bring it into conformity with generally accepted best use practices and that of the neighbors, we are requesting an eight-foot non-tuff buffer. That would tie in with both neighbors have exactly, the neighbor to the south is more prominent with the pebble non-turf buffer that is exactly eight-foot wide. MR. BOWMAN: Charles Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services. That's not a problem. The plans should also say, it says Spartina patens. It should say patens and Alterna flora. I want to make that clear. The patens are more intended for the top of the bulkhead where the grass doesn't grow because it gets some overwash. The Alterna flora will be down at the elevation of the phragmites, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, as amended to also include Alterna flora in the lower elevations. MR. BOWMAN: And he already has installed drywells on his own. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. This was postponed and it's my understanding the violation was cleared. MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, that being said, I would make a recommendation to approve this application based on phragmites removal by hand only; the addition of Spartina alterna flora in the species plant list; and the installation of an eight-foot non-turf buffer to match that of the neighboring properties. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Eugene Burger on behalf of MICHAEL NEUMANN requests an Administrative Permit to install a triple split rail May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees fence with wire mesh inside, around the perimeter of the property up to the crest of the bluff. Located: 3329 Grand Ave., Mattituck. This was found consistent under the LWRP. I went out and looked at it. I just had a couple of questions. Is Mr. Burger here? MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger. TRUSTEE KING: I had a question. Why the wire mesh on the inside of the fence, Eugene? MR. BURGER: We were just thinking to help keep the kids in the yard a little bit. They have three young boys. TRUSTEE KING: That's around the whole perimeter of the property, right? MR. BURGER: Yes. It's not critical we do that, we thought it might be better to keep them within - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keeping their toys and things from going into the marsh. TRUSTEE KING: The only other question I had on the description was to go to the crest of the bluff. What it shows on the survey is well down below that right into that non-disturbance area. MR. BURGER: No, I'm just going to the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: If you would like to come up here, I'll just show you what I'd like to see here, then we can argue about it. MR. BURGER: I'm not going to argue. TRUSTEE KING: If they stopped the fence at this elevation right here rather than go down into wetland. You know, there is a house to the north, the Guyton house, if you go between this house and their house and stop the fence there. Back it up a little bit. As far as the mesh goes -- MR. BURGER: Honestly, if you have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge issue with it. I'm just thinking of some of the wildlife corridors, because it's a big piece of property. If it was up off the bottom a little bit, small animals can go back and forth. Deer will just jump it. They don't care. There were five deer in the yard -- MR. BURGER: The Neumann's didn't even ask. We, when we did -- I was thinking to keep it. It doesn't matter, if you feel better without it, I11 go with that. TRUSTEE KING: If it's not necessary. What's the height of that? MR. BURGER: They'll get out anyway. TRUSTEE KING: If it's three -- MR. BURGER: The split rail is three feet. It's a three rail rather than two. TRUSTEE KING: It's not an eight-foot deer fence. MR. BURGER: No. TRUSTEE KING: All right, with that being said, I would recommend approval with the following modifications: The wire fence will not be installed. Wire mesh will not be installed, and the fence on the south side will extend no further seaward than the zone "X" line that is now shown on the survey. And on the north side the fence will extend no further seaward than the line drawn between the Neumann residence and the Guyton residence, so it backs the fence up a few feet out of the wetland areas. That's my recommendation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Joseph Michael Gratzen on behalf of DOMINICK MAVELLIA requests an Administrative Permit to install May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees solar panels onto to the roof of the existing dwelling. Located: 205 North Sea Dr., Southold. This was a simple application for installation of solar panels on the roof of the existing dwelling. It is exempt under the LWRP and there were no problems observed during the field inspection with this project as proposed. So with that I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. We have 12 of them tonight. We reviewed all of them. They are listed as follows: Number one, MARY BURNHAM requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7109 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7109C, as issued on June 24, 2009. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island. Number two, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6943, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 54120 County Rd. 48, Southold. Number three, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS, LLC requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6915, as issued on June 18, 2008 and Amended on May 20, 2009. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. Number four, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS, LLC requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6916, as issued on June 18, 2008 and Amended on June 24, 2009. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Rd. Cutchogue. Number five, VIRGINIA HARMS & ROBERT KUHNE request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5052 from James Blackley to Virginia Harms & Robert Kuhne, as issued on August 25, 1999. Located: 1455 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of ANDERSON/ADRIANCE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7451 from Anderson/Adriance to NICHOLAS & BARBARA PALLANTE, as issued on December 15, 2010. Located: 4302 Wunneweta Rd., Cutchogue. Number seven, LYNN LASKOS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7504 and #7504C to reconstruct existing driveway using pervious pea gravel and construct a retaining wall approx. 2' X 20' using landscape lumber to hold back abutting vegetation and soil. Located: 55915 County Rd. 48, Southold. Number eight, John E Stumpf, RA on behalf of PETER & SABRINA PEZZlNO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #6946 for the asbuilt driveway, stone walls and landscape plan. Located: 3120 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. Number nine, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of SPIRO GEROULANOS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #6836 for the relocation of the northerly landscape wall adjacent to the swimming pool terrace and the addition of a new landscape wall 4' to the west of the pool terrace wall with steps to grade. Located: 2130 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. Number ten, Morgan Wheelock Inc. On behalf of JAMES BAILEY requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #7370A to omit May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees the 4'X 85' brick wall, the 4'X 20' wood fence, and the stone edge around tree; reduce gravel path from 420 sr. to 153 sf; reduce wood planter from 96 sf, to 72 sf.; increase stone steppers from 128 sf. To 144 sf; include 12" height reduction of 16 linear feet of existing wall east of guest house; increase chip and seal motorcourt from 1,690 sf. to 1,730 sf; increased amount of cut from 0-12cy; and increase amount of fill from 25 cy. to 114 cy. for a net fill of 102 cy. Located: Private Rd. off East End Rd., Fishers Island. Number 11, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of STUART THORN requests Administrative Amendments to Wetland Permit #7429 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7429C to remove the existing stairway to beach; construct 100' of new bulkhead immediately landward of and 1' higher than existing bulkhead; construct new 2'X4'cantilevered platform over new bulkhead and reinstall existing stairway to beach; install 170' of 1-3 ton 2-rock armoring in front of bulkheads; fill and re-grade terrace to level of new bulkhead; re-vegetate any disturbed areas with native plantings to match existing variety. Located: 19375 Soundview Ave., Southold. And number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ANNA COSTAS requests Administrative Amendments to Wetland Permit #7410 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7410C to construct 104' of new steel sheet piling bulkhead; install 1-course 2.5 to 3 ton rock armoring at base of new bulkhead; remove remains of existing wooden upper and lower retaining walls and construct 104' of 3-course 1 to 2 ton rock retaining wall in-place; fill eroded bank area with 450-500 cy. of clean trucked in fill and revegetate bank with native plantings; provide 20-50 lb. core stone splash zone landward of bulkhead;and replace existing destroyed stairway in-place. Located: 20795 Soundview Ave., Southold. We've inspected all of them and they are pretty much straightforward applications, so I'll move to approve all 12 as applied for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next, number six, Moorings. We have eight of them. Most of them are replacing moorings that have been there with the same size boat or smaller, I believe. We reviewed all these and I'll make a motion to approve numbers one, two, five, six and seven as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, STEPHEN BULL requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #28. Access: Public Number two, NElL CAPOBIANCO requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #26. Number five, CYNTHIA BARRETT requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Narrow River for a 13' boat, replacing Stake #5. Access: Public. Number six, ANNE KEATING requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Narrow River for a dinghy, replacing Stake #2. Access: Public Number seven, JAMES & SHARON BOGDEN request an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Narrow River for an 11' boat, replacing Stake #12. Access: Public TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers three and four are in James Creek, and May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees they are in an area that is a congested area and we basically should have instructed the girls not to accept applications for this area. They are: Number three, STEVEN SZCZESNIAK requests a Mooring Permit in James Creek for a 25' boat, replacing Mooring #734. Access: Public. And number four, EDWARD MUNZ requests a Mooring Permit in James Creek for a 28' boat, replacing Mooring #187. Access Public. And right now, I don't think there is any other area in James Creek that we can move them to. So we could look into it and if we find room we'll certainly accept their application, but I would like to make a resolution to refund the application fee and put them back at the top of the waiting list, and when something comes in we'll notify them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll also be eliminating those two mooring numbers, correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, BARRETT KATZ requests a temporary Mooring Permit in Richmond Creek for a 20' boat. Access: Private He has a -- we just gave him a permit for a dock in that location. He would like to put a mooring there until such time he can construct his dock, so I'll make a motion to approve the temporary mooring and at some such time the dock is constructed, the mooring permit will not be renewed. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to go off regular meeting and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren, do you have the first file? MS. HULSE: I just have a quick question on number eight for the Moorings. The temporary mooring permit expires upon them placing in the dock? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. HULSE: Because they have the permit. So until they place it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. HULSE: If they don't place it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then the mooring can stay there. MS. HULSE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a renewable thing every year. MS. HULSE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, under Amendments to Wetland Permits and Coastal Erosion Permits, MICHAEL & GILLIAN WILSON request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5438 to change the dock from 20'x4' to 30'x4', add a 4' fiberglass open-grate walkway along the bulkhead and designate a May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 10 10' non-turf buffer landward of the walkway. Located: 590 Tarpon Dr., Southold. This is an application that we have gone back and fodh on, and the previous permits that were granted to this property stipulated a non-disturbance buffer of, was it 50-feet wide, I believe? MR. WILS©N: Michael Wilson. The remaining 36 feet, yes. Double the 50 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was consistent with LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because of previous non-compliance with the requirement of the non-disturbance buffer. Mr. Wilson, we have a couple of questions on -- I believe the last time we spoke, we asked, we said okay, give us a planting plan. MR. WILSON: And I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. I apologize. We were out of town and our agent was extremely busy. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: ©kay, now, we were a little confused because we have this stack of paper, and in the stack of paper is the old planting plan. Is that what you are submitting for a planting plan? MR. WILSON: No, no. Sorry if it's confusing. The planting plan that Gary has proposed -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have not received yet, correct? MR. WILSON: I believe you have. It is in there. It's this one. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: It is that one, okay. MR. WILSON: That is the one that we are, that is the one we are asking to do. Basically, the good news is none of my neighbors complained about us changing the dock or the main part of the permit. What the neighbors were complaining about was the non-disturbance buffer and how unkempt the area looked. And this is the plan that Gary helped me put together, moving the existing bushes off to the side and coming up with eight planting areas, and he's defined the plants that are, that the DEC, I hope, will approve, that will go in that area, so the backyard will look more like a regular backyard. And you can see on the last page here, there is the listing of the different plant beds and how many plants are going into plant beds and I hope that -- our neighbors are here tonight -- I hope they will like this plan as opposed to not like it. TRUSTEE KING: I think our concerns are more environmental concerns with the previous permits than as to the neighbors' concerns. I think. MR. WILSON: I understand that. TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with DEC on this planting plan? MR. WILSON: We have not heard back from the DEC. It has been submitted to them and we have not heard back. They regard it as an administrative change to the last permit we got, which was for the dock. TRUSTEE KING: Didn't they also have a non-disturbance area? MR. WILSON: At the time. We are asking them to make the same changes, yes. One of the things I realized as I was asking you, is I had to go back and ask the DEC, and that's why I asked Gary to make sure it would be something that hopefully you and the DEC will agree to. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: The other thing is, in your description you are asking for a ten-foot, non-tuff buffer. Where are you talking about with that? MR. WILSON: Okay, shall I go back there or stay here? May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can stay here, because you can point it out on here. MR. WILSON: The original plan has the four-foot walk -- I have about a seven-foot area which has sea grass there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. On the lower bulkhead. MR. WILSON: Yes, on the lower bulkhead. The first four foot of that would have the open-grate walkway. That has already been approved by the DEC. And that would be over the sea grass. The next three foot would be the start of, if you like, the non-turf buffer, and the sea grass would stay there, and the DEC said they want to us keep the sea grass there. That means the first seven-foot above the wall -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Behind the retaining wall. MR. WILSON: Would be stones. To make the rest of the ten-foot non-turf buffer. Then the remaining 36 is where the new planting plan would come in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, just for clarification, I would rather just smooth it out and say, you know, a non-turf buffer with a planting plan as shown on the plan. Because the way the description reads now is you are just asking for ten-foot non-turf buffer and then everything will be lawn. I know you are not asking for that, but that's the way, when you read this at first, that is what comes to mind. So I just want to clarify the description. MR. WILSON: What I just said is what I'm intending, and if it's not written that way I'll be very happy to send it back. But basically we were just aiming to change the first ten feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the first ten feet to be stone -- MR. WILSON: Seven feet to be the sea grass and then -- sorry, yes -- yes. Okay, four foot to be walkway, three foot to be sea grass, seven feet to be stones. Okay. That's the intention. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then the planting -- MR. WILSON: Then the remaining 36 feet of our 50 feet would be the plantings. Sorry if that was not clear. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. WILSON: And I don't know whether any of the neighbors want to speak. TRUSTEE KING: We heard the neighbors. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we would just like to review this. MR. WILSON: I understand. But it was our intent to try and get a planting -- Gary thinks the planting plan will be approved by the DEC. There is no guarantee on that, of course, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is -- is there any comments from the Board on this? Anybody want to see the plans again? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess my thoughts run to the fact we have a terrible problem with invasives in the town, and throughout the whole North Fork. And the question is can you have a re plant and restore with natural vegetation and provide for, you know, esthetic views for neighbors and still maintain fish and wildlife value. That's the question. MR. WILSON: The intent, I was hoping that we would be allowed to at least maintain this in terms of removing invasive species, because one of the problems we have now is we have invasive species right in the middle of the non-disturbance zone, and I May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 12 can't remove the invasive species. So if I was allowed to maintain the buffers as described so that we have DEC approved plants, and make it so that it still is considered helpful to the environment but at the same time something that both us and our neighbors can look at and say it looks like a nice backyard. TRUSTEE KING: I see native species but I don't see anything specified as to what native species. MR. WILSON: There should be a page. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a page in one of the attachments. MR. WILSON: Yes, this is the first page is, he defines the plantings, and here is the different beds. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have that. That's what we were looking for. We don't have that in this packet. MR. WILSON: Sorry, I sent that around to everybody. Gary gave me that. Sorry if you don't have it. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We didn't have that at our worksession. MR. WILSON: Certainly that's an important part, because that defines the quantity of plants and the types. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see some cedar planted in there. I'm thinking this is going to be a manicured -- MR. WILSON: What he said was you have lower plants in the middle rising to higher plants toward the outside, then there is still the existing bushes that will be on the outside. So it will not be entirely manicured. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Like you said, some Iow-bush blueberries, some high-bush blueberries and maybe a couple of cedars on the end, something like that. Because it's still a natural area. TRUSTEE KING: Make it look more natural, rather than manicured. That was the whole idea behind the non-disturbance area to begin with. But then it was destroyed during the construction of the house and the bulkhead. We have problems here going back. MR. WILSON: Yes, I understand, sir. And you know we were under the impression that our agent got approval, he got approval from the DEC, we also should have got approval from you, but he didn't. TRUSTEE KING: I believe it was more of a DEC violation than with us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well -- TRUSTEE KING: He had -- they had given him like a 15-foot access path to go down to the bulkhead. What they did is whacked out the whole place. That's what started the problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, Jim, what did you want to add to the plantings? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see some cedars planted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the sides where, Jay said high -~ TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to go into the specificity of individual plants. I think cedars are good because they are there. I don't know about the high bush blueberry -- TRUSTEE KING: Some bayberry. MR. WILSON: We have bayberry. We already have bayberry and they are also in the re planting plan. TRUSTEE KING: I'd say plant with five to six-foot cedars. Cedars are very slow growing. You won't live long enough to see them ten-feet high, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How do you plan on clearing this? Because there are some bushes in there you want to keep, right? May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 13 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Baccharus was supposed to transplanted -- that was supposed to be transplanted a long time ago, on the first go around. We met with Dave Chicanowicz out there, two, three, four years ago. MR. WILSON: We did not implement that plan because our neighbors, the Manos', got permission to put the 30-foot dock, which is how we got to where we are now. It's our other neighbors, the Manos' are also complaining about the look of our backyard. TRUSTEE KING: That's not an issue with me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How do you plan on doing the work? That's my question. Are you going in there with machines or ripping this all out by hand? MR. WILSON: No, this is all done by hand. Otherwise we have to remove the bushes and replant them. That can't be done by -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With all the history here, I want to just get that on the record and make sure we are all on the same page with that. MR. WILSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, does the Board have any question on the dock? TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think that was an issue. MR. WILSON: It wasn't at the last meeting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board on the bushes? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the audience on this application? (No response). The previous hearings, records of the hearings are in this application, and so if anybody wants to say anything new, now is your time. (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the amendments to the Wetland Permit #5438 to change the dock from 20x4 to 30x4, add a fiberglass open-grate walkway along the bulkhead, and behind the bulkhead plant some Spartina grass, and then some stone and then do plantings the rest of the 36 feet as proposed on the plan dated March 15, 2011, with the change of some cedars and maybe some high blueberry bush to have a little higher growth in that area, and this area to be maintained along with the, and which includes a path, going down to the dock. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To maybe permit removal of invasive species by hand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And everything to be done by hand. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment from the Board on this Board of Trustees 14 May 18, 2011 motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The path going down, is that a four-foot path? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do they need a revised planting plan? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we need a revised planting plan. And this will be maintained. Hearing no further comments, all in favor? (Trustee Dohedy, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee King, nay). TRUSTEE KING: Nay. I don't have a problem with the dock or any of those modifications, but I was on the Board when this lot was developed and was part of the process of putting in the non-turf and non-disturbance area and I'm uncomfortable voting aye on it. So I vote nay. TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Melissa C. Butler/Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of BEBBIE GRILLOS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7505 & Coastal Erosion Permit #7505C to include two (2) returns on the bulkhead; repair the house foundation; and repair the second-stow deck and stairs. Located: 55705 County Rd. 48, Southold. There are some changes to this from the original application. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application. There is two returns on the bulkhead. Potential negative impact it would have on the neighboring properties. CAC recommends the steep slope is addressed on the east side of the property and hay bales and silt fencing are installed to contain runoff. This was an area that really got beat up in the December storm. I don't think any of us had a problem with this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because all the neighboring properties are coming in to do the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: The large deck is reduced way down in size and it's going with a splash pad put in place. It's everything we asked for. This used to be all decking here. So the deck size is reduced and now they have splash pad. They put the return in. I just don't have an issue at all with this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We approved all this and the reason they came back to us is they did not, in the previous application, did not talk about the house foundation. So that's why it's what the amendment is, is just to repair the house foundation. So to us it was straightforward. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty straightforward and simple. MR. BUTLER: Jeff Butler here on behalf of the applicant. The applicant's husband is here also. But Jill, that's the case, the bulkhead was wiped out in the December 26 storm. We were here, received an emergency permit and then a permit to redo the bulkhead with armor stone. We are back to add in the language for the repair of the foundation. The existing deck, supports and the stairs, and then to add the returns on to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Some of it is exempt. Some is found inconsistent because of the deck. But with the splash pad in place and everything I would make a recommendation we find this consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we did the last time around, so -- TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend approval of this as it's been Board of Trustees 15 May 18, 2011 submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to close the hearing first. TRUSTEE KING: 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 recommend approval of this application. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we find it to be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. BUTLER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Eh-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of NICK POLOGEOR61S requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7379 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7379C to replace originally permitted +/-2' diameter stone, which was undermined and buried by December 2010 blizzard, with up to +/-3' diameter stone in same location and atop row of buried toe stone to prevent slumping; construct +/-100 linear feet vinyl retaining wall (and 17' and 20' returns) in place of permitted, temporary concrete block retaining wall to be removed; and restore the vegetated berm lost entirely during the storm with approx. 450 cubic yards clean sand to be stabilized with jute matting and planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center). Located: 22655 Soundview Ave., Southold. This was reviewed under the original permit #7379, under the LWRP, and found to be inconsistent. Those inconsistencies were addressed with that permit approval. The CAC went out and looked at this and they resolved not to support the application because Chapter 275 does not allow for new bulkhead. There could be a potential lawsuit by endangering immediate adjacent neighbors by allowing returns and the recent landfilling. The bulkhead would further intensify erosion on Town Beach. This is an example of piecemeal management which leads to the endangerment of neighboring properties. The CAC recommends a revetment to absorb wave energy to also lower the property. As a general recommendation, the CAC suggests an engineered project to address the erosion in the entire area. TRUSTEE KING: I think the only new bulkhead applies to the codes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, no, I have the code in front of me, and this is 275-11(b)(1 )(b): Bulkheads on the Sound shall only be permitted when the likelihood of extreme erosion is demonstrated. And obviously, this was a case of extreme erosion. TRUSTEE KING: He lost about 40 feet, I would say that's extreme. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of applicant. This, and the reason we are here is as a modification is this is basically a re-do of the prior project that the Trustees had Board of Trustees 16 approved. Going back I think this Board actually had originally met with Mr. Pologeorgis out on the beach prior to last December, before I had ever met Mr. Pologeorgis and at that time me had been gradually losing what was a naturally-vegetated berm area that was located seaward of the wood retaining wall that existed in front of his house at that time, which was in the same location as the temporary concrete block wall is now, and where this retaining wall is being proposed. And in the spirit of trying to recover the previously existing condition, we are proposing to build this, and again, we are not -- I mean the intention of this is not a bulkhead. This is not supposed to be a bulkhead that will go out and stand against the Sound at all times. This is going to be a wall that will be constructed and then completely buried and have the berm built back up on the seaward side so that the only thing you would see of the retaining wall under any sort of normal condition would be the very top of the wall, which is the same condition that existed prior to the December, 2010 blizzard. The Board will recall offering to Mr. Pologeorgis to put this generally what was about 300 to 500-pound stone along the toe of the eroding beach grass area where that berm had existed. And Chris Mohr had actually accomplished that job prior to the December blizzard. Jim was out there with me shortly afterwards. During that time period when this entire stretch of beach front was being looked at, we were down there with the Alexa Fornier, the New York State DEC Marine Habitat Protection Staff, looking at this site and many others along this strip. And the stone which has now recovered to a certain extent and left temporarily in front of the temporary block wall the Trustees permitted in, I think in probably January or so, that stone basically got completely undermined. The entire berm was lost, all the beach grass was gone and the old retaining walt was taken right out with it. So again, the point of this project, now we have, again, this stone that we are proposing is not, it's not a home-protection project, so to speak. This is a project that is designed to try recreate the natural, previously existing naturally vegetated berm, to revegetate that area and then to simply get the stone, larger than what the Board had proposed previously, out on the seaward toe of that, so that if they did have inclement weather, that didn't immediately start to get eaten away again, as had been happening previously. So basically this is an attempt to restore, to the maximum extent practicable, the beach condition that existed prior to the December, 2010, blizzard. We not trying to do anything really more extensive than that, and this retaining wall is buried, while it basically served the purpose of if you had another basically near hurricane event like we had in December, that you would not have the complete loss of that entire area Soundview where the town is now, from what I understand, trying to install a revetment to protect the road. So with respect to the CAC comments, I mean really two stand out; one, this is not really a site where we are trying to put in a revetment to build up a huge land mass to protect the house. We are really trying to restore a natural condition. May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 17 Number one. And number two, I don't disagree with the comment that this is essentially a piecemeal approach. This is what those at the town who attended that meeting with the Corps of Engineers felt very frustrated with, that maybe in three years we'll have enough money to start a three-year study, after three years after that maybe we'll do something, maybe we do won't. So in the meantime each homeowner is really left to their own means to try to preserve, in this case, the beach condition that existed previously, and to whatever extent they can, their homes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, we had a question. That concerns what you show is the returns on the seaward side of this. MR. HERMAN: The retaining wall or the stone, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stone, sorry. The stone does not come back to the proposed, again, according to the plans here, come back to what is there is retaining walls on both sides from the other properties, as you can see in this picture. So our concern is that that space that you, as depicted on the plans, between where the stones end and where the neighbor's retaining wall is, you'll get some severe erosion could possibly come in there, particularly on the eastern side, if there is a nor'easter. So what we recommend is you continue those boulders in to form natural returns to the neighbors returns that the neighbors already have there on each side. MR. HERMAN: If the Board is willing to support that, I'm sure Mr. Pologeorgis would be willing to offer it. We would have to discuss that with the DEC to a certain extent, because one thing that he we were trying to avoid in doing this was creating this sort of structural fortress that would just sit right in front of the Pologeorgis property. Because that is the type of situation where, in a very severe storm event, you could perhaps run into having these side or what you would call active erosion problems that could negatively impact the neighbors' properties, and so we were actually looking to try to avoid creating that type of situation. The truth of the matter is if you had another storm like the December blizzard, returns or no returns, these stones are, they will get overtopped again and sand is going to come out. And we don't want to create -- we are trying to mitigate those effects on Mr. Pologeorgis' property but we don't want to simultaneously exacerbate those effects on the two neighboring properties. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask my fellow Board members what do you think of that idea of keeping it as depicted on the plans, for the reasons Rob just talked about? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, why don't we -- MR. HERMAN: We are happy to take your authorization to do it but it would have to be contingent upon getting -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we approve going back further, but not make it a condition. So if he doesn't go back all the way, it's still approved. Give him the choice. So if he gets approval from DEC then he could go can back further and he doesn't have to come back to us. MR. HERMAN: Fine. TRUSTEE KING: Sounds good to me. May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 18 MR. HERMAN: You've done that on other approvals where if we are willing and able to do it, we have your authorization to do it, and if not, we don't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Anybody else from the audience want to make any comments for or against this application? (No response). MR. HERMAN: Dave, just another comment. For reason of convenience, with Mr. Costello sitting next to me. One possibility to consider is that we could possibly angle that as a curved return coming around this corner so that we could get a natural curve to it and keep it really inside his property lines rather than coming back with, you know, a linear return along both property lines. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. And that's what I kind of see in this diagram here that you submitted. MR. HERMAN: Yes, but just pull that in and lengthen it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about that in the field that you might have to do that. MR. HERMAN: So that may be the way to go. So if that's how it shakes out either way, we would give you a revised plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I was going to suggest in the resolution, we'll state upon receipt of a revised plan. MR. HERMAN: Either this plan or the revised plan showing -- okay. Sounds good. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Nick Pologeorgis as described at 22655 Soundview Avenue. And for the record, while this was found inconsistent under the LWRP originally, for the original permit, those inconsistencies were addressed with the granting of permit #7379, so now that would then deem this amendment to be consistent. And subject to the receipt of new plans, which will show the rock revetment, the returns of the rock revetment coming into the neighbor's returns both on the east and west side, with the condition or stipulation that those are not going to be required as part of this permit, but optional, as part of this permit to be completed. Those specific returns. So that's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next matter is Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of MARIA STANISlC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approx. 