The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-09/21/2011 Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, September 21,2011 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: Wednesday, October 12,2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 20, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our September meeting. Before we get started, there are a couple of applications on here that are postponed and will not be heard tonight· The first one is on page three, number two, SUSAN MAGG & JAMES ORIOLI request an Amendment to Wetland Permit ~4559 to include the as-built 3'X 6' ramp and 6'X 30' floating dock with two (2) 6" pilings to secure dock. Located: 495 Halls Creek Dr., Mattituck, will not be heard tonight. Page five, number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & MAIRI YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 18' extension to the existing 4' wide fixed catwalk with a 4'X 12' fixed "T" section at the terminal end thereof; construct a 16'X 32' in-ground, raised swimming pool, raised masonry patio, and an outdoor shower; construct masonry retaining walls around the west and south sides of the pool to contain the pool and approx· 55 cubic yards earthen material to be obtained from pool excavation; install a drywell to contain pool backwash and gNOV, 18 2011 Soulhold Town Cler~ Board of Trustees 2 September 21,2011 a pool enclosure fence; and establish an 8' wide non-turf buffer and a variable width (+/-32' - +/-71 '), approx. 11,699 square foot non-disturbance buffer. Located: 470 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck, will not be heard tonight. And number 18 on page six, Group for the East End on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to modify the existing boat ramp to mitigate stormwater run-off by installing proper drainage and replacing impervious surface with pervious surface; restore habitat of a reclaimed portion of boat ramp to include naturally vegetated swales; and permanent placement of educational signage. Located: Dogwood Lane road end accessing Spring Pond, East Marion, is postponed. If have you have something to say when an application comes up, please come up to the mic, state your name for the record. Wayne Galante is here to take dictation, and please try and keep your comments brief, five minutes or less, as we have a long agenda we want to get through. With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspection is Wednesday, October 12, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, October 19, 6:00 PM, with a worksession at 5:30. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would anyone like to make a motion for the Minutes of July 20, 20117 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read the minutes. There were just minor changes that I forwarded to Lauren and the office, so I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of July 20, 2011. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2011. A check for $9,000.67 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the Board of Trustees 3 September 21,2011 following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., September 21,2011, are classified as Type I1 Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: These are listed as follows: Susan Magg & James ©rioli - SCTM#116-7-4.1 Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Assoc. - SCTM#37-1-23 Eileen & Vincent J. Flahedy - SCTM#92-1-8 Stephen & Cornelia Burnham - SCTM#6-7-12 Michael & Corrina Slade - SCTM#110-7-26 Michael Phillips - SCTM#33-4-3 Mill Creek Partners, LLC - SCTM#56-7-2 Deborah Penney - SCTM#144-5-26 Nick Cutrone - SCTM#99-3-7 Theodore & Maria Petikas - SCTM#135-1-27 Adhur & Ruth Ventura - SCTM#15-3-46 Christopher & Maid Young - SCTM#115-17-17.11 Ellen F. Emery - SCTM#111-13-6 Susan Norris - SCTM#115-9-4 Steven H. Kram - SCTM#88-6-12 Ryan Stork - SCTM#128-6-8 Bernard Cosimano - SCTM#88-5-63 Joan Kuchner - SCTM#66-2-44 Bruno & Alma Ilibassi - SCTM#66~2-45 Thomas & Barbara Ball - SCTM#6-2-46 Pat lavarone - SCTM#110-7-3 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, we have one, John Foster on behalf of ANGEL SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC., requests an Administrative Permit to replace approx. 200 cubic yards of sand on the path way to the beach, and to replace as needed as a 10-Year Maintenance Permit. Located: End of Sunset Lane, Southold. Do we have a picture? We all looked at this and unfortunately this has happened before and hopefully won't happen again but we'll, I'll make a motion to approve as applied for, with a ten-year maintenance. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. We have several of them. We reviewed them all and they are basically just straightforward amendments. In order to get the meeting moving faster, I'll lump one through ten together and I'll make a motion to approve one through ten, as applied for. They are listed as follows: Board of Trustees 4 September 21,2011 Number one, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of PAUL BETANCOURT requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6972 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6972C, as issued on October 15, 2008, and Amended on April 21, 2010. Located: 1825 Aquaview Ave., East Marion. Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of JOHN & EMILY BREESE requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7200, as issued on October 21, 2009. Located: 3689 Pine Neck Rd., Southold. Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of GOLDSMITH BOAT SHOP, INC., requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6983, as issued on October 15, 2008. Located: 2620 Hobart Rd., Southold. Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ALVAH & ALLAN GOLDSMITH requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6985, as issued on October 15, 2008. Located: 2550 Hobart Rd., Southold. Number five, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7176 as issued on September 23, 2009. Located: 370 Takaposha Rd., Southold. Number six, BARRETT KATZ requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7538 to include the as-built bench on the catwalk of the newly constructed docking facility. Located: 625 Wood Lane, Peconic. Number seven, AVERIL WERTZ requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #5218 to restore the soil level and beach grass near the bulkhead with approx. 250 cubic yards of fill. Located: 1080 West Lane, Southold. Number eight, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of MARIA STANISlC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7549 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7549C to include the reconstruction of an existing retaining wall in front of the existing wall. Located: 19725 Soundview Ave., Southold. Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of WALTER GAIPA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7473 to construct 57 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall with a 6' return at approximately 7' landward of the toe of the bluff; install native plantings; and install gutters, leaders and drywells for the existing dwelling. Located: 360 Lake View Terrace, East Marion. Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DONNA SALMINEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7469 to construct 57 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall with a 6' return at approximately 7' landward of the toe of the bluff; install native plantings; and install gutters, leaders and drywells for the existing dwelling. Located: 320 Lake View Terrace, East Marion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any discussion on that motion from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, SSK Enterprises on behalf of Board of Trustecs 5 September 21,2011 NICHOLAS PALLANTE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7451 to construct a 10'X 30' untreated wood deck along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 4302 Wunneweta Rd., Cutchogue. I did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here on behalf of the applicant? MS. SYREWlCZ: I am. Good evening. I am Susan Syrewicz, SSK Enterprises, I'm representing Nicholas Pallante. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. There was no problem with the application but when I went out there on field inspection what I noted was there was a boat davit that has been installed on the dock, as well as a swim ladder, that looks like it's an emergency swim ladder, for safety reasons, and what I was going to suggest is for you as the applicant to add them to this application tonight, and in doing so we would permit those in also. MS. SYREWICZ: I hadn't realized that. I appreciate that very much. If I could do that, I would appreciate that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, what we'll need is, if it's approved, I don't want to jump ahead of time, but if it's approved, receipt of new plans that will show those on there. MS. SYREWICZ: Will I get that in writing from you? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's -- it's a boat hoist. Excuse me, it's not a boat hoist. It's a davit, like a dinghy, that's off the dock. MS. SYREWICZ: A davit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And an emergency swim ladder, which is very simple, that I would just draw in on the plans here tonight. But we need to have the davit on there also. MS. SYREWICZ: All right, that should be simple. And how long will it be that, what time do I have, limit, as far as giving it to you? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can't release the permit -- again, if we go ahead and approve this, we can't release the permit until we receive that plan. MS. SYREWICZ: All right, so there is just two things that has to be added to the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. SYREWICZ: And how many surveys would you like, sir? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need two. We stamp two surveys. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need two copies of the same survey. MS. SYREWICZ: Qkay. Anything else, sir? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's it. MS. SYREWICZ: Thank you, kindly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to approve the application of SSK Enterprises on behalf of Nicholas Pallante as described with the addition of a boat davit and emergency swim ladder that will be shown on plans to be received TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. SYREWICZ: Thank you, very much. This was my first experience and I was very well pleased with you guys. I deal with Riverhead. I worked in Riverhead for 38 years. Now I retired and now I have this business. So this is very pleasurable. TRUSTEE D©HERTY: ~'11 make a motion to go off our regular agenda Board of Trustees 6 September 21,2011 and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll start with amendments. TRUSTEE KING: Number one, STEPHEN BURNHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5900 for the as-built rock retaining wall and drywell. Located: Madeline Ave., Fishers Island. This was an amendment for a permit that was originally for a house addition, if I remember right. The original permit was for additions to the house with the condition of drywells and gutters and what happened was they bought some fill in the backyard and built a stone retaining wall without the benefit of a permit, so that's what they are here for. We have been out there a couple of times. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. The LWRP coordinator found it inconsistent. We have all been out there. I really, other than the fact it was built without a permit, I don't have a huge issue with it. It was just a matter of some minor landscaping and the addition of the rock wall. And they did put their drywells in for roof runoff and everything, so. I don't know how the Board feels about it. I really don't have a huge issue with this. Why it was inconsistent, I think it was only because it was built without a permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What does the report say? TRUSTEE KING: Rock retaining wall was built without benefit of a Board of Trustee review and the issuance of a permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. I reviewed the file and I don't see any problems. TRUSTEE KING: It was not a huge thing. It's having no impact on the freshwater wetlands behind the property. I would make a motion to approve this and find it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here from Fishers Island to discuss this? (No response). I didn't think so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SUSAN NORRIS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit fl7501 to remove remains of 180'+/- of existing bulkhead; construct 18~+/- of new bulkhead in-place; construct 4-16' Board of Trustees 7 September 21,2011 bulkhead return walls; re-align (straighten) 40'+/- existing retaining wall at covered deck area; repair existing stairway as needed; re-install existing gate and replace missing aluminum stairway to beach; fill all eroded areas landward of bulkhead and retaining wall with clean trucked-in soil and reconstruct post-rail-wire fence in-place; and revegetate disturbed areas with approved vegetation. Located: 2790 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, Dave, can you just hold off TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at these pictures from Burnham. I would like to reopen this hearing on the Burnham application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I would like to stipulate on this that there be a five-foot no-mow area landward of the rock retaining wall. He has turf right down to the stone, so if he puts a little buffer in there that won't be mowed, I think it will be beneficial to the wetland. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The wetland is just in front of the rock retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, and I think that will help bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We mentioned that when we reviewed this and just forgot to do it, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now you can close the hearing and do the resolution. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve this wiih the stipulation of a five-foot no-mowing area landward of the stone wall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can go now, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, back to number three, Costello Marine Contracting behalf of Susan Norris, as described, located at 2790 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application however they recommend the applicant consider replacing the bulkhead with the irregular surface revetment. It was reviewed and found to be consistent under the LWRP. The Board didn't have any issue with this. I would like to make a recommendation though, of a non-turf buffer to be placed landward of this bulkhead. This is a very wide dawn. Hopefully there is a picture up here. And as you can see, there was a tremendous amount of damage done from that storm, from Tropical Storm Irene. And so as I recall here, Board of Trustees 8 September 21, 2011 there is actually -- just stand by for a second -- there is currently a bulkhead and a retaining wall landward of the bulkhead and what I would recommend to the Board is the area between this bulkhead and this previous, this retaining wall that had been there previously, that all be a non-turf buffer. Is there anybody here who wanted to speak on behalf of this application from Costel[o Marine? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he just called before. TRUSTEE KING: How wide is this? It looks like a little cement boathouse and canopy there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because here is the retaining wall there. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other suggestions from anybody on the Board? If we have a ruler, just so I could -- TRUSTEE KING: The whole area will be disturbed anyway. It already is disturbed. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like approximately ten foot. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Susan Norris as described, at 2790 New Suffolk Avenue, with the inclusion of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and that was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, under Coastal Erosion Permits, Peter Gerace on behalf of NICK CUTRONE requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 15'X 18'3" second-story addition to the existing one-family dwelling; add wood deck at first floor 29'T'X 8'8"; and maintain existing 9'8"X 24'9" wood deck at rear of residence. Located: 786 Bailie Beach Rd., Mattituck. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). The Trustees performed a field inspection. Trustee King is more familiar with the site than I am, individually, and also the Conservation Advisory Council performed an inspection and we have the report from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator. The LWRP indicated they felt the application was inconsistent with LWRP standards citing the deck construction specifically in that it was located within the Coastal Erosion Board of Trustees 9 September 21,2011 Hazard Area. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the condition that there might be a ten-foot non-turf buffer installed along the top of the bluff. The CAC was questioning a structure on the beach as well as a sign, but it's my understanding from Trustee King those were actually on the neighboring property so that issue of the CAC I think was addressed through the Trustee field inspection. Okay, those are the facts surrounding the inspection and I'll open it up now to any comments in favor of the application or against, or any concerns. MR. GERACE: Peter Gerace, I'm the applicant for the owner, to answer any questions, if there are any. I think you are familiar with the application. We feel it's a very sensitive, new addition to the residence. TRUSTEE KING: I think basically it's all on the eastward side of the house and landward side of the house. As far as the deck goes, the deck is already there. It's been there for years. It's attached to the house. It's not a deck out on the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This land survey really has only a portion of the deck within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and is it an open constructed sod of deck? TRUSTEE KING: It's just an open deck in front of the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the area, it would only be inconsistent if it exceeded the threshold of the 200-square feet. To my mind I think it's already consistent because structures that only exceeds 200-square feet would be regulated. TRUSTEE KING: That's why they are applying for coastal erosion permit because it does exceed the 200-square feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In its entirety. But the portion landward is not regulated TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's less than 200-square feet in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. TRUSTEE KING: I understand. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words we only regulate seaward of the coastal erosion line, so actually I think the application by virtue of the fact that the licensed land survey depicts it more accurately than the aerial map, that the application may actually be consistent because it's the 200-square foot open deck/dock exemption. So I think -- TRUSTEE KING: It's not new construction. It's there. It's been there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it's below the threshold within the coastal erosion area. So I think that addresses that issue, that the application is in fact consistent. TRUSTEE KING: As far as the buffer, I think I wrote in there, I would like to see a five-foot area where they don't mow. What they are doing is they are mowing just over the lip of the bluff. If they can back it up about five feet and leave it alone and not mow it, it's beneficial to them. The bluff is still very stable. There is no problem with erosion. Because it's not a very big stretch of land there, by any means, so I think five Board of Trustees 10 September 21,2011 feet would be sufficient. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? (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: Ill make a motion to approve the application noting it is consistent with the LWRP since the structure is smaller than the threshold for permitting where it exists seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line, with the requirement that mowing not be taking place within five feet of the point of inflection of the bluff. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. GERACE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of THEODORE & MARIA PETIKAS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 50 linear feet of retaining wall and (2) +/- 12' returns; install +/-1 ton stone toe armor along retaining wall; and backfill with approx. 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 52755 North Rd., Southold. As you can see, we have pictures up there. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and makes this recommendation with the consideration of the physical location of th, e residential structure and the high rate of erosion from storm surge in this area. The Town's Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because the proposed retaining wall is actually a bulkhead and they believe the code does not allow for new bulkheads, and that the bulkhead will shuffle the wave energy to town beach. CAC suggests armoring the shoreline and planting. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. Good evening, everybody. This site is one of the many that I looked at with Jim and the DEC many, many months ago, after the nor'easters of last winter. It is immediately adjacent to the Poligeorgis site for which a permit was recently issued for the retaining wall or bulkhead, whichever you want call it, that was in that, I think is in that photo. Almost in that photo. And again, that was the Poligeorgis job that had replaced the previously approved job. On the other side of town beach is the Turnbull site for which the Board recently approved an armored bulkhead at the toe of the bluff. So this is the only parcel in this stretch here between what is immediately east of Town Beach and then Poligeorgis and then Padovan who is next, the one next after Poligeorgis. Board of Trustees 11 September 21,2011 The project is proposed consistent with my original conversations with Jim and with Alexa from the New York State DEC and I expect to get DEC approval for the project also. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, I think when we were out there, we just did the measurements to make sure everything was consistent with the plan. This was, as I recall, this was the property that had a bunch of sinks kind of holding the place together. MR. HERMAN: Everything that was out there, was out there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Including the kitchen sink. MR. HERMAN: Including the kitchen sink. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And lots of them. MR. HERMAN: I think there was quite a bit more there immediately at that time. I don't know, Jim, if you remember, but it looks like a lot of that has been cleaned up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, if I could clarify the CAC's concerns, under 275-1 l(b), bulkheads, number one: New bulkheads in creeks and bays are not allowed. Bulkheads on The Sound shall be permitted when there is an example of extreme erosion is demonstrated, which t think has obviously been demonstrated in this case. So that will address the CAC's concern. MR. HERMAN: And we addressed those criteria in the application and the LWRP application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further comments from the audience or the Board? Any questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any fudher discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's deemed consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It already was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean putting that in the motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Wetland Permits, the first three are properties that are connected, so I'll open all three of the hearings at once: Number one, JOAN KUCHNER requests a Wetland Permit to replace 100' of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing 1' higher than existing, construct a 16' return on the west side, and construct 4'X 8' beach stairs with a 4' platform. Located: 1726 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. Board of Trustees 12 September 21~ 2011 Number two, BRUNO & ALMA ILIBASSI request a Wetland Permit to replace 100' of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing 1' higher than existing and construct 4'X 8' beach stairs with a 4' platform. Located: 1728 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. And number three, THOMAS & BARBARA BALL request a Wetland Permit to replace 125' of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing and 1' higher than existing, construct a 30' return on the east side, and construct 4'X 8' beach stairs with a 4' platform; Located: 1890 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold. And they are requesting timber bulkheads with vinyl sheathing and the associated stairs on all of these. One has a 16-foot return, another has a 30-foot return. They all came in, they are all consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council reluctantly supports the application however recommends the applicants consider rock revetment with a three to one slope to absorb the wave energy and cut the back into the property. The CAC has sympathy for the applicant, however replacing the bulkhead will not solve the problem. I believe in one of the applications there is a letter requesting -- did they decide to do the rock, Lauren? Did they submit a letter for that? MS. STANDISH: Yes, they did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Here we go. These are all applications that we have approved in the past, and Hurricane Irene has come and did some damage and now we are taking the opportunity to have them each do a separate application, so we would be combining the previous permits with these permits, which incorporates stone in front of. With all that being said, is there anyone here to speak to behalf of these applications? MS. BALL: Hi, I'm Barbara Ball. I'm one of the property owners. I just wanted to read a letter from our Beixedon Estate Association president who wanted to come to the meeting but was unable to attend. Would you like me to read it or would you just like a copy of it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it a long letter? MS. BALL: I could give you copies. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would like a copy for the files. That would be great. Thank you. MS. BALL: This is -- do you want me to read it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can summarize it, if you could. MS. BALL: Basically he says the officers and board of directors are in favor and voted to replace the community bulkhead damaged by Hurricane Irene. We strongly support the Beixedon bayfront bulkhead owners Ball, Ilibassi and Kuchner's efforts to replace their damaged bulkhead. The stone armor will help to minimize toe erosion and help stabilize the shoreline immediately in front of the bulkhead. The board of directors and officers are working very closely with all the bulkhead owners to reestablish our shoreline and beach. The bulkhead owners' sand permit will help restore our shoreline to the 2008 levels. We hope to come to a Iongterm solution to the shoreline erosion problem with Board of Trustees 13 September 21,2011 careful applications and monitoring of the sand while working with the regulating agencies. I recently addressed the community informing the Beixedon community of the Trustees meeting tonight and the meeting in October for the community bulkhead. We strongly suppod the one to two foot height increase of the bulkhead because it will add stability and a safe access point to the beach for all the community residents. This access helps preserve a significant asset to our community, has and it would be a shame to lose. In my recent letter to the community I also addressed correspondence and communication with government agencies. I would like to state that only I and members of our board have the authority to communicate and make decisions on behalf of our association. I understand every member is entitled to their own opinion and vote within our association, but one individual cannot make representations to the thoughts of the community. Please retain my contact information for future reference should you need any clarity or have any questions relating to the Beixedon. A appreciate your help and consideration given to our current situations. That's from Michael Warland, the president of the association. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. BALL: There was one other thing that we had requested on the Ball permit, and that was we wish to change some specifications on that, that was submitted. The adjoining properly to the east, Beixedon Estates Association is now also applying for replacement bulkhead, so the 30-foot return on the east side, um, and the additional 25 feet on the south side, which was on the Ball half of the right-of-way will no longer be necessary to be included in that permit. And I believe I sent a copy of that to you. It should be in your files. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we have that. So just to clarify, you say you'll replace 125 foot existing timber bulkhead. That's still 125 feet? MS. BALL: No, it's 100 feet now. And no return. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And no return, okay. And on all three of these, the previous permits, once we approve something here tonight, the previous permits will be null and void, but we'll incorporate all of the approvals from the previous permits and the conditions, which include the rock in front of, even though it's not described on this agenda here. So the resolution will include the letter and the permit will include all those conditions. MS. BALL: All right, because we wrote a letter requesting -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we did an amendment last month to bring sand in, so that will also be incorporated into this. MS. BALL: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we recall what the amount of sand is there; how many cubic yards? MS. BALL: I have the permit here. It was four-hundred cubic yards, as recommended by the DEC. They had asked us to try to replenish the beach back to the 2008 level. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have it here. On the Ball property it is Board of Trustees 14 September 21,2011 approximately four-hundred cubic yards of sand. Each property was pretty much about the same. MS. BALL: I believe it was, the only one that was different was the Kuchner's. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they had, I think five-hundred. I remember -- yes, the Kuchner's have five-hundred and the other two have four-hundred cubic yards of sand. So that will be included in that as well. Are there any other comments from anybody? TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we talk about possibly raising the bulkhead two feet? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It should all be in the field notes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, you have in the application request to raise it a foot higher and we are thinking two feet higher would be better. And also no fences along the bulkheads. And we want a buffer. What was the buffer behind the bulkheads? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ten feet in the worksession, I believe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just seeing what we had previously approved. Bear with me. It's a lot of files. (Perusing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: While she is looking at that, is the applicant okay with raising the bulkhead two feet? MS. BALL: Yes, that's fine. I request have a question about the fence. You don't want it right next to the bulkhead. I'm concerned about anybody falling because there is rocks there. That's fine. So is there a place we could put something up to protect against falling off? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the past we have allowed like a split rail fence further up. We are concerned with the wildlife corridor as well, not just the safety of humans, but the wildlife corridor you are blocking right now. So that could be applied for at another time. But we generally don't like it right on top of the bulkhead. We like it a little further back. It could be, if the Board feels comfortable in including that tonight, we can include a split-rail fence on the landward side of the ten-foot non-turf buffer, post and rail. MS. BALL: Okay. MR. BALL: The reason we were going to put it to begin with was because there would be a significant drop. If we have the fence that we have, then little kids won't be able to get through it. Like five year olds. You have to constantly watch them with a split-rail fence. You have to do something so they don't accidentally get through and fall off this thing. It's kind of dangerous. I'm thinking if you go maybe past the buffer and then put it in. Or maybe not go as high. I'm talking about the little kids, that they cross over it and get hurt. The split-rail they just go right through it, you know. TRUSTEE KING: We did chainlink in Greenport. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought it was split-rail. TRUSTEE KING: No, we have a chainlink in Greenpod. It doesn't have to be split-rail, if it's -- MS. BALL: Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: It's an established yard area. It's not like it's Board of Trustees 15 September 21,2011 out in the boondocks someplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. And that would conform with code. All right. Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Are we going to allow them to go up two feet if they want? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that's what we were suggesting, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what the association was advocating as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. And the purpose of that is to decrease the amount of the slope so it will decrease the runoff going into the bay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, if there is no other comments I'll make a motion to close these three hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll do three separate resolutions, though. Number one, Joan Kuchner, I'll make a resolution to approve as applied for with the exception of the bulkhead to be two feet higher than existing bulkhead. And also a ten-foot non-turf buffer and a fence will be allowed, if they choose to, landward of that ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Any armor of the stone? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this will include the previous permit, I don't have a permit number, armored with stone and also five-hundred cubic yards of fill on top of that. And the previous permits will be incorporated with this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruno and Alma Ilibassi, I'll make a motion to approve as submitted with the addition of two-foot higher bulkhead and a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and a fence, if they wish to, on the landward side of that buffer, and to incorporate the previous permits which includes armoring and four-hundred cubic yards of fill on top of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any fur[her discussion on that motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is found consistent with LWRP, as the previous one was. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Thomas and Barbara Ball, I'll make a motion to approve 100 feet of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, two feet higher than the existing, and construct a 4x8 beach stairs with four-foot platform, ten-foot non-turf buffer and a fence landward of the ten-foot non-tuff buffer. And to incorporate the Board of Trustees 16 September 2 I, 2011 previous permit which included the stone and four-hundred cubic yards of fill. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would request revised plans on all these showing the ten-foot buffer and the fence. And the two feet higher. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Patricia 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. This is an application of an extension of the dock, if I remember right. Also construction of a dock, but I think it's longer than the first go around. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP. I think this was for the first. MS. MOORE: The first draft because it was not out of water depth. TRUSTEE KING: Because he questions the depth of water. What is the expected draft of the vessel. Insufficient water depth could result in bottom scarring, turbidity and loss of native species. And also there is a high probability of commercially valuable shellfish species occurring in proposed location of dock structure. This intercession of a dock structure will result in a net loss of shellfish species. MS. MOORE: May I speak? TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead, Pat. The other was just on construction methods. MS. MOORE: Just to recap, the proposal, I submitted, actually September 9, a drawing prepared by Bob Fox. This is a drawing for a fixed dock, but it is open decking, fixed dock, to a ramp and then the float. The float was repositioned and the dock structure itself, I believe, was kept to the minimal length possible, with the ramp providing the extension that we needed to make it consistent with both the LWRP and also the DEC. The original structure when it was sent to the DEC, their objection was that we needed to reach two-and-a-half feet of water. At the last hearing there were concerns about where the channel was, which this drawing actually provides, Bob Fox has provided water depth and the location of the channel. It's on the drawing. We also, out in the field, confirmed that the placement of the boat on this dock will not interfere with navigation and it is actually significantly south of a mooring that, a sailboat mooring that is on the north side of the channel. What I did, I had done, was to compare the lengths of the docks surrounding. This is a piece of property that did have a dock previously. There is evidence of the dock still in the water and there are floats that are there on shore. Those docks, they have deteriorated, and this is essentially a new structure. So conforming with current regulations. So that is the application that is being submitted today. Board of Trustees 17 September 21,201 I The dock that is to the east, or when you are facing the water on the right-hand side, actually has 106 feet out into the water. And further east there is a dock structure that is 96 feet out from the edge, but it is actually protruding into the water further. What you find here is the shoreline that is a mixture of bulkheads and changing shorelines. So the average length, I came up with the average length of the dock that is to our west just directly on the left-hand side, that's a shorter dock but extending further out because it's at the end of a bulkhead. The average length of the dock to our east and to our west, the average distance is 98 feet, and that is actually, we are a foot less. When I added up all the structures here, including the float, we are at 97. So we have maintained the average length of the structures surrounding but, obviously with an undulating shoreline and changed conditions on the shore front it's very difficult to maintain just an even pier line. Depends on which boat -- which dock you are next to and which property you are next to, because the pier line there kind of zig-zags along the shore. We have given you what we think is an acceptable drawing that the DEC will accept and we can meet the two-and-a-half feet of water. The docks to the east and to the west of us are actually going out to three-and-a-half to 3.7 feet of water. So we are at the minimum depth that is acceptable by the DEC and LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I forgot to mention, the CAC recommends supporting this application. They want to see a non-disturbance buffer from the top of the bank to the high water mark. That's par[ of their recommendation. MS. MOORE: I think it already is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's basically beautiful native vegetation there; blueberries-- MS. MOORE: It's a little hill, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of information, I went back to the site today armed with a tape and I was concerned about the fact there was some larger vessels there and thinking in my mind if I was going up through, and actually the two docks to the east, in other words as you face the property, in fact those lengths comport with what I found. And the shoreline tends to lead a prudent mariner who would be going up there watching shoreline because it does undulate a bit. It does tend to sweep a little fur[her toward the north so someone going up there in a vessel, the dock that is two to the right will already probably have, anyone who is traversing it in a large boat, because there is several large vessels fur[her, upstream, if you will, would tend have a course that would naturally go out into the channel. And I know there were concerns that if we grant this dock going a little further out that maybe neighbors would want to go further out, but actually depths, at dead Iow tide today, neighboring docks have between three-and-a-half and four feet of depth already, so there would be no reason they would -- they would Board of Trustees 18 September 21,2011 not need additional depth. They could pretty much have whatever size vessel they want and could be able to navigate. MS. MOORE: When I pulled all the permits from everyone along the shoreline, I found at least on the permit even there was confirmation that most of these docks, to the extent they have been rebuilt and been brought out and replaced, they essentially are all three-and-a-half feet to 3.7, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You said there had been a dock there previously. Do we have any history as to how long that dock was there? MS. MOORE: It was a shorter dock, because it didn't have to reach the depth of water. You know, I think the original application was actually matching the size of the previous size, but it would not pass muster with the DEC or LWRP. That's the problem, to conform with