Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/20/2011 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, April 20, 2011 6:00 PM RECEIVED ,JUN 2 3 2011 Southold Town Clerk Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee James King, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 11,2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we get started I just want to go over the agenda. There has been some postponements. On page two, number ten, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of 1900 MILL LANE LLC/KENNETH TEDALDI requests an Administrative Permit to remove 315 square feet 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. Located:1900 Mill Rd., Peconic, has been postponed. Page four, Costello Marine Contracting, Inc. On behalf of JULIE ANDERSON & ANNE ADRIANCE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7451 to allow for the removal of 151' of existing bulkhead and construction of 151' of new bulkhead in-place, provide 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of new bulkhead. Remove existing 10'X30' wooden deck and construct new 10'X 30' deck landward. Install 12,000 pound elevator 2 boat lift. Remove existing ramp (existing floating dock is missing). Dredge an area 50'X 10' to -2.5' below mean Iow water removing approx. 25 cy. Of spoil. Install new 32"X 12' aluminum ramp onto a 4'X 30' seasonal floating dock secured by 2-8" dia. Anchor pilings in dredged area. Place dredged spoil (approx. 25 cy.) As fill in area of old marine railway. Vegetate filled area with native plantings. Located: 4302 Wunneweta Rd., Cutchogue, has been withdrawn. So that won't be heard. Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NORTH FORK KIWI, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7203 from Christine Hunt to North Fork Kiwi, LLC, as issued on November 18, 2009 and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7203 to allow the installation of 50' of fiber coirlogs at toe of bluff and 1600 square feet of erosion control jute matting on slope, and revegetate slope with native plantings. Located: 5700 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number nine on page six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN & PATRIClA GARVEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'X 10' extension to the existing dock, add two (2) anchor piles, a 3'X 15' ramp and 5'X 18' floating dock. Located: 600 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck, has been postponed; And number 16,David Corwin on behalf of BARBARA PAGANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead, install in same location 56 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, reconstruct existing 6'X 20' wood float, 6'X 10' wood float, 3'X 14' ramp, 3'X 6' platform, install two float anchor piles, and replace approx. 10 cy. Lost fill. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion, has been postponed. Those will not be heard tonight. We have a lengthy agenda and a lot to discuss, so I appreciate, if do you want speak, please come up to the mic, state your name for the record, speak clearly and keep your comments brief. We have Wayne Galante here taking the Minutes for us, and with that, we'll get started. I believe -- who do we have from the Conservation Advisory Council; did I see Jack come in? Jack McGreevey is here from the Conservation Advisory Council and Lori Hulse is here as our legal counsel. Our next field inspections is will be May 11,2011, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, May 18, at 6:00 PM, with a worksession at 5:30. If anybody would like to be on that worksession, please let us know beforehand. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Minutes of March 23, 2011. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). April 20, 2011 3 April 20, 2011 I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for February 2011. A check for $6,044.55 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., April 20, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are listed as follows: Warren & Nina Bernstein - SCTM#59-5-3 Kathy Tsoumas - SCTM#113-4-7 George Vail - SCTM#77-2-7 Jane G. Weiland - SCTM#111-13-11 Marylou Palmer - SCTM#145-4-6 John & Patricia Garvey- SCTM#115-12-7&8 Joseph Occhipinti - SCTM#33-3-19.4 Kenneth Heidt - SCTM#126-11-22 Julie Anderson & Anne Adriance - SCTM#111-14-30 Gilda Principi- SCTM#74-1-35.53 Vincent Curto - SCTM#74-1-35.54 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). III. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions, number one, PATRICIA FITZPATRICK requests an Administrative Permit to add dormers and windows to the existing dwelling and add a covered porch over existing entrance. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. We just discussed this at our worksession. There are issues with other permits on this, so we need to just take a minute and speak to Lori and then we'll start discussing this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did. So we can move on this and resolve the other issue after. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we wanted to find out. Because there was no violation written as of yet and we are here working on it, and this request for an Administrative Permit has nothing to do with that old permit. We are able to move on this. That's what we just wanted to make sure, legally, that we can do that. But in the meantime, you need to come to the office and we'll discuss the other issues with the old permit. That has to be 4 April 20, 2011 re-applied for. So we can discuss that further at another time. And I don't think we had any problems with this application, correct? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what I would like to do, in the interest of saving time, we have reviewed all of these, and I would like to lump together number one, number two, number three, number four, number five, number six, number seven, which was found inconsistent because of -- there was no reason. The reason was not stated why the trees needed to be taken down. Well, they fell over and they are on the driveway, that's why they needed to be removed. So with that, we'll find that consistent. And that's Sean Peters and number eight. They are listed as follows: Number one, PATRIClA FITZPATRICK requests an Administrative Permit to add dormers and windows to the existing dwelling and add a covered porch over existing entrance. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. Number two, PETER BENOTTI requests an Administrative Permit to construct an 8'X 12' shed, install a 6' post/wire deer fence and install an electric light on the fence at the beginning of the path to the dock. Located: 930 Clearview Rd., Southold. Number three, THOMAS GRAUL requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 300 sf. deck attached to the existing dwelling. Located: 1980 Nakomis Rd., Southold. Number four, JOHN CORBLEY requests an Administrative Permit to convert one existing overflow/cesspool into a septic tank, keep other overflow tank as is and add two additional overflow tanks. Located: 680 Mason Dr., Cutchogue. Number five, PAUL J. COLLINS requests an Administrative Permit to renovate the existing porch and extend it approx. 9' to center it across the side of the dwelling. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island. Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOSEPH SCHUPLER requests an Administrative Permit to install a fence with a gate running parallel to the bulkhead, up to 4' in height, and located 8' landward of the bulkhead and connecting to an existing split-rail fence along the side of the property; install a 10' non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead; and construct a 10'X10' storage shed with electricity in the front yard. Located: 3,475 Wells Rd., Peconic. Number seven, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of SEAN PETERS requests an Administrative Permit to remove three (3) dead trees in the wetland area. 1910 Bay Ave., Mattituck. Number eight, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of EDWARD FORTE requests an Administrative Permit to remove Locust stumps and re-vegetate area with native plants; install permeable stone patio; and relocate the existing deer fence. Located: 750 Truman's Path, East Marion. So I would like to make a motion to approve one through eight, and they are all found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of THOMAS & VICTORIA PATTERSON requests an Administrative Permit to upgrade the existing sanitary system. Located: 84 Bell Hill Ave., Fishers Island. Jim and I did a Fishers Island inspection on Monday and we reviewed this and I did speak to Glenn, who is here. We are just going to try to find the right picture to correspond with this. Okay, this is the area that we would like to see the septic to go in, if possible. This is the area that the septic is proposed to be. It's lower and on the opposite side of the house than the image we just showed you. And this is the area where the pipes would be coming out. It's just a lower area and we were just wondering if it's possible to move everything on the opposite side of the house near the road. And that would be out of our jurisdiction. MR. JUST: Glenn Just, Environmental Consulting. I spoke to the project engineer today after speaking to you the other day about this. He feels there is really no room to put it on the Equestrian Avenue side of the property. And to put it in the front yard it would be putting it much closer to the fresh water pond that is right across the street. I know there were questions about the system they are putting in. It's a sealed system. It's not going to be pumping ground water. Only things coming out of the sanitary system will be pumped into the system. It's a distribution pump, which goes out to the rings, so there would not be any ground water being sucked into the system and the pump running all the time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was one of our concerns. MR. JUST: If you look at the test hole data, too, ground water elevation is at 12. So there should really not be any problems with that. It's a tough decision. The old system is right behind the side of the house along that little drain that goes through. I don't know if you saw, there is a picture of where the cover for the system is right there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is one of the houses John Thatcher was talking about for years when we were sampling there. I know the area well. MR. JUST: It's something we were playing around with for about eight years with ourselves. According to Dick Strauss, the project engineer, the Health Department has approved this system. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For this particular site specific? MR. JUST: Site specific. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So they were required to get a Suffolk County health approval as opposed to a lot of times rebuilds are not under the jurisdiction of the Health Department in some of the towns. MR. JUST: What they did, Jay, is went to the Health Department first and they played around with different systems in different locations and the Health Department said we are happy with this, go to the Trustees and go to the DEC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean from a practical standpoint to not have to have the maintenance on an electric pump and reliance on it and have a gravity feed system always seems to be better, and the area, no matter where you put it, is hydro-reactive because you have large ponds upstream in any instance, and obviously it will be a huge improvement. MR. JUST: It's a difficult spot. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a very difficult spot, but a huge improvement. MR. JUST: And that's what we hope, it will help out Hay Harbor with the new system, so, that's where we stand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay, are you satisfied with -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, if they've gotten the advice and they are dealing with a totally sealed system, and it's an alarm April20,2011 6 system, so they feed the groundwater infiltration issue to have the pumps running unseen when people are not in residence, the alarming, ideally, to have someone look in on the place for seasonal, to check in on that, but yes, it's probably, those are your only options. If it's too costly and too impractical to locate on the other side with a gravity feed system and the DEC and Health Department granted their blessings, it seems the issues I'm personally familiar with, having done a bit of that work years gone by, the way it is there now, the pools with bail and it goes right in the stream, right into the harbor, I don't have a problem with it. That's, you know. The other administrative agencies also looked at it similarly and they don't have a problem. MR. JUST: Again, it's been a tough situation for a long time. They have been trying to work out a solution for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is saying it's only jurisdictional from the stream running through. TRUSTEE KING: The little stream going through. That's the only reason it's jurisdictional. MR. JUST: Because Hay Harbor is more than 100 feet away. That's why we try to triangulate it in that area there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, any other questions of the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that a motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment on that, from the Board (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. We, again, inspected and reviewed these, and I would like to lump together numbers one, two, three and five. They are listed as follows: Number one, GEORGE & MARY VAIL request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4016 from Robert Wieczorek to George & Mary Vail and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4016 add a 3' high gate with 1" high sign on ramp to dock. Located: 50 Oak Ave., Southold. Number two, West Creek Builders, LLC on behalf of 1690 BAYVlEW ASSOC., LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #620 to include two (2) additional pilings and float supports at the new floating dock location, and One-Year Extension, as Amended on April 22, 2009. Located: 1690 North Bayview Rd., Southold. Number three, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of KEVlN MCGILLOWAY requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7276 to increase proposed backfill to approx. 40 cy. clean sand; to use anchor system of tie-rods and deadmen instead of helical anchors; and to temporarily remove and replace approx. 810 sr. of decking around pool house to allow for installation of anchor system. April 20, 2011 7 April 20, 2011 Located: 430 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck. Number five, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FREDERIC ENDEMANN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7235 to maintenance dredge a 145'X 25' area located approx. 20 seaward of the Iow sill bulkhead to a depth of -5' MLW. Resultant spoil, approx. 130 cy. of sand, shall be used to backfill the bulkhead so the area can be revegetated. Located: 840 Old Harbor Rd., New Suffolk. So I'll make a motion to approve one, two, three and five, as applied for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Quick question, there were slight modifications to one, I think was a request on a drywell. I don't know if that got tied in with the drywell, I think TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we have the file on Mary Vail, please (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It has nothing to do with the drywell. TRUSTEE KING: Is that because of the shed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The shed, I think there was a question if we could tie the shed in with the drywell system. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse us one minute, please. This is to transfer the wetland permit. This is the transfer one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the dock only. This is not the other. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I stand corrected. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve numbers one two, three and five. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of EUGENE BURGER, JR. requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7417 from Davies Family Trust to Eugene Burger, Jr., as issued on September 22, 2010, and to Amend Wetland Permit #7417 to construct a 4'X 59' fixed catwalk, 3'X 20' ramp, 3'X 5' bump-out float, and a 6'X 20' float in an "L" configuration secured by two batter piles and a proposed tie-off pile. Located: 2385 Pine Tree Rd., Cutchogue. Rescind Resolution of March 23, 2011. Just to give a little history to the people here, we approved this last month and we requested that the ramp go from a 15-foot ramp to a 20-foot ramp. And in review of that resolution, the applicant feels that he needs a little bit of a bump out to hold the ramp so that it's not tilted all the time. So we feel that that is a reasonable request. That's why they are back to us, and since this was just done last month, we are rescinding the resolution from last month. So that's why, basically, I'll make a motion, we should rescind first and then -- I'll make a motion to rescind the motion of last month as read just now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, I'll open the discussion to the Board of issuing a permit as stated, and I think our notes, the amendment to this request is a 3x5 bump out on the ramp, and I think we discussed in our notes we feel only maybe a 2x4 bump out is needed for this. How does the Board feel on that? TRUSTEE KING: I think it, rather than a separate float, it April 20, 2011 should just be part of the 6x20 float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An extension on that end. TRUSTEE KING: With a U-shaped piece. Part of the float itself. MR. JUST: That's basically what we are looking for. TRUSTEE KING: And if it's 2x4, it's more than enough to support the end of the ramp. I was just curious about the overall length. I had some questions. MR. JUST: The length wouldn't change. That would be on the landward side, that bump out. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to figure out what was originally approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't sign it yet because he didn't give us new plans. That's why we submitted the old ones. Here is what we talked about last month, and he was going to give us, and we changed it from 15 to 20, so we have not received the amended plans yet. That's why we rescinded the other one. TRUSTEE KING: So one inch is 30. The overall length, including the float, is 87 feet. MR. JUST: 84 feet. TRUSTEE KING: 84 feet, including the float. MR. JUST: Yes, and that goes to the seaward side of the float. TRUSTEE KING: By this drawing it's almost 88. So the overall length will be 84 feet, including the float. MR. JUST: Exactly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So including the 2x4 extension, it will be 84. MR. JUST: The position of the 6x20 float never changed. TRUSTEE KING: All right. I was just looking at the overall length into the creek. MR. JUST: I know that was the concern when we originally went there. We tried to keep that same pier length. TRUSTEE KING: Which was 84 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other questions of the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you, Mr. Just, fine with the 2x4 instead of 3x57 MR. JUST: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With no fur[her questions, I'll make a motion to approve the transfer of wetland permit #7417 from Davies Family Trust to Eugene Burger, Jr., as issued on September 22, 2010, and amend wetland permit #7417 to construct a 4x59 fixed catwalk, 3x20 ramp, 2x4 bump out float that is attached to the ramp, and a 6x20 float in an "L" configuration secured by two batter piles and a proposed tie off pile with the condition of receiving the surveys showing same. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And the overall length is 84 feet to the seaward side of the float. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Overall length to be 84 feet to the seaward side of the float. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on this? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we move on to Moorings, I would like to go back to Resolutions and Administrative Permits and reopen Patricia Fitzpatrick. Do I have to rescind that, Lori, then re-do it? MS. HULSE: No, just add to. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to add to the motion that we did prior. MS. HULSE: Can I just interrupt. Cathy, did you want to make A further request regarding that application? MS. MESlANO: Yes. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Mr. Fitzpatrick. After discussing with Mr. Fitzpatrick and with Lori Hulse, the matter, I would like to request that you add to the resolution the buffer plantings which Mr. Fitspatrick would like to do immediately, since we are now in the planting season. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Makes sense. MS. MESIANO: And not to have to re-apply just for that matter and delay things. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just trying to look to see what we did before. MS. MESIANO: If I might go off this, Lori, I just have a question. TRUSTEE KING: Why are we doing plantings? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The previous permit has expired and he doesn't want to wait to re-apply for all that, to do the plantings now, so he wants to attach this to the Administrative Amendment, the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The non-turf buffer at that one tier. MS. MESIANO: To get rid of the grass bet~veen the retaining wall -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's something we wanted, anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right now he can't do that because this permit has expired. So instead of waiting to go through all this, he wants to attach it to the Administrative Permit so he can get this done now, and this is the prime planting season. TRUSTEE KING: I see. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's a good idea. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to add to the Administrative Permit for the dormers and to do a non-turf buffer between the two lower bulkheads, to remove the turf and do plantings between the two and make it a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just request native plantings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, with native plantings. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I already spoke with Mr. Fitzpatrick about that. I'll second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MESIANO: Thank you VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we are off to number six, Moorings. The Board has reviewed all the files on the following moorings and they are all replacing existing moorings with the same size boat or less, and therefore the Board feels these are approvable. So April 20, 2011 10 Ill make a motion to approve one, two, three, four and five moorings as applied for, and they are listed as follows: Number one, FRANK INZERILLO requests a Mooring Permit in Cedar Beach Creek for a 13' boat, replacing Mooring #7. Access: Public Number two, DON CO'DRONE requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring #20. Access: Public Number three, JASON GLASSTEIN requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 27' boat, replacing Mooring #23. Access: Public Number four, JASON TAGGART requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 14' boat, replacing Mooring #111. Access: Public Number five, JOHN CLEARY requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 9' boat, replacing Mooring #3. Access: Public TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off our regular agenda and go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII, PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION PERMITS TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, JOSEPH OCCHIPINTI requests a Coastal Erosion Permit and an Administrative Permit to repair an eroded bluff by adding approx. 60 cubic yards of fill and re-vegetating with native plants, and to install a 4' wide path. Located: 1250 Sound Dr., Greenport. Before we get into this, just a little history on this. This property had a violation for clearing, and that violation was taken care of, and we instructed the applicant that he had to apply for a full coastal erosion permit because there is no division to do any administrative permit. And at the time when the Trustees looked at it, we felt it would be an Administrative Permit. So we looked, he's applied for that, we went out and looked at it again and we found there was regrading, and we were not happy with the regrading because it all goes over the bluff face and also goes off, down into and goes off the property on to the next property, which is in violation of Chapter 236 of the Drainage Code. And we have other issues. So we have now asked the applicant to make it a full permit, not an Administrative Permit. However, that being said, since this has been advertised under Coastal Erosion, we can move forward on the full permit process tonight. We don't have to postpone it a month to do that. We just have to do a full permit review. We have gotten an LWRP report on it and it came in inconsistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because there should be a detailed plan for the restoration stabilization of the bluff. The CAC recommends a non-turf buffer and a berm. And that's part of our recommendations. And we do have notes on this, which I'11, let me just start with LWRP and why it's inconsistent. The application is inconsistent because it doesn't follow April 20, 2011 11 April 20, 2011 the buffer area, vegetated buffer area of 275 and Chapter 111. It also is in violation of a Planning Board covenant and restriction on the subdivision. The clause reads: No grading shall be permitted within one hundred feet of the top edge of a bluff except that which is necessary to control or remedy erosion or to prevent storm water from flowing over the edge of the bluff. And that is a Planning Board covenant and restriction on the subdivision, so every lot has that covenant and restriction on it set by the Planning Board. It's in violation of that. However since the violation was issued through the Trustees, and you are here, we can settle all that, hopefully, in this process. With that being said, is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. OCCHIPINTI: I am. Joseph Occhipinti. