Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/20/2011 Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes RECEIVED $ 8EP 2 7 2011 Southold Town Clerk Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Robed 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, August 17, 2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 24, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 22,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our July meeting. Before we get started, there are a couple of items on the agenda that are postponed, that I would like to go over. Page three, number six, Docko, Inc., on behalf of MARGARET ROBBINS CHARPENTIER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7375 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7375C to increase the overall length of the fixed dock from 120' to 142'. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island, is postponed. Page four, number six, Docko, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT WARDEN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 62 If. 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 Board of Trustees 2 July 20, 2011 ladders all waterward of the apparent high (spring) water line. The overall length of the pier from the existing patio is 70' landward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation. Construct shoreline soil retention and stabilization, cribbing of concrete, wood or plastic materials, backfill with suitable topsoil and plant native noninvasive, salt tolerant ground cover. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island, is postponed. And page six, number 13, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER SCHWAB requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 72 If. 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 If. of existing concrete seawall all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island, is postponed. Number 14, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HEDGE STREET, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to repair or partially reconstruct 79 If. of 6.5' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 10'X 14' pile supported "L" pier, 660 sf. pile supported timber pier landing, a 10'X 24' float with associated ramp and one 4'X 25' float, and two(2) tie-off piles; retain and repair as recovery 78 If. 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. And number 15, 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. They won't be heard tonight. The Board has been busy. Field inspection lists are getting longer and we are working on keeping notes for future code changes to tighten up the code and make things more user friendly. And as you can see we'll be working with the Planning Board on some of the future work there. So we have been busy. And with that we'll get started with the meeting. Our next field inspection, we'll have one on Fishers Island on Wednesday, August 10, which is the date of the town's annual meeting there. The Board will be doing field inspections over there at that time. The next inspection on the mainland is set for Wednesday, August 17, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next Trustee meeting is Wednesday, August 24, 6:00 PM with a worksession at 5:30. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 3 July 20, 201 I TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for June 2011. A check for $13,581.49 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., July 20, 2011, are classified as Type ti Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The list is as follows: Kenneth Heidt - SCTM#126-11-22 Francis Deegan - SCTM#106-6-28.4 Michael Macco - SCTM#136-1-37 Stephenson Road, LLC - SCTM#17-5-4 Margaret Robbins Charpentier- SCTM#3-1-5 Robert G. Bombara - SCTM#54-4-19 Down's Creek, LLC, LMNY, LLC & REMCC, LLC- SCTM#116-6-4 James & Linda Gemmill- SCTM#98-5-18 Alfonso & Antonia Romano - SCTM#58-2-2 1300 Properties, LLC - SCTM#58-2-1 Beixedon Estates Assoc., Inc. - SCTM#66-2-47 Thomas & Barbara Ball - SCTM#66-2-46 Bruno Ilibassi - SCTM#66-2-45 Joan Kuchner - SCTM#66-2-44 Stephen Latham - SCTM#66-2-40 Peter & Joan Fritz - SCTM#71-1-8 Susan Grun - SCTM#52-1-6 James & Patrice Kelly - SCTM#138-2-34 Cutchcott, LLC - SCTM#83-2-13.5 Thomas Maloney - SCTM#76-2-3.2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of'I'rustees 4 July 20, 2011 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, we have two administrative permits to cut phragmites. They were inspected by us, at two different locations. We'll lump them together, they are very simple. So I'll make a motion to approve: Number one, ROBERT SOMERVILLE requests an Administrative Permit to trim phragmites to no lower than 12" in height by hand, as needed. Located: 595 Oakwood Court, Southold. And, number two, ELIZABETH & KENNETH LESTRANGE request an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites by hand to no lower than 12" in height, as needed. Located: 960 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. This is for a ten-year maintenance trim of the phragmites, and if they would send us before and after pictures. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, JOHN BETSCH requests an Administrative Permit to install a post and rail fence and one 12"X 12" or smaller sign along the eastern property line. Located: 2325 North Sea Dr., Southold. We all were out there and this is a property that was bordering a town beach and I believe we found a marker on Mr. Betsch's property, and I'll make a motion to approve a post and rail fence to start -- to be no more than 60 feet seaward of the concrete monument on the east line of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, sorry, the resolution was also for a sign. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I read that, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You just read the fence. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The resolution included the sign, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The resolution includes the sign, too. It's approved as submitted. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have four of these tonight. We all reviewed and inspected them. They are pretty much straightforward, therefore I'll make a motion to approve as submitted: Number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of SIM MOY requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7133, as issued on July 22, 2009. Located: 750 Board of Trustees 5 July 20, 2011 West Lake Dr., Southold. Number two, Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on behalf of PAUL BETANCOURT requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6951 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6951C, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 1825 Aquaview Ave., East Marion. Number three, Karen A. Hoeg, Esq., on behalf of WARREN & NINA BERNSTEIN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7540 to construct new stairs 9.4'X 3.5' off the rear deck on the east side; extend the rear deck to 10' from 8.6'; and to extend the width of the existing lower platform from 3' to 4' to match the proposed width of the fixed dock extension. Located: 2095 Lake Dr., Southold. And number four, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of SCHNOORNANDYKE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #4017 and Coastal Erosion Permit #2 to allow for realignment and reinforcement of existing stone toe armor at base of bluff with 3'-4' dia, 2-4 ton stone and backfill/renourishment of bluff face as necessary with approx. 100 cy. clean sand to be revegetated with native vegetation. Located: 335 Soundview Rd., Orient. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under moorings, we only have one this month, number one, ROGER STOUTENBURGH requests a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring #822. Access: Public. We reviewed this. It's in an area where a mooring was prior, therefore it's not a problem in that area, therefore, I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the regular agenda and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the public hearing section, please keep your comments five minutes or less. Come up to the mic, state your name for the record. Wayne Galante is here recording for us. First we'll stad with some amendments. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS AMENDMENTS: Board of Trustecs 6 July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we'll do, on these amendments, we have five of them. They are all regarding the same permit. The five amendments, we'll open all of them at once. They are all attached. They are permits that we gave last year and from what I understand they finally got their DEC permit and the DEC is requesting sand to be brought in to replenish the beach. They are listed as follows: Number one, STEPHEN LATHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4138 to replenish the beach with approx. 400 cy. of sand. Located: 845 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. Number two, JOAN KUCHNER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #469 to replenish the beach with approx. 500 cy. of sand. Located: 1726 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. Number three, BRUNO ILIBASSl requests an Amendment to Amend Wetland Permit #469 to replenish the beach with approx. 400 cy. of sand. Located: 1728 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold Number four, THOMAS & BARBARA BALL request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #469 to replenish the beach with approx. 400 cy. of sand. Located: 1890 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. And number five, BEIXEDON ESTATES ASSOC., linC., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #469B to replenish beach with approx. 400 cy of sand. Located: R.O.W. Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. So basically it's just a formality that we have to go through. All the properties except the one are having four-hundred cubic yards of sand placed in front. And the other one, Kuchner, is five-hundred cubic yards of sand in front. That's the amendment for these five. Just give us a moment to review the files. (Perusing). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a document handed in this afternoon. I'm just taking a quick look at it. TRUSTEE KING: Who is it from? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Somebody brought it in. A Mr. Stein brought this in this afternoon. And it was highlighting some information that we had originally, from the Original September, 2010. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a DEC document. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: DEC document, and I just wanted to go over it. It's highlighted parts of the documents we already reviewed as part of this process. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We determined on this new information we have today, it's not new information for us. So with that is there any comments from the audience on these applications? MR. LATHAM: Steve Latham. I live in Beixedon, at 60 Rogers Road. I have a statement but I hate to take up five minutes of your time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it new information? MR. LATHAM: No, it's just a review of what you already have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, thank you. Does anybody have any comments, new information, regarding the fill regarding this amendment? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing for these five amendments. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 7 July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve as submitted all five amendments. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comments on these, on the resolution from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). COASTAL EROSION PERMITS TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SUSAN GRUN, requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing wood walk and stairs to beach; remove 61' of existing bulkhead and construct new bulkhead in-place; construct a new 3'X 5' cantilevered platform and reinstall existing stairway and wood walkway to beach; fill voids landward of new bulkhead with 15 cy. of clean trucked-in sand; re-vegetate area with Cape American beach grass; remove 65' of existing concrete block retaining wall and construct new wall in-place; and install 61' of single row of 1.5 to 3 ton rock armoring at base of new bulkhead. Located: 54305 County Rd. 48, Southold. I'll make a motion to table this application until Mr. Costello can get a chance to get here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go to number two, En~Consultants, Inc., on behalf of JOSEPH OCCHIPINTI requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reverse the grade slope of the area between the bluff and maintained lawn, which ranges in width from approx. 42' to 52', so that the angle is gently sloped away from rather than toward the bluff; revegetate and permanently maintain area as a natural vegetated buffer; establish a stone retaining wail at the landward boundary of the buffer; and establish a Iow-lying berm along the landward side of the bluff crest to further minimize and mitigate against the volume and flow rate of sheet run-off over the top of the bluff. Located: 1250 Sound Dr., Greenport. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. This is a continuation of a hearing the Board had previously held for Mr. Occhipinti, and it relates to the resolution of what had been a clearing violation along the top of the bluff. I submitted a letter dated July 8, with a landscape restoration plan that Bob just described that was prepared by Marshall Paetzal Landscape Architecture that would essentially re-grade and revegetate that area as described and as depicted Board of Trustees 8 July 20, 2011 in the plan. If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but otherwise I would not have anything to add beyond what has already been submitted for the record. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We all went, we are all familiar with it. We saw the re-planting plan. It makes a lot of sense. It is nice the way -- it's only a one-foot berm, though, right? One foot high? MR. HERMAN: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And after that it's almost pitching inward. MR. HERMAN: It pitches back. If you look sort of at the top of your photo, that's what the grade naturally does there through part of the property already. So it's really intended to match that pitch that you see in the uppermost part of the picture. That would be the most easterly portion of the area. There is a bit of a natural pitch back toward the lawn. So the design concept is to try and match that along the entire edge just to try and decrease both the volume and flow rate for runoff. And of course the wall would continue along the edge and basically become a permanent demarcation of that buffer area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to make a note, the original LWRP back in April found it to be inconsistent, but I think these changes do a lot toward alleviating those inconsistencies. MR. HERMAN: That was relating to the original violation, I would think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right. And then the Conservation Advisory Council did not make a report on this new application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, did. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jack, did you see it after? MR. MCGREEVEY: I personally didn't see it, but it was inspected by two of our volunteers and we didn't support the application as presented because there should be a detailed plan for the restoration, stabilization of the bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a non-turf buffer and a berm. That's what was recommended by two of our people. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When was that? MR. MCGREEVEY: I don't know the exact date but it was some time prior to the 13th. (Perusing). Excuse me. I don't know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The report I have shows the Conservation Advisory Council did not support it for those very recommendations, that was back in April, prior to this new application. MR. HERMAN: It would seem the plan now would be responsive. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plans shows the berm. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response). Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Just that this was a pretty heavily vegetated area before, and he mowed it down and the stuff was actually pushed right over the bluff. So hopefully this will correct it. MR. HERMAN: That's the objective. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think also the way the plan is showing it also, alleviates, the neighbors that have the right-of-way, Board of Trustees 9 July 20, 201 l alleviates the concern they have also. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to approve the application for Joseph Occhipinti as it has been submitted; knowing that by making these changes we are mitigating the issues of LWRP, and now we would find it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on that resolution by the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of ALFONSO & ANTONIA ROMANO requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore and stabilize portion of beach area that was eroded in winter storm via placement of approx. 75 cy. sand renourishment to be planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center) and stabilized with approx. 48 If. of 2.5'-3.5' dia, 1-2 ton stone toe armor. Located: 1380 Leeton Dr., Southold. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Board went out and inspected this and it definitely was a loss from that December storm, as it was for a lot of people in that area. The LWRP finds it consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that the angle of repose is modified to a shallow angle to dissipate wave action and allow the beach to build up and add planting seaward of the rock revetment. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMAN: Jill, do you want to open up the next one with this since it's really all one, contiguous project? TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Yes, we can. MR. HERMAN: They are really all one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, number four, En-Consultants behalf of 1300 PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore and stabilize portion of naturally vegetated berm that was eroded and removed by winter storm via placement of approx. 200 cy. sand renourishment to be planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center) and stabilized with approx. 105 If. of 2.5'-3.5' dia. 1-2 ton stone toe armor. Located: 1300 Leeton Dr., Southold. These two projects are attached and adjacent to each other. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of both applicants. One thing I want to do -- TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Let me just interrupt you for one second. ©n this one I just opened up, it's consistent with the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports this application with the same comments as they had before with a change in the angle of repose and to build up the beach and add plantings. Board of Trustees 10 July 20, 20I 1 MR. HERMAN: What I just handed up to Lauren is a supplemental profile that I wanted to submit to the Board. Just given the location and the effects of the storm from last December, I had asked Jeffrey Butler, a professional engineer, to review our plans and to also offer a profile with his engineer stamp and seal on it. And so the dimensions and scope of the project is essentially the same as what is before you, the difference being that Jeff had added some, I guess you would call it realism to some of the scope and dimensions of the stone, and he's making sure to call out that there is filter fabric. I mean we showed that on our plan, but he shows there is filter fabric and scour stone at the toe where the below-grade stone will be trenched in to support the upper part. There has been some discussion with my clients about, you had a comment about the slope. Can you just, it was some question about -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Conservation Advisory Council comments, the angle of repose is modified to shallow angle to dissipate wave action to allow beach to build up and add planting seaward of the rock revetment. MR. HERMAN: Basically, the par[ of the wall that is exposed above grade will be at one to one-and-one-half slope, which is pretty standard. If you take the entire wall, if it were, for example, completely exposed, is actually just slightly steeper than one to one. The problem is to get to a, to actually get to a flatter angle of repose we have to gradually take up more and more of the beach. So one of the issues that we have been a little bit between a rock and a hard place in terms of trying to maximize the area of restoration and also without actually going seaward of Spring high tide. That is particularly an issue on the Romano property because the Spring high water in that area immediately adjacent to the Stanton property is actually pretty close to that deck area. And of course he's trying to raise the elevation of that beach behind it and get it planted. So if we were to flatten that slope, we would actually have to pull the entire structure back farther. There is really no room, particularly on the Romano side to cover and plant. Because basically, if you put sand seaward of that stone, it will start to get eaten up right away. For the adjacent property, the 1300 LLC, we have a little more room to work there and I think it is probably the applicant's intention, if it's possible, to try to get that sand covered up, if there is some extra material down there, we can get it covered up and planted. Again, you are running a little bit of the same risk to the extent that the function of, not really the function, but the success of the restoration will depend in large part upon the weather. If we were to get pounded with another storm in the magnitude of last December's storm again, they'll be back here next year asking, you know, under the maintenance agreement, to be restoring again. Board of Trustees I I July 20, 2011 The idea here, and what we actually discussed, Mr. Romano's daughter and Mr. Serure, who is the neighbor and applicant, we actually spoke with Andrew Walker and George Hammarth and Alexa Fournier at the meeting that we had, where the Army Corps and everyone attended, and I followed up with George Hamare since, and again, we are walking a little bit of fine line, because what the DEC is trying to accomplish here is to real allow us some toe stone on the seaward edge of the renourishment, to try to give that renourishment a chance to succeed. This is not supposed to be a large engineered rock revetment that is five or six feet tall and has the ability to protect these homes. And I know the Board is aware of it. That's not the essence of this project. In this that December storm, Mr. Serure, for one, lost about 20-some odd feet of what had been very nicely elevated vegetated berm that you could clearly see on the aerial photographs, even on Google Eadh, from September of 2010. So the goal here, as Jill explained, is to try to restore what was lost avulsively in that storm event, and the best way to give that renourishment some chance to succeed is by putting that toe stone out at the end. Obviously, to give the most amount of protection they would have a much bigger, wider, flatter slope structure, but that would start to take up a pretty big footprint on the beach, and that's not what the DEC is willing to allow here. So we are trying to really do something in between, something that is a little more substantial than what Jim described. And December, some of these half baked projects, where there is this tiny bit of stone or something that goes ought, and there is no toe support and they get washed away immediately, but also not going into the type of scope of fully bulkheading along the beach or putting a rock revetment out in the middle of the beach. That's not the intention. So we are trying to do the best we can in that sort of middle range there, but the reality is if they were to get hit by another storm of that magnitude, it would overtop the stone and probably wash out some of the sand behind it. But as Mr. Romano had observed and when he first came to me, the stone that the Stanton residence has to the west, that maintains the beach elevation behind it much more effectively, whereas a lot of that material washed out from not only in front of the Romano beach but from underneath his house, underneath the deck, et cetera. So we trying to restore and maintain that sand the best way that we can. But again, this is not really a fully engineered revetment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just for the record, we, on the 1300 Properties, I believe it is, there is a shed out there and a deck. In the discussions with you, I know, and there is proof of it, it's been there for a while, I guess prior to Trustee permits. What are your intentions with that? MR. HERMAN: There is absolutely nothing proposed with respect to that shed or deck. Those structures were basically encompassed Board of Trustees 12 July 20, 201 I by sand before and that will be the case again. One thing that we had not addressed, and I'm not sure that we completely address until the work is implemented, is access out and over the stone. What the 1300 Properties had originally had, and you can see this on the aerial, was just kind of a pathway through that berm and out. They could do the same thing again, except at that point you would hit the stone. Same thing on Romano. Now, I have seen some of these stone projects done where the contractor can actually construct the stone so it's almost like flat steps built into the stone itself. But there is the possibility that we might have to come back to modify the permit at some point to add some sort of structural access. But we are not really quite there yet. And I'm not sure that decision will be made by the applicants until they are actually implementing the work and can see how it's going to work out. But I assume you would consider that pretty minor and we could probably seek an administrative amendment to add that. Unless you just want to allow it in the permit, to allow some form of access contingent upon receipt of plans, I'm not sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem if do you want do an access like you just mentioned with the stone, but if you are going to build a set of stairs over it and structure, I think we would need to see drawings and for you to come back for that. And just to note for the record, when and if anything is done on the shed and deck, you have to come to us to get a permit. And of course it would have to meet code. MR. HERMAN: Of course. Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have the proof that it was there prior to Trustees. Are there any questions from the Board on either of the projects on either property? (No response). Any further questions from the audience? (No response). Comments? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing none, I'll make a motion to close both hearings, on the Romano and 1300 Properties. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). All right, I would like to open up 1300 Properties, again, for further discussion. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, it's come to our attention, I'm mistaken. The shed and the deck around the shed has grown since it was originally put there years ago, so it was, structure was added without our, without any permits from this office. MR. HERMAN: Okay. This is on 13007 Board of Trustees 13 July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I guess we have a survey from 1988 showing the shed and a walkway. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you have an aerial from 2010 showing the deck much bigger. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I guess the question is when was that deck added on to? The shed was clearly there prior to our jurisdiction. I think 2004 -- MR. SERURE: David Serure. The decking and the stairway that has now been revealed, I didn't even know the stairway was there until after the storm. That's why it's kind of disconnected. The new planks of decking were put on, on top of the old deck that was there. The existing deck that was there that is attached to the shed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a survey that was submitted with your application of 2004 showing something different that is there. That's what, I guess, where the confusion is. If you want to come and look to see what I'm talking about. MR. SERURE: (Complying). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is the shed. We know that was there. See how the deck is just, it's a walkway, see how that shows on the survey? MR. HERMAN: Then it got squared off, you mean. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now it's all squared off, so it has grown since this. MR. SERURE: I guess if you go further into the property it may not be shown because it was all covered in sand, but underneath this whole area, the current decking, the planks that are there, were built over the old planks, which are, I guess they must have been buried when the survey was done. Because if you go to the structure now and you look underneath, you'll see the existing decking that they used as the footing and I just had new wood put on because the other was all rickety and old, and the planks were rotting out and whatnot. At the time they did that, I was not even aware there was that couple of steps you may have seen when you took your survey out there. Those were washed away. ~ mean, it's not safe for us right now, kids just jump off that structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking about this whole thing. You are saying when this survey was done, that was buried and the surveyor did not see that? MR. SERURE: Correct. So if you go there now, the original decking is still there. MR. HERMAN: So, David, the old understructure, the structural supports are actually still there. MR. SERURE: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the Board's comments on these? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When did you buy the house? MR. SERURE: 2006. I believe it was September or October. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the Board's pleasure on this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think given the uncertainty of this deck and Board of Trustees 14 July 20, 2011 the fact that when we were out there, we were not looking for this deck situation to come up, I would recommend that we table this application until we have the opportunity to 9o out as a Board and look at it in the field to see if it in fact matches what the gentleman is saying. Because this is important here as to whether or not this is something that is a violation of the code or not a violation of code. So it's a fairly important ~ piece of information here. MR. SERURE: With all due with respect, the application is not with regard to the deck. It's to restore the sand that was taken from the storm. And the deck, we simply put new wood over old wood that was there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if the Board wants to do this. I agree with the gentleman that it's two separate issues, however it's the same property. If we move on this application, however, put a condition on that the shed and the deck issue has to be resolved before he gets his permit. Is that something that can be done? MS. HULSE: Legally speaking, this is a separate issue and he should get a violation for the shed and make a new application for that, if there is going to be one. That's a separate issue, but that's not something that will resolve like this. He'll have to be issued a summons. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So can we move ahead on the application that we have before us? MS. HULSE: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm say, it's two separate issues. MS. HULSE: Sure, I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so Ill move to close the public hearing 1300 Properties. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I'll make a motion on number three, Eh-Consultants on behalf of Alfonso and Antonia Romano to approve the application as submitted. And it was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment on this resolution? MS. HULSE: Rob, are you unopposed to accepting service by mail, just to resolve it quicker? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is a different property. MS. HULSE: I thought we were doing it together. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are doing a separate resolution for each MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, I'll wait and ask my question later. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, on behalf of 1300 Properties, I'll make a resolution to approve as submitted and it was also found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 15 July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment on this resolution? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With '1300 Properties, we'll take a look at it and' we'll contact -- MR. SERURE: Physically, how does this work TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll contact you and we'll tell you the procedure. And Lori, I 9uess -- MS. HULSE: I just wanted to see, Rob, do you want to accept service for this? MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure I understand the question. MS. HULSE: There will have to be a violation for the deckin9 and the shed, so just to resolve it, I thou[Iht you were interested in resolvin9 it quickly. MR. SERURE: We do want to resolve it quickly, but I'm not understandin9 -- I know you are usin9 the term "violation." But we put new wood over wood that was rottin9 out, or what have you. The footings, a§ain, certainly when you come out, or whoever comes out, again, I don't know how the process works. MS. HULSE: There will be a summons that will be issued and you'll 9et to respond to that. That won't hold this up, but I'm just sayin9 -- MR. HERMAN: I think the question is, what I was hearin9 Jill say was if they can determine that the deck has not been illegally expanded, then there would not be a violation. MS. HULSE: Then I'll just take it up with the marine police. There will be a violation issued for it, just to let you know. Regardless of what the explanation is, it can be very reasonable. I'm just sayin9 that's just how it will be handled. MR. SERURE: How will that be resolved? MS. HULSE: You don't have to worry about it. That's why I was askin9 if there was 9oin9 to be -- MR. HERMAN: I'm still tryin~l to 9et, if I could 9et their attention, I'm tryin9 to 9et a substantive answer. Are they sayin[l no matter what the proof is, they'll resolve this by issuin§ a violation? MS. HULSE: That's not their call to make. They are not [loin9 to make it. It will 90 to the bay constable and he'll assess the situation. MR. HERMAN: How will he know whether there is a violation? MS. HULSE: He'll do his work in the investigation. MR. HERMAN: So what if he 9oes out and finds there is no violation? MS. HULSE: He releases his permit and he [lees home, I 9uess. TRUSTEE KING: I think the issue here, correct me if I'm wrong, is you can't work on an unpermitted structure. There is no permit on the structure so you can't repair it until there is a valid permit. That's the issue. MS. HULSE: But there was additional work done to it than just the deckin9, so. TRUSTEE KING: Work was done on an unpermitted structure. Board of Trustees 16 July 20, 2011 MR. HERMAN: So you'll be issued a summons and we'll have to deal with it. MR. SERURE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are we ready to move on, Jill? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, just let me know when. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we're ready. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHCOTT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore and stabilize eroded and denuded portion of bluff by regrading and translating landward existing bluff crest (variable width) to remove vertical lip; using approx. 200 cy. of resultant material plus up to approx. 50 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source as necessary to renourish bluff face; construct a terrace retaining wall along the seaward limit of erosion to contain and stabilize the renourishment material which is to be further stabilized with erosion control matting and replanted with native vegetation; and establish a 15' non-turf buffer with small berm landward of the bluff. Located: 2800 Dignan's Rd., Cutchogue. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed and found to be consistent under the LWRP. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, however questions the legality of the wood platform at the top of the beach stairs in compliance with current codes. Now, as I indicated, the Board did go out and looked at this and we share in the same concern about the deck. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is a fairly straightforward bluff renourishment application. It's actually a site where there is some advantage to the homeowner in terms of how to do the restoration work, because unlike many of the ones we have been looking at with you, there was not a sheer down the entire length of the bluff face. There was really a severe denuding of the bluff down to a certain point, beyond which the vegetation held up pretty well. So what we are proposing is to construct a small terrace retaining wall basically along that boundary line between the eroded and denuded upper bluff face and what is still a stable and well vegetated lower bluff face. The idea is to then backfill to that terrace wall with the renourishment material and revegetate that entire upper area with native plantings. There is probably -- I used a lot of variable numbers in my plans because there is probably going to have to be some part of that upper vertical lip cut back. But how much has to be cut back or disturbed will really be a function of what the site conditions are when the work physically gets done. That's always the case, because we inevitably have, usually a many-month time lag between when the applicants initially approach us and are able to obtain contractors, hire us and get through the permit process. Board of Trustecs 17 July 20, 2011 The question about the upper deck on the stairway, there was a Trustee permit issued in 1996 to Pauletta Brooks-Gurfein, permit number 4614, to build stairs from the top of bluff to the bottom. But I don't have a Trustee stamped approved plan from that permit. I think at that time the Trustees didn't issue stamp approved plans. So in order -- I mean I can tell you the stairs are legal. I shouldn't say I could tell you that. I'm presuming based on this permit that the stairs are legal, but I don't know what the exact specifications of the stairways and landings and so forth were. We could maybe try, if that's an issue of concern for the Board, we can certainly try and see if I could dig further and let me see if I could find anything on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, we don't have in the file here that there was any permit for that deck or stairs. There could very well be, but I'm just saying there is nothing here in the files that indicates there is a permit for this. Our concern when we looked at this out in the field is under Chapter 275 it clearly states decks are not allowed either at or over bluffs. And if the project includes cutting the lip back, then you would be putting a deck, if we were to consider allowing this, we would be taking what is possibly a non-permitted or could be a permitted deck, we don't know yet, and putting it back so it extends over the bluff, which is not allowed under code. MR. HERMAN: Right. Well, I handed up to Jill -- I was mistaken, I did have a plan from your website with that permit. You can see the plans the Board was accepting in 1996 look a little different from the ones we typically submit to you now. It clearly shows that, you know, a larger platform at the top but there is no dimensions on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It says existing patio. Existing patio, pointing to-- MR. HERMAN: Well, it shows the deck overhanging the bluff, though. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. HERMAN: So I don't know what the-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That could be the slate patio. MR. HERMAN: It would not be the slate patio because you could not hang a slate patio over the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no. This might be showing landward, an existing patio landward of the deck, could be what this means. We are interpreting something from 1996. In other words this could be an existing patio, they are saying here, landward of. MR. HERMAN: Yes, because this clearly shows a deck hanging over the edge of the bluff connected to the stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I see a platform, not a deck. MR. HERMAN: Platform, whatever you want call it. Something at the top. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, again, I guess what it gets back to for us, one of our suggestions was -- and let me back up. We also thought that was a very well-vegetated lip up on top. And our concern was if you cut back that lip you'll lose that vegetation Board of Trustees 18 July 20, 2011 also and you could then jeopardize the patio that is behind it. I know normally when dealt with sound bluff erosions, severe erosions, we talked about cutting back the lip, but maybe in this case that is not the best idea, because you'll lose that vegetation, you'll compromise possibly the patios behind it, and it will call into question the ability to even put that deck back. You could lose that deck. So if the applicant could consider not removing that lip and handling this in another method, it might achieve your goal. MR. HERMAN: There is two different issues there, so I'll respond to them separately. Just with the substance of the design, the reason we included that, as the Board typically requires, is just the fact if you try to renourish back out to what is the previously existing crest of bluff, you run the risk, if that area is not stable, of that then pulling away avulsively, maybe even after you have done the work, then you are back to the same place you were when you started. It is a good point, that the lip in this case is very well vegetated, so it at least has more hope of surviving than if it was completely sheared, as is often the case when we are dealing with some of these projects. So again, I know it's not a perfect science, but we almost want to leave the flexibility in the plan, again, depending on when the contractor actually goes out to do the work, how much of that lip needs to be cut back or not. And if they feel that they can terrace, renourish back and try to maintain that lip, then we would certain go ahead and do that. The issue with the platform, to me, is separate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me interrupt for one second. Jim just scaled off the platform on the survey from 1996 and it's a ten-foot platform. MR. HERMAN: It is. Okay, I would have to scale off this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We measured it when we were out there. It's 14x15. MR. HERMAN: So if that deck has to be reconstructed, I would assume we would have to bring it back to at least what the prior permit was. See, I don't know what the Board's position is, and I know we have gone through this on an unpermitted structure before. And I guess Lori would have to answer this question. If the homeowner has a Wetlands Permit for a particular structure, and they need to reconstruct it, would it be the Board's position that that permit is no longer relevant and they would have to cut it back to the 32 square feet or whatever is allowed today? MS. HULSE: Yes. MR. HERMAN: So in other words getting a Trustees permit in 1996 is now meaningless, in effect. MS. HULSE: That's not what it means. It means it has to comply with the current standards. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus the fact that the topography there has changed. The lip of the bluff has moved. And, you know, like I said, 275 is very clear, decks cannot extend over bluffs or be adjacent to the top of the bluff. Board of Trustees 19 July 20, 201 l MR. HERMAN: So it would have to be slid back and downsized, to some extent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's where we are going. MR. HERMAN: If it has to be taken apart. MR. STOUTENBERG: Peter Stoutenberg. I was trying to help with this project when it first showed up. I looked at the framework and explained to the people that regardless of how the permit process worked out, the structure did need to be relocated, and I didn't know the background, although from work done, with structures in the area, I thought this was done through the permit process and it wasn't done at night or on a weekend or something. It seemed to be pretty straightforward with equipment in the area. And I sort of got the idea that had to be moved back for whatever work that was being done. Aisc in order to reconstruct the upper section of stairs. They didn't seem to have a problem with that. Now, I didn't come up with the idea if there was a permit, that it has to disappear, and if there is a size, I'm not sure how many times it's changed hands. I don't know how many records they have. They didn't seem to make their lawyer pass anything on to them. That's why Rob started to do the research and stuff. And I missed a little bit, that that permit no longer has any validity in what was there? MS. HULSE: That's what Rob described it as. Once you are talking about 2011, you have to comply with the code that is in effect in 2011. So the code now, as Trustee Bergen mentioned, does not allow for decks on the bluff. So, yes, you have to comply with the code now. MR. STOUTENBERG: But if the structure is still there -- MS. HULSE: If you are doing work on it, if you are reconstructing, it has to comply with current standards. If you were rebuilding a home that was built in 1950, you would have to comply with 2011 standards. It's the same idea. MR. HERMAN: But they would not shrink your home. MS. HULSE: Rob and I have had this discussion I don't know how many times. MR. HERMAN: This is almost a monthly debate. Somebody will eventually challenge it. MR. STOUTENBERG: I worked on a lot of home in a lot of places and never had that happen. MS. HULSE: I'm telling you what the law is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could make a suggestion. I don't know if the owner is here tonight. MR. STOUTENBERG: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would like us to table this so you can go back to the owner and explain the options here, where if we go forward with what is requested, it will require the deck to be downsized to the size it was originally approved, plus it has to be moved back so it is not adjacent to the top of the bluff or hang over the bluff. And see what the homeowner would like to do here. Board of Trustees 20 July 20, 201 I MR. STAUFFENBERG: That's what I somewhat explained that to them. They realize it has to come back. They didn't realize there was a size variation, but I said this needs to come back just in order -- and the structure was built, as we have done in the past, where the structure is back. It may look like it's sitting on the bluff, but the structure is missing along the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we said, the current structure, like I said, was 14x15, and is scaled out in the plan from, what was it, 1996 -- it's ten foot. So obviously the deck is larger than what was originally permitted. MR. HERMAN: I think if how you just phrased it 30 seconds ago were the case, it would have to be downsized to what was permitted, and moved back. We could agree with that. MS. HULSE: That's not what the law says. The law does not say it has to be downsized to what it was in 19 whatever. What would have to happen is it has to be downsized to what the code allows for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's 32 square feet at the top of the stairs. MR. HERMAN: That we would not accept. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I agree with what you are saying -- MS. HULSE: We can't give a variance from what the code says. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I agree with what you are saying, Lori. MR. HERMAN: Well, I mean, if I can, it's not to stir this debate, but every time the Board grants a permit for a house within a hundred feet, they are varying from the hundred foot setback that is required by code. What is it about this bluff deck that is rigid whereas ever other part of your code is flexible? I still fail to understand that intellectually. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something we'll have to discuss at another time. Because that's a long discussion. And we are constantly discussing it. What do you want to do? Do you want to table this and go back to your client and discuss, tell them what the regulations are and discuss their options? MR. HERMAN: I think what the client will say is if he could possibly get this renourishment done without dismantling the entire deck and having to go through this whole process, that's probably what he would prefer to do. So I guess my suggestion would be, if you could condition the approval that if it is necessary, come time to implement the work, to cut back the entire lip so the deck literally does have to be taken apart and moved, and the stairs extended, et cetera, because if you cut the lip back, you can't have the bluff suspended in midair. It would have to be moved back regardless of what the code says, we have to come back in and amend the permit. But if the work can be done without doing all that, that's probably what he would prefer, I guess. MR. STOUTENBERG: Talking with him, I think you are right in that if this deck was modified by being reduced with the number three feet, because that's where it will no longer overhang, and Board of Trustccs 21 July 20, 2011 the rest of the deck stays there, is that acceptable? We are not reconstructing this thing, we are cutting the nose off of it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would reduce it to within ten feet of the prior permit. MR. HERMAN: If we sort of put it back to where it's supposed to be, I guess. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds very reasonable, from my perspective. MR. HERMAN: This idea to me that your permit doesn't matter anymore, I don't accept that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I hear your concerns. I'm kind of locked up. MR. HERMAN: Because the permit tonight is useless in two years if you change the code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Intellectually, I'm having the same problem. MS. HULSE: Jill, we can't have this discussion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you were to proceed or if the Board is accepting of let's say the modification to bring it back to within the ten feet of the prior permit, then you would not be cutting the bluff behind that point, you still would have plans though to stabilize with a retaining structure or something to hold the soil on the bluff face, presumably, because if you are going to reconstruct the bluff, you'll need something to hold the soil to prevent it from avulsing or collapsing again. In other words the plans shows the retaining section. That will remain in the plan or you may have to change the dimensions of that to accommodate the soils, I'm just wondering. MR. HERMAN: I don't think the terrace, the location or height of the terrace would have to change, no. Because we can only come up 24 inches on the terrace. Just the way the terrace is built it won't support it if we go any higher. MR. STOUTENBERG: Aisc we are not looking to put any extra weight on what appears to be held by the vegetation. So it's important not to put any extra weight at that point. So we are pretty much maxed as to what the vegetation will hold. So this is starting a new location to put weight on the bluff, not to take a chance on losing what seems to have stabilized itself and working above it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just stand by for just a second. TRUSTEE GHOStO: Do we have any pictures of that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the only picture. (Perusing). (Board members discussing amongst themselves). Thanks for your patience, everybody. Rob, we are trying to come up with a way to assist you here, but comply with the code. And if we were allowed to, this project to move forward, without touching that deck, without moving that deck, without removing it temporarily or anything, and then obviously if the deck does have to be removed, touched, worked with in any way, you'll have to come back in to modify the permit and the deck will have to comply with the current code, which is 32-square feet at the top of the stairway. MR. HERMAN: Well, one alternative, Dave, would be if the, and I don't know if John was, as John was saying, maybe this would Board of Trustecs 22 July 20, 2011 require maybe a second terrace or something, but if it could be done in a way so that only the outer three feet of the deck were just removed and the rest it was was left alone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we were just discussing. The code does not allow for that. The code says once you touch it. And we have to work with what the code is right now. MR. HERMAN: So I want to see the section of code, for the record, that says if you touch a Trustee-permitted structure, you need to meet current code. I definitely want to see that section of code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But that does the not meet the current permit. It exceeds the current permit. MR. HERMAN: Right. But if this was modified to meet the current permit, it would be a legally-permitted structure. So I want to know where in the code it says if you touch a legally permitted structure -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it's not a legally-permitted structure because it's beyond what this permit is in 1996. It grew. So it's not legal anymore. MR. HERMAN: I understand. But if it was the same size. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not. So we have to work with what we have right now. MR. HERMAN: But the reality is -- MS. HULSE: The reality is what was is out there, Rob. MR. HERMAN: So if a permit is issued for a 6x16 float and somebody went out and built a 6x20 float, you would issue a summons and tell them to cut it back to a 6x16 float, wouldn't you? MS. HULSE: We are getting into this academic discussion that does not even apply to the facts of what you have out there. You are making this something it isn't. You are arguing something that is not out there, Rob. MR. HERMAN: But this conversation has always applied to the part of the code that describes what has to happen to an unpermitted structure. This deck is a permitted structure. I hear what you are saying, that somebody made it bigger than the permit. But if somebody ever makes something bigger than a permit, you go and make them fix it. You make them bring it back to what is permitted. Is that not right? MS. HULSE: You make them bring it back to what the law is today. MR. HERMAN: Okay, so -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think this debate is going to continue on and on. I would like to at this point return back to the option that I'm offering here, and that the Board is offering here. And that option is to consider the permit as described with the condition that the deck will not be removed, modified, in any way, because if so it will have to be brought into compliance with current code. MR. STOUTENBERG: I think that's fair. MS. HULSE: And I'm going to recommend against that. If that's the Board's wishes, that's circumventing the intention of the code. Board of Trustees 23 July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll open it up to other suggestions from other Board members. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I hear what you are saying, Lori, and I don't, I respect what you are saying, but we have done this in the past with structures that have been there for many years. So, you know, I think what Dave has suggested is something that is consistent with what we have done in the past, right or wrong. MS. HULSE: My recollection is we have only done that with permitted structures. Not something that is greater in size than what was permitted when it was issued a permit. I don't think I could recollect a situation where we have done what we are doing tonight. MR. HERMAN: You have done it with pre-existing structures that were not permitted at all. MS. HULSE: That's a different scenario, Rob. MR. HERMAN: It's even worse, really. I mean, this has a permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to hear the opinion of other Board members at this point in time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to, at this point, I would like to table it. Because I think Rob has some good points and I also think that Lori has some good points. I would like to take the time to sit down and try to find what Rob asked for, the section of the code that says he has to bring everything up to current code if something happens. I would just like to, at this point, take some time to review it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other Board members have any comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I like that notion myself of further review, because I think there are some good suggestions on all points and this is not the time for an academic pursuit of this. Clearly, if you have a minor building violation, let's say a wall thickness or other items, you are not made to change the entire plumbing in a whole building or change a thickness of a bearing wall or all those things. So that seems to be an argument that I'm hearing, one of the more academic views I'm hearing from Rob and from Peter, and from our side, though, I have the standing of law that we have to take into consideration. The Board can't go off on its own particular tangent, which some of us like myself might find easy to do. But I think in this case I like what I'm hearing from Trustee Ghosio and I think maybe we should look into this a little more. MR. HERMAN: My only thought on it, and I agree with what you just said, but my only thought is just in terms of what Dave has suggested, if there is no proposal do anything to the deck, in other words, they just re-fill back to the bluff crest, and didn't have to modify the deck or stairs at all, it would not be part of the application. So if that were the case, I'm not sure why what Dave suggested presents a problem. In other cases, like we did on McDonald or Vasilakis, the Board agreed the platform could be moved and then setback. I'm not sure we are even asking to do that. I'm saying if there was no -- we were not touching Board of Trustees 24 July 20, 2011 the deck at all, is that a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point I would like to make a motion to table this application for further discussion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: All right. That's one way to answer the question. At some point this Board will have to address the fact that these applications are becoming an opportunity to try to bring other structures that are on the property up to current code, now even when they are permitted structures. So I think the Board -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have had this debate. MR. HERMAN: But this has been debated, Lori and I have been debating it probably for two years running, at almost every meeting, and the Board's decision on how they handle this have varied from application to application. At some point, we have to see what the code really says. And it's my position that if you have a permitted structure, it really should not be this Board's objective to take a permitted structure and reduce it or change it or something like that now for really no particular purpose. It's very frustrating. And whatever the answer is, it is. But part of my job is to be able to guide clients and to guide the property owners, so I need to be able to say every single structure on your property is up for grabs if you try to ~do something to improve your property. If that's the case, that's the case, it's fine. I don't begrudge you that. But it has to be made clear so we can all understand it. That's really all I'm really asking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, under Wetland Permits, STEPHENSON ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing pile supports and girders under existing frame shed and deck; install 4'X 39' catwalk to facilitate access to existing shed and mitigate pedestrian traffic over vegetated wetlands; and improve steps from road elevation to catwalk elevation. Located: 19340 Route 25, Orient. This application has been deemed consistent by the LWRP. I don't know if we have a picture of it. This application is an application to stabilize the famous crab shack of Orient Creek, which is an historic structure, used to, in many renditions of the Nodh Fork. Do we have a picture of the crab shack, Bob, by any chance? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There it is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may be familiar to many. The intent is to allow this historic structure to remain on our waterfront. It's one of the few structures of its kind. Historically it was used for opening crabs and I guess water activities on the creek. Board of Trustees 25 July 20, 2011 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CROWLEY: Good evening, lan Crowley on behalf of Stephenson Road. You guys have the plans. We planned on putting some temporary supports, sliding the building over to make sure everything stays underneath and then fix up the deck to re~ support the deck and then put a catwalk up to the road. I don't know if you guys saw that set of steps from the bank. Just to keep everybody off the wetlands. Because they use it quite a bit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who has the right to use this? MR. CROWLEY: The Lohness family and I guess their extended family. I'm not really sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's one family, it's not an association or anything. MR. CROWLEY: I'm not quite sure. I think it's just the family. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were just, it's probably a concern of the family that since it's on that main road and there is so many tourists that go by there, that, you know, that it's posted properly that's it's private property. MR. CROWLEY: They may put a gate up, locking gate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if you want to do that, that should be included in this as well. Otherwise you'll have people coming from the ferry and traversing -- MR. CROWLEY: They do that already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They do it already. Just now it will be easier. So I'm just suggesting if you want to do something such as a gate, to add it to this. MR. CROWLEY: Do t have to amend the plans? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you can do it verbally tonight. MR. CROWLEY: Yes, we would like to put a locking gate on the roadside of the cabin. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I might add, the Conservation Advisory Council does support the application, and the Trustees, during the course of our field inspections, in addition to concerns about access and safety where it might become such an attractive feature to the area, that in addition to a gate, the Trustees would want to have a set of steps up and over the catwalk because this creek is frequented by people who continue to crab and clam, and they typically move along the foreshore of this area. So that we want to be able to maintain people coming up to the catwalk can move up and over the catwalk. Maybe you can take into consideration that with your gate feature so that that would be landward of the gate. MR. CROWLEY: Absolutely no problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And then the other, the LWRP, in granting a review, they said it is consistent with the town's waterfront policies, that they do require, and the Trustees also noted we would want to have a silt boom put up to surround the work site Board of Trustees 26 July 20, 2011 because it is active in and over the wetland, that we would not want to have construction debris in and over the wetland. Another point that came to mind, too, is because the structure is, the moving of it will be a fairly large undertaking for the structure itself, whether the Board or consideration would be given to a ten-year maintenance to allow for historical replacement inkind and inplace of elements of the building that might be found to be subject to decay and rot, and that might not be disclosed until the point you are actually trying to move it. MR. CROWLEY: That would be great. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just, my only question with this is once it's a permitted structure, there is the opportunity to repair permitted structures. So we haven't given a ten-year maintenance permit to a house or a dock or anything before and so I'm just suggesting that I don't know that there is a need for that, because once it's permitted, they can do routine maintenance on it. MR. CROWLEY: Does it predate the Trustees or is there a permit? I'm not sure TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well the actual permit only requested to remove and rebuild the supporting structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this permit has to include the whole, entire structure so they can do what you ask. But there is no permit on file. MR. CROWLEY: There is no permit on file for this building? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not that we know of. I don't know anybody came to repair it in the last 20 years. But I think we have to include the whole structure. TRUSTEE KING: You want the permit for the existing structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To do the work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The verbal description in the application and in our short description was only attending to the catwalk and the supporting deck, and that was my concern, so I didn't properly maybe describe that ahead of time but the concern for allowing maintenance was only for the decking and cabin. TRUSTEE KING: Once it's permitted they can put windows in and new shingles and any minor repairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we need to include, when we do a resolution, to include the description of the whole. MR. CROWLEY: Do you need me to change anything in the application? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would want to have the description changed to include the structure itself. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which we can do tonight. Both parties are here. We can do that on the record here tonight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another condition we talked about in the field was that it not become habitable space. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I hope it doesn't come out too perfect. I don't want to lose any of the intrinsic character that is already there. Board of Trustees 27 July 20, 201 I TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we can all agree with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: Any mention of chemically treated wood that they might be replacing? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually in the application there was specific reference they were going to use untreated wood on everything except for just the girders and supports. MR. CROWLEY: Just the pilings and anything in the wetlands, the deck, I think we have thru-flow. But we'll try our best. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Hearing no further comments, 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 would make a motion to approve this application for Stephenson Road LLC as submitted, subject to steps up and over the catwalk, the allowance for a gate, a silt boom surrounding the structure during construction phases, and that it not provide habitable space, and that a set of plans be submitted showing the addition of the gate and steps over the catwalk, and that the description include the crab shack itself in addition to the supporting deck and catwalk so that it can continue to be maintained. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have one comment. When you say habitable space, does that include no running water in the structure? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They should have no running water, no cold water and no sewage. No electric, no water no sewage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if they brought it up or not but it's kind of ironic because two months ago on our field inspections as we were driving out to Orient, I made the comment I would hope somebody would come in eventually and pretty soon before we would not be allowed to approve this application, and I'm real happy you guys came in, because that's part of our history and I want to see it stay, so, good luck with it. MR. CROWLEY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, FRANCIS DEEGAN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 20' long and 18' long sets of stairs with associated 10.5'X 12' platform. Stairs 3' wide, 12' deep, and with railings. Located: 500 North Dr., Mattituck. North Drive, Mattituck. We have all been out there to see this. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application and there were no conditions to that. The Trustees field inspection notes show that in fact we didn't really have any concerns whatsoever. LWRP has found this to be inconsistent. No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may be no larger than 32-square feet. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of Board of Trustees 28 July 20, 201 I this application? MR. DEEGAN: I'm Francis Deegan, I'm the applicant. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I can't really speak to the inconsistency with LWRP and I think the Trustees as a Board didn't find to there to be any inconsistencies when we did the field inspection. So I don't see any way of mitigating what the applicant has put forward when we don't think there is an issue to begin with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can find it consistent. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay. Are there any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with what you say. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It's a straightforward application for, you know, a set of stairs that goes down from the man's home to his shoreline. It's not, you know, by definition it's a bluff but it's not what we normally would consider a bluff in the sense it's not on The Sound. It's on a creek. So this is access that we would, under almost all circumstances allow, and I would, as part of the resolution, I'll recommend we find this consistent with LWRP. If there are no other comments or questions, I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a resolution to a approve this application as submitted. I am finding that based upon what we saw out in the field on field inspection, we find this to be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comments on the motion from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Mark 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. This is consistent with LWRP with a couple of comments, asking to protect as many trees as they can, have a landscape buffer of certain length and width of which plantings can cover 95% ground cover with two year installation. And relocate the 20x40 pool to meet the 50-foot required setback from the top of the bluff, and also to meet Chapter 268, which is our new drainage code. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however recommends trees greater than eight-inch diameter are Board of Trustees 29 July 20, 2011 not removed landward of the bluff; pruning only; installation of ten-foot non-turf buffer with native plantings and limitation of the square footage of the area to be fenced in. The whole Board went out there, and we are concerned -- we were glad to see the house was being moved back, and I believe we saw the septic was going to be moved back out of our jurisdiction, but we had concerns with the pool being close to the bluff. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. The pool location is basically in the same location of where the existing house was. And the setback from the bulkhead, from the bulkhead to pool is 80 feet, which is consistent with some of the projects I have done recently in this area; not necessarily to pools, but to new structures, or major alterations to existing structures. We did consider putting the pool in the side yard but that will create a variance situation. And the owner did not want to put the pool in the front yard. So we thought shifting the house forward 28-30 feet would be a good thing to do and putting the pool in front of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just looking at our notes again. We measured the pool to be 23 feet away from the top of the bluff. MR. SCHWARTZ: I was giving dimensions with the bulkhead. I don't know if I said embankment. Technically I don't think it's a bluff in that area. in the past we used the bulkhead with the Trustees as a dimension to proposed alterations or for new construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have, but I think in those instances maybe the bluff was not as steep as this. We have denied pools in this area, also. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have also had one or two instances where we had the house moved back considerably from the bluff. I think Rob was involved with one of them. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the existing house itself, not including the concrete patio, is 38 feet to the top of the embankment. So we are proposing to get a little bit closer than what the patio was to go to 30 feet from the top of that embankment. I would not see a problem moving the pool back a few more feet and the house back maybe three to five feet more than what is proposed, but we are kind of restricted with the existing garage. We are trying to keep some separation from the garage to the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just as a point of clarification under 275-3(d), setbacks, swimming pool and related structures: 100 feet from top of the bluff line. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, from a bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is definitely a bluff. All those houses on the east side of Nassau Point are on a bluff. This is definitely a bluff. MR. SCHWARTZ: It's bulkheaded property. In the past six years I have done a number of projects where your concern was the setback from the bulkhead to the structure being altered. And I have a couple of copies of approvals that were done recently Beard of Trustees 30 July 20, 2011 that were major projects that were within 30 to 40 feet with from the top of the embankment and remaining about 75 to 80 feet from the bulkhead, in the past say five years or so. I didn't research -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the east side of Nassau Point? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have them with you? MR. SCHWARTZ: I have two from the east side and one on the west side. I didn't make a bunch of copies but I can show you the surveys. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Perusing). This is the pool. MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm not talking the pool. I'm talking a structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're talking about the pool. MR. SCHWARTZ: Isn't a pool less concern than a two-story house? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this permit was done based on -- MR. SCHWARTZ: It was, I think it was from the bulkhead. And the same, it's the same as this one here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is based on the bulkhead. The construction area. It's from 2005. When did the code change? It changed in 2005, didn't it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The last amendments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we need to see something after 2005. MR. SCHWARTZ: I have this down as 2006, new house. I'm not sure if that applies to the survey or not. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was demolishing the existing residence, construct a new residence 71 feet from existing bulkhead, and 10x10 deck landward. Again, not addressing the pool. MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm just addressing the distance from the bulkhead to a new structure is what I'm talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So in this case we did it from the bulkhead and not the bluff. But in any case, I guess what I'm hearing from the Board is, in this padicular properly, they feel it's a bluff and they want to take our measurement from the bluff line. So what is the Board's suggestions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to put the pool in the side yard? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would have to be behind the house to meet code. MR. SCHWARTZ: That would require a town variance, which I would rather not do. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, because we also did shift the house when we moved it. So are you telling me that Southold Trustees Code says top of this embankment on this area is 50 feet to the pool, is required? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 100 feet. 100 from top of bluff. That's what the code says. MR. SCHWARTZ: When did this change from an embankment to a bluff? Because, as I said, in 2005, 2006 I had major projects that were done within 75 feet of the bulkhead, and within 30 to 40 feet of the embankment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Setbacks were amended in October of 2005. Do you want me to read you the definition of a bluff out of the code? MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure. Board of Trustees 31 July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped face adjoining a beach or a body of water. The waterward limit of a bluff is the landward limit of its waterward natural protective feature. Where no beach is present, the waterward limit of a bluff is mean Iow water. The landward limit is 25 feet landward of the receding edge or in those cases where there is no discernable line of active erosion, 25 feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. The point of inflection is the point along the top of the bluff where the trend of the land slope changes on to begin its descent to the shoreline. That's what makes that a bluff. MR. SCHWARTZ: So the 38-foot setback from the top of this bluff to the existing house, does that have any meaning at all? I mean if we put the pool 38 feet back, and move the house back, which I think is a good thing, would that be a fair option? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, say that again? MR. SCHWARTZ: Right now we have, the existing house is 38 feet from the top of the bluff. We are proposing to move that back and put the pool, right now we are proposing to put the pool at 30 foot from the bluff. If we go to 38 feet with the pool, that would that be a fair option? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's asking for a compromise. TRUSTEE KING: I would be uncomfortable with anything less than 50 feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not uncomfortable since the swimming pool, from an engineering perspective, is not loading up the bluff face. And there is no natural resource concerns here. The code is predominantly a natural resource code. I don't see any active, you know, type of wetland resource on the top of the bluff where we have a non-disturbance zone or protected species. So personally, I guess if all new structures were landward of the existing, I would view it as an improvement and I would think it would be subject to grant a variance based on those facts, that the code is predominantly to protect environmental features and that moving it thusly would protect the natural resource features, and would be suitable. But I may be just a minority opinion on this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think just down the road from you, I think it was Santiago, didn't we have them move the pool from the front for the very same reason? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the side yard, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To the side yard, right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since I have been on the Board we have been consistent with pools being at least 50 feet away. We have not gone any closer. I think I would be comfortable with it going on the side yard. I know that means you have to go to the ZBA, but I would rather see it on the side yard. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think, Bob, also, the property adjacent to that, Parks, is the same thing. The property adjacent to Santiago, we are talking about Parks. That's two properties down. MR. SCHWARTZ: Then I think the owner would, rather than move the Board of Trustees 32 July 20, 2011 house, probably leave the house where it is and alter the house as it is, and put the pool somewhere else or not have a pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you like to table this? MR. SCHWARTZ: I think we'll have to, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to table this until he can go to the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, 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. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. It talks about the septic profile, indicates the bottom of the leaching pool is two feet separation from ground water. That's the biggest issue with this. The CAC supports the application with the condition gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application or against it? (No response). We all went out there on field inspections. I think we were out there twice. We went out in June, it was not staked, and we went back out on the 13th of this month. This is a proposed new residence that will be moved quite a bit landward from the existing house, which is to be demolished, probably -- (Perusing) the seaward side of the new house is about 25 feet landward of the existing cottage that is there now. The only, I don't think the Board had any -- it's kind of a tight spot. The only questions we had was on the leaching pools. If we could change the expansion pools, just reverse them with the most landward leaching pools, I think would be better. Does anybody else have any comments or questions? (No response). That seems to be the inconsistency. I know there was a new house built almost adjacent to this that had a retaining wall around the septic system. But I don't see it here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can condition the permit on requiring a retaining wall if necessary to meet the engineering factor; putting the pools two feet above the groundwater, which is a County Health Department standard anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to say, doesn't the Health Department take care of that? I don't think we have to put that condition on it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Health Department will enforce that during the course of site inspection. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I don't think we have to put that condition on it. Board of Trustees 33 July 20, 201 I TRUSTEE KING: They'll have to meet the specifications from the Health Department on the septic system. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any comments, questions? (No response). Any questions from the audience? Comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the only change that the leaching pools be flip-flopped to the expansion pools; in other words, just reverse those, on the northern portion and southern portion is reversed. And gutters, leaders and drywells for the roof runoff. And the conditions of the septic system, they have to meet Health Department requirements. If that's the only inconsistency, I would find it consistent, because they are not going to approve a system that will pollute the creek. I hope not, anyway. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only comment on that I have is it's sandy soil. A lot of times we don't really require drywells. Do you think it's necessary? In other areas we do. It can't hurt, but I'm just saying TRUSTEE KING: I think they show a drywell right here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: They have two drywells -- three drywells here, are already on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, all in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Young & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Dr., Southold. This is an application that has quite a bit of history. This originally came to this Board under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits. And in November, 2008, this Board denied it under Coastal Erosion. That was appealed to the Town Board and the Town Board reversed and granted the variance and actually granted -- sorry, reversed the decision of the Board of Trustees grantin9 them a permit under Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard. The application was then considered under 275 by the Trustees. It was tabled. The applicant was asked to come back subsequent to that for another hearing. At that hearing, it was tabled. That brings us up to now, where essentially they received a permit under 111 and they are coming to the Board under a Wetland permit. This project was found inconsistent back in 2008 under the LWRP. The Town Board, in the resolution under Chapter 111, found Board of Trustees 34 July 20, 201 I it consistent, tt's now been reviewed again under 275 and I'll read the recommendation of Mark Terry: That it is found as it was in 2008, it is found inconsistent. The Board, in evaluating the action can either agree with the inconsistent recommendation or disagree and render the action consistent based on the applications and amendments of the original action assessment, whether the revised action meets or furthers the LWRP policies. If the action is considered consistent, the Board shall elaborate in writing the basis for their decision. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council, July, 2011, and they resolved to support the application. We do have one letter dated July 20, from Irene Vida, the owner at 1935 North Sea Drive. Just to paraphrase, she is respectfully requesting the Board of Trustees deny the application. The proposed development of this fragile piece of land on the edge of Long Island Sound would be the first new construction on North Sea Drive in over 20 years and would result in degradation and destruction of the dune and beach along that stretch of shoreline. Among the issues are interference with sensitive plant and animal life including nesting of an endangered species, contamination of ground water non-conformity with the character of the neighborhood and diminishment of scenic vistas. That's the one letter we received recently. Originally, with this application, there were several proposed homes, alternatives: Alternative one, alternative two and alternative three, I see in the Town Board's documentation. So now is there anybody here to speak for this application? MS. HULSE: Dave, I just wanted to clarify two things. I thought it was denied under 275 without prejudice the first time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To be honest with you, I thought it was also, but it's buried in these files. They are very thick. MS. HLILSE: But I don't think it was tabled, I think it was actually denied. In any event, it would have been deemed abandoned. But in any even, the Town Board, there was not a coastal erosion permit actually issued. The Town Board heard the appeal and granted the variance with certain terms and conditions, which have not been met as of yet. So the Board has not issued a permit under 111. The Town Board has granted a variance, however, and has spelled out the conditions that need to be met before a Coastal Erosion Permit is issued. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking for that in this document. Bear with me for a second. I'm looking at conclusions dated January 4, 2011, of the Town Board regarding granting the applicant relief from Chapter 111. In the interest of justice and for reasons set forth herein this Board grants the applicant relief from 111 of the Town Code upon the following conditions: One, all structures and construction occur a minimum of eight feet from the landward toe of the primary dune as depicted on the survey from Young ~ Young dated September 21, 2010. The erection of project limiting fence and staked hay bales along the limit of clearing, grading and ground disturbance Board of Trustees 35 July 20, 2011 prior to commencement of construction, and maintain until completion of construction. Disturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as non-disturbance buffer. All cleared areas not built upon must be restored with native, non-fertilized dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer. No pesticides, fertilizers or similar chemicals shall be permitted on this site. And six, the installation of leaders, gutters and drywells to control runoff from proposed structure. The granting of release is subject to conditions of such other permits as the applicant has already required. TRUSTEE KING: What was the date of that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Young & Young survey dated September 21, 2010. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that survey the same survey they submitted for this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking for that survey right now. The survey here is June 22, 2011. Sorry, folks. As can you see, this is quite a file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we stad discussion on this survey and note the differences of what -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm trying to find the survey that the Town Board referred to. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. DANOWSKh Any time you want me to comment. MS. HULSE: It's been changed since the Town Board survey, so don't know if that's -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm trying to find, a copy of the survey of the Town Board, because it's not included with the, in our -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What you are saying is the survey we are going from this month, June 27, is different from what the Town Board approved. MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what has been stated, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Danowski, do you have a copy of the September 21, 2010, survey that the Town Board based their -- MR. DANOWSKI: I don't think we have to search there. I think what is a fair comment -- my name is Peter Danowski, for the record. The history of this is quite extensive and the resulting survey that appears before you now for consideration is consistent with the decision. What happened here, and I think Mr. Bergen says quite correctly, there were several alternative survey plans for consideration, and they were considered by the Town Board. As a result of the Town Board making a decision setting forth certain conditions, a further amendment had to be made to the survey, which is now before you, and that amendment, I say, is consistent with their decision. So when you look for a survey that might have been considered by the Board, they were not saying at the end of the Board of Trustees 36 July 20, 20I 1 day we approved this survey, they are saying we have considered your alternate plans and your survey plans you produced and we'll permit the variance. But here are the certain conditions you have to meet, and we've met those by presenting this new survey to you. I won't interrupt so you tell me I'm not on yet, I'll back off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's okay. I just want to make one comment. We have to go over the conditions again, but I notice one comment was the eight foot setback. MR. DANOWSKI: Right. This is cantilevered, in part, on the survey, you'll note the house, we setback the posts eight feet from the ridge line as that is described by the town's consultant, and it's in conformance, therefore, with the decision. If fact we had alternate plans for consideration that actually had the posts set at the ridge line and extended beyond it. We pulled it back from there to be consistent. And rather than talk for hours, and I certainly can on this application, and I remember the history here; I don't want to do that and what former counsel did in my prior meetings before this Board, was to accept my offer to incorporate by reference the other comments and testimony previously given at the other hearings in support of this application on my client's behalf, that way I don't have to repeat everything that was there before. So hopefully you'll say yes to that and I could move forward TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Yes. MR. DANQWSKI: And so it's my position that the variance was granted and that the issuance of the permit is an administerial act, and certainly a piece of paper has to come from someone. My guess is that this Board will be the authority for issuing a permit consistent with the Town Board decision. So I don't take with issue with the fact that we have a decision out the Board. I merely think that at the end of the day after the tidal wetlands permit is considered, that a permit will issue both for coastal zone erosion purposes and for tidal wetlands. And I think you are correctly moving forward today on the tidal wetlands issue. TRUSTEE DOBERTY: I just want to, this is my opinion, correct me if I'm wrong, we do not have to approve a wetland permit similar to what the Town Board has approved under coastal erosion. We can certainly condition it and make further changes. MR. DANOWSKI: You could have, I'm sure counsel -- and I have watched some other applications and some debates here. I don't intend to debate with your counsel, even if we disagree. And I don't intend to debate with you. I do have a position, cedainly, for my client, and that was the initial position I had before this Board when I considered the first of the plans proposed. And that is when I went through the files, and I went through the files that granted wetlands permits along the same stretch of road. And, you know, I have become familiar with faces and people who got permits along this stretch. And the pattern and practice here on wetlands permits were that if you Board of Trustees 37 July 20, 2011 stayed 100 feet away, you were allowed to build. If you wanted permission from the board for a wetlands permit, it was something that required a permit if you were within and less than that 100-foot distance. On every application that Mr. Bombara submitted, he was at least 100 feet away. As we went through the process and presented alternate plans, and you must understand, the first of the plans merely put a rectangle setting forth the building setback distances. And we didn't have as refined a plan as we have today. And as a result of that, some people took the square footage that you had in the rectangle and referred to that size of the house. Well, really it was never proposed to be that size, but it was the area within which we intended to build. And now we are down to a point, whether we agree or not with the Town Board decision, to locate all the structures absolutely consistent with zoning; the furthest back from the Long Island Sound we can plant it subject to zoning, which means the closest to the road. And we have built everything consistent with the decision. If you look at the other applicants that came before you or came before prior members of the Board, and those records are part of the application here, they were made part of the record, you'll see that people were allowed to build closer than was being proposed now. I don't think anyone is as far back in a proposed construction as Mr. Bombara is on this particular application. And certainly I think this is a fair result from the long history here. Whether my client is happy or not, is not the concern. I know there was some comments made on another application about the Health Department requirement, you'll see the retaining wall here and proposed sanitary system, which the Health Department does require, and it's certainly our position this tidal wetlands permit should be issued, and that the conditions set fodh in the coastal zone erosion decision, are conditions that I think would equally apply with the tidal wetlands issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Danowski, a couple of questions. Again, referring back to the Town Board's decision, condition number one, all structures and construction occur a minimum of eight feet from the landward toe of the primary dune. On the survey, prepared June 22, 2011, we are looking at, it depicts the structure right at the landward toe and not a minimum of eight feet back from the landward toe. So, you know, that condition has not been met on this survey. MR. DANOWSKh I think the survey for your consideration are dated, if my reading is correct, March of 2011. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have June 22, 2011. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we are looking at. MR. DANOWSKh Okay. 2011 or 2010 are you saying? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 2011. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I may, can we go to the application at hand right now? We seem to be reviewing the coastal erosion permit, which is out of our hands, and the Town Board has done that, and Board of Trustees 38 July 20, 2011 these are the conditions to be met as per Town Board. Whether they met them or not at this point is not what we should be considering tonight. I think what we should do is get on to the application at hand and discuss with Mr. Danowski the problems we have and what we would like, the changes we would like to see with the application he has put before us. And saying that, I do also want to make a comment I'm not comfortable in approving anything until the Town Board has given their final say on it. Because as this has been on the record, that this Board or previous Board, denied this, and we are not happy with the application that is before us right now. So I think we should just try to talk about the wetland application right now. MR. DANOWSKh Well, I'm not sure what you mean. We are not going to debate it, but as far as I'm concerned, the Town Board decision speaks for itself, sets forth parameters with regard to that one issue on the coastal zone erosion permit. On the tidal wetlands permit, and I cedainly have the June survey before me and that includes a storm water grading, drainage and erosion control plan which was one of your more recent requirements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that we are reviewing this under 275, but, to me, minimally, under the review of 275, I feel we have to meet with the conclusions that the Town Board made under 111, which is the structure has to be eight foot back from the landward toe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that, but I think the comments at least I have on this structures will mitigate all those other problems. So I think we should just move on what we discussed a couple of years ago, there was a plan we were willing to work with, and I think we need move back toward that, which would reduce the structure considerably. That's just my opinion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so I could finish the number three of the conditions under 111. It says the undisturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as a non-disturbance buffer, and that is not currently indicated as such on this survey. So I just wanted those two points to be there on the record. MR. DANOWSKh You can certainly remark in issuing a wetlands permit to be consistent with those conditions, but clearly this survey as produced, in my opinion, meets the definition and statements of the conditions set forth from the Town Board, and it clearly, you know, talks about the eight foot setback for the purpose of putting construction of poles into the ground, and that's what we have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we reviewed this in 2008, we had the applicant come up with several alternatives. And there was one alternative that we were considering, and I would like to try and find that and then we can discuss the changes that we would like to see from the June, 2011, survey that is before us. It was, if I may, Dave, back in 2008 when we reviewed this we had an alternative three where the structure was, the footprint was 48.5x54 and with the pool on the side yard, with the garage underneath. And that brought the structure as far way Board of Trustees 39 July 20, 2011 from Long Island Sound as possible. We also have what I refer to as alternative six. This is, I believe this is the one that we, if you remember Mr. Danowski, alternative six, has an elongated house with a kidney shaped pool in front, which keeps, which is in line with the house. Maybe, if you want to come up and look at this, I could show you what we are talking about. I don't know how it compares to the one you submitted to us. It seems to be a little smaller than the one you are -- MR. DANWOSKI: I don't think it is. It's actually larger. If you look at the footprint of the area is 1,696. This one is less. This one actually, I can go back to repeat this on the record TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could just speak loud enough for Wayne to hear it. MR. DANOWSKh I want the audience to hear this as well. I don't mind taking this and referring to it and walking back with it. I'm more than happy to see what the differences are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. DANOWSKh Alternative six, we try to keep these somewhat closely numbered. We have a hybrid of six now. We have six with an initial after it. That was a larger building, and as a result of the give and take, after discussions, and the conditions set fodh by the Town Board, we actually reduced the footprint of the building, and we actually, you have this little bit smaller pool, the smaller deck area, and in fact before I did the final submission to the Trustees for the wetland permit, I had a deck to one side, a larger deck that extended to the east, and we actually removed that from the final submission plan. So that clearly this plan, you can evaluate it after the hearing tonight, is certainly, I know, when you look at a lot of plans, it can be confusing, but this is the greatest distance from The Sound and it is the smallest house, I believe, that you have seen. And if you look at -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reviewing it as you are speaking and it is very similar to what you are proposing MR. DANOWSKh And I think that was some of the good faith going forward on this was that we did have some alternative plans that this Board did consider, and t think you sort of moved this in this direction and the Town Board added to that movement. So if you look at, you know, the plans, and compare them, you'll find out that this house is the greatest distance and you need 40-foot setback from the road. So it's at 40 feet. And, you know, the swimming pool itself has shrunk in the little deck area, and we had to meet zoning codes so we put it where we did, where we located it. We certainly don't want to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. And we think that this is where we need to go. This was also to be built on poles, to be cantilevered in part, and as I mentioned, when we did have earlier plans even before the Town Board, the cantilevering was over the line that they were suggesting was the sacred line. And we pulled it back, then cantilevered it to the line. Because we had this large debate about can a building contractor walk on girders to Board of Trustees 40 July 20, 2011 building something without getting over the edge to touch the sand. And we said we don't need heavy equipment to go beyond the edge of where the house is. And people have building these kind of homes, builders, say they can easily do it. But at the end of the day, when we were arguing about the cantilever in the air, beyond the line, the reaction was we'll beat you up one more time. Not only that, you'll pull it back eight feet, then you cantilever to the line. And that's what you see on this survey. So if you look at it, but the house itself is I think less than three-thousand square feet by a little bit. And there is the deck and a little pool. So I think if you were guiding us toward setting us back as far as away from The Sound as you can, we have met that in this particular -- and it was, it is very close to that number six plan, except it's less, it's less building than that plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just for the record, the Trustees denied both the wetland permit and the coastal erosion permit on October 15, 2008. MR. DANOWSKh I think on that there was an originally delay or tabling, and ultimately there was some other resolution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple of questions for consideration of the applicant. First, would the applicant consider designating the area seaward from the house as a non-disturbance buffer? MR. DANOWSKh You know, lawyers talking words. I don't want to disturb it, but I want to walk to the beach TRUSTEE BERGEN: We normally would include a path, a four-foot wide path. MR. DANOWSKI: First I have to apologize for the Bombara's. They wanted to be here. They had some scheduling conflicts. I told them they had to be here at six o'clock. They were up in Tarrytown, New York, so they didn't think they could make it in time but certainly I'll talk with them and get right back to the Board with that. My guess is, they would. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this application? MR. BOOTH: Sure. My name is Ed Booth. I belong to the group that lives next door to this place. I notice we had about, maybe ten feet of erosion this past December. And the recent survey must find where that new bank is as, I suppose, and find out whether or not this house is going to be squeezed to the point where it sort of disappears. For example, if you waited for a whole year you could delay this another year you might find that the house would not be, it would not be possible to get it in the space that it now resides in. You know, the real pity here is that the house is going to be built at all. I really thought it was going to go away. On the other hand, the Bombara's, in good faith, made a big commitment, and it seems a pity to have them disappointed. I really, I see no way out of this except to do what you are doing, make it as narrow as possible and be aware of the fact it could easily be a year from now you'll find it would have been not possible to build that place. That erosion is proceeding. We Board of Trustees 41 July 20, 201 I could have one more storm like that very easily next year. I could see it in my own bluff, I lost five feet this year. So bless this thing, gentlemen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does anybody else have any comments for or against this application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I could make a comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Please do. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: This has been, as has been noted, this has been going on for quite a while already. And when this first came up, I was one of the folks who voted against it. My reasonings were, are on the record at the time, and my feelings about it really have not changed very much. I will say that I'm not in support of this, for some of the reasons that Mr. Booth just mentioned, though I understand, much like Mr. Booth just mentioned, there is not a whole lot I could do about it at this point. I think one of the things that I had spoken about in the past is the idea that when we have these kinds of properties in town, some of the last ones that are available, and we as a town have not zoned them so they can't be built on, so I have spoken in the past about the idea when you buy a piece of property, if there is an expectation that you could build, by all means you should be able to build. And I supported that in the past. This was a piece where, I'm not so sure that the town was wrong in not giving it a different zoning than what it did. And the reason for that is because when I think when you look, if I had to surmise, they felt they may have been covered by Coastal Erosion, 111, which would not by code allow a building to be built here. So maybe, again, I have no proof either way, that this was a lot they never expected to be built on. That being said, the Town Board has gone ahead and given the variance to allow the building to happen, despite what the Coastal Erosion Code would allow for. So I think this Board, even though it originally didn't support any building on this lot, is kind of painted into a corner. And it may be ceremonial for me in the long run, but because of how I felt about this, and in fact the lots next to it as well, I don't think that this, these lots should be built on, and I'm going to vote accordingly. MR. DANOWSKI: I think the one other thing I might not have clearly mentioned, as I handed up a document to the stenographer, was that the DEC has issued a tidal wetlands permit with regard to this parcel and they actually did it on an earlier plan that was larger plan. Since that time they issued a modification based upon a plan, almost this one, this one is a little smaller yet, and we resubmitted and asked them to modify a second time to allow for this still smaller structure to be built. So that's clear from the tidal wetlands aspect from the state. Just taking up your consideration on zoning, of course, as attorneys, property owners, I think you'll run into the condemnation issue, and I think every lot owner would be in court. But I understand your comment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In looking at the plan, I think to reduce it Board of Trustees 42 July 20, 201 I even further I would like to see the pool eliminated. MR. DANOWSKh That's one thing the Bombara's considered building a larger house where the pool goes, and we actually lost the residential space on what we call the underlying area of the second floor, and they would prefer to have a little pool and that decking area rather than more residential home. It is something that, you know, is very important to them and they have paid a substantial amount of money for this property. It was zoned correctly. They were allowed to do this subject to permits, and I'm not going to go through the rest of the record that we went through the first time around here, but I would ask you to approve the application as it is submitted, and if you have additional consideration, such as a non-disturbance buffer, I'm more than happy to accede to those requests, with the permission of my clients. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I know consideration of 275 is different than consideration under 111, but as the Town Board, this is just my own opinion, has stated it must be a minimum of eight feet from the landward toe of the primary dune as depicted on this survey dated September 21, 2010, that's the survey I need to see, and I'm not prepared at this point to consider a 275 application unless it meets that condition set by the Town Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. Aside from what I said before, I agree with that. I think we need to iron out, we are here tonight to iron out 275, and even if we do iron out 275 tonight, I'm not prepared to vote on it tonight. MR. DANOWSKI: All I'll be saying is at some point tonight I presume you'll be closing the hearing and we'll take our position, you'll take yours, and we'll see where that takes us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any other comments from any other Board members? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I rely on institutional memory of the Board greatly on this, because there is a long history here. But I'm uncomfortable, even though it seems that the coastal erosion is a settled matter, I want to make sure it was settled to the extent that the Town Board was in possession of and had reviewed surveys to see if the particulars they set down were to their liking. Because the Trustees have given been given the authority under Coastal Erosion and the Town Wetland Ordinance on behalf of the Town Board, and we have already lost our, to some extent, we lost our independence under Coastal Erosion and I think it would be, I feel it would reflect poorly on myself as a member of the Trustees to vote on something that the Town Board might not feel is in compliance with its decision, since we have been given these very difficult decisions to make. That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do is make a motion to table this application for further consideration and discussion. MR. DANOWSKh I would like to be advised of when this matter Board of Trustees 43 July 20, 2011 will be next placed on the calendar. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, let's finish our motion first, please. I'll second that. All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye).(Trustee Ghosio, nay. Trustee King, nay ). TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote nay. I think we should close the hearing and reserve decision on this. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm going to vote nay, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show that the application is tabled with a three to two vote. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the beginning of the meeting we said when the next hearing date is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to also, we would need more information. I would like to see information from the Town Board saying that you met their conditions. MR. DANOWSKI: As a Board, you will do whatever you do and listen to your own counsel. I have my position and I understand what I have to do. But I think, from my end, I don't need this to be continued to be delayed, so whatever position you take, I'll be looking for an answer. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing in the matter of Frank Notaro on behalf of MICHAEL MACCO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing roof addition 5'-6" wide on south side of existing dwelling over first and second-floors, new porch on south side of existing dwelling, and install drywells to contain stormwater run-off. Located: 950 Oak St., Cutchogue. The application has been reviewed under the town's LWRP and has been deemed to be consistent with the program standards there. And the town Conservation Advisory Council supports this application with the condition of a non-turf buffer seaward of the gravel driveway and installation of gutters, leaders and drywells to contain roof runoff. The Trustees who visited the site similarly indicated that there was a preference that there would be a non-turf buffer that would be included seaward in front of the gravel walkway. This is in front of the patio. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NOTARO: I am Frank Notaro, the architect for Michael Macco for this project. If I could answer any additional questions, I would be glad to. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think, not a question but an observation. The Trustees were hoping we could include this non-turf buffer seaward of the patio walkway, the stone walkway. We saw a rather large amount of inorganic fertilizer that was on the grassy area there, a huge amount of fertilizer, and it immediately brought to mind that this would be an area that would be suitable for a non-disturbance buffer of, you know, suitable native plants, and that way the small area of turf there could be removed and it would remove the need for putting so much fertilizer down. MR. NOTARO: Are you proposing an actual width for the buffer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually we were proposing the entire area Board of Trustees 44 July 20, 201 I seaward, there is a gravel walkway that now goes along the base of the patio, that is about a two-and-a-half to three-foot wide gravel walkway. It was our intention to request the entire area, a line would go parallel to that walkway to the edge of the property. That area seaward. It was not a very large amount of grass there. It was just a small amount on either side of the walk. MR. NOTARO: My client is actually here, Michael Macco, and we can address that. I mean, anything that would help the environment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We thought it was a good -- TRUSTEE KING: There is so much fertilizer it killed the grass. MR. NOTARO: I just thought it was the trees, honestly. MR. MACCO: Michael Macco. It's not the fertilizer. I don't know what killed the grass. The grass is not dead now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Someone was nice and fertilized it for you. The granules were there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it's such a high concentration. MR. MACCO: I don't have of a landscaper. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In any case we are requesting this become a non-turf area. MR. MACCO: I don't know what that means. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It means no grass. Plant it up like the rest of the property. MR. NOTARO: Michael nodded affirmative on that. I w~uld still like to know who put down the fertilizer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was a lot of it, too. MR. MACCO: I don't think it's fertilizer. I think it's salt. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's purple and yellow. MR. MACCO: I have no problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you are in agreement, that's fine. Any additional comments on this? Members of the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application, subject to a non-turf buffer to be installed seaward of the existing gravel walk. So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of PETER & JOAN FRITZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct 111' of new bulkhead; construct 4' wide access stairway to beach; fill void areas landward of new bulkhead with clean trucked-in sand, approx. 60 cy.; and re-vegetate areas with Cape American beach grass. Located: 755 North Parish Dr., Southold. The Board was out there on pre-inspection as well as formal inspection. So we have all seen it. The Conservation Advisory Board of Trustees 45 July 20, 2011 Council resolved not to support the application because the bulkhead could create an erosion problem for the adjacent properly owners. The Conservation Advisory Council is recommending planting a 30 foot area with native plants. It's been found inconsistent under LWRP, and the LWRP coordinator recommends that the Board consider that the applicant use natural material such as rock armor to control erosion, and this would be consistent with the propedies to the nodh. While we were on field inspection the Board did note that we were not comfortable with bulkheading, that we had been more comfortable with a rock revetment, and that would be preferred. And I believe that's what we had discussed on our pre-submission and inspection. There is a letter here, received July 18, which was after our meeting the other night, in regard to the above permit request, this does come from Margaret Merrill, 700 North Parish Drive. They would like to register their objection to the proposed bulkhead should the environmental review determine it would cause or could cause or further exacerbate erosion to their property. They are the adjacent property owners. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. I was there for the meeting when we did the pre-submission inspection, and what we had discussed was doing half the property in bulkhead and then the northern parcel with rock. So it was going to be split up half and half. The applicant had a problem with that, considering the southern properties, as you head down south, ten pieces of property, eight, ten pieces of property, they are all bulkheaded and there doesn't seem to be any major backlash situation there, and it seems to be working. So they had an objection to minimizing the structure to just rocks. So they wanted to start the application based on bulkheading the entire piece of the property and softening that southern end with a 45-degree angle return. Because they are not engineers but they can obviously see it's working for their southern neighbors. And that was their objection to what we had talked about. Because after they had further considered, after you guys left, it was a rainy day, and it was kind of a quick meeting, understandable, they just felt they could see what is working, so why do something different. That was their stance. MS. MERRILL: Hi. I'm Margaret Merrill. I sent the letter. The property is just south of my mother's property, and which is 695 North Parish Drive. I'm her power of attorney and I live across the street at 700 North Parish Drive. We group up in this area. And if you go back to the first photo, looking south, and you see all the bulkheads, they stretch all the way down the beach toward the inlet going into Harbor Lights, and you can't see it from this particular photograph, but I think there might be others in your file that I saw. The beaches great rockier and Board of Trustccs 46 July 20, 2011 rockier and less sandy the farther south you go, and the bulkhead right next to the Fritz's property, I can only think helped cause some of the erosion that is happening to their lawn. And we feel if they put up a bulkhead for 1 1 1 feet of their entire property it will then wipe out the natural dune and the grass which is on our property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Your property being that one? MS. MERRILL: Yes, right there. Behind those grasses is more sand and then way farther up is a little bit of tawn. The next neighbor after that, to the south, also has the same exact configuration, where you see a little gazebo there, they have sand, then vegetation and more sand. And as you go further north, toward Goose Creek, the next property, they have vegetation as well. Then the very last residential property has a little bit of rock revetment -- I believe that's what that is, but I'm not sure, up to their lawn. The property after that is the Southold Yacht Club and the property after that belongs to the town. So to just keep stacking bulkhead after bulkhead after bulkhead, you are just pushing the problem further north toward your own property, and toward our property. And the town code calls for no new bulkheads. So I understand, I empathize with them that they need to do something about their erosion but I don't think a bulkhead is the answer. And I would like to see the Conservation Advisory Council's recommendation of the vegetation be taken into consideration as opposed to a rock wall, which is more a hard scape than a soft scape. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to be clear, the directions are really east and west. MS. MERRILL: You know, I thought they were. But in something in the file I read north and south, so I changed everything at the last minute, but I was like, no, I see the sunset over there. I don't get it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Your property would be west -- MS. MERRILL: Our property is immediately west of the Fritz's and so that's, I'm sorry I didn't mean to confuse the issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just wanted to make it clear so anybody reading the record could understand. MS. MERRILL: It's northwest, let's say that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, thank you. MS. MERRILL: And the other thing I wanted to point out, on the LWRP recommendation from Mark Terry, there is a photograph on the second page, I don't know if you all saw it, but it points to the one, two, third house to the west of the property. And they say that has rock. I don't believe, I think that's all vegetation there. And the next house after that has rock. It looks like rock, from the aerial photo, but I'm almost positive it's all vegetation, and it's kind of like a natural dune, very thick vegetation. It does have stairs that go up and down, though. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. MR. COSTELLO: As far as the properties westerly, I don't remember, we did that years back, I don't remember how many rock Board of Trustees 47 July 20, 201 I revetments we did there. But what we did is bury them. It was small stone, core stone, 20 to 50 pounds on a 30 degree angle, buried in sand and vegetated it. That's what we did further down. And I don't think there is three pieces of property there that have nothing. I believe that was stone buried with sand and vegetated. There may be. I haven't walked it in a while. And the bulkheads don't 9o all the way to the Harbor Lights Inlet. There is a spot there that's a spoil area. MS. MERRILL: There is one property without a bulkhead at the very end of the Power property, and they have lots of vegetation that leads down to a marshland before the inlet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Anybody else like to make any comments? TRUSTEE KING: I'm not in favor of a bulkhead in that location. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I tend to feel a row of rock could serve the purpose here and that a bulkhead is not needed to be continued. The other item that I just want to mention is, the picture is not there anymore, but there were lights installed right near that bank pointed up into the trees and I told the resident that those need Trustee permits and that's not something that would comply with the Dark Skies Ordinance of the Town Code. So I suggested she contact her electrician and have what was just installed to be removed. MR. COSTELLO: They weren't there on the pre-submission. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They had just been installed. You could see the trenches, and I advised her to get rid of them. MR. COSTELLO: On the pre-submission I thought it was pretty much the Board's feeling that half the property could be bulkheaded. You know, up to that tree. That tree that was 9oin9 to come over the bank. And vegetation won't work by itself there. If we put vegetation on the bank, it's jut going to 9et destroyed in one storm. As I said, I was there fore the pre-submission and it seemed like everybody was in favor of bulkheading half of it and then doin9 rocks, and the concern of the owner was that the rocks would fail. That's what I remember. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with continuing the bulkhead a little bit and then having that break and tapering it down and having it rock so it meets the contour of the property next door. And that's where that break of bulkheading is, and from there, it's just stone. That's what we said in the field. And I am still amenable to that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree with the President Trustee. I think that I'm comfortable with a small bulkhead run, somethin9 to break up the wave energy there with stone set well into the sandy beach so it dispenses with the wave energy. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that property is not even with all the properties to the east. It tapers down itself. So if you continue a bulkhead for a short amount. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't see a whole lot, but what you can see is sort what we saw out in the field, that that particular piece of property is a transitional property. It goes from this kind Board of Trustees 48 July 20, 2011 of shoreline, which is vegetated, and perhaps does have some, you know, hardening and bulkheading on it, to this beach, sandy, kind of shoreline which will then continue toward the bridge. Which is what we saw. So -- TRUSTEE KING: It looks like stone there. MR. MERRILL: That is stone at that house. That's the last residence. That was put up a while ago. MR. COSTELLO: And I believe that stone comes further to the east. Like I said, I don't remember, that was a long time ago. MS. MERRILL: Just looking at it, it looks like vegetation. Maybe there is stone underneath that I really don't know. I could certainly ask them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And this area here. MS. MERRILL: That's all beach grass. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But it's kind of what we saw. It's transitional. It's going from one elevated kind of embankment to beach. MS. MERRILL: But the lawn comes right up to the edge. If the lawn weren't as far up, couldn't you have lawn and then a gradual slope, which is what the New York State DEC recommends, ks having a gradual slope which can then absorb any storm surge or waves. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: That's what we were talking about in the pre-submission but still add the stone there and have plantings in between the stone, and have that stone to harden it a little bit and have that gradual slope from the plantings, and not have the bulkhead go all the way across at that height. MS. MERRILL: Right, but you still want to put some bulkhead. And I do understand. I think they have a tree at the very corner of their property, where it's rather high, like six or eight feet high. But if all that lawn were taken up -- maybe it's not at the corner of the property. MR. COSTELLO: The bulkhead would end at that oak tree right there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's something I am still amenable to, and gradually work it's way down. You could start at the height of the neighboring bulkhead and gradually work its way down to that tree and then transition to rock going further down. And then plant it. Then of course we would probably have a buffer, non-turf buffer behind it. That's what I remember discussing in the field and I'm okay with that. MS. MERRILL: Is there any way they could -- these are my neighbors, [ don't want to cause trouble. They don't have to listen to me, but they do have to listen to you. Is there any way they could be asked to look at other alternatives besides the bulkhead that is less harmful? Because putting bulkhead after bulkhead after bulkhead on the shoreline will just cause a problem. And it's just pushing the problem farther west, until a year from now I'll be here not looking for a bulkhead but looking for something, and then my neighbor and their neighbor and then you guys, because you own the town beach. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: Any ether comments from the audience or the Board of Trustees 49 July 20, 2011 Board? TRUSTEE KING: My preference is for all stone. I don't see any huge signs of erosion there. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: And I tend to agree. I think I said that when we were out in the field. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I think we have seen properties, I think in New Suffolk, where all stone revetments have been installed and worked very well with them tapering down slowly toward the adjoining property. So that's what I would prefer is all stone and have it taper down. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's where we are moving. Do you want an opportunity to re-work it and come back? MR. COSTELLO: If you would approve it as rock, I mean tapering town to existing grade, that would be fine. It would give me the opportunity to either amend it, but I would really have to discuss it with my client. They are not here this evening, they are from New Jersey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would have to see a set of plans. It's a big enough project. We could table it so you could amend the plans. TRUSTEE KING: I would include at least a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Minimum. MR. COSTELLO: I think that's included on this plan anyway, attached to the bulkhead TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes, you did. This will change it a little bit because you won't have any void to be filled, really. MR. COSTELLO: I think you received plans for half bulkheaded and half rocks. Originally, we sent these plans inch. I don't know if you guys ever received the original set of plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I think we received all bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: All right, I'll make a motion to table this application to give the applicant a chance to resubmit a different plan. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time I would like to go back to page three, under Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SUSAN GRUN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing wood walk and stairs to beach; remove 61' of existing bulkhead and construct new bulkhead in-place; construct a new 3'X 5' cantilevered platform and reinstall existing stairway and wood walkway to beach; fill voids landward of new bulkhead with 15 cy. of clean trucked-in sand; re-vegetate area with Cape American beach grass; remove 65' of existing concrete block retaining wall and construct new wall in-place; and install 61' of single row of 1.5 to 3 ton rock armoring at base of new bulkhead. Located: 54305 County Rd. 48, Southold. This is one that I skipped before. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council Board of Trustces 50 July 20, 201 I supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non- buffer installed along the landward side of the bulkhead, and the rock revetment shall have shallow angle of repose to dissipate wave energy. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. It's a straight-up replacement with armor in front as per the Trustees code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had any questions on this, actually. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is one of those houses that got hammered by that storm. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I believe the decking and everything, all sizes, fit within the code. Is there any comment from the audience? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Moving on to the next one, back to number eight on page five. TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. ©n behalf of JAMES & PATRICE KELLY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 24' fixed dock extension to the existing 3'X 30'4" fixed dock and install two (2) ladders at the off-shore end. Located: 5710 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. This was found inconsistent with LWRP. There are quite a few reasons why it was found inconsistent. Mostly questions on whether it will interfere with public use of waterways, will result in diminished growth of vegetated wetlands. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application as submitted. It recommends any extension to the existing dock be no wider than three feet, and only extended to a distance that is consistent with the existing pier line. Location of the existing piling is not extended further out into the creek. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. The dock is not going to go out past the existing piling. That was where we set it and we came back inside that. We consider that structure. That pulley system that is set, that 10"x30' pile, that's where that came, so he could access his boat alongside the dock rather than use the pulley system. It's not a good way to access the dock. It's not safe. And we would be willing to deck the existing dock in thru-flow, and of course Board of Trustees 51 July 20, 2011 the new addition. It's a pretty minimal project, a 24-foot extension. And we certainly would be willing to decrease the width of the 24 foot extension to make it 3x24. And we are still staying within that pile. We are still three feet shy of the pile. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall with this one, I went and stood on the dock to the north and tried to look at the pier line, and it appeared to me like that pole was farther out, was farther out so this dock would go fadher out than the pier line between the two docks. MR. COSTELLO: At the time the drafting was done, one of the floats was not installed, so it's not even depicted on the drawings. So I don't know if that came into play when you did the inspection. Whether or not all the floating docks, this winter that whole shoreline took a pretty bad beating, so I don't know exactly when you guys saw it, when everything was actually put back together. And I mean, I don't know if you guys used the mooring piles or pulley piles as structure to set your pier lines. TRUSTEE KING: The original permit was for a short, 3x30 foot catwalk with eight-inch pile, 24 feet offshore. Stake and pulley system. That was the original intent. And also it was an amendment to include a handrail, and it was also an amendment to lower the decking and use open grate, which evidently was never done. That was 2008. I would like to see it just remain the way it is, a short dock with a pulley system. That's my opinion. Most of these docks are pretty short in that area. This is just if he gets longer dock, well, then I'll get a longer dock. MR. CQSTELLO: Well, you have to establish a pier line down there, but once again, it gets back to the point where all those floating docks down there are nonconforming and they are not even in the proper water depth. I'm not going to go any further than the pile. That pile is set at like 27 feet. So I would be within that existing piece of structure so the client can access his boat off the side of the dock. It's just basically not working out. I don't know who did the permits originally but, um, the structure is just not a usable structure. Right now in the picture you are seeing almost high tide. TRUSTEE KING: I think at the time that was the only thing the Board would approve for the applicant at that time. I was on the Board at that time. As a matter of fact it was the president's father-in-law. MR. COSTELLO: is there any measurement of the amount you would allow us to go out? Do you guys have a pier line measurement you are willing to accept? 20 feet rather than 24 feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is only two floats in that whole dock section, right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The rest is catwalk. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Your question is what the neighbors have? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, to the north is a dock and float. To the north of that is another dock and float. So there are, you can Board of Trustees 52 July 20, 201 I see there are docks and floats there. MR. COSTELLO: We are well within that pier line with a dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm drawing the pier line between the dock and float to the north and the next dock structure to the south. And, you know, it's out beyond the pier line. I feel -- and that's what, when I eyeballed it out there, it looked like it was beyond the pier line. MR. COSTELLO: If you go down one more dock to the south, we are cedainly not too far out of line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just giving my opinion, and myself, I would be comfortable with an extension of the catwalk, but not as far as what is here. I want it within the pier line. What I'm interpreting as the pier line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you guesstimate what length extension that would be? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are these pilings eight feet on center, Jack? MR. COSTELLO: I don't know, Dave, I didn't build the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just trying to make something easier for me. To me it looks like it has to be shortened approximately ten feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In other words if he opposes a 14-foot section. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With no piling at the end. The existing piling would be removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see that staked. If the rest of the Board is amenable to something like that. Jay, how do you feel? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If things just aren't working out, and something can be kept within the pier line as Trustee Bergen suggested, maybe a staking makes sense, go take a look at it, I would be flexible to that extent. If things are simply not working out, and we can keep it well within the pier line to make the dock more user friendly and safer for the users, I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about removing the pole? MR. COSTELLQ: The pole will be removed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And making it akin to what is next to it. Is that what you are saying? TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's when I drew a pier line between the closest two docks to the north and south, and it looks like remove the pole and pull it in approximately, so the total length is about 14 feet of the extension. MR. COSTELLO: How come we can't use the southern dock as the pier line? There is no real transition in that shoreline. Generally, I mean, just because that dock is there doesn't mean it's really conforming to the environment of that shoreline. We are certainly well within it if we come down one dock to the south. And one dock to the north, I mean -- TRUSTEE KING: The one to the north we just approved not too long ago. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This here. Yes, that's to the south. TRUSTEE KING: If you want to stake it, we'll take another look. We can table it for next month and stake it out. What do you think? Board of Trustees 53 July 20, 2011 MR. COSTELLO: I'll stake it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With 14-foot addition to the present catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: Stake it 14 feet, we'll see what it looks like MR. COSTELLO: 14 feet, I don't know really where that's going to get us. TRUSTEE KING: It gets you further out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's further than you have now. MR. COSTELLO: Like I said, if you are going to use the other dock as the pier line, it just doesn't seem fair. If I come one dock down to the south, even a 20-foot extension would be acceptable, and I'm not going outside the pier line. Using that other dock there, I don't even know what that dock does. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we have you stake it and we can all see what it looks like and then figure it out from there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you want to put alternate stakes out for viewing purposes and provide a system of scale for us to look at. MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. What I'll do is put a string out with flags on it to the piling out there so you can see each different mark. I'll set up the two different pier lines with the numbers. TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to table the application and we can revisit it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, En-Consultants, ~nc., on behalf of JAMES & LINDA GEMMILL requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 82 If. of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill area to west of existing deck with approx. 15 cy. clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and replanted with native vegetation, including beach grass, bayberry, and Virginia rose; temporarily remove and replace outer +/-18" of existing dock to allow for bulkhead removal; and replace (in-place) 4'X 65' steps to beach. Located: 6004 indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant James Gemmill. This is a pretty straightforward application. We are removing and replacing the existing timber bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead, and in order to avoid all discussion about moving sheds and decks and reconstructing them and all, what we are proposing to do is to use a traditional backing system along the westerly portion of the property and then restoring and re-planting the embankment behind it, and then along the entire section where there is the existing deck and shed and stairs and platforms and so forth and so on, we would just use helical anchors with just trimming the most outer Board of Trustees 54 July 20, 2011 18 inches of deck in order to remove the existing bulkhead and then get the new bulkhead installed with helical. At some point Mr. Gemmill probably wants to address the system of stairs and platforms and things that come down the bank, but at the moment they are there, they are functional. It's a much bigger endeavor. He just bought the house, and so right now he just really wants to deal with the bulkhead and get that replaced so the property is protected. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board really didn't have any questions other than what you have already covered with regard to the desk. Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or on behalf of this application? (No response). Any other comment from the Board? (No response). As Rob alluded to, it's a pretty straightforward application. And again, if the applicant is going to do anything else with the decks and shed he'll have to come back to this Board for another permit. MR. HERMAN: And he is aware of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of James and Linda Gemmill at 6004 Indian Neck Lane. It has been found consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further comment on this resolution by the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Jill, Rob had brief clarifications on items three and four on page four, Coastal Erosion Permits. I don't know if you want to hear that quickly now or just at the end. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Clarifications on this application? MS. HULSE: On numbers three and four that was considered on page four, under Coastal Erosion. Romano and 1300. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You want us to open them up again? MS. HULSE: They need to be opened again, briefly. I don't know if this is the appropriate time. MR. HERMAN: It's Romano and 1300. I would be probably about 45 seconds. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Fine, we can open them up now. MS. HULSE: 30 seconds you promised me in the hall, actually. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearings of Romano and 1300 Properties. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Board of Trustees 55 July 20, 2011 (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, for the record, it occurred to me after the hearing from speaking to my clients and also to one of the marine contractors outside, the Conservation Advisory Council had a comment about the angle of repose of the stone, and as we started looking at the plan outside, it occurred to me, and I was just speaking to Jack a few minutes ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are over 30 seconds. MR. HERMAN: I know. It's just the way the drawing looks, it creates a look like this. This is almost like a vertical face as opposed to one of a slope. So I would just like the Board to approve it conditioned upon receipt of plans, because I'll ask Jeff Butler, basically you are almost translating this outer section back and down, so that you have instead of the waves hitting it on a vertical face, it's kind of up a slope. I mean the dimensions might change by a foot in width. They would not change in height. They might come down about half a foot in height. And that would accomplish what the Conservation Advisory Council was asking. It's a valid point, I just didn't -- I was not comprehending it during the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I have to be honest, I assumed it was going to end up being like that, you know -- MR. HERMAN: We discussed that but I would rather have it, the client said we want to see that and I don't want them to have a problem when we are out there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we really have to change the resolution. MR. HERMAN: I just wanted it on the record that we would give you the revised plans to reflect the comments because we agree them and that's the way it should be constructed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. MS. HULSE: Do you want to incorporate that as part of the record, the comments that were just made? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I'll make a motion to close the two public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number ten, Eh-Consultants on behalf of DOWN'S CREEK, LLC, LMNY, LLC & REMCC, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 192 If. of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead (including +~-9' on adjacent easterly property and +~-63' on adjacent westerly property) and backfill with approx. 100 cy. clean sand fill from an upland source. Located: 10230 New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue. The LWRP has this project consistent with the town's coastal policies, with the recommendation of a silt boom to be employed during the construction phases. The Conservation Advisory Council is in support of the application and has comments that mirror the Trustees requesting Board of Trustees 56 July 20, 2011 a 15-foot non-turf buffer. And the Trustees performed their field inspection and just had a question about the wood walkway, what looked like the stringers left from what may have been a small walk. And it was pretty straightforward. So other than the construction requirements of the silt boom and non-tuff buffer, the Trustees felt it was, the project was pretty standard. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The plans I just handed up to Jill dated July 14, have a label added that that existing walk is to be removed. The dilapidated walkway is to be removed. When I first met the McCall's, you actually couldn't see that. it was buried, basically. It must be a remnant of an area when that was deeper where people must have docked. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like they docked a boat there. MR. HERMAN: Yes. When that beach dropped, that became exposed. There was some old boards that then washed out subsequently, but we had already gotten the same query from the DEC saying -- I forgot to put the label on the plan basically, and the DEC said what are you going to do with the boardwalk, please be advised the depadment will object if you attempt to replace it. That's why we had the plans redone. So that will be removed. I don't think that will again be an area deep enough for dockage. And the applicants are aware of that. I should check with Lauren, we have, because this project, I mean where that walk is actually spills on to the neighboring property. And the same on the other end. You should have in your file letters from both neighbors. This neighbor was easy because it's all within the McCall family, one combination or another. But Mr. Well on the other side, I have an original signature from him if you need it, but you should have a copy -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the day of field inspection I reviewed that. MR. HERMAN: So do you need the original? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can double check again. But I believe we had all the correct paperwork. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do have a plan here that indicates the non-turf buffer. I guess it was an oversight on my part. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that will be the approximate area of backfill. We didn't, I don't think I labeled the buffer but that backfill area, I think I discussed it with Bob that there would be a non-turf buffer on the backside of the bulkhead. So, Bob, unless that's -- MR. FOX: 15 feet seems like a lot. There is nothing there now. It's been fine for the last 60 years since ~ have been around. MR. HERMAN: Can we limit it to 10 feet? I think ten feet would be that flafarea right at the toe of that slope there, more or less. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with that. Ten feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have a problem with ten feet there. MR. HERMAN: Okay, then that would be fine TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Rob, I see the authorization from Mr. McCall here. You say there is another letter? Board of Trustees 57 July 20, 201 I MR. HERMAN: Yes, let me just give it to you. I'm not sure if you got it. It's from the neighbor on the other side, David Well. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Members of the Board? (No response). Hearing no comment, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I11 make a motion to approve this application subject to the installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and a silt boom during all phases of construction, and that the remnant of the walkway be removed. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on the motion from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 11, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of THOMAS MALONEY requests a Wetland Permit to elevate house 2'+/-; construct additions on north and south sides; construct deck on northeast side with stairs to grade; install new sanitary system; new drywells; and construct garage with breezeway. Located: 1475 Smith Drive North, Southold. As you can see, this is the house in question up on the screen. The CAC resolves to suppod the application with the condition the location of the proposed garage is moved landward of the ten-foot contour line, in an effort to is save the large oak trees. And the LWRP has found this to be consistent with LWRP. We all saw this out in the field. We did recommend that there be a non-disturbance buffer area seaward of a point 40 foot out from the proceeds porch shown on the original site plan. We now have a revised site plan that shows that, to let you know, we reviewed during our worksession. Aside from that it seems pretty straightforward to us. Would anybody here like to comment on this application? MR. STRANG:. Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of Thomas Maloney. As you mentioned, the application is pretty straightforward. I just wanted to take a minute to clarify a couple of things that I believe everybody is aware of. I just want to make sure. As was mentioned, we are going to elevate the house, and in doing that we'll put a foundation around it with a basement, so, it may not have been totally clear in our original verbiage about that. So I wanted to make sure that was aware to everybody. Which I think it was, at our meeting, we sort of Board of Trustees 58 July 20, 2011 discussed that, so. With respect to the non-disturbance buffer that we agreed to, the only point that my client brought up was that he would like to have to retain the right to petition this Board through an application at some point in the future, if need be, to cut invasive plants down and maintain their height, and submit a plan to possibly remove some less desirable shrubs and replace them with more shrubs that are in, you know, native species, within that non-disturbance buffer. Obviously he knows he would have to make an application to this Board to do that. TRUSTEE KING: They can always come in and apply to take invasive species out. I don't have an issue with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can always come in and apply for anything. That would not stop us from doing what we are doing today. MR. STRANG: We just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that and in agreement. My client is present. I just want to run past him the point that was made by CAC about relocating the garage closer to the road. ls that something you are in agreement with? MR. MALONEY: That's something I thought of myself. MR. STRANG: So that's not an issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you are amenable to moving it that ten foot, to the ten foot contour line? MR. STRANG: Yes. We are talking the seaward edge of the garage to be at ten-foot contour or are we looking at the landward edge of the garage to be at the ten-foot contour? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's see. MR. STRANG: I don't think we have a zoning issue there with setback from the street. So I don't think that's a problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks like they are looking to save a large oak tree. I don't have a picture of it here so, Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't inspect the property, so I'm not familiar with it. But this gentleman here might know what we are talking about. MR. MALONEY: It's to the west of where you just had the mouse. It's even bigger than that one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But are you amenable to moving the garage to save the big tree? MR. MALONEY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So subject to a revised plan showing the new location. How is that? MR. STRANG: Fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board or any 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 noting that it would be subject to a new set of plans Board of Trustees 59 July 20, 2011 showing the garage moved to a spot that will save the existing large oak tree that would currently be in the way. And also that the new plan also reflect, again, the line of non-disturbance buffer that we are approving tonight in the plans that we have. MR. STRANG: That is already on the plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. His application already includes a new sanitary system, drywells, and I imagine those drywells were to contain roof runoff, according to code. MR. STRANG: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Is the old sanitary seaward of the house? MR. STRANG: Yes, it is. That will be abandoned and moved up toward the road in the front of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob has a motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Number 12, Garrett Strang, Architect on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing one-story dwelling, guest cottage and detached garage, and construct a new two-story dwelling with garage, new sanitary system, install drainage, and remove five (5) trees on the west property line and one (1) tree on the southeast corner of the existing porch. Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. It is consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the site plan is insufficient. There are proposed structures on the site plan that are not included in the project description. Existing vegetation buffer should be maintained and submission of a drainage plan in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. I believe the other structures that the CAC is talking about are out of our jurisdiction. And also we have plans in the file showing the neighboring houses, and this proposed structure is within that line. Behind it, I should say. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. STRANG: Yes. Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of the Heidt's. Just for the record I'll pass this up to the Board. We have a letter of no jurisdiction from the DEC for this project, as shown, for your file, if you need it. I think, once again, it is a relatively straightforward application. We did submit the plan as the Board asked to show that our proposed new work will be in line or behind the neighboring properties either side. And there is one minor change which we sort of noted at the field inspection that there was one additional tree that the owner decided they needed to remove, which was on the east side of the house, a little further north from the one that was noted on the drawing. I'm not even sure, I didn't have the opportunity to locate that tree. It could be out of the jurisdiction, that one, but that is, again, a tree, that, I think is a cedar, if I'm not Board of Trustees 60 July 20, 201 I a mistaken. And it's pretty close to the house and will be problematic, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board? (No response). Any further comment from the audience? (No response). As Mr. Strang said, it's pretty straightforward. It meets our requirements. I'll make motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. STRANG: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ill make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, Jill M.~Doherty, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED .~.'rd SfiP 2 7 2011 Southo[d Town Ciera