Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-06/22/2011
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, June 22, 2011 6:00 PM RECEIVED $ou~old 1o~ ¢lerl~ Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 13, 2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 20, 2011, and May 18, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening everybody. Welcome to our June meeting. Tonight we have Megan Burke from the Conservation Advisory Council here, and we have Wayne Galante taking down all the notes, so if you do want to speak, please come up to the microphone, state your name for the record and please keep your comments five minutes or less so we can get through the meeting. Lori Hulse is here, she is our attorney, and with that we'll get started. First I would like to go over the postponements. We have several applications postponed that will not be heard tonight. Page four, number six 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'X 16' float with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladders all waterward of the Board of Trustees 2 June 22,2011 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 non-invasive, salt tolerant ground cover. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island, is postponed. And then on page six numbers 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 will be postponed and not heard tonight. They are: Number 12, Robert Schroeder on behalf of EDWARD JURZENIA requests a Wetland Permit to install a stormwater run-off drainage area; excavate shaft until well draining soils are encountered; fill excavated area with sand and gravel; remove trees as needed for site access and removal of all dead trees. Located: 50 Shore Rd., Greenport, is postponed. Number 13, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of MARIE NG requests a Wetland Permit to relocate the existing dwelling and addition approx. 28' further west from the water; remove existing second-floor and reconstruct new second-floor addition; install new inground swimming pool and hot tub along the east side of the dwelling; relocate existing shed; remove sanitary system and install new sanitary system further from the water; and install drywells to contain run-off from the dwelling. Located: 6325 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue, is postponed. Number 14, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DAVID & LIBBY ROSS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and sanitary system; construct a new two-story dwelling on pilings and install a new sanitary system with fill; and install new permeable driveway. Located: 170 Park Avenue Ext., Mattituck, is postponed. Number 15, 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, is postponed. Number 16, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HEDGE STREET, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to repair or partially reconstruct 79 linear feet. Of 6.5' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 10'X 14' pile supported "L" pier, 660 square foot 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, is postponed. So if there is anybody here for those, we won't be hearing them tonight. MS. FARIA: Hi. Loretta Faria. I just wanted to know, is there a notice that these things were being postponed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The agenda is posted a couple of days before the meeting and sometimes we don't know something will be postponed until the last minute. But you can look at the agenda, you can pick a copy up at the office a couple days before the meeting or you can look at our website. MS. FARIA: Because I just came from Garden City for this thing that was postponed and I knew nothing about it being postponed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry, which one were you -- MS. FARIA: Number 12. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that is postponed. We determined in reviewing last week, the application, we determined it's an incomplete application and it's not ready for a public hearing. Board of Trustees 3 June 22,201 I May I suggest just next month if it's on the agenda just call the office before you come all the way out here and double check. Or you can look at our website a couple of days before. All right, our next field inspection -- MR. NEILSON: I just had a question about Robert Warden. We submitted revised plans on that last week and we are ready to talk about that one tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe -- didn't we postpone it because we needed to inspect it again? We wanted revised plans, then do an inspection also. Am I remembering that correctly? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that the one in Hay Harbor? MR. NEILSON: Yes, I believe it was, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we want to see that again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately we have not gone out there yet. It looks like we won't get out there before August. July is just, we are trying to get a date but it's just not working, so it probably won't be until August. If it is before, we'll definitely let you know. MR. NEILSON: If I could let help get you out there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a matter of getting our schedules where we have time to go. That's the problem. But we'll definitely be out there for the Town Board meeting in the middle of August. MR. NEILSON: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next field inspection is scheduled for Wednesday, July 13, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next Trustee meeting Wednesday, July 20, 6:00 PM, with a worksession at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approve the minutes of April 20, 2011, and May 18, 2011, meetings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve, and I have a request for one minor correction. Actually, I won't call it a correction because it probably was, I couldn't have been heard on a particular item. I think on page 21, I believe it was a Land Use Ecological Services application of William Turnbull. It was one next to Sound Beach we were discussing they wanted to put up, leave a snow fence up to protect the children, and I might have been slightly inarticulate or someone didn't hear me use the word "uncomfortable." I think I said "1 guess I'm not uncomfortable with trying to find a way to protect the safety of children." And the Minutes came through and made it sound like I had a blatant disregard for the children. I really didn't want that to stand on the public record, and it shows up in two places. It also runs counter to my training as a fireman, so. Board of Trustees 4 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I know your kids all call you a big fat meany. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They already do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, do we have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly repod for May, 2011. A check for $9,354.08 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. liE 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., June 22, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Those applications are listed below. Nicholas Noyes - SCTM#3-2-1 Edward Jurzenia - SCTM#47-2-1 Catherine Marangas - SCTM#107-7-8 Michael Confusione - SCTM#107-7-9 Margaret Molloy- SCTM#59~1-1 Joanne Burr - SCTM#10-4-7.2 Joint Board of Electrical Industries & Cultural Holdings - SCTM#83-2-17.3 Marie Ng - SCTM#111-13-10 David & Libby Ross - SCTM#123-8-24.1 Evan Giniger- SCTM#137-4-14.1 Cutchogue 6213, LLC - SCTM#82-2-3.1 Cutchogue 6291, LLC - SCTM#82-2-3.2 Harold Schwerdt & Patricia Oster - SCTM#77-2-1 Marc Sokol - SCTM#90-3-15&16 Joyce Sampieri - SCTM#118-2-12 New Suffolk Fishing Station, Inc. - SCTM#117-8-17 Michael & Ellen Carbone- SCTM#70-12-34 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions, Administrative Permits, the Board reviewed the following three permits and we have -- they are all simple administrative permits and Board of Trustees 5 June 22,2011 we have no problem with any of them, after reviewing the applications, so therefore I'll make a motion to approve numbers one, two and three, as submitted: Number one, ROBERT KUHNE & VIRGINIA HARMS request an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12" by hand, as needed. Located: 1455 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk. Number two, ALBERT PALUMBO requests an Administrative Permit to cut down a dead tree on the bluff to waist height. Located: 1095 Aquaview Ave., East Marion. Number three, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of ANTHONY & LYNDA LOMANGINO requests an Administrative Permit to install roof mounted photovoltaic solar system onto the southerly roof of the dwelling. Located: 9205 Bay Ave., Cutchogue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on that resolution? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just note number three is exempt under t~ LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, the whole Board reviewed al~ of them and we can lump several of them together. So I'll make a motion we approve numbers one, two, three, four, five, six seven, ten, 11, 12, and 13 as submitted. They are listed as follows: Number one, ARTHUR R. TORELL requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7143, as issued on July 22, 2009 and Amended on May 21, 2010. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport. Number two, Mark Schwartz on behalf of RICHARD & JOANN SAVERESE requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7146, as issued on July 22, 2009. Located: 2575 Old Orchard Lane, East Marion. Number three, John Guido on behalf of MARY MANZl requests a OnehYear Extension to Wetland Permit #7161, as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 405 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold. Number four, John Guido on behalf of JOSEPH G. MANZl, JR. Requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7160, as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 355 Midway Rd., Southold. Number five, Eh-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SCHNOOR/VANDYKE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit/M.017 and Coastal Erosion Permit #2, from Fred Eber to Robed G. Schnoor, Cristing E. VanDyke, Gregory Schnoor and Marie Clair Schnoor. Located: 335 Soundview Rd., Southold. Number six, MARY BURNHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7109 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7109C to increase the size of the proposed two-story addition from 425 square feet to 522 square feet; increase the size of the stand-alone garage from 436.4 square feet to 514 square feet; and increase the size of the deck from 241.8 sf. To 518 sf.; and the outdoor deck/wooden ramp at the garage to be 118.5. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island. Number seven, Frank W. Uellendahl, RA on behalf of JAMES G. ANDERSON & ROSEMARY ELLIS requests an Amendment to Wetland Board of Trustees 6 June 22,2011 Permit #7259 to include an as-built brick patio. Located: 2875 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of PAUL KEBER requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7145 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7145C, as issued on July 22, 2009 and an Amendment to the permits to allow the construction of an 18' return on the east side of the properly. Located: 14345-14349 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. Number 11, R.J. Russell Enterprises, Inc. On behalf of BARRY ROOT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7510 to move the bottom third stringer out of water and use as a back clamp for strength of bulkhead. Located: 6315 Indian Neck Lane, Southold. Number 12, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DOUG & ELLEN ClAMPA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7479 to move the proposed dwelling 10' landward and for new configuration of the proposed swimming pool and terrace. Located: 4380 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. Number 13, John McNamara on behalf of MARGARET MCNAMARA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6642 to install 1/4" high density polyethylene sheathing to the front face of existing 120' bulkhead section and 20' east return. Located: 640 Takaposha Rd., Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on the resolution by the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7245 to extend the previously approved ramp from 9' to 12', reduce the width from 2.5' to 2.1', and add railings to the ramp and fixed dock. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport. The Board has been out to the site several times and we have reviewed this, and we are okay with extending the ramp as long as the total length of the structure does not exceed five feet off the property line. MR. BONTJE: Michael Bontje here on behalf of Mr. Baldwin. If I might have a moment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. BONTJE: I received a call from the Trustees earlier this week, so what I did was took the CAD and I kind of blew up the southern end of the dock. This is a blowup sheet two. I have the dimension of the dock from the property line. The reason being the property line extends sort of in a diagonal to the bottom of the dock. In other words the bottom of the dock is obviously square and the property line kind of goes diagonally off. And there are two dimensions, so it results in two different dimensions. The interior portion of the dock is the dimension at 2'9" and about a quarter of an inch. I went out and measured it, too, and it turns out to about two feet ten-and-a-half, so it's close enough to what we are dealing with Board of Trustees 7 June 22,2011 here in terms of precision. And the outer part of the dock where any boat would be is 4'3", three-and-a-quarter inches, three-and-a-half inches. What I'm wondering is which of those two dimensions could be five feet. The reason is we have a piling we have to attach to, and obviously the more we move it to the north, the closer it is to the end of the dock. So I would like to make the more easterly dimension, the right dimension, the five foot, if I could. This is, the property line kind of goes diagonally out. What I did was I just extend that line with the CAD. And I dimensioned perpendicular, extending out to the front of the dock to the property line is what the perpendicular is. So I get, basically I get two different dimensions because of the angle. But the outer dimension is where the boat will be. The other is basically against the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought the proposal was to move the dock closer to the property line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was what was approved originally. MR. BONTJE: Yes, the 12 foot ramp pushed it about a foot-and-a-half further south. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what we discussed was to pull the dock in about a foot-and-a-half so the ramp just extends further on to the dock, so you don't have the dock going to the property line. MR. BONTJE: Well, right now it is off the property line but if I could, where you might have a potential for conflict would be the boat, which is on the outside. The inside is basically right next to the bulkhead. It's like three or four inches, then you have your pilings and the dock is right up against that. Obviously it's the end of the creek, so you are fairly tight for space, and I'm used to dealing with a foot-and-a-half. I have inches here. Which is one of the reasons the ramp is narrower, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was the neighbor notified of this amendment to the application? MR. BONTJE: No, it said administrative amendment as proposed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not comfortable with moving the dock closer to the property line. I think it's really close to the property line as it is. It's only a couple of feet, and I would rather leave the dock a couple feet off the property line than move it closer to the property line. That's just myself. I'm just thinking of the neighbors; our code plus the neighbors. MR. BONTJE: That has a second part to the question. Which of these dimensions would be the five feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be the one that is closest. MR. BONTJE: The inner dimension. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MR. BONTJE: Again, my only point was we use the outer dimension because it's much easier for the piling, the second piling for attachment, but also there is the potential for any future conflict, which is what I understand you are after, is the outer part of the dock is really a foot forward. The inner part of Board of Trustees 8 June 22, 2011 the dock is so close to the bulkhead, you know, there is really no function to it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't remember what the neighbor was doing. MR. BONTJE: 20 feet to the south, he has a lower sill bulkhead than what you guys approved. But the Iow sill bulkhead begins 20 feet to the south and then he has kind of a regular bulkhead that is being replaced above the high tide, that's 40, 50-years old. But that's 20 feet from the southerly property line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: His property -- MR. BONTJE: Which we show on the main drawing. In other words if you see on the sheet, the original drawing approved, his bulkhead starts here. His bulkhead is 20 feet down, and you guys approved, I don't have the plans, obviously, but he has a Iow sill bulkhead kind of comes up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I remember, there was kind of a little dip down there. MR. BONTJE: There is, yes. I think it might be shown on the pictures. Yes, it's this area of phragmites right here (indicating). That's the southern end of the dock. We pretty well know where the property line is because before he put the bulkhead extension in, I made sure he had it on the survey. So we had a couple of stakes sitting there to make sure we didn't go over the property line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just so everybody is clear, the bulkhead here is not the property line. It's over more. MR. BONTJE: It's a couple of feet down. Well, a foot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that was our confusion when we first looked at it. We said, wait a minute, but then we realized this was the properly line. MR. BONTJE: Yes, it has a slight angle to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have to say, our discussion was to really keep it five feet off. We've really been consistent with that and I think, if I may speak for the whole Board, we really feel we want to stick with that and stay five feet off the property line. MR. BONTJE: The dimension you want to apply that to is the one closer to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOFIERTY: Yes. MR. BONTJE: So what I'll do is have revised plans for you tomorrow. I just wanted to clarify that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to Wetland Permit 7245 to extend the previously approved ramp from nine foot to 12 foot with the condition that the float does not extend any further southeast as originally approved, making sure that the float is no more than -- it's five feet off the property line. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's what's on the original? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what is on the original. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on that resolution? (No response). All in favor? Board of Trustees 9 June 22,2011 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we'll get new drawings. MR. BONTJE: Yes, I'll have them for you tomorrow. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GEORGE & MARIA YATRAKIS requests a One-Year 'Extension to Wetland Permit #7712, as issued on June 24, 2009, and Amended on August 19, 2009, and, requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7712 for the redesign of the swimming pool, to plant the berm with grass, and the revised location of the pool fence. Located: 18805 Soundview Ave., Southold. MS. MOORE: Good evening. How are you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Good evening. MS. MOORE: That pretty much speaks for itself. I know Dr. Yatrakis met with the Board at the site on June 15, I think, and I sent you a letter, I delivered it June 16, kind of going over what he reported back to me were some of the things that you guys discussed. So, well, I guess first is we are asking to extend the permit, just as a matter of course. We have an original permit from June 24, 2009, and that permit was amended when the beach stairs, walkway, the remains of the building, the drainage and the regrading to pitch the property away from the top of the bluff was all included in the amendment. So one is we need the extension. Secondly we are, they -- he finished the house and pool and patio. The building that was close to the bank was removed from the site. And, well, you have the picture. The property is, for the most part, has a heavy band of vegetation, which, unusual for me is to have a client that wants to keep it that way. Usually I'm fighting with the Board and asking for removal of all the invasive plants and doing a lot more, but he's actually happy with that and wants to keep it that way. The issue that he had discussed with the Board at the meeting was he has not yet planted the disturbed area from where the building was. And he wants to plant it. And I don't think you guys realize that the permit had that provision in it already because at the hearing he told me you wanted a planting plan and a permit. And I was like, no, I know the permit had it. So in my letter to you I pointed that out that the original plan had the notes; Dave Chicanowicz did a nice job of showing the area that he would have the right to remove invasive plants and plant. He actually kept it that the way it is and just wants to add the vegetation; in any area that has been disturbed, he wants to revegetate. If you recall, Dr. Yatrakis was concerned about the stability of the bluff long before he built the house, and I actually came, before I got any permits, and we sent a letter to the Board, and he actually planted with beach grass, the bank. So he has been very aggressive here trying to keep the place vegetated and keeping it planted. So he just wants keep in line Board of Trustees 10 June 22,201 I with his ultimate goal of keeping the area as natural as possible and with the vegetation. Let's see what else I have. The rest of the items seem to me that had been worked out at the field inspection. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the angle of the pool and patio was revised prior to construction, and all of those were, the pool and the patio, were actually landward of the permits that you guys granted. And for whatever reason, I don't know if I came to you guys or not, quite frankly, because it's too long ago, but the Building Department felt that it was an insignificant change and not one that necessitated an amendment of the permit prior to doing the construction. But I know how the Board fee~s about having permits that are, you know, that match what is there on site, and so we are amending that as well, making sure that all the paperwork is done and future owners don't have problems by seeing a permit that doesn't match what is there. I think that's it and I would be happy to hear what you have to say, and I'm here to listen, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we did indeed go out and take a look at it, noting that the berm as we understood it was going to be built, wasn't. We do note that essentially they re-graded the backyard and, you know, it rises up, and certainly there is a rise where the hay bale line was of about a foot or so. MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sure you saw, and I think he tried to explain it to you. The pool, the grade of the pool and the patio is at a certain grade, and the soil tapers off from there, and when they built the drainage -- the important thing here was having the drainage landward of the bluff. That's, that really, the whole thing is geared for that, is maintaining the drainage. So the drainage system is there and it's exactly as it was designed and it's not -- you know, berms are an interesting thing. In our own mind a berm can be four-feet high or it can be a couple inches. The way this berm is designed, it's really a very subtle gradation that it pitches up; the high point is where the vegetation is and the Iow point is where the drainage is, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did -- Lori just reminded me, this is not a hearing, so I'm not supposed to be even taking that kind of comments. The Board was out there, we did discuss it. You know, the berm was not quite what we expected or what we felt was on the plans. We did note that the house was taken out. There was no damage done. There is a non-disturbance buffer area that was established in the course of the hearing and as part of the permit. Mr. Yatrakis has asked us to be permitted to remove a bunch of vegetation, to replant the whole area going from one edge of the property to the other. We did discuss the the possibility of allowing for a 30-foot area in width to be replanted. But I think -- I don't know how the Board felt. I felt that, you know, aside from replanting the plants in that section where the small cabin was removed, we established these buffers, you know, deliberately and it was all part of the original discussion. And I'm not so moved to allow for the Board of Trustees 11 June 22,2011 amendments, myself. MS. MOORE: But I actually, if you read the permit that you issued, it has remove invasive species and plant. And it gives you all the list of plants. So he's actually did less than what he was permitted to do, and all he's asking -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What the permit does say is there will be no disturbance seaward of the line of staked hay bales without further review by the Board of Trustees. And is depicted on the site plan of that date. And that's what we are talking about. We are talking about being in a no-disturbance area seaward of the line of staked hay bales. MS. MOORE: This is his son. Mr. Yatrakis is at a wedding -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry, I'm not predisposed to accept testimony. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not a public hearing. MS. MOORE: I think you are misunderstanding. He's not removing anything. He wants to plant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And you are saying that -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, he specifically said out in the field he wanted to remove a bunch of stuff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He was very specific. MS. MOORE: I thought it was to take out the weeds that had generated in the area of disturbance. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: No, it's in the area of non-disturbance. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. Disturbance being -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I'm going to move -- MS. MOORE: Excuse me. I think you are being extremely rude -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is not a public hearing. MS. MOORE: (Continuing) when we are trying to discuss an application that there seems to be a misunderstanding. MS. HULSE: The problem is, Pat, is this is not scheduled for a public hearing. If you want to apply for a full permit, that's another story. We are accepting testimony now on something that is not a public hearing. MS. MOORE: It's not testimony. I'm trying to understand it because what he talked about removing, and there may have been a miscommunication -- MS. HULSE: It does not sound like a miscommunication. It sounds like you are advocating a position and it sounds like you are testifying. MS. MOORE: No, I'm trying to explain -- I have a letter from him and I'll be happy to present it. You have the area that was disturbed when the shed was removed, okay. That's the area I'm talking about. Not the entire property. Just the area, and it's the box where the foundation was. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You see those stakes (indicating). That is the area. That is it. MS. MOORE: All right, but do you see the weeds that are propagated there? TRUSTEE GHQSIO: I see what is growing in what was a non-disturbance zone, yes. Board of Trustees 12 June 22,201 I MS. MOORE: Okay, what he's saying is instead of leaving those weeds, which will die in the winter, and not create a deep-rooted, stabilized condition, he wants to do what his permit told him to do, which is plant the perennials from the list, the approved, deep-rooted, self-propagating perennials. That was it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not what the permit says. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know where you are reading from, but that's not what the permit said. MS. MOORE: I'm reading the -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but that was not part of the permit. That's in our file but that's not what the permit said. MS. MOORE: Yes, it is. The language that I quoted is on the plan that you accepted, and you said you have to do this project in accordance with this plan. And that's what he's trying to do. It's hard for me to understand why a person is not allowed to plant to maintain the stability of his property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reviewing this plan. This is the plan that was stamped. MS. MOORE: Yes. And it's right there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That little square that we talked about here. This is the plan that is signed. That is approved. MS. MOORE: No, there is another one. The blue paper. That's why. I think that's the problem. There are two plans that are approved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Perusing). MS. MOORE: There was one prepared by Dave Chicanowicz. That's where I took all the language from that I quoted. And it's right there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have it now. We had a different planting plan. That's what the confusion is here. We have a planting plan in the file that shows re-planting of the whole entire area. MS. MOORE: I had that, too. That's not the one that got stamped. There is another one, but it says pretty much the same thing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't. MS. MOORE: I took the language right from that particular plan. I even took it out of -- here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Give us a minute to review. MS. MOORE: I'm just going to highlight because, the language is here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the plan in front of us. Just let us read it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The hay bale line is in the right spot. The berm was never built the way we assumed it was going to be built and the way the plan shows. So that was one issue. The issue where the existing shed was supposed to be removed is fine. Now, there was an area which was, which is really the area, not the whole hatched area, just the area where the shed was to be removed, we were going to allow to be replanted. The area of non-disturbance, which we state in the resolution, is not to be re-planted without coming to Board first. MS. MOORE: I'm looking at this drawing. It's Dave Chicanowicz's drawing. He has highlighted this area, which is area to be removed of invasive vegetation and replant with native Board of Trustees 13 June 22,2011 plants. He has a list of native plants. This is where the shed is removed from the small area there, which is specific because we came into the Board and asked, included in the permit because we knew there was going to be disturbance in there. So that came out. As far as the berm, well, I mean, it's graded. To add more dirt to that berm seems like it's not necessary. But he would have to bring in fill to make that berm more pronounced. Right now the grade is pitched in order to bring the water back into the drainage. So you have to decide if you want us to bring more soil in to make that berm larger, so be it. But right now it's designed to bring all the water in and pitch it into the drainage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured in the field a 25x30 foot area, whJch was inclusive of the area that the pre-existing shed was. And I don't have a problem letting him remove the invasive plants and re-planting that in that specific area. And then making it non -- and not disturbing it after that. Making it a -- keeping it as a non-turf area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-disturbed area or non-turf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I struggle using the word "non-disturbed" because it's disturbed already. That's why I'm quibbling on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't have a problem removing those invasive species and putting the native species there, according to the plants specified in the planting plan, but not according to this whole planting plant. Not the whole area. Just the 25x30 area that we discussed in the field. I would like to see new plans. It would have to be on the survey. It would have to be on the survey. And also I know they mentioned they wanted to gate the stairs. I don't have a problem with them putting a gate across the stairs going down to the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we haven't discussed the pool fence relocation yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pool fence relocation, I think we decided to keep it at 25. MS. MOORE: But instead of going the perimeter around the pool, because of the way the patio is designed, go diagonally across the properly, parallel to the top of the bank. So it's going, the fence, I think there is fence along the property line, both property lines, so you are actually taking the fence and connecting it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We mentioned the fence on the current hay bale line. MS. MOORE: Yes, but the current hay bale line is not quite right at 25. It was actually landward. So a new hay bale line, if one was necessary, was going to be at the 25 feet. In either case you said 25 feet, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 25 feet from the patio. Which is now not a straight line across. It's a diagonal line. MS. MOORE: It was 25 from the bluff, not the patio, wasn't it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: According to the approved plan, the line of Board of Trustees 14 June 22, 2011 staked hay bales - MS. MOORE: Sorry, you're right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the patio. MS. MOORE: I apologize, you're right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think we are okay with the fence being on that new diagonal line instead of straight across, but at 25 feet from the existing patio. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE KING: I agree with you. I don't have a huge issue with that small area to be replanted and revegetated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be a little bigger than where the four stakes are. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 30x30. TRUSTEE KING: 30X30 is what we measured. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 25x30 is in the notes. 25 out toward the water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were talking about maybe going 30x30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think this has to be specifically staked out so we are all in agreement exactly what the area is we are talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not only staked out, but put on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Staked out and put on the survey so both the applicant and the Trustees are very clear so we don't have problem afterwards with a misinterpretation of what was decided. MS. MOORE: I guess my only question on that is when I come in for a permit and ask for a permit and get one, why are we now taking away what the person has? That's what I don't understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a permit, I'll be honest with you. The permit that you have makes absolutely no reference to that planting plan that just brought up here. MS. MOORE: It absolutely does. You have to follow Creative Environmental Designs drawings from August 18, 2009. That's the one that I actually, I mean it's in the town's -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our permit says April, 2009. And that's this plan. It doesn't say -- MS. MOORE: No, it said August. It said August 18, 2009. Or August 19. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing)..That's the beach, that's June. MS. MOORE: Here it is. Let me look. It's your August 19, 2009, Trustees Permit, and it says install drainage, re-grade, do all that in accordance with Creative Environmental Designs plan, last dated August 18, 2009, stamped approved August 19, 2009. So I mean -- and the plan, it's funny, I had the same thing, I had another plan, but the one that the computer picked up in the town records is the one I'm showing you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what you are reading is from the amendment that was submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reading the original permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's approve the amendment to the Wetland Permit 7712 to construct stairs to beach, bluestone on sand walkway to the top of the beach stairs, remove remains of existing building, install drainage structure and regrade pitch Board of Trustees 15 June 22,2011 properly away from the top of the bank, as depicted on the plan. So in that amendment, it does not address any of that planting. MS. MOORE: Of course it does. You are following a plan that you, that says it all. The only issue was whether or not to plant the needed plants on the graded, on that berm, because since he has such a thick, natural, buffer there, it seemed crazy to plant on top of that grade. He wanted to plant grass there. That's it. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I think some of the problem here, this Board is very gun shy of what is going on with these we are going to just take a few invasive species out and all of a sudden we go back out there and the whole place is clearcut. That's why we are being very cautious with this application. MS. MOORE: And I was privy and involved with many of the applications that have caused problems in the past. I came in after the fact, obviously. And this particular applicant, we had the plans show it specifically so that there would be no question that we are only touching -- we even identified the trees that had to stay. And that's what -- and he has not touched anything, obviously, there. So he's actually following all your rules but he's being penalized in the same way that -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't do the berm as per this plan. MS. MOORE: It's pitched. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's pitched, but he didn't do it as per this plan. MS. MOORE: It hasn't been planted yet, that's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But there is no berm there. He hasn't done the berm yet. MS. MOORE: We keep going back and forth. It's the pitching of the water, not on abundance of soil that is necessary there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suggest we table this because I have further -- now that we had some further discussion on it. The reason being, as I recall from the testimony when we did the original on this, that berm was specifically discussed and it was set up to be a certain height, certain width. There was testimony -- MS. MOORE: If you want more soil, he'll give it to you. He's trying to live in a house that -- MS. HULSE: Pat, just let him finish. MS. MOORE: I think he's trying to penalizing the applicant for -- MS. HULSE: You are totally muddying up the record. He's trying to make a record. Just let him finish. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a case where the permit and the amendment that we approved -- the intent was one thing, the drawing that was approved did have something on there about the plan, but it was never discussed. It's not even, those plantings were not part of that amendment. Though we did stamp the plan approved. I just want to be diligent in how we approach this. Because the last time we went down this primrose path we ended up with a bluff that was completely wiped out. In this particular case when we were out in the field, the applicant was specifically asking us to clear part of what we thought was supposed to be a non-disturbance buffer. I just Board of Trustees 16 June 22,2011 want to be very clear on this. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, that is not true. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hang on. Excuse me. Excuse me. What Bob is saying -- MS. MOORE: There is a misunderstanding. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Bob is saying is let's table this for further discussion. MS. MOORE: You are penalizing the applicant who is waiting for a CO. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I haven't finished. What Bob is suggesting is we table this application now for further discussion so we can work this out at the proper place. This is only an amendment -- MS. MOORE: But you are tabling one month of a person who is waiting for a CO for a summer home that if you separated it from this project so he could get a CO, no problem, you can talk this until you are blue in the face, he won't do anything until you bless it. But the problem you have is when you do those kind of things, you delay a person's ability to live in their house for a full month. MS. HULSE: You know, Pat, this is actually outrageous that you are continuing this conversation. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I have -- MS. HULSE: This is -- Pat, I understand you are advocating very strongly for your client. MS. MOORE: I'm advocating for my client because -- MS. HULSE: This is not appropriate for this particular application that they are hearing. They have stated what their intention is to do. You can argue it after the fact. You can't do this. This is not a public hearing. You have no right to be heard right now. Do you understand that? MS. MOORE: I do have a right to be heard. MS. HULSE: They've given you a full 20 minutes, probably more. MS. MOORE: Because there was a misunderstanding. MS. HULSE: I understand that, but it's not going to be rectified right now. That's what they are saying. So let them made their decision. MS. MOORE: Can we clear up the record? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we table this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, if I may. I would like to separate this out so that we are granting the one-year extension that they are asking for, and to table the requested amendment. That way they get the extension for one year because, what, in a matter of a week that permit runs out. So what I would like to do is grant the one-year extension for them, so that that is done. And then table the amendment. MS. MOORE: May I just clear one issue? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll withdraw the original motion. MS. MOORE: Just one issue. Because I think you misunderstand his intention. He doesn't want to clear the area, he wants to leave it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll work that out when we discuss it at a later date. Board of Trustees 17 June 22,2011 (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are willing to make a concession. MS. HULSE: You are not being recognized to speak. Please. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to move on. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are willing to make a concession. MS. HULSE: Please stop, sir. You are not helping your cause here, sir. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is -- we need to discuss this at the proper time. This is not the proper place. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It's been three years. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the extension of the permit. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Arbitrary and capricious. Completely arbitrary and capricious. MS. MOORE: I would file my objection to this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob is in the middle of a motion. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion we extend the permit as requested. We'll do two separate motions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we table the amendment that has been applied for so we can do further research on this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any opposed? (No response). MS. MOORE: I would state my objection to how you treat people when they are looking for a CO. And I have the -- MS. HULSE: Pat, it's closed. It's not even on the record. It's closed. VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Moorings. Number one, SANDRA SINCLAIR requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake in Narrow River for a boat no larger than 18', replacing Stake #6. Access: Public. That was reviewed by the Board and there was no problem with getting that boat in there. I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to go off regular hearing and go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: Board of Trustees 18 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public hearing portion of the agenda. If you do want to speak, please come to the mic and state your name and speak cleady in five minutes or less, please. Under coastal erosion permits, number one, Tom Quarry on behalf of MARGARET MALLOY requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the existing deck framing, decking, and handrails, and install new stairs. Located: 1200 Leeton Dr., Southold. This is consistent under LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council suppods the application with the condition the area seaward of the deck is left as a non-disturbance area: The whole area is a non-turf area. It's a beach area. So I assume the Conservation Advisory Council means to just leave it as it is. MR. QUARTY: Excuse me, Jill, I have some return receipts. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Thank you. MR. QUARTY: And the CAC -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's just a CAC recommendation. They support it with the condition everything is just left, the property is left as it is, as far as the plantings. If you could step back to the mic, I'll recognize you. The Board felt this was pretty much a straightforward application and it meets the requirements under Coastal Erosion of 111-9. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. QUARTY: Tom Quarty. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions from the Board on this? (No response). TRUSTEE D©HERTY: It's basically a rebuild of what is there TRUSTEE KING: What's the square footage of the deck; do you know? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Tom, do you know the square footage of the deck? MR. QUARTY: Offhand, I don't. No. It should be in the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The deck is surrounding the whole house, so. 1,650 it says. No that's area wetland. Sorry. I don't know if he has the square footage. While Jay is looking that over, is there any other questions? (No response). Do you want to do this one? Here is the survey. If you would rather do that. One inch equals 30. MR. QUARTY: I'm guessing it's probably around eight or nine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, Tom, what did you say? MR. QUARTY: I'm guessing it's probably around eight-hundred square feet. If that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, there are no questions. Hearing no further questions, is there anybody from the audience who has any questions on this application? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. It was found consistent, I mentioned that. And it meets Chapter 111-9 requirements of the Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Tom Quady on behalf of Margaret Malloy as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on the motion? Board of Trustees 19 June 22,201 l (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of NICHOLAS NOYES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to rebuild 600+/- square foot of wood patio deck including existing perimeter bench and new post supported cable rail. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island. This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. The structure is not water dependent and does not meet criteria A and B above, which was listed. The Conservation Advisory Council, I don't think they made an inspection. It's on Fishers Island. Wait a minute, hang on. They did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. NIELSON: I'm here to speak on behalf of the applicant and the application. I'm Keith Nietson from Docko, Inc. Before I make my opening comments I would just like to hand in the receipts that have been received. I have prepared sketch plans and the application documents following the LWRP and the Tidal Wetlands regulations and the Coastal Erosion plan for the town, and basically what the Noyes family would like to do is rebuild a deck that has existed at this site for approximately 30 years, which preexisted the Coastal Management Act. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, I'm just pointing something out to Jim. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. MR. NIELSON: The deck system will be rebuilt using similar timbers to the existing post-supported framing, and although substituting augured posts for the concrete blocks that the deck sits on. Same sort of timber framing, same decking, same perimeter bench that the deck supports at this point. One difference is the International Building Code requires railings for any type of structure that exceeds 30 inches of drop off, and so I have explained to the Noyes family that in my opinion I believe they should have a rail around the outer edge of the deck. In order to minimize esthetic impacts, although no one from the adjacent properties can really see this structure, the esthetic impact from their own perspective was a consideration. So it would be cable rails. Just enough as a safety precaution. And other than that it would be the same exact structure that is out there now. I have prepared a sketch which shows a section and two profiles and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KING: Those cable rails meet the requirements as necessary? MR. NIELSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keith, are there any existing permits on this deck? MR. NIELSON: It was my understanding this was built with a building permit with the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approximately when was that? MR. NIELSON: 30 years ago. The house was actually built in the late '60s, I believe. TRUSTEE KING: We have all been out there, been to the residence, Board of Trustees 20 June 22,2011 if I remember right. Because we did some things out front, placing stones. Is there anybody else here to comment on this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keith, do you have a record of that building permit? MR. NIELSON: I do not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we do not have a record of that in the file. And it's just, this is something under Coastal Erosion that is not permitted. And if you could prove to us that you had a pre-existing permit from the Building Department prior to Trustees jurisdiction, that might, you know, that would change the way we can review this. However, with no proof that there was any kind of permit, under our Coastal Erosion Code we cannot permit a deck like that. MR. NIELSON: Given the continued operation of -- TRUSTEE KING: With the other one, we didn't ask to see any -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, because that was not as large as this. TRUSTEE KING: That was the reason I asked, because I'm a little confused. This has been found inconsistent under Coastal Erosion. The previous application was found consistent. This is a smaller deck than the previous application. I don't understand it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand the inconsistency, if the previous one we just reviewed was found consistent. The previous one was right on the beach. It's a much larger deck than this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought the difference was one was being totally reconstructed and one was being repaired, and that's what Mark was reviewing. I thought that was the difference. Is that how -- Lori, do you know? MS. HULSE: I don't know the other one you are talking about. I'm not sure specifically, but this is considered new construction if he doesn't have a permit for it. It's an unpermitted structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The previous one we just approved, I don't think we had permits either. They were applying to repair. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to be consistent with the way we are handling the applications. MS. HULSE: I don't know if it has permits or not. Does that no have permits; is that what you are saying? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And Mark found this consistent. MS. HULSE: I can't speculate on what Mark -- I can't speculate on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just going by what this report says. TRUSTEE KING: It's confusing to me. This is, this is 600-square feet. The previous one was around eight, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm only speculating one is repair and one is replace. And that's the difference. MS. HULSE: You could be right about that, Jill. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I interpreted. One is a repair and this is replace. And I think we need to limit our conversations to this particular application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. But I understand where Jim is coming from. He's just trying to understand where Mark is coming from, and I believe where Mark is coming from is one is repair and one Board of Trustees 21 June 22,2011 is replace. MS. HULSE: Aside from LWRP there is no new construction allowed, so when you are assessing this situation I don't know how you would approve something that is not permitted with new construction. TRUSTEE KING: Is this deck going to be completely removed and then completely replaced? MR. NIELSON: The part of the structure that needs to be tended to is about -- well, some of the framing supporting the deck. The decking is good. The benches are good. TRUSTEE KING: You might be further ahead to apply for this as repair rather than complete removal. MR. NIELSON: Does that mean I need to withdraw this application here tonight or can I modify it here with you? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori? MS. HULSE: What exactly does he want to modify? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would need a new review -- he wants to change this to a repair and not a full reconstruction. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't have to be completely removed. It's being like reconstructed, so -- MR. NIELSON: It could be repaired, the supports -- MS. HULSE: I'm not ~ooking at the plans, I'm just looking at the wording. It says "rebuild six-hundred square feet." That to me is no. Right out of the gate. TRUSTEE KING: He's asking now if I he could modify now at this hearing. MS. HULSE: No, he can't modify it right now and change the wording and say it's okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he has to withdraw this application and reapply. MS. HULSE: I'm assuming the plans will change somewhat; am I correct? MR. NIELSON: The plans will change somewhat, yes. MS. HULSE: Okay, then I guess we have to wait for new plans and re-evaluate it. And maybe get a new LWRP in and clarify it. TRUSTEE KING: It would make me feel better. MR. NIELSON: Do I withdraw or it or do we table it? MS. HULSE: You'll want to withdraw it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Withdraw it is the recommendation I would make. MR. NIELSON: Okay. We respectfully request we withdraw this application, and I'll see you in a month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MS. HULSE: Do you want to request that the fees be applied to the new application? MR. NIELSON: Yes, thank you TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to answer the question, I looked back at the Malloy file just to see what the difference was, and he does point out on the plans, removing this post, removing that post, rebuilding this part of the deck. So it was a rebuild - or repair, actually. TRUSTEE KING: You understand my confusion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it was a repair. Board of Trustees 22 June 22, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we move on? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Richard Principi, Jr., on behalf of GILDA PRINClPI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling; remove existing dwelling including sanitary system and drainage structures and restore area with grass and natural vegetation; and clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff. Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic. This is an application that was found consistent under the LWRP. This is an application with the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed it, resolved to support the application with the condition the vegetation is native and the angle of repose of the bluff edge is corrected. This is an application that has come before this Board the last couple of months, and what we can do here, if the president wishes, as we did last month, open this one and open the second one and consider them simultaneously, or would you prefer we do them separately? TRUSTEE D©HERTY: That's fine. We can open them both together. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so we are opening the Gilda Pdncipi application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the next application which we are opening simultaneously is for Richard J. Principi, Jr., on behalf of VINCENT CURTO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling; remove existing dwelling including sanitary and drainage structures and restore areas with grass and natural vegetation; and clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff. Located: 4730 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic. The facts in this application are the same as just outlined in the Principi. There is a CAC report recommending the application with the support based on a planting plan of native vegetation and the angle of the repose of the bluff edge is corrected. The application has been deemed consistent with the town's LWRP and the Trustees have been out there a number of times for site inspections. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Prior to getting to testimony, I would also like the applicant and the Board to know we received a letter since last month, dated June 15, from a Diana Van Buren. And I'll read in part the letter. Sorry. It was not from a Diana Van Buren. It's hard to read the signature. It looks like Rose L-E-A-T-E-R. And it says while visiting Peconic I was shown a number of cliff swallow nests on the bluffs of Long Island Sound. Are cliff swallows a protected species. My friend tells me the properties at 4730 and 4690 Horizon Bluff are heavily regraded and defoliated in an attempt to build new dwellings without permission. So the question is because this application includes work on the bluff, are cliff swallows a protected species. And while the Board was out there we did notice a large number of cliff swallows in the immediate area. Now, last month when this was before us, we had a question Board of Trustees 23 June 22,2011 regarding what was stated as top of bluff on the plans, and from the discussion where the actual top of bluff was going to end up. So we asked the applicant to please stake the top of bluff, previous top of bluff and new proposed top of bluff. The Board did go out and looked at this and has seen it now. And our understanding is that there was going to be a revised set of plans possibly submitted tonight to reflect that. Do we have a copy of that? MR. JILNICKh John Jilnicki, for the applicant. Yes, we have sets of the revised plans for you tonight. Basically, as you know, this is just a plan for a bluff regrading and stabilization and revegetation, and you'll see from the plans it's a proposal to install hay bales and silt fencing both on the toe of the bluff and hundred foot setback from the proposed top of the bluff to limit any intrusion into the adjoining areas. This plan, basically the property has some vegetation on the bluff, not much. A lot of it is invasive. This plan involves removing the existing vegetation, regrading the bluff, take the steep slopes off the bluff and then stabilizing it with appropriate species of vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I interrupt you. Just for a matter of record, do we have a permission in the file saying you can act on behalf of Mr. Principi? Because the application is applied Richard Principi on behalf of Gilda Principi. MR. JILNICKI: I'm his attorney. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a note in the file? MR. JILNICKI: No, this is my first night appearing before you. MS. HULSE: We can accept it tonight pending authorization. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mr. Principi is sitting right there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't see him. Mr. Principi, if you could state for the record he could act on your behalf? MR. PRINClPI: Sorry. Yes, John Jilnicki can speak for both applications. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification for legalities, there is an authorization giving John Condon and Richard Principi permission, so with yQu having permission, you have now given permission to this gentleman to speak on your behalf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now we have the record straight, you can continue. MR. JILNICKh To answer your questions, basically, it's best to have Mr. Stromski explain the details of the plans to you, if you have any questions to the proposed plans. You should have both the revegetation plan and regrading plan. It should be two sheets there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to just give us a minute to review this. MR. JILNICKh There is a profile up at the top that shows a regrading of the bluff, the part of the bluff that would be removed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would like to go ahead and finish up. MR. STROMSKh My name is Robert Stromski, I'm the principle and Board of Trustees 24 June 22,2011 president of Stromski Architecture PC. I was asked to be involved with the project, basically with the discussion of the regrading of the bluff and re-vegetation of the area. Working with Marlin Hand from Hands on Surveying, and a group of landscape architects. Since the previous meeting Martin Hand went out and did a retopo of the current bluff as it sits. From that retopography it was determined that elevation, existing elevation of 23, was basically the midpoint of the existing bluff, and also at the point where the existing grade starts to generally get steeper from the erosion that happened over the last winter. So what we determined is that was going to be the starting point of the regrading. As our recommendations, you know, our professional recommendation along with Martin Hand and the landscape architects, is we felt offsetting that elevation 23 40 feet landward basically creates a slope of 52-and-a-half percent, which is just slightly below a normal angle of repose for the soil that we have in that area. Buy creating that slope we feel that we'll be able to stabilize that bluff by doing a simple seed mixture and hand raking that in, and the seed mixture is depicted in the planting plans. Once that seed mixture is hand raked in, a layer of jute mesh would be placed on top of that to help protect the seedlings and then plug plantings would be done in a random pattern basically on a two-foot on center, and that would be pulled from the planting schedule. Once that is done we would also take some of the larger shrubs, which are the two to three foot balls and plant them every 48 inches on center, basically creating a more natural state with the native plantings that we have. That sort of planting scheme would happen from the existing bottom of bluff to the new proposed top of bluff. Once that is done, actually before all the construction is done, we are proposing to put a silt fence and hay bales along the bottom of the bluff, basically to ensure that are not allowing the bluff during the grading process to move seaward. Also from the proposed top of bluff we are setting silt and fence hay bales 100 foot back from the new proposed top of bluff, basically trying to create a work zone that we are going to be within. Then as for the recommendation last month, from that proposed top of bluff we would offset a 50-foot setback. Within that 50 foot setback we propose a non-turf buffer, basically, again, which is a mixture of seedlings from the seed mixture that would be hand raked in, and also what we have done is on the planting plan you can see we have done some planting islands. Looking to save some of the existing larger cherry trees that are within that area, they are depicted on the site plan. Also around that area we are looking to introduce some larger shrubs of shadlo and also some eastern red cedars along the property edges. And then next to some of those existing eastern red cedars we are looking to do some native shrubs of Board of Trustees 25 June 22,2011 some northern bayberry and also some shining sumac. Basically create some sort of the plantings islands that were requested at the last meeting. Beyond that, you know, we feel once this is done, we feel the bluff would be returned to more of a stable state than what it is now. We feel that after this planting is done, which is a pretty aggressive planting, that we would pretty much try and return that bluff to a resemblance of a natural state. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. First off, thank you for doing this. This does answer many of the questions we had last month. It helps clarify this with the fact that we had asked for the bluff to be pulled back. So that that will provide some material for you for this, for what is eventually going to be a re-grade of the bluff. We had asked last month if you had approximately, if you knew approximately how much fill will have to be brought in to regrade this bluff as per these plans. And we'll start with the Principi proper~y and then move to the Curto property. MR. STROMSKI: We did an analysis, it will be end up being almost a balance between the cut and the fill. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the cut and what will drop down from the cut. MR. STROMSKI: Correct. The only area that will be in question wil~ be the two foundations that will be removed, but there will be spoil generated from the excavation from the two new structures to kind of reclaim that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember that from the testimony last month that wou~d be the material would be retained from the new structures to fill in what is the present basement foundation areas for the old structures. MR. STROMSKI: Right. The only fill that may be brought in, once we start doing an excavation of the bluff, depending on how much sandy soil we have, we may have to mix in some peat moss as we do the plug plantings and maybe some sandy loam materia~ just to create more of a stable bluff area. ©nce we do an initial watering of the soil, we don't want to have just pure sand because that will just drain quickly and we want to be able to have the plantings that we have stabilize themselves. So there, may be a little bit of peat moss and sandy loam mixture that may be mixed in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is your guess of "a little bit"? MR. STROMSKI: Again, the hope is that we'll use the soil from the existing area, from the excavation of the homes and the work at the top of the bluff. So again, it's more of a cut and fill. We are not trying to import new material. We are looking to use the existing material on site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I was looking at the plans as you were talking, but I thought I heard you say jute matting was to be used on the bluffwith the plantings. MR. STRQMSKI: Yes, jute mesh will be placed once the slope is stabilize and the seeds are raked in. Board of Trustees 26 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a great idea. On the planting plan it shows, on the Principi property, proposed path to beach stairs, yet the beach stairs are over on the Curto property. I was wondering, it seems like you have a proposed path to nowhere. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. STROMSKI: I know in the future there is going to be a proposed beach stair for that property, so the intent was if we are doing the planting, to basically create a path that will eventually go to stairs, rather than have something established and then have to go back and take it out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we talked in the field that the existing stairs would be used by both properties and that you would not have to build another set of stairs. I thought that was a conversation in the field. MR. PRINCIPI: No, we have the first application for my aunt's property you were nice enough to grant a stair permit subject to DEC for that. And, you know, she would like it in the future. Right now, you know, we didn't want to hold the removal of the two structures, you know, I would come in for a second or in this instance a third application, whatever you recommend. I just, in the future, she would like to have her own stairs on her own property. As my cousin Vincent, too TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, for clarity, that's the Curto property is the one you are proposing stairs to the beach on this plan here. MR. PRINCIPI: No, there is kind of a failed set of stairs there now. That would remain in that location. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. PRINCIPI: With your approval. But we were going to propose, my aunt's, pretty much where Robert called it out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I want to clarify. I guess, understand is, with if there is an approval here tonight, I don't want to jump the gun, but if there is an approval here tonight I would not want you to suppose that there will be approval in the future for another set of plans. That will have to be submitted and that application will have to be discussed and decided on separately from this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I would suggest, the reason one of the other things we had a long discussion on tonight, that if we do approve this set of plans, at least strike the proposed path to the beach stairs so there can be no questions as to what our intentions were. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. I was going to suggest that TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else who wants to speak for or against this application? MS. BURKE: I did not personally visit this site. I'm just concerned about two of the points. I mean the wording in these two, on the agenda are fairly similar. The one part says clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff. Is that being re-planted in the plan? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, this is what we spent a lot of time on last month was that the concern when we hear about clearing and what Board of Trustees 27 June 22,2011 will be done to revegetate. So, yes, the Board did discuss this last month and the planting plan shows that the areas will be re-planted as per the plan, approximately four foot on center with native species. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that was one of our clarifications, we wanted a new survey. On this new survey they submitted now it shows the limits of clearing. The new construction is way beyond the 100 feet and it doesn't show clearing all the way down. It shows the clearing more precise. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good pick up. MS. BURKE: Okay. And the other point says they are removing drainage structures. Are there new drainage structures being put in as well? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, yes, as per the Building Depadment they'll have to provide drainage for the new structures, but since that is outside our jurisdiction, these proposed new structures are outside our jurisdiction, so that is not within the purview of this Board here tonight. But I'm sure the Building Department as a condition of building will require them to comply with Chapter 236 of the Town Code, which is drainage MS. BURKE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? And again I'm dealing just with the Principi application. We'll get to Curto one next. (No response). Now, I do need to address this new letter that was brought up regarding the concern for the cliff swallows because we did notice when we were out there, a large number of cliff swallow. So what I'll propose to the Board is in the condition for the permit that the applicant provide us with documentation from the Audubon Society or another recognized avian specialist organization that cliff swallows are not a protected species and if they could provide that to us then we can be satisfied we don't have to the worry about cliff swallows as being protected species. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I might add, conditions surrounding their nesting sites and protections afforded them during construction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that would be very difficult for the ~. applicant to protect individual nesting sites. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sometimes it's temporal. In other words you don't conduct activities during the nesting season because these areas, of course we know of the evulsion of the Sound bank, these areas do provide a series of nesting sites during the course of these storm events, but then subsequent activities, just as long as they are not taking place and disrupting during the nesting season, then the nesting can take place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to suggest, why don't we subject it to that they can't do the work on the bluff during the nesting season. Wait until the nesting season is over. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask then what's an appropriate date for the nesting season? MR. JILNICKI: Shouldn't you have some evidence there are Board of Trustees 28 June 22,2011 actually nests on the property before you preclude them from working? They said they observed a lot of swallows. They didn't say anything about having any nests on the property at all, frankly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We observed the -- MR. JILNICKI: Swallow nests, specifically on the property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't go down the cliff and look in the holes, no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was impossible for anybody to go down that cliff due to the condition of that bluff. Nobody could transverse that bluff. It would be dangerous. So there is no way we or anybody could go down that bluff. TRUSTEE KING: I have seen these in other areas, you get the under cut of the bluff and they build their nests. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The time we are there and the great numbers we have and they are known as colonial nesters, the great presumption is they actually have nests there right at this time. MR. JILNICKI: So what would be the limitations? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think Trustee Bergen articulated the potential that we would have to rely to some expert advice. MR. JILNICKI: So that's something we should provide you with information on? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Find out when they are fledged and at that point once you provide that to us we could go with the expert's opinion on it. MR. JILNICKI: Subject to protocol, okay. We can do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We might have the answer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A Google search. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. (Perusing). 'TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think for the record, just to make it easier, we would need it provided by you in writing so we can have it in the file. MS. HULSE: Did you want to make the letter you referred to part of the record? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sorry. That was submitted and I would like to make that part of the record. MR. JILNICKI: Sorry, what was going in the record? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The letter that I read, just to make sure the reporter has it as part of the record. MR. JILNICKI: Hopefully the proposed reconstruction will actually foster places for the birds to nest, once it's done. Without that, we are hoping it doesn't slide down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that, not hearing any other comments -- MR. JILNICKI: Before you close, can I just ask, since the swallow portion is kind of an unknown factor right now. Is there, and we don't know what the time limit would be on it, but is there a way to kind of split the approval to take the buildings out at least, and maybe stay away from the bluff during a certain period of time? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, the buildings themselves are non-jurisdictional for us. MR. JILNICKI: The existing ones. Just thinking that if we can't Board of Trustees 29 June 22, 2011 touch the bluff area for a period of time maybe it's possible to do some other work outside of the nesting areas, wherever they may be. MR. JILNICKI: Just a thought. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Any other comments? (No response). If not, we'll move, we won't close this yet until we finish up with the Curto application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to the Vincent Curto application. The letter is the one in the same that we have entered into the record concerning the swallows, also was addressed to this file. Elements that we just discussed pedaining to this fi~e as well. At this time I'll open this hearing to any comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, it's the same survey in each file, for both properties. MR. JILNICKI: Yes. Basically everything described for the Principi plan will be applied to this site as well. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing any additional comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just a comment of the proposed path to the beach to be taken off the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the Principi property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, as well. So there is no confusion as to whether it was permitted or not. MR. JILNICKI: I understand. No objection to that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have every right to come in and apply for a set of stairs later on. MR. JILNICKk Right. Removing for the purposes of this approval and not take anything kind of agreement that he may or may not have rights to that existing. I'm just, with regard to this proposal and plan, if he wants to come in at a future time and reconstruct the staircase he'll make a separate application to the Board at that point, for each property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we just want to make clear, a lot of times when we go from approval to here, we have an understanding in this room and then the contractor sees it and says, oh, path to beach, we'll build stairs. MR. JILNICKI: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we are trying not to have that happen. MR. JILNICKI: Understood. MR. PRINCIPI: Can I address the Board about the Curio stairs. I know they are there. They are obviously on the bluff. Would that be included in this permit to rebuild in kind there or do I need a separate application for my cousin? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Speaking for myself, I would say a separate application because we don't have a set of plans, cross-section, anything tonight to review. MR. PRINCIPI: Okay, I can do that both together then, in the Fall. Or whenever the birds are finished. TRUSTEE KING: This is the first time we have addressed cliff swallows on any application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments, I take a motion to close the hearing in both matters, the Curto and Principi Board of Trustees 30 June 22,2011 matters. I'll move it. So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second the motion. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll first make a motion to approve the Principi application as per the plans submitted this evening, with the condition that the proposed path to beach stairs not be included, and with the condition that the applicant will provide us with documentation to support that the construction activity on the bluff will take place outside of the nesting and fledging dates of the cliff swallows. MS. HULSE: Sorry, I'll clarify that. The stairway is not a condition of the permit. You are actually requesting that -- have they applied for that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the Principi one does not include the stairway, it includes the proposed path to the beach that I'm saying the condition that that is not included in this permit. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Okay, why are you saying to be removed from this survey, subject to receipt of new survey not showing that? Instead of making it a condition of the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm just thinking if all we have to do is remove that and the rest of the survey is fine, why draw up a whole new survey just for removal of a proposed path to beach. If the applicant has agreed to it and we remove it and he signs it or initials it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, that was the discussion that needs to be removed from the survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, that's what he's saying. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Lori is trying to clarify the wording you use, does that make it a condition of the permit to make the approval subject to a new survey not showing the path. MS. HULSE: That's right. It doesn't need to be a condition of the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you understand the difference? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do understand the difference. What I was suggesting though is remove it tonight from this set, the plan, rather than make him get a whole new survey just to show the removal of a path. If we could do that tonight. MS. HULSF: That's up to you. I just don't want it to be a condition of the permit, the way it was worded. That's perfectly fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll withdraw my resolution and propose a new one. I'll - excuse me, withdraw my motion and make a new one here. On the Principi application, I'll move to approve the Principi application as per a set of plans -- well. Stand by. MS. HULSE: Could we have the applicant initial it right now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, the motion is subject to receipt of a new set of plans which will show the removal of the proposed path to beach stairs, and the condition that the activity on the bluff, that they'll provide p'roof that the activity on the bluff will take place outside of the nesting season for cliff swallows. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 31 June 22, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on that motion? TRUSTEE KING:. I have a question. Is there language in here about approval of removing the existing dwellings? This whole description really is -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there is in here remove existing dwelling including sanitary system. TRUSTEE KING: That wasn't part of the resolution, was it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it was approved as per -- I believe his motion was to approve as applied for, subject to receipt of new plans with not showing the proposed stairs. TRUSTEE KING: So we didn't say anything about the new buildings, which are completely out of our jurisdiction, so they are not in the description. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I seconded it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I hate to do this but just going back to what Jim was just talking about. Jim, you were asking whether or not the construction of a new single-family dwelling was actually struck from this, right? And it has been in the testimony. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So that won't be part of the contents. TRUSTEE KING: The two new houses are not pad of anything here because they are entirely out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, all in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of the Vincent Curto application, I move to approve the application based on the description provided, subject to receipt of new plans that eliminate the walkway; is that correct? We'll remove the proposed path on this as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And subject to documentation that activities will be taking place outside of the bird nesting season. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the specific species. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the cliff swallows. So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have one comment. I want to clarify these are both consistent with the LWRP and they both meet the requirements of the Chapter 1 1 1-9. Are there any other comments on this motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of JOINT BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EDUCATION & CULTURAL HOLDINGS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a rock revetment wall extending from the Board of Trustees 32 June 22,2011 west property corner 330' to the east; utilize gee-textile fabric on the foundation/seawall down 2-3' below existing grade and extend back out; re-vegetate with American beachgrass; place boulders at a height of approx. 12" below the present existing seawall/foundation structure and backfill with approx. 200 cubic yards of sand; extend rock revetment wall to the eastern property line along the bluff approx. 220' and provide toe armor along the existing bluff; remove top of the bluff back inland approx. 15' and regrade; install a row of approx. 2 ton boulders at the base of the existing bluff approx. 220' in length; backfill with approx. 800 cy. of fill; place coconut jute gee-textile erosion control material on the entire bluff area and re-vegetate with American beach grass and hydro-seed with seed mixture. Located: 3800 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue. This was found consistent with the LWRP. That's good news. The CAC supports the application with the condition the wire fence is removed from along the top of the bluff, rip rap is installed at the base of the bluff and backward to change the angle and revegetated. Drainage is addressed on the site plan. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against the application? MR. FABB: Jonathan Fabb, Twin Forks Landscape Contracting. TRUSTEE KING: We have a letter in the file. It's a short one so I'll just read it. From Susan London Dellacourt. Dear sirs, as adjacent property owners of Electrical Union property at 3800 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York, we heartily approve of their projects to construct rock revetment wall to protect the damaged seawall and to restore the bluff. These projects are vital to protect the fragile beach. The electrical union is to be commended for their efforts. They are indeed good neighbors. That's it. That's a pleasant surprise. Jill and I went out there, mid-May with the DEC and met with these folks. We kind of went over everything, and it's a joint inspection with the two agencies. I went out and looked at it again myself. I think they have done everything we talked about. They really got beat up in that winter storm we had, and they do need the protection of the building, so. For me, this is pretty straightforward. I don't have any questions about it, personally. All the work is, the proposed work is just what we talked about. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So far everything that has been done down there has been Top grade number one. TRUSTEE KING: They have been spectacular. These people have been great with the town, they did a lot of work for the town on drainage issues for that road. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They created a wetland. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I think they are a tremendous asset to our community, so. I don't think anybody has any questions. It's a good project, and a very well designed. And I think everybody is in agreement. Is there anybody else to comment on this application? (No response). Board of Trustees 33 June 22,2011 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. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving into wetlands permits, number one, JOYCE SAMPIERI requests a Wetland Permit to repair the damaged roof on the existing cottage/boathouse; repair/replace the siding; replace windows; and replace rotted wood on the existing deck. Located: 1380 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. We all were out there on inspection and we have all seen this. The CAC has moved to support the application. They are asking for a condition that hay bales be installed prior to construction, and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. This has been found to be exempt from LWRP. And I have to tell you, it's a pretty straightforward, you know, repair and maintenance of an existing structure. We did note, like the Conservation Advisory Council did, there is no non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. But, in general, we don't address that until the bulkhead is replaced. But we did speak to the homeowners about it and they'll certainly do that. The bulkhead will be getting replaced in the next few years. So we would be happy to deal with it in that fashion. MS. BURKE: You are saying you can't require any addition of non-turf buffers without the requirement of bulkhead replacement? TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: We can require it but it is not something we have done as rule of thumb, no. MS. BURKE: I think it's a good time to take the opportunity to make people put non-turf buffers. Right now the water is sloping right down their lawn and going into the water body. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The bulkhead is raised a little higher than the turf at that point, so. At the time when he replaces the bulkhead we were also discussing raising the bulkhead even higher, plus adding the buffer, so, this is something that will be addressed and we are pretty comfortable with that. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. SAMPIERI: I'm Joyce Sampieri. TRUSTEE KING: On the buffer, to disturb the area and replant it, and then when they come in to rebuild the bulkhead, they have to re-disturb the whole area, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. Do it when you do the bulkhead, because usually there is 15 to 20 feet where they have to put deadmen in there, so all the work they did to put a buffer in is all being destroyed to be re-done MS. BURKE: I understand that. Board of Trustees 34 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE KING: Most of these bulkheads now that don't have buffers, they are at the age where they'll have to be replaced in a very short time. And that's the time to get the buffer replaced. MS. BURKE: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob can you check the field notes on this. I believe there was a suggested condition on the field notes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We discussed about making sure there is no habitation in this structure, which the homeowner has told us there is not. It's primarily used for storage. And it does reference some drainage, including drainage off the structure at this point, and that will help with us solving any problems that may be inducing erosion on the seaward side of it.. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe discussion was a French drain instead of bringing a drywell in that area. TRUSTEE KING: On both sides. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so they don't have to do gutters, leaders. Just a French drain would suffice. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Are you comfortable with doing French drains there? MS. SAMPIERh I don't have of a problem with it. We had also discussed instead of doing traditional French drains, which trenching, again, and putting the piping and what have you, my concern is which way does the water end up coming out of the piping on the French drains? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is no piping. MS. SAMPIERI: Otherwise we also talked about the fact that doing additional, you know, those gravel stones that are down there now, leveling everything and putting soil on both sides. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically scraping down the area, putting one level of some kind of soil another level of stones, so it just, it has different levels to hold. MS. SAMPIERh Fine. No problem. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: There is a letter that was received on June 13 of which I'll read part of it. It is from Jonathan Perry. Dear sirs, I received a notice regarding the work to be done at the boat house of Ms. Joyce Sampieri residing on Bayberry Road in Cutchogue. I have no opposition to the proposed work, I only ask the Trustees notify me if any work is it to be done on the bottom of the adjacent lagoon that the properly directly abuts. I think we also discussed that out in the field as well. That's not going to be an issue. There is no other -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, what I wanted to see as a condition that this not be habitable space. Unfortunately we have run into situations like this in the past where buildings like this they turn them into a second home. And so I know that is -- we heard you say that's not your intent so I would just like that as a condition it not become habitable space. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I brought it up. I'll make it a condition, if that's fine with everyone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fine, thank you. MS. BURKE: Does this structure have leaders and gutters on it? Board of Trustees 35 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, with the French drain, it could just fall right off -- the French drain will go along the whole entire perimeter of the building and it will just come down so it doesn't need it. TRUSTEE KING: That area, normally where you put the gutters on the edge of the roof, if you don't have gutters on, the rain comes down and falls straight down. That area under there is called the eavesdrop. That's where the saying comes from, the eavesdrop. People have to stand in that area to listen to what was going to inside the house. That's where it came from. That area is called the eavesdrop, and if they just loosen all that up and get some gravel and sand in that area, everything comes down and percolates back into the soil, so gutters and leaders are not necessary. MS. BURKE: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response). I'll make the motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make the motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition that the structure cannot be one for habitation, and that includes French drains around the perimeter of the structure to contain any roof runoff. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response). Seeing none, all in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Outer Beach Marine, Inc., on behalf of CATHERINE MARANGAS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) 73 linear feet of bulkhead with navy style and vinyl bulkhead and 6 linear feet of bulkhead return. Located: 1685 Westview Dr., Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? (No response). This was found to be consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of phragmites are removed from behind the bulkhead, and installation of a 20-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. I have looked at this. This is on the east side of Mattituck Creek, in the development called Browers Woods. I'm pretty familiar with the area. It's one of the older bulkheads there is. This place was developed, I think in the '60s, is probably when the bulkhead was built, so it's starting to fail. It's simply inplace replacement with vinyl. It's pretty straightforward. The area behind the bulkhead, I notice the north end is filled with phragmites. When the bulkhead is put Board of Trustees 36 June 22,2011 in place, there will be enough disturbance there, so all that stuff will be removed. And what I would like to see, I think with the size of the yard, I think a ten-foot non-turf buffer is adequate. Rather than 20. And it's recommended silt fence be used during construction to stop the sediment going into the creek. Other than that -- and it's actually two properties next to each other. The next one is going to be doing the same thing. It's just a straight replacement of the bulkhead, with no issues. Any other questions from anybody? Any comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with a ten-foot non4urf buffer. It is consistent with LWRP. And the use of a silt boom during construction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Outer Beach Marine, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL CONFUSIONE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) 75 linear feet of bulkhead with navy style and vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace 30 linear feet of retaining wall to line up with adjacent existing retaining wall; and remove and replace bulkhead steps. Located: 1605 Westview Dr., Mattituck. This is adjacent to the previous application. This is almost an identical application. Replacement of the bulkhead. It was found consistent with the same requirement of a silt boom during construction. And CAC supports the application with the condition the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is revegetated with native plantings. I looked at this. There is a second retaining wall. It's about ten feet, eight or ten feet landward of the bulkhead, and there is a second retaining wall to the south. It's a little further landward. They'll realign the most seaward wall so it's all in one straight line, so it's actually further back from the bulkhead. Right now the area between the retaining wall and bulkhead is very heavily vegetated. A lot of Rosa Rugosa and everything in there. It's a shame to have to tear it out to put the bulkhead in, but it will be re-planted. I guess there is nothing you can do about it. Is there anybody here to speak behalf or against this application? (No response). Like I say, it's a straightforward replacement of an old bulkhead. Any questions from the Board? Board of Trustees 37 June 22,2011 (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, and the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is to be non-turf and to be replanted. Hopefully maybe they can save some of the Rosa Rugosa and re plant that. It's really in nice shape. That's my motion. And also the use of a silt boom during construction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK FISHING STATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 20' ramp onto a 4'X 180' fixed dock section continuing with a 6'X 100' fixed dock section at offshore end. Construct a 4' wide by 10' long walkway between existing concrete deck and ramp. Located: 800 King St., New Suffolk. This was a project that had been previously approved in a permit given construction had started. The permit ran out. So they had to come back and re-apply for a new permit. They have done that. It was originally reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And it was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application -- sorry, this is a Conservation Advisory Council review that was done recently, June 15, 2011. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however the present dock construction is a violation of the condition of the permit -- and Ill get into that in a minute -- and questions the storage on the north side building, King Road. Conservation Advisory Council recommends gutters and drywells on the building and swale installed high enough to bring runoff back to the property and the seaward end of the dock to be shortened 60 feet to bring it in line with the existing structure to the south. Just so the Conservation Advisory Council understands, that when this application came in originally, this dock was shortened in from what was originally proposed. Because we were also very concerned about how far this dock was going to be extended at the time, and took testimony at that time considering that, and hence the dock was shortened slightly last time. When the CAC has in here a violation, they are noting a violation of conditions of the permit. What is noted is that on the original permit it said flow-through grating would be used for the first section of this, I believe hundred feet. And I'll double check that. It's my understanding right now there is not flow-through decking that is being used in the construction so far that has been done, which would be the first part of this Board of Trustees 38 June 22,2011 dock. And on the permit 7100, dated May 20, 2009, specifically states with the condition open-grate decking is used on the first hundred feet of the fixed dock. So given that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, we are the agents for the application that was submitted to the Trustees. And everything you said so far is right, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My first question for you, Mr. Costello, is why is the first hundred feet that has been constructed so far, why did they not use open-grated decking. MR. COSTELLO: I didn't know any better and the second thing is I didn't do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand, but you are standing here as the agent tonight MR. COSTELLO: I know. Evidently, I mean, the first hundred feet of it, basically, is almost comes dry and it doesn't even have to support any vegetation. I volunteered, when I originally made the application, to put the flow-through decking on the first portion of that dock and as, you know, as a condition to try to get the Conservation Advisory Council and the LWRP appeased. What happened is the contractor on the job, evidently, did not read that condition. Not that the condition was -- he should have, but he didn't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I notice on the plans you submitted with this new application it depicted that first hundred feet having open-style decking. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. So if that's the desire of the Board, certainly 100 feet could be rectified. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to the contractor, and Mr. Costello -- MR. C©STELLO: Mr. Pollack is doing the work. I was, first of all, too busy. Secondly, he was trying to beat the permit deadline. And here we are. ' · TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Pollack did say he did not read that condition, however he also made the comment that he felt in that area that the open-grate decking was not necessary and he felt the regular decking would be stronger in a storm event. So he wanted the Trustees to reconsider that. And I explained that in order to comply and be consistent with LWRP, I believe we need the open-grate decking. MR. COSTELLO: The other alternative is, if it meets the Board's desire, is to open the spacing to alleviate, you know, get some sunlight. But the dock is an east to west, I mean east to west dock. The sunlight penetration and the shading is on the north side. But, even with the open-grate decking, there will still be shading on the north side. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is a lot of vegetation there, is there? It's all sand. There is no vegetation MR. COSTELLO: There is no vegetation. At Iow tide there is none, for the first hundred feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP. Board of Trustees 39 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was a recommendation by the LWRP coordinator when we were considering the first application and so we put it as a condition. Certainly if this Board wishes to remove that condition, because this is a separate application, we can do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Dave, in the file is some of the Minutes from that hearing that discusses that. I don't know, is there anything in particular about it, aside from the LWRP making it a condition? TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the Minutes dated May 20, 2009, there was a motion made to close the hearing by Trustee Ghosio and Trustee Dickerson said: Bob, is that grated or non-grated. Trustee King: Open-grate on the first hundred feet. Trustee Ghosio: Open-grate on the first hundred feet makes sense. That's how the open-grating came to be on the first permit. MR. COSTELLO: I don't think that is going to significantly change the cost of the job, the only trouble is should the deterioration, that the open-grate decking occur, in a period of time, I'm sure they'll want to replace some of the boards. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you know if the DEC permit conditions open-grate decking? MR. C©STELLO: The DEC permit? The same drawing was submitted to be consistent with DEC. They didn't request it be open-grate decking, though. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from Board members? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In this area I don't have a problem with whether it's open-grate decking or not. From what was described, east to west sunlight, there is no vegetation there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a pretty high-energy beach, right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Given the fact this was found consistent, originally, under the LWRP without the flow-through decking and it became a condition of flow-through decking happened during the course of the discussion, and the consideration of that, I would have no problem also with not including the condition of flow-through on the new application that we are considering tonight. Just to address the other concerns from the Conservation Advisory Council, when we are dealing with the dock, we usually don't deal with upland structures and drainage from upland structures, so with the recommendation of gutters and drywells on the building, that is a recommendation we would consider if there was work being done on the building rather than on the dock itself. If there are no other comments I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of of Costello Marine Corporation on behalf of New Suffolk Fishing Station, as described on the application, at 800 King Street, New Suffolk, leaving the original condition now an option up to Board of Trustees 40 June 22,2011 the applicant as to whether or not he would like to use flow-through decking or not. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing number five, Frank W. Uellendahl, Architect on behalf of MICHAEL & ELLEN CARBONE requests a Wetland Permit to conved existing attached garage into living space within the existing building envelope and construct a new two-car garage on the existing parking area. Located: 1580 North Bayview Rd., Southold. This application has been deemed consistent with LWRP. Trustees inspected the site. The Conservation Advisory Council visited the site as well and supported the application with a request to condition an increase in the size of the non-turf buffer. Ifs a pretty straightforward application, I don't think the Trustees had any real issues with it. The plans do show gutters, leaders and drywells for the new proposed structure. At this time we'll take any comments with respect to this application. MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank Uellendahl. I am here on behalf of the Carbone's I agree it's pretty straightforward. I do have the proof of mailing to submit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually I have the file. I guess, again, for the information of the CAC, usually we would not condition the size of a non-turf buffer unless the structure itself actually got involved. In this case, it's field inspection we didn't really think it involved it, but we do want to have a silt fence and hay bale during construction. We would be requesting that. MR. UELLENDAHL: By the way, the property does have a five-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, the question came up that the Conservation Advisory Council during the course of their inspection of the site would have it larger at this time and I was trying to explain that ordinarily we would not have that disturbance take place unless it was a case that was directly involving a new bulkhead construction or that the structure added a large component of runoff or problem that was not being addressed. But in this case the drywells are going to handle that. Any additional comment? Members of the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the condition of a silt fence and hay bale barrier to protect runoff during the construction phase. MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on the motion? (No response). Board of Trustees 41 June 22,2011 All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Nancy Dwyer Design Consulting on behalf of HAROLD SCHWERDT & PATRIClA OSTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition over the existing dwelling and rebuild existing exterior walls. Located: 440 Oak Ave., Southold. The Board was out there the other day on inspection. We have all seen it. The LWRP coordinator has found this to be exempt from LWRP. And the CAC supports the application with the condition of a drainage plan and 15-foot buffer area. The CAC recommends the cesspool is moved landward of the dwelling. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. OSTER: Yes, I would. Thank you. My name is Nick Oster, I'm Harold's son-in-law. He's out in the lobby. He's my father-in-law sitting outside. He has a bad foot. As far as the cesspools are concerned, they were, as far as moving them, it's not an issue, but they were rebuilt and put back in in the '90s. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the plan is to use the existing cesspools. MR. OSTER: Yes. What we have is a bathroom downstairs and there will be a smaller bathroom upstairs on the second floor, that's it. MS. DWYER: Nancy Dwyer. Existing is a three-bedroom house that will remain a three-bedroom house, and it will be sufficient for what the proposed use is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the new drywells on the plan is specifically for roof runoff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out in the field we noted it was a pretty straightforward application in terms of everything is being built within the existing building envelope, within the existing footprint. I didn't think there was any objections to anything. Let me see if there is any notes from the field inspection. (Perusing). The only note we had was drywells, and it turns out they were on the plan. Any other comment from the Board? (No response). Any questions? (No response). Any other comments 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: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of EVAN GINIGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 46' fixed elevated catwalk supported by six (6) 4"X 4" pilings and six (6) 6"X 6" pilings; 3'X 15' hinged ramp; Board of Trustees 42 June 22,2011 and a 6'X 20' floating dock secured by two (2) 6"X 6" pilings. Located: 315 Fleetwood Rd., Cutchogue. The Board went out there again and saw the stakings. This is inconsistent with the LWRP, and the CAC supports the application with the condition the dock does not exceed one-third across the creek, in line with neighboring docks. And the LWRP specifically says it recommends that the Board assess the dock length with a vessel and determine the proposed dock complies with the one-third rule. And also LWRP states that it is in the New York State Critical Environmental Area, recommends grid decking over the grass areas and construction operation standards required. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Evan Giniger, who is sitting next to me on my right here. This is an application filed last Fall. There are questions as to the length of the dock and the length of the waterway that required us to survey both shorelines of Eugene's Creek, actually, to code. That was done by survey dated April 15, a copy of which is submitted with this application. That survey demonstrates that the dock will not extend beyond the one-third, which I explained to my client what that is and we are in agreement that it is a good rule because my client does not wish to impede anyone else's access into or out of Fleet's Cove. I have also prepared an aerial photograph which shows the existing docks in the area. It shows how they are laid out and gives you a pretty good idea of what the navigational impacts are. We think what we are proposing here would be consistent with what is out there and we believe we are respecting the one-third rule. Having said that, we are flexible with regard to any number of ideas. The first is this notion of putting the open-grate flow-through decking on. I explained to my client what that is. He's agreeable to do that. The second suggestion I have, because it is tight in there, is I bring it -- if you look at the aerial, you'll see directly to the west there is a new dock recently built and permitted by this Board. That dock featured a five by, I believe 17-foot float. And so I suggested maybe we could reduce the size of the float slightly to address that situation, and he has indicated he's agreeable to do that. This is not an area where you'll have large boats in, because there are no large boats in this particular area. It's not really deep enough to support large boats. So whatever boats are docked here and whatever boats are docked elsewhere, which, some of which are shown in the aerial, you can plainly see, tend to be small sport-type craft anyway. So we think from a navigation standpoint this dock will be appropriate. But we do throw out those suggestions if the Board thinks it's helpful. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did have one discussion in the field, possibly moving the dock over where there was less vegetation Board of Trustees 43 June 22,2011 and less land and you can get to the water, closer to the neighboring basin, I guess you would call it, to the east. And we would consider allowing to soften our 15-foot rule being it's a basin and that the dock would not interfere with his dock, because you would have the retaining wall there. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a consideration. You could shorten the length of the catwalk. Because you would be going over less land. You could -- it would get to a wider point of the creek so you would have more of a distance between the land. It's something we didn't see until we saw this staked. You know, once you get out there and see something staked. And we were there in the winter, so now we see everything is growing. It's a little different. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I guess the best way for me to certainly be flexible with it, what I would suggest is this. If you want to be flexible as to the 15 feet, it would be helpful to me, if I knew how flexible you were willing to be. And I don't, by the way, want to impede access even to the basin there. In other words I don't want someone to come out of the basin and run into the dock. So when we say, to soften that rule, I assume you are thing thinking of the eastern end of the L-shaped float is what we are talking about moving. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes MR. ANDERSON: And I would maybe suggest that if we were to do that, maybe shorten it to like ten feet, something like that. If we were to do that -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim was just suggesting here to put the catwalk on the other side and make it the opposite of the "L" and put it -- TRUSTEE KING: If you move the catwalk to the east, closer to the that basin where you get less vegetation to go over, you could have a shorter catwalk and make the "L" go to the west instead of to the east. Just flip flop the "L." MR. ANDERSON: That makes total sense. TRUSTEE KING: Wouldn't that work? MR. ANDERSON:. Yup, that would work. It looks to me like the depths are there, and I think, again, is it the ten feet you are thinking of, now for the catwalk portion; is that correct? Or do you want it on the line? Give me a sense of how close. In other words, if I take the eastern lot line and extend it out into the water, which is what I have done here, how close to that line do you think is acceptable? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the catwalk could still remain 15 feet off that property line and again, with the flip flopping of the "L" to the west, I don't think we have to forego the 15-foot rule that is in the code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think by flipping it, Trustee Bergen has it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will fit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is the survey. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the sparsest area of vegetation. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the vegetation at that point would be eight Board of Trustees 44 June 22, 2011 feet less thick. That's the difference. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that by moving it over that eight feet, you'll do a lot less structure and you'll go over a lot less vegetation. MR. ANDERSON: Right, like I said, it will shorten -- TRUSTEE KING: The landward end could start further seaward. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And we could terminate where it says, I think three point nine feet, something like that. So it would be a shorter section. So that would be fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Being the float would be in the same area -- MR. ANDERSON: No, I think the suggestion was, I'll draw it right now properly. TRUSTEE KING: It's further east. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to approve this subject to new drawings or do you want to go see it staked in the new location and table it to have it staked, or -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we could approve it. MR. ANDERSON: I want to just quickly give you a sketch. Show you a sketch. I want to make sure I understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, where are you with the DEC with this? MR. ANDERSON: We have an approval at this location. MR. ANDERSON: I think what Mr. King is talking about is this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Jim (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: If that's acceptable TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think it makes a better job of it. MR. ANDERSON: And we can do flow-through over the marsh, if that's important. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other questions? TRUSTEE KING: What would the size of the float be, now? MR. ANDERSON: We were willing to reduce it, if it helps. My question to you is that necessary at this point. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think a foot will make a big difference TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you anticipate you'll have to go back to DEC with this new plan? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but I'm looking at the survey now. The important thing with the DEC is the depth, and we have it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will put it off six weeks, probably. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we table it, have you stake it, show us the new plans showing us the one-third fits there as well. MR. ANDERSON: So you want it restaked at that location. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: I'll tell you with the staking, I'm not going to argue with you, but it's a big expense because you have to get two people and a boat. You have to triangulate. It's expensive to stake out this particular location. The ground is very soft. So I would rather -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have been here, we seen the water depth, and the area tells it all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think my suggestion is if everybody is happy with the -- MR. ANDERSON: Good for me, not so good for him. Board of Trustees 45 June 22, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Need I remind the Board this is the same area I think I tied a string to a rock in the winter and threw it out on the ice. I think that was a pretty cheap way of doing it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think instead of having him go stake it, we can maybe put a condition on the permit prior to start of construction a Trustee goes out and looks at it. Because you'll have to, you know, have something out there at that point. . MR. ANDERSON: Yes, have a surveyor marker. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to double check and make sure everything is where it is supposed to be. MR. ANDERSON: It's expensive though to mark that and it was expensive to survey both shorelines. Just to let you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment? (No response). Anybody else from the audience? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Evan Giniger's application subject to receipt of new plans showing the catwalk, ramp and float further to the east as discussed tonight and also subject to prior to commencement of construction that a Trustee inspect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I believe making this dock shorter and going over less vegetation will make it consistent with LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: And we are doing flow-through as well, correct? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And flow-through decking, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Have a nice evening. TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Mark Boeckman on behalf of MARC SOKOL requests a Wetland Permit to install a swimming pool, spa, patio on grade, and pool fence. Located: 350 Lakeside Dr., Southold. This is an application for swimming pool, spa and patio. It's found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application with a detailed drainage plan for the pool backwash and vegetated buffer is expanded to at least ten feet. Bob, did you look at this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did. I was going to grab the file but you already started to open it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically this was straightforward. It's nothing more than -- we have all been to the property. This is the one with the deer fence down on Lakeside there, off Cedar Point Board of Trustees 46 June 22,201 I Drive East. And it abuts that Pleasant Inlet, which is that little basin down there, if you remember. The pool -- and what they are looking to do is add a pool and a pool fence. Nothing -- it really is not a problem. It doesn't affect anything there at all. The CAC, I think you already reviewed the CAC. They do have drainage for the backwash on the plan. There was nothing really there to be concerned with. It's a straightforward plan. Originally I thought they were going to be putting a fence alt around the property as a pool fence, but they are not. It's basically just going to contain the backyard and protect anybody who might be able to get in and get into the pool. That's something they need to do by code, if they are going to have a pool. Is there anybody here like to address this application? (No response). Seeing none, any questions from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further questions on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOANNE BURR requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 4'X 58' timber dock and extend to 70' and using grated materials on the first 25' of the fixed dock; relocate piles to a min. 10' apart; replace existing ramp, 8'X 16' float and 12'X 12' float in a "T" configuration. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island. The Board had inspected this on April 18. We measured the existing deck to be 59 feet instead of 58 feet. This is consistent with LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not go out there, so they do not have a recommendation. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was really, it says we have no comment on our field notes. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here for Mrs. Burr, but there is no, if it's straightforward, I won't belabor it. Leave while the going is good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions from the Board? Does anybody want to see the plans to refresh their memory, from April? (Negative response). We had an inhouse review last week. All right, hearing no further questions, 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 as submitted. Board of Trustees 47 June 22,2011 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An it's consistent with the LWRP. MS. MOORE: If I could just speak for a second. If it's possible to bring the Yatrakis back up, I could do it at the end of the calendar after Jeff. There is only Jeff Butler's application. I was hoping we could resolve the issues that are not an issue and then just leave open the -- you guys could look at the area of planting affer you've looked at the permit that is already in the file. So I would give you a chance to look -- the one thing that seemed to be an issue and separate out, because they have a pool there -~ TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, let's move on with the agenda and discuss it afterwards. MS. MOORE: All right, I'll be here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll decide as a Board if we want to open it again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 62'13, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove selective vegetation between 50' and 100' from the top of the bluff and construct a single-family dwelling with detached garage, sanitary system, well, driveway, drainage, landscaping, patios and hot tub beyond 100' from the top of bluff. Located: 6213 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. The Board went and inspected the site and met with the Mr. Butler and the owner of the property. We walked it extensively. I think we thought it was pretty straightforward. I'll open both together at this point if is there no objection, if the Board has no problem. Similar to what we did before; the application of Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 629'1, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove selective vegetation between 50' and 100' from the top of the bluff and construct a single-family dwelling, swimming pool, sanitary system, well, driveway, drainage, detached shed, patios and landscaping beyond 100' from the top of bluff. Located: 6291 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. The LWRP program has deemed these to be inconsistent with the town's LWRP, specifically making reference to the Planning Board restrictions and covenants on the property that specifically outline three areas. And LWRP references that. The three C&R's are removal of deck and/or noxious vegetation; secondly, removal of dead trees and cherry trees smaller than five inches by hand, and revegetate and clear undisturbed Iow bush, blueberry, inkberry and bayberry. The applicant has not provided a clearing plan and/or revegetation plan. The LWRP wants to have a specific plan detailing clearing and revegetation, as part of the LWRP. The houses, buildings are beyond our jurisdiction. The Conservation Advisory Council suppods the application but made specific recommendation with respect to vegetation. The Conservation Advisory Council is requesting that -- they support Board of Trustees 48 June 22,2011 the application by they recommend the trees within eight-inch diameter not be removed. I don't think that was necessarily an issue. I don't think that was an issue. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about that in the field. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was our understanding everything was going to remain. I think the applicant made that fairly clear. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If the applicant puts it on the record for tonight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. So that's what we have as we open the hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of applications? MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler here on behalf of the applicant. As we discussed at the site visit, the applicant's intention for developing the site are to maintain as many of the trees on the site as possible, to develop each one of these properties, lot one and lot two. In the process of doing that they would also like to clear out some of the choker vines and things we saw in the site visit, the record setting poison ivy vines that we saw and clean up the habitat there so the trees become more healthy. We noticed the one lot to the east had a lot of cherry trees that were being choked out that could be preserved, that they certainly want to preserve, and the lot to the west, a lot of the locust species that were, again, she wanted to, she wants to maintain as much of that as possible and clear minimally around each around each structure that will be installed, which we estimate to be about 15-feet around each structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Like we said in the field, if they do what they say they'll do, it will be really nice. It's a nice plan on the use of the property. If you are going to build a couple of structures at least there is a lot of things they can take into take into consideration in terms of the topography and ecology. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay, I know you read the Planning Board covenants and restrictions, but what the applicant is describing to us, do we feel that meet the Planning Board covenants and restrictions? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think what it says here during the subdivision covenants, says specifically limited clearing of vegetation within the 50-foot buffer from the top of the bluff. So that -- TRUSTEE KING: They are outside of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are essentially out of it. Other than the removal of noxious vegetation, might be choker vines, could be conditioned in the permit for removal of those items. Are there any additional comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing no additional comments -- - MR. BUTLER: There might be someone who wishes to speak. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. O'DONNELL: My name is Amy O'Donnell, I'm here for Bobby Schreiber. He has the property directly to the west, that big Board of Trustees 49 June 22, 2011 parcel. We were just concerned about the same exact thing you were, was the clearing. Because it's right up against his property line and he wanted to make sure there was enough vegetation there. And from, I spoke to Jeffrey outside, they are really only clearing that very small area around the house. He said they went over that with you on the field walk, you alt seemed happy with it. You are much more stringent obviously than I was even going to be. So if you are satisfied with it and you are happy, then we are okay. I mean the tree line between the two properties is a lot of dense vegetation there already existing. And the house is not on the tree line. There is a 21-foot buffer, so that was my only concern was a screen. Um, but it looks fine. So, that's it. Thank you. MS. BURKE: So just to be clear, the intentions for clearing are documented or something that was discussed on your site visit? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They have no intention of clearing within the 50-foot to the bluff, buffer, the possibility of removing some vines that was discussed and we might condition that on the permit. They have no intention of touching any of the trees on the property, to my knowledge and what the Board viewed in the course of walking the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was also some poison ivy that four to six inch diameter. It was crazy. TRUSTEE KING: It was poison ivy on steroids. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I never saw a poison ivy plant that big. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, hearing no additional comments or discussion, I make a motion to close the hearing in the matter of these two applications. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BUTLER: Thank you, for your time TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was going to go through this individually for the record. In the matter of application of Cutchogue 6213 LLC, I would make a motion to approve the application subject to the restrictive covenant on the property so that it would stay consistent with the town's LWRP and that that the applicant be permitted to only remove the noxious vegetation, since we had heard no discussion concerning removal of trees. So that the permit would only allow for the removal of the noxious vegetation on the site; excuse me, within the 50 -- sorry, not the site. Within the 50 feet as permitted by C&R and the Planning Board. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of Cutchogue 6291 LLC Ill make a motion to approve the application subject to the same conditions; to bring the application into consistency with the Board of Trustees 50 June 22,201 I LWRP that restrictive covenants be abided by and that the activity be limited within the 50-feet to the top of the bluff to the removal of noxious vegetation. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is the last -- we have one more item on the agenda. Sorry. Dave, do you want to go ahead and read the resolution? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to propose a resolution that the Board of Trustees forward to Suffolk County DPW a proposed town Trustees Dredging Priority List 2011. And I guess for the record to list the dredging list in the following priority: One, Budd Pond; two, Schoolhouse Creek; three, Jockey Creek Spur; four, West Creek; five, Little Creek; six, Corey Creek; seven, Cedar Creek; eight, Richmond Creek; nine, Gull Pond; ten, Brushes Creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One more item before we go off the agenda. Pat more requested us to go back to an item on the agenda that we tabled. What's the feeling of the Board? Her request is to go back to segregate the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which one? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yatrakis. What is the feeling of the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to get a little straightened out on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And actually I had a recommendation I wanted to make earlier, that given how the discussion went, we never got to it. And that was to discuss the severe erosion condition on the bluff. To get the applicant to address that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not part of this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. I know. But it's something that needs to be addressed. MS. MOORE: He planted last -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't open yet. Just one minute. So the feeling is to open up that application again? To discuss segregating the application? It's not to segmenting it, not to -- that's what the request is. She would like for us to consider separating the application now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If my understanding is correct she is asking to split it so the homeowners can get into their home and get their C of O. MS. MOORE: Just to clarify, they need the fence for the pool. The pool has water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me open the application, I'm trying to get an answer first before we open the application. TRUSTEE KING: Three out of five. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we we'll go back to, we'll go off the public Board of Trustees 51 June 22, 2011 hearings and go back to Applications for Extensions and Amendments. Number nine, Pat Moore on behalf of GEORGE AND MARIA YATRAKIS. We had tabled this earlier in the meeting and we'll reopen it right now. MS. MOORE: Okay, do you want me to speak or do you want me to listen? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go ahead, Pat. MS. MOORE: There was some very simple things that the amendment included, which were just approve the re-design of the swimming pool and the patio. It also, let's see, the angle of the pool and patio at the fence, across the property at the 25-foot mark from the patio, from the patio 25 feet. Also we are going to put a gate and a fence at the staircase, because it's, apparently it's dangerous on either side of the stairs. And that is all I had. The other two issues are whether or not we bring soil and increase the height of the berm is up to you. We came in really to ask to not have to plant the berm because the vegetation was already there. Just leave it as it is with grass. Grass seed. And then, you know, take a look at your permits from last year, the planting plan, and he was willing to go and plant immediately that area of disturbance, but if you want him to wait, he waits. It's really up to you guys. Is it doesn't matter. He was ready to plant, so. Just tell me what you want me to do. TRUSTEE KING: For me, I would just entertain the pool fence, inplace, 25 feet from the patio. It's just about on the hay bale line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would that be sufficient to, if we -- MS. MOORE: I need a certificate of compliance with respect to the pool fence. I don't know, Lauren, what, in order to get the CO for the pool and the house, I need a certificate of compliance. So you tell me what you write on your certificate of compliance, I'll work around it. MS. MOORE: The issuance of the CO for the house and the pool, then we'll come back next, I mean we'll just continuing discussing the rest of the stuff, but it's up to you. TRUSTEE KING: I heard the discussion location of the pool fence but also I would want to include the redesign of the swimming pool itself. MS. MOORE: I mean, I have actually in my file an as-built survey that shows that the angle of the patio and the pool. We don't have a pool fence showing on here yet because it has not been put in yet. So if you would like a survey of the as-built conditions, I could give it to you tonight. If you would want me to add by hand the pool fence at 25 feet, either you or I can do it. It doesn't matter, it's the same thing. It has not been constructed, that's why it's not shown on the survey. It was on the original permit, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need a revised plan showing both of those in the appropriate locations. MS. MOORE: I could just draw it right on here and give it to you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question for the Board members who Board of Trustees 52 June 22, 2011 were not here before. I thought the berming was very minimal but possibly site specific basis was acceptable, but I really don't have a feel because this precedes my current term on the Board. I will say this, though. I didn't like the way this application tracked. I think it was entirely too argumentative, and the applicant himself got very argumentative with the Board in the field and this obstructed our ability to come to a more productive conclusion. So it was not just a matter of what happened here this evening. Just so you know. MS. MOORE: Thank you. No, I often try to encourage clients to pay for me to be at a meeting, but obviously every penny counts and they thought they could handle it. But live and learn. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And also, what I was alluding earlier, if you could recommend to your client, he knows he has to do something to address the erosion under those stairs. As a matter of fact he stated out in the field that recently he had fill brought in and placed over the bluff because the erosion had taken away a lot of land there, a lot of the bluff. So I had suggested in the field to him that he consider talking to a contractor about the installation of a couple of retaining walls to protect those stairs from, once again, the erosion taking place and those stairs collapsing. So I tried to -- MS. MOORE: He mentioned that -- I'm sorry, I didn't understand when he described what he was -- I didn't understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I tried recommending this to him in the field but unfortunately he was not receptive to my ideas. MS. MOORE: No, actually he liked your idea. He came back and said that made a lot of sense. And I said, good. MS. HULSE: Are we arbitrary and capricious tonight? MS. MOORE: No, no, no. That was the son. He's a lawyer. I'll talk about coming in with a plan for retaining walls. He has actively wanted to do more to protect that bluff and he had spoken to Costello several times and wanted to do tow protection and revetment, but the DEC doesn't want to allow for that. So that's why before he even staded construction, if you recall, he planted ail, he spent quite a bit of money planting the g?ass all along the bluff. I haven't seen whether it took or not. The storms may have taken it away recently. I don't know. So he's tried. He's really been trying. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As I sympathize with getting a CO, I feel that we should not separate this. There are too many variables and we need to work it all out. And I think it could be worked out simply and be, you know, be done for the next meeting. That's just my feeling. But whatever the majority wants. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a problem segmenting out the re-design of the swimming pool and the location of pool fence so that that way he is able to get a CO for the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just, the reason I have a problem with this. I don't have a problem where the fence is to be placed or where the pool is, it's just I'm trying to be consistent. It's just the way we do not separate all these things because it just Board of Trustees 53 June 22,2011 makes more confusion and makes more room for error in the future. That's why I'm not acceptable of it or willing to separate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we do move forward with this at any point, I know we were referring back to the approved plan that was drawn by Creative Environmental, which we had spoken about. And it does say on there, and this was where we really had the bone of contention, was the area that, this hatched area here that included the existing shed, the area was, the idea was to remove invasive vegetation and re plant with native plants. And it does say that and is stamped approved. But it's also noted on the plan, which didn't come up before, that those invasive species to be removed were only the following four things: Adera helix, which is English ivy; ligustrum, which is a privet; mona sera, which is a honeysuckle; and rosa multiflora, which is what I call wild rose. That's the only four things. That does not include al~ this vegetation, which is what Dr. Yatrakis was specifically talking about. MS. MOORE: His sister clarified for me, because, again, I was not there. He would like, I think maybe what he discussed with you was doing more, but then he was willing to do only that which was in the disturbed area. And he was willing to accept that. And I think that is where maybe the conversation was lost. That he wants to plant the area. The weeds that regenerated in the disturbed area is the only area he's planning to plant. The rest he's not planning to do anything. That's why when he came back after that meeting I said but we have a permit -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you don't. That's what Bob just read. Are you just talking between those four stakes? There is nothing in there. There is no weeds. He already replanted that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: These plants here (indicating). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In that little area he was talking about all the other plants MS. MOORE: Just make sure we are reading the right plan. Are you reading from -- which plan are you reading from, just to make sure, because there are two p~ans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one you brought up. MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. And that's not a problem as far as if he's limited to what the plan says. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The p~an says he can't remove this. MS. MOORE: I don't know what that is. Is that in the disturbed area? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. MS. MOORE: That's not in the disturbed area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He specifically asked when we were there, asked to remove that. MS. MOORE: He doesn't know one plant from another, quite frankly. I'm sure if the list -- realistically -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, he doesn't. I agree. I was just pointing out he specifically pointed out this vegetation and that's when Board of Trustees 54 June 22, 2011 we got into the discussion of how much and where; this was a non-disturbance area that we were going to allow only certainly things to happen. And on this plan we were talking about, it only includes those four items. MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll point to that and say that's all. Get somebody who recognizes the plants and that's all you are allowed to do. What we told me is he's not even planning to do that much if it's going to create a problem. He just wants to vegetate the area of disturbance, which is where the building was removed and some areas around it where the equipment disturbed, you know, to get access in and out. And that was it. He was willing to stop there, even, just so as to not delay this process and, you know, interfere with his getting a C of O, so. TRUSTEE KING: If we are going to approve the reconfigured pool and the pool fence, I would just like to see that, just leave that area as a non-disturbance area, stop nitpicking over what kind of plants. Leave it alone. Let it naturalize. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I tend to agree with that because this is going to go through successional stages and they may not be all desirable plants but it's going to be sooner or later will be colonized by perennial plants and trees and shrubs, and I think -- MS. MOORE: You are the expert. Isn't it jeopardizing the bluff if, you know, he doesn't start planting roots that are more deep-rooted vegetation? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the Board has a problem with the current level of vegetation on the top and the way the drainage has been handled. Even though the berm is minimal, it looks like it's directing things not over the bluff'face, and this is all healthy vegetation. MS. MOORE: I'm listening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean, that's it. It's all healthy vegetation. It's going to go through some successional stages. But at this point, the list on that permit doesn't match anything that is here, so maybe it's time to let some things run their course and then if he needs -- the inkberry will be gone in a year or two, whether it is going to go to bramble or whatever the successional stages will be here, and then come back with a specific list of exotics that might match was has actually populated the property and if they want to come in with a specific go to take this plant out, take that plant out, it's non-indigenous, invasive, then approach it -- MS. MOORE: With much more specific. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, so things match up. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, what does the Board want to do? TRUSTEE BERGEN: First off, I'm not sure -- I need some help, legally, to know how to do this. We already tabled an amendment to -- sorry, let me get it right. An amendment to wetland permit, we tabled. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we just reopened it. So it's no longer Board of Trustees 55 June 22,2011 tabled. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a hearing, so it doesn't have to be -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I thought it was a hearing because we are looking at the possibility here of -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It wasn't a hearing TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, sorry, I know it was not a hearing. I apologize. What we are looking is the possibility of approving the wetland permit -- amendment to wetland permit 7712, right? TRUSTEE KING: We already approved the extension. MS. MOORE: May I make a suggestion. If you approve what we asked for, because everything we asked for seems to be what you are going to approve and I will, and just make it, place a condition that prior to any activity in this area, we have the right to come back with a specific planting plan as Mr. Bredemeyer just pointed out. So that way if he wants to pursue it further, I give him the option to say check with Chicanowicz or whomever and go with inventory that is actually there, I guess was there at the time we first made the application for the permit, and take it that way. Because if you are saying to him, listen, the weeds are fine and will regenerate, don't do anything right now, I think he is willing to accept that even though he has a permit to do, you know, to remove particular plants in accordance with that plan. But I think it's more important to him to be able to move along with his how house, put his fence up, and this area -- he wanted to leave it natural, that's why we originally came with the plan we came with, before he even built. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to propose to the Board is consideration of an amendment to permit 7712 as described, with the condition that a non-disturbance buffer is maintained as described in permit number 7712. In other words we are referring back to the language of that original permit, which had a non-disturbance buffer. We are not referring to the plans -- that's just something I'm suggesting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original permit said there should be no disturbance seaward of the line of staked hay bales without further review by the Board of Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, that we consider the approval of the amendment to the wetland permit as described, with the condition, and the language in that condition comes right from the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I also make another suggestion. Change the wording, it says "plant the berm with grass." Can we just say plant grass up to the hay bale line, instead of calling it a berm, because we don't even believe it's a berm. And if we feel it's sufficient the way they have it with the drainage, we can leave that alone. MS. MOORE: The hay bale line being 25 feet, right? TRUSTEE KING: According to them the hay bale line was actually landward of the -- MS. MOORE: Exactly. Board of Trustees 56 June 22, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We measured it out and we agreed with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want to use the existing hay bale line as a point of reference? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we can say 25 feet from the edge of the existing patio. MS. MOORE: Actually that's where the fence is going. Why don't you just say seaward of the fence, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Landward of the fence. MS. MOORE: Sorry, you are making grass landward of the fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the fence is 25 feet from the patio. MS. MOORE: Right. And then he can come back with a planting plan, if he chooses. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. That works. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just clarify that motion, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve the amendment to wetland permit 7712 as follows: For the redesign of the swimming pool and patio; the revised location of the pool fence; and that the area seaward of the pool fence to the bluff remain a non-disturbance area as per wetland permit 7712. And we need a set of revised plans to show that. MS. MOORE: One thing you forgot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wait. We are in the middle of a motion MS. MOORE: He's adding, the amendment, the gate at the steps -- at the stairs. At the fence. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not interested in that. He can put a gate with the pool fence. That will keep the kids in. MS. MOORE: How about a fence on the either side of the stairs? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are in the middle of a motion. MS. MOORE: I didn't suggest that. That's something you guys talked about and suggested it to -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we should be addressing that tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if we just remain with the pool fence. TRUSTEE KING: The big concern is the CO. By approving the pool and pool fence, they have it. We'll worry about the other stuff down the road. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a good -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I be a little more specific on the pool fence and can we just mention it's 25 feet from the seaward edge of the patio. And new plans showing that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just want to double check consistency here. Just to make sure. Because we reference the original permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to redo the resolution. There was too much chatter in between that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, but the original permit was to have the swimming pool and pool fence and patio with the condition of line of staked hay bales that were to be installed no further than 25 feet seaward of the proposed pool fence, prior to construction, and there is to be no disturbance seaward of the Board of Trustees 57 June 22,2011 line of staked hay bales. So in the original permit, 25 feet seaward of the proposed fool fence was the hay bale line, and the no-disturbance was to be seaward of the line of staked hay bales, without further review from the Board of Trustees. What we are doing is revising the pool fence location to be really at the staked hay bales. MS. MOORE: Right, at the 25 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we are adjusting a little bit. So we need to make that reference. MS. HULSE: Just don't refer back to the non-disturbance buffer in the original permit. You are now establishing a non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Right. Non-disturbance seaward of the pool fence. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. So let's try it. TRUSTEE KING: Nothing to do with the old permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you just re-do that motion, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask Bob to go ahead and propose the resolution. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Go ahead. While he was giving it I was actually listening to Lori. MS. MOORE: I think you had it before. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was too much chatter. I want to clear the record. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to put the one-year extension in this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was already done. TRUSTEE KING: Alt right. So I'll make a motion to approve the pool and patio and the pool fence to be located no more than 25-feet seaward of the patio. And the area seaward of the fence is to be a non-disturbance area. And grass can be planted to the landward side of the fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are going to do. TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on the motion from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: And we'll need to see plans showing the proper location of the fence. MS. MOORE: I could bring that over tomorrow because I have the as-built, as I said. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). RECEIVED AU6 26 S~u~hold Tow~ ¢lerl~ Jill MADoherty, Boarc~bf Trustees