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Board was disappointed to see what was out there. This area that you see in did was all covered with plantings, and not only was it plantings, as you can see in this picture, this was regraded, and the land naturally goes toward the set of stairs, which is a right-of-way for the subdivision. So to be kept like this, that it is today, the water would run off and eventually undermine those set of stairs. What we would like to see in this area is the whole area to be planted up again and bermed so the water flows back toward the house and not over the bluff. If it's left like that, you'll just wash out your bluff completely. MR. OCCHIPINTI: That's what we are working on now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, before any of this was done, you should have come to us first. MR. OCCHIPINTh I apologize. I'm a new homeowner there and I was never told this was freshwater wetland TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a freshwater wetland. It is within our jurisdiction, on The Sound, is from the top of the bluff, 100 feet back. It's our wetland jurisdiction. MR. OCCHIPINTh I apologize. I paid my fine for it. My intention was to just move those bushes over to the side, which I did. And I cleared that out. I never touched any of the ground or the bluff at all, until you guys asked me to. So what was there is what was there. So I did not disturb the ground until you asked me to re-fill it back in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We asked you to come in for a permit before you did that. MR. OCCHIPINTI: Yes, but at that same token, after you asked me to, I was told I needed vegetation and to refill it with dirt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, you need to get a permit to do that. Not do it without a permit. So this should not have been done. MR. OCCHIPINTI: I understand that. This was after I applied for the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You didn't get a permit but the work has been done. MR. OCCHIPINTI: Okay, but in the meantime I'm getting erosion, I had to do something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, you need to come and get a permit from us before you do anything. You can put hay bales up, you can do other things without a permit. This should not have been done 12 April20,2011 until this was satisfied, until the violation is satisfied and us review the whole application, because we have certain criteria under our codes that we need you to do. Because the way that was done, although it looks beautiful, you'll blow out the bluff. You'll blow out the neighbor's stairs. You know, it's nice and even and everything, which is great, but we are not looking for esthetics here, we are looking to save the bluff and save the neighbor's stairs. So what we need to see from you is a planting plan. We would like to see a berm at the edge of the bluff, and the elevation changed so all the water runs back toward the house. And that whole area to be non-turf. We don't want to see grass planted in that area. You can have the grass where you have it now, but the area of dirt to be non-turf plantings, whatever you want, they have to be native, salt-tolerant plants. MR. OCCHIPINTh You asked 25 feet from the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are saying now is we want that whole area, we feel the way the whole property slopes down, we feel it would just be beneficial to you and your neighbors, to have that whole area non-turf. And you can plant it in any way you want. We are not telling you how many or what to use, but we don't want to see turf going up there. And it needs to have a berm and come back toward the house. And Chapter 236 of the Town Code, which the Town Building Department administrates, states that you must keep all your runoff on your own properly. MR. OCCHIPINTI: I understand that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just per, as we get into it, the specific size of the non-turf buffer, we had taken measurements, Jill, that are in the field notes, just to help the applicant out. So there are some very specific measurements measuring from the house to where we want to see the edge of lawn. Beyond those measurements would be non-turf. It would just help you out with a definitive line. MR. OCCHIPINTI: But what I have now is okay, though. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you have now is basically, what we did is we measured from the house -- do we have a picture? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a picture of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the one corner, I believe, it's the western-most part that stands out, we measured from that corner, which is not quite the middle of the house, but it's toward the western -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have this picture here you can use. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The western side, Bob. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured from here out to where the dirt starts, and that was 92 feet. And then we measured from here, and that was 76 feet. So basically follows the dirt line that you have. So when everything is said and done and we go inspect it for a C of C, we'll be measuring that to make sure those measurements are what we want. MR. OCCHIPINTh So I can leave the existing grass that is there nOW. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. OCCHIPINTh And from the bluff back, all native plants. 13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But before you can do that, you need to give us a plan and we need to approve that plan. MR. OCCHIPINTI: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have a problem with approving something subject to receiving the plan or do you want to see a plan first, since this is extensive and we really don't have anything in front of us? TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see it tabled until we see a set of plans. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest a row of staked hay bales along the top of the bluff to stop any further erosion. As a temporary measure until we get this mess straightened out. MR. OCCHIPINTI: You have the elevations of dirt you want me to install? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would leave that up to your surveyor to figure out, to do a berm and figure out, because they'll figure out the calculations. We are not the experts. To figure out how the water will not runoff the bluff and also stay on your property. If you have to put some kind of drainage in there, they'll let you know that, too. MR. OCCHIPINTI: Am I allowed to use some sort of rock or brick walls or something? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you choose to do that, just put that on the plan and change, amend your application to state that. MR. OCCHIPINTI: So I could put a brick wall or rock wall around the property and that would suffice, instead of dirt? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't answer that now. MR. OCCHIPINTI: Because I'm just afraid the dirt in the future will just wash out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, plantings would be better than the rock wall. A rock wall puts too much weight on it, I think. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if you did a berm with some plantings on that berm, I think the berm will hold up pretty good. We have seen that done on properties along The Sound in many different areas, and we would be looking for you to bring in an engineer to determine the height of that berm, and we obviously would want to see through a profile what the height of the berm, elevation of the berm is. We want to make sure it's something substantial enough to hold back the water. MR. OCCHIPINTI: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mark Terry, the LWRP coordinator, gave me a call today about this, and his experience, of course, encompasses all the bluffs, all along Mattituck and Greenport. And he felt that that perhaps some kind of drainage system bringing the water back, aside from the berm, also incorporates some kind of French drain system or something to bring the water back, to decrease the pressure on the bluff. I happen to live in this neighborhood and we had a few blowouts there. Particularly over by 67 Steps Beach, a home just built just around the same time as yours, and the whole bluff blew out mainly because of the pressure on the bluff. And they had a vegetated bluff, no less. But theirs slopes down. MR. OCCHIPINTI: So I'll have an engineer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's smart, for you, too. And they were April 20, 2011 14 April20,2011 not happy when they lost 20 feet of their property into The Sound. And there is not as much of a backyard for you, so. MR. OCCHIPINTI: All right. So what's my next step? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your next step, depending on any other comments from the Board, is to put hay bales in that area. Do not do anything else because you will get another violation MS. HULSE: Jill, just to interject, you may get another violation for the C&R's. MR. OCCHIPINTh What's that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Planning Board has the right to give you a violation because you violated their covenants and restrictions. C&R's, covenants and restrictions, of the Planning Board subdivision. So you might get another violation under them. And under us -- TRUSTEE KING: It was filled in after the fact. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Technically, we can give another violation. At this point, he's here, let's get him to do the right thing. That's how I feel. If the Board wants to issue another violation, that's up to the Board here. MR. OCCHIPINTI: I was not told I couldn't. I was under the impression you wanted me to do it, because of the erosion issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After applying for a permit. MR. OCCHIPINTh So I didn't do it facetiously. I could have waited. It was never clear to me that that was not to be done. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hay bales and move on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, at this point -- we'll probably be tabling this and I would put hay bales out as soon as you can, and put it all around so it doesn't go toward that, and get an engineer to look at it and give us a proper plan, and then we can move on this. MR. OCCHIPINTh All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? Yes, sir? MR. KARAHALIS: I'm Phil Karahalis. I'm to the east and I'm affected directly. We came with my wife a few months ago and we saw bulldozers removing the trees and pushing the dirt on to the bluff. It cost me $120,000 to fix my bluff, and I'm directly affected. I'm going to lose my stairs, I'm going to lose the bluff. If you go see it today, because of all the rains we had, there is tremendous erosion. I was forced to the next property to put three drywells, to put a berm, to put a French drain so water cannot go over the bluff. If you go see there, the water goes like this (indicating). And the builder was instructed to put drywells. Not a single drywell is there. Not one drywell is there. I have six drywells on my property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: These are your stairs in this picture, right? MR. KARAHALIS: Yes, sir. It cost me $120,000 to fix, because there was a problem on the other side. As you said earlier. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, this is an ongoing issue down that whole neighborhood. I know. MR. KARAHALIS: I mean, I just want to protect my property. We have been there over 25 years. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. MR. KARAHALIS: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? 15 MRS. OCCHIPINTI: I'm Joanne Occhipinti. I'm a little concerned. I understand what the gentleman is saying, however he needs to be aware that his pool drains out the wails. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, this is becoming -- MRS. OCCHIPINTI: I understand that. But it's washing away as well. So we have to rectify that as well, which is not our problem, that runs off. Which is causing all that drain off. We are certainly not getting that kind of rain other that that one storm. MR. KARAHALIS: My pool has a drywell, lady. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not relevant to the application before us. So that needs to be worked out between the two of you. If he's not keeping his water on his property, go to the Building Department and find out the code and work from that. MRS. OCCHIPINTI: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response). Any other comment from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to table this application in order to get a planting plan, as stated earlier. MR. KARAHALIS: Excuse me, can I make another comment. Today they are planting things over there on the bluff. They have people working and planting over the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gentlemen -- MR. KARAHALIS: Please take a look, I want to request the Board, please. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, if I could continue with my motion. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to stipulate hay bales by such and such a date and no further activity in that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to do. I would like to table this application with the condition, in order to get a planting plan, showing, as stated, previously, and hay bales are to be put in place within five days. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With a silt fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With a silt fence, and no further activity will be done, not even planting a bush, until you have our approvals. MR. OCCHIPINTI: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two Docko, Inc. On behalf of ROBERT WARDEN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 62 linear feet of 4' wide wood pile and timber pier and install an 8'X16' float with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladders all waterward of the apparent high (spring) water line. The overall length of the pier from the existing patio is 70' landward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation. Construct shoreline soil retention and stabilization, cribbing of concrete, wood or plastic materials, backfill with suitable topsoil and plant native noninvasive, salt tolerant ground cover. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. This was found consistent with LWRP. The CAC did not make April 20, 2011 16 April 20, 2011 an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. We have been out there a couple of times. We were out there last August, ~ believe it was. And again on Monday, this past Monday. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., on behalf of Mr. Robert Warden and his application to have a dock built at this site for recreational boating. When you made your first recitation of issues on this, did you say this was determined consistent with the LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was found consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically because it's an island and it's a water dependent use. I don't know if the Board really agrees with a recreational dock being a water-dependent use, but that's the determination of the LWRP MR. NIELSON: Thank you. The application before you is very similar to the one that we proposed about, more than a year ago, actually. And I prepared this sketch to show the relation of this particular cove and the adjacent land owners and the proposed dock facility. I prepared the application following the local law number six, the wetlands law and the LWRP, and I believe that everything I've stated in there is true and factual and accurately represents this project. I've tried hard to make sure that we followed all of the guidelines, not only the Town of Southold but also the DEC and US Army Corps of Engineers. One of the issues is how far out a dock can go for recreational boating without adversely affecting navigation. We went through this little cove between Tennis Racket Island and the peninsula to make sure that we would not exceed those standards. And what we have detailed in our application drawings and on this illustration is that we are within the 25% of the waterway width. I know your standards says one-third, but we are within 25%, because that's the Corps of Engineers standard. We are also trying to make sure we are in deep enough water so that the floating dock would not have to have suspension devices to keep the float 24 inches off the bottom sediments. So that's why the extent of the pier that we have shown was impodant. Having said that, the narrative that I prepared includes all the necessary statements, the sequence of work references to the LWRP, the Department of State planning documents, and I believe that everything we have done here is prudent and appropriate for a dock. I understand that you have some concerns about the amount of structure, and so I was wondering if we could just have that discussion now. TRUSTEE KING: Well, we would kind of like to keep this in line, right across from there is another dock, we just looked at also, which is a much smaller structure, and in my mind is much more in line with that little, small cove. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are some concerns about water depth as well. Were you able to achieve that at Iow tide, the two feet? MR. NIELSON: Where the float is proposed now, I can reach, I'm at two feet. And so the, you know, I have met the recommendation of the National Marine Fishery Service. TRUSTEE KING: Now this is directly across from there. This 17 April 20, 2011 structure here, the set of stairs going down. MR. NIELSON: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The lower part is boarded. MR. NIELSON: This is boarded, right. TRUSTEE KING: And the other set of stairs, they are coming in to apply for a 27-foot extension on this. So that is significantly smaller than what you are asking for here, and I think this is more in line with what we want to see in this little cove. That's my feelings. And for those who were there to look at it, felt the same way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe May of 2009 or was it 2010 -- MR. NIELSON: It was 2010. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: May, 2010, we went out there, and that's the comments we had on our field notes back then. This area is basically just as wide as these. In this picture it goes off a little to the left there, but I think being no structures there now, it's a shaliow area, it's a small area, I think we feel that this is a good area just for the catwalk and stairs going down. Maybe a tie-off piling. That's, you know, how I feel, anyway. MR. NIELSON: Well, if I can, this is, if ~ could just go on a little bit further. This is one permit process out of four that I have to go through. And the state DEC requests that we go out to a point where, one, we will not require any dredging. Usually they like to see four feet. I know we can't get four feet within the confines of the regulations. And I'm okay with that. But they also want to make sure that we are minimizing the potential environmental impacts due to impacts on the bottom sediments, sediment resuspension, gouging the soils and so on, and so I think it's important for us to work to maintain the greatest, depth, or achieve the greatest depth we can within the written regulations. And that's what I tried to do. The, I was a little unclear from the notes about whether you are concerned was the amount of structure or the esthetics. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think it's a combination of both and I think we feel if all the lots did the same thing, you would have all the docks meeting in the middle, eventually, they'll keep asking for more, because it is so shallow there, and we feel this is an area where you have, you can have the catwalk and the stairs and maybe have a small boat and get out to a mooring to a bigger boat. Because that's an area you won't get bigger boats in there anyway. So we just feel that's the type of area. We do have areas in the town like that where we said no ramps and floats. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My feelings are just slightly different. Largely, quite similarly, being there in May I was struck by what I thought was the shallowness, last May, which was not maybe so evident this time out. That I'm a great proponent of access to your dock, so I may diverge from other Board feelings. I believe, in a general sense, I think of the dock as another means of ingress and egress from a piece of property. So if the depth was there and I was confident of the depth, I might not actually think that this might be the last place for a dock under this configuration given there has been an attempt here to 18 meet all the standard guidelines. So as it's going with the discussion, if there is sufficient depth and it's not going to be an impediment to navigation, other docks, to the head of that harbor would certainly have to look like the other one we were looking at. MR. NIELSON: Well, I appreciate your comments. And by the way, screwed something up, I was supposed to hand this in. This is the mailing certificate. We only got the one back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay MR. NIELSON: But we did provide the certificates indicating that we sent all the proper notices out. As I said earlier, I was a little hard pressed to fully understand the extent of your concerns on this project and so I talked with the owner, having only found out about this a couple of days ago, I talked with the owner quickly and I said, there is a reconfiguration that I can propose. First of all, if I had realized that your, if I had received a copy of that report from last year, and I don't know why I didn't, but I'll presume that we lost it. I did not see it. But if I had seen that, I would not have come in for the same dock that you had an objection to. But in order to try and meet the, not only the intention but all of the written elements of the regulation, I prepared another concept plan that I would just like to give to you now, because it reduces the total number of piles from 24 to 14. So it takes out 40% of the piles. It takes out all the tie-off piles. By keeping the float in two feet of water, I don't have to have float suspension apparatus on it, and it shortens the pier by 20 feet. And so I would like to just give this to you so that you can see it and maybe we can talk about that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. MR. NIELSON: The cloudy areas just before the floating dock, I partially whited out the old float illustration so that you could see the perspective. It reaches the same two foot of water depth, so we don't have to have the float suspension devices. But like I said it, substantially reduces the structure and yet also maintains the access to the waterway without prohibiting anybody further in the cove from navigating. I would also like to point out that the only other properties down here are Anthony's, at the far southwest end, Borden, Chapotan owns two pieces and this is the Warden property in here. And Anthony's and Borden's has the dock that they would like to modify tonight, in a future hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Borden is a direct neighbor to Warden? MR. NIELSON: No, this is Chapotan in between. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So there essentially this is the last structure, conceivably, you can configure with a conventional dock, ramp and float, really, based on depth. MR. NIELSON: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So Chapotan couldn't come in for that? MR. NIELSON: Chapotan can come in, Chapotan actually has a fair sized piece of property here. And they can come in with a dock over here that would be similar to this. But judging from the comment that they have given to the Borden's, ~ think they would not apply for a dock. April 20, 2011 19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But in the future, new owners could, so it's something we have to -- MR. NIELSON: They could. But you see the distance here between Chapotan's property and the Warden's, and the fact that the middle 50% of the small cove is open. We have met the more significant standard of the Corps of Engineers for the 25% of the waterway. So we have tried to, one, keep this to a minimal structure, and yet meet the environmental design performance criteria. So I hope you will be willing to consider that. TRUSTEE KING: Another thing, Keith, when we went out last May, that was a pre-submission, so you maybe didn't get a report from us. It was not a true application. It was just to go out and get a feel for what was there. And that was for shoreline stabilization and a docking facility. And at that time we felt terracing and maybe incorporate some stairs to the beach, but we felt it was not an appropriate place for a dock. Those were the notes from 2010. Even though you pulled this in, for one thing, I think DEC would not be happy and they'll want you to go back out further. That's been the constant battle between the Board of Trustees and the DEC. They want water depth and they don't care how long the dock is to get it. This Board and previous Boards has always tried to keep the docks as short as possible so there is not a lot of intrusion into the public domain. So it's kind of loggerheads at times with the DEC. They used to want strictly four feet. Then we finally got them down two-and-a-half feet for seasonal floats, and they have been very strict on that. And you have two feet here. I don't know. MR. NIELSON: The features we have here for Warden are almost identical to Sheila Kennedy's, which was approved over here. They are almost identical. I even used the same size float. So, you know, I tried to use my best judgment for abiding by your standards and what I know the other environmental agencies are going to say as well. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the what-if department, what if this were granted other agency approvals and we can get a restaking under the new configuration and revisit for field inspections. Ground truth and limit the extent of water depth, since we don't, it's really, I think that's a valid point. Other administrative agencies may have a different thought on this, and we don't want to create a ping pong effect for the applicant, and though there might be divergence of opinion from most members of the Board, we only had three members available for field inspection on Fishers, it might be advisable to allow this to go through other agencies for their review and then give it the opportunity for an additional look-see by the Trustees. MR. NIFLSON: I'm certainly agreeable to that. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing in my mind is what Linda Borden has been through to get what she has, which is really minimal, compared to what you are asking for. Her project has been going on for years. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. I would just like to take another look at it. I think it's a compelling argument here that it meets most agencies approvals and it's a bona fide attempt to do April 20,2011 2O April 20, 2011 that, and of course what we saw on the pre-submission is, our view, doesn't come with the soundings and measurements that are provided in this hard application. That's why I would like another opportunity to review it further. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I appreciate the work you have done to try and downsize and everything, and I'm not opposed to take another look at it, but my feeling is still this is not an area we need to see ramps and floats. Just a catwalk with stairs to get a minimal boat into the water I feel is sufficient for this area. But again, I'm not opposed to everybody taking another look. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not afraid to take another look at it. Not at all. To see what kind of progress you make with the DEC on it. Any other comments from anybody? (No response). I'1~ make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of MARIA STANISlC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approx. 118 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. Just to summarize, this is an application that came before us last month. It was determined to be consistent under the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as long as fertilizers are not used on the bluff. This was tabled because there was additional structure that we found was done that had not, a permit had not been applied for, and work was done without a permit. A violation had been issued, and the Board's practice is not to move forward with projects when there is a current violation in place. So the first question is since the violation was issued and that's why it was tabled from last month, has that violation been resolved? MS. HULSE: No, it's on for arraignment Monday. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so the violation has not been resolved. Like I said, our practice would be to continue tabling this application. But what I would like to do now is, is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HALL: Yes. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services. There is a court date on Monday to resolve that. In the meantime, I don't know if the Board wants to give me an idea on how they want to handle this. I have plans that show a note on it about the walls being there and, you know, proposed legalization, and the existing timber retaining walls with native plantings. I don't know what the Board is looking for. I want to be prepared so we can move this along after the court hearing has been addressed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have in front of me plans stamped received March 2. Has there been more recent plans submitted? MR. HALL: I have plans I can present to the Board tonight. Can I 21 approach? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Yes. MR. HALL: It's just, let me know, it's just a note, basically. I'm not sure what the Board is looking for. It's a couple of sets there. Can you pass it around? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically what needs to be done is full application for all the structures. So the application would need to be amended to add all the other structures on there. It would be for the new bulkhead and the as-built retaining walls. And fees accordingly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify something, what you just handed me is identical to what we already have in the file stamped dated March 2 MR. HALL: It's not. There is a note on there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, Bingo. Sorry. Thank you. I saw the wood wall there but I didn't see proposed legalization to continue maintenance. Thank you. MR. HALL: Now, there is several walls have already been there since she purchased the property. You guys saw it. It's tiered walls. A lot of them were just boards. Do you want every board shown? Because I think that's the most significant structure out of all of them, but there are other ones there that are board, tiered down the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Every structure that is there needs to be permitted. So you need to show every structure that is there. And describe it in the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's actually to the applicant's benefit so that way all the structures are here and if the Board -- I don't want to presume anything -- but if the Board does approve it, then they are all permitted. So there won't be a problem in the future where the applicant has to come back again and again and again. So it's actually to their benefit to get all the structures on here and get it all permitted at once. MR. HALL: I agree. I just wanted to find out exactly what the Board is looking for so we could take care of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we need dimensions of the decking around the stairs, the platform. MR. HALL: The deck and stairs are shown here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Do you have dimensions there? MR. HALL: Are those stairs illegal? TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Yes. What we would like to see is a description of a 5x10 deck leading down to stairs by a platform to a ten by, you know, whatever it is. We need that detail. MR. HALL: I didn't know the stairs was illegal. I thought it was the retaining walls. She told me it was retaining walls TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Every structure that is there, that's within our jurisdiction, if you could describe and apply for. MR. HALL: I didn't understand. I could certainly do that. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Those stairs may have been built before we had jurisdiction, so in order to repair them, it has to be permitted. See what I'm trying to say? MR. HALL: Qkay. TRUSTEE KING: This way here once everything is legitimatized, April 20,2011 22 then they can do ordinary repairs without doing anything. MR. HALL: Thank you, I can do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment on the application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board now? TRUSTEE KING: It was not a huge horrible thing they did environmentally. It was just, we just want to get it straightened out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to clarify to Dan, if you are, once the violation is taken care of, or in the meantime while you are doing that, you can apply for all this and get on for next month's meeting. MR. HALL: Right, we'll just amend the current application, not a whole new application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can amend the application, work with Lauren, she'll let you know what the fees will be. Some of it is as-built fee because the structure is already there. So Lauren will help you out with what the fees are supposed to be and what paperwork you'll need. And most likely -- Lori, will this have to be re-advertised? It's a lot more structure. So does it have to be re-advertised and re-noticed? MS. HULSE: Yes TRUSTEE DQHERTY: So it has to be re-advertised and re-noticed for May. So the process basically has to start over. MR. HALL: Will I get notification in the mail on that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Work with Lauren on that. MR. HALL: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No other comments, I'll make a motion to table the application of Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of Maria Stanisic. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing I'll entertain an attempt to try to have two items on the agenda run the hearing together because the comments from the Conservation Advisory Council are identical. Both properties are substantially similar. The Trustee field inspection notes are essentially identical, and both projects are deemed consistent under the Town's Local Water[ront Revitalization Plan. And counsel said it would be acceptable to move it in that fashion. The hearing will be, number four, 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 five, Richard J. Principi, Jr. on behalf of VINCENT CURTO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new sinCe-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. April 20, 2011 23 Both applications are consistent under the LWRP, and I would open the hearing for anyone who wishes to speak with respect to this application. MR. CONDON: Hi, I'm John Condon, I'm representing the owners. Rick Principi could not be here tonight, so I'm here in his place. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees visited the site and performed a field inspection. There was some concern that we would want to see a planting plan and restoration plan for the area adjacent to the bluff because the removal of the existing structures will obviously have an impact on the soils and vegetation near the bluff such that we would want to have a restoration plan that included the steps for the removal of the existing structures, and include a 20-foot, non-turf buffer. Those were essentially the identical comments for both properties from the Board of Trustees. The Conservation Advisory Council was concerned that the angle of repose of the bluff face there would be something that you might want to take a serious look at from an engineering perspective with all the volume of work necessaries to remove the structures, the CAC's advice, which I think was well placed, was to give consideration to developing a new angle of repose and include in the vegetation a revegetation and planting plan the bluff face to further stabilize the properties, which would be in both applicants' best interest and that of their neighbors. So those were the chief concerns. MR. CONDON: The owners have been talking about that. This winter they really took a beating. I think they are having discussions on how to move forward with that, the bluff. There are discussions. So I'll talk to the owners and see how they want to proceed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, is anyone else, Board members, any additional concerns; the angle of repose, I know, it was a startling inspection when you go up to the bluff face, you are concerned for your personal safety, with the degree it was undermined. I don't know if the Board has any additional thoughts on that. TRUSTEE KING: I think that lip is going to have to be pulled back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I think the lip will have to be pulled back or allowed to fall. And that will have to be taken into consideration then with the positioning of the house and the other structures there. MR. CONDON: The structures right now are at least 110 feet from the edge of the bluff. I believe they are actually more like 120. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for a second; is that Curto property? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concern I have with this one is I remember the original application, and it was an application to replace windows and doors. And during that hearing it was specifically asked of the applicant is this structure going to have to come down. Absolutely not. Okay, if it does have to come down, you must come in and see us prior to doing any work. Obviously a lot of work was performed in excess of what that permit allowed. And April 20, 2011 24 April20,2011 it's just a shame that we have gotten to this point, because there has been a lot of obviously expense on the owner's part put into this, and now this will all have to be ripped out and filled in and I'm just, personally, I'm concerned and upset that the applicant, when he discovered that this structure needed more than windows, that he didn't immediately stop and come in and work with us, rather than go through all this additional work. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Being none, I'll take a motion to close the hearing in both these matters and I'll move resolutions separately though, on approvals. So I move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: I just have one comment to make. In the description, wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to construct new two-stow single-family dwelling. If it's out of our jurisdiction, that should be stricken from the description, no? The only thing he's coming to us actually for a permit for is to remove those. It's not for the new construction, because that's out of our jurisdiction. MR. CONDON: The intention of the owners are, if they do want to do some work on the bluff, would be to come back under a separate application. We are getting rid of the structures there now and building new structures -- TRUSTEE KING: What I'm saying, you don't have to apply for the new structures because they are out of our jurisdiction. MR. CONDON: We just noted it in there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we can work through that maybe in the permitting phase. TRUSTEE KING: There is another section there, clear vegetation between the new dwelling and the bluff. We need to get into how much clearing will take place between these new structures and the bluff. Just a couple of questions. That's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think now is the time to discuss that, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a good question. TRUSTEE KING: What do they mean by that? MR. CONDON: I think the intention of the owner is remove some of the bramble and dead trees and clear, where the house is going, between there and the water is a lot of bramble. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he wants lawn between the house and the bluff? MR. CONDON: Yes, and you have the buffer at the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: Here is where the new house is coming. They are saying clearing somewhere between here and there. We need to put a nice buffer in there; a substantial buffer, I would say, from the top of the bluff landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like a 50 foot. TRUSTEE KING: Like 50 foot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 50-foot buffer from the top of the bluff landward and then the rest would be lawn. MR. CONDON: 50 foot from the bluff is lawn? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 50 foot from the top of the bluff back will be non-turf buffer. Is that -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Non-turf or non-disturbance? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's disturbed already. 25 April 20, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see after it's all been revegetated and planted, maybe a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer at the top of the bluff. MR. CONDON: The bluff slopes back toward the property. TRUSTEE KING: We understand that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should maybe condition it on new plans because if the decision was made to change the look of the bluff or new angle of repose, we will be looking at a significant change to the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we shouldn't address the vegetation. Establish the buffer tonight and require a planting plan or - TRUSTEE KING: And anything within our jurisdiction, they have to come to us. If they want to do clearing 75-feet back, they still have to come to us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what they are coming to us for now. They want to be able to remove the structures there and do the clearing while all the machinery is there. And that's all within our jurisdiction. That's why they are asking to do that now. TRUSTEE KING: I want at least a 50-foot buffer on the top of the bluff. None disturbance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do 25 not disturbance and 25 non-turf, with a total of 50, and we can condition it on plantings have to be stabilized. We can check it in six months with plantings, to make sure it stays planted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern is, when I hear "clearing," and I look at that picture, every one of those trees are going to be gone, every shrub will be gone, and this will be clear cut, and I don't want to see that happen. So what I'm thinking in my mind is 50-foot non-disturbance buffer where they come in .... excuse me, non-turf. And it could be combination non-disturbance and non-turf, but I want to see a landscape plan showing the present trees in place and those trees will be retained there and not removed. Because I'm just afraid, again -- TRUSTEE KING: Those things happen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we have this happen so often where we've talked about this and then we go out and it's clear cut. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So why don't we say clearing from 50 foot back from the top of the bluff landward can take place, but clearing 50 feet, you know, that space can not be cleared. The only disturbance there is to remove the structure and nothing else can be cleared MR. CONDON: We are not intending on taking every tree down either. I spoke to the builder today. He indicated he can mark trees he would like to remove. The Board can come out and see it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think in keeping with what Trustee Ghosio said, I think we should have a plan and it should be a fairly detailed work plan that will include what trees, if there is some non-indigenous vegetation that maybe could come down, but trees that are native species, that are valuable, should be protected. There is other notions here, too; trees that are right at the lip and you have to alter the lip, obviously those trees will present a risk. If the trees lodge, they'll continue the blowout. So probably a detailed work plan that will include all stages and levels of fill trees to be removed and replanting 26 April 20, 2011 is needed for this particular site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the Board is comfortable on approving it subject to respect receiving all that and inspecting it, physically inspecting it, or do you want to have all that happen and then table it and have all that happen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I personally would like to see this tabled until we receive that landscape plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a lot of work. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a lot of work. And that way it makes it very clear for everybody from the start and hopefully the limited chance of ambiguity later. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that makes a lot of sense. MR. CONDON: We would like to move forward with the plans for the new buildings. Is there a way -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The houses are outside of our jurisdiction. They are non-jurisdictional, so. MR. CONDON: We were told we had to get your approval before we move forward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They want to take these structures out before they start building the new houses. The procedure, as I understand it, is take the structures out, do the clearing, build the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But the houses are not going anywhere near these two structures. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But if they are having the machinery in there, it's the process of how they want to do it. That's what he's asking. It doesn't mean we have to approve it that way. You know, it makes sense; you have the machinery in there, take the structures out, clear it, then start rebuilding. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, if we can figure out how to do this, I have no objection to that, that they could, in this case, in this particular piece of property, remove the foundation, all the structure, fill that in, as part of this process. But, you know, I just don't want to see any clearing done until we have received a detailed landscape plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a possibility we can separate, give them approval tonight to remove the structures, and table the planting and clearing until they come in with a detailed plan and we can go look at it again? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There can be a permit issued -- sorry? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She is not recommending that we do it that way TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Table it until we get the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we can't split it, then that's the only thing to do is table it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's up to us if we want to split it or not, but I think with the history of this property it's wise not to split it and just get all the information first, to get the complete application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We've had so many problems with the issues on these bluffs, it's just prudent to do it that way. I don't want to hold you up here, either. I'm in the trades. I know. But we have had this issue, we had a house built, you know, and a bluff was supposed to be non-disturbance bluff area gets totally 27 destroyed, fences put up, plants put in, then we find out down the road, then we have to have them rip it out and re-do the thing. It's not good for you, it's not good for anybody. I think it's probably the prudent thing to do, put together a planting plan and come back in a month and finish this thing off. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment? MR. CONDON: Is it possible to take the landscaping portion near the bluff out so we can go ahead with our permits for the buildings? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was suggesting but I think the discussion up here is probably not, at this point. You know, it's kind of all tied together and we would like to see the complete plan and complete application before we move forward. MS. HULSE: That's my recommendation, Jill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That being said, though, if the two new structures are out of our jurisdiction. MR. CONDON: We should not need to come here for those structure then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. They are out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: They are out of our jurisdiction. You can dig the holes and get started, you know. TRUSTEE KING: Just as a point, I would apply for a letter of non-jurisdiction for them. Just to verify it. Then there is absolutely no question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A suggestion with that would be a set of hay bales or some kind of fencing on the hundred foot mark so the contractors know where the hundred foot mark is and don't go beyond that. Because even though the structure might be beyond the hundred feet, if you are going to do work within the hundred feet, you still need a permit. So you have to make sure all the work being done will be behind the hundred feet. Not just the structure. MR. CONDON: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to table this application and wait for receipt of a detailed bluff restoration and planting plan, including steps necessary to remove the existing structures, the amount of fill to be placed and or removed and graded and details concerning the types of vegetation and species to be requested to be removed and/or altered, and types of vegetation to replace and be part of the planting plan. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm just thinking to make this clean. Your motion was this application, so which application are we doing, the first one, number four, Principi? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should separate -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make it clear. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, move to table Curto with a detailed bluff restoration and planting plan, including elements of how much fill to be brought in or re moved and such plants being removed or replanted, so moved for Curto application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). April 20, 2011 28 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to table the application for Principi for bluff restoration plan, detailed plans concerning amount of fill and/or removal, and detailed plans concerning the vegetation to be removed and to be replanted. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. CONDON: Thank you, for your time. April 20, 2011 WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under Wetland Permits. Samuel Fitzgerald, Architect, PC on behalf of ANNE R. BUNTING requests a Wetland Permit to remove the entire 3,000 sf. swimming pool complex, including partially aboveground pool, surrounding deck, storage building, spa, and pool equipment enclosure; solarium and all adjoining decks; two-story family room and master bedroom extension on north side of house; entire length of deck along southeast side of house; two-story portion of house between existing garage and main body of house, making the garage a detached structure; and all windows throughout. Construct a one-story addition to the northeast side of the house; 2.83' extension of kitchen to north; 121 sf. pergola in place of 3,000 sf. swimming pool complex; new bluestone terrace on southeast side of house in place of existing wood deck; extend existing deck in rear of garage by 92 sf.; covered roof connecting house and garage, which will be a newly created accessory structure; and new windows throughout. Located: 2427 Isabella Beach Rd., Fishers Island. This was found consistent under the LWRP. The CAC also did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. This is a rather extensive renovation of a home on the south side of the island. Jill, myself and Jay went and looked at it. Is there anybody here to comment for or against this application? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant. I would like to hand up the mailing receipts. One came back with the address not proper. But you have that. Aisc, since the application was filed in early March, as you might be aware, the Zoning Board of Appeals has a comparable application, and what happened was is they referred to the Soil and Water Conservation, so I have the letter from the Soil and Water Conservation and the response that we worked out with the Soil and Water and with Mr. Fitzgerald's cover letter, and then I have three amended maps. They are the same maps that you have with the exception that they have eliminated the hay bales and went for a silt, all inclusive silt fence. So you'll see that. It's the only difference. Other than that, everything is exactly the same. And lastly, would you like to have a copy of the Board of Appeals application for your file? Because it's quite similar in a lot of the aspects that you'll be considering. I'll be glad to give you a have copy of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And just to clarify, do we have a letter in the file stating that you are the agent for -- MR. LARK: Yes. 29 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. LARK: Very briefly, I have handed those additional things up and as I understand, the application here is seeking to permit, as you have it in your application, which is pretty conclusive, to remove the existing swimming pool complex and various decks and terraces, and reduce the size of the house by 2,195 square feet. Add some additional living space in the rear on one floor, first floor, of 529; fully renovate the house and install a small pergola. They are all within the jurisdiction, the work will all be within the jurisdiction of 100 feet, as you saw on your map there that was submitted, and it shows the same on the amended map. There is no difference, other than the silt fence, that I pointed out. And the whole idea of the whole application is that the applicant wants to restore the house to its original design in 1920. Over the years, since the 1920s it has suffered or had many renovations, and when this applicant bought the property, she loves the property but she doesn't like all the renovations because, if you have seen the property, it has a resort mentality; you think you are checking into a resort there. And she does not want that. She wants to restore it to what it was originally designed by the architects involved. And as I said, a permit is going to be required because everything will be done pretty much within the hundred feet of the bluff, and in that letter that I gave you, that the Board of Appeals was concerned with also, is there is a detail of how they will do the construction. Most of it will be hand done. No machinery. So because of the proximity of where the house and all of the work is going to take place, it's virtually on top of the bluff, and the removal. But I think after Mr. Fitzgerald fully explains the application to you, I think a permit will be, should be forthcoming, because it does meet the criteria the way they are going to do it and it won't adversely affect the wetlands of the town or cause any damage or any erosion. That is all being taken care of, so there won't be any of that erosion that would cause a problem. And it won't weaken or undermine the existing, stable bluff. Fortunately that is probably one of the most stable bluffs on Fishers Island. It's really pretty much rock solid, and it has existed for, I talked to the surveyor, and he has surveys going back 30 years, and nothing has changed there. And I think the application will be in conformity, so it won't affect the esthetic value of the wetland or the bluff area or in any way affect the health or welfare of the people of the town. I'll turn it over it to Mr. Fitzgerald. He'll explain in detail what they are doing with the construction because he is personally charged by the owner to supervise it. So he's the one to answer any of your specific questions as to the construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, if we could just make a couple of comments first, and then maybe you can help us with that. TRUSTEE KING: When we were out there, we noticed, I guess the southeast corner, there is a deck on the bluff, and there is an access path with stairs going down. We would like to include that in this application to get them on so they can be repaired without any problems. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. April 20,2011 30 April20,2011 TRUSTEE KING: So while we are doing this whole process, let's get them in the description so we legitimize everything. MR. LARK: That's not a problem, but when the owner did the survey, the structural survey of the properly in getting Mr. Fitzgerald, they determined that was solid and didn't have to do anything. So it would be something in the future. Nothing has to be done to it at the present moment. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm saying. But they are not permitted. They don't have a permit. By code you can't fix it if it's not permitted. So now we'll get permits, so when they need to do reconstruction or whatever, they don't have to worry or anything. It's not -- I'm just trying to keep things simple for these people. MR. LARK: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are in here now, just to add it to the description, then it's done. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, consistent with that, it was also very heavily vegetated, from the vantage point of the pool. Is that a solar collector array or -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's actually, that's not on their property. That's on the adjacent property. MR. LARK: You are talking about the solar -- MR. FITZGERALD: The solar. MR. LARK: Yes, this property was split, all approved by the Planning Board. And the owner of that property was at one time the owner of this property. And they had the whole complex being, like I said, it was a resort complex. They had all the energy all with the solar. So that structure was separated when the lot line change was done. Just to answer your question, John. It has nothing to do with this. It's terrible looking. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's, we are lumping in stairs and decks. If that was part of this, to get it under permit. MR. LARK: No. It should have been removed. It's terrible. But it's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you have any comments? MR. FITZGERALD: No. TRUSTEE KING: We don't have to beat this do death, because we didn't really have any problems with it. MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. We are reducing considerably from the built structure so I think that would be looked upon favorably. MR. LARK: Just a couple of words on the construction methods then, and the sequencing. Because you know we have a few separate projects. This existing wood deck here is to be replaced with a bluestone terrace of the same size, but of a more sort of organic shape. That's one task. The other is the pergola or sod of glorified grape harbor, and that will be the removal of this sort of huge pool complex, 3,000 square foot pool structure. We are going to carve out a portion of the existing house so as to make this garage piece a separate detached structure. Then with that we are going to extend the decks here. So those are the facts here. We also have a couple of smaller one-story, upper additions. Here is a thin sliver and on the street side is a five-foot wide, one-story frame addition there as well. With all these projects, our goal is to stay off 31 the lawn as much as possible and in fact the only part of this work where we do have to get on the lawn, in the back side here is actually just to dig the foundations for this terrace here. But otherwise we are going to leave all equipment on pre-disturbed ground. With this pool complex here, the construction access will be from the street, in through here. We'll first take out the deck boards by hand, and there will be a dumpster out here in the front. So that will all be pulled off by hand. The actual pool deck structure itself and the pool enclosure will be taken down with a mini excavator with rubber tracks. Very small machine. Once that is demolished, then all the debris will be removed by hand. There is a retaining wall along here. That is very close to the bluff. It's three feet from the bluff. That will all be removed by hand as well. So, again, there will be no big trucks or machinery on the lawn at all. It will all be in that disturbed area. With the terrace here, the existing wood deck will be all taken down by hand and will be carted by hand up to the dumpster in the front of the house. There will be, one time, when the machine will be brought to the lawn to bring the plywood down, and once this is gone it will be put into this disturbed area and work from the inside out to dig the foundation for this terrace here. And the excavated, further from this digging here, will just be piled inside here to use as the fill to raise this up here. And then forms will be put in, this will now be, it will be poured in place concrete. It will be a concrete pump truck brought in and put on the front of the house here, and then a hose will be brought around then the forms will be filled with concrete from the hose. So all of this piece right here will be brought down. Also from the front of the house by machine. No machines will be placed on the water side or the back side of the house. And this new deck work here will be all built by hand. So, it appears will be dug by hand. And it will be built by hand. And the pergola here, we'll be using hole construction, which means that the main supports for the pergola structure here will be buried in the ground so there will be no concrete there at all. It will just be a guy with a posthole digger digging five holes for these, and the rest of it, which is pre-made structure will be made by hand. So obviously our intent here is to have as little of incursion into that area as possible. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said. We went and looked it. I don't think any of us had any issues. Anyone else? Any comments, Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council, we didn't make an inspection on it. I think our concern would have been, if we did inspect the property, in spite of the what is being said, being handled very well, the concern is the removal of that pool, how it's handled. It's right near the bluff edge, and possibly a consideration would be instead of physically removing it, capping it off, filling it in, would that be more environmentally -- TRUSTEE K~NG: I think what they have planned is more than adequate to safely do it. Environmentally. MR. LARK: It's really an above ground pool. It is just minimally -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: ~ was going to say, most of it is above ground. The deck is elevated around it. Once that's removed, you'll have April 20, 2011 32 April 20, 2011 this thing sticking above ground. TRUSTEE KING: I can't see it being an issue. MR. FITZGERALD: Then all the work will actually be on the landward side of the pool, so the retaining wall that separates the pool structure from the bluff, all work will be from inside of that. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the reason for eliminating the hay bales? MR. LARK: Yes. The Soil and Water Conservation took the view to do the hay bales you have to bury them four to six inches; four on the uphill side, six on the downhill side, and you have to have a width of about 16, 18 inches. The width of the hay bale. Whereas with the silt fence, you only have to have a width of two to four inches, then you dig it down, and you don't have to have the poles which is supporting the fence, every ten feet or something like that. So the damage to the property, because it slopes quite a bit from the house to the other, and affer the lady talked, Polywagon, talked to the engineer, they decided to eliminate the hay bales, because if you have too many storms while the construction is going on, it ran the chance of more erosion being created than prevented. Whereas if they move it landward up, closer to the house, they would catch any debris that would be coming over quicker and it would allow more runoff, if you would, to go to the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not have the weight the of the hay bales on the edge of the bluff. MR. LARK: Yes. And they were concerned about it. Because this won't be done overnight. This will be a period of nine months, doing it. So there will be some weather changes there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you just described, is that detailed in the -- MR. LARK: In the amended one, the silt fence is, with the detail of it. Yes, it's right on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know it's on the plan but is it in the Soil and Water Conservation letter that you handed us tonight? MR. LARK: That was the letter requesting it from the Board of Appeals. What I gave you was the response to it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From you to the Board of Appeals? MR. LARK: And to her. And she's approved it. Because she talked to the engineer, Mr. Strauss. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: "She" being the lady from Soil and Water? MR. LARK: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just hard getting all this information now instead of a week ago. MR. LARK: It just came in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to take a minute and review this Soil and Water response. It's dated March 28, addressed to Leslie Weisman, Chairperson of the ZBA. (Perusing). According to this letter from Soil and Water to Leslie Weisman, Chairperson of the ZBA, dated March 28, it is saying to you both, it does talk about what you said but it's saying to move it ten foot back from the top of the bluff. And to read one paragraph, it says: The straw bales and silt fencing can be used 33 April20,2011 together, with the silt fence installed upslope of the hay bales, and both should be sited at least ten feet away, as far as practical, from the top of the bluff to provide a natural buffer as straw hay bales and silt fencing serve only as sediment barriers and not water control structures. Ten-foot vegetated buffer slows the runoff velocity, encouraging infiltration and runoff cresting over the bluff. So it is saying to you both hay bales and silt fence, but move it back ten feet from the bluff. MR. LARK: She is withdrawing that, is what I was explaining with the hay bales, and just go with the silt fence where he's proposing it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not what this letter is saying. MR. LARK: That was the initial letter that had the inquiry where we did the response with the amended map and the response. That's what created it. And the engineer talked to her directly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, but we don't have that in writing. You just changed the survey. MR. LARK: We changed the map to reflect that. And if you need to get a letter from her, I'm sure she will do it. Because she is the one that agreed to do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board want to -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a big problem. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not in this particular situation. MR. LARK: I took no view on it and the engineer said with the slope that is there, it will cause more problems. And she agreed, when she went back and did her calculations. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to clarify, because we have one thing in writing and you are telling us another thing. TRUSTEE KING: Why did they go to Soil and Water Conservation to begin with? MR. LARK: The Board of Appeals did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The ZBA asked them to. You know, for the record, just for looking back at this file, I think maybe we should get something in writing to change that. Because if we have this in the file and somebody a year from now sees what it says now. So if we can get that. MR. LARK: Not a problem. She was the one that told the engineer to do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if she just gives us a supplement, that will be fine. TRUSTEE KING: This shows a continuous line of silt fence. MR. LARK: That's what they want. The whole thing encircled, is exactly what they want. TRUSTEE KING: And they are also planting up that edge a little more. They are coming in three feet and doing some plantings along the top of the bluff there to extend that bluff area a little bit, which is a good idea. Are there any other comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: One comment, Jim. I don't know if the new structure, will it have adequate drywells? TRUSTEE KING: There is drywells on the plans. MR. LARK: Yes, yes. We increased them. MR. MCGREEVEY: Increased them on the new? 34 April20,2011 MR. LARK: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it all has to be in accordance with Chapter 236. And it shows that on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the addition of the existing deck that is there and the path and the steps down to the beach, be included in this so they are legitimized. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the shed that is on the survey? Is that out of our jurisdiction? MR. FITZGERALD: It's pretty far back, the small shed. TRUSTEE KING: It's to remain. What are we worried about it for? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just saying, if it's in our jurisdiction, just add it into the description. If it's out of our jurisdiction, don't worry about it. If it's on the plan, I just figure add it in, since we are adding everything else in. You are aiding three structures, why not add four, right? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it's in our jurisdiction, might as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to make sure it's clear. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's pretty close to our jurisdiction. It's 140 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don't make fun of me, Jim, I'm just trying to TRUSTEE KING: I'm just stating fact. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's on the record, the shed is not in our jurisdiction, so we don't have to add it to the description. Thank you. And if I didn't add it and it was in our jurisdiction, you would say why didn't you say something, so. TRUSTEE KING: Oh, boy. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have a motion? TRUSTEE KING: I made a motion to approve with the addition of the stairs down to the beach and the small deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments on this, from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any consideration of a non-turf buffer, near the edge of the bluff here, just to increase -- TRUSTEE KING: They increased the planting by three feet, they'll do more plantings along the top of the bluff there, more than what it is now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I just thought maybe a little broader non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to make it wider? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, t would say maybe go for like an eight to ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would agree with that. TRUSTEE KING: So we'll increase the planted buffer to ten-feet wide along the top of the bluff. MR. LARK: But you don't want them to remove any of the orchard grass or the existing plantings along the bulkhead. 35 April 20, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: No, just come landward of that and increase that buffer area ten feet. MR. LARK: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: With natural plantings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If she wants orchard grass, that would be great; not maintained, and as -- MR. LARK: The owner will approve of that completely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And a letter from Soil and Water clarifying what was said tonight. MR. LARK: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was all discussion during the motion. Do we want to re-do the motion? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the inclusion of the deck and the path and the stairs down to the beach, and the non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff will be ten feet wide instead of three feet. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if we can have revised plans showing a ten-foot buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LINDA BORDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 27' wood timber and pile supported pier extension, to the apparent Iow water line, with associated ladders. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. This one is across the water from Warden. It is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council did not give an inspection over there. Our comments. The only comments, we had a question on the mooring that is, there is a mooring also, included in this, under the drawing. So that should be in the description. And what type of mooring; is it an anchor mooring or is it -- if you could just describe that for us. MR. NIELSON: Sure. I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., on behalf of Linda Borden, and I have the certificates of receipt from the mailings, for the record. I know you are all acquainted with the application, so I'll keep my comments short. This is a straight fixed pier, 27 foot extension to the apparent Iow water line. There is a mooring attached to, I should say attached to the pier by a pulley tie off line. It will be a mushroom anchor set in the mud to avoid having to put in a pile and permanent structure. And the, it will be about 50 feet out beyond the end of the pier to make sure that their little dinghy boat can be floating at all times. It won't be hard aground. I know that there were some concerns about the differences between this and the Warden's dock, as proposed and discussed earlier, and I would like to just state for the record that the Borden's, this is all the Borden's wanted. And this is very similar to what we asked for in the permit application years ago, and it was thought that we might have to go through and get a floating dock instead of a fixed pier, but this is really what they want. They promise not to come in again to extend or modify this. They 36 are very, they would be very happy with this. I have included in the application documents all the assessments required by the code and by DEC, Department of State and Corps of Engineers assessments. The application drawings accurately show the extent of tidal wetlands and natural resources on site. And this can be built without any impact on any of them. It's clear of the resources and will be built with customary pressure treated wood pile and timber components, except for the decking, and as you saw, the decking on the existing stairway, they'll use the same sort of materials for this as well. And it should be a nice looking facility, consistent with every standard that we know of, and we are hoping not to have a large battle with the DEC in particular on depth of water, but in view of the tie off mooring, I think we can avoid that issue. So if there are any questions I would be happy though answer them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the applicant planning on doing any planting in that area? Because I know some sections, you know, didn't have any plantings on it and I was just wondering if they thought about planting up the area that will not be walked across and utilized. MR. NIELSON: You are talking about the bank? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the bank area. MR. NIELSON: They did have some plans to put some vegetation in there and I told them that they needed to make sure, they needed to develop a plan and come back in for that. They don't have those details ready, and so I went ahead and issued my documents. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, just I know on the other properties there is plantings and I know one section on the right side is rocks, but on the left side it's kind of just plain, so some plantings would be good there. MR. NIELSON: And I cautioned them about native, non-invasive. So when they, I don't know when their timing is on that, but I'll remind them again to make sure they get it before you early on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Depending on the rest of the Board, I don't see why we can't add plantings to that area as long as they are native plantings. In this case I don't see where we would need a planting plan. It's simple, you can only do it one way, really. if they were going to bring fill in and everything, you need to come back to us. But if it's simply planting, we can add it to this permit. MR. NIELSON: Let's add it as condition to the permit. They don't have intention of bringing fill down there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I just want to read a letter we have in the file into the record. It's just a short paragraph. This is from Old Donaldson Chapotan, received in our office March 17. This letter serves as our objection to the above-referenced permit application, as we have objected in the past to a previous filing for a pier at this location. Due to the narrow perimeters of the inlet and fragile ecosystem, we feel this pier will adversely affect wildlife as well as obstruct movement and access on the water of the inlet. Furthermore, the high water line is very shallow at this location. Respectfully submitted. April 20, 2011 37 April 20, 2011 And it's signed by Mr. and Mrs. Chapotan. I wanted to read that for the record. Are there any comments from the Board? (No response). This seems like a pretty straightforward application. We did a pre-submission on it back in May, and this is the type of structure that I think is fitting for this area. So I don't have of a problem really. It does need to be extended because it's not really reaching the water the way it is right now. And in the back area, I don't think it's going to do any harm just extending it over that rock area. Are there any other comments from anybody? MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm not familiar with the mooring code, but in putting in this extension, does that eliminate the mooring for that applicant or is that -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The mooring, that's why we asked, because the mooring should be included in this description. The boat will be, in other words it's kind of like, the boat will be tied to the end of the dock and the mooring, to keep it steady, so it doesn't go from side to side. So it's part of this structure. MR. MCGREEVEY: It's my own education, does that also apply to the mainland of Southold or is there a contradiction there to having a dock and floating dock for a boat to be adhered to, and then that person could also have a mooring off that dock? TRUSTEE KING: I think this is more like a stake and pulley system, only they are using a mooring instead of a stake. It will be pull the line in to pull your little boat into the dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a single and separate mooring. It's just, instead, it's used as if a piling was there. And the boat will be tied in and they can pull it, you know, pull it in and pull it out. MR. MCGREEVEY: The reason I asked was more for my own education. If there is any difference between what is there on Fishers Island and with -- TRUSTEE KING: Everything is different on Fishers Island. MR. MCGREEVEY: That's why I raised the question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are talking really two different things, though. This is not a single and separate mooring from the dock. It's a pulley system. I could talk to you about it later. MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay, good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments relevant to the application? MR. NIELSON: I have one. Can I get a copy of the Chapotan's letter, please? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, no problem. All right, hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the addition of the mooring pile as noted on the survey. The mooring, sorry, leave out the word "pile." With the condition that the bank in that area is planted with native plants. TRUSTEE KING: I would rather call it more accurately a pulley 38 system. When everyone thinks "mooring" they think mooring with a ball out there. It's actually an anchor for a pulley system. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll reword it. I'll re-do the motion to approve a 4x27' wood timber and pile supported pier extension to the apparent Iow water line with associated ladders and associated pulley system with mooring, an anchor -- pulley system with an anchor. TRUSTEE KING: It gets the mooring language out of it, so it's not an actual mooring. TRUSTEE DOFIERTY: So pulley system with an anchor. And the condition that the bank area is planted with native, salt tolerant plants. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Docko, Inc., on behalf of HEDGE STREET, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to repair or padially reconstruct 79 linear feet of 6.5' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 10'X 14' pile supported "L" pier, 660 sf. Pile supported timber pier landing, a 10'X 24' float with associated ramp and one 4'X 25' float, and two(2) tie-off piles; retain and repair as recovery 78 linear feet of existing mortared stone seawall with a concrete cap, all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island. This was found consistent with LWRP, with the recommendation that all intertidal construction and excavation requires the installation of silt boom and retain suspended sediments within the immediate project area. The CAC did not make an inspection on that one. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: I would like to speak on behalf of it. My name is Keith Nielson, I'm with Docko, Inc., and we prepared the application documents, including the drawings that you have before you tonight. I would like to submit for the record the return receipts on the mailings. The pier in this case is a pretty longstanding pier. We have some records showing construction back decades ago, but some of the green hard piles are deteriorated to the point that they need to be replaced, as is some of the framing and independent pieces of decking -- not areas of decking, just isolated deck planks. And so we submitted the, prepared and submitted the application documents accordingly. And the, it's minor maintenance work, it's routine maintenance work, but essential to the structural integrity. So, in the application documents I have made a full description and assessment of the activities, including the reconstruction citing the conformance to the sections of the Wetlands Law, local codes, DEC criteria and Corps of Engineer standards regarding proximity to waterway width. I would like to point out that the, in spite of the length of the dock, it reaches only four feet of water at mean Iow water, and so knowing what we are going to be facing with the DEC, we kept everything just the way it is, and since this is a longstanding structure, they are, any impacts that may have been created by the structure have long since become part of the April 20, 2011 39 current habitat environment. This, the Hedge Street LLC is a family property. It's used by David Burnham and his, all his family, including his father. And they have boated at this site for 40 years or thereabouts. I would be happy to answer any specific questions that you may have, areas of concern or whatnot. TRUSTEE KING: I think that we felt now would be a good time to maybe downsize some of this a little bit. It's pretty, there is a lot of structure here. In the notes we have reduce the width to six feet, allow two 6x20 floats, and reduce the length by 25 feet. Those were our suggestions in the field. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We felt you would still have sufficient water depth and it would be in line with the other docks. We kept it in line with the other docks. MR. NIELSON: I think it is in line with the other docks now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not if you draw the line across. You have some docks going in further and going out further, so you draw the line going across. That's how we do it, normally. TRUSTEE KING: It would be some discussion on the next hearing, in keeping with what we were looking at. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Especially in the next application, in keeping with what we were looking at, as a possibility we'll discuss with the next application and in view of the dock immediately over, two over to the south. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To pull this structure back by 25 feet, in other words making it, I mean, what is the depth there? MR. NIELSON: It will be foot-and-a-half shallower. TRUSTEE KING: It looked a lot deeper to me than this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We should have dropped the measurement down. Jay is six feet. We could put him in there. MR. NIELSON: Our survey was provided by Dick Strauss on this project and we, of course -- TRUSTEE KING: The water just looks a lot deeper than that to me. MR. NIELSON: Perhaps it was the tide. TRUSTEE KING: When we were there, we were there about 9:30, 10:00, it was probably close to high tide. You don't have much rise and fall there; two-and-a-half, three fleet? MR. NIELSON: Three-and-a-half at high tide. 3.6, 3.7. Something like that. TRUSTEE KING: So if these soundings are accurate, it's probably nearer to seven feet of water, at high tide, if he was taking these at Iow tide. MR. NIELSON: When were you there? TRUSTEE KING: Monday morning. MR. NIE/SON: Was that -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pretty much high tide all around. MR. NIELSON: I don't think it got Iow tide on Monday. I think we were in Mystic, we were looking at mean high water and above all day. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were on Fishers Island between nine and 12. We left the island at 12, so, and this was the fifth out of nine applications we went to. So what do you say, about 10:00, 10:307 TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are also experiencing full moon high tide at April 20, 2011 4O that time. So, I'm in favor of reducing structure, but, again, my concern with pulling it back 25 feet, is the depth going to be reduced to less than two-and-a-half feet at Iow tide. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think that's our intention. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not our intention at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. NIELSON: Speaking on behalf of the Burnham family, I know they would like a chance to meet with you personally, if there is, if you want to reduce the size of the dock, because -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at that outer podion, that wide podion. MR. NIFLSON: The square landing? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, 12, 12 feet. 16 feet wide. If that was removed then you would have just a regular pier and put the two 6x4's and two 6x20's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be agreeable to that. TRUSTEE KING: Which is still a lot more than the code allows, you know. Think about something like that. MR. NIELSON: Can we table this for tonight so I can talk with the Burnham's? TRUSTEE KING: Absolutely. I know you are not used to downsizing on Fisher's, but sometimes the time comes we have to think about it, when we have the opportunity. MR. NIELSON: It appears the tides on Monday the 18th would have been somewhere around six to eight inches above normal mean high water. So that would have probably been slightly less than the highest tides of the year, but with the winds the way they were, it's a little hard to say how close we were. So when you were there, it was probably close to high tide. TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with DEC on it? Have you started the process with them? MR. NIELSON: We have started the process. Everything was mailed in to all agencies at the same time. TRUSTEE KING: Because they don't get out there very often at all. I don't think we'll be holding you up if we table this. MR. NIELSON: We sent in our permission forms and everything for them to visit the site, so we are waiting to hear. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, is there a limitation to square footage regarding bottom cover? Specifically, in regard to, I see a lot of floating docks there. TRUSTEE KING: That's the whole idea of trying to reduce some of this. MR. MCGREEVEY: But is there a limitation they have to work within? TRUSTEE KING: Not that I know of. That's why we always wanted the 6x20, kind of as a standard. It's big enough to give you good access. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this dock has previous permits from years ago. So that's all legal, what's there. TRUSTEE KING: One float is 10x24. One float here is 10x24. And there is a 4x25 foot float. So there is a lot of structure there. We are trying to give them still good access to the water, but try and downsize a little bit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are willing to give them more than the code allows, because it's been approved before and it's been there April 20, 2011 41 for years. That's kind of our policy that we have worked with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of Docko, Inc., on behalf of Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER SCHWAB requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 72 linear feet of 8' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 1,300 sf. pile supported timber pier landing, two 6'X 20' floats and one 8'X 24' float all with associated restraint piles/pipes, retain 55 linear feet of existing concrete seawall all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island. This is a neighboring property to the one we just held a hearing at. The CAC was unable to get to Fishers Island to perform an inspection. The application is deemed to be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The Trustees visited this -- Jill Doherty, myself and Jim King - there is a permit history here. This structure was previously used in the Iobstering business. But a section of the existing structure, the large deck immediately adjacent, was constructed without benefit of Trustee permit, but had a DEC permit, I think is what we found upon review of the file. Our feelings in doing an inspection here run parallel to the previous discussion, that we felt it's time to bring this closer to the current standards with a maximum of a six-foot wide catwalk, which is pretty much the norm for Fisher's Island, and for this immediate vicinity, and to downsize the deck, if possible. So for a starting point of discussion, we felt the deck area immediately adjacent to the home being 20x30 feet wide, would be something that we would be looking for, and the catwalk from eight feet down to six feet in width, and we were also hoping that the dock being reconstructed can be centered within the deck, and we would go out approximately 50 feet from this new deck, 20x30 foot deck, go out approximately 50 feet from it, and with a standard ramp, 6x20 float assembly, possibly have two 6x20 floats. Here, again, to minimize the amount of structure but bringing it down to a higher degree of consistency with what we currently approve for docks. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the application? MR. NIELSON: Yes, please. For the record, Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc. And I would like to submit the certificates of mailing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have the file here, Mr. Nielson. MR. NIELSON: Thank you. The first of all, I did start off this application document preparing all the necessary analysis and certifications in accordance with local codes and laws and considering the previous permitted status of the dock, and anticipating that this was, this is more than routine maintenance. This needs a fair amount of work. And I have talked to Mr. Schwab, I had a chance to talk with Ms. Doherty the other day, yesterday, and had some kind of hint of where you were April20,2011 42 April20,2011 probably going to be making your recommendations today. Unfortunately, because of his schedule and my schedule, we have not really had an opportunity to discuss fully some of the considerations that you have offered, and in order to do that and be fair both to him and to you, it probably would be best if we tabled this hearing as well. And I just, before I start preparing concept plans for relocating the pier, I would like to get an initial read from the DEC. I don't believe that the DOS is going to have too much to say regarding the project, and I don't believe the Corps of Engineers is going to offer significant input on this as well. As a matter of fact, I think this probably would qualify for nationwide permit pre-reconstruction. But if it's okay with you, I would be agreeable to tabling this. I'll get hold of the DEC, Ill try and go through some dock reconfiguration concepts with the owner, and let me come back to you as soon as I have something decisive. TRUSTEE KING: Can you show the other picture, Bob? The one that has the cement retaining wall. There we go. What do you know about that? Anything? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's from the property behind that. TRUSTEE KING: It's the house right behind it. Somebody has built this wall down, across the property and filled it, and there is drain pipes and everything coming out the bottom of it, and we could find no permits for anything for the work that is recently done. It caused a real erosion problem on the other side going down the other side of the building. We have a little problem here. MR. NIELSON: That's not this wall, is it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE KING: Right behind the house. And in front of the house that is landward. It's all new construction. MR. NIELSON: I'm not sure what to say about this. Because -- TRUSTEE KING: I think they caused some problems for the seaward property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We believe it's the house behind the applicant's house. MR. NIELSON: I don't know what to say, but I'll find out. TRUSTEE KING: It could open the possibility of a violation being an issue, and that would drag things along, I think. MR. NIELSON: This is for the parcel behind, the upland parcel? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Right. It's four, five feet high and it's all been filled with fresh fill and you could see it's all running down on this side and the opposite side it's running down. MR. NIELSON: What happens on the road? TRUSTEE KING: That's it. It's all eroded. It's flushing down now. MR. NIELSON: I mean the driveway, does the wall go all the way across? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can't go down to the water anymore. It's all blocked off. The wall goes all the way across there. So they eliminated that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As bad as it looks, fortunately, the only saving feature at this point is the bulkhead and the final areas 43 of the walk are sloped up so the silt doesn't appear to go straight shot into the harbor at this point. TRUSTEE KING: We just didn't know why it was built, I mean -- MR. NIELSON: I'm speechless. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't have to talk further on it. You just don't know. MR. NIELSON: If it's not my client's, what do I do? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You do nothing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just wanted to know if your client knew anything about this. That's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our office will be handling the issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just wanted some inside information. TRUSTEE KING: We wanted to surprise you. MR. NIELSON: I think it's time for me to go. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you for your indulgence tonight. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of GEORGE VAIL requests a Wetland Permit to construct alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, conversion of existing attached garage into living space, and a 100 sf. Accessory shed. Located: 50 Oak Ave., Southold. The Board was out there on inspection day and had no problem with the application, except that we had one question, was about having leaders from the shed go to the drywell. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition that the location of the shed meets all the required setbacks. And it was found to be exempt from LWRP. So essentially, we were okay with it. We just wanted to know if we could have all the drainage from the shed going to the drywell. MR. STRANG: Yes, I'll introduce myself. Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on behalf of the Vail's. I don't see a problem with that. We'll be more than happy to make sure any runoff from the shed makes it into the drywells. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments, questions from the Board? (No response). Any comments or questions from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the condition that there are gutters and leaders from the shed leading to the existing drywells. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board? (Negative response). All in favor? April 20, 2011 44 April 20, 2011 (ALL AYES). MR. STRANG: Thank you. Have a great Easter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You, too. Thanks TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Preper-T Permit Services on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT requests a Wetland Permit to construct wood steps from upland grade over existing retaining wall and over existing bulkhead for private access to beach, and construct a wood deck approx. 12'X 15' between retaining wall and bulkhead. Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. This came from the LWRP. Part of it is consistent and part of it is inconsistent. The steps from upland grade over existing retaining wall and over existing bulkhead for private access has been reviewed under Chapter 268 and is found to be consistent. The square foot deck is not consistent because in the code 275 it says: Decks and platforms; no decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluff. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than 32 square feet. This is an area where the request for the deck is behind the bulkhead and in front of the retaining wall. And it's a flat area. So it's not really on a bluff. So I don't see where it falls into that area of the code. The CAC supports the application with the condition the deck area conforms with the code and plantings between the two bulkheads and landward of the upper bulkhead. On our field notes we suggested and we met Mr. Fitzgerald out there, that we, right now, he requested to put the deck, the stairs right where Dave is standing in the photo, with the yellow raincoat, that's where the stakes are for the stairs, and he wants to put the decking on the west of that. Now, as you can see, there is plants there, so we suggested we put the decking on the other side of the stairs where there are no plantings and then plant the rest of the area with beach grass. MR. FITZGERALD: You have the drawings for that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do, okay. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Jim Fitzgerald, for Mr. Heidt. I think the location of the deck, to save the second big rosa is the only significant comment that I got from your inspection, and we changed that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, does the Board have any questions? (No response). Is there any other comments from anybody? (No response). This is pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE KING: It was pretty simple. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was pretty simple. Being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as per the revised plans dated March 25, 2011, with the condition -- MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me, the date of the revised plan is not March 25. It's April 15. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are looking at the wrong set of plans. I'm 45 April 20, 2011 sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why Bob and I are confused. We are looking at wrong set of plans. TRUSTEE KING: You have the wrong plans TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. That's why I have the quizzical look upon my face. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll make a motion to approve this application as per the revised plans dated April 15 with the condition that the remaining area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is planted with -- do you want to specifically say that it's just planted with salt tolerant plants or do you want say grasses? Leave it up to the applicant? Any comment? I'm asking the Board. TRUSTEE KING: American beach grass is fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the condition that the area, remaining area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is planted. MR. FITZGERALD: With native species. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And salt tolerant. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MCGREEVEY: On that deck, between the two bulkheads, is there a limitation of square footage, was that brought up? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows 12xl 5. And that was sufficient. We were fine with that. MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of MARYLOU PALMER requests a Wetland Permit to reface 90 linear feet of bulkhead landward of the existing utilizing vinyl sheathing and backfill with 10 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source landward of the bulkhead, and as needed under the existing walkway areas; remove and replace all existing walks with a 10'X 10' timber walk extension at the south end of the site; construct a 3'X 10' ramp off the existing platform leading to two (2) 5'X 20' floats to be linear adjacent to the bulkhead and attached to the existing piling and to the bulkhead; and install a jet-ski float 11.5'X 4.8' on the north side of the existing platform. Located: 85 Mesrobian Dr., Laurel. MR. HALL: Good evening. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services. I have the posting and affidavit. TRUSTEE KING: This is found consistent under LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. As written, I don't see any stipulations on it. They have supported this application. There is also a letter in the file, we just received today. I'll just read through it and summarize it. Go ahead and start I just want to look through this letter. You can get going on this MR. HALL: Okay. The application made was to -- I'll start with off with reconstructing the bulkhead, reface it landward of the existing with vinyl sheathing. It entails replacing the wood walkway back there, and ten cubic yards of fill as required for any lower areas behind the bulkhead, and an addition of 10x10 timber walk extension on the, I think it's the south end of the site. Then in the water is an existing platform and with stairs 46 April 20, 2011 off that will be .a 3x10 ramp with two 5x20 floats, and on the north side of that platform a jet-ski float. That's the application that was made. I'll address any questions the Board may have on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Currently under our code it says there is no jet-ski floats allowed. We are in the process of making some changes to our' code, and that's one of them. So if it's okay with you, to remove that from this description at this time and later on when the code is changed you come back for an amendment to the permit. MR. HALL: We are aware of that. Actually I have plans here that show it not there. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, there is a letter in the file from Allen Schlesinger opposing this project. They went into the jet-ski situation, which we don't have to address now. The 10x10 platform they want to see moved to the nodh end of the properly. And they feel that the floats are excessive. That's a quick review o! this letter. They have a policy of not allowing jet-skis. We'll make a complete copy of the letter available for the record. I don't want to read the whole thing. I guess evidently some of this stuff is unpermitted, so I don't know. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Is this private bottom here? MR. HALL: I don't know. The tax lot goes into the water. No. TRUSTEE KING: They claim the walkway was built without permits, so we'll have to dig into it a little bit, I guess. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that in the description right now? MR. HALL: Proposed to be replaced inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they are applying for that now. TRUSTEE KING: In our field notes, we suggest making this a 4x30 float. One 4x30 float, because what is there is so much beyond the code MR. HALL: Right. You get that with the square footage as 6x20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. HALL: We have revised plan actually with us tonight that does not show the jet-ski float. It shows a 5x24 float, which is the same square footage as 6x20. Essentially, I could present it to the Board. Do you want to take a look at it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: There seems to be some concern about this platform, it's going to be a 10x10 platform. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It seems to fit within the code (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: This is what the neighbor is complaining about, that addition. The 10x10 platform at the end of the walkway. What is the need. They would rather see it on the north end. I guess they must be the adjacent property owner there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are they proposing a platform? What is the reasoning for the 10x10 platform at the far end? MR. HALL: The reason is they would like to put that back further on the property, somewhere else. But there is a row of evergreen trees there, arborvitaes, something similar, you can see in the picture and it obstructs the view from anywhere in the backyard, except for that spot. So they wanted a spot for a couple of chairs. I don't think that's excessive, 10x10. It's 47 April 20, 2011 like a small shed. I know it's right next to the bulkhead, but it's not an excessive deck or structure that will impede upon the esthetics of the backyard. And you can could see the exact view there, the location of the platform is in the far corner, and you got a nice view into Peconic Bay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any problem with moving it further in to the property and off the property line, say 15 feet? MS. PALMER: Basically, the reason that we are proposing to do that is because my neighbor, Mr. Schlesinger, has blocked the view with a whole line of evergreens, and it impedes our view from many, many sites. And one of the beauties of living on the water and seeing Peconic Bay is to see the bay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand why you want to do it. Dan explained it. But I'm asking if you could just move it off the property line in to your property more. Not upland, just over, away from -- MS. PALMER: In other words in the middle? I can see -- yes, I don't see that that's a problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In keeping with our policy of keeping structures, we have a policy of trying to keep docks and structures 15 feet off the properly line. Just to keep the privacy from the neighbors a little bit. So do you have of a problem with moving it into your property more? MS. PALMER: I have no problem with that. It's just I'm going to be closed off of my view as these evergreens grow and I don't have the luxury -- I'm there 24/7. Mr. Schlesinger is there on weekends. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's irrelevant. MS. PALMER: Sorry. MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm Allen Schlesinger. Besides the fact that it's irrelevant, I'm not there just on weekends. That's old news. Anyway, as you can see, from the north end, the view she is talking about that she doesn't have because of the trees, she has a perfectly, actually best view on her property is from the north end, approximately where this picture was taken. What view would she get by having the platform right next to the trees, that she says are blocking her? Besides the fact that, my privacy is a big issue for me, and I don't want an entertainment center that close to where I sit on the my dock and, you know, I enjoy the quiet. From there you could see the view she would have. And I don't see anything, I think people would love to have that type of view. And I respect their right to upgrade and repair, so on. That's why my letter, I didn't object in the sense of saying no, I tried to offer, you know, I didn't think that the jet-ski, you know, and even though it was an unofficial rule, I thought, I was ready to say okay on that. A floating dock, okay, but for a household that only has one boat and the jet-ski, which now they couldn't use, seems to be like a bit of overkill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we asked them to reduce it, so now it's reduced to the confines of the boat. MR. SCHLESINGER: You know, I mean we've had a rocky relationship, ups and downs. That's why I came here trying to compromise on the thing and not just say I'm against everything. 48 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So she is amenable to moving it away from the property line. MR. SCHLESINGER: And what will that be used for? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A sitting area. MR. SCHLESINGER: And away from the property line meaning -- TRUSTEE KING: 15 feet north. MR. SCHLESlNGER: 15 feet north of my property. Can I ask what would be wrong with her putting it on the north end? I know she gets along very well with her neighbors. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's her property. MR. SCFILESlNGER: As long as she is here and we can discuss it. I'm not here to argue. We can discuss it. MR. HALL: Just of a quick note here, from a visual standpoint, you can see the mouth of the canal is at an angle. The further north you go, the less view you have. So the ideal location would be on the south property line. We understand his concerns and we'll move it 15 feet, and that will still give them an optimum view and that will pacify the neighbor. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's fits within our policy. MR. SCHLESINGER: Why wouldn't that be the view? MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, all comments must be directed to the Board. MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm sorry. Why wouldn't that be the view? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that's their personal preference. As long as it fits within hour policies and codes. They are saying that they would rather have it toward the middle and toward that side of the property and as long as they move it away from the property line, I don't think it will be a problem? MR. SCHLESINGER: Will they be submitting new plans that I could have can have an opportunity to look at? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They don't have to. It's just a matter of drawing two lines. We can ask for new plans showing 15 feet off the property line. MR. SCHLESINGER: So if I understand, instead of the two docks that they were asking, two floating docks, it will be one larger one? TRUSTEE KING: It will be one 5x24 float, which meets our code. Square footage. MR. SCHLESlNGER: And the ramp will stay in effect? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. SCHLESlNGER: And there won't be any jet-ski? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not at this time. MR. SCHLESINGER: Now, will everything get moved over? TRUSTEE KING: The 10x10 platform -- MR. SCHLESINGER: I mean the floating docks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The decking and the ramp are in the same spot as the original. And the floating dock is attached. TRUSTEE KING: It's approximately centered in the property. MR. SCHLESINGER: Okay. MR. HALL: Here is the plans, if you want to take a look on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can move on it. MR. PALMER: William Palmer. We are allowed to bring the jet-ski in, we just can't have a jet-ski dock. We have to tie it off if we need to. April 20, 2011 49 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. The code allows for that. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application based on these new plans that show a proposed 5x24 float, bulkhead is to be refaced on the landward side of the existing. And the 10x10 platform at the southern end of the property will be moved 15 feet north. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want them to revise that on the plans? TRUSTEE KING: If we can just see a revised set of plans indicating the little platform is 15 feet north of its present location, off the property line. MR. HALL: That's fine. Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Did I miss anything? (No response). MR. MCGREEVEY: Is there any problem with the present planting as far as fertilizing goes, being that close to the bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's anything exotic that they are fertilizing there. MR. PALMER: it's a buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Jill, which one was the other one, do you remember? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time we'll take a two-minute break. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are back on the record. We'll start with number eight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of MICHAEL & SUSAN JEFFRIES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a garage addition, driveway retaining wall, and drainage for driveway. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island. Jim, myself and Jill looked at this application. The voluminous and beautiful plans depict a garage addition, and the drainage for the roof runoff to leaders and to drywells show a retaining wall which is adjacent to the freshwater wetlands, shows a proposed stake line of hay bales and silt fence so that is meets all the general criteria that we would have in the project. It is considered consistent with the LWRP. Is there anyone who wishes to speak behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Jeffries'. I'm here to answer any questions. The plans were really detailed and I think it's clearly described for you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only concern we have is that careful attention would be drawn to getting a silt fence in and hay bales up well in advance of any construction so there is no hoops to that, and the ability for us to do a hay bale inspection is probably extremely limited, but that's a high quality freshwater wetland and there is a quite a tumble home going down from the proposed retaining wall to that wetland. So April 20, 2011 50 that would be really a premium, we would not want to have a situation where there was inspection by town official where they didn't have hay bales up. MS. MOORE: They have been actually very good. The house was done last year and they were very diligent about the hay bale line. But I'll pass on the word. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You know, local rumors and scuttlebutt of the islanders when I was on the peninsula myself was that hay bales popped up prior to the Trustees inspection this last Monday, so I just want to let you know. MS. MOORE: On our project? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MS. MOORE: The house was done, could be they were just refreshing them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know there were some issues, apparently, from runoff from the construction site down the driveway and they put new silt fence and hay bales down at the road side. Are there any additional concerns or comments? TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered it, Jay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: FII make a motion to close the hearing. 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: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAMES P. MARTIN requests a Wetland Permit to legalize and modify an existing docking facility which consists of a 3'X 7' landward ramp leading to a 3'X 27' catwalk, 2.5'X 8' ramp and a 4'X 11' float secured by (2) batter piles. The proposed modification is to remove the 3'X 7' landward ramp and to construct 3'X 3' steps leading to a 4'X 20' landward extension to the catwalk utilizing open grate decking, to replace the 2.5'X 8 'ramp with a 3'X 20' ramp and to replace the 4'X 11' float with a 6'X 20' float to be secured by (2) batter piles and one tie-off pile. Located: 2740 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. This application was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent, for several reasons, which I'll go into in a minute. It was reviewed by the CAC and Conservation Advisory Council sports the application with the condition the mowing of the wetlands is stopped. Now, what we have here is a letter dated April 12, received by our office April 12, basically from the agent of the applicant stating that the project as originally applied for at that dock, they wish to abandon or remove that dock, build a new docking structure approximately 45 feet to the east, and it's described and it's depicted on a new set of plans that have been submitted with that letter, I'm assuming with that letter on April 12. And it's stamped received April 12. Now just before we open up the public hearing, understand that the original structure was reviewed under LWRP and found to April 20, 2011 51 be inconsistent. We are now changing, the applicant has applied to change this project to a new docking structure, which means the new docking structure will have to be reviewed under the LWRP. So in essence we don't have an LWRP review on this new docking structure yet. What that means is while tonight we can take comments related to this application and discuss it, we are not going to be able to move on this application because it has to be reviewed, the new structure has to be reviewed under the LWRP. Now, given that, I'll mention the inconsistency comments that came up with the first review, since it could very well be some of those could be addressed so that next time around we could move along with this application. One was that the current structure was constructed without a wetlands permit. Well, that will be addressed because you are proposing to abandon that structure and start a new one. The other concerns from LWRP, is there an assessment of navigational impairments being made; that the dimensions of the vessel are not included in the length of the dock, because under Chapter 275, the determination of the length of the dock must include the dimensions of the vessel. An assessment cannot be made to see if it's consistent with the existing dock line. In other words, pier line. An assessment as to whether the expansion would interfere with the use of the waterways. And then last one was the applicant does not show current water depth on the plans. Well, on your new set of plans you do have water depth there, so that should not be an issue. So given the comments I have made, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. I have a few comments. It's a little bit of a shock to me what you just read off, but there was indeed a permit for the original dock issued to James and Ruth Barr for two-foot by eight inch by 50' elevated walk; 3x22.5' semi-floating dock that was permit number 120 issued on April 27, 1983. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, it's in the record. MR. JUST: So that should check off the first thing on the LWRP. And when we met with the Trustees on site last month, there was concerns with (a), the dock was nonconforming because it straddles the property line. It was not 15 feet off the property line. The concerns about the navigable channel and concerns about depth. What we did after meeting with you folks is we hired Bob Fox of Sea Level Mapping, that does a lot of the local depth work for a lot of people, and it showed the existing dock as we saw it during inspection was about in six inches of water, the float. It sits on the bottom. So trying to, the reason we came back with the new dock plan is to re-align the dock, keeping it greater than 15 feet off the property line. We've shown the dock in between two-and-a-half to three feet of water, the float. And we have also relocated the dock a little further to the east to keep it further away from those four docks that are shown on the opposite shoreline. There was questions from the Board as far as the width of the waterway. I think it comes out to 165 feet from mean Iow to mean Iow. We are well less than April 20, 2011 52 that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It says on your plan 160 plus or minus. MR. JUST: Okay. So the length of the pier seaward of the proposed dock, seaward of the mean Iow water is less than 1/3 of the 160 figure. So what we have done in redesigning and modifying the dock application, we are trying to put everything into compliance with current existing regulations, as far as water depth, width of the waterway, proximity to the channel, um, and in keeping off the property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And I was just informed that there is a clarification has been made and that this does not have to go back for another review under the LWRP, as long as we can address the inconsistencies on the original one, which you have already addressed several of them. Okay? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was a question about it being moved, whether it was a totally new application or new construction. So there is a fine line there. That's where the confusion is. MR. JUST: Yup. And as far as the mowing of the wetland, ~ don't, CAC -- as we discussed on site, patens is a grass, it will come back fine. You know, since we stopped mowing. Some areas we actually show improved growth of Spartina patens when you mow it. But I won't go into that tonight. It does help sometimes, because it is a grass. But there is no problem letting the buffer grow back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Glenn, do you know the approximate beam of the boat, if there is a proposed boat to go there, just so we can have that as part of the record? MR. JUST: I could ask Mr. Burger here. I would be guessing. I could probably make a quick phone call TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think it's that important. TRUSTEE KING: What kind of boat? MR. BURGER: 42' Down East. Custom built. It will be here next weekend. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You better hurry up with that dock. MR. BURGER: We are trying. MR. JUST: I think I included, separately, the hydrographic survey that Bob Fox has done that shows the contours of the channel. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the hydrographics on the survey that Bob Fox did and it shows the floating dock is anywhere from, looks like the landward side, approximately two foot of water, and the outer edge approximately four feet of water, at Iow tide. MR. JUST: We try keep it in the two-and-a-half to three foot range. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just wondering if there is any opportunity to pull that back slightly. Because when we were out in the field our concern, the primary concern we had with this was is this going to interfere with navigation in the channel. MR. JUST: Was my stake still there when you went? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you, it was. There is, there really are no docks there to determine a pier line. And I know that came up in the LWRP inconsistency report and there is really nothing that you, as the applicant, can do, because there are no April 20, 2011 53 docks there to compare it to others for a pier line. MR. JUST: The only thing I put, I did a Google Earth drawing and printout, and who knows how old that thing is. When we were back there staking it out, I don't know if you noticed quite a few of the docks to the west had been installed. They were not there during our original inspection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But is there an oppodunity to pull the dock back slightly so that it's not resting on the bottom, obviously, at Iow tide, so the seaward end is closer to three feet of water. Because it looks like then we could pull the dock back, it looks like approximately the width of the float, which is six foot. MR. JUST: The landward end is laying almost on the, right on the two-foot contour of the float there. And the seaward end is straddling the three-foot contour. If we pull it in a little bit it will be in 18 inches of water. That would be my only concern about that, is it's sitting on the bottom. That's the reason for moving it in the first place. You could see the shoaling there to the east. After Bob did the bottom contours, we thought that would be the ideal place to relocate the dock. Remember, the boat is 12 feet. Just giving the additional 12 feet still keeps it less than the one-third rule mean Iow to mean Iow water across the creek. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, from my observations, it was not a matter of the one-third rule, it was a matter of would the vessel inter[ere with navigation in the main channel. That was the concern I had out there. I can't speak for the other Board members, but that was my main concern. How do other Board members feel about that? Do you feel looking at this, hearing the information tonight as well as looking at this aerial, that this would or would not affect the navigability of that channel? MR. MCGREEVEY: What creek is that, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Deep Hole Creek. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Looking at the aerial, it shows the stakes. MR. JUST: If I may, the new dock would be right in here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Makes sense to me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think it will be in the way of navigation of the channel. MR. JUST: It would be a -- we knew that would be a concern at the outset, that's why we worked hard to keep it as short as possible. TRUSTEE KING: I see, keeping it here, going out here, you have six foot here. Looking at it, the deepest part should be right about in the center. If you have a boat with a 15-foot beam, you still have 40 feet or more to the center of the channel. So I would say it's doable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the original description, for the original structure, you were going to replace it with open-grate decking. Is that also the plans for the new structure? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I would suggest is that little bump out, to do the same as the last application, make it 2x4 instead April 20, 2011 54 of 3x5. MR. JUST: We can do that. I don't know if the Board understands rationale for that. In reducing the length of the fixed dock for catwalk and going to a larger ramp, these aluminum ramps are quite heavy, and that's just to support the weight of the ramp so the dock doesn't pitch all the time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to comment on this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Make sure the tie up is on the inside. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Well inside the float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it will work there TRUSTEE BERGEN: rll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of James Martin with a new dock being built as depicted on the plans dated April 11,2011, stamped received April 12, 2011. The new dock consists of a 4x82' catwalk utilizing open grating, 3x3 steps, 3x20 ramp, 2x4 float and one 6x20 float secured by two batter piles and a tie off pile. And given the fact that the applicant has shown water depth on the plans and has proven to the Board that this will not interfere with navigation, and in using open-grate decking, we would then find it consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board on this? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of SOUTH BROWN LIMITED LIABILITY CO. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 110' fixed catwalk with a 4'X 10' seasonal ramp onto three (3) 8'X 30' seasonal floating docks secured by 6-8" diameter anchor pilings. Located: 8070 Narrow River Rd., Orient. The project was deemed to be inconsistent under the LWRP. I'll go through the details of that. It's a fairly lengthy return from LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not support it in their initial review of the project. There is in the file a letter from our attorney Lori Hulse concerning a review of the record to see if there was an inherent right going forward based on the history of the structures, previous permitting history here. There are also three letters to the record that I will substantially give information on, and there is also in the file new proposed plans for this project. So I'll send the plans down amongst the Board members. And I'll start with the notice of inconsistency and go through that, then the comments from individuals that sent letters to the record and then I'1~ open it up for comments, as to try to be orderly in this process. April 20, 2011 55 Okay, the LWRP indicates that it should comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations that are standard to Trustee permits. Concerns were specifically in construction and operation standards that since it's a corporate entity, that it indicates here that total number of vessels to the dock here Iongterm should be point of discussion since presently configured the application would be construed to only allow three vessels; one for the corporation and two vessels for other than the owner. The number of individual items in construction operation standards that the Trustees should review, whether the dock will unduly interfere with public use of water waterways for appropriate use of swimming, boating and fishing; whether the dock will cause degradation to the surface water quality; whether the dock will cause any habitat fragmentation and loss of coastal fish and wildlife habitat; destruction of any valuable marine growth, such as astor marina, which is eel grass or widgeon grass maritima, and that the dock will unduly restrict tidal flow, that the dock will adversely affect views, view sheds, vistas important to the community, whether adequate facilities are available for boat owners or operators for fuel and discharge of waste, rubbish, electric services, et cetera. And that should include a determination of length of dock must include dimensions of vessels to be kept there. Vessel dimensions were not specified. That's the sum total of the LWRP comments. The comments to be put in the record from concerned citizens, this is a letter to the Trustees: We are writing to you in support of the Tuthill request to place a dock on Narrow River Road. We fell a reasonably-sized non-commercial dock project in keeping with the Trustees' judgment is appropriate for this area. As their nearest private neighbor we endorse an appropriately-sized project, as they have always been good stewards of the land. Thank you for your consideration. It's signed Fred and Maureen Docimo of the Narrow River Marina, at 5520 Narrow River Road. The next letter I have is to the Board of Trustees. I am writing this letter to you in support of the Tuthill family dock project on Narrow River Road. As president of the Oyster Ponds Rod and Gun Club I would like to take this opportunity support the Tuthill family as they have supported the Rod and Gun Club to use their land for last 50 years. We are aware of the state negotiations of wetlands with the Tuthill, Latham and other Orient families back in the 1980s. The Oyster Pond Rod and Gun Club supports their dock project knowing that the Tuthill family has always been good stewards of the land and has been interested in land conservations. Thank you, for your consideration, signed Ed White, President of the Oyster Pond Rod and Gun Club. Another letter addressed to the Trustees. We are writing this letter to you in support of the Tuthill family dock project on Narrow River Road. We know the Tuthill family worked closely with the state on the conservation effort along Narrow River Road. In 1989 along with our families, the Tuthill family has April 20, 2011 56 April20,2011 been good stewards of the land in Orient since the 1640's. We are aware of the agreement made between the state and the family in 1989 to allow them to dock, excuse me, allow them a dock to accommodate their large family. Once again, as neighbors and landowners in Orient, we support this dock. And signed by a number of individuals: James and Patricia Latham, George Latham, Kathleen Latham, Pricilla Latham and Daniel and Patricia Latham. Another Letter to the Trustees. Given the Conservation Advisory Council's resolution to not support this application because it is inconsistent with the Wetlands Code, and the fact there is as yet no determination by the New York State DOT, DOS, Army Corps of Engineers, and given that Narrow River is a sensitive environment as well as significant beauty spot or sacred place for local residents I respectively encourage you to defer decision until responses have been received from the other agencies. I also urge you to determine what uses are expected at these docks, what kinds of boats will be involved and whether there is any dredging anticipated for their use, which obviously would raise more significant environmental issues. Signed, Frederica Waxberger. Those are the communications to the record. The plan that I just distributed that vary a bit from the project description which indicated a proposal of three floats, I believe. And at this time it might be appropriate to open up to comments of whose who wish to speak on behalf of or against of the application. MR. COSTELI_O: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. You have the new set of plans. It reduces the project more or less in half. 720 square feet of float is initially what the DEC had authorized 20 years ago. We drooped down the scope of the plans to 240 square feet, two 5x24's, hoping that would be more palatable to the Trustees, you know, backing off, hoping to straighten this out tonight. Seeing they've given a lot up, seems fair to me. I'm here to some answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I like what you have done here. That's more of what we were thinking. The only question I have, is a ten-foot ramp long enough? Or do you think it should go with 15 foot? Just to avoid you coming back later. MR. COSTELLO: Well, we certainly could. I didn't want to deviate from the original permit. I didn't want to change things. As it comes along, we may have to amend that, just because of the heights and elevation of the dock itself. DEC has not gotten back to me so the elevation has to not been established yet. Like I said, I didn't want to deviate from the first original permit and complicate things more. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any problem if we go with this to say up to a 15-foot ramp, so he doesn't have to come back to us? TRUSTEE KING: As long as it doesn't change the overall length of the project. Just shorten the catwalk a little bit. MR. COSTELLO: That sounds fair enough. Like I said, once the DEC establishes that, how high they want me to put it above the 57 marsh, I would definitely come in for an amendment, but we won't increase the overall length. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just trying to avoid you coming back for an amendment. TRUSTEE KING: The only other thing I would suggest, we have been doing this, we did this on two other applications, put a little 2x4 bump out for the float for the ramp. So it gives you a little more walking room at the end of the ramp MR. COSTELLO: That would be fantastic. It doesn't increase the footprint and it makes it much better. I know ramps coming down on a float perpendicular to them is pretty tough. MR. COSTELLO: If we could put that in, that would be fantastic. I would appreciate that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern ~ have is the absence of electric power there, as far as running electric during the winter for ice control purposes. That design incorporates beaches that would possibly allow for an elevated float, in other words, instead of catwalk perception but the type of float that is constructed on those poly-boxes or whatever, so that possibly that in the absence of power, that the dock, more of the dock could be removed during the off season, and they don't have the risk of frost lifting huge numbers of pilings. It's just something that seems to be a practical issue because of the great distance to getting power, unless they are planning on powering it. MR. COSTELLO: No, there is no plan for any service there, at this point. And the floating dock itself will come out of place for the winter, of course. TRUSTEE KING: ~ would stick with this. You have the three piles on the seaward end. That usually keeps the end down pretty good. MR. COSTELLO: It's pretty muddy back there, but, you know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do recall seeing a dock getting lifted once. If they want, it's a question, too, if it's repeatedly lifted, that means a lot more siltation and pumping pilings in in the spring. But if you feel this is substantial enough and it's not an issue with them, that's fine. MR. MCGREEVEY: Would the Board consider the vinyl grating or is that pad of it already? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Open grating. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It depends on the height. Mr. Costello is waiting to hear from the DEC on the height of the catwalk. If it's up higher, we really won't need that. If it's lower, we would want it. MR. COSTELLO: They are very inconsistent with the grate decking. MR. MCGREEVEY: The DEC is inconsistent, because of the height? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. MR. MCGREEVEY: So the higher, the less need for grating? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Giving the fact the history here was to provide docking for the Tuthill family, and we understand these sods of limited liability corporations are there designed to protect families, but we also have to be mindful of the town zoning and the regulations surrounding it. Do you think it would be a problem with limitation that the April 20, 2011 58 April 20, 2011 vessels there are just Tuthill family members with an allowance for two others? It's allowed in the Zoning Code and I think that's in keeping with how the use has been presently. Or has been only Tuthill family members, and I know they have extended use to a couple of local baymen. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that goes without saying in any permit we approve, because it's written in the code. So I don't think we have to make that a condition because it's already codified. That's how I feel about it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that's the feeling of the Board, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what Jill says, but I think it's good that you brought it up and it's on the record so the applicant can fully understand that. MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. TRUSTEE KING: I would just suggest there be no further expansion of this facility in the future. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think so. This is well-tailored to the location. TRUSTEE KING: It exceeds the code. But under the circumstances I don't have an issue with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very similar to other actions we have taken tonight where we have requested individuals to downsize in keeping with the nature of the waters and prior history where we have actually had other individuals where we had that allowance for a second 120 square foot float, so in keeping with a consistent approach I think the Board has taken tonight towards historic use of waters by individuals. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Hearing no ones else, I 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 of Costello Marine on behalf of South Brown Liability as submitted in the revised plans dated April 19, 2011. MR. COSTELLO: John, if you could add in the bump out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the bump out. What's the feeling on the size. 2x47 Two feet by four feet would be the allowance for the ramp. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to note this new drawing brings this into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. It brings it into consistency with LWRP and the degree of open-grating, I guess is contingent on the DEC determination of height over the wetland. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And sorry, I want to add that maybe the ramp can go up to 15 feet. Do you want to add that in there so he doesn't have to come back for an amendment? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ramp up to 15 feet. Not more than 15 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ill second that. Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: Should we stipulate no further expansion of this facility? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And no further expansion. Do you want to do 59 that, Jay? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I11 amend my motion to include all the preceding including the fact there be no further expansion of this facility, docking facility. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, have a good night. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of BARRETT KATZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a docking facility comprised of a 4'X 72' fixed elevated catwalk, 3'X 15' hinged ramp, and 6'X 20' floating dock off the northern shoreline of the property. Located: 625 Wood Lane, Peconic. This is an extension of the hearing that we opened last month. Just to review, the Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-tuff buffer and it was found to be inconsistent with LWRP for reasons that were noted at the last hearing. We had asked that some revised plans be put in, incorporating some suggestions that we made. And we have a letter here including the revised plans prepared by Suffolk Environmental indicating the relocation of the proposed dock assembly to a more central position along the bulkhead. Which was the one question we had. And if you would like to see these, I'll pass these down. As I recall, we originally had the original plans to be closer to the property line, right? And we asked that it get moved so at least once it was extended out it would be 15 feet from the side property line. I think that is what they have done. Is there anybody here who would like to address the application? MR. IVAN: Yes. Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Following that meeting last month, we talked with the owner, Barret Katz, and he seemed fine with the recommendation of the Board. So by moving it over centrally, it will reduce the overall dock length by about 14 feet. It will reduce the area that the dock will cross over in terms of any kind of vegetative wetlands over there, and I'm here to answer any additional questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So now it's a 4x58' long catwalk instead of a 4x72. Floating dock stays 6x20, and the ramp is stil[ 3x15. Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). It's what we wanted, so I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: ~'11 make a motion to approve the application made by Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Barrett Katz for a docking facility comprised of a 4x58 fixed elevated catwalk with a 3x15 hinged ramp and 6x20 floating dock, as depicted on the site plans received March 29, 2011. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Second. Any other comments on that from the Board? April20,2011 6O April20,2011 TRUSTEE KING: Do they need four pilings to hold the float in place or just three? One on the seaward end instead of two. A little less structure and a little less cost to the applicant. It's not a big deal. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how much fetch there is. Will it work? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Back there on Richmond Creek, back where this is, there won't be a lot of fetch built up there. As I recall, we had another dock application farther to the, call it the south, where we had the same issue come up and we went with two anchor pilings, so to speak, instead of four. So I would support the use of two instead of four. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or three, like Jim said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That would help also with the LWRP review. MR. MCGREEVEY: What would the surface of the catwalk be, just for my own information? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you talking about the open grate or decking? MR. IVAN: So far the DEC has not gotten back to us but I'm sure, just like the last application it's up for grabs what they'll say, but if the elevation is high enough, they won't ask for it and if you are not crossings over vegetated wetlands, they usually don't ask for it. But when we get the DEC application, if there is a change, we'll send it over. TRUSTEE KING: For a while they were recommending open grate and letting us put it down Iow. There was a surprise to me. As a matter of fact, I have a letter somewhere from DEC saying this is good. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. TRUSTEE KING: And we like it because we get the catwalks down a little bit. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So what do you want to do, do you want to make it so it has one pole at the end instead of two? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. One pole. And we want to make the catwalk open grate. TRUSTEE KING: We have the catwalk showing four feet above grade. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we need to specify open grate. If they put it open grate, they can, but I don't believe we need to make it a condition in this case. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My attitude is it can't hurt. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Condition it if it's less than three feet, go with open grating? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. I'll re-do the motion then. I'll make a motion to approve the application on behalf of Barrett Katz to construct a docking facility comprised of 4x58 fixed elevated. Catwalk; 3x15 hinged ramp; and 6x20 floating dock, with only one pole at the end of the floating dock, at the seaward end, and an open-grated surface on the catwalk should it be required to be less than three feet to the water, to the wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second? Any other comment on that motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In making these mitigations it brings it into consistency with LWRP. 61 April 20, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. IVAN: Thank you, board. I11 get the revisions to you guys as soon as possible. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Studio a/b Architects on behalf of JANE G. WEILAND requests a Wetland Permit to construct an on-ground boardwalk attached to the existing wood walkway, 32-square foot storage shed and bench, both attached to the boardwalk platform, total coverage 326 square feet. Located: 6485 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition gutters, leaders and drywells are installed for the dwelling and installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer planted native vegetation on top of bluff. I don't know what they are talking about the dwellin9. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is for a boardwalk, but they are attaching -- Jack, you're attaching the drywell request to this permit MR. MCGREEVEY: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the Conservation Advisory Council comments. The LWRP is consistent with the stairs but inconsistent with the deckin9. Decks and platforms: No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may not larger than 32-square feet. The application, again, prior tonight, it's on, behind the bulkhead on a flat area. That bein9 said, it is quite large and larger than we would ever approve, but that being said, is there anyone here to act on behalf of this application? MS. WEILAND: Yes. I'm Jane Weiland, the homeowner, and my architects are also here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We allow, we would be more comfortable with a 10x20 deck area here. We don't usually let people deck over that whole area behind their bulkhead, and we feel a 10x20 deck area is sufficient enough to put a few chairs and have room to utilize. And, of course, we would want untreated lumber on that deck. Is that something you would be amenable to? MS. WEILAND: Well, we weren't deckin9 the whole area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it was quite large what you were asking for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Shed, bench and deck. So you are saying just the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what our notes say, yes. MS. SPERRY: Also part of it was the actual walkway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you just state your name for the record. MS. SPERRY: Sorry, Linda Sperry, Studio a/b Architects. Part of that was the walkway. It's extending away from the steps so that the deck part can go in between the existing vegetation, so that does add a little bit of square footage. But it's also protecting the existing bushes. I have a sketch that these represent existing bushes, so it's going from the existing stairway, which is right here, so there is a little bit of extra decking as it sort of meanders around the bushes. MS. WEILAND: There is actually holes opening for the bushes to come out, so they are not -- MS. SPERRY: Instead of having one big thing, and also that way 62 the shed is not visible because there are existing plantings on either side, so. It does add a little bit of square footage, but I think the effect is better. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I believe the feeling of the Board is the decking is still too excessive. On this drawing you have a note that says 10x20. Is that what this drawing reflects, is 10x20 square footage of deck, or? MS. SPERRY: I just wrote that down, that was just my notes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MS. SPERRY: What if we put stepping stones between the two platforms; would that work? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's been done before. People put stepping stones between areas. MS. SPERRY: So if we kept those two sections. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, you are not allowed two decks, by code; two decking areas by code. So that's a problem there. MS. SPERRY: But it's done with respect to the vegetation. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Right, it just comes down to it's more than we usually approve in this area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In fact we would not allow the little house either, anymore. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I said, you need to address the shed as well as the bench. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, one thing at a time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm inclined to stick with what we normally would do, frankly. MS. WEILAND: There is a 30-foot bluff that comes down, so it makes it very difficult to carry chairs or anything you would like to sit on down there. That's why we hoped to have the shed, just to store. MS. SPERRY: And the adjacent property has it as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that, but that was prior to our code. A lot of that stuff has been there for years and years and years. So any new construction on this area is usually not, we have not allowed any new buildings. We allowed people to restore what they had and try to have them reduce what they have when they restore it, but we have not allowed any new buildings on the bluff area. MR. MCGREEVEY: Another consideration on that, Jill, would be with a structure like that, runoff off the roof could possibly cause erosion. MS. SPERRY: We actually calculated it, and for everything you would only have a quarter of an inch. So it's negligible. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That's there now, that structure. They want to box it in? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the stairs would be coming down over here. She doesn't have the stairs on this drawing here. Here is the stairs and here is the shed between the two bushes. I think -- tell me if I'm wrong -- I think I could speak for the Board, I feel we just want to have this whole area reduced to no shed and just one deck sitting area. MS. SPERRY: But could it be irregular? Because the whole point April 20, 2011 63 April 20, 2011 was to not have one big expanse so it actually feels less. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you reduce the structure, I personally don't mind -- TRUSTEE KING: If it's something that comes up with 200-square feet -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 10x20. It's not much to work with. But if you want to make it irregular. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are saying is we'll allow you 200-square foot of decking, however you want to draw it, you can come back to us, but as long as it doesn't exceed 200-square feet. MS. WEILAND: What about having to carry the furniture down the 30 foot bluff? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Most people leave their furniture down there. I mean that's just the nature of the area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In fact in the photo you could see next door that's exactly what your neighbors are doing. MS. WEILAND: That's a right-of-way, actually. But then you have to have it all exposed and it could get stolen and rusty and it's not a way to maintain your furniture. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we regularly allow deck boxes, small box? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was the structure on the stairs, that is already there. MS. WEILAND: That's a gazebo. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could put the furniture there. MS. WEILAND: No, you can't because it's actually in the middle of the staircase. You can't walk up and down. It's a pass through. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, it's not something that we approve, the structure on the bluff. It's just, it's something we just don't approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: People manage to get the furniture up and down. I have to carry mine up and down 67 steps. MS. SPERRY: Do you have any objection to the seats? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Incorporate that into the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Incorporate that into the 200-square feet, we have no objection. And that would bring it into consistency, reducing on the size of the deck to the LWRP report. MS. WEILAND: Would it be a problem if the seat lifted up and there was storage inside the seat? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. Should we table this for new drawings? Or do you, since it's going to be odd shaped? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could just -- TRUSTEE KING: 10x20, 200-square foot deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With bench incorporated into that 200-square foot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Subject to revised drawings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that's reasonable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, are there any other comments from anyone? (No response). Hearing none, Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve a 200-square foot deck with a 64 April 20, 2011 bench incorporated within the 200-square foot. And is the stairs included in this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stairs are pre-existing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a permit for the stairs? Probably not. MS. SPERRY: There is a permit for the stairs. I made an error on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we don't need to include the stairs. So I'll make a motion to approve a 200-square foot deck with benches incorporated within the 200-square feet. Subject to new drawings. And deny the original application to construct a 326-square foot deck area. By downsizing, it brings it into consistency. MS. HULSE: You are denying more than that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the shed and denying the -- do you want me to do two separate resolutions? MS. HULSE: No, you are good with approving the deck, but now you have to deny the rest of the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so deny the 200-area foot deck with a bench incorporated in it and thereby denying the rest of the application which would include the shed and the 320-square foot deck. And that brings it into consistency with the LWRP. And untreated lumber to be used. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to clarify. I just heard you say "deny a 200-square foot deck," et cetera. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I approved the 200-square foot. Approve a 200-square foot deck area with bench included within that area, and to deny the shed and the 326-square foot area that they originally applied for. And that brings it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board on that motion? (No response). All in favor? Subject to revised plans. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MCGREEVEY: Is there supposed to be spacing between the planks on the decking? Is there a requirement for certain spacing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sometimes we say certain spacing. It's all sand underneath so in this case it really -- MR. MCGREEVEY: There is no requirement there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, there is no growth there. So that's subject to new drawings on that. TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Swim King Pools on behalf of KATHY TSOUMAS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 16'X 32' in-ground swimming pool, patio and surrounding fence. Located: 500 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck. This was reviewed and found to be consistent with LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application as submitted. I went and looked at this. It's just a straightforward put a swimming pool in, and put a fence around it. I didn't have any issues with it whatsoever. It's a nice buffer area down by the 65 April 20, 2011 creek. They tucked the pool right in the corner there. They have a drywell showing for the pool backwash. I thought it was straightforward and no problem whatsoever. Any comments? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: There are no comments from anybody on this, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP on behalf of WARREN & NINA BERNSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct first and second floor additions to the existing two-stoW dwelling; construct 13'X 8.6' and 18'X 8.6' deck additions to rear of dwelling; proposed driveway expansion and expansion of parking area; install two 8' dia. drywells for stormwater run-off; abandon existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system; repair and/or replace existing wood deck and stairs at Great Pond; construct new 4'X 20' dock; trim vegetation at existing deck and stairs; repair and/or replace existing snow fencing; and abandon well. Construct 3.5'X 12.2' steps on west side rear of dwelling; construct 7'X 11.5' steps in front of dwelling; remove existing steps in the front of dwelling on west side; and remove 3'X 7' steps in front of the west side of dwelling and replace with deck. Located: 2095 Lake Dr., Southold. This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. The CAC supports the application with the following conditions: That the parking area should be permeable; installation of gutters, leaders and drywells, and a non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation up to the limit of the disturbance. The LWRP review found the majority of the project consistent. What they found inconsistent was the proposed dock. The applicant has not demonstrated that the dock standards have been met, and he listed apl 12 dock standards that the Board has. The use of the waterway is public. There is public access to this area via a right-of-way on Great Pond Road. And that is basically it under the LWRP. The Board did go out and looked at this project, and we have extensive plans here. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. HOAG: Yes. I'm Karen Hoag from Twomey, Latham, Shea. As a matter of housekeeping, I have an affidavit of posting. I know it's been a long evening so Ill try to address the issues that you had. In regard to the parking area, that area would be permeable. Planting a non-turf buffer is agreeable. That's fine with us. In terms of the dock, the applicant really just wanted to have a means to go get to the pond to put kayaks on there. So the actual length of the dock, 4x20' dock length was actually a suggestion of the DEC when we met with them back in December. They thought this was something we should ask for when we submit to the Trustees as well as the DEC. So that's the reason why we asked for such a length. You know, we are agreeable to modify it to what the Trustees would recommend. And as I said, it was really just for use 66 April 20, 2011 of kayaking, getting kayaks to the pond. I just wanted to add, I know in terms of erosion control, we tried to address that in detail on the plans, with hay bales and silt fencing. There is a limit lines of clearing and non-disturbance, ran pretty much most of the property, from the Lake Drive all the way down to the rear of the house. So we also have on the east side of the house, two drywells which will be installed, and due to the nature of the pitch of the roof, it's pretty much flat. We'll have gutters and leaders going down into those drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, just to clarify, Jack, on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council, yes, there are drywells here, to address that issue. And also the limit of disturbance, really, where you are asking for a non-turf buffer is presently apl very nice, natural state, and I think what the point is here we are looking for it to be maintained in its natural state with native vegetation, et cetera, which sounds like exactly what the applicant is suggesting. So I just wanted to see if that addressed all the Conservation Advisory Council's concerns with regard to the three points that they put down here. MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't personally inspect the property, but looking at the picture, I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on behalf of this application, for or against this application? MR. MANOS: Good evening, my name is Charles Manos. My parents own the property adjoining to the west. And Ms. Ball, the neighbor adjoining to the east will speak after I do. We think this is great, you know. We just, my parents, at least, I'll speak to my concerns, Ms. Ball will speak to hers. We have just one minor concern, that is if you start at the top, go down the driveway, there are two proposed parking areas. The one toward the back, which is dotted in, if you look at the grade lines, there is actually about a four-foot declining grade in that area, okay; so the point is there is like a mound that, over here, is shown as having a 20-foot or greater elevation that straddles the property line. Right on the other side of that mound are my parents' property. There is like a retaining wall holding it up. And we just had a minor concern with respect to, it looks like four to six feet of elevation will be cut out of the bottom of that mound. So there might be some -- if you are familiar with the area, it's basically sand, with some scrub pines. I don't think it's a big deal. I think it would be very minor, as a modest maybe retaining wall there. The other end of the mound is held up by a retaining wall. We have gone through efforts to keep -- MS. HOAG: I have John Berg here, he is the architect, he can address your concerns. MR. BERG: John Berg, Berg & Son Architects, representing the Bernstein's. I think the neighbor is correct, and a Iow railroad tie retaining wall will be necessary. The reason we are expanding the parking area is that it takes about an eight-point turn to get a car in and out of there. It's really, really tight, so we want to maintain a nice buffer. There is some evergreen cedar trees there that we would like to maintain for privacy between the neighbor and the Bernstein's, and put in a Iow railroad tie retaining wall. 67 April 20,2011 MR. MANOS: That's fine. It's reasonable. It's perfect. Because we want to keep that vegetation. MS. HOAG: Understood. MR. MANOS: I'm glad we are of like mind. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just looking to see if that was even, that proposed parking area, is within our jurisdiction. It is, because it's a top of bluff there. MS. BALL: My name is Lillian Ball, Southold. I live at 245 Lake Drive. The Bernstein's I think made a really good effort to comply with all the environmental things, that the requirements that are necessary. I have a couple of minor concerns also. Could you read, again, what the LWRP says about the dock; or summarize it quickly? That's it's too long? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The applicant has not identified the types of material it will be constructed of and has not demonstrated that the dock standards have been met. And he lists every dock standard that we have in our code. Waterways is public, proposed action is private. And there is access via a public right-of-way off of Lake Court. And I'm not really sure where Lake Court is in relation to this piece of property. MS. BALL: It's two over. It's two houses over. The Bernstein's, then myself then Wayne Abitelli, and then Lake Court. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. MS. BALL: So would that mean you might suggest open, see-thru docking or- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Open grating. Yes. MS. BALL: Because I do think that -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The phragmites will appreciate it. MS. BALL: I was going to ask you to please give them a permit, even though they didn't ask for it, for cutting their phragmites. Because that's an area right there that I'm very happily or very seriously cutting my phragmites every year. But, urn, that would be my, probably my only concern. The other is that the septic is improved. So regarding the dock itself -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just address the Board. MS. BALL: Regarding the dock itself, I think that would make it probably better and less interfering. I know that the Manos', Judge Manos and his wife Stella have complained bitterly about how their dock gets ruined every winter during the ice storms. I don't have of a dock at my house so, and the adjacent float is at Wayne Abitelli's house, is in shambles. The muskrats chew on it. So there is Styrofoam all over the lake. So I hope there is no Styrofoam included in this dock. If it's open decking then that would address my concern. The only other thing that I was concerned about was the new septic system, which I think is fantastic. I think it's great. We should all have new septic systems. When I first bought my house it was full of Ringenberg pipes, which is the cardboard stuff, and I had to have that all replaced. So their house is a little more recent, but it's a great thing. And I just assume, I never seen my well because it's under my deck. They built the deck and garage on top of the well. So I'm hoping that -- your survey looks about the same as mine -- and I'm opening that you're right, it's 100 feet, but I think it's fantastic to build 68 a new septic system. So, thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to make any comments? MS. HOAG: If I may comment, I believe the public access to Great Pond is a couple of lots over from where this property is located. And in terms of dock material, and length of dock, we would go with the Board's recommendation. As I said, the main impodance of this project was to upgrade the house, upgrade the septic, and have access to the Great Pond. I know there is some vegetation that is overgrown by the wood deck and stairs that are existing. There is also a line of snow fencing which you can see, I don't know if you noticed it from your site visits, but in the photos I submitted you could see they've done a pretty good job in controlling the erosion of the site. And as I said, any replanting that needs to be done, we are more than happy to do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just one concern. It is a dunal. It's very much of a dune landform, and the advisability of keeping snow fence materials there, I'm not sure which way, whether you are capturing sand coming from the Long Island Sound moving to that direction or otherwise, but particularly since there is a lot of areas are barren of vegetation and there is sand in play constantly moving, that might be a consideration to protect your property. MS. BALL: I'm just curious which snow fence you are talking about, because when I applied to have my phragmites, to cut back my phrags, they requested that I remove all the snow -- it was of a previous board -- but they requested I remove all the snow fencing because it impeded the animal progress. How does the Board feel about -- the deer have no problem getting over it, I have to say, and I have removed as much as possible because it's really ugly. MS. HOAG: My guess is the snow fencing has been there since the house has been built. MS. BALL: My snow fencing was inherited, too. MS. HOAG: Right. And the Bernstein's have made no improvements to the property, and they took ownership in 2004. So even when you see the snow fencing, it's pretty dilapidated. So it was a question of whether we would repair it or replace it, or whatever the Board's recommendation was in terms of that, but we did want to address it because it is existing and I know it was probably there since the owners originally built the house back in the '70s. MS. BALL: Are you talking about between their property and mine, or is it on the other side? MS. HOAG: No, it's in the rear of the property right along ~- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could address that. What is the Board's feeling on the snow fencing? Would you like to see it remain or would you like to see it removed? TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't matter to me, either way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Doesn't matter to me, either way, in this area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Doesn't matter to me, either way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll leave that up to the applicants whether or not they want to keep the snow fencing or remove it. We don't April 20, 2011 69 April 20, 2011 have an issue. MS. BALL: And it's just as easy to remove. It will probably disintegrate soon anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only other comment I have is we do not have a cross-section of the dock in the file, and we should have that. MS. HOAG: Is there a particular dimension of the dock the Board would consider approving around that area? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we were going to suggest is we are fine with 4x20, and I'll address the LWRP inconsistency in a minute. But we'll also address the use of 4x4's for the structural support for the 4x20. And that open-grating be used for the material for the catwalk. We also went out and looked at it, and just to address some of the inconsistencies within the LWRP, since he was not specific, this is not going to impede navigation for anybody else. It won't interfere with the public use of the waterways. It's not going to impair the use or the value of the adjacent property. It's not going to cause degradation of surface water. It will not restrict tidal flow or water circulation. It certainty won't result in boats with fueling, discharge or waste rubbish, electrical service or water service. And it is not interfering in any way with navigable waters. So I think based on all that, we would find it consistent, with the use of 4x4's and with the use of open grating, we could deem it to be consistent under the LWRP. What we would like to see is a, because we do require for all docks a cross-section of the dock. So if a cross-section diagram could be provided which would show the height of the dock offthe water, which I'm sure has to be done, I'm guessing had to be done for DEC also. I don't want to speak on behalf of the DEC, but I'm guessing it had to be done on behalf of DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Any thoughts of trimming the phragmites on either side of that dock? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Addressing the phragmites, would the applicant like to have included in there the ability to trim the phragmites, by hand, down no lower than 12 inches above grade or above water. MS. HOAG: That's acceptable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Understand that is a two-year permit and it can be renewed for two one-year periods. Now, without segmenting this dock out, in other words we can table this pending -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with approving it subject to receiving the cross sections. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just, you know -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience want to speak? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 70 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Warren and Nina Bernstein, as described, at 2095 Lake Drive in Southold, with the condition of the receipt of a cross section diagram of the dock. The dock that is going to be using 4x4 for structural support, that open grating will be used with that dock, and included in this permit will be the ability of the applicant to trim phragmites by hand to a height no lower than 12-inches above either the surface of the water or above land, and that a Iow profile retaining wall be included in the proposed parking area. And I know there are two proposed parking areas here, so more specifically, the proposed parking area that is landward of the dwelling. And included in this will also be the cuttings from the phragmites will be removed off site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that's everything. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Any other comments on this motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It brings it into consistency with the LWRP? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Bob. With this modifications to the dock, it brings it into consistency with the LWRP so the total application will be found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HOAG: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make a motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, Board of Trustees April 20, 2011