118 May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 19 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead in place utilizing steel sheeting; 30 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source is proposed landward of the reconstructed bulkhead as required to match existing adjacent grades. Located: 19725 Soundview Ave., Southold. The project was deemed inconsistent with the town's LWRP due to platforms that are 6x15 feet and 5xl 1. They are existing platforms on site that we saw when we went for the inspection. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application with the recommendation that fertilizer not be used on the bluff portion of the project. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to behalf of this application? MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services. I believe the owners have come in and settled the violation they had as well, if I'm correct. And in that regard they did take a lot of damage in that same December storm. And I think the replacement of the bulkhead in place, matching existing grades, will really just put the conditions back to our pre-storm event. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board went out to the site. I don't think we'll had a problem with the bulkhead proposal at all. Actually, we thought the repairs, existing repairs were rather ingenious, that were managed to cobble together there. And the Board may wish to discuss the issue of the inconsistency. I think the deck sections were pre-existing, so that's a matter of, I don't know what the individual members of the Board feel about that with relation to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a question, are they proposing any plantings in between these retaining walls? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't see anything MR. BOWMAN: We can. We certainly will. MS. STANISIC: I'm Mrs. Stanisic. And when you took these pictures, if you see, like we said, that's all planting but now it's all green. You can't put another plant in there anymore. MR. BOWMAN: They are talking about where we have to backfill the Bulkhead. MS. STANISIC: Sorry. I'm just paranoid by this whole thing. Sorry. MR. BOWMAN: Anyway that would be fine to replant if we can add it to the plan and send it in. Not a problem. And it should be planted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. I think if they are going to be adding more plants and re planting there, and being that it's existing, and has been for a while, that would bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It makes sense, improve the existing fish and wildlife values. TRUSTEE KING: What was the reason for the inconsistencies? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was because of pre-existing nonconforming decks, but the stairs are existing and pre-existing also. To amend them now would be a hardship, so I think that as per Pres. Doherty's suggestion, it would work well, it would be improving the site. MR. BOWMAN: No problem. We'll add that to the plan and send it to the Board. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion? (No response). May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 20 Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of Maria Stanisic, I move to approve this application subject to submission of a planting plan for the areas filled behind the new bulkhead, this would bring the application into consistency with the town's LWRP. And so moved TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion from the Board on this? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of WILLIAM TURNBULL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 100 linear feet of timber bulkhead to match the height of the existing adjacent to the east; construct a 5' bulkhead return at the west end of the proposed bulkhead; backfill with 125 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source and plant with beachgrass on 12" centers. Remaining portion of site is proposed to be protected with a single row of 36"- 48" (1,500-2,500 lb.) Boulders placed on filter fabric against the eroded toe of bluff; 69 linear feet total (inclusive of 5' return at west end). Install a seasonal snow fence adjacent to the proposed boulders to keep beachgoers from the neighboring public beach off the boulders. Located: 54005 North Rd., Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council resolves not to support the application because 275 does not allow for new bulkheads, and the bulkhead would direct wave energy onto the town beach and parking area. I believe this was the same as what we heard before on another application. Which we did discuss. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a revetment designed to absorb wave energy, the area is planted with Cape American beachgrass and the existing vegetation on the bluff is not disturbed. LWRP has found this to be consistent with the LWRP. With that would anybody like to address this application? MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services for the applicant. I think the intent was obviously to provide some protection, significant protection to the area that was severely impacted by that storm and future storms. As you progress to the westward though, it was always our concern for the town beach, and how do you transition from vertical structures, which are present all the way to the east of this property, to a natural shoreline at the town beach. So that's one of the reasons that we only took the proposed bulkhead at a 100-foot length and then substituted the rocks, large rocks, three to four foot rocks on jute textile so that if we do get some wave energy coming in from the northeast, and does get reflected, as it does now, it will have the ability to have the wave energy disbursed before getting to the town beach. The downside of that, which was the owner's May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 21 concern, was because it's a town beach we are sure it will be an attractive nuisance where the kids will be climbing on the rocks during the summertime, and that's their only reason for the snow fence is just really more of a safety concern. But I think it's a good compromise as far as protecting the house, allowing for the restoration of the bluff with beach grass and then again transitioning to a natural shoreline. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Thank you. I think, in general, the Board didn't have any issues here with this. I think there was some concern about the snow fence, wasn't there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The code doesn't allow snow fence, only split rail fence, so you can have a split rail fence with one sign saying "private property." MR. BOWMAN: I guess that would be fine. We thought it would be less intrusive to just have a temporary snow fence on it. MR. TURNBULL: When we bought the house like 25 years ago, the town always put up a snow fence, seasonally. They put up like Memorial Day and take it down Labor Day, or whenever the beach opened and closed. It basically kept a lot of the garbage and everything from blowing down on to the frontage of the houses. Two years ago or three years ago they decided not to put them up anymore, and I would like to see, if we are putting rocks there, because it's right next to the swings, and I know when my grandkids come out, the first thing they want to do is not go on the swings. They want to go down to the beach and climb on the rocks. And I'm thinking if you get a beach pull of kids hanging around the swings, they'll come over and start climbing on the rocks, and even though it's not beach property, it's our property, the ramifications of kids getting hurt, where a seasonal snow fence would just keep them off the rocks. That's the only reason I ask for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand what you are saying. About five or six years ago, maybe longer, that practice of a snow fence at the beach endings all over town was stopped. And the code was changed and there is only split rail fence allowed on the beach right now. So we would be amenable to approving a split rail fence and you can post, you can have one 12x12 inch sign saying "private property" or whatever you want to say on that. MR. TURNBULL: The town always put that up for us. MR. BOWMAN: This would be on the seaward side of the rocks, to keep the people off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So we would allow a split rail fence instead of a snow fence. MR. TURNBULL: That sounds good. TRUSTEE KING: I understand the purpose of the snow fence is to keep the debris out, but then the problem is the wildlife -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, that's the whole purpose for the split rail is so the wildlife can go back and forth. To put mesh there you would defeat the purpose. TRUSTEE KING: That's private property. We should revisit that issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 22 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: I'll just ask if the applicant will amend his application now to change the snow fences. MR. BOWMAN: We will. MS. HULSE: You are making that motion to change it to a split rail instead of a snow fence. MR. BOWMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make motion we approve the application with the stipulation rather than using a snow fence that we'll allow a split rail fence instead, as per code, with one sign, a 12x12 sign. And, again, this is consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. Any further discussion from the Board on this motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I'm not comfortable with not trying to find a way to protect the safety of the children. It seems to me, I don't know, we have allowed the cordoning off of the whole town with deer fences with little environmental discussion over the habitat fragmentation, good or bad, but in this case a matter of public safety. I have a problem with not allowing the snow fence. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to revisit it and possibly change it in the code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We don't have that flexibility now but maybe we should revisit this. It's a real safety issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For now the code does not allow it, so I think we can at least give the split rail fence so he has something. And if we revisit the code and change the code he can certainly come in and amend the permit. MR. COSTELLO: You didn't ask for public comment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, we are in the middle of a motion. Can I take further comment? MS. HULSE: Not at this time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, we did ask for public comment, but we are in the middle of a motion. So, all in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They can come back if the code changes. What were you going to say, John? MR. COSTELLO: First of all, I want to ask the attorney whether a temporary snow fence constitutes any kind of structure, whereas a split rail fence is there to stay. Because I'm not so sure if you put, in the wintertime, a snow fence, as a sand building device, you could possibly keep the rocks covered throughout the wintertime so it would help the erosion process by letting the wind in wintertime, northeast, northwest, let the sand behind the snow fence, same as snow, build up, keep the rocks covered. That's all. But I would like to know whether a temporary structure, whether it's seasonal or whatever, would constitute a violation to code. MS. HULSE: Maybe a different type of structure, but the code specifically does not allow for a snow fence under 275. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. Board of Trustees 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Richard Principi, Jr., on behalf of GILDA PRINClPI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling; remove existing dwelling including sanitary system and drainage structures and restore area with grass and natural vegetation; and clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff. Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic. And number four, Richard J. Principi, Jr., on behalf of VINCENT CURTO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling; remove existing dwelling including sanitary and drainage structures and restore areas with grass and natural vegetation; and clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff. Located: 4730 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic. These two properties are located at Blue Horizon Bluff in Peconic, next to each. We had this on our agenda last month and we postponed it to get a planting plan. As of yet we have not received a planting plan but I understand you have one to submit. Both application applications were found consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the vegetation is native and the angle of repose on the bluff edge is corrected. And the same response to the Curto application from the Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PRINCIPI: Yes. Richard Principi and also John Condon. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you come up with a planting plan? MR. CONDON: Yes. Stamped by the architect. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This planting plan is for both properties? MR. CONDON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As we are talked in the field, to bring that lip back all the way across the length of the properties and to do a planting plan, so if you would just give us a minute to look at this, as we have just received it. MR. CONDON: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the field we talked about a 50-foot non-turf buffer and I see on your plans you have a 20-foot non-turf buffer. MR. CONDON: We can change that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to ask the applicant a question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Principi, it looks like what you are proposing here is taking all the existing vegetation out except for three wild cherry trees, and then you are saying to replace in what is now designated as a 20-foot non-turf buffer, which we said would be 50 foot, a mixture of bayberry, Juniper and beachgrasses, but it doesn't say how close together, in other words 12 inches on center, two feet on center, three feet. MR. PRINCIPI: If you look down at the ledger, the bottom corner, Robert put a rough -- you know, this plan got kind of busy so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. Thank you. I didn't see that. MR. CONDON: Kind of the center of the page toward the top is a non-turf, it says 20-foot buffer and it calls out the type of May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 24 bushes and below it says to be maintained at a 24" to 30" map, so there is no spacing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, what I was interested in is the spacing on center, and I didn't see down in the bottom lefthand corner you have that designated there. So most of this is four foot. Most of the shrubs are all four-foot on center space. MR. PRINClPI: We can use an eighth scale if you want to kind of lay it out a little more in grid. Whatever you feel fit. But I think ultimately this is the plant list that we thought would be native to the bluff and to the area. MR CONDON: We are also looking to straighten out the bluff where we have the swale where the walkway is. We are looking to fill that in. We don't feel it's a good thing to have that swale going down the bluff. MR. PRINClPh Just for reclamation and replanting, you know, pulling that -- what are we going being back to the 27 foot? MR. CONDON: 22-foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see a line drawn saying previous top of bluff, and then seaward of that a proposed new top of bluff, and I thought the lip was coming back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe we talked in the field we didn't want to see that filled in because this was a natural -- MR. PRINCIPh Yes, just for replanting purposes Robed thought, again, it would be kind of more consistent with, I guess, I don't know if it was natural or just a washout over the years, but whatever you feel. MR. CONDON: Before we start this, we'll have the surveyor verify the bottom of bluff and we'll go up from there. It's a one-on-one slope, and as you get toward the top it kind of levels off. And we are also, where the top of slope, top of bluff is supposed to be around elevation 37, is 38. Where now the grade at the top of the bluff varies from 38 to 46. It's kind of up and down as you go along the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, how come on the plan you show previous top of bluff is behind the proposed top of bluff? How is that to be if you are going to be pulling back the top of the bluff? I mean, the cross section shows it's pulling back, but -- MR. CONDON: What he's doing is showing elevation 37 as top of bluff. I guess there is some discussion as to where the actual top of bluff was. You could say it's back at 42. Where that would bring it back to where, beyond that point. I think that's our, I think that was something he was not sure about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it just kind of makes me think, taking a quick look at the plan and you'll be adding fill to go out further, that's what the plan kind of shows. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly what I see on the plan, both on the cross-section as well as -- yes. TRUSTEE KING: This should be the top of bluff, at the extreme end of the profile. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. What Jim is saying, if you look at the profile, the extreme end of the profile is top of bluff, not at the proposed middle. MR. PRINClPh So what do you want, to tighten this up a little bit? May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 25 TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Yes, we just want to make sure you won't add fill to this. MR. CONDON: Our intention is not to add fill to bring the top of the bluff out. That's the elevation at 37 contour. We'll actually be further back, based on the profile. We can adjust that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That needs to be -- TRUSTEE KING: Looking at the profile it looks like the top of bluff is at 44. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the profile doesn't match what you have there. What does the Board feel about this, I'll call it a gully, filling in the gully? I mean, I don't -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have strong feelings myself. It may have been, the genesis of it could have been the access of the stairs and erosion over the years. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is what it looks like, because as you walk down toward the stairs you can see it's been cut out by the height of the sides. So I don't have an strong issue either way on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A 50-foot vegetated buffer and reconstruction of that is putting a huge amount of habitat, then you include all the linear footage of a restored bluff face, we are talking about probably 150 feet or more of natural vegetation as part of the corridor, so it looks like a net over time will be great wildlife natural area. MR. COND©N: They'll also plant seed on the bluff. MR. PRINCIPI: Combination hydra-seed and -- MR. CONDON: Actually, when I talked to the architect, it was recommended to him that they actually go and spread the seed and rake it in and then put the jute mesh over it, rather than hydra-seed. That's what we are proposing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The question I have is will it strictly be grass; it will be a seed, that's it? MR. PRINCIPI: It's continued grasses that are going to be planted within the jute net and then there will be a combination of hand-sown and hydra-seed, actually, on the bluff. And I could tighten up that detail once we get kind of shaped and graded. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do grass buds do there? Usually we see some bushes and Rosa Rugosa, things like that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean seeding it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, not having any deep-rooted plants. I mean it will all be fairly shallow-rooted plants on a pretty steep bluff. I was kind of curious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only project I know that has been successful with that was on the east side of Robin's Island. That was seeded. One portion of the east side of Robin's Island, that all took and is still there to this day. And that's been there 15 years, at least. It was a special seed developed for that. But it worked. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do they put anything underneath the seed? Here he'll be putting in juting to hold it down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But again, the Sound is a different environment than the east side of Robin's Island. May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 26 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's kind of my question, I think. I'm a little concerned you'll do all this with shallow-rooted plants, even with juting, the juting will rot away, then what do you have? No matter what you put there, I understand, there is the potential for erosion anyway. MR. CONDON: Are you looking at something more substantial, then? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's my initial thought when I saw this, you know. What does the Board think? Any comments, any ideas on that? Does it matter, do you think? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would leave it up to the applicant, I mean with the condition that the bluff plantings need to be maintained. And if he wants to do the grasses and that fails, then he wants to do something else, I don't see where he has to come back to us. He can maintain the plantings. MR. PRINClPI: I think once we get the grade established and everything kind of all hand detailed, then the planting plan I could expand upon it, and obviously I'll blow the plan up a little more and show you the spacing and invite you down as we are doing the work, you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know, I don't have a problem otherwise. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think you'll have better luck with planting American beachgrass on that bluff, rather than seeding. I think there will be a more likelihood of success with beachgrass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can he do a combination? TRUSTEE BERGEN: He can. He can plant anything, it's whether it takes or not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Plant anything and hopefully you don't get a storm. MR. CONDON: Hopefully a big storm doesn't come the day after. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so what I see so far on this plan is we need a couple of changes: One, the 20-foot buffer to be 50-foot buffer, and the proposed top of bluff needs to be corrected. And what is the amount of fill that you estimate to refill where the foundations are? MR. PRINClPI: That foundation I think was 60 yards. I think it was 75 total. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you plan on just getting that filled from the foundation from the other house that's out of our jurisdiction? MR. CONDON: Yes, I believe we can balance the site with the work we'll be doing with the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so all the clearing, I think there is some more clearing in our jurisdiction that you are proposing behind the existing foundations and between the two foundations, the existing and the proposed? MR. CONDON: Again, I could go out and tag, you know, it's pretty heavily overgrown with invasive material, but it will be a pretty heavy hand in there to clear that so I can regrade and create this detail. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it possible we could ask, like we did on another application this evening, ask for a couple of cedars or a couple more native cherries on the side lot lines to create a little more diverse habitat, given the fact you'll have practical difficulties with the overall planting and the bluff Board of Trustees 27 May 18, 2011 restoration, but instead of just having solitary remaining wild cherries on the property line that have several, you know, eastern cedars, that would tend to support those trees, I think as solitary trees where I think supportive vegetation will be removed, they'll just lodge and go over, and they'll be gone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So some more trees planted in the area of the 50-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe on the side plot lines to coincide with the wild cherries that are to remain, so a small island, let's say, of half a dozen or so cedars or larger bayberries in with cedars. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Placed strategically. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the non- disturbance? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It just shows it by the plantings. When you have the non-turf 50-foot buffer, if you can just draw a line and scale out the 50 feet actual, and make it clear. MR. PRINClPh Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). Anybody in the audience have any comments for or against these applications; both of these applications? (No response). The proposed house is out of the Trustee's jurisdiction, it's well beyond the hundred foot setback from the top of the bluff. So we are just here for the remove the existing foundations and do the replantings and restore the bluff. MR. CONDON: We are doing some clearing in front of the building also. MR. PRINCIPh And also regrading of that bluff also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, bring the lip back. How does the Board feel about the plan in general and the changes we talked about? Are you comfortable approving something tonight subject to receiving new plans showing the changes that we talked about? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I am. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Most of it is what we asked for already. Hearing no other comments from the audience, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MS. HULSE: I just caution you this is also for Coastal Erosion Permit and there is no clear top of bluff marked or non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, that's what we asked for. MS. HULSE: I know, but just making sure you realize it's for Coastal Erosion as well. MR. PRINClPI: Can you explain that? MS. HULSE: I'm advising Trustees, sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So under Coastal Erosion. MS. HULSE: I don't know if you want to accept an application for plans that were just submitted a couple of hours ago when there is things are not clear on those and last month it was adjourned for this purpose. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How does the Board feel; do you want to wait before we get plans before we approve this or are you comfodable with approving it subject to new plans and they are not going to get their permit until those plans are approved by Board of Trustees 28 us. Reviewed and approved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm comfortable with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Likewise, I'm comfortable with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Richard Principi, Jr., on behalf of Gilda Principi for Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit to construct a new -- we don't need to give the permit for that. TRUSTEE KING: Did you close it out? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I did. Thank you. A permit to remove existing dwelling, including sanitary system and drainage structures, and restore area with grass and natural vegetation. And to restore the bluff, bringing back the lip of the bluff, replanting the whole area, and have a 50-foot non-turf buffer. Replanted as per survey, and subject to receiving new survey showing, clarifying the 50-foot non-turf buffer and also clarifying the top of the bluff. As proposed. Is there anything else? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the addition of cedar trees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I changed the description on the agenda because we don't need to give a permit for the new dwelling because that is out of our jurisdiction. So it's a permit to remove existing dwelling, including sanitary system and drainage structures and restore area with grass and natural -- restore area with natural vegetation, and clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff and replant as per survey as per planting plan submitted today, with the condition that a new survey show the 50-foot non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bluff and also show the correct, reflect the correct top of the bluff on the plan, and to add some cedar plantings within that 50-foot area. That's a little more clear than what I said before. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on this? It is consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The resolution, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I heard you say reflect the correct top of bluff. What is the correct top of bluff? It sounds like -~ we had talked about the 44-foot contour line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well the surveyor has to, on the survey it says previous top of bluff, then it says proposed top of bluff. And the proposed top of bluff is seaward of the previous top of bluff. So they have to correct that mistake. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what I'm trying to do is make it very specific where that new top - the planting plan that you are requesting depicts a new top of bluff at 44-foot elevation rather than the 37, I believe it is, that is on this. That would in essence be pulling the bluff back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to be more specific. MR. CONDON: We'll have our surveyor verify both the top and bottom. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, that's why I didn't want to say at the elevation, because it might not be 44. May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 29 MS. HULSE: That's why it's not ready at this point. You don't have that on your survey. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe they should stake the new top of bluff and take a look at it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think having this further discussion I would like to rescind my motion and hold off, and get this survey corrected and maybe, as Jim says, get it staked, and so when we get the new survey we can actually go out in the field and make sure where it's staked and where it's on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: Show where the new top of bluff is staked. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I would like to make a new motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have to vote on rescinding the old motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't -- so I would like to rescind the previous motion. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now I would like to make a new motion to receive new plans -- tabling this to receive new plans and go out and go out and inspect again once we get those new plans. TRUSTEE KING: And have the new top of bluff staked so we can see where it's coming. I think that will clarify it for us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And on Vincent Curto, I would like to make a motion to table the application to receive new plans to have the top of bluff staked and revisit. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOAN PRAGER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the remains the existing stairway; construct 100' of new bulkhead with 1-2 ton rock armor at base; backfill void landward of new bulkhead with clean trucked in sand fill approx. 90 cy.; vegetate area with Cape American Beachgrass; and construct new stairway to beach in-place. Located: 39823 Main Rd., Orient. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP, which is good news. And the CAC resolved to suppod the Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit for Joan Prager, and also to construct stairs with the condition the stairs are constructed with erosion control devices. The CAC does not support the application to construct new bulkhead because Chapter 275 does not allow for new bulkheads. CAC recommends bluff is setback and dropped down to a stable angle of re pose and construct a revetment. The Conservation Advisory Council also recommends a 15 to 20-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation landward of the top of the bluff. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello. We are the agents for Ms. Joan Prager. First of all, I would like to apologize to the Board for interrupting before. I thought the resolution was already passed, and I would like to thank the counsel for May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 3O enlightening me on the fence laws. Even though I think the fence law was made for perpendicular fences to I try to keep the people on the beach. But so be it. I'm not about to change the code. On the Joan Prager application, if the Board has any questions on it. The Board went to the site, and examined it. Right now, the slope of the cliff right now is probably, it's approximately one to one. It's going to keep eroding. And in order to change the angle of repose and try to get vegetation to grow on that cliff you'll have to have some type of structure to elevate at the beach level. I suggested to Mrs. Prager that she move it back as far as possible and build the wall at elevation seven on the beach, penetrate the bottom and have the structure so it goes up to elevation 18. If that is completed, she will have to tip the top, round it off, in order to reduce the amount of fill and have some of the topsoil so that the vegetation grows. She will also have to put jute matting down to get the vegetation, then I think that you could slow down the erosion along that beach at that location. She owns slightly more than 200 feet of frontage. I'm recommending her to only do a portion. First of all, the cost is pretty heavy. And by only doing that, and keeping an access way with the stairway to the beach, would solve her concerns. That's where this project is being proposed. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the Board had any problems with this. I didn't, anyway. Anybody else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope. TRUSTEE KING: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. SINCLAIR: Yes. I would like to, please. My name is Sandra Sinclair, I am Joan Prager's neighbor. I live at 29827 Main Road. I am immediately adjacent to Joan. I know the severe damage that Joan's property underwent in the storm of, I think December 26. Which also did terrible damage to my bluff. Nowhere near the damage that Joan's bluff. Mine hit on the toe of the bluff, hers went up and just wiped her out. You can see, if you walk along the beach, you can see that there is even, you know, just green stuff from her cliff. I'm here because I would like to be supportive of my neighbor. At the same time I'm very concerned about whatever steps are taken in terms of remediation because I know that if things are not taken in terms of us all working together, that if you remediate a small portion, that the next big storm that comes in can just wipe out around and just destroy the integrity of the bluff. This is a bluff that has been around a long time. We had a lot of storms. I have been there for 12 years and I have some experience with bluffs. I lived in Cutchogue where we were allowed at the time to put in a bulkheading. And we planted it with a lot of stuff. My personal feeling about my own land here -- and Joan has approximately 190-square feet on the Sound. I have approximately 210 -- is that I would like to, and I'm not in the same position as Joan. Joan is like this. Mine is like this. I would like to see my land go back to some sort of angle of repose. And I know the strictures of the Trustees are very, very difficult here. Because if I were to just put sand on the beach, it's a lot different than the loam and stuff that would go down there. So what I'm looking for is a way of not spending a fodune, because I don't have the fortune to spend, that would be helpful to Joan and helpful to me. And some of the things that I hear about in terms of remediation, like hiring marine engineer, having somebody come in with a barge with rock, and I say, hello, can a person like myself continue to afford living in my place. And the most intelligent, I mean I've had some local guys who know a lot about the bluff give me some information, the most intelligent thing that I've heard about how to protect the bluff, once the angle of repose is achieved, is possibly a sea wall that is cement. In other words, we don't have to have a barge in with rocks. We May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 31 don't have to have people and down with Cats with rock, but that we are able to build a structure along the wall -- never -- the loss of the property that we have already incurred, that's not going to happen. But I'm looking for parameters for someone trying to do something, one, that is intelligent; two, that is cost sensitive and; three, that works in harmonious -- with nature. I let my land, I have almost six acres, go wild. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Have you talked to Mrs. Prager about doing a project together and -- MS. SINCLAIR: Yes, I have. We are still open to discussion here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because right now, I mean we are here for what she is applying for and you are getting more into discussing your property, which is getting off topic. And we would be glad to discuss that with you at a different time. MS. SINCLAIR: If such time is available to me, I would really, like -- because what I need to know is parameters where I'm going to -- Mr. Costello is a very good guy. He really knows what he does. And he's very expensive. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The process is we can do a pre-submission process with us and on our field inspection, we can meet you at your property and discuss, take a look at it and discuss your different options. MS. SINCLAIR: I mean, I'm very supportive of Joan. I do think doing 100 feet is not going to be wise, because she really does have 190 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But that's their prerogative. We can't make them spend the money that they don't, so. MS. SINCLAIR: No, I don't wish to do that. I don't wish to do that. I just think that, ultimately, everything that I know about bulkheading like this is that if you don't do contiguously along the line, that what happens is up have erosion behind. And thank you, very much, for your time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question, ma'am, ts your property to the east or the west? TRUSTEE KING: East MS. SINCLAIR: I'm east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. MS. HULSE: Jim, sorry, are you considering this a bluff area, for Coastal Erosion purposes? Would that be the Trustees' finding? It doesn't say it in the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. All in favor in closing hearing. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. MR. COSTELLO: Thank you TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on this motion? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Anybody interested in a non-turf buffer at the top? May18,2011 Board of Trustees 32 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it did come in, it's consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we should probably put one. TRUSTEE KING: It wouldn't hurt. 20 foot? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to re-do your resolution? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I would recommend approval of this as submitted with the stipulation we have a 20-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Along the whole length? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into the Wetland Permits now. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM GAILLARD requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct an existing 6'X43' pile supported dock of which 20 linear feet will have grated decking; construct new 10'X6' pile supported timber dock extension with electric and water utilities, davit and a ladder; install new 8'X20' float with associated tie-off and restraint piles, hinged ramp and ladder. Located: Bell Hill Ave., Fishers Island. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council does not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation has been made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: Yes. On behalf of the application, my name is Keith Nielson, I'm with Docko, Inc., and I've prepared the application documents before you tonight. I'll keep this brief. This is basically the rebuilding of an existing six-foot wide pier, a ten-foot extension and the addition of a floating dock in the southeast corner of Hay Harbor. This project was approved by the town three years ago and it's taken that time to get the project approved by the DEC and the Corps of Engineers, and last year when it had not come to resolution with either of those agencies, we let the previous pretty lapse because there it was apparent it was going to be a change in configuration. The new pier and floating dock structure is consistent with the LWRP. It's consistent with all the EFH guidelines; creates no neighbor concerns or littoral conflicts, no public access conflicts, no navigation conflicts. The alignment of the old structure is maintained. The new encroachment is strictly to gain water depth so that the boats can tie up here without resuspending sediments during maneuvering approach and departure maneuvers. It preserves natural vegetation along the top of the bank, which was an important consideration last time, and it improved water quality by keepin9 boat activities out in slightly deeper water. The project is consistent with all of the town standards, and the area over the tidal wetlands -- I should say the fringe along the shoreline where tidal wetlands May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 33 vegetation could grow, is now going to be decked with open-grate type decking in accordance with town standards. And so I believe that this project reaches an appropriate and reasonable balance of the environment and public access for boating. I have the returned neighbor notification cards which I11 submit and I'll be happy to answer any questions that might exist. (Handing). TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any comments? Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was found consistent. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NEILSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN & PATRIClA GARVEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'X10' extension to the existing dock, add two (2) anchor piles, a 3'X15' ramp and 5'X18' floating dock. Located: 600 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they resolved to support the application with the condition there is minimal shading on the vegetative wetland. It was found inconsistent under the LWRP and the applicant, excuse me, the coordinator is asking for the Trustees to please consider the following: Whether the dock will impair navigation; the width of the vessel moored has not been identified, therefore the assessment of how far the dock structure projects into the channel is unclear; whether the dock will unduly interfere with the public use of the waterways for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, waterskiing or other water dependent water activities; whether the cumulative impacts of residential docks in that area will change the waterway or the environment. Deep Hole Creek contains one of the highest densities of residential docks in town waters. The cumulative impacts of the proposed action has not been addressed. And finally, whether adequate facilities are available to boat owners or operators for fueling, discharge of waste, electric service or water service. The Trustees did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. We were out in the field, some of the comments of the LWRP coordinator pointed out seem to be, do not recognize the fact there is an existing dock, it's a dock that has been in existence for, I believe even earlier than the 70's. It's been there a very long time. We originally came in with an application to do a very small extension in order to be able to May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 34 May 18, 2011 get the water depth, appropriate water depth for the float. The float right now sits on the bottom and therefore is not really environmentally appropriate. And when we submitted it to the DEC, it was the DEC's suggestion that we actually replace the dock with a Iow-profile dock, comparable length to what we were proposing with the float, and with a grate material so as to provide for light for the vegetation. So we also went out, as you recall, we were out in the field, there were some comments that the Board had, and I checked with my client and we modified the plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Board. So that's the plan that you have before you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you. You are correct. And the plans as submitted received by our office May 10, 2011, do show the use of flow-thru decking. Also the plans do demonstrate the dock will now be in approximately 2.2 to 2.8 feet of water, so let's round it off two-and-a-half to 2.6' of water. We also, we looked at the neighboring docks and we did feel that this dock fell within the pier line. The Trustees did also look at the distance across the waterway and felt it met the one-third rule and would not interfere or impair navigation, at all. I do want to ask, do you know what the approximate beam of the boat is that will be placed at this dock? MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't know that. I could check with the client and send up a note tomorrow, with the size of the boat they have. I can't even guess. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Could I have the ruler, please. Bear with me for a second. Looking at this, it looks like unless you are putting a boat with, like a 15-foot beam in there, it's not going to exceed the one-third rule. I doubt seriously that you are looking at a boat that size. MS. MOORE: I don't believe that's the size. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So speaking as one Trustee I'm satisfied with a boat there it won't interfere with or impede navigation or violate the one-third rule. And certainly I don't think it's going to interfere with the public use of waterways for swimming or for kayaking, boating, fishing or any other use of that waterway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That being said you find this consistent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to address one other end, first. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I also feel that the addition of this dock is not going to create a cumulative effect where it will have a negative impact on to the waters of Deep Hole Creek. So with those stipulations I think it is found to be consistent under the LWRP. Besides that, I think you have done everything we asked for out in the field. Was there anybody else here who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Board of Trustees 35 May 18, 2011 Patricia Moore on behalf of John and Patricia Garvey as described at 600 Deep hole Drive, as per the plans stamped received by our office May 10, 2011. And with the condition of the flow-thru grating, decking, being used, and the other items that we talked about in this hearing, will deem it to be consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, Melissa Butler/Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E. on behalf of DENISE VOEGEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway and landscape improvements. Located: 1805 Laurel Way, Mattituck. The project has been deemed consistent with the town's LWRP. And Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support the application with the condition that there is proper drainage and pervious driveway. We have received in the file three letters addressing concerns for this project, which I'll read into the record. The first dated May 17, is from a Michael Gorman. He indicates he's an adjacent homeowner on the northwest side of the applicant's property, and he has the following concerns regarding the above application. One, the improvements as sited are located too close to the high water mark of the southeast corners of the proposed residence and deck extend past the 100-foot wetland boundary offset by up to nine feet and 19 feet respectively. Two, there are road movement requirements for new construction? That's a question. Crescent Way is a private, narrow dirt road which is maintained by property owners with guarantees provided that prompt action is taken by the applicant to repair any damage caused by construction vehicles to prevent runoff. Hopefully, the Board's requirements for this new construction will minimize any potential runoff from flowing into Laurel Lake. Laurel Lake is a future Town of Southold aquifer and its preservation it critical for the future of Southold town. Another letter to the record is from a Michael Ryan, regarding the proposed application to construct a single-family residence at 1805 Laurel Way. As the owner of the adjacent property 1755 Laurel Way, I have an opinion to express to the Board. If a building permit is to be issued, there is no reason why the wetland setback to the structure should be less than the hundred-foot standard distance. This specific area is obviously a very delicate ecosystem that will not sustain more environmental pressure than otherwise necessary. It should also be noted the proposed septic system should be located a minimum distance of 100 feet to the nearest well, which would be on my adjacent property. The distance should be confirmed. And the last letter to the file is from Lowell and Joan Ryan. Regarding proposed application to construct single-family residence at 1805 Laurel Way in Mattituck. As owners of the nearby property located at 2280 Laurel Way, we would like to express an opinion to the Board, the building permit as issued, there's no reason wetland setback to the structure should be less than the one-hundred foot standard distance. The specific area is obviously very delicate. The ecosystem will not sustain more environmental pressure than otherwise necessary. All things considered, a structure's location should be more, not less, than the 100-foot setback. Those are the letters to the file. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BUTLER: Members of the Board, Jeffrey T. Butler PE, here on behalf of the applicant. This application had a been previously made to the Board in 2007, then it kind of laid fallow as the property owners were deciding what to do. One thing we did do Board of Trustees 36 during that period of time is we pursued the permits with the DEC and the Health Department, which is why you see the plan in front of you with the 85-feet of area of area to remain natural and undisturbed, and the house that they desire located the way you see it, squeezed into the building permit that is left. Because the geometry of the property, that's as far away as we could get it. And the sanitary system that we have designed in the well, conforms to that neighbor's concerns about the hundred-foot setback. You can see the radiuses of their wells overlaid on my map. With that, I'm here to answer any other questions you might have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I think the Board, some members of the Board have prior familiarity with the project, and I think based on what we saw in the field, there was sentiment that a hay bale line as proposed would seem to be a logical boundary for protection of a no-disturbance zone so that, to the waterward of the hay bale line would be an area the Trustees would like to see protected. So that would, with the natural vegetation that was heavy there, would prevent runoff, would prevent siltation of the lake. MR. BUTLER: That is the intent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe -- presently there is some discussion on the dais here concerning distance. I know there was a concern of the neighbors who communicated with the Board. Any thoughts from the members of the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: According to the survey -- TRUSTEE KING: My thoughts are it's barely jurisdictional. If you measure parallel to the property line to the wetland line, it's about 101 feet to the house. TRUSTEE BREOEMEYER: Right. And the options of house placement seems to be optimal and no other alternative in this instance. TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, in my mind, it's barely jurisdictional. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: According to the survey, the plans are, the structure will be beyond 100 feet, but during construction they wilt be within one-hundred feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there is protections on the slope to the lake that are waterward of the proposed hay bale line, will put almost half of the area of the property into preservation. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak with respect to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just think it's important to note exactly what Jim just said. It's barely within our jurisdiction, and the other side of the properly, they are at the minimum distance right now for a septic system. In other words, there is not an option. If there was an option to move the septic system a couple more feet and take the entire structure then out of our jurisdiction so we would not even be here tonight, I'm sure that is something the applicant would be happy to do. But given the regulations regarding the septic, there is no opportunity to move it back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have Health Department approval, you said? MR. BUTLER: Well, I have Health Department subject to your approval. I have everything else is off the list. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: So you meet the requirements of the various wells around the area? MR. BUTLER: Yes. May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 37 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about Mr. Ryan's concern about something being on his property? Was that the closeness to the wells? MR. BUTLER: I think his concern in that letter was regarding the setback. Our sanitary system to his well, which we have met. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, this house as proposed provides well and cesspool further to the lake than all neighbors' facilities, so it's a net improved over existing facilities that are shore side. There is not much more you could improve on. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: In the description, it doesn't talk about any kind of non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We should perhaps stipulate one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can match what the DEC did. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Wait a minute. There is a notation, non-disturbance, non-fertilization dependent buffer. That is an extension of the hay bale line here that heretofore I don't believe I had seen. So that would be on the survey, so that would readily adapt to a permit condition. Of the existing survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just going to say, it's depicted as an 85-foot area to remain non-disturbed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the DEC. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And we could just put that in our resolution also. To match the DEC. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was saying, to match the DEC. Make it easy. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no fur[her comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the requirement of an 85-foot non-disturbance, non-fertilization dependent buffer as depicted on the plans. And with the construction of a pervious driveway. And it is consistent with the LWRP, and the plan shows existing leaders and gutters to a MR. BUTLER: Proposed leaders and gutters. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Proposed. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any fur[her discussion from the Board on this motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can I just make a comment? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The public hearing is closed. It's too late. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants on behalf of ANN MARIE MOSCHITTA requests a Wetland Permit to install onto end of existing 4'X90' fixed dock a seasonal 3'X 20' aluminum ramp and 6'X20' timber float secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings. Board of Trustees 38 Located: 1800 Broadwaters Rd., Cutchogue. The Board has seen this. We all saw this. The only notes we have from our field inspection was that we did verify it was not to exceed the pier line and we do not want to cut, don't want the baccharis cut. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. And gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain the roof runoff from the dwelling. The LWRP has found this to be consistent, though it does ask that we have the proposed vessel's dimensions identified. And with that I'll ask if there is anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. It is very simple application to add a seasonal ramp and float. We did have the adjoining structure surveyed to show we are staying within the pier line. There was a comment you read, Bob, about cutting baccharis but I'm not sure what that -- I mean we are not, there is nothing that is happening to the existing structure so there would be no need to be disturbing any vegetation, for any reason. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had noticed in the field that one of those baccharis that is adjacent to the dock has been trimmed. We are just asking the resident to please leave it alone. MR. HERMAN: I understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we did note there is a really neat tree there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was amazing. MR. HERMAN: Otherwise I don't have anything else to offer, unless the Board has any comment. I guess I would ask one question. This issue with the vessels comes up, and I guess I would have to direct my question to counsel. Since the Trustees don't regulate boats or boat sizes, other than with respect to meeting the width of the waterway, what is the relevance of that request that always seems to come up with the LWRP review of showing boat vessels? Because it's not a requirement of your code. TRUSTEE KING: I think in the code, if you look at the length of the structure, it includes the vessel. MR. HERMAN: Right, but in an area like this where you are thousands of feet away, does the Board feel like it's -- okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? Any comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 39 May 18, 2011 (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Eugene J. Burger, Sr., on behalf of EUGENE C. BURGER, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to construct first and second-floor additions to the existing single-family dwelling and proposed porch additions. Located: 2385 Pine Tree Rd., Cutchogue. This was consistent with LWRP, and Conservation Advisory Council resolved to suppod the application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BURGER: Yes, Eugene Burger, Sr. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it was pretty straightforward application. We all inspected it. It's just the drywells, is a question. MR. BURGER: They should be on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are. Does the Board have any questions on this? (No response). Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this from the audience? (No response). Hearing no further comment, Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. MS. HULSE: Jill, there is not likelihood this could be necessary to be demolished, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the house is just squaring off the two corners of the house. MS. HULSE: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a full renovation. MR. BURGER: We are definitely not demolishing the house. At this point. MS. HULSE: But obviously if that were to be the case he would have to come back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I think he knows that by now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I made a resolution to close. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Eugene Burger, Sr., on behalf of Eugene Burger, Jr., as submitted, and finding it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JAMES & DENISE MARTIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and abandon the sanitary system; construct new dwelling on pilings and sanitary system with fill; new permeable driveway; and attached two-car garage. Located: 2740 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. This is an application for a new house. We have a couple of letters here. They are not too long Ill just read them into the record. The first one is from Evelyn and Thomas Bass, Board of Trustees 4O May 18, 2011 Jr., Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. I'm writing concerning the permit hearing for a proposed building of a new house at 2740 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Based on the site plan as currently configured, the house would only be approximately 120 feet from the water's edge of Deep Hole Creek. I find this totally unacceptable for a number of reasons. This location would effectively block the view for existing homes, particularly the homes west of this location. In fact the house next door, built only several years ago, is slightly closer to the street, as are all the other houses in the area. The proposed house site would not be in keeping with existing siting of the area. Two, the area proposed is environmentally sensitive and constructing a home this close to the water would have an adverse affect on the area habitat. Three, inasmuch as the house will need to be built on pilings and elevated, the combination of raised elevation plus the height of the structure will overpower the area. Even boaters coming into Deep Hole Creek will be greeted by an obtrusive house sticking out close to the water's edge, ruining the natural shoreline. Thus, I'm going on the record as being opposed to the proposed plan as it currently exists, for the above reasons. If the house was built at the location of the existing dwelling, that would likely be acceptable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who is that from? TRUSTEE KING: This is from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Bass, Jr. And the second letter is from the Maratooka Point Homeowners Association. Maratooka Point Homeowners Association is very concerned and disconcerted over the proposed Wetlands permit request of Suffolk County tax map 123-4-11. We feel we should have been notified by registered mail of this proposed building site permit staked on filled-in wetlands and that the Building permit and Health Department application of cesspool should be inkind with original house footprint in site. There are tremendously dangerous environmental issues. We ask as individual homeowners and as an association that the decision be tabled until our legal attorneys have due time to review the proceeds. Thank you. This was found inconsistent with LWRP. It was recommended the structure be located further landward. The area within flood zone "x" is surrounded by zone "ae," elevation six. To minimize property damage and/or health safety and welfare of the occupants of the new residential structure, it is recommend the that the new residential structure be relocated landward adjacent to Deep Hole Drive and inline, not project further seaward, with existing residential structures on the adjacent parcels. That's basically the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the Wetland application. Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application and recommends the proposed dwelling is relocated inline with the neighboring dwellings. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this project? MR. BURGER: Yes. Eugene Burger. One of the comments I would Board of Trustees 41 May 18, 2011 like to start out with is, after reviewing the stakeout, and also talking to the Board, we decided to pull the project back 82 additional feet, which we have a site plan here, for your review. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the plan we reviewed, we saw Monday night at our work session. MR. BURGER: Excuse me, I stand corrected. It was just pointed out, the house is back 91 feet additional. Not 82. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it says 91.6. Just to note on the record, this is, there is a Wetland line on the survey, but there is also a beach sign, and we take jurisdiction from the beach line. Which is clearly marked on the survey. It says existing lawn line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I would agree with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says existing lawn line. MR. BURGER: I would like to point out to the Board, I'm sure you are already aware, that line is actually manmade. It's spoils from the dredging. So it's not a natural beach line. And the Wetlands line was staked out by a professional, licensed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You spoke to the Building Department about the flood zones. Can you go over what was said in that meeting? MR. TALGAT: Yes. My name is Ural Talgat, with Samuels & Steelman Architects. I have spoken to the Building Department's chief building inspector about the flood zones and he recommended that, usually we can build in both of the flood zones, but we are keeping the building at elevation 12. The minimum floor height has to be at elevation eight, which the garage is. When the house is going into the flood zone, I believe it's "X", the lower elevation on the site plan, around this property, we have to bring in more fill to bring up the house higher, and that's also due to the sanitary system. We have to keep the sanitary system at a certain height and also the house. That's why we have to bring up the house to that elevation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if they move the house back further out of our jurisdiction they'll be in a lower elevation, they have to bring in more fill than they would have if they put the house in our jurisdiction. And that's the natural swale of the property and when the area does flood in a severe storm, the water naturally goes to that lower area, obviously, TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which on here would be where the driveway is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where the driveway is. Correct. So if we move the house back to that point -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fill would be brought in, raise the elevation, then it wouldn't fill in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But then where would the water go? The water would dissipate to the neighboring property, and we don't want to cause that problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For reference, looking at the aerial, if you look on the aerial, where the beach becomes more grass-like, right, that would be this picture right there. That would be this point here. Which we all remember. Where, now, on the aerial shot, where is the house? Is that about where it is, where my cursor is? That's about where it's going to start, right? Board of Trustees 42 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will start on this line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will start on this line here? MR. BURGER: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: See this dotted line here, that's the existing lawn line and this is the beach line. So the house, that one corner of the house will actually be right here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. MR. TALGAT: I would like to make a point. The sand that you see there along the entire waterfront is basically spoils. Dredge spoils; that the people at Deep Hole Creek now enjoy boat access into Deep Hole Creek, and when the beach spoils were dredged up out of the creek and placed on our property, the line that is on our site plan that depicts Wetlands versus uplands, that has not changed. And when you are taking a look at it, saying that that is beach, I'm not sure if that is beach. I don't think that is natural beach there. I have photographs that shows the edge of the water, and there is no sand that goes down to the water line. It's a marsh. And let me point those photographs out to you. These photographs, there is no sand going down to the edge of the water now, on the entire length of the property. So when you are calling it a beach, I'm not sure if it is a beach. These are all different photographs. This is the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This would be an intertidal zone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me read the definition of beach. A "beach" is a zone of unconsolidated earth that extends landward from the mean Iow water line to the seaward toe of a dune or bluff or whichever is most seaward. Where no dune or bluff exists landward of the beach, the landward limit of the beach is 100 feet landward from the place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic form from the line of permanent vegetation, whichever is most seaward. Shore land subject to seasonal or frequent overwash or inundated are considered to be beaches. So it's a tough call. I mean. MR. TALGAT: Can I suggest Rob Herman speak also, for this matter? MS. HULSE: Does he have approval to? MR. TALGAT: Yes. MS. HULSE: On behalf of the applicant or are you just speaking as an individual? MR. HERMAN: I'm happy to speak as an individual. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you can MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. I'm not representing this particular client, but I would offer, just with what Jill is reading, if Jill wants to read the first part again, the definition of a beach under Chapter 275 -- it's my recollection, anyway -- is really intended to describe true beach areas, Long Island Sound, et cetera, where you have what Jill read. Unconsolidated sand extending from mean Iow water landward up to a certain point, which would typically be a vegetated berm or a dune or a bluff. And the very nature of that definition describes an area where there is in fact unconsolidated, unvegetated sand extending from the intertidal zone to a certain Board of Trustees 43 May 18, 2011 point landward. Here, this is a classic creek/marsh environment. Above the, landward, just landward of the Iow tide line, just looking at the aerial in the photos here, is intertidal marsh. And I have not been to the site but I'll take the educated guess there is a high marsh area above it. You would not naturally have a condition on Deep Hole Creek where you have a marsh extending up from a benthic community from littoral zone tidal wetlands, then to intertidal wetlands and then high marsh wetlands, and then suddenly have an unconsolidated beach. It's not connected to the actual bottom land. Which means in all likelihood it was placed there by somebody, so that the decision that the Board is faced with is do you treat, do you effectively treat a dumped pile of sand as a beach. And I would suggest that you shouldn't, because you would then be in a situation where if a homeowner brought in a giant pile of sand to create a play pen for their kids and there was a nice even lawn line to that sand, you could then call that a beach. But I think if Jill reads the first part of that definition again, it doesn't match what you are looking at there. And certainly I'm just offering the opinion really as an ecological one, that pile of sand there from, you know, what has been testified as dredge spoil, does not constitute a natural beach environment that is connected to Deep Hole Creek. So the Board should certainly be looking at setbacks from the tidal wetlands boundary, the vegetated tidal wetlands boundary, not from that spoil deposit. MS. HULSE: The concern of the Trustees, as I see it, just in response to that is the construction and operations standards that would apply. This is a critical environmental area, so then that allows the Trustees to be more stringent in the requirements that are typically detailed in 275. They can actually deny structures just based on that reason alone. Additionally, since this falls under new or remodeled homes, the code does not allow them to be situated closer to the wetland boundary line than homes on either side. To me that's the bigger question here. MR. HERMAN: That seems like issue separate than what I'm -- MS. HULSE: Right. But that's really the crux of the issue here. MR. BURGER: I have a couple of comments I would like to say about that. First of all, you said the house on the other side, this gentleman, spoke to us as we were standing in the field the other day. He was very unhappy with the town. The town made him put his house here in that very Iow elevation, which you read before, four feet. As a result of that, his house floods. And he said to us, I don't have any issue with you guys putting a house out here. Now, part of the reason we are pushing the house out here is the elevation of this property. And we want to stay in this "X" zone is where we want to stay. So pushing it back just creates a lot of difficulties, I think, (a), for the neighbor, and even for meeting our Health Department requirements and stuff. And also we drew a line here, of other houses, not the immediate house, but other houses, this touches that, touches that and parallels the creek. It goes right past where we want Board of Trustees 44 May 18, 2011 to put the house. It's really not in keeping with the rest of the houses. This guy is upset because the town forced him to go back that far. So I think you guys ought to consider that. I don't want to challenge you guys on where the jurisdiction is, because we need to do.~he right tliing, period, on the property. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know when that house was built, Eugene? MR. BURGER: Not too long ago. I think six or seven years. You would know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was like '99, 2000. MR. BURGER: He said to me the Building Department made him put the house there. And part of that is the reason Lori just stated. But he's unhappy about being there. I could tell you that. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to see it staked in the new location. MR. BURGER: That's not a problem, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I noticed, where the driveway is coming in, are you going to raise the grade of the driveway? MR. BURGER: You mean where the hollow is at four feet; yes. And I think that will help the neighbor. Because what happens here -- I'm better showing you on this. If you look at that Iow elevation, right here this, three, four feet, it floods through this way. So I said to the guy, we would be willing to berm this off so that didn't happen. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it wouldn't continue past yours and on to his. MR. BURGER: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if it floods your area, how are you going to-- MR. BURGER: Well, hopefully out here it won't flood. That's the highest point of the land. That's part of the reason we want it out there. And obviously also the view, so. This would help him out a lot by filling that in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we get that staked and we'll take another look at it. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I'd like to see it here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the lowest point. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason being, really, when we were out there and looking where the stakes were now, there was questions where we were putting it, and frankly, we were not, at least I wasn't really concentrating on the Iow lying areas. So I would be interested to see how it would all lay out in consideration of that. MR. BURGER: The surveyor actually staked out the wrong plan. He staked out the initial plan we submitted, before we pulled it back 20 feet. MR. TALGUT: And then he didn't even stake that out. Now it's back a total of 105 feet, I think. According to this plan, from where it's staked. So it's even back further. So the Board is correct in wanting to re-stake. And you'll see when it's re-staked how further back it is MR. BURGER: The other thing, Dave Chicanowicz is here, he'll do the landscaping for us. And we were thinking that, particularly because we want to have this house have this very beachy Board of Trustees 45 May 18, 2011 feeling, that we would just not have any grass at all on the whole seaward side, and even on the sides a little bit. We'll do a non-turf type of deal. MR. TALGAT: There is also phragmites growing along the creek there, and also within that planted sea grass. Right at that edge. What we are thinking of doing is removing the phragmites and replanting that after the construction with all beach grass. And restoring the natural habitat with plants. Native plants. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to address the one issue as far as the proposal of the house being forward of the neighboring houses. When the entire area is within our jurisdiction, that is something we have adhered to. But in this case, where that footprint of that house presently is, which is where we are talking about, either way it's non-jurisdictional for us. In other words, it's more than 100 feet landward of where we are, even if we go with what we said was beach, it's well over 100 feet away. So to me that makes that determination of a house being in line with the others non-jurisdictional for us. In other words, if another agency, whether it's the Building Department or whatever, wants to enforce that, that's up to them. But I don't see -- that par[ of the code for the Trustees takes effect when it's outside our jurisdiction. That's why I'm a little confused on that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I get that. MR. TALGAT: I have a question about that. When you talk about neighboring structures, looking at the aerial photograph, here, we have neighboring structures along this side of the creek, but there are homes here, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Two immediate neighbors, is what we go by. MR. TALGUT: So these two, no matter how close they are, have no effect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We run into that all the time with people saying the houses, four, five, sixes houses down. So what I'm saying, for me, it's not an issue for me. It's non-jurisdictional for US. MR. TALGAT: I'm asking the Board, the entire shoreline here, when it comes to these homes, being so close to the road, and then I take a look at these homes being so close to the water's edge, here we are being forced, if we have to bring it back to here, whereas this portion of our land, even though we may be able to build on there, but you are not taking a look at the overall effect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, what I'm saying is that it's a moot point to us. In my opinion. That's just my opinion, t don't know how others feel about it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think part of the criteria is whether or not that is beach or not. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind it's a tough call to call that beach. That's my personal feeling. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know particularly when we have that much intertidal zone, and we see it in the photographs -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm thinking of the Long Island Sound, we were down there not too long ago trying to identify where the beach ended. Board of Trustees 46 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Based upon the definition we have in the code, I would say this is not a beach. MR. BURGER: Even still, we are willing to still do the non-turf, just, I just think it would be a nice setup for the whole property. TRUSTEE KING: If you re-stake this, could you put a couple of stakes at the seven-foot contour? MR. BURGER: You mean elevation stakes? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It goes right through that little circle there, landward of the proposed house. MR. TALGUT: Seven-foot contour, meaning the new or existing? TRUSTEE KING: Right in the circle landward of the house. Just a couple of stakes landward of the house, just to give me an idea. MR. TALGAT: These are the new contours, versus the existing contours. MR. BERGEn: This is proposed. MR. TALGAT: That's where you would like it staked, just at the new contour. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, just a couple of stakes there, so I could see it in the field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that would be after the fill was brought in. Then it would be the new contour. Or do you want to see where the existing contour is? TRUSTEE KING: It will be staked in the same spot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So they'll actually get the height. MR. TALGUT: You want see that line, basically. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think he wants to see the line. MR. TALGAT: On the property of where the seven-foot contour would be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. TALGAT: Our surveyor also staked out the sanitary system, which would probably add to more stakes out there, which also adds to the confusion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: As long as they are labeled, it's okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you get the -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have any receipts of notification of the two adjacent properties, the green cards? MR. BURGER: We sent them in yesterday. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't see them in the file. MS. STANDISH: There is receipts, but the actual green card that is signed -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Proving that they got the notice. MR. TALGAT: I'll check back in the office. What did you get? MS. STANDISH: We did get them from the other applicant. They look like this. MR. TALGAT: Our secretary said she dropped them off yesterday. MS. STANDISH: The receipt. We need the actual green card. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Eugene, do you have plans for the house, actual plans? MR. BURGER: Yes. MR. TALGAT: (Handing). I have five copies. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can we keep a set? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't need five. TRUSTEE KING: I did notice that neighbor's house, the new house, Board of Trustees 47 May 18, 2011 he's actually got a drain pipe into the basin. Evidently the swale brings water through there. MR. TALGAT: He said the town requested that from him. MR. BURGER: He's not happy with the town, Jim. I'm telling you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He had a lot of problems there. It was a cottage that was there, and he bought the property in the late '90s and got permits to build a house that is there, and the town actually made them put the drainage in there, too. MR. BURGER: You know what it is, Jim, I guess the fellow who previously owned this property was not willing to do anything. I said to the guy right way, we'll fill this in and that will alleviate that problem. He said that's what needs to happen. But the previous owner was not willing to do anything, and of course the town cannot tell him, as you are well aware, I could attest to you, how that played out. We can make that part of the condition of the permit to fill that in for him. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comment from anybody on this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to table this. We'll see it re-staked when we revisit it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I11 second that motion. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of EAST END SEAPORT AND MARINE FOUNDATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood ramp and platform and raise to new elevation to reduce angle of ramp; remove one single batter piling and replace with one 2-pile dolphins; install two new 2-pile dolphins; construct a 4'X 9' extension to existing dock; and install new handrail post and rope railing. Located: Long Bar Lighthouse, Orient. The application was considered consistent by the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council moved to support the project. I had the opportunity visit the site last week with a nice boat ride to the site. I am familiar with the project since its inception. My wife years ago worked on the committee to put it up, and Mr. Costello put the original structure up, so that's been in and out of my life. It appears to be relatively minor changes to afford slightly larger vessels to promote people touring and enjoying our maritime heritage. Is there anyone here wishes to speak behalf of the application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, again, my name is John A. Costello, and we are the agents for this application, for the East End Seaport Museum. Most of this structure was put out there when the construction of the lighthouse was being built. And we did it from Earl Wiggins, for free, just so they had access to it with an outboard, bringing people back and forth. We also brought barges out there. Now they have been taking people out there for tours. The ramp is too steep and too dangerous. I personally made the recommendation that he make the ramp at a different angle so somebody doesn't get hurt on it. We used to go out there with an aluminum ramp to, and the boats that go out there now, have to have a ramp in order to make the transition for a ten-foot area, which we want to try to fill with, extending it out to the dolphin line, and build nine additional Board of Trustees 48 feet so that they can step across. That's all. One of the boats, Peconic Star, in Greenpod, will be probably hired to take people out there on a tour. When they take them out on the tour, they have bathroom facilities on the boat itself, and they would like to try to safely have an additional dolphin for the stern of their boat to be out in deeper water. The bow can still maintain its ability to go into the shallow water. I have gone out there several times and taken people and materials out there on the 74' Plum Isle. I don't have any difficulty. One of the trips out there, I believe they cracked one of the pilings. We are going to replace it and try to make it a little more stable for the bigger vessels. It's a 94' boat. So we'll just try and make it safe and let him have the business. Because I certainly don't want to get involved. Except to do the dock work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). It's very straightforward. It doesn't impinge on any navigation. The new additional sum of 12 feet is it? Or ten feet? MR. COSTELLO: That 12 feet, it still doesn't go out past the rooks. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: it doesn't go past the rocks, so any approaches to the channel going to Greenport, so it looks like it's very doable and it increases the safety and comfort and convenience of people who will enjoy our coastline. So it's a good project. Any additional comments? (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: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No response). And it is consistent with LWRP. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge, via clamshell, the 25'X 930' channel area located within Spring Pond to a depth of -4' below MLW. The 1,000 cubic yards of resultant dredge material to be placed above high water northeast of the channel inlet along Orient Harbor and used as beach nourishment. Located: Dredge Area #2 Spring Pond, East Marion. This is basically a project to provide a permit to maintenance dredge over a ten-year period a channel that is approximately 25' by 930'. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The one condition that the LWRP administrator recommended was the use of a silt boom to retain the sediments in the immediate area of the dredging project. Before we begin -- May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 49 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I would like to abstain from this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello, and we are the agents for the Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association. And it seems to be a real straightforward application. Just basically the siltation is causing some of the problems on boats being around, and there was a definite channel at one time, and now it's almost undetectable where the channel is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a previously-dredged channel, correct? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, but there is several moorings out there and the silt has the channel filled in and we are just going to try and clean it up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, the only question I have is with regard to material location. It looks like you want to put it to the east of the inlet, correct? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are looking a 100' by 200' area, correct? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Now, I could explain that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The land is owned by Gardiner's Bay Estates Association and they are the ones that are requesting this permit. MR. COSTELLO: One of the reasons we picked that location, is it's previous dredge spoil. We can build a dyke area to be able to support it and let it dry out. We have, on occasion, the entryway, placed it on the west side where there are several groins there that stabilize the beach. It needs to go, some of it should go to the west, but it definitely has to be dried out, and you can take the berm down that you have to create to put the spoil, and let it dry first. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you applied to the DEC for that part of the project yet? Well, for the project to include material location? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we are putting it on that side. It was dry. The last time we put it on the east side, it did dry out. It's pretty nice, sandy material. And the DEC, Mr. Hamilton said, the westerly beach was eroding, Tommy Aprea is the owner of the beach area, he said I'll allow that to be filled at any time, to the high water mark. That's all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But for this particular project have you applied to the DEC? MR. COSTELLO: It has to be dried first. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you applied to the DEC for a permit for this dredging project yet? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, and where are you with that; have you received it yet? MR. COSTELLO: We have the DEC, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where I was going. MR. COSTELLO: The DEC's windows are changing quite drastically, recently. I have a dredging project where I could dredge from January 1 through June 1. Now I can dredge from the 15th of May, discontinue on the 30th. I mean they are changing more Board of Trustees 50 May 18, 2011 windows. It can't be done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was particularly concerned with is you already have DEC approval for this material location site. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we do. And we have a reasonably good-size window on it, from January 15 to September. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). What about the condition that the LWRP administrator recommended for silt boom? MR. CQSTELLO: I have no problem whatsoever with it but, you know, the location of the silt boom is going to be a little difficult. But we can put it around the crane barge and container for a certain distance. You can't silt boom the whole creek. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what you are proposing there is a good idea. MR. COSTELLO: Cedainly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association as described in dredge area number two, Spring Pond, East Marion. This was found consistent under the LWRP with the only condition that a silt boom will be used around the immediate dredge barge area as it's pressing through this project. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion? MS. STANDISH: Is that a ten-year maintenance permit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's a ten-year maintenance permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Doherty, abstains). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12,Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ,JOSEPH BRANTUK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X20' ramp onto a 4'X57' open-grate decked catwalk to a 4'X69' open-grate decked fixed dock with a 32"X12' seasonal aluminum -- I'm assuming ramp -- onto a 6'X20' seasonal float secured by two 2.5" diameter galvanized steel pipes; and install three 8" diameter mooring piles. Located: 44632 Main Rd., Southold. The whole Board was there, as I recall. The note we had from our field inspection was to make the float go straight out, shortening the catwalk. We wanted to make it subject to Planning Board approval. And no further expansion. The CAC resolved to not support the application because the proposed dock exceeds one-third across the width of the creek and extends beyond the existing pier line. And it has been found inconsistent by LWRP. Aisc requesting that please have Board of Trustees 51 May 18, 2011 applicant clarify the notation on the plan proposed 40-foot wide property expansion. Please verify the property owner has provided written consent on all parties having interest in the right-of-way. And proposed vessel dimensions should be identified. That's basically it. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John A. Costello and we are the agents for Mr. Brantuk for this application on the dock. If you ask me the individual questions, I'll try answer them one at a time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's get this out of the way. What's the size of the vessel planning on going there, if there is any planned vessel? MR. COSTELLO: Right now I know Mr. Brantuk has a 23-foot boat. That's the only one I know. And Tim Coffey is one of the owners in the association, and he is not going to bring his main boat up there. And what other vessel he would bring up there, probably would only be, I don't know, projecting, would be a Boston Whaler. The depth of water there is certainly minimal at Iow tide. It's very comfortable at high tide. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How about making it a straight dock rather than having a "T" at the end? MR. COSTELLO: I don't think that's a problem. Just as long as the overall length gets us to the same water depth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then the width of the boat makes no difference also. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. I think that's what we had discussed in the field. Then you could utilize beth sides of the float. So, if we were to do that, what's the total distance then? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is trying to figure it out. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like the creek is about 275 feet wide at this point. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here is where we are talking about. Right around here somewhere, I suppose. I think that picture I took was from somewhere -- MR. COSTELLO: It's back somewhere in that little notch. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, right in here. Because here is the end of the driveway. And there was a fence, and this area had been cleared. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that meets the one-third rule. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think it does, too. MR. COSTELLO: There is an indent on the other side. With that indent and across, it doesn't qualify. I think it's within the one-third distance, only because of the shape of the land. Not because of the overall waterway. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: If it was here, it may not make it. MR. COSTELLO: It would not make it there. But in that notch, the angle of it, heads over there, where the white line ends. MS. PEARSON: My name is Nancy Pearson, I'm the owner of the property. Mr. Brantuk is making his application pending our agreement to divide a right-of-way. So at this point he really doesn't have the jurisdiction to be able to do that. I just want to point out you are not talking about the right place. Board of Trustees 52 May 18, 2011 This is where we are talking about, it's right here (indicating). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, that's where I originally thought. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you concur with that, John? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I think that boat is there. MR. PEARSON: I also want to say, we don't want an approval for this application at this point. What we want is some information from the Board about what is the minimum that we can have, that they can have to have their dock, the minimum property required or setback or lines on either side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have given that information over and over, but you wanted something in -- we understood it, all parties wanted something in writing and something definite, and we can't give something definite unless we go through the approval process. If we approve this, we are planning on making it subject to Planning Board approval. In other words, the permit will not be given out unless the Planning Board approves their lot line changes or whatever you are doing with them. So this is not going to be effective unless the property lines are changed. MS. PEARSON: Very good. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wanted to make that clear. MS. PEARSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Near as I could figure it, it's 90 feet from Iow water to the end, seaward end of the float. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So total length is 90 feet. TRUSTEE KING: From Iow water. And I measured Iow water to Iow water, looks like 275 feet. It's hard to scale off because it's such a tight scale here. I would say it's right on the line as far as one-third goes. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: So the total distance is fine, you know, once we make it straight, he'll just have to pull the catwalk back to make the 90 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, ma'am. MR. CONDON: My name is Joan Condon, I live on Richmond Creek. And I think it comes out too far into the creek. Because that channel is narrow, and it will take up half the creek, I think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 90 feet. What's the total distance across? TRUSTEE D©HERTY: 275. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like 275. MS. CONDON: The only deep part is in the very center. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the channel you are saying is in the center. TRUSTEE KING: It's marked mid channel is in the center. MS. CONDON: It was never dredged all the way, so it is shallow. TRUSTEE KING: According to the survey mid channel is right about in the middle of the creek. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are saying is that's what the survey shows also, the channel is in the middle of the creek, just like you are saying. MS. C©NDON: But it's owned by four different people and if they all put boats out there, and that was, he implied a couple years ago, for this, and he talked like a marina, and all these people Board of Trustees 53 would have their boats. They are not doing that now, but there are still four owners and they have a right-of-way to that spot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct, that's what they are planning, on having a right-of-way to that spot. But we will not be, it's still zoned residential, we won't be approving more than the code allows. TRUSTEE KING: So we would allow one 6x20 float, and we would stipulate that there be no further expansion of this facility. They are restricted to one, 6x20 float. In that instance, you could put a boat on either side of it. MS. CONDON: You are saying you would only allow two boats there. TRUSTEE KING: By code you could have, I think, two of your own boats and two or three of somebody else's. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Two boats other than your own and -- TRUSTEE KING: But they would not have room for large boats. They would have to have a couple of small boats. MS. CONDON: The water depth is not very great. Most of the time they'll be sitting on the bottom anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the only way there will be more than two boats if they were very small, a couple of dinghies, whatever, like that; they would not be very big boats because there is only one 6x20 float that the code allows. MS. CONDON: You could guarantee that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a requirement of the permit that they can't have more than a 6x20 float. MS. HULSE: And the file doesn't have the written consent of those owners yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And it would be subject to the written consent of the, subject to the approval of the Planning Board. If this property is not subdivided or lot line change, I'm not sure exactly what they are applying for, if that's not approved, then they don't get this permit. MS. CONDON: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One question did come up, John, was why two-and-half inch diameter galvanized steel poles? MR. COSTELLO: Because they probably will be removed because of the ice conditions. And they are easier to get back in and maintain it on an immediate basis, since you are only handling one small. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So seasonal pilings. MR. COSTELLO: Basically. And the float and the ramp will be coming out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you have any comments, please come up. MR. COSTELLO: The original intention at one time, and they are right, they wanted to accommodate a float with a couple of fingers so they could accommodate four small boats. That's no longer the issue. What they are going to do is probably visit the site, tie up there, probably, I'm sure, there'll be some boats that will be larger come there, on a daily basis, high tide. It does not intrude on the channel. The channel is offshore of the structure. But I don't believe there will be a lot of boating out of there except on a daily basis. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think one of the positive things here is we are only putting up one dock for essentially two different May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 54 May 18, 2011 owners, you know, which is a nice thing. Rather than having more than one dock. There are not a whole lot of docks in this area to begin with. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have is on this eight-inch tie off piles that extend out quite a bit further than the dock. They are 20-feet seaward of the float. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we go out straight -- MR. COSTELLO: That would probably be moot if you go out straight. TRUSTEE KING: What do you mean? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would eliminate them. MR. COSTELLO: I think probably, it would be a possibility, but you would not even want to put them in a ten-foot dock straight -- I think they could probably, if you put the dock straight out, they could be eliminated with some tie slides or something to hold the boat. Bumpers. TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer to see something like that. MR. COSTELLO: It would accomplish the same thing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience? MS. HULSE: I guess we don't have to worry about the one-third rule, from what John has mentioned, I guess at in point. TRUSTEE KING: No, scaling it off, it looks okay. As near as I could scale it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John's plan shows the whole width of the creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following changes: That we stipulate that once the permit is issued, there will be no further expansion. That we are making approval subject to approval by the Planning Board. That the eight-inch mooring piles will not be installed. That we are straightening out the, we'll straighten the total dock, the dock, so there is no "T" at the end, pulling back the catwalk so that the distance is 90 feet total. And that this is subject to receiving new plans depicting those stipulations. In doing this we find that this is consistent with the LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. STANDISH: Do I need to put that in the motion? The question is whether or not part of that motion really needed to have a condition that we have approval by all interested parties. But I think that goes without saying. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Qnce we get the Planning Board approvals. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's implicit in the Planning Board being approved, isn't it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is part about the code as well. But Board of Trustees 55 May 18, 2011 that's my feeling, too. If it's approval by the Planning Board, then it's the same thing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with Bob. We can wait until Lori gets back to answer that question, but the motion was carried. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can probably do it as a separate resolution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can wait for her to get back. If we need to rescind the motion, we can do thaL TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Why don't we move on. I'll wait for Lori to get back and figure out how she wants to do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the people waiting, do you understand what just happened? We'll move on but we'll wait for the attorney to get back then ask her a question regarding the Planning Board issue. So just sit tight, we'll get back to this one again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right number 13, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of F~UR-S-PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 30"X60' fixed dock, 29.5'X12' seasonal ramp, 6'X50' and 6'X20' seasonal floats, three 1.5" diameter anchor pipes; construct in-place new 4'X95' fixed dock with a 32"X12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto two 6'X20' seasonal floats secured by three 8" diameter pilings. Located: 3490 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. This is consistent with LWRP. The CAC supports the application with the condition the dock is shortened and the float is positioned in a "t" configuration. Our comments were to reduce to one float, not two floats, as the code says. And to have it go straight out like the neighboring docks. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name, again, is still John A. Costello and we are the agents for this application. Well, you see what was submitted. That is our preference. All the floating docks that exist there now are in reasonably good condition. The pier going out is really suspect and dangerous. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I walked on it. MR. COSTELLO: You're the one that broke it. You must have been the guy. There is one area that is broken now. As you could see in the photo there. But those floats are, all of them are in reasonably good condition. They are certainly usable, and I made the suggestion that the Town Code allows the 6x20' float and, if you removed one section, which is 30 feet of it, of the float, and when you have to rebuild that float, you certainly are going to have to take it to a single 6x20. And, I don't know, anybody want to buy a float? There is one section that is 6x20 at the end now, and a 6x50' float. By reducing both of them, we would have to just extend the finger pier out to get the depth of water necessary for the end of the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board? MR. COSTELLO: If the Board wished -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured 125 that is proposed -- okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: While we have a break here, and Jim is looking at this, for those hanging around because we were thinking about reopening, we don't have to. The issue of getting signatures from all and approval from all interested parties was discussed in the hearing and we do not have to reopen, so if you were looking to leave, by all means, you may. Board of Trustees 56 May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Was there any proposal for open-grating over the Spartina? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is asking if there is any proposal for open-grate over the Spadina. MR. COSTELLO: Over the fixed portion of the dock, absolutely. I think so. There is not much vegetation there to try to promote right now but you could see up in the higher marsh areas, there is a potential. A lot of potential. There is potential down the beach, too. TRUSTEE KING: It was open-grate up to that point. I think we should just stay with one 6x20 float. MR. COSTELLO: Personally, what you are doing, the looks will continue. For looks purposes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the Board's feeling about the floats? MR. COSTELLO: Could I just make a suggestion? The Board can either take it or not. But if he does go and replace it, the float, it has to be stipulated that he could only go for a single 6x20, I'm sure he would. Actually, I'll probably attempt to try to sell the 30-foot section that I'm going to take out. Because it's in good condition. And I think Jim king needs a new float. TRUSTEE KING: I need more than that. MR. COSTELLO: No, it's in good condition. It's certainly a saleable item. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Now he has to abstain. You lost a vote. MR. COSTELLO: No, if they were in worse condition, I would say just put the same. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I feel, like Jim, one 6x20 float. How does the rest of the Board feet? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think so, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As long as the overall length is still the same, one 6x20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, is there any other comment? MR. COSTELLO: So what's the consensus of the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One 6x20 float, straight out. MR. COSTELLO: Probably subject to plans, too, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MR. COSTELLO: You guys are tough. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you have to earn a living. MR. COSTELLO: Well, I know, subject to plans. Why don't I give you the plan now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, watch him pull a rabbit out of his hat, Mr. Wizard. MR. COSTELLO: Can I convince one of you to change your mind? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so. We didn't even make up our mind yet. TRUSTEE KING: Are you trying to fool an old fooler? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has a proposed 4x80, ten-foot ramp and 20-foot float. MR. COSTELLO: I'm extending the fixed portion of the dock and go on with this single float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's, it will go out about 125. Is there any other comment from the Board? MR. COSTELLO: I think you are all ornery, but you are Board of Trustees 57 consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve a dock 4x80 -- to remove the existing dock, excuse me, to remove existing dock and replace it with a 4x80 fixed dock, ten-foot ramp and 6x20 float going straight out, not to exceed 125 feet, as per drawing dated March 10 and just received tonight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP. Is there any other comment on the resolution? (No response). I mean on the motion. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of GLENDALOUGH PROPERTIES, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to install 50' of fiber coirlogs and 1440 square foot of erosion control jute matting on slope, and re-vegetate slope with native plantings. Located: 5250 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. This was found to be consistent with LWRP. No other comment on that. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to suppod the Wetland permit. Revegetate slope with native plantings. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John A. Costello, still, or whatever. And the next two items are basically, they are connected. The erosion is occurring on the Bratz property is affecting the next door neighbor. The Bratz property. Which is the Glendalough. And the next door neighbor is going to pay to put the geo-tube at the bottom of the cliff and plant the area in order to protect their property. So these two -- and the DEC made us separate the applications. And it was difficult to get Mrs. Bratz to approve it because she is not going to pay any of the fees -- she is not going to pay any of the planting or the maintenance of her property. She doesn't care if it erodes. MS. HULSE: Did you want to open the second one? MR. COSTELLO: No, I'm just describe the first one. MS. HULSE: Do you want them to go together? MR. COSTELLO: No, the second one has more planting and some other work to do on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can open them both at once and do two separate resolutions at the end, so this way we can discuss both of them has we need to. TRUSTEE KING: We can do them side-by-side. They are pretty simple. MS HULSE: Incorporating the comments of Mr. Costello into both 14 and 15, both hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are now opening the hearing for number 15, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of NORTH FORK KIWI, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install 160 square feet of May 18, 2011 Board of Trustees 58 May 18, 2011 erosion control jute matting on slope, and re-vegetate slope with native plantings. Located: 5700 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. And, for the record, please have Mr. Costello's comments that he has made with regard to application 14, the Glendalough Properties, also be placed on the record for number 15, North Fork Kiwi, LLC. And for this, number 15, the North Fork Kiwi application was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support was application and so is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: I'll speak on behalf. And anybody that has any questions, they have several structures on it. They have a bulkhead. They have an existing functional jetty that seems to be working quite well. And where the beach is eroding to the north of them, it's feeding the beach and keeping a nice beach there. And the lack of vegetation on the adjoining property is causing some loss of land at the top of her cliff, which she is trying to maintain and restore with vegetation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of either application? MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, with regard to the North Fork Kiwi application, it's a pretty straightforward application where it's a project that is going to be in conjunction with the Glendalough property application. And there is, it does include re-vegetating the area that is going to be affected. TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone on the Board have any comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we got the plans we asked for. TRUSTEE KING: Do them both at once or one at a time? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do them one at a time. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing on number 14. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's found consistent under the LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was found consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for number 15, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of North Fork Kiwi, LLC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of North Fork Kiwi, LLC, and it is deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 59 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is nothing else on the agenda, I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, BoCd of Trustees May 18, 2011 RECEIVED ,JUN 2 3 2011 ,~ :_, ~O)O . .'~ , So,f hold Town