Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-08/24/2011
Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. BOx 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765~6641 RECEIVED // OCT 2 0 2011 Southold Town Clerk Minutes Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed., September 14, 2011 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., September 21,2011 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 22, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening everyone. Welcome to our August meeting. We have quite the agenda tonight, so if you wish to speak, please come up to the microphone, state your name and keep your comments brief, please; five minutes or less on the public hearings. We do have one postponement, it's on the last page, number 24, 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. I believe that's the only postponement on the agenda. And as you can see, we do have eight pages of an agenda, so we have 2 Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 a lot to go over. So without further ado, I'll get started. I just want to mention Wayne Galante is here taking the Minutes, so if you can speak clearly, he'll take that. Peter Young is here from the Conservation Advisory Council. Lori Hulse will be back. She is our attorney. And I'1~ go over the next field inspection, wilt be Wednesday, September 14, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee Meeting is September 21, 6:00 PM with a work session at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does anyone want to approve the Minutes of June 22, 20117 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of June 22. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2011. A check for $6,250.70 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Il. 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., August 24, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: These are listed as follows: William L. Boswell & Others- SCTM#11-1-12 8925 LLC - SCTM#104-3-15 Windward Road Assoc. - SCTM#14-2-30.6 Barbara Pagano - SCTM#37-4-9 Spyro Avdoulos - SCTM#44-1-5 Richard Greene, Jr. - SCTM#70-5-46 Tom & Mae Mauri - SCTM#63-7-33 1610 The Strand Corp. - SCTM#30-2-64 Mike & Ellen Feinberg - SCTM#40-1-6 3 Board of Trustees Helen & William Coster-SCTM#128-2-2 For the Love of Family, LLC - SCTM#104-3-16.1 Raymond Strong - SCTM#52-5-2 Edwin & Margaret Pisani - SCTM#126-11-9.1 Richard & Janet Downing - SCTM#118-2-10 Nicholas Noyes - SCTM#3-2-1 Gerald & Rosemary Reidy - SCTM#57-2-33 David Schultz - SCTM#139-2-3 Jeanne Markel & John Christian Wedge - SCTM#27-4-3.1 Kimogenor Point Co. - SCTM#116-6-24.1 Roger Praetorious - SCTM#139-1-4.2 Lisa Grattan - SCTM#116-6-9 Harbor Lights Properly Owners Assoc. - SCTM#71-2-1.1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions, administrative permits, we have reviewed all of these, and to just move the agenda along, the first four were simple and straightforward and are either all consistent or exempt with LWRP. I'll make a motion to approve one, two, three and four. They are listed as follows: Number one, HIRAM F. MOODY & SARAH R. GOULARD request an Administrative Permit to remove the existing exterior deck and steps and replace with an addition to the dwelling. Located: 128 Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island. Number two, SUZANNE EGAN requests an Administrative Permit to install a 200 linear feet of post and rail fence along the properly line. Located: 37415 Main Rd., Orient. Number three, SUMMIT ESTATES requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 14'X 7' kayak rack. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Marion. And number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of ED & ARLENE FOX requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing stone paving at southern end of existing pool with stone paving in kind and with a timber pile foundation to prevent settling. Located: 2503 Camp Mineola Rd. Ext., Mattituck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on those? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Ray Huntington on behalf of FLEET'S NECK POA requests an Administrative Permit to place a table and bench mounted on concrete piers or blocks and an August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 4 August 24, 2011 informational sign on the south edge of the trail passing through FNPOA property; fill approx. 200 square foot area flush with the trail to make a pad for the entrance seating, using approx. 20 cubic yards unscreened beach sand fill; remove invasive brush to prepare site for sand fill; remove Town barrier at end of the road to allow passage of the sand truck; and install a well for manual lift pump. Located: 800 East Rd., Cutchogue. The Board has been out there a couple of times discussing many different things that the property owners association wants to do with this property. It's kind of oddly shaped and it's in between town property and private properly. So we have had many discussions in the field with the property owners association. One thing -- I think Mr. Huntington is here -- one thing that we had a question on was the installation of a well for the pump. The Board would feel a Not more comfortable if you had a Health Department approval for that first, because it's such a sensitive area. And it's just, you know, we don't know if that's possible there. Would you like to at this time take that portion out of the description or do you want to table this and go for that first and then come back to us? MR. HUNTINGTON: Could you give us just a moment? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure can. MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes, that's been a subject of discussion in the association as well,as to whether we really want to go ahead with that or not. We were somewhat divided, and it's not necessary for our basic purpose. So we would like to withdraw that at this time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. Mr. Huntington did bring in a picture of the bench that he was describing in the field, if any of the Board members wants to look at it. And in our discussions in the field, you said that you probably would need more like 14 cubic yards of sand instead of, but you don't want to underestimate and then have to come back for more; is that correct? MR. HUNTINGTON: That's correct, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In this area that you are proposing to put the bench is a couple of cedar trees and I just want you to state that you plan on keeping those cedar trees there; you are not trimming those cedar trees at all -- MR. HUNTINGTON: Well, some of the branches may stick out in the way, we might trim them back a little bit. But the trees are very nice to have there, they are growing very well, and as a matter of fact the big problem there in that area is grapes. The grapes overgrow everything and kills everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you say "in the way," you are talking the lower ones in the way of putting in the bench. MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to make that clear, because we have had problems in the past where people say they won't and we go back and everything is clearcut. So you are just clearing the Board of Trustees 5 August 24, 2011 underbrush, stabilizing the area and putting the bench there. MR. HUNTINGTON: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions on this? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we have enough. MR. HUNTINGTON: If I could just comment a little bit on the bench. We submitted a picture of a bench we would like to have. It's more money than we originally budgeted so we may back off a little bit and use a smaller bench. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. All right, this did come in consistent, it's consistent with LWRP and I don't see a CAC comment on it. It's just an administrative permit. I'll make a motion to approve the application of Fleet's Neck as applied for with the deletion of installing the well. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: They have to post a bond also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, as we discussed in the field, once you get your permit, you can take that to the Highway Department and DPW and apply for a bond. They have the bond application for the road end. MR. HUNTINGTON: We have actually done that already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Usually they like to see our approval first but, I guess -- MR. HUNTINGTON: I don't know how far it is through the system, whether you received it, but we did it last week. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of 6REGORY RIGA$ requests an Administrative Permit (10-Year Maintenance) to remove trees, stumps and manmade debris washed up on the beach and restore affected area with pebbles. Located: Stoney Beach Rd., East Marion. This has been found to be exempt by LWRP. The field notes note that the work should be done by hand; no machine on the beach. And as I recall, there was a question of whether or not pebbles were actually needed at this site after the clean up. MS. MOORE: No, it's restore of pebbles. Not with pebbles. The reason, we originally wanted to do it by hand but the trees are, for those that have gone out to see, you saw the pictures, there are actual full trees there that are washed up, and my client doesn't think he, even with human manpower cutting it up, it would be very difficult to carry the stumps up. So that's why he was asking for a small bobcat to be able to take the stumps that are cut and take them off the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We went down to the site, we saw your pictures and we, according to the pictures, didn't think they need a machine, but let's go down, and we did go down and take a look at it and all of us felt that they were not that wide, that they were easily cut up and you can lift them and pick them up. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My name is not Paul Bunyan, but I moved that Board of Trustees much tree in my backyard before coffee this morning. MS. MOORE: You're hired. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are not that big. MS. MOORE: I'll tell you, my client, you don't think they are that big. He's elderly, he has to hire some guys. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A small chain saw for the dead trees only. That's a quick job. And a wheelbarrow. MS. MOORE: Okay. I'll relay that. We'll see how he does. So. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we want to, you know, reiterate to your client that this area, above where the beach is, cannot be touched, that that has to be saved naturally. MS. MOORE: He's in the process of building a house and his house is 100 feet back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand. But the previous owner had violations for clearing, and the condition of, not only our condition from previous, but I believe Planning Board conditions and their homeowner conditions are not to clear that area. So when he says clear trees, we are talking about the dead trees that are already lying down. MS. MOORE: No, to pick up the storm debris, which we hoping this weekend storm will take them all away. There may be some positive to it. TRUSTEE KING: Or you may have twice as much there. MS. MOORE: Or we may be back next weekend to show you a different set of trees. I'll let him know. He thought it was a bigger job than that, so. But, all right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion from the Board on this? (No response). Ill make a motion to approve the application with the following changes: Administrative permit for a ten-year maintenance to remove dead and felled trees, stumps, manmade debris washed up on the beach, with the condition that it's done by hand and there is no machine to be brought down on the beach to do this work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). August 24, 2011 V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. We have reviewed all these and the first three are pretty straightforward. So I'll make a motion to approve -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first one was to add the flagpole. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, all right. What I'll do is make a motion to approve number two and three as submitted. They read as follows: Number two, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM TURNBULL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7551 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7551C to construct a new bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing rather than the 7 Board of'Trustees August 24, 2011 previously approved timber. Located: 54005 North Rd., Southold. And number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ,lAMES & KATHLEEN BLACKLEY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7471 to shift the proposed swimming poop 56.7' from the wetlands and the proposed patio 58.5' from wetlands. Located: 415 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we'll go back to number one, PETER SCHEMBRI requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #7008A to construct a 10'X 25'10" second-story deck above the existing deck. Located: 1425 Soundview Rd., Orient. We noted when we reviewed this that there was a flagpole in our jurisdiction, so we would just like to add that to the description. And adding that flagpole to the description, I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN & MARIA DiBARI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7181 to add (2) hand[ails and electric service to the dock. Located: 2000 Glenn Rd., Southold. MR. HERMAN: Jill, before you go on with that, I also sent Lauren an E-mail that we wanted to make sure water, we usually do that electric and water. I just want to make sure that's covered so we don't end up having to come back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just noticed that E-mail now. So electric and water. MR. HERMAN: It's noted on the plan but I think it was omitted from the narrative. But you have the picture. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it was on the plan. Does anybody have any comment on this? TRUSTEE KING: Is this a fairly recent dock? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any reason we need two handrails instead of one? MR. HERMAN: Bob, what we did, what the applicant had indicated to me is basically he has three children all under the age of eight, and they are all using the dock, and it's really just as a safety measure so that when he's out with all the kids on the catwalk he's not worrying about them falling off one side or the other. That was the reason why. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you remember correctly, this was an area that you and Dave went out and got those ticks. It was very heavily vegetated and it will keep them away from going into that area. TRUSTEE KING: It's an open-grate deck, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We got like six ticks just walking through there. MR. HERMAN: And also the bottom is very soft, and the plans show Board of Trustees 8 August 24, 2011 we also spec'd out the handrails according to the specs that are in 275 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under 275, I don't have the exact section right now, but under 275 we are not allowed to have two handrails. It only specifies one handrail. MR. HERMAN: Well, the code does say that the Board may permit two handrails if a need is demonstrated, but there is no standards for what meets the definition of a "need." So it's my interpretation would be that it's at the Board's really, your subjective discretion as to whether the safety of the small children rises to the threshold of a need under the code. Although, again, it doesn't appear, that you have any direction for that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That being said, I personally feel that area of vegetation, it's very thick in there, and it does become a health issue as far as Lime's Disease and everything else if the kids wander off into that. But not just for kids, but for anybody walking through there, as we all did several times in reviewing this application. And as I stated, a couple of Board members got ticks and everything. To me that might be a health and safety issue for allowing the two handrails. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe extra rails should be granted, as a matter of safety. It's not like it's just another place for a bird to perch or whatever. It's not structure that is really adding to the footprint. I can't see it being a problem. I'm for grating it. I see this as a safety issue. I had a child fell off Greenport railroad dock in front of a ferry, he was properly in a life jacket but I could understand wanting to keep the children safe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have of a huge issue with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree with what John said. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to approve the application of Eh-Consultants on behalf of John and Maria DiBari as submitted, and for the reasons just stated. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to add water to the description, as well as electric. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSI©: The next application is Eh-Consultants on behalf of MARY BETH HENSON requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7414 to reflect the revised site plan prepared by John C. Ehlers last dated July 25, 2011, which depicts a downsized proposed porch; on-grade masonry patio in place of previously proposed deck; two sets of landing steps to access proposed patio; and a chimney. Located: 3300 Sound Dr., Greenport. I inspected the site and met up with Mary Beth Henson 9 Board of Trustees during the course of the inspection. The project is a scaled down project from previous Trustee approval that went before the Town Zoning Board. It's totally in keeping with the previous determination of this Board, and also in doing the site visit, Ms. Henson asked specific questions about removing invasive plant species that are taking over the bluff. The existing bluff there is notable. It has a very stable native population of native grasses and golden rods and other reeds and forage that are fairly short in nature, so based on the fact that her invasives were Asian bittersweet and poison ivy and a lot of olive or Russian olive, I recommend that with a change in the project description it might be wise to allow for removal of invasives and poison ivy and limit to cutting no less than, say below say two to three feet, so the invasive shrubs and woody vines could be removed and allow for stable beach growth. So I would move to approve as amended with the inclusion of language to allow for removal of invasive plant species and to trim no lower than two feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under resolutions, number one, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PAULINE & ROBERT EHRENTHAL requests an Emergency Permit to add additional 2 to 4 ton rock armoring at base of existing bulkhead to fill gap between existing rocks as required. Located: 19575 Soundview Ave., Southold. This has been found to be consistent with LWRP and based upon our field inspection -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could maybe interject. This came in as an emergency permit and the Board felt it didn't really meet our emergency permit requirements. But we did some research and there was a permit issued in 1997 for this project. So I suggest that maybe we can make this an amendment, administrative amendment as the Board looked at it and had no problem with the work they wanted to do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The permit from 1997 is part of the file so I don't have of a problem with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there is a representative here for the applicant, I would like to seek his approval of that change. MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. That's fine. It was just such a minimal project, that's why we approached it in that direction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and we felt that it didn't really meet the requirements for emergency because it's more of a permanent structure, and we see you are in the area with your barge and everything else, and we just wanted to see if we can get it done so you don't have to come back with that. Because that's a big August 24, 20l 1 10 Board of Trustees expense, coming around in the Sound. So we did find this permit and it does meet the requirement of an administrative permit. MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there is no other discussion, I'll make a motion to approve the application with the change it now become an administrative amendment to permit number 4732, dated May 2, 1997. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it is consistent with LWRP. Number two, VIRGINIA MEYRAN & GLENN MEYRAN - Stipulation of Agreement, proof of stipulation. I'll make a motion to approve the issuance of a wetland permit as per the stipulation of settlement between the town and the applicant under index number 10-41231. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ill take a roll call vote. Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is an application that I intend to vote no on. The reason for that is under 275-11(a)(6). It states, our code clearly states no decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs, and this is located right at the top of the bluff. Second, when the discussion was held regarding, at a hearing regarding this application, the applicant stated that the primary reason that she wanted this deck was to be able to observe people down on the beach, relatives down on the beach. So what was proposed was a 32-square foot platform at the top of the stairs. This is a platform that cantilevers over the bluff. So with that 32-square foot platform, which is allowable under the'code, it would meet the applicant's needs. So I personally don't see any reason for us to be entering into an agreement where we are allowing a platform at the top of the bluff, which is in direct violation with our code. So I vote no. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the resolution? (No response). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public hearings, Ill make a motion to go off regular agenda and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). August 24,2011 11 Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Amendments, number one, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ROGER PRAETORIUS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7354 to extend the fixed open walkway from 55' to 75' and rotate the floating dock into a "T" configuration, resulting in an overall length of 113'. Located: 975 Westview Dr., Mattituck. This is an amendment to existing permit. It was originally found consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with no other comments. I just had -- is Jim, are you here to represent this? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Praetorius. You may recall, we discussed this, we being the Board and I, at your last worksession. And the reason for the change we are requesting is that the DEC, in viewing the plan that the Trustees had approved about a year ago, felt it would be okay with them if either we eliminated the float and the hinge ramp and that the overall length of the structure, add simply a fixed walkway. We felt that would be tough to live with, and with the tidal range in the Mattituck Creek. The alternative, as far as the DEC was concerned, was to extend the, at their suggestion, extend the overall length of the structure by quote, 18 or 20 feet. And I had a sneaky feeling that the Trustees would not be thrilled with that idea. TRUSTEE KING: You're correct. MR. FITZGERALD: So what we are proposing here is by changing the orientation of the float to a "T" configuration and extending the overall length of the structure from 110 to 113 feet, three feet difference. It gets the float into a water depth that we hope the DEC will be okay with. So that's why we are here tonight. TRUSTEE KING: I just had some questions, because you have me a little confused, please. This is the original? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: This shows a 15-foot ramp, 55-foot walkway, 20 foot -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Now, on your revised drawing it just doesn't add up to me. You show 70 foot -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's instead of the 15 foot. TRUSTEE KING: But you also show this same ramp on this drawing. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the difference is the length of the float, which was adding to the overall length of the structure 20 feet. Or about 20 feet. And here it's sideways. TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't add up to 110 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: This adds up to 110. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Counting the feet, that's 96 feet. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't add up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wait, we are looking at it wrong. This is 6x20. MR. FITZGERALD: This is 20, this is 20 and this is 70. So it's 70 and 40. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's 110 feet. MR. FITZGERALD: So what we are proposing is 113. TRUSTEE KING: So you are proposing the catwalk itself includes Board of Trustees that ramp. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Now, where it is staked in the wetlands, that's the beginning of the catwalk? MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. And that's where the -- TRUSTEE KING: That's the original beginning of the ramp? MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. It's this figure. It's this point. Okay, which is shown on the survey with the surveyor's stake. TRUSTEE KING: Can we get a new drawing indicating getting rid of the ramp, just showing the catwalk? MR. FITZGERALD: No, we are proposing a ramp. TRUSTEE KING: I thought you were doing away with this. MR. FITZGERALD: No, the DEC wanted us to do away with it. This is what we are proposing. What we have done is by turning the float sideways, we gain - TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, I'm talking about this ramp. MR. FITZGERALD: As a separate entity, sure. TRUSTEE KING: You are doing away with that. MR. FITZGERALD: No, something stays here. It still starts here. MR. FITZGERALD: These figures, Jim, add up to 113 feet and these add up to 110. So what we are looking for is the other three feet. TRUSTEE KING. Okay: It's the description that is confusing me. MR. FITZGERALD: You mean the description of the change? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. ' MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I did the best I could. TRUSTEE KING: If we could just get a drawing that just shows the catwalk starting here, or -- this is the language that is confusing. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: You are saying fixed open walkway, 75 feet long and this also shows 15 foot. MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: It's confusing. That makes it 90 feet if you add these two together. MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. That's what it is supposed to be. It's 90 feet of ramp and walkway, and there is 20 feet of hinged ramp and 20 feet of additional fixed walkway. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see what he did. Because it's an amendment, he only described the amended part. So it's really, all he's really doing is extending that fixed open walkway to 75 feet, rotating the end dock, and the total structure is 113. He doesn't describe the rest of it. I get it. TRUSTEE KING: It's confusing. But if it's only three feet, I don't have an issue with it. MR. FITZGERALD: It's only three feet. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I think we are on the same page now. Is there any other questions from anybody? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 13 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment that lengthens the catwalk by three feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of MARGARET ROBI31NS CHARPENTIER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7375 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7375C to increase the overalt length of the fixed dock from 120' to 142'. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island. The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation Advisory Council didn't go out and make an inspection, so there was no recommendation made, and it was found consistent under the LWRP. As I stated, the Board did go out and looked at this and it appears as though it's a fairly simple amendment. The Board's concerns were the conditions in the original permit 7375 would be maintained, which of course they will be. In particular we were concerned about the eel grass that was there, so we wanted, as it was stated in the original permit, the condition the eel grass is affected by this project be transplanted into a safe location. And that flow through, as described on the survey, that flow-through decking would be used on that outer podion of the dock, which is, again, that's depicted on the plans. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson on behalf of Docko, Inc. I prepared the documents before you, and the extension was a result of some extensive and sometimes exasperating communications and coordinations between the Corps of Engineers and the New York DEC. But this configuration was agreed upon by everybody. And I waited until that issue was resolved before resubmitting. And one of the issues was that the piles, not only the tie off piles but the pier suppod piles, be at least ten feet off the eel glass bed that we had surveyed and that the end of the dock physically ended in four feet of water. And that's what we've got. And if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. The last 50 feet of the pier is flow-through decking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Like I said, I don't think anybody had any problems with this. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this amendment? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Docko on behalf of Margaret Robbins Charpentier as an amendment to Wetland Permit 7375 and Coastal Erosion permit 7375C, with August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 14 August 24, 2011 the conditions maintained that were stipulated on permit 7375. And it has been found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, En-Consultants on behalf FOR THE LOVE OF FAMILY, bbC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7279 to reconfigure, downsize, and set farther from wetlands boundary proposed porch on north side of house; establish 15' non-turf buffer on landward side of previously established non-disturbance buffer that will consist of stone and plantings and serve to retain fill and permanently demarcate the boundaries of the non-disturbance and non-turf buffer areas; install approx. 210 linear feet of coir fiber rolls along seaward toe of naturally vegetated berm on east side of property and renourish berm with approx. 50 cubic yards sand to be planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center); and increase proposed fill volume to 3,622 cubic yards to address raised grade on each side of dwelling. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. The file at this time does not include an LWRP review. What has been deemed by the office is that the LWRP is required because it being a changed action. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not deemed by the office, it's deemed by LWRP office. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, excuse me. And we have comments from the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council didn't support this application because of the massive scale of the application where the 3,622 cubic yards of sand is to be added and the 210 feet of coir fiber rolls to be placed, in their words, semi-hardened, the eastern shoreline and may accelerate the closure to the entrance of Little Creek. This application requires an environmental impact statement as it threatens restricted navigational use of Little Creek. The Trustees went and inspected the site and based on an extensive walk up on the site and review of the plans, we didn't have the same issues as the Conservation Advisory Council had when we were looking at the project with respect to the fill amounts and the delineation. So, in the main, I don't think the Board particularly had a problem with this as we saw it in the field. That summarizes the fairly lengthy comments that we have here. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I just want to correct a couple of things. The language, and this was probably not clear enough, but the language of the description as you read it says increase proposed fill volume to 3,622 cubic yards. We are not proposing to add another 3,622 cubic yards. There was over 2,000 cubic yards of fill already approved by the Board as part of the Board of Trustees 15 August 24, 2011 initial permit. The site plan clearly, the approved site plan clearly shows that fill volume and it clearly shows proposed contours where the grade was to be raised on the landward side of the non-disturbance buffer. When the house was constructed there is basically additional fill, as the Board saw, in areas around the house. Frankly, I don't know who would ever have been able to figure out whether that volume of fill was part of what was approved or not. But we wanted to make sure that the application was forthright and addressed, the estimated fifteen-hundred yards additional that was used around the entire house in areas where the designer had not originally anticipated it would be needed. It should be clear though that none of this fill was placed in any area that was seaward of what the Board had approved as the non-disturbance buffer boundary. All of the fill was placed around the constructed house in a good portion of it landward of where the original house existed, and this is all within the approved construction envelope on the original Trustee permit. Actually, the application we thought was quite a good one because in order to make sure that we retain that fill adjacent to the house and don't have any spill over of that material into the buffer, we propose to expand upon the existing non-disturbance buffer with an additional 15 feet of non-turf buffer that would consist of stone and plantings as indicated on the plans and as the Board discussed with the contractor on the site. So we would basically be adding 15 feet of buffer. Jim or someone at the site had mentioned the question would there be additional drainage on the landward side of the stone. That was already incorporated into the plan for additional drainage. So if anything it's really enhancement to the drainage situation. With respect to the CAC comments, I believe the Board has already moved that this is a Type II action so the request for an environmental impact statement would be inappropriate. With respect to the fill, again, I just clarify that it's not an additional 3,266 cubic yards but only an additional, I think 1,535. The placement of the coir logs or fiber rolls, actually, the site already had those previously and they had been lost during the December 2010 blizzard. We are simply proposing to put those back. It is incorrect to describe them as hard structure or semi-hard structure. They are not a hard structure. In fact they are specifically proposed as a non-hard structure. Over time they bio-degrade and become part of the natural berm. In the meantime they provide a toe for the renourishment and revegetation. So there is really, it would be no impacts of the bio-log that could be reasonably anticipated at all. Again, otherwise the project is exactly as you saw it. You know, we met with the Board back on July 13, as you know we had the DEC there as well to make sure all of this was covered and understood. I understand what John was saying about the LWRP. I Board of Trustees 16 August 24, 2011 have no control over that. I would like to think given that the structural component of this is actually a downsize of what the Board approved and that the buffer is actually an increase in what the Board approved -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, I think the confusion with the LWRP is Mark Terry thought we were adding 3,622 when you are only adding about 1,500. And that, I think that's, that was the confusion. So I don't know if this amendment would necessarily need to be reviewed again by LWRP because it's not as significant as 3,600, so -- MR. HERMAN: I probably should have said increase proposed and trim volume from some number to the new number. But I thought it was fairly clear. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't know if it really needs to go back to LWRP for another review. Without asking Mark, really, he's the one that reviews it. Because what would trigger it to go back to LWRP once it's been found consistent is a significant change in the project, and 3,600 cubic yards is a significant change. The 1,500 might not be so significant in the whole realm of the description here. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I don't know what the threshold for that is or isn't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess it's up to the Board. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We make the final determination1 right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, if we find it consistent with LWRP from the original repod, 1 think we could move on with this. MR. HERMAN: That would be great. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My feeling is it's not a substantial change. We were all out there and we saw it and it's actually better with what is going on. MR. HERMAN: That's what we think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have no problem with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as we have a majority. TRUSTEE KING: The buffer has been expanded, if anything. It's an improvement on the site. I don't have an issue with it. I think it was a confusion of the amount of fill. MR. HERMAN: I won't make that mistake again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm concerned the Conservation Advisory Council's comments were negative on the coir logs in a sense that they were considered a method to stabilize in the, a, probably the softest manner possible, shoreline, it would have a harder structure. Yes, semi-harden, what is softer than these coir logs where the place is getting hammered with easterly winds. You couldn't revegetate. It just wouldn't hold up without some support. So I'm trying to reconcile, you know, the Conservation Advisory Council comments with the practical problems with the site. I see it hammered year after year, extensively. I have been to that beach many times, have done environmental reviews for my former employer and as a Trustee. Every hard east wind just cuts a new toe under there. I think the coif logs, at least in my mind, from what I've seen, where they have been applied, it's an attempt at something that may Board 17 of Trustees still not work, but its better than a revetment and better than a bulkhead and it's an attempt to do something softer than either. MR. HERMAN: I mean it won't hold up in a storm like we had last December, but they did seem to serve the purpose for the prior owner for a fairly extended period of time to keep that berm in shape. And that's really all they are trying to do is to keep that naturally vegetated berm, the back side of which is still doing pretty well. But we want to try to recover the front side for as long as we can without having to propose something else that would be harder. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Just out of curiosity, Rob, in the event that the hurricane does come up, are you planning on doing anything to try and mitigate any potential problem there? It's pretty exposed. MR. HERMAN: I think this is -- we've gotten some calls already. There are really no mechanisms in place to get preemptive emergency permits, you know, where something terrible is forecast to happen, we can go out and put something down. It seems like the mechanism in place within the regulatory system is that after something terrible happens to your property you can go shore it up temporarily until you come up with a more permanent solution. So other than sandbags or something like that, which if we get hit hard enough won't be, it's just sand in the wind. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion for the Trustees to approve and continue the initial determination of this project being consistent based on the scope and scale of the requested amendment, since this amendment clearly provides for a delineation between the wetland and non-wetland areas and non-disturbance areas, and that the coir logs as an accepted measure for coastal protection are probably the most minimal we have in our arsenal to protect a shoreline at this time. So I would move separately to approve this with respect to it's maintaining its consistency review. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as submitted as an amendment based on the discussion we have had and the affirmation of the consistency review that we just performed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the resolution? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. August 24, 2011 18 Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under coastal erosion permits. Number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT WARDEN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 62 linear feet of 4' wide wood pile and timber pier and install an 8'X16' float with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladders all waterward of the apparent high (spring) water line. The overall length of the pier from the existing patio is 70' landward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation. Construct shoreline soil retention and stabilization, cribbing of concrete, wood or plastic materials, backfill with suitable topsoil and plant native noninvasive, salt tolerant ground cover. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. This was found consistent with the LWRP. It recommends all intedidal construction and excavation requires the installation of a silt boom. I don't think the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did the Conservation Advisory Council make -- MR. YOUNG: No, this came before us in March and we have no way of getting out there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't know if on this last visit any representatives had an oppodunity to see it. TRUSTEE KING: Is anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc. I prepared the application documented and I'm prepared to speak on behalf of this application. I won't get into the past history on this project. Suffice to say that during the meeting on the island it was more or less unanimous agreement of the Board of Trustees the dock would be shodened and the tie off pile would be allowed as a tie off device. What I want like to just offer you tonight for the sake of brevity is, if you notice in the -- first of all, let me give you some revised application drawings so can you see what I'm talking about. But here is the pier that we discussed, shodened. The stairs is a little bit longer because we had to get the pier landing down Iow enough so people can actually board or get off a boat without the use of a float. In order to get the tie off pile within the 25% of the waterway, we skewed the tie off pile off to the side with enough room so that a boat could be secured with a pulley tie off line. While we were doing that, we thought, you know, if the encroachment, overall encroachment was the real concern, we hoped that you would consider the original pier length, which is about seven feet shorter than what I just showed you, and the original floating dock off at an "L." It minimizes the encroachment. It keeps the float there so that boating access, boarding access is eased, and I believe that in terms of the look, if the boat was tied off out here to a tie off pile, the look will be the same from the other positions in the cove. I hope you'll consider that. I have application drawings to show you what that would look like, and I would like to pass them out, if you are agreeable. 19 Board of Trustees TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I would like to see it. MR. NIELSON: (Handing). This is what we discussed at the site and this is what was otherwise. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have water depth? MR. NIELSON: Yes, the contours are on there. The boat would sit in a foot of water. The float would have to be suspended in accordance with National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines. This is what we discussed at the site and this is the alternative. And the photographs that I have here show the same marker buoys that we looked at, at the site. You can see they stop shod of the boulders off to the side. The new floating dock alignment would be inside of those floats, okay, and this is a similar view in the winter, you can see the same two boulders. And the boulders are shown, the nearest of the boulders are shown in our drawing. So I hope that would -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It actually works if you layer these and put them up to the light, you can actually see and compare both. MR. NIELSON: We know there were concerns about the amount of structure as well. But I believe that this floating dock option does create the best compromise between boating access -- reasonable boating access, environmental concerns of yours and other regulatory agencies and the consideration of the neighborhood navigating in and out of this small cove. And I trust you'll be able to approve this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with the cable suspension apparatus, that will keep the float from sitting on the bottom at Iow tide, correct? MR. NIELSON: The cable suspension will keep the bottom of the float two feet off the sediments, so at Iow tide the bottom of the float will actually be a foot out of the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I didn't hear you mention the DEC in your list of agencies there. I mean, just personally, for the DEC to approve something in a foot of water will be a challenge for you, as I'm sure you know. MR. NIELSON: I know. Well, perhaps you would be agreeable to either option. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would rather go with the option that we discussed in the field, and by all means, if you end up getting that approved, you can come pack and ask for an amendment at that time. I think it's just -- TRUSTEE KING: If he gets DEC approval for this, come back and amend this. I wouldn't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a logical way to proceed. TRUSTEE KING: Because usually what happens is we approve it, they dis-approve it and they come back to us and they want more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would agree with that. TRUSTEE KING: I think that would be right way to go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think so. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response). Board? (No response). August 24, 2011 20 Board of Trustees What would we call this, option one? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keith, do you have a reference on this drawing that you gave us? MR. NIELSON: If I could make a recommendation, just call it the straight pier with the tie off pile TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, here is the date. 8122111. Is that the same date as that? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. NIELSON: Before you go to make your decision, can I ask you one question. When we were talking in the field about the deck clearance above the wetland, what I have drawn there is a uniform elevation is the same as the patio, all right, for the first portion, until we get out over the higher inter-tidal zone. Would you be agreeable to moving the stairs in a little bit so it would not quite look so high to the other adjoining neighbors and to the south. Do you see what I'm saying? TRUSTEE BERGEN: By moving the stairs landward? MR. NIELSON: By moving the stairs landward, maybe five feet or so. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have an issue with that. MR. NIELSON: Okay, I'll revise the plans and submit everything new to you, if that's the way you can approve it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. The drop from the patio level is quite severe. Had the owners or anyone indicated handrails or -- MR. NIELSON: Yes, there are handrails to be installed along the edge of the patio. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that from our prior permit we had granted? The question was it looks like a real hazard for children. I'm talking about the upper level. MR. NIELSON: We had intended -- we agree with you, that there should be rails along the top edge of the patio. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You would need a permit from us for that. That's within our jurisdiction. That's what Jay was trying to say. MR. NIELSON: Can we have that included here or do I come back for the amendment? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the point, to amend to include for safety rails. MR. NIELSON: Okay, we would like to request that, then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can just put that in the new drawing. MR. NIELSON: I'll put that in the new drawing, yes. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response). No other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application that shows the straight dock with the tie off pile and also to include around the patio the new handrails. The cable rails around the patio to be included in this. And you'll give us new drawings showing that. August 24, 2011 21 Board of Trustees MR. NIELSON: Yes, I will. TRUSTEE KING: And that's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Docko, Inc., on behalf of HEDGE STREET, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair or partially reconstruct 79 linear feet of 6.6' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 10'X 14' pile supported "L" pier, 660 square feet pile supported timber pier landing, a 10'X 24' float with associated ramp and one 4'X 25' float, and two(2) tie-off piles; retain and repair as recovery 78 linear feet of existing mortared stone seawall with a concrete cap, all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island. The Board did go out and look at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection so they do not have a recommendation. As I stated, the Board did go out and looked at this. Our understanding from the applicant is he merely wants to retain what is currently there. We did mention while we were out there, they might want to amend this to include the addition of the marine railway, and he had talked to us about cutting of the phragmites along his shore front, and we had told him that's something we can approve down to one foot if cut by hand. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON:Keith Nielson on behalf of Hedge Street LLC. And I believe that the agreements worked out during the site visit, everything was agreeable to the Hedge Street LLC, to the whole family, and we'll revise the drawings. The drawings that you have right now reflect repair only of what is there. I guess the terminology originally was a little bit my fault because in the area where the stringers or the stringer had to be replaced on the north side of the pier, I just termed that as reconstruction. But it is a repair of what is there. The work is all minor, and we will get to fully revised drawings to include phragmites and the marine railway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak with regard to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comment from Board members? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Hedge Street LLC, as described, conditioned upon the receipt of new drawings, which include the marine railway and the ability August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 22 August 24, 2011 of the applicant to cut the phragmites to no lower than 12 inches, and by hand only. And this was found consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave, can you just -- did you say we need new drawings? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I said conditioned upon the receipt of new drawings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just interject here. Because the description on the agenda is from the original description, so it's not as described. Because we had made changes. So as per the new drawings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I'll withdraw that motion. Since it was not seconded yet, that shouldn't be a problem, and I'll propose a new motion to approve the application of Docko, Inc., on behalf of Hedge Street LLC as per our, the conditions that we found on our visit, that will be reflected in the receipt of new drawings, and it will add on to that the marine railway and the ability of the applicant to cut phragmites to no lower than 12 inches, and has to be cut by hand. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does that mean once the new drawings come in, we'll draw up another verbal description? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And that will be what is on the permit, actually. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of NICHOLAS NOYES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair 600 square feet of wood patio deck including existing perimeter bench and new post supported cable rail. Located: Off Private Rd. Fishers Island. The Trustees and the Conservation Advisory Council visited the site. And under the LWRP, the project is a minor action and is deemed exempt under LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council moved to approve the application and the Trustees had no issue with the proposed application. We did note that this is an existing functional deck which is integral to the house construction, longstanding, and has been there for many, many years. So we didn't have any issue with the construction and its maintenance. Anyone here wish to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON: Yes, Keith Nielson, Docko, Inc., on behalf of the Noyes family. First of all, for the record, since this was a new notice and new application, I have the certified mailings, and I'm not quite sure what to do with the photographs. I understand you don't require them anymore, the photographs of the public notice on the site. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can take that and put it in the file. We Board of Trustees 23 August 24, 20l I happened to go there and see it, so. MR. NIELSON: At this point all the application documents have been revised to reflect repair of the existing deck, so I trust it meets all of the requirements, and if you have any questions or issues I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: We were all there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No questions. Any further comments or discussion? MS. HULSE: I just have one question. Is the deck not going to be reconstructed? MR. NIELSON: It won't be reconstructed. It will be repaired. MS. HULSE: How much of the deck will be repaired? A percentage. MR. NIELSON: Well, it would be hard to say. Because a lot of the deck boards are in decent condition. I'm more concerned with the stringers and the fact that parts of the deck are supported by concrete blocks, and they should be supported by sono-tube foundations with a post. So I would be hard pressed to tell you what percentage. Less than half. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, sorry, any further discussion? (No response). I'll move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application, an exempt action under the LWRP, noting that it is a repair of an existing functional deck that, as was said, was integral to the house construction and has been there for many years. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER SCHWAB requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 72 linear feet of 8' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 1,300 square foot pile supported timber pier landing, two 6'X 20' floats and one 8'X 24' float all with associated restraint piles/pipes, retain 55 linear feet of existing concrete seawall all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island. This is another one that we discussed in the field and we had made some changes. So the project modifications include shortening the fixed pier by approximately 15 feet, reducing its width to six feet, relocated a couple feet south; moving the 8x24 float out to form an "L" shape; and dock system of the end of the pier, maintaining the separate ramp and 6x20 float which will be converted to a Iow profile float for canoes and kayaks; bringing the east edge of the deck back to mean Iow water line, bringing the south edge of the deck five feet to the north; installing thru-flow plastic grate decking on the inner section Board of Trustees 24 August 24, 2011 of the deck, out a distance of 15 feet from the face of the house. The remainder of the deck would be wood. The description in here also requests approval of existing Nordic stone seawall, which is at the base of that house area where the deck is attached to. There is another seawall behind the house. That's on a different piece of property, so I just want to make that clear, that this is the seawall right at the water's edge. We do have new drawings showing this if anybody wants to look at them. This is consistent with the LWRP and I don't believe we have a CAC report. Probably because they didn't go out there. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. NIELSON: Keith Nielson on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Schwab. And the drawing that you have in front of you, as well as the poster that I have here, shows all of the revisions that were made to the project as a result of our field visit. I would like to just point out that because of the framing and the angle at which the seawall, the house and the deck all come together, I was not able to locate the flow-through decking right up to the base of the house, but what you'll see is I have the 15-foot wide strip. It starts basically at the overhang of the roof on the deck, and goes out 15 feet from there. But in the, where the deck comes into the house at a slight angle, that is wood framing and wood decking and it will be non-pressure treated. But the 15 feet that you asked for is there. The same thing happens at the nodh end. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I didn't understand. What was the practical problem in that area? MR. NIELSON: You see here where the house and the deck and pier are at slightly skewed angles? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. NIELSON: What happens is there is a wedge-shaped piece of the deck against the house, and the flow-through plastic decking, we can't cut it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can't cut it for structural integrity and that also appears to be landward of what is the native vegetation line and mean high water, or very close to it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The decking, flow-through decking, basically starts at the drop of the eaves, okay, and goes out 15 feet from there. So I figured that would probably be the best place for us to make the modification to the decking, and it still gives you what you had requested, which was the 1 5 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions or comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Nielson, have you received DEC approval on the drawings yet? MR. NIELSON: No, not on the amended drawings. We received the permit for the whole reconstruction project. The project is otherwise approved by the Department of State and Corps of Engineers and the DEC the way we originally submitted it. So we'll send back to the DEC for the amendment. Board of Trustees 25 August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, is there any further comments from anybody? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, we have gone back and forth with it. It's definitely an improvement. It was operated as a commercial dock for many, many years. It's been there, we have pictures back to I don't know when, in the file. And this is definitely an improvement and reduction of structure. MS. HULSE: The docks are permitted? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 1938. These docks have been there since 1938, at this size. And we have a permit from 1997 for what is there now. So this was, this reduces the structure quite a bit from the original permit. Is there any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. It also eliminates, there is one 6x20 float being removed. So I agree, it does reduce the structure significantly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We reduced the length of the catwalk, we reduced one float and we reduced the width of the deck itself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And they are going to use flow-thru plastic deck grating? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. NIELSON: And it also keeps the primarily berthing slip on the outside in four feet of water, which the DEC wanted to see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Yes. I remember we were concerned about that in the field, so we are happy to see that is still in four-and-a-half feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing no further comment, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application with the amended description as read earlier, and we find this consistent with LWRP, and plans dated 8/19/2011. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Eh-Consultants, Inc., 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 cubic yards of resultant material plus up to approx. 50 cubic yards 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; Board of Trustees 26 August 24, 2011 and establish a 15' non-turf buffer with small berm landward of the bluff. Located: 2800 Dignan's Rd., Cutchogue. This was an application and hearing we tabled last month, at which time during the course of the conversations I had asked whether or not it was I guess really necessary to cut back the lip of the bluff. And I see that you went back and had discussions with the contractors and you've decided to shore it up using the terracing system rather than eliminating it. That way we can save the bluff that is there. MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In which case we don't have to address anything from the deck to the top of the stairs. So I see that you have done that. MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have looked at it. We have seen your description here and I have seen the plans; and I think it's just what we described. So I'll open it up to any further questions or discussions at this point for anybody in the audience MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants for the applicant. Really, I don't have anything to add. But has characterized the sequence of events accurately. The only thing I would note is that the change in using the multiple terraces would -- sorry, let me say that again. The change in design to use the multiple terraces and not cut back the lip would create the need to truck in approximately 200 yards of fill, because we would not be obtaining that earthen material from the existing bluff crest. So that would really be the only significant change that would result from the design. We have shown the terraces as typical locations but noted that the actual number of terraces will probably vary across the width of the bluff, depending on the actual steepness at that time, and the fact there is a variable width between what is the still vegetated boundary below and what is the top of the bluff crest. Other than that, the project would remain as originally proposed and described. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What are you estimating to truck in, 200? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Because we were originally going to obtain a certain amount of material from cutting back the top, but if we are going to try to leave that intact, then all of the fill would have to be trucked on to the site. As with all of these, Bob, we would put a plus or minus in front because they don't know exactly. We are just trying to get the order of magnitude correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Seeing that this was consistent with LWRP, as we mentioned at the last part of the hearing, and it was being supported by the Conservation Advisory Council, and we addressed the questions on the platform and how we were going to handle the bluff, I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? 27 Board of Trustees (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the application with the following changes to the description: To restore and stabilize the eroded and denuded portion of the bluff by constructing multiple terrace retaining walls, to stabilize the upper portion of the bluff. All is depicted on the revised plans which we'll approve here tonight. And allowing for the trucking in of approximately plus or minus 200 cubic yards of clean sand from an upland source, as necessary, to renourish the bluff face. And then the rest of the description can stay as it is. Is that correct? And we have a 15-foot non-turf buffer, and we are adding a three-foot wide berm. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that's still on there. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So the small berm would actually be change the word "small" to a three-foot wide berm. MR. HERMAN: And that would be on the landward side of the 15 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Correct. MR. HERMAN: And now much of that area is already vegetated, so a lot of that area can just be what is there. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one under wetland permits, David S. Corwin on behalf of BARBARA PAGANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead, install in same location 56' of vinyl bulkhead, and replace approx. 10 cubic yards lost fill; reconstruct 4'X 5' platform, 3'X 10' ramp and 6'X 20' float, and install two float anchor piles. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I would like to recuse myself from this application. TRUSTEE KING: This was an application we previously approved, but because it was privately owned bottom, the applicant had to get permission from the owners, which they did. There is a letter in here giving them permission. And it has been previously not supported by the Conservation Advisory Council on the original application. Any comments or questions from anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 28 August 24, 2011 submitted. It was found exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Doherty, recused). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, 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 was reviewed and found to be inconsistent under the LWRP. I'm sure, previously on the record was the recommendations from the Conservation Advisory Council. I just don't have them here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be in the other file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. MR. YOUNG: We looked at it in July of this year. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have of a copy of it there, Peter? MR. YOUNG: Just the, we just have this (Handing). TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Yes, that's all that we have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the Conservation Advisory Council, on July 13, 2011, resolved to support the application of Robert Bombara. I do have two letters -- and I apologize. This was a permit, wetland permit that was opened at a hearing last month. And since then I do have two letters that have been received for the record, one from Irene Vita (sic), and excuse me if I mispronounce it. And I'll stipulate these letters will be entered into the record. But Ms. Vita believes that it should be, the project should be denied, and she lists some environmental reasons why it should be denied. I have a second letter from Jean and Don Vazquez from 2360 North Sea Drive, and again, I'll enter the letter into the record. But basically they feel that the request to build will in no way take away the beauty of North Sea Drive and should not be denied. So we support Mr. Bombara's desire to build. Last month when we reviewed this, we agreed there was a possible issue with the conditions of the Town Board required under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permits and the application was tabled for us to research this further. The Trustees have read over the August 25, 2010, report filed by Rob Herman of En-Consultants and we wish to accept that into the record in its entirety. The Board makes note, in particular, of Rob's identification of the natural protected feature, the beach, ridge or primary dune. We also make note of his opinion that any work within this area would jeopardize the integrity of the beach ridge and should not be permitted. We accept his conclusion that the cantilevering out of the structure over this area would jeopardize the health of the plant species located in this protected area. As such, the Board of Trustees joins with the Town Board in the determination that an eight-foot buffer is required between the structure and the Board of Trustees 29 August 24, 2011 natural protected feature as we review this under 275. Now, Chapter 275 requires setbacks of residence from the protected feature is 100 feet and that erosion control be used during construction. The Board has also maintained a practice where the requirement of a non-disturbance buffer for any new home construction on an empty piece of property. A residential structure as small as 850-square feet is permitted. In this case, the footprint of the structure could be decreased and the pool size could either be adjusted or eliminated to help this project conform to the code. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. DANOWSKI: I certainly am. Pete Danowski on behalf of the Bombara's. I have been here previously. I would note, and I'm sure you'll recognize, I forwarded a letter with a stamped plan, the plan being the March-dated plan submitted with this application, which was in addition to the Swift plan which was dated in June. That transmission showed that the New York State DEC has approved the tidal wetland permit for the project as submitted. Beyond that, I would take issue with the comments with regard to Mr. Herman's report, to this limited extent. That I made mention the last time that when the Town Board had before it a plan which was under consideration, there was the issue of cantilevering, which is the word you just mentioned, and at that time the proposal was to cantilever beyond the toe of the dune as allegedly located by Mr. Herman. And the decision that then came down related to not being allowed to cantilever beyond the line of the dune. And this particular plan then, in response to that decision and comment, pulled back the cantilevering to not go beyond the dune. Clearly, as part of the discussion before the Town Board, and Jamie Richter as the town's engineer, in a well-worded letter, that you signed, made some comments, specifically with regard to cantilevering, and it made specific reference to the idea that any structures that touched the ground were to be set back a distance from the toe, and that distance was eight foot as depicted on the plan we have now submitted. So the plan as submitted has the pilings located eight feet back, and the cantilevering no longer goes as it originally did in the plan for discussion before the Town Board, over the line. It stops at the line. And I made some references last time to Mr. Richter's comments, maybe without giving him credit as the author in his letter, but I'm referencing his December 8, 2010, letter, and it referenced the idea of cantilevering. The contractor has indicated that timber pilings can be driven effectively without affecting the integrity of the dune system. I would agree with this concept. However, Mr. Richter did comment that we should setback a distance from the dune line where we are establishing the poles. And that is what we have done. Board of Trustees 30 August 24, 2011 Additionally, with regard to that specific letter, I would recommend that any and all proposed cantilevered construction be limited in a manner not to extend out over or beyond the designated toe of the dune. Again, that was sort of the genesis of the decision. Rob Herman's comments, his reports, his visits, the cantilevering concept, was built in to a proposal that has now been modified from what it was before the Town Board, to address the concerns of the consulting engineer and the consultant Mr. Herman. I'm asking this Board to approve the Wetland permit. This has nothing to do with the Coastal Erosion permit, which is a separate issue. And I believe that as submitted, if you look at the distance from the Long Island Sound, and you look at the fact that I'm not intruding as far as my client's plan is concerned, beyond the toe of the dune, the Wetland Permit should be issued based upon the plan as submitted. I will note that I'll take up for another day the issues with the Town Board. I'll do that in one manner or another. I was not invited to any meetings and I have not had a chance to speak with anyone. No one has invited me in for a discussion, but that may happen in the near future. But for purposes Tidal Wetland under 275, and I know you have looked at the previous plans, you noted the distances, all of which on each one of the plans was greater than 100 feet; I think on this we were approximately 170 feet away from the edge of Long Island Sound, I would ask you to issue the Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. MR. DAN©WSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, the Board has reviewed this, and I think the feeling of the Board was, and I'll let the other Board members speak if they wish to, that whether it's a structure or the cantilevering of a structure, we wanted that cantilevering to be back eight feet landward of this beach, ridge or primary dune. Is the applicant willing to amend the proposed site plan to support the condition that no structure, cantilevered or otherwise, will be within eight feet of the natura~ protected feature, that being the primary dune? MR. DANOWSKI: I think, and I have to state this clearly, that the purpose of Coastal Zone Erosion and the concept of protecting someone's home and the idea of having a structure touch the ground or touch the sand, is the issue at hand. And cedainly he's willing to say that no structure will touch the sand within that eight-foot area. And that is as proposed. Moved back any fudher, as you know, can't violate the setback requirements under zoning, which is a 40-foot setback at the road's edge, and you also recognize, and I know you are well aware of this, that the Health Department requirements regarding septic systems have to be located in a certain area. So because of those constraints I can't move in the direction toward the road. And the answer here is we have a reasonably-sized home on Board of Trustees 31 August 24, 2011 a lot, we have been in litigation and continue to be in litigation on this matter, and we would like to resolve our differences by the approval of the plan as submit. And to the extent we are dealing with tidal wetlands alone at this juncture, I'm asking you to approve the plan as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, reviewing it under 275, one of the items that we review is if this project as described will adversely affect the vegetation and the natural habitat, and again I'll welcome other comments, excuse me, comments from other Board members, but I feel even with a structure cantilevered out to that line, that could affect, that will shade and that can affect the vegetation in that very critical area, that primary dune. So, for myself, I feet that I cannot support the application under 275 unless the entire structure, including anything cantilevered, is back at least eight feet landward of the toe of that primary dune. MR. DANOWSKI: My only comment is, I know you are well aware of this, and we have incorporated by reference, once again; the other applications along this stretch of roadway in which on existing homes, additions were placed on homes and tidal wetland permits were issued, or the determination was made that no jurisdiction was necessary because the distance back that was setback, which was substantially less than what is being proposed here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to tag on to what Dave just said. I just want to point out in the same letter from the town engineer that you were referencing, he does say that, in his opinion, the proposed cantilevered style of framing will create the need to access the end of the deck framing. It is inevitable that this construction process will ultimately reach out and adversely affect the dune area. And he goes on to say the permanent shading of the dune area may also negatively affect the dune system. MR. DANOWSKI: That was specifically with regard to the plan that had the cantilevering beyond the line of the dune. We actually got to the discussion about the need to use mechanized equipment to go beyond into the dune area. And we supplied a report from a builder who is experienced in building cantilevered systems to indicate that no mechanized equipment would have to go beyond the line, and in fact the cantilevering did not require an intrusion into the dune, even in that instance. But we pulled it back from that. And Mr. Richter was addressing a plan at that time that went beyond the dune line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to a non-disturbance buffer, would the applicant be willing to consider the entire area seaward of that primary dune structure to remain as a non-disturbance buffer? Of course we would allow the inclusion of a four-foot path through there. MR. DANOWSKI: Right. I said the last time, and you raised the inquiry, certainly we would do that. In fact there were other Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 comments we made before the Town Board about things that we could do and live with and volunteer to do even without being asked with regard to the vegetation; planting of vegetation, roof drains, other issues that were actually recited in the decision. So, yes, we are in agreement as to the non-disturbance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess what this comes down to is if the applicant is willing to downsize the proposed project and attempt to mitigate the potential negative environmental impacts of the project as proposed and we've talked about here tonight. MR. DANOWSKI: I think the issue becomes we have mitigated and we have moved, and I would like to think that each of you who saw the plans that were first submitted, probably five years ago now, and have looked at the direction we have taken with regard to this plan, that we have downsized to the point that if you look down that stretch of roadway, I think this home being proposed is no larger than many of the other homes in the same location. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In reviewing all the information that we have on this file and also with the review of the previous application that was before us, I tend to agree with Mr. Herman's report with the shading and the cantilevering, and I would like to see that eight foot setback, as well. MR. DANOWSKI: I just don't want a mischaracterization of Mr. Herman's report to the extent that he was considering the plan before the Board in preparing his report that had this cantilevering eight feet more seaward than is now being proposed. So now we are talking about really moving it back 16 feet from what was originally proposed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking about moving it back from that area that he talked about in his repod. So it doesn't cantilever over any of that area, the primary dune structure. MR. DANOWSKI: But I think we may be saying the same thing but we are using different words. But I think that is the confusion that generally surrounds the discussion of the decision. When we originally went in with plan number six before the Town Board, after the series of other plans that this Board saw some of. We did meet with Mr. Herman at the site, as it reflected in the decision. We discussed the description of what the area was from the first time; I think the Board discussed it as a beach area, to sand ridges, to a line that was put on a survey and depicted out in the field so everybody could not have a misunderstanding of where it was. And we came in with a plan then that we thought was consistent with everyone's ideas. But it did cantilever eight feet, in approximate distance, beyond the line of the dune. And the discussion and reports and exchange of reports, all dealt with, at that point, we were shading a part of the dune area that was seaward of this line. And the whole report of Rob Herman's, I believe, was we don't want you to go beyond the line because in part you are going to shade that area where it's seaward of the dune line. Please put 33 Board of Trustees your construction landward of that line. Don't cantilever over that line. And that is what we have done. When you look at Coastal Zone Erosion, the whole purpose for it is to protect the home, all right. But in your area you are looking at the wetland setback from the Long Island Sound. So you are saying to me we moved it back not just 100, not just as other plans have, beyond 100, but you have you done it 170 feet away. And I think that when you stad talking about the consultant's reports, we have to recognize what the consultant was looking at as far as the plan is concerned at the time he wrote the repod. So I'm in agreement with your language that said when that plan was being reviewed, that cantilevered eight feet forward, despite the position of the builder that it didn't need to intrude into the area to build it, you could actually walk on the girders and build them, that he had the experience to do it, that he didn't need mechanization. There was a comment made that you would shade the area of the dune seaward of that line. And that's a comment from Mr. Herman, the town's consultant. That's a far cry from saying behind the line, another eight feet, not on the dune -- not on that dune line, if I could refer to the dune line as the demarcation line here -- the shading issue is not there. And as Mr. Richter' report is, this idea of touching the sand and touching the ground was important for coastal erosion zone purposes. So we talked even about vegetating underneath the cantilevered deck. So we are talking about what is reasonable here, your prior policy in treating other projects along the same stretch of road. We'll be setback farther than any other house that is lined up on that roadway. And we have to listen to the zoning code and worry about the setbacks and have to worry about the septic systems as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the first go around with this application, at the time Trustee Dickerson and myself met with experts in the field; experts for, you know, freshwater wetlands and coastal management experts, and we have all those notes in a previous file, you know, along with that, and the consultant's report. And reviewing the survey as I see it, the cantilever goes, looks like it goes into that dune area. So that's how I see this survey. So if, you know -- MR. DANOWSKI: I'm happy to have my surveyor meet with you, and clearly, the whole layout and design, jeez, if you look at it with me, we can look at it together, but we don't have any intention of going over that line that Mr. Herman established in the field with the deck. I mean, clearly that we specifically pulled it back, I mean, to accommodate that issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, the other Trustees can weigh in, but I feel it's showing that it's going over. The shading, the cantilevering over it. TRUSTEE GHQSIQ: The plan I have, that was the one submitted and August 24, 2011 34 Board of Trustees received August 10. On that survey -- MR. DANOWSKI: August 10 of what year? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2011. On that survey, is that showing me the footprint of the house? Is that what this reflects? MR. DANOWSKI: The Swift report? The June date? (Perusing). That is showing you the area that is cantilevered, with nothing touching the sand, so that the poles -- that is the discussion here -- that the poles setback beyond that area. And this is the area of the cantilevering to the line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So this is not reflecting the foundation plan or the actual footprint of the first floor. This is what is planned incorporating the cantilevering. MR. DANOWSKI: Correct. And we note on there, the words "to be constructed on poles" and an identification of where the poles are. And clearly that can be made a condition of any decision. I'm not looking to be inaccurate about how we construct this. I clearly want the setback, anything it touches, the soil, eight feet back, and not have any construction go over that line. Even cantilevered. And that was the purpose and the whole idea of the way we drew this up, to be absolutely consistent to avoid continued litigation on this matter in a way we thought was reasonable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application? (No response). Again, for myself, under reviewing under 275, I'm concerned that with the cantilevered out to that primary dune structure, it is going to impact the vegetation in that natural habitat, and in doing so could weaken and undermine the lateral support of the lands in the vicinity. So for myself, given the fact we have asked the applicant several times is he willing to downsize this project, and he's stated no, he's not willing to downsize the project, I'm not in favor of supporting this application. So I don't know if there is any other comments from the Board members. If not? One more opportunity for comments from Board members? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just don't like the notion of cantilevers over environmentally sensitive areas in general. I think they should be minimalist. A small cantilever, one or two feet, maybe for esthetic reasons, but an eight4oot cantilever, while I understand this is definitely a wetland matter, you know, I just think cantilevers leave a structure open to more water washing down the sides and being directed in storm events. I just think this doesn't really seem to have a minimalist approach to respecting the wetlands and the sustainability of the wetland seaward of this house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, for the record, under 275 I feel that it will adversely affect the vegetation, weaken and undermine the lateral support of the lands and adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetland. August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 35 August 24, 2011 So given everything that has been said, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to deny the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. (Perusing). I'll make a motion to deny the application of Robert Bombara for a 275 permit. That motion will be made without prejudice. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion from the Board on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee King, nay). TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Should we have a roll call vote? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just note for the record Trustee King voted nay. TRUSTEE KING: I just don't see enough to warrant a denial on this. I'm familiar with the area. I've looked at these plans time and time again, from the first plan to the latest. I just don't see enough for a complete denial. That's my feeling. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion is carried. MR. DANOWSKh Have a good night. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Kenneth Peterson on behalf of HARBOR LIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge areas of existing canal to a depth of 4' below mean Iow water and deposit the spoils (approx. 2,400 cy. Total) on the two beaches adjacent to the inlet. Approximately 1,400 cubic yards to be placed on the east beach and approx. 1,000 cubic yards on the west beach to a maximum height of 2' above grade. Located: 715 Harbor Lights Dr., Southold. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PETERSON: I'm Kenneth Peterson here to speak on behalf of this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson, I noticed on the application there were two gentlemen listed to make application to you. Someone indicated that you indicated there may have been an untimely death of one of the representatives of the group? MR. PETERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you been authorized move ahead in all the matters here tonight? MR. PETERSON: Yes, I have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just wanted to clarify that. It's unfortunate that Mr. Penfield is not with us. MR. PETERSON: Yes. 36 Board of' Trustees TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry to hear that. This application was reviewed by the LWRP and there was a concern about one segment of the application was deemed to be inconsistent since it seemed to entail the dredging of what is a vegetated piece of tidal wetland, and it went through the history on that, and we can visit that in our further discussion. The Trustees went to the site and we discussed it at length in our worksession, and felt that there were several issues, conditions that would probably we want to have mirror the DEC permit, concerns that existed for how operations would take place for the proposed path to go through the wetlands. And those were primary concerns of the Trustees. And there were concerns also of the placement of the spoil material. And then the Conservation Advisory Council, I do believe that they made a motion to support the application. Do you wish to speak on behalf of the application? MR. PETERSON: I guess I have questions with regard to pushing the project that you consider in wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When I was out in the field, Mr. Peterson, with you and Mr. Penfield and, by the way, my condolences also. You had pointed out to me what was a small area at the bend, so to speak, that you stated appears or comes close to the surface at Iow tide, and what has happened is, going back in the aerials, we noted in the past, that was a marsh there that was depicted in the aerials, and we are not sure that area was included in the original dredging of the canal. Because the Trustees will consider areas that have been previously dredged, but if an area has not been previously dredged, that is considered new dredging. And, again, the aerials indicate that that was a vegetated wetland at one point. So that is one of our concerns there. MR. PETERSON: I'm not quite sure I can deny the aerials, but I have been a property owner there since 1978 -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you like to approach the dais for clarification. We have photos and we also have a line drawing of the proposal. Maybe that would be helpful. Maybe the Board can look at it, too. These are the photographs that LWRP took back from 1974 and in 2004. Now, this is the point here that the line drawing the Costello prepared, so that the question is we are talking about this area here, and it does appear there was, there has been wetland in that area. MR. PETERSON: There is certainly wetland here, but I have never known that eastern body of water to be uncovered except in extremely Iow season. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this photo that is dated, figure one from 1974, you can see there where it was vegetated wetland. MR. PETERSON: I'm just saying the photo doesn't necessarily represent what I have seen. I've seen it that way since 1978 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. PETERSON: This, extremely Iow winter tide it may show, but August24,2011 3? Board of Trustees there has never been any vegetation in there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there is no vegetation at this time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's not vegetated. When I went out and looked at it the other day, there was no vegetation there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that possibly an artifact in the photograph? It's hard to tell if that is vegetation. MR. PETERSON: I don't know if from that altitude this -- I just have never seen it myself. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the material location there, I know when we looked at it, we identified an area of beach, I might need your help here, to the east, right, from the eastern edge of the property there, there was an area where material could be located so it would be above the mean high tide but would not be covering vegetated area. And it looked like there was enough room there. So what we would like to do is limit the material location to that area. MR. PETERSON: Nothing whatsoever on the west side of the canal? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do note on the survey Harbor Lights does own a small piece of the west side of the canal and again, if you need that area, and it was above mean high tide, the material would be in place above mean high tide, but the Iow vegetated area, I can't speak for the Board, but I don't think I would have any problem with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The other area that the Board was concerned with was that the path to get equipment through to conduct the operation, while it is largely phragmites, which are invasive, and we have no problem with them being controlled, I guess it also did include some high tide bush baccharis, so those operations, instead of the straight path that is shown here, you might have to actually have a fairly circuitous or serpentine path to avoid the regulated tidal wetland vegetation that can't be cut. So that might take a little bit of doing. I suppose maybe you could do that. MR. PETERSON: John Hocker is here, our contractor. Maybe he could address that. MR. HOCKER: John Hocker, Latham Sand & Gravel. I just want to address a couple of your concerns. The access path is, a good amount of the material needs to be dredged is on that inside corner of the bulkhead. The reason for that access, obviously some of this, I would like to have a land option as far as the dredging of this goes. Just from a practical aspect of trying to minimize the amount of times you have to move the material before it actually gets to where it has to go. That path obviously could travel to be strictly phragmites, that entire area I'm sure was a dredge spoil site at some point. Whether it could be re-vegetated, whatever, but if I could bring a land based crane in that direction we do can could do a lot of dredging directly there, bring it much quicker to the spoil site and avoid moving it ten times get it where it has to go. August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 38 August 24, 2011 With regard to the flat inside the canal, it may not have been an original dredging, I'm sure all the original dredging was done by land based equipment. It was probably just outside the reach. It is not a wetland now. It may have been a marsh at some point. It's never going to make itself one again. It just a flat. It's an obstruction right now. So that's why they are looking to kind of make that channel where I'm sure everybody runs aground. Any other questions? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure for you or Mr. Peterson. Is there a DEC permit for this application yet? MR. PETERSON: Yes, there is a ten-year permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Including that section that you were just talking about? MR. PETERSON: Yes, that's in the same DEC permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could we see that permit for just a second? I'm not sure if there is one in the file here. I would just like to see it. MR. HOCKER: It's right here. It's valid to October, 2012. MR. PETERSON: That was submitted with Trustee application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). Thank you. It's the same thing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else, any additional comments? Members of the Board? Anyone who wishes to speak on this application? (No response). I think we have enough information to move forward in a productive fashion. 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 with conditions that there be no dredging of intedidal marsh, so this area of prior contention which my understanding now is only a flat, there would be no dredging into any vegetation, and that we might seek the help of an independent monitor such as the bay constable or someone he might designate, just to make sure there is no loss of vegetation. That the machinery access point be so constructed as to only run over phragmites so it won't destroy vegetated tidal wetlands protected species, and that the spoil area, I guess I'1~ rely on maybe Trustee Bergen, because you were out there in the field, to help with the proper placement of the spoil so there is not a problem with the placement. If you have any suggestions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, that the spoil area will be located starting at the eastern most part of the property, above the mean high tide mark, below vegetated wetland, and any additional spoil location that might be required, that spoil location would be on the west side of the jetty, again, limited to the property of Harbor Lights property and be limited to above mean high tide and below the vegetated wetlands. 39 Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 MR. PETERSON: Those will be the stipulations you'll put in the permit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm incorporating that by reference as par[ of my resolution, because Dave has been there, and I didn't meet with the property owners TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to make sure that's incorporated and that brings it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. So this project now, we have put limits so there will be no destruction of intertidal vegetation so that the project now can be considered to be consistent with the town's LWRP, and so I would, by that resolution I would move that forward for consideration. So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. PETERSON: Thank you. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DQHERTY: We'll go back on the record. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of 1610 THE STRAND CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to install an in-ground swimming pool 16'X 30' with spa 7'X 7' adjacent at east end, with required mechanical service and drywell, 4' wide grade level patio surrounding the north side and extending around sides of the pool, and install security fencing as required. Located: 1610 The Strand, East Marion. This application has been deemed consistent by LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a drywell system being installed landward of the pool. When we were out in the field, we took a look at it. It was pretty straightforward and I really don't see any comments to the negative. If there is anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. That means I don't have to say anything. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I worded it properly. MR. FITZGERALD: As I think you know, the location of the pool is based upon a variance that we had from the ZBA allowing the pool to be 64 feet from the edge of the bluff and it's set up to be exactly that on the drawing. The four-foot gray grey level patio-like surround is four foot closer to the edge of the bluff and as I think was indicated to the owners, the inspectors, well, somehow or other I got the message that you required the drywell to be shown on the survey, which we'll be happy to do. I checked with Jamie Richter about the size of the drywell for this application, and he said it should be big enough. So we will make it big enough. What "big enough" means is that it should be able to handle the output of whatever pump they are proposing to feed the drywell, and he suggested that the, if there existed dp/wells to contain roof runoff, that it would be permissible from his standpoint to attach the backwash equipment Board of Trustees 40 August 24, 2011 to that because he said it's unlikely that the pool would ever be serviced during a rainstorm, so that the existing drywells might be usable. I don't know what that situation is, but we will, whatever it is, we'll put it on the map and get it to you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: I'll make a motion to approve the application as described. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we receive new drawings for the drywells. I'll second it. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number five, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD GREENE, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct a 3'X 67' catwalk with 6" diameter pilings, 32"X 14' seasonal aluminum ramp, and a 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock; and revegetate disturbed area on the water side of the house. Located: 3392 ©aklawn Ave., Southold. This is a request to re-construct a catwalk, ramp and float. It's been found exempt from LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the catwalk is constructed with open-grate decking, the seaward end of the dock does not exceed the existing pier line, and the 15-foot non-turf buffer is landward of the rock revetment parallel to the tree. This was applied for previously, if I remember right, under the name Bunker. Bunker was property owner at that time. I believe it's identical to that original. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management. The present application mirrors the previous application granted under permit 6766, granted in 2007. The previous owner had gone through your Board and received permission to rebuild the dock and dock structure as we have applied for. They never moved forward on the permit. They subsequently no longer own the house, and the previous owner received the house back in a foreclosure proceeding. We picked up the application from there, and we have new owners of the house who will be taking title to the house within the next few weeks who wish to move the application forward and perhaps regrant it as it had been granted previously. TRUSTEE KING: We are just reviewing the original plans. It looks Board of Trustees 41 August24,2011 the same as to what was on that other permit. MR. MCCARTHY: We figured that was our best shot. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the survey. It does appear to extend out beyond the pier line, which is a little unusual for us to approve that. It looks like we did. MR. MCCARTHY: It looks like a minimum necessary to get the water depth required. TRUSTEE KING: We have this drawing for flow-through grating on the decking? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, it is. Previous to your approval in 2007 was another approval granted in 1978. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I know. TRUSTEE KING: We normally don't put buffers in conjunction with a catwalk. That's the reason I'm looking at everything. In the pictures it looks like it's pretty well vegetated now. MR. MCCARTHY: It is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember approving this the first time. We went throughout several times and we had a couple of different permits that we gave. One was up around the house, and I believe we did buffers for that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When I was out there last week I noted it was well vegetated down there. It looked the same as it did a couple years ago, the last time we were down there. MR. MCCARTHY: Not much has changed. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the Board? I don't have any issues with this. MR. YOUNG: I have comments, Jim. It is vegetated but the point of our comment is that it be maintained as a non-turf area, so that we are not asking for any change, padiculady, but that it be maintained as a non-turf area. MR. MCCARTHY: We are fine with that. TRUSTEE KING: That's reasonable. MR. YOUNG: Because it's pretty well sloped there, too. TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions or comments from the audience? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation the vegetated area remain vegetated and not be cleared, or sod or anything like that planted. It's all natural vegetation. TRUSTEE GFIOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of 8925 I_LC requests a Wetland Permit for the asbuilt 4'X 24' catwalk, 3'X Board of Trustees 42 August 24, 2011 20' ramp and 6'X 20' floating dock. Located: 8925 Bay Ave., Cutchogue. This dock has been there since 1977. There is a prior permit from 1977. The structure is a little different now and needs another permit. This is inconsistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however recommends a violation is issued for the as-built. Our practice with these docks is it does have a permit, like I said, from 1977, so we felt a violation was not in order at this time. The consultant could not be here tonight and I had asked if he wanted to add electric and water to the description, and the answer was yes, so to the description I'll add electric and water. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? (No response). To address the LWRP concerns, it's inconsistent for the vegetation. We wanted to incorporate existing vegetation landward of the wetland, and then he defines a natural vegetation buffer. If the Board feels they want to attach this, I would recommend there be a 30-foot buffer. It's a big piece of property. It's clear there was a violation on the clearing and that violation had been taken care of by a previous owner, and I would maybe recommend a vegetated buffer in this area. It doesn't have to be a planted buffer but we can just say leave natural, because it will all grow back, what they had cut. Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Maybe make the catwalk open-grate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't say -- we can make it open-grate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would agree. I think we can change out the surface to make it open-grating. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also there is a floodlight on the dock that won't be approved. The applicant's consultant understands that has to be taken down because it does not meet the code. But the other lighting that he has, the lighting fixtures, do meet the code. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As this is an as-built, once we get to the approval stage, with the conditions, I think that we need to include in the resolution a follow-up visit, a timeframe in which the work would be done and then a follow-up visit to confirm that the work had been done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That comes with the C of C. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, but again, this is an as-built, this is a newly constructed dock. TRUSTEE KING: Within the timeframe. Otherwise it won't get done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What kind of timeframe are you looking for; 30, 60 days? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 30 days. Since it's an as-built, he already has the permit. It's just a matter of tearing up the decking and putting down the flow-through. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a matter of getting a contractor to get there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may be more difficult after this weekend. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we make it 60 days. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, then go with 60. TRUSTEE KING: I'm more comfodable with 60 days. Board of Trustees 43 August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other comments on this? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of 8925 LLC, with the condition the decking be made open-grate and that it will happen within 60 days of the permit; and the floodlight to be removed, and then approve electric and water going to the dock. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? And the buffer. Sorry. I would tike to include the buffer area of a 30-foot buffer along the whole section of property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a very large piece of property. I think we just need to clarify when you say "section" what exactly we are talking about. Are we talking all around the whole length of the property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE E)OHERTY: Because the whole length of property that touches the water. Because there is a portion of the property that doesn't. So he doesn't need a buffer all the way around that whole side. Let me show you on the map. Along the wetland boundary. I'm not talking about this section of Little Creek, just make it from this section. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I needed, because I was thinking all the way the entire length of the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do that, too. I just don't know how much we can attach to the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just my recommendation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can go the entire length of the property, that's fine. I'll revise my motion to add a 30-foot, non-turf buffer be maintained along the whole length of the property, the wetland boundary. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does it require a revised plan? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we'll show the buffer on the survey, yes. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven. Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PETER & ,lOAN 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. This project is a resubmission addressing concerns of Trustees and the Conservation Advisory Council and also a neighbor's letter. It comports with a field inspection of the Board of Trustees 44 August 24,2011 Trustees where I think the majority of the members of the Board felt a bulkhead in this particular location that went the entire span of the properly along the beach would negatively impact the beach and cause beach erosion, since the portion to the west is heavily and naturally vegetated with American beach grass. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. And Ms. Fritz is here this evening. I supplied a new set of plans showing only half the property will be bulkheaded and then the other westerly half will use rocks. And that's what we had discussed on the site on that one rainy day, whenever it was, three, four months ago. So now the plan was submitted with a full bulkhead because the client was really concerned with the rocks not working. But given that we had that meeting that day, and that was the feeling of the Board at that time, that's what you guys wanted, that's the way we applied for it now, exactly what we had discussed on that day, half bulkhead, half rock diminishing toward the west end of the property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees did revisit the application as resubmitted at our worksession and we feel that meets with the concerns of at least the majority of us. The resubmission also would bring the application into consistency, because previously the application was deemed inconsistent because of the use of hard, use of hard erosion protection measures. Hard measures have to be limited in scale where they are causing negative impacts, so that would address the inconsistent determination but the LWRP. Any additional comments from the members of the Board? Questions? TRUSTEE KING: I think it should be all stone. That's my opinion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I agree. I thought from the start it should have been all stone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, understood. Any additional comments or concerns? (No response). Any additional comments from those speaking on behalf of the applicant? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Ail in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the revised plans of Costello stamped in on July 21. So moved. And the, as proposed addressing the inconsistent review by limiting hard structure on this proposal -- I find this application is consistent with LWRP in that it limits the hard structure by having a section of stone revetment. So I would move this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have one question. Is there a buffer noted on the plan? Non-tuff buffer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do not see a buffer on the plan. Board of Trustees 45 August 24, 2011 (Perusing). No, that's just a disturbance area. MR. COSTELLO: On the overlay, the dotted area is the non-turf area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's considered -- okay, that will be re-vegetated with Cape American beach grass, and the applicant is willing to have that as a continued, as a non-disturbance area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the length of that? The width, I should say. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The width is variable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that sufficient to -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's actually part of the bank. It's not on top of the bank. It's part of the bank. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The width is approximately at ten feet in width behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I've just been informed, I'll just have to withdraw that motion since the project as originally submitted is not the same as the revised drawing such that I would have to revise my motion to approve to be that of what has been submitted and that the new description that comports with the revised plans would have to be entered into the file with the permit conditions. Is that clear? I'm not trying to confuse this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you noted the date of that plan is July, the date stamped in is duly noted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The date stamped in of this plan is July 21. So I would move to approve this application dated -- excuse me, this plan dated July 21,2011, it completing and making the application consistent with LWRP, and that it be approved with the revised plan with a description also including a ten-foot vegetated buffer consisting of American Cape beach grass behind the bulkheaded section. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second MS. HULSE: Is this considered a Iow sill bulkhead? My only query on that is that it's not permitted in the bay if it's new construction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The affected section, the rock section, it's my understanding is dug into the beach, so it effectively reduces the impacts from wave energy and would actually, probably, allow for more beach protection than a Iow sill bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I think Lori is referring to the bulkhead section. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The bulkhead section itself is not a Iow sill bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the Board's wish? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's lower than the one next to it, right? A lot lower. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a lot lower than the one next to it. Low sill bulkheads normally install below, by definition of code, below high water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the answer to Lori's question is yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not, but it also doesn't apply here because 46 Board of Trustees it's not in an intertidal zone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not. MS. HULSE: It's not required though. It just says in the creeks or bay. TRUSTEE KING: By code there is no new bulkheads allowed, unless extreme erosion can be shown. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I made a motion and we had a second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye) (Trustee King, nay. Trustee Bergen, nay). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note that the motion was carried by a majority of three to two vote. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on 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 before us last month, and we tabled the application. The CAC resolved not to suppod the application and recommended any extension to the existing dock be no wider than three feet and only extended to the distance consistent with the existing pier line, and as also was mentioned last month it was found inconsistent under the LWRP, for various reasons, including the fact that it does not meet a depth of -- the mean water depth reference 2.5 feet on the dock terminus in one location. And so he felt the dock would cause degradation of 'water quality and natural resources. It's also located within New York State Critical Environmental Area, and the construction method had not been identified. Now when we went out and looked at this last month we were also concerned about the pier line, and I know you had it staked, and we notice now what you had staked off seemed to keep the structure within the pier line. I apologize. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. I staked it in two spots. One represented the inner pier line and one represented the outer pier line. The inshore stake was at 14 feet, the offshore stake was at 20. It was the one dock, I guess would be south of it, that was kind of, you know, way inside the pier line, and it doesn't look like it's really working for anybody. But the next dock down to the south is a little further out and that's what that second stake represented. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the staking you did matches the plans that we had considered last month, correct? MR. COSTELLO: No, the plans last month applies to a 24-foot extension. We are willing to bring that in to match that southern dock. And that makes the extension 3x20. So we are actually backing off from the 24 foot and are just going with a 3x20 foot extension. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because the plans I have here are stamped received June 23. Is there another set of plans? August 24, 2011 47 Board of Trustees MR. COSTELLO: I'll submit new plans tomorrow based on what you decide tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we wanted to see staked before you do the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Any other comments from anybody in the audience on this? (No response). And you have agreed to use open-style grating in this catwalk? MR. CQSTELLQ: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will mitigate part of the inconsistency under the LWRP. Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If no other comments -- TRUSTEE KING: I think it should stay the same the way it is, with no changes to the structure at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I have, the plan I'm looking at matches the description. You are decreasing the size of the existing catwalk by three feet, so the total length in the plan is 54, roughly 54 feet. 54'4", to be exact. So the new dock as we talked about today will be 51"4"; am I correct in that? MR. COSTELL©: It will be 50'4". TRUSTEE BERGEN: 50'4" in total length? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's a 3x20 extension. And that was based on establishing the pier line. Because at the last meeting you felt 24 feet was going too far out from the pier line and the 20 was bringing it back within the existing pier line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the total length will be 50'4". MR. COSTELLO: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: What about keeping the width at three feet? MR. COSTI:LLO: Like I said, we can maintain a width of three, decrees the length of the extension to 20 feet and change all the through-flow over. That's kind of what you guys wanted to see staked at the last meeting. So we are bringing it in four feet from the pier line, so now we are basically adding a 3x20 foot extension. I think that should cure everything. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of James and Patrice Kelly, with the condition that there will be new drawings submitted to reflect a total length of this structure 50'4" and no more than three-foot width of the catwalk. And the flow-through decking will be used and with the use of that flow-through decking will bring this into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 48 August 24, 2011 (No response). All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make it, the lot is only 25 feet wide. These little, narrow lots in this area were intended for a small catwalk and a tie off pile for one vessel. The docks like this are going to have a vessel on either side, it's really going to get a crowded condition. I'm not in favor of this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll take a roll call vote. Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Nay TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion carries. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of HELEN & WILLIAM COSTER requests a Wetland Permit to remove 40' of existing jetty and construct new jetty in-place; remove existing stairway to beach; remove 68' of existing bulkhead and construct 72' of new bulkhead in-place; remove existing north return and construct new 10' return along north property line; reinstall existing stairway to beach; remove existing lower stairway; remove 52' of existing retaining wall and construct 56' of new retaining wall in-place; remove 24' of existing north retaining wall and construct 22' of new retaining wall along north property line; reinstall existing lower stairway; fill void areas landward of retaining wall with 40 cubic yards clean trucked-in sand; and re-vegetate disturbed areas with native plantings to match existing. Located: 6370 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. The extension of that one wall is a landward extension. We went out and looked at this. Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the Wetland Code does not allow for replacement of non-functioning groin and the groin is a hazard to navigation. The groin that we saw out there, to me, the rest of the Board can speak on it themselves, it was high tide. The groin was under water but just from the placement of sand around it, it seemed to be functioning to me. And most of the groin was under, it looked like it was buried with sand. The LWRP finds it inconsistent because of the groin as well; to remove the 40 foot and to construct a new jetty in place. There is just one comment before I ask, the groin would have to be constructed as a Iow sill groin. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine on behalf of the applicant. It's a straight replacement. Everything was measured. The jetty was damaged. All the measurements were taken on what was originally there, and we are basically tearing it out and re Board of Trustees 49 August 24, 2011 construct. That's where the numbers come from. The jetty of course will be Iow sill, as Iow as possible, within 18 inches of ground. That will be a requirement of the DEC. MS. HULSE: It's not functioning now, correct? MR. COSTELLO: That's debatable. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is debatable. MS. HULSE: In the code it has to be 75% functionally intact in order to be consider functioning. If it's not, it's not functioning and it can't be approved. That's a determination the Trustees have to make. MR. COSTELLO: The jetty is the worst structure on the property and the reason they decided to move forward and replace everything, because the damage, the jetty was obviously damaged to a point in the storm, that's why they are going forward with this project. So it certainly was functioning, as of this point today, that's a determination the Trustees have to make. But the measurements are what is existing there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It might be good for the Board to go out at Iow tide to look at the jetty that is there and make sure what is proposed, take measurements, and make sure it's extending no farther than mean Iow tide and is Iow sill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My concern with that, and I'm sure Jack's concern is the impending storm coming. Is it possible some of us can get out there Sunday, before Sunday at Iow tide? TRUSTEE KING: I can. It's not a problem for me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can also TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can also. So there is three of us that can go. MS. HULSE: The jetty has to be at least 75% physically intact and serving the purpose for which it was designed in order to be considered functioning. That's the first hurdle you have to decide before you can consider this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll revisit it then. That's all. MR. COSTELLO: Can the Board approve the bulkhead and retaining wall? Do we have to separate the jetty from the application or can we approve it with the condition of establishing the functionality of the jetty? Because, you know, you guys know the next door neighbor has all their permits in line, and as soon as possible we'll get everybody on board and start this all at once. I would hate for the jetty to hold everything up. So I mean, one option is to take it off the application or to approve it and then establish the percentage of functional jetty that is there. Does that sound reasonable? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the Board's pleasure? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem. TRUSTEE KING: We can just take it off the application and then make a determination and come in and amend it with a Iow profile. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the best way to handle it is to just take that part off of the description and then we can inspect and it and then you can come in for an amendment to add that in 50 Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 later. Either that or table the whole thing. MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. I think separate it and then amend it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Everybody is in agreement with that? (Affirmative response). MS. HULSE: Are you requesting that part be removed now, Jack? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's the section -- let's just make it clear. Because it's quite a description here. It's the first sentence that says remove 40 foot of existing jetty, to construct new jetty in place. TRUSTEE KING: It has to be deleted from this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the part to be deleted. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). The only other comment is just to maintain the buffers, which you have already noted in your description as well. Hearing no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Helen and William Coster, with deletion of the 40 foot of existing jetty and construct new jetty in place. And by doing that, it brings it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). MR. COSTEI_LO: Is it all right if the Trustees look at it, to just notify me how you feel about it and I'll draw up new plans for next month and amend the application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of WINDWARD ROAD ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to remove and relocate the existing permitted stairway centrally located on the property of Peter and Grace Gorman to the right-of-way, which provides beach access to the Windward Road Assoc. Located: 440 Windward Rd., Orient. The Board has been out there and I believe that this is a resubmission, and with changes from what we first looked at it back in January. It has been considered consistent with LWRP and the field notes are recommending that we allow up to five cubic yards of fill in the vicinity of what we would consider the flow out, and replant with native species that are found on the existing bluff. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, 51 Board of Trustees on behalf of the applicant. As you correctly pointed out, we were in here January or maybe February, and at that time we represented the Winward Property Association which are five properties landward of the Goreman parcel, all of which enjoy deeded beach access, and we propose a set of stairs there. The Goreman's, who own the property for which this easement extends across, ultimately objected to that application, and eventually the two sides, the property association who have benefit of the right of way to the beach, and the Goreman's, whose physical property is, this easement is located into, agreed to take their stairway, disassemble it and reassemble it in the right of way. What that leaves us with is two stairs instead of one, and the Goreman's would retain the ability to use that stairway now located in the right of way. It would become part of the association, they already are, and it really just solves a neighborhood dispute that has been brewing for several months now. As to the planting, the area where the reconstructed stairway would go, seems to me is fully vegetated. There may be some need to restore the area where the present stairway is, depending how it is disassembled. Certainly we can prepare a plan, we are certainly agreeable to do that, but I'm not sure what disturbance will result once the stairway is relocated. So my feeling is we should probably relocate the stairs, take a look at it, then decide what sort of planning would be necessary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we just state that we have to revegetate the disturbed area with native plants, then you don't have to come back to us. MR. ANDERSON: We were fine with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I only caught a piece of that. There was a bit of a blowout. In my field notes I had recommended a small amount of fill be allowed to repair the blowout. Not more than five to eight cubic yards. MR. ANDERSON: Where was the blowout, Jay? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right where you are putting the stairs, there was a small amount of a blowout there and it seemed like it was probably left over from last winter's blizzard, and it seemed it would be appropriate during the construction to put a smaJl amount of material and revegetate it. It's well vegetated with golden rod and some natural grass. MR. ANDERSON: Probably beach grass would be okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, down below there was American beach grass. This is sort of about midway up the embankment. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, that's perfectly acceptable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there is no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the following addition: To allow five cubic August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 52 August24,2011 yards of fill in the event that they need to clear up the area that's blown out, and that the area of disturbance be replanted with native species. And that's it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of LISA GRATTAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 2,465 square foot single-family dwelling, porches, brick patio and sanitary system; construct new 3,250 sf. Single-family dwelling, rear terrace containing a swimming pool and spa, screened rec-room/cabana, screened terrace, and upgraded sanitary system surrounded by a 120' retaining wall. Located: 11860 New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue. The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition as many mature trees are saved as possible. It was found inconsistent under the LWRP. The applicant mentions, I'm reading from the LWRP, the applicant mentions from the LWRP assessment form, the parcel will be filled in the northeastern section of the property. The details of the proposal are not shown. It is recommended the applicant provide the elevations of fill to the Board to better assess site drainage. It is recommend that the Board require complete removal of the current structure and have the applicant specify the restoration of this area as a buffer, and it is recommended the Board preserve the large oak tree east of the current structure to the greatest extent possible. Proposed terrace may need to be redesigned to include a tree well to accomplish this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant Lisa Grattan. I first inspected this property several months ago when it was under contract or commencing to become under contract for this. The first thing I did, of course, was to go out and look at the wetland boundary, which was flagged, correctly, I might add, by En-Consultants, and when you were out there, what we did was we hung our flags next to theirs so they could easily be found, and hopefully you were able to see that. And so the boundary was correctly flagged. And at that point we looked at the existing house, and the wetland boundary is actually several feet from the house. We had a septic system or cesspool that serves the existing house that is approximately 18 feet from the wetland boundary. And we had a house that had undergone severe deterioration in terms of water damage. This particular house has a partial basement in it that houses all the mechanicals. There is even today six inches of water in that basement. The water whipped through the structure Board of Trustees 53 into the floor joists and the studs and so forth and there is a considerable mold problem. And the first thing we talked about doing was to see what could be done to restore the house and perhaps add on to it in its present location. And I was of the opinion that, you know, this would very likely turn into one of those projects where we come before a Board and say, oh, we are just going to put an addition on it and fix up what we have. And Io and behold we come back several months later and someone drives by the premises and there is a chimney standing with no walls, roofs or anything else. And we had a professional engineer, Joe Fischetti, look at it, and ,Joe advised us there was severe damage to the house. And so at that point we made a decision to essentially demolish the house and to construct a new house. What we are left with then is a process of designing a footprint for the house that complies with the relevant statutes, and this is a project that is designed to accomplish that. So we have a house that sits, for all extensive matter, in the wetlands or directly next to the wetlands, with a septic system, inground water, and very close to wetlands, that can't possibly function correctly. And we started by saying, well, we'll start which septic system and locate that the furthest from the wetlands that we possibly can. And we were able to do that, and the survey before you will depict a new septic system that, from its expansion pool, would be 90 feet, meaning the active part of the septic system will be held at 100 feet, thereby complying with your statute in all respects. You would only be regulating an expansion pool. I do want to let you know that the LWRP reviewer missed the grades and the fills, because that is also shown on the survey, and you go to the septic system detail which appeared in the upper right-hand corner of the survey, and it shows you the proposed grade elevation at nine feet, sloping to a retaining wall whose top elevation is at 8.5 feet. Now, it's important to note that we are not talking about a retaining wall that is sticking eight-and-a-half feet out of the ground. This retaining wall will resemble a curve because the elevation of the property at that location is approximately seven feet. So you may see a retaining wall that is out of the ground about a foot-and-a-half. The purpose of that is to properly elevate the septic system above ground water so that it complies in all respects with the Health Department regulations and provides for the maximum environmental protection. So the first part of our application is to essentially take a non-compliant, non-functioning, dangerous septic system, remove it, and install a new, compliant, environmentally protective and respectful septic system. So that's the first aspect of it. The second aspect, of course, is to take the house itself, which we would be removing, we would be constructing a new August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 54 August 24, 2011 house. That house would comply in all respects to the local state building codes, the flood codes, the drainage codes, as well. And you'll see there is a series of drywells that are installed between the house and the easterly side lot line. So we would be abandoning a nonconforming, non-functioning, deteriorated dwelling with virtually no runoff control, and replace it with a new dwelling which would feature all of those, contain all those compliant features. We sited it 15 feet off the side lot line because that's the minimum setback from the side lot line, thereby maximizing our setback from the wetland boundary. We also sited it, I believe it's 56 feet from the front lot line, to accommodate the septic system, thereby making it furthest from the wetland boundary. And we confined the building envelope to a patio area located on the easterly side of the lot. You should be aware that the patio area and all the structures comply here, would occupy less than 20% of the upland coverage of this property. I mean, exclusive of the beach, exclusive of the wetlands. And thereby complies in all respects with the DEC's regulations pertaining to coverage and the recently adopted town regulations that pertain to coverage. Finally, when the house is removed, it's going to leave a fairly significant scarring upon the land, and one of the reasons I mentioned the En-Consultants flagging is shortly before or once the property went into contract, it was as if, you know, there were no mowing activity, there was no maintenance on the land, and when you went out there and you walked around toward where the brick patio was, you saw this sort of encroachment of groundsel bush landward of that boundary. And you see these this vegetation coming into existence. So we prepared a planting plan that would feature those same plants that are growing there anyway, to fill the area within, that would be essentially under the house today. So we provide you with a proposed planting than that features a 25 foot buffer, adjacent to all the, to the wetland boundary, as well as a planting plan for that area that would be within the buffer and underneath the house, which I believe would address the LWRP concerns relating to inconsistency; that is the grades which are actually shown on the survey which are confined to the septic area, and the re-vegetation of the area under the house adjacent to the wetland. As to the oak trees, you know, we certainly are very happy to preserve any and all vegetation we can here, and there is no intention to cut anymore trees than have to be cut, but we are trying to limit our disturbance to this, essentially, footprint, which contains the terrace, the pool and the dwelling. That would conclude my comments. Any questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, thank you. We obviously did go out and looked at this. And this is a pretty unique situation. First off, with all due respect, I don't know that we completely agreed with the wetland delineation. It sure appeared to me that Board of Trustees 55 August 24, 2011 the wetlands literally go through the area that is covered by the present house. Looking at the vegetation and looking at where the water lines have been recently. And so I think this is a situation where when you remove the existing house that is there, you then are faced with a lot where it's extremely challenging to be 100 feet, to do any new construction 100 feet from the wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: You could not do 100 feet. Could not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. I agree with you then, to renovate, to use the term loosely, the existing structure, we then renovated a house that is located, in my opinion, within wetlands. So it is balancing the removal of a house and balancing the need for an appropriate setback with the size of structure that will be replacing the old structure. And you proposed, it's a large home, as far as footprint goes, plus pool, plus terrace, plus the screened room and cabana, and a screened terrace on top of what also says is a terrace. It's a lot of, there is a lot of activity that is being proposed here. And I think when you add into it the ability for a company to come in and mobilize, tear down the old house and the clearing that would be required to put all the structure in, I think we are going to lose many, many of the oak trees that are there. And I appreciate the fact you are saying we'll retain as many as we can, and just to throw out a figure, let's say there is 50 trees on a piece of property and you say, well, we'll retain as many as we can, and it turns out that's five, when you have to do all that activity, you know, that's not retaining a lot of oak trees. So there is a lot to digest here. MR. ANDERSON: There is an important point to be made, and, by the way, I asked the project architect is here, if you have any questions relating to the actual design of the house. But you and I, we sort of live in the world of footprints. And one important point is, if you look at this, really what you have is a house and a patio area that confines all the human related activity, and it will be virtually no yard that surrounds this. We are proposing a 25-foot buffer off the present wetland boundary that may very well, and we propose to put high marsh plants in that buffer area, that's what the planting plan before you shows. So I don't take issue with what you are saying, but what I'm saying is that you really are only occupying maybe 10% of the overall lot, 20% of the overall coverage, and what you are left with is this house, patio, kind of complex, and a path that leads you to the beach. So it really does sort of confine the area. Now, I don't know how to save some of those large oak trees because if to save them you would be putting us back in the position where we are essentially renovating and rebuilding the existing house in its present location. And when you do that, you actually wind up with, first of all, you may wind up with it's a complete rebuild in its present location, which would be contrary to every policy that I know this Board to adhere to. Board of Trustees 56 August 24, 2011 And number two, you don't wind up with any kind of contiguous sod of buffer, wetland, environmental area that would result in this project, by clustering everything on the eastern side. So I simply make that point. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And when we talk about lot coverage and the 20% figure, my understanding is that does not include areas that are delineated as wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And when I look at this survey, you have a line here that says limit of moderate wave action, which is far landward of what you delineated as wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: The limit of moderate wave action is a creature of FEMA, and what it means is what we have here is we are in an AE zone. And when you are in an AE zone and within the limit of moderate wave action, you are required to build on piles. That's all it means. It does not, a limit of moderate wave action is not a feature delineated on the ground, having anything do with wetlands, or quite honestly, necessarily with waves, per se. It is a designation, much like a flood plane designation is. It's entirely based upon a sod of a grand view of the landscape and its elevation. That is its only purpose. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. But again, it was my feeling, going out there and walking this property, that the wetland boundary is in fact landward of where it is currently indicated on this survey, including going right through the current house that is there. I have also, while we were talking, was told that, and I had not seen this but apparently the other Trustees did, there is a freshwater wetland across New Suffolk Avenue that we have to check out. And if so, that puts the entire septic system possibly within our jurisdiction of 100 foot. I just wanted to make that notation here, that I have been told there is a freshwater wetland over on what is listed on the survey as vacant land. And, if so, we have to take 100 foot boundary from that also. Again, my concerns here, I think this is a tremendous amount of lot coverage for what I think is a buildable area on this piece of property. And what is not noted on this survey here are the, well, the adjacent house, because there are houses -- to the west is wetlands, but to the east is an adjacent house, and whether this screened terrace or screened room and cabana are keeping in line with that house or in front of that house. I would be interested in hearing how my fellow Trustees feel about this. To me, I am concerned that this footprint is larger than this lot can handle, again, with the at wetland boundary. Then you add in the pool, the screen, recreation room and cabana, the screen terrace, and the terrace out beyond that screened terrace, and I think there is a lot of lot coverage here. A whole lot. Again, I would be interested in hearing from my other Trustees. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: I tend to agree with you that a lot of the, it can be reduced. I would also like to see this house on pilings Board of Trustees 57 August 24, 2011 instead of a slab, because of the sensitivity of the area. I understand what you are saying that the FEMA line dictates, you know, what is on pilings and what is not. But I think in this area the house should be on pilings. I think the proposed terrace and screened cabana and porches is just way too much for that area. The wetland line, you know, it was the way it is, it could be further than where it's flagged in this area. I mean I'm sure if we leave this whole property alone it would eventually become all wetlands because of the nature of the area. So for myself, I would like to see the structure reduced as well. MS. HULSE: Just to clarify, this does not comply with the setback requirements. The house, the driveway. I'll take his word the septic is out, but the rest of it is not complying with setback requirements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly the challenge that I'm trying to discuss here. I feel the current footprint is too large to meet current setback requirements. MS. HULSE: Just to be clear, none of this is, he's not entitled to any of this new construction. I mean I'm not sure how legitimate the argument is that renovation of the other house would not be preferable to this, but just a reading of the code this is not complying with any setback. Any of it: The driveway, the house, the swimming pool, the spa, the cabana. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This has come up in the past, ironically in another situation on New Suffolk where we had a small what I call the hunter's cottage, that ultimately basically fell down. And the applicant had come in with a plan to rebuild. My argument then and my argument today would be the same, that since historically there was a residence there, I can understand the owner wanting to rebuild a residence there in the same spot or on the same lot as it was to begin with. So I get that. I think what we ended up doing, because again, it was very similar to this, it was right in the wetlands, and by the time it was, you know, said and done, you know, he couldn't mitigate it too much more than you could. It still ended up being within the setbacks that normally we would, inside of the setbacks we would normally be regulated by. I made the argument then that it had historically been there and we downsized the project to something that was acceptable, and ultimately we allowed for the new home to be built. But it was considerably smaller than what he wanted. My feeling looking at this plan is basically the same. I would be with you on the argument that since there was a home there historically, I have no problem with building on there again, but certainly not bigger than what is there and cedainly not maybe perhaps as big what you are looking for. That's the only comment I have at this time. Aside from the fact that I looked at the septic, and I know that is what you'll -- you have no other choice but to do that because that's what the Health Department will approve. But I will say the recent Board of Trustees 58 August 24, 2011 studies that have come out of the Health Department, and this is just within the last month or so, showing the flow of nitrogen from the septic tanks and going to the wetlands, will soon probably change the way that these are designed. And if there is any way that you can be proactive in finding out if something else would be approved that would be a lot more environmentally conscious or friendly, I think that would be a good idea. It's coming down the road anyway. MR. ANDERSON: What I would just say to that is the changes that I'm aware of, of the Health Department, have to do with these infiltration changes, and all you are really doing in that situation is you are taking the septic and you are putting it in into a yet shallower system as to further elevate it or enable it to be suitably elevated from groundwater. The reason why those are the sorts of things you are seeing is because the unsaturated soil beneath the septic system provides for a more complete breakdown and quicker breakdown of the septic effluent than a system that would sit in water, which is what you have today. As far as removal of the nitrogen goes, what the unfortunate reality of that is everyone who lives in this town will contribute nitrogen to the bay if their house is located anywhere south of the North Road. So you could be in the middle of farm field in Cutchogue with your septic system and that will contribute nitrogen to the Peconic Bay system, just as much as the waterfront property owner will. And the reason for that is because 9round water south of the North Road travels in an southerly direction toward the bay. So the difference is only that the effluence from a house on the bay would get there quicker than effluence from a system more distant from the bay. Over time the impact of this is probably indistinguishable. Yet, we provide a much higher standard for the bay front property owner than we do a person more than 100 feet from'a wetland boundary. I'm not sure that answers your question, but that is the reality. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My point is that's already in discussion to be changed. You are talking about changing it for everybody from the Expressway north and the Expressway south. MR. ANDERSON: The only way I know how do it is to sewer the town. And you are talking about a multi-billion dollar project. And I'm not aware of that kind much money existing in government. At any level. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are some severe limitations at this point. But what I think Trustee Ghosio is trying to say is if there is latitude with the county Health Department, as far as even experimentally or with design changes, there are a number of systems out there that are looking at removing nitrogen further. But it is a severe practical problem and, I know, you know, I used to work over there. I no longer have an association there, but in speaking with the people there, there is still a number of tough nuts to crack, and you your comments as far as are accuracy are true. But I think Trustee Ghosio is saying if Board of Trustees 59 August 24, 2011 there is any technology or any latitude, because we know that the county Health Department is under a lot of pressure. What you did say is true about the groundwater movement. We just a couple of years ago we had a nitrogen maximum going through the groundwaters as a result of post World War II inorganic fertilizer use and that big bump in nitrogen coincided with major algal blooms and I think there is a big concern we are not going to the next nitrogen max to be the post-1900s housing development boom with the next big influx of nitrogen, even though it's coming from those remote sources south of the North Road. So I think the points are accurate and said well on both sides. A question I have, you show a 25-foot area of passive revegetation. Is that designed just to stop the current mowing activity that is there? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I tend to agree with the comments of Trustee Bergen, specifically as far as the apparent coverage. There are things that are going to here more than just a basic dwelling. Here we have a basic dwelling, arguably with horrible sanitary controls, because we have a cesspool in groundwater. But the proposal is really going much bigger in the lot coverage. Personally I think I would like to see a scaled back proposal that incorporates a smaller house and not all this other stuff there. And that would, you know, allow for more, I think it's true, the wetlands would probably occupy the entirety of this pool/cabana/swimming pool area, left to go. Other than elevation six or seven, you know, I think the elevation four line on the survey reflects what is probably going to ultimately revegetate. So I guess I would like to see something that is scaled back substantially. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what you are hearing from the Board is we would like to give you the oppor[unity to talk to your client and come pack with something that is smaller. A suggestion would be, from myself, similar here, scale down the size of the house, maybe fit a pool in there and then a pervious terrace. MR. ANDERSON: A pervious terrace. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And that would be it. MR. ANDERSON: What about the septic? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You know -- MR. ANDERSON: I'm happy to look into it. MR. BERGER: We can only do what we can do with the septic. You moved it away as far away as possible. As Trustee Ghosio and Trustee Bredemeyer said, if there is new technology that could be incorporated, great. But the reality is, from my opinion, you moved the septic as far as you can. And it could potentially be entirely within our jurisdiction because it's freshwater wetland that is across the street. But you are working with what you got. But, for myself, I would look into downsizing this house, to create as much setback, the greatest setback possible from the wetlands, a pool and terrace, and that's -- Board of Trustees 60 August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see it on pilings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, sorry, to see the house on pilings. And that would be about it. But this is a suggestion to take to your client and you can talk it over with the client and see what you come back with. MR. ANDERSON: I would say table it for that purpose. But I do have a question. Is there something about, we talk about a piling, with a pile cap, and a foundation. I'm not sure there will be any difference. I'm happy to look into it. But I don't think there will be any substantial different between one and two. This is a crawl space. This is not a full basement that is proposed here. Just so you know. I'm happy to look into it but there may not be any impact one way or the other. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the design, you say it will be on a slab, but your first floor elevation has to be nine feet, as I understand it. MR. ANDERSQN: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'm picturing like way up, you know, how is that going to, how do you put it on a slab without bringing lots of fill in and getting it to nine feet? MR. ANDERSON: Okay, like I said, I'll explore that. I'm happy to explore that and look at it. It has to be at a certain elevation, whatever that elevation is. I'm not sure it matters whether I have, you know, a knee wall that surrounds with hydrostatic openings or a pile-type foundation, which I'd probably hang a skirt around anyway. But I'm happy to look into that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I would be fine with us. Do you know what house we are talking about, that Bob was referring to? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's on New Suffolk Road next to the marina. It's a little tiny shack that we have on pilings. MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sailors cottage is what it was called at the time. MR. HERMAN: Mardsten. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be worth taking a look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience like to comment on this application? MS. BUTTERWORTH: I'm Barbara Butterworth and I'm the property owner to the east of this property and I just want to express that I share the concerns that you've raised. There are beautiful old oak trees there, and looking at the size of the plans for the development of the property, gives me great concern about losing a great many of those trees. And also the concern about, given the size of the house, the setback from the wetlands is far less than what is required. And so I just want to thank you for raising your questions that you have about the property. We are delighted to have new neighbors and we know that change comes. I've lived here all my life, so we hope and Board of Trustees 61 August24,2011 look forward to working with them and having a suitable house next door to us. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have one other question. We talked about all the drywells. We understand that you have to have a lot of drywells because you can't go that deep. But our concern is does that meet, being to close to the property line, does that meet Chapter 236? How is the draining? Will you fill that whole side with the elevation? MR. ANDERSON: We are not proposing fi~l. We are simply adding the appropriate drainage to comply with the code. So it complies in all respects to the drainage code of the town. It sounds like we are going to table this, which is fine by us. But I want to be clear as to if there is a preference toward renovating the house in its present location or going in the direction that we are going. Because I'm not clear on that yet. TRUSTEE KING: I myself would rather see a new house further away from the wetlands than the existing house. MS. HULSE: Sorry, that's not really something that you should be commenting on. That's really up to the applicant. If you put in an application, what you put it in for, that's what they are going to discuss. They are not going to give an advisory opinion as to another project. MR. ANDERSON: Well, it is an alternative. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? MS. HULSE: It's not before us tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience have any comments? (No response). If not, I think we provided you with plenty of feedback here tonight. And with that, I'll make a motion to table this the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Lisa Grattan. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 12, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of MARIE NG requests a Wetland Permit to relocate the existing dwelling and addition approx. 28' further west from the water; remove existing second-floor and reconstruct new second-floor addition; install new inground swimming pool and hot tub along the east side of the dwelling; relocate existing shed; remove sanitary system and install new sanitary system further from the water; and install drywells to contain run-off from the dwelling. Located: 6325 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. The Trustees have performed an inspection onsite and met with Mr. Schwartz and we had encouraged moving the house further back from the water, which there are new plans in that compod with that and if my calculations are correct instead of a description proposed at 28 feet, it's 52.1 feet, I guess, a total of 52 feet from the water now, consistent with what our discussions were. Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 The LWRP has deemed this application consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council had made a recommendation to approve subject to a ten-foot buffer and trying to save oak trees, as many trees as possible. And the Trustees also in their field inspection had a discussion concerning an eight to ten foot nomturf buffer. The swimming pool, if you will, now, is proposed at 50 feet from the top of the bluff, which I think comports with the discussion we had in the field with Mr. Schwartz. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the proposal. We were able to slide the house back a bit, shrink the pool a little bit so we were able to get the 50-foot setback. Um, I have an aerial shot of the area that shows that now the proposed pool setback as shown will be considerably setback from all the other houses and several of the pools in that location. So I can show those to you. And the site is the middle property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are discussing it looks like the clearing limit is within ten feet of the top of the bluff, approximately. Are we correct on that? You know, our concern is it looks like clearance out from the pool, about 40 feet out. And is there a need for that much of the land to be cleared? MR. SCHWARTZ: That's actually a mistake. There is a 20-foot extension line from the pool, so we should have that another 20 foot further to the west. MR. SCHWARTZ: It should be setback 30 feet from the bluff. So we have about 20 feet from the pool to the other line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That is a little better. What he's saying, this is a mistake, it should be the limit of clearance should be 20 feet and not, you know, this whole area here. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: It says 20 feet TRUSTEE BERGEN: The top of bluff. See, the concern is that the clearance goes, you'll go out almost to the top of the bluff and is there a need to do that much clearance. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the concern is what you now show is the limit of clearing with the hay bale line could actually become the beginning of a non4urf buffer in the future and that we could possibly see that, you know, as you said, the limit of clearing back 30 feet from the bluff. So it would be another 20 feet landward. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, that's where it should be. That drawing is a mistake. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm assuming the Board may ask for a revised drawing on that. And if you want to bump a decimal point over on your scale. I think a quarter inch is ten feet? You have quarter inch is one foot. I'm presuming the way it scales out. At least the copy I have says one quarter. MR. SCHWARTZ: One inch is 30 feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I have one quarter inch equals one foot. On the print that was stamped in August 18. It's just a Board of Trustees 63 August 24, 2011 scrivener's error. Did I get it right or did I get it wrong? MR. SCHWARTZ: Sorry, that does say quarter. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm looking at the wrong location. What is that? MR. SCHWARTZ: One inch equals 30. From the site plan. That's a scale of the site plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Scale of the site plan is what, the original line drawing? This site plan -- MR. SCHWARTZ: This here is -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One quarter to 20. I'm just wondering where you came in one quarter to one inch. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's not correct. Sorry about that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? Members of the Board? (No response). Any additional comments on behalf of the application, for or against? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I think it meets everything that we discussed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill make an application to approve as submitted in the drawings received in the Trustee office August 18, and with a condition of no clearing within 30 feet of the top of the bluff and a ten foot non-turf buffer. So moved. And it was already deemed consistent. The project is consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RAYMOND STRONG requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one story dwelling and deck; construct new two-stow dwelling with deck; remove/replace existing septic system; and install drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: 2205 Bayview Ave., Southold. This is consistent with LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a non-turf buffer landward of the concrete seawall up the slope to the top of the slope to the flood zone line as depicted on the site plan prepared by Mark Schwartz dated June 17, 2011. That was our comment that we wanted a ten-foot buffer behind that wall. This is a pretty straightforward application. It's the house being demolished and put back in the same place. There is really no room to move it back further. It is 86 feet away from the wall. And the septic is on the roadside, so it's Board of Trustees 64 August 24, 2011 pretty straightforward. Is there anybody here to speak behalf of the application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwadz here for any questions. Basically building the house in the same location of what is there, shifting it a bit to the south because of the side yard setback, and the proposed deck is the same setback as what is there now, the 86 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No problem with the buffer? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, not at all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response). From the Board? (No response). And the drainage is shown on here. I'll make motion close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Mark Schwartz on behalf of Raymond Strong with the condition of a ten-foot buffer along the property line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: This is on the seaward side of the property? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the seaward side of the property, yes. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Mark Schwartz on behalf of RICHARD & JANET DOWNING requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and reconstruct a new two-story dwelling in similar location; existing rear deck and pool, shed and detached garage to remain; construct new porches and deck to connect house to existing deck; existing septic system to be removed and new one installed further from the water; and install drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: 1280 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. This is to demolish a home and rebuild. It was found consistent with the LWRP. It recommended that the Board require the creation of a landscape buffer. In addition it is recommended that a pool de-watering drywell be specified. The CAC resolved to support the application. All drywells to contain roof runoff. And that was it. We were out there. I don't think there were any outstanding issues: You had mentioned there is no shed there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I recommend is taking the shed out of the description because once the shed is permitted they would be able to maintain it. And the shed is sitting in the wetlands. So I would just, I would not want to see us be granting a permit for a structure that is sitting in the wetlands. That was the only thing I had an objection to. The rest of the project I think is fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that entire property bulkhead? 65 Board of Trustees TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I don't believe there is a bulkhead down there. TRUSTEE KING: Would approving this necessarily include the shed? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, it's in the description. So I'm just saying take it out of the description and then it's no longer, it's not a permitted structure. If it's in the description it would be a permitted structure. MR. SCHWARTZ: I think that shed is the shed that was attached to the garage. There is a little shed in the back -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, okay. I was talking about the shed all the way down in the wetlands. MR. SCHWARTZ: No, that was -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ: One of the recommendations was for a landscape buffer or non-turf? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that was from LWRP. Require creation of a landscape buffer incorporating existing vegetation landward from the edge of the wetland. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or the area from the pool all the way down, that's well vegetated and I don't know that we want to change that. TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think we need to. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sometimes it's hard to tell from the aerials. I think he is working off the aerials. TRUSTEE KING: The only other thing is the drywell for the pool. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any problem with it. I don't think anybody else did either. Any other comments on this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One second. We have a letter here. Sorry. This is from the next door neighbor Nelson. Jane Nelson. She's talking about a drywell. Drywells shown where the present dining room window is now may be too close to my dwelling and pose a drainage problem for my foundation. MR. SCHWARTZ: Mrs. Nelson actually called me. I discussed that with her. We can move that drywell, although I don't think it would it cause any problem with her foundation, we can move it between the house and garage location, so with our revised site plan we'll move that drywell. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. And the current garage is built on the property, between our properties. As is the boat house. I want to make sure the proposed fence won't encroach on my property, causing any problem in the future. MR. SCHWARTZ: She understood the site plan that the hay bale line that we are showing, she thought was a fence. I just told her that's not a fence. There is no change in the fence that is going to be there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that part is out of our jurisdiction anyway. August 24, 2011 66 Board of Trustees TRUSTEE KING: I was going to say it's not even in our jurisdiction. All right, so I guess we solved those problems. With that being said, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, Mark Schwartz, on behalf of EDWIN & MARGARET PISANI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-floor addition and alteration on south side of dwelling; one-story addition on west and north sides of dwelling; second-floor addition and alteration on north side of dwelling; new porch on north side of dwelling; and install drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: 7180 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found could be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The Board go did out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Mark Schwartz. We are expanding the footprint to some degree but we are not encroaching any further on the waterside. We do have a new septic system that has been installed beyond 100 feet from the wetlands. And I believe that's it for the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looked like a pretty straightforward project. Anybody here in the audience want to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). Not hearing any. As t stated, it seems to be a straightforward application. So, Chapter 236 I believe is covered with I see the drywells here. So 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 the application of Mark Schwartz on behalf of Edwin and Margaret Pisani as describe at 7180 Peconic Bay boulevard. It was found consistent, deemed consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 67 August 24, 2011 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, En-Consultants on behalf of KIMOGENOR POINT COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 566 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and approx. 8" higher than) existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace existing wood fence; remove and replace most landward +11' of 5' wide bridge and add 8' ramp onto landward end thereof; and incidentally dredge up to 10' off indicated sections of bulkhead to a depth of -2'ALW and regrade remaining shoal adjacent to bridge to gradually slope away from dredged channel, which will restore tidal flow pattern around island and use approx. 300 cubic yards of sand spoil as backfill. Regrade and repave existing paved roadway landward of bulkhead and replace existin9 drain with a groundwater infiltration system to minimize the frequency and volume of pavement run-off discharged from existing overflow pipe to be maintained. Located: 50 Jackson St., New Suffolk. This project has been deemed to be consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. The Trustees viewed it on field inspection and indicated their request for a six-foot buffer all the way around the bulkhead section and to encourage the road to be pervious. That said is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Some of the folks from Kimogenor Point are also here. This project, to a certain extent, is a continuation of a project that we were last before the Board in 2008, at which time between three and 400 linear feet of bulkhead was replaced, and I'm sure the Board saw that at the site. So this is primarily a continuation of that same project to continue replacing the existing bulkhead to be raised about eight inches. It would, the bulkhead would be raised to the same elevation as the bulkhead that is already replaced and that now exists. Basically the same drainage issue, what was designed and the Board approved in 2008 near the windmill is working nicely. And they are proposing essentially the same kind of design here as part of some road regrading adjacent to a section of the bulkhead. The most landward section of the bridge has to be detached and replaced, and there are some engineering plans by Sag Harbor Engineering that were submitted that addresses that work. And then of course the dredging of the shoal that I think at least some members of this Board have viewed and I think supported in the past. Although in the past the community was unable to get any support from the New York State DEC, who now we believe, based on site meetings that we have had with them out there, we will get some support for currently. I believe I submitted with the application a fairly comprehensive historical photo array provided by Kimogenor Point, but I think most of the Board is pretty familiar with that site. That's really it. If the Board has any questions -- oh, and Board of Trustees 68 August 24, 2011 as far as the buffer goes, that is fine. I think I already showed on the plan that same six-foot unpaved buffer along the roadway, so I can certainly just indicate the continuation of that, the whole way around to the end of the project, assuming that's what the Board is asking for. The applicant is here and agreeable to that. That's really it. The grading plan may be difficult to follow with all the lines on the plan. It was painful to prepare, but I think the Board probably understands the basic idea is to cut a channel along the bulkhead out to ten feet. Which is really our starting place. I think ultimately the group would probably like to get more done. But I think our conversations with DEC initially were that we could break through their prior objections by creating the ten foot of what they call incidental dredging that really has to be done to replace the bulkhead anyway. And then the rest of the grading would sort of push that, remove enough material on that shoal on a one to three slope so it hopefully doesn't immediately fill back in. But we would certainly like the Board to put it in the backs of their mind that we weigh, depending how this actually goes with the DEC, may want to come back in the future and just sort of monitor this so if they can get it open, hopefully keep it open and maybe get it open a little more. But given the past resistance and history, we are just trying to get what we think we can get to start and see how it works out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are talking about now giving you now a ten-year maintenance on that dredging so at least from the Trustees' perspective you have a ten-year window. MR. HERMAN: We would certainly like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You would agree with that? MR. HERMAN: I don't even have to turn around. And if we were able to expand the scope of it, then maybe we can just come back and petition to modify the ten-year permit that would be valid for that ten years. So that would be great. That would be very much appreciated. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm familiar with the location and I know historically what was there, and it's unfortunate it filled in the way it has. So I think this will enhance the water quality around that entire area when this is opened up again. That's something that we've supported for years. MR. HERMAN: They are actually losing vegetated marsh because it's being buried by the shoal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And also, again, the water quality will improve greatly all around that area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. The project description indicates to regrade and repave the existing paved roadway, and when we were in the field I didn't see much paved roadway there. I did see some, you know, stone or stone material. I'm just trying to relate the project description on the, you know, regrade and repave the existing. MR. HERMAN: The roadway behind the bulkhead, that's not smooth Board of Trustees 69 August 24, 2011 asphalt but it's not loose gravel either. Do you want to come up, Bob? MR. FOX: Bob Fox, from Kimogenor Point. The paving generally is a chip seal surface. There is some bluestone over it a couple of inches. MR. HERMAN: So it would be the same. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess my concern is to have as much pervious surface in this particular area. As I think some of you are aware, West Creek is closed to shellfishing, so increased tidal flow is actually good. The sole sampling point for New York State DEC Shellfishing Unit is essentially in front of Kimogenor Point at the creek entrance and any discharge, any additional limitation of discharge to surface waters from any surfaces that can be slowed down would be beneficial. Obviously if we can have a greater tidal exchange and also slow down rainfall runoff so that, you know, those animals that might be errant and are not either picked up after -- the ones we don't pick up after, like seagulls that inhabit the area, end up going to the sole point, which is a difficult issue for regulating the whole bay with a single monitoring point. MR. FOX: Our intent is that the drain will, you know, will take runoff to pervious soils, you know, below grade. The drain into the creek would only be functioning when we have tidal overflow, you know, when the tide is, as it periodically and often does, overflow the bulkhead and floods the road there. In that case, at that time, I think the drain would be overwhelmed by that amount of water and it would flow through the outflow and back into the creek. If we did talk, discuss about pervious road, I think, I don't see a reason we couldn't look at doing that. You know, I would need some guidance about what the perimeters are, how much we are talking about. MR. HERMAN: We had discussed this during the application. I think one of the concerns was just the access because it's, I mean, it's just very, very difficult, as I'm sure anybody who has a gravel driveway knows, to plow. And this is basically the roadway that comes in and provides access to and from those houses. Now, it's a summer community, so that problem would probably be limited to a certain extent. But if somebody were there during the winter, it would be hard to, basically very difficult to plow that area without tearing up the entire gravel roadway. So we are hoping the drainage, and the intent is the drainage will capture that runoff. But again, if there was something, I don't know, maybe we could look into, if the Board could suggest that would create some sort of a more pervious surface without going completely to loose stone, because the concern is to use that in that roadway there is just a concern for accessing. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know that there is enough runoff there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just, there again, because my understanding, I have seen the previous reconstructed bulkhead and I see the large stone area, the existing drain, the new area behind the 70 Board of Trustees August 24, 2011 bulkhead, which is unpaved, will actually also communicate with that. So that's all drainage that is going through pervious soil and stone drainage as well. It may not be, as Trustee King indicates, maybe it's not that much of an issue because of the new proposed drainage and with the buffer. MR. HERMAN: That was the intent. And that was why, notwithstanding the continuation of the buffer that's why we were sure to show that existing area. It's really at the buffer now. And you know, to have your handy photos up here, but the photos submitted with the application shows along that area where the wood fence is, there is currently natural grade, natural soil area between the bulkhead and the road. So that would be maintained. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments from the Board? (No response). MR. HERMAN: Excuse me, the only thing I would suggest is maybe so there is not any confusion once it's time for installation, to just clarify the surface would be the same surface now and not switching to some slick surface asphalt. That was not the intention of using the term "paved." We should probably use the terminology "the same surfacing that is there" so at least the situation is not made worse. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment 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 the application as submitted, with the continuation of the six foot buffer throughout the length of the additional bulkhead replacement, and to maintain the existing road surface material. It is noted as a stone roadway here but I guess it includes some aggregate and some asphalt beneath? MR. FOX: Chip seal. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, just so it's clear, we are not going to a totally impervious hard material, that it does have some pervious capabilities as currently constructed. TRUSTEE KING: And dredge to be a ten-year maintenance. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dredging to be a ten-year maintenance. And the project as submitted has been deemed to be consistent with the town's LWRP. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants on behalf of JEANNE MARKEL & JOHN CHRISTIAN WEDGE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing two-story, one-family dwelling, garage and deck, and construct Board of Trustees 71 August 24, 2011 new two-story one-family dwelling with attached decks; construct retaining wall and place approx. 40 cubic yards of fill within 100' of wetlands to achieve proposed grades more than 50' from wetlands; clear approx. 783 square foot of existing wooded area within 100' of wetlands to establish yard and pervious dirt pathway more than 50' from wetlands; revegetate and maintain as landscape buffer approx. 1,123 square feet of existing cleared area within CEHA; replace drinking water well; and establish stormwater retention basin and other components of drainage system. Located: 100 Harbor Rd., Orient. LWRP has found this to be consistent with LWRP and recommends a buffer. Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of a 20 foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation, and from our field notes, when we were in the field, we agreed with that and in fact suggested keeping the buffer to approximately 30 foot. Aside from that it was a pretty straightforward application and there were no other comments. I will ask if there is anybody here who would tike to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The project architect is here. The applicants are also here, if the Board has any questions. Basically the existing site is characterized by a two-story one-family dwelling with attached garage and deck, located approximately 51 feet from the wetland associated with Orient Harbor and 101 feet from freshwater wetlands located to the west of the property. The proposal seeks to remove the existing improvements and locate a new two-story dwelling and deck no closer than 78 feet from tidal wetlands and 104 feet from the adjacent fresh water wetlands, and increase minimum wetland setback of 27 feet or greater than 50% improvement on the existing setback. Structural ground coverage within 100 feet of wetland, within the Board's jurisdiction will in turn be reduced by more than 50% or by over a thousand square feet. The project would replace the existing non-conforming sanitary system with an upgraded system located more than 150 feet from wetlands and install a drainage system to capture and recharge roof and storm water runoff. With respect to the buffer, currently is shown on the plan, there is an approximately 1,128 square foot area that is located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary that is proposed to be revegetated and maintained as a landscape buffer. So if I were to scale that to the actual wetlands boundary, the width of that would actually vary around 20 feet, which is I think what you had mentioned as the CAC recommendation. It would not be uniform but we could make that adjustment so that it was uniformly 20 feet, it would cover most of that area, it might extend it a little bit up. But it would generally keep that entire area adjacent to the harbor natural and at that point would capture more than an additional 1,100 square feet of area that was historically maintained as cleared and get that Board of Trustees 72 August 24, 20I 1 planted. So I think the applicants would be agreeable with that because it's roughly consistent with what we have already proposed. So I think we would be okay with that. Otherwise, I think, as Bob said, it's reasonably straightforward. It's an improvement on the existing site conditions, and I would just take any other questions the Board might have. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Thank you. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? Questions or comments from the Board? (No response). How does the Board feel about a 20-foot buffer? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's sufficient. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's sufficient for the site. MR. HERMAN: And, again, that would be a landscape buffer that would actually be a planted buffer, not just a non-turf. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the addition of establishing a 20-foot planted buffer, and in doing so -- well, it was found to be consistent by LWRP to begin with, so it is consistent, and with that addition, I make a motion that we approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 18, Eh-Consultants on behalf of GERALD & ROSEMARY REIDY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 79 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; relocate existing 4'X 5' deck and 3'X 5' steps to beach; remove and replace 2' boardwalk over 19' section of bulkhead; backfill with up to 10 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and remove and replace existing masonry patio (as necessary) except for 5' area adjacent to bulkhead to be replaced with 5' non-turf buffer. Located: 167 Island View Lane, Greenport. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC supports the application with the condition of a five-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. The CAC also questions the legality of the existing retaining wall. MR. HERMAN: I need to go back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why? MR. HERMAN: Because I was using the wrong scale. The buffer -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Back to the previous? MR. HERMAN: Yes. We have to reopen it for just a second. It's better. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we finish this one since we opened this and then we'll go back. 73 Board of Trustees MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I'll give this to Lauren. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, before you start, the retaining wall, there is a retaining wall that is on the southwest portion of the property that is not in the description. We don't believe it is. If you want to add that to the description. MR. HERMAN: Where is it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In line with the house there. And it goes back into the yard. MR. HERMAN: The one that is along the -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says existing wood retaining wall. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on the survey. MR. HERMAN: I'm looking for it. Oh. I'm looking at the wrong application. This is Rob Herman En-Consultants on behalf of Gerald Reidy. Yes, I do know what retaining wall you are talking about. That is a retaining wall that, in that location that had existed historically, and what I found, what I came to learn, is that the Reidy's replaced it in the same location with that untreated horizontal boards. I suppose then what would be appropriate would be to ask the Board to include that, not to be replaced but simply to be permitted as part of this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a good idea, Rob. MR. HERMAN: It was one of the usual deals where it was a small wall and they just assumed they could fix it because it was in the same spot. Fortunately they knew enough to come in for the bulkhead. Otherwise, I mean, I don't have anything to add to the application other than I'm here if the Board has any questions. It's a pretty routine replacement. I guess the only item worth noting is that there is a masonry patio that covers the entire area between the house and the bulkhead and consistent with other applications with this similar yardage with the Board, we propose to just permanently remove the first five feet behind the new wall and make that a non-turf buffer and just replace the masonry patio behind that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are fine with that. Not much more you can do on that property. Any other comments? (No response). From the Board? (No response). Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Eh-Consultants on behalf Gerald and Rosemary Reidy we find it consistent with LWRP and approve it as applied for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And include the retaining wall. August 24, 2011 74 Board of Trustees TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And include the retaining wall as shown. MR. HERMAN: The wood retaining wall. Do you want a length on that? Or just say wood retaining wall? It's about 18 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 18 feet? Include the 18-foot wood retaining wall shown on the survey. MR. HERMAN: Jim, do you remember, because I don't, if they replaced the section along the property line? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. MR. HERMAN: Are they here? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll include that section as well. What is shown on the survey. MR. HERMAN: I think they just did the front, which was convenient because then the part on the side was evidence that it really was nothing there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we are in the middle of a motion. We have a second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Now, Rob, you want to reopen an application? MR. HERMAN: I wanted to go back to Markel to come up with language that I think is a little easier with a buffer and actually would show more buffer than we discussed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll make a motion to reopen hearing number 17, Markel and Wedge. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: I'm scaling, what we were talking about is the 20-foot buffer, and even its narrowest point, that would not get you to the coastal erosion hazard area boundary, so I would just propose that we establish the landscape buffer with the landward limit being the coastal erosion hazard area line. It would create variable width but it would be wider than what we talked about and that would be an easy demarcation on the survey rather than having this undulating line, and it would also save us from having to prepare revised plans -- well, I guess we have to show it anyway, but. In other words, the only area that is seaward to the coastal erosion line that is not already naturally planted vegetation, naturally existing vegetation, we are already showing to be re-vegetated. So that buffer would actually be wider than the 20 feet. So I woutd propose to show the landscape buffer to be equal to the coastal erosion hazard boundary as shown on the survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be wider than the 20 feet. MR. HERMAN: I mean the one side, it would range probably from about 20 to 40 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with that. It's more than what we were asking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees ?5 August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALI AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition that there be a planted buffer whose landward limit would be the coastal erosion hazard line as drawn on the site plan. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition onto an existing one-story, one-family dwelling; construct a two-story addition in place of existing attached deck and remove remainder of existing deck; construct a 6'X 10' attached porch in place of existing landing/steps to be removed; remove existing nonconforming sanitary system located less than 100' from wetlands; install drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells; relocate existing public water service; and establish 10' wide approx. 450 square foot non-turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation in place of existing lawn adjacent to tidal wetlands boundary. Located: 2745 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the wetland application, as submitted. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Basically we have a proposed dwelling expansion that would occur entirely within the footprint of existing structural areas, thus neither increasing lot coverage nor decreasing wetland setbacks, and I think with the exception of, I think something like, there is like a three square foot difference in ground area coverage. So this one was consistent but within a few square feet actually of being a minor action under the LWRP. So it would have been exempt. So really we are not going to have any change of structural footprint that would create some additional impact on the adjacent tidal wetlands as compared to what is existing, however, taken as a whole, we will, as discussed on a prior application, have significant site improvement of having landward relocation of a currently undersized and non-conforming sanitary system to a location just outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction at the hundred foot setback. We would establish a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer that would be about 450 square feet adjacent to the tidal wetlands boundary. And so really we are not doing anything to affect coverage or setbacks but we are improving both the absorption of surface water runoff and also the treatment of groundwater, based on the upgraded sanitary system. So we hope that the Board would look favorably upon the application but we are here if you have any specific questions or comments. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it. I thought it was a good project. The only recommendation t would make is the northwest corner of Board of Trustees 76 August 24, 2011 the house is a great big tree that is in pretty bad shape. So I would make part of this that you could remove it. MR. HERMAN: We have permission to remove it. Dave had mentioned that to me as well. Yes, we would welcome that as pad of the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, it's straightforward. Any other comments or questions? Board? Audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make an application to approve the application as submitted with the addition of the removal of the large tree at the northwest corner of the house if it's necessary. And it is consistent with LWRP TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further comment on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 20, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WILLIAM L. BOSWELL & OTHERS requests a Wetland Permit to relocate existing dwelling from 8' to 46' from the top of the bluff; install drywells; abandon and install new sanitary system; and install new gravel driveway and parking area. Located: Old Mallory Rd., Fishers Island. This application has been deemed consistent with LWRP. The Trustees have seen it at various times from the neighboring lot. I think McGillian (sic), where we had a revetment job. The Conservation Advisory Council has moved to support the application. This is a case where the bluff on Block Island Sound has been eroding consistently, dropping the original septic tank on the beach in 1938 after the hurricane. It's been rotting whatever, 73 years since then, and the plan proposes to move the house as far landward as it possibly can go. It has four new dr/wells to bring it into compliance with 236 of the Town Code. It has a new sanitary system located as far as possible from the bluff and new driveway. There is not much else can be done here other than the possibility of a non-turf buffer. The current house has lasted quite well, even though the soil is eroded slowly over time. It would seem to slow up some bluff erosion, some sort of vegetated buffer, not running lawn up to the bitter edge would be the only thing I would think after having been there might make a little sense although -- MS. MOORE: The only difficulty there is you saw the cliff kind of has a concave quality to it. I'm inclined to just don't touch it at all because if we staded planting it, right now it's turf. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Then there would another board looking at the house in 70 years. MS. MOORE: So my thought is we'll address moving it forward, 77 Board of Trustees because as you described, beyond that I'm hesitant to suggest anything else. Typically they would plant a buffer but -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They want to put lawn up to the bitter edge? MS. MOORE: No, right now the lawn is kind of like weeds up at the edge. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the eight foot seemed like the lawn was right up to the edge. MS. MOORE: We can let it go natural. You don't have a lot of room there, ten feet or so, because it was only 40 feet we have been able to move the house forward, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That type of soil, loess, I think, I'm familiar with that from excavations in Montauk. It's very stable. It's not like our Sound bank here where it's sand and will be caving in. I don't think there is any other alternatives here. Any additional comments from the Board? (No response). MS. MOORE: It's pretty straightforward. I do have two letters of support from the neighbors for your files. They actually wrote it, because it's going to the zoning board, to move us toward the street. But Ill put it into your, obviously, they support it with the zoning board, they support it here as well. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no additional 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'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further comment on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 21, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of SPYRO AVDOULOS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'X 4.6" top landing and 4'X 10' wood steps to bulkhead with a 3'X 5.9" landing and 3' wide steps to the beach. Located: 54985 North Rd., Greenport. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under LWRP and found consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however the project has been substantially started, therefore recommends a violation is issued to the property owner. The Board, as I said, did go out and looked at it. Obviously a good portion of the work had already been done on this. MS. MOORE: I'll clarify that. I went to take a look at it. You saw the old parts. The steps ended up getting disconnected due to the storm. The steps that are there are temporary, at best. Because they have to be reconstructed in accordance with the plans that you have. So those were just temporary until such time as the permanent steps were put in. The old wood was still there it just got detached and they needed the steps down to the August 24, 2011 Board of Trustees 78 August 24, 2011 beach. It's a very Iow beach area, so it's like three steps down was replaced and then just planking on the top, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What the Board had mentioned out in the field was since some of this project had been completed, that this should be as-built permit rather than a regular application. MS. MOORE: I don't know that the final is going to look the same. As I said, I think they are temporary steps, because the plans are a little different, as I recall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Either way, Pat, something new is built. So we can go a different direction. MS. MOORE: No, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure this was, the material was going to be non-treated wood. MS. MOORE: That's will whole thing, the temporary nature of it, it's not. But the permanent will be non-treated wood. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Beside that, it seems very straightforward application. Was there anybody else in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? (No response). Any other comment from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Spyro Avdoulos at 54985 North Road as described with the condition that non-treated lumber is used and that a portion of the work has already been completed this will be considered an as-built permit. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 22, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of TOM & MAE MAURI request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X13'4" wood ramp, 4'X 53'8" catwalk with Thru-Flow decking, 3'X 10' seasonal ramp, and 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. The CAC supports the application with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer from the top of the bank to the high water mark. And it is inconsistent with LWRP, the reasons are: 6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands; the mean water depth reference negative 2.1 feet at the dock terminus. MS. MOORE: It is interesting that he would say that because actually, we have a response back from DEC and they weren't happy with the design so they sent us their proposed design, which I will bring up to the Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. And the other is preserve the public interest and use of wetlands and waters held in public trust by the state and Town of Southold. Those are the LWRP comments. Board of Trustees 79 August 24, 2011 When we were in the field we talked about our concern that the DEC would not approve it in that location and we also talked about how we felt we did not want this extended in that area because it goes wail beyond the line. It's not quite in the channel there, but it is close, where it's kind of like a fork there. We saw boats would go right past this side and also go past the other side to the other fork. So if this is what you are proposing now, I definitely need to see this staked in the field. I don't know how anyone else feels. MS. MOORE: We are prepared to stake it because the DEC doesn't really give us a choice. You have to maintain two-and-a-half feet of water and so does the LWRP recommendation. Keeping in mind here that I did do an analysis of all the other docks in the area and you have both an undulating shoreline and you have docks that are adjacent docks that extend much further out or have a longer length than this one, as it's proposed. Part of the problem is that the parcel to the left, I guess to the north, is bulkheaded and I believe that it's caused some shoaling in the area. This property has a history of docks. It has had docks on it, it's got originally grandfathered docks and it was damaged in the storm, it got replacement docks, and it has had a dock there. It was last destroyed in the storm and the owners were elderly and just were not able to replace it. My clients, the Maud's, are in contract to purchase this property, and they have a relatively small boat, a 27-foot boat. And the whole reason they want this property is so they can be on the water. They need the float. They'll come up and speak for themselves but Mrs. Maud has had a hip replacement. Dr. Mauri has his own issues with just they are not getting any younger, they are getting older, and float is absolutely necessary. So we are flexible with the -- sorry, I didn't put him in the grave, but they do need a float. You know, we are amenable to talk about it but, really, a float is one of those amenities that you really can't go without. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not disputing the float, we are disputing the length. MS. MOORE: And that becomes the issue with the DEC. We try to keep the dock short and the DEC says well you have to go to two-and-a-half feet of water. When I looked at all the other docks in the area, they are all at three-and-a-half, 3.7 feet of water. So it appears that the water depth is consistently three-and-a-half feet until you get to this property. As I said, I think it's shoaled up because of the bulkheading next door. It just doesn't seem to make any sense how everybody else's dock when it's extended out goes to three-and-a-half feet. Under the old rules the DEC would not let you have a dock if you didn't extend out to three-and-a-half feet. They've compromised and made it to two-and-a-half feet. We would stake it out, stake it for you again, and we can have it drawn up a little more carefully to make sure that we need to extend it this far Board of Trustees 8O August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I might interject. I'm uncomfortable with the passage for navigation there without seeing some soundings. There is a couple of vessels moored off there. If I'm thinking of the correct location, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm concerned with. Will it narrow the channel. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words from the proposed staking to the vessels that might be moored off this site that there is sufficient room between the proposed staking and other vessels for navigation up through the head of the creek, and I'm not sure just having staking going out in the field I'll be able to develop the scaling and depth perception to know there is sufficient room for proper navigation. MS. MOORE: So do you want have Bob Fox who did the depth, identify where the moorings are on this plan? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I think so. MS. MOORE: I mean the moorings, my understanding is they have to get permits from you to for the moorings. You know, you can adjust the placement of the moorings if -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I personally have not been in this creek for years. I don't have an exact feel for the way the channel runs, also. ~ think it's easy to say we can push the moorings around in the creek but it's also the basic issue of the natural run of the channel, the natural course of what exists there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this might not be an area where easy to move moorings around because there is that forked area. So when we push them over and push the next one over and that causes the same problem on the opposite side of the creek. MS. MOORE: Well, we'll to some of the measuring. This was really something we have to come to a compromise, unless you can persuade the DEC to allow the float. I mean, we were flexible with the float, it doesn't have to be straight out. It can be on a "T" or an "L" or whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How about we table it and ask you stake it and we can meet you out there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do have one question. I think it's just a quality of the copy here. You have an arrow that says "opposite shoreline." Is there a distance somewhere on there? MS. MOORE: It says five-hundred feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, I couldn't see that on my copy. Thank you. MS. MOORE: I'll have Bob do some more precise identifying. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions now? (No response). I'll make a motion to table this application for further review. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: It's about 20 feet length seaward than what the original plan was. MS. MOORE: Sorry, what was that? Board of Trustees 8I August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: It's actually about 20 feet seaward of the first plan, because you turn the float sideways. MS. MOORE: I would agree that -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we have a discussion we have to open up the public hearing again. MS. MOORE: That's up to you. I'm going to have it redrawn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. MS. MOORE: That way it will make more sense, too; we'll have accurate measurements. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Number 23, Patricia Moore, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of MIKE & ELLEN FEINBERG requests a Wetland Permit to construct a swimming pool landward of the existing dwelling and repair the existing beach stairs and wood deck at the top of the bank. Located: 62445 North Rd., Greenport. This is an application for A swimming pool and repair some stairs. It was found consistent with LWRP with the recommendation to locate the pool drywell to the landward side of the proposed pool. And the CAC resolved to support the application to construct the swimming pool landward of existing dwelling area, repair existing beach stairs and wood deck. The CAC also wanted to see the drywell installed landward of the pool. And they also observed an existing shed that is not depicted on the survey. MS. MOORE: The shed is being relocated to the front yard. That's why. Out of your jurisdiction. It's right now in the place where, about where the pool is, so. If I remember correctly. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Feinberg. This is the Supernen (sic) property. I'm sure many of you remember, it's very unique, it's built out of driftwood. Most of it is driftwood. My clients want to try and maintain as much of the integrity of the stairs that have the handles made out of driftwood, and this house also has driftwood parts as well. That's all part of the application. We did have a surprise though with respect to the existing septic system. Supernen had installed the septic system, a new septic system, prior to his sale of the property, and we made the condition of our purchase making sure the Health Department had approved it and everything was in place. As it turns out, the surveyor placed it on the survey somewhat inaccurately, and I have a new survey for you that shows what we think is the correct location of the septic system. We, because the septic system, and I don't have that many prints, I apologize, you can see the septic system is actually further from the top of the bluff, which is good. It's more landward, but it is also more centered on the property. It's further to the east. It makes us have to shift the location of the pool now because it's right dead center of the area where the pool is going to go. So what we have proposed is repositioning of the pool. The pool is actually more landward Board of Trustees 82 August 24, 2011 of our original proposal· It's at 80 feet now rather than 75. And we have it right now showing 20 feet from the property line. We may be as close as 15 from the properly line, but your important measurement is from the top of the bank. So 80 feet from the top of the bank. My client proposes a patio around it but we don't have the design of the patio. I just filled in, inside the fenced area patio. I apologize. We just learned of the septic system's location yesterday and had to scramble to redesign everything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, sorry, how many feet from top of the bluff? MS. MOORE: See the measurement at the top. John Metzger put 80. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. MOORE: So the project is actually further away from the top of the bank. Although favorable, you know -- TRUSTEE KING: The recommendation was made to move the pool drywell landward of the pool also. MS. MOORE: That's fine. We can do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Gets that out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: It's kind of close. It will be like 90, maybe. No, actually it's out of your jurisdiction. Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Some areas of these steps will be repaired and some areas will be replaced? MS. MOORE: Yes. Well, I mean the condition of them are I think, depending on storm damage, the longer it takes to repair them, the more likely to replace them. But inkind inplace, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a concern about the, I'll call it the more seaward wood deck. In other words, there is a covered wood deck right adjacent to the house. There is this other wood deck, seaward wood deck. And, you know, obviously this Board has had considerable discussions over the last year about wood decks either cantilevered out over the bluff or even adjacent to the top of the bluff. And myself, personally, I think the code is pretty clear that you can't have wood decks cantilevered or over the bluffs. So for myself, personally, I would like to see that forward wood deck removed and have the stairs come up then to meet with the covered wood deck. MS. MOORE: Well, that particular deck is actually in pretty good condition. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But once it's permitted, it will be repair and · maintain. MS. MOORE: Yes, but this has a pre-CO and, I mean my client bought this -- well, I'll leave it to you, but. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just expressing my concern and if the majority of the Board disagrees with me. TRUSTEE KING: It's a valid concern. We go round and round with these decks all the time. MS. MOORE: I appreciate your concerns but I think generally you recognize, this is not a large structure. It's pretty conservative. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hear what you are saying but it's still the fact it's a cantilevered deck over the bluff, in the coastal Board of Trustees 83 August 24, 2011 erosion hazard area. That's just my own personal feeling. MS. HULSE: Well, it is the code as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just would like to see, I don't have a problem with that deck that is immediately or really attached to the structure, to the house, remaining, because that is attached. But this one, the small deck in front I would recommend that not be included or permitted. TRUSTEE KING: What if we downsized it to 4x87 TRUSTEE BERGEN: What Jim is just saying is if it is downsized to 4x8 then it meets the code of 32 square foot. So that would meet code. MS. MOORE: Measuring wise, I'm trying to think -- it's about half its size. I don't have the dimensions here. The stairs are about three feet width, aren't they? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The plan shows four feet. MS. MOORE: Sorry, the scale here is not very good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can reshape that where it would architecturally fit into the other deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically a 4x8 you'll basically be extending it from the covered deck to the top of the stairs. That's all you would be doing. It's not really a deck, it's now just a walkway. MS. MOORE: I think there has to be some compromise when you are dealing with pre-existing structures. This has such a unique structure. It has really such character, to start cutting it back, it's all pad of the, I mean it's an 1880 structure he's reminding me, so -- MR. FEINBERG: I'm Mike Feinberg, the owner. That little deck portion we are talking about is very small. It just has two little Adirondack chairs. And that is actually what made me make the crazy decision to buy this thing, was sitting there looking at the water. And every time something comes up that makes me think maybe I should just bale on this thing, we have to go there and sit and just reconfirm in our minds that this was a good idea. I didn't think that was going to be the big deal. The issue with the stairs is that the bottom, the bottom portion of the stairs, the bottom set of stairs, I guess, is incredibly steep. And the bottom, the last three steps were kind of washed away. And I just wanted to shore that up. I have grandkids running up and down. I just wanted to make sure that was shored up and a little bit easier to maneuver. And that's basically it. MS. MOORE: It has some cultural significance, the structure, is 1880. Think about it in those terms, so. MS. FEINBERG: Ellen Feinberg. Those two Adirondack chairs were also put in, in the Fall. And it's very, it's built very well, because those two chairs did not move, nothing moved over the whole winter with all the bad storms and everything. It's really sturdy, I mean it's really, really in good shape. Considering it was built so long ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with keeping it the way it is because it's been there for a long time, it's attached to the other deck. We approved a deck just like this tonight, on Board of Trustees 84 August 24, 2011 another application. It's something that has been there for years. In fact it was right up, on Fishers Island, it was right up to it. And I just, it's part of this whole structure and it's been there for years and I don't have of a problem with approving it the way it is. That's just my opinion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I differentiated this smaller deck from the larger covered wood deck that is attached to the, we'll call it the house. That is what I would equate to what you, the permit application we had granted earlier tonight. Again, it's just my opinion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's less than 200 square feet, it's not attached -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's exempt from coastal erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it's exempt from coastal erosion, and if it's not part of the stairs, why is it not permitted? TRUSTEE BERGEN: As Lori said, it's not permitted under 275. MS. MOQRE: But that is a new structure. This is an existing since the 1800's. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But you are asking us to permit it in. So when you permit something in, you are permitting it in according to the code today, not the code back then. MS. MOORE: But you do recognize that, every night that you meet, you recognize pre-existing structures and the validity of having -- you have more disruption to the bluff by removing it and cutting it back than -- in this case they don't even have to touch it. That was not part of the planned renovations here. So I think we cause more damage -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I made this argument in the past and I'll say it again, just for the record. That I agree with you. I mean when we had these occasions where these pre-existing decks on the top of the bluffs come up, they have been there for years, I don't see the point in taking them away. But I do understand Lori's point that the code doesn't allow for it. But that being said, I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to move on from this. MS. MOORE: I don't read the code to say they are not permitted. So, that's -- TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any comments to make? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application to the amended plan, and we'll see the drywell for the pool moved landward of the pool, on the landward side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And it was found consistent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any fudher discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? Board of Trustees 85 August24,2011 (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Bergen, nay). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED ~ ~,~¢~OCT 2 0 2011 . Southold Town Clerk