current regulations. TRUSTEE KING: It's been a consistent problem with the DEC and Trustees. We try and keep the catwalk short so they don't go out in the public domain. They don't care how far they go out as long as they to the water depth that they want. MS. MOORE: There a positive here, which is that we do have an open decking. So to the extent that we are using all the best materials and all the current materials that provide for an environmental benefit, you know, there is a little bit of offset there. So we do try to provide a dock that is minimally invasive. TRUSTEE KING: As far as the shellfish issue goes, I don't know. I don't know what is there, if people are actively clamming there or not. I don't know. I have no information on that. MS. MOORE: We maintained in within the same general area of the original dock, and it's obvious there are floats and boats there. So it is a compromised area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This particular shoreline is hard sand. You can walk it at lower tide, so this dock structure should accommodate a means of riparian usage walking along the foreshore and walking over so it, so it should have a set of stairs incorporated into it. Based on what I saw today at Iow tide. MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE KING: It might help on the consistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know, in terms of fishing, it's a crab area. There is plenty of crabs, but I don't know about clams. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't either. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only thing I would point out, we were talking about pier lines and such. This one here, which is the second dock over, if you drew the pier line to this, basically bypassing this one, it would be much more inconformity with what they are looking to do. And you could also do it using an arc from a center point, it would fit within an arc. TRUSTEE KING: I know the Board has kind of historically taken a pretty hard line on maintaining these pier lines. But I know in reviewing the code if you take the average length -- MS. MOORE: Yes, but you have a changing shoreline and you have Board of Trustees 19 September 21,2011 to be somewhat flexible with that. I think in fairness, we are talking about a very, not much of a difference between what is proposed and the pier line, so. Also it is the portion of the dock that is the seasonal portion of the dock is what goes out a little further. The fixed portion is inside, so when the structures are seasonally removed, everybody is pretty much consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments? (No response). Any comment from anybody in the 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 a motion to approve the application as submitted for a seasonal ramp and float and open-grate decking. And we'll have a set of stairs so people can walk across the dock; walk on the foreshore. MS. MOORE: From one side to the other. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that will bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: And those two issues I thin, will bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: Just a seasonal, I believe is the 1st of November out, and not in before April 1. I think that's consistent with the DEC. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They'll need revised plans, right? TRUSTEE KING: Showing the stairs, yes. And open-grate decking. MS. MOORE: We have the open-grate deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Lark & Folts, Esqs, on behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY requests a Wetland Permit to repair and replace existing stairs and platform with in-kind material in the same location; trim and remove dead and overgrown vines and non-native vegetation on bluff; build terracing and install erosion control mats at top of the bluff; and replant bluff with native plant material. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interrupt just for a second. I'm recusing myself from this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. FOLTS: Yes, I'm Mary Lou Folts from Lark & Folts Esqs., on behalf of the applicant Ellen Emery. I think Ms. Emery's application is self explanatory so I'm sure you'll be pleased if I just don't repeat everything that is in it. But I did just want to reiterate that Ms. Emery's only intent when she started to do anything on her property was to preserve and restore the Board of Trustees 20 September 21,2011 bluff on her property and she had no clue at that time that a permit was required from the town Trustees. She had hired a contractor Ned Harroun of Island Tree and Landscapes to do other work at her home and he happens to be a New York certified arborist, and he made recommendations when he saw her property of how the bluff was overgrown with invasive growth and non-native plants and said he could clean that up for her. But due to the incline and slope of the bluff he couldn't do this without utilizing the existing stairs and platform. However, the stairs had been built and rebuilt back in the 1990s and they were decayed and rotten and unsafe, so he proceeded to go ahead and replace those stairs and platform inkind in order to do his restoration work. Unfortunately he didn't have a permit and Ms. Emery, as property owner, was cited by the bay constable, and work immediately halted, and that matter has now been, nothing has happened since the issuance of the violation and that has now been cured with Lori Hulse, the prosecutor. MS. HULSE: That's correct. MS. FOLTS: So criminal charges or any violation charges are off the table. We are here tonight for the application. Obviously Mr. Harroun has not been able to finalize his work on the bluff with the stop work order on it and what I would like to do is introduce him now because he would like to address the Board and explain what he would like to do to continue to restore the bluff and do his plantings. So at this time I would like to induce Ned Harroun MR. HARROUN: Good evening. How are you. Ned Harroun. I guess you were there the other day and you saw the stairs. And, um, they basically have been rebuilt the way they were built. Size, basically what I did, when I replaced them, is I traced, I took them out and I traced them and I re-made them by tracing. Just tare this piece of paper and trace them off and rebuild them. I put them back exactly in the same spot. Each post that came out, went back in. Each post that went out came back in. As far as the vegetation, what is happening there is, if you didn't look, the vines, the bittersweet, the wild grapes, the different vine material is just ruining and interrupting the photo process on ail the good things underneath. So when I started working on it, it was engulfed with vines. And you couldn't remove material. So the swath that I cut is basically about 20 feet wide and the area of work is about 15 feet wide. So to get up a hill with what was coming out of there, the weight of it and everything, that is why, basically why I cut, and as I was cutting, I saw that the vines, as the wind and everything is happening, the vines switch, and they switch back and forth on that cliff. And that cliff, probably 45 degrees would be fair. To stand on it is almost impossible. I had to build little boxes to stand in. And what we propose is to keep the pollard material, which will flush this spring. There is a phenomenon when cut something back it sends an auxin signal and that auxin signal flushes the material for the spring. It will just Board of Trustees 21 September 21,2011 explode and there will be twice as many, twice as much foliage there in the spring as before I started. Because it's been pollarded. To get the rest of the vines out and pollard possibly some smaller stuff, and keep some larger stuff, it's basically being ruined from lack of photo. The good material can't photosize. The vines are blanketing its ability to photosize. So the vines wilt win. They will be the winner. And what we'll have is a bunch of vines, and the cliff will look like the neighbor. Just barren. And something needs to hold it. So what we are proposing is to build a little -- I have drawing here. I think I have to bring it up to give it to you. I drew it and I don't understand it, so. Let's see, you would look at it, here is the bottom. This is the water line. Here is the two bulkheads. And we propose to build little terraces to hold the new material and use the pollard as part of the post for the terraces, and put in, you know, bayberry, Russian olive, some more of the native oaks. The oak seems to do well there. Wild cherry does well. And they all have a pretty good root system. But they are declining. They are seriously in decline because of the -- I guess you can't see it TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I saw it quite well. I understand the concept of pollarding and I know what you are talking about. MR. HARROUN: It's an effective way of getting something started. Then it can be removed. Once these species are developing you can take that material out. So it's kind of a nursery, you know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a number of items that I have to go through as part of the hearing process to let you know the status of what the Conservation Advisory Council and LWRP found. The LWRP pointed to the current code requirements the Trustees have concerning the size of decks on bluffs, which is limited to 32-square feet. And the current structure is 67 feet. And that also decks and platforms are generally not permitted on or near bluffs. So that is one issue from the LWRP program that we have to bring into consistency with the requirements of the code. The Trustees, when we performed our field inspection, noted that also the fact that it's updating protections for the bluff, which would also include an area that would be an area of non-disturbance and that the fence that was installed on top is within an area that we would ordinarily set aside as a non-turf buffer. So that maintained lawn areas would not be degrading the bluff and putting excess feeding possibly, you know, nutrients that will just push vine growth, whereas the nutrient requirements, as you are aware, of the woody shrubs are probably somewhat less. So the Board, in discussing this, looking at it in the field and looking at the requirements of the LWRP and also the comments of the Conservation Advisory Council, where they were looking to have a 20-foot non-turf buffer, thematically, the Boards are looking at some protection for the bluff on the upper limit. I know the Trustees were concerned that a fence should more properly be on maybe a landward delimiter or landward limit for the non-turf area that would be Board of Trustees 22 September 21,2011 allowed to either go back to native vegetation or would be a maintained non-turf area where you would have native plants before the point of inflection of the bluff. So those are all the things that, the requirements. MR. HARROUN: So you could have something like a group of Rosa Rugosa, like a little bedding of shrubbery on top. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Precisely. Native plants of the owner's choice is cedainly suitable. But the soil types, there again, you are the plant guy. So if your soil types there are suitable for Rosa Rugosa, first I think might work, that would be the sort of selection you would want to make, definitely. TRUSTEE KING: I think we talked about potential line with the original one over. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We thought -- TRUSTEE KING: Move the new fence back to that and then have a non-turf buffer seaward of the fence. MR HARROUN: And basically have the seaside material behind that. That sounds good. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like it lines up with the flag pole, so chances are you can incorporate that. MR. HARROUN: Yes, yes. I probably had one eye shut when I did that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was there a question of the decking material? It probably had a be some alteration. TRUSTEE KING: By code you can't use treated material on decking. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is supposed to be untreated lumber. MR. HARROUN: That is called a weather shield. And on the weather shield, when I purchased it, I have a copy of it, it says environmentally preferred. Not "accepted." Preferred. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we saw that. Our code is pretty black and white with that. It says untreated lumber. So it's treated with something, so it's not acceptable under the code, the way it is written. MR. HARROUN: So that would have to come up and replace it with what, cedar? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever untreated lumber you want to. You can even use grading. MR. HARROUN: Trex. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Trex. MR. HARROUN: So re-face the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Downsize the deck to code. MR. HARROUN: Make the deck into what size? TRUSTEE KING: Maximum to 32-square feet. So whatever configuration you want. What is it now? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 8x8 point something. TRUSTEE KING: You can just about cut that deck in half. MR. HARROUN: It don't get a grandpa? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't do grandpa's anymore. TRUSTEE KING: It has to meet the current code. Are we right, Lori? It has to meet current code, right? MS. HULSE: It does. MR. HARROUN: You can't grandpa that a little bit? Board of Trustees 23 September 21,2011 MS. LARK: Even a pre-existing platform that has been there prior to code? This has been there since the property has been there. MR. HARROUN: She's had it since she was a little girl like that. They rebuilt it what, three times. It's storms and hurricanes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do take that into consideration but we feel in this location and the steepness of the bluff it really should be to code. It would benefit. MS. LARK: So you are saying it is 67 square feet and you are looking to cut it in half to 32 square feet? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct, the current code allows no larger than 32-square feet. So whatever configuration you want, as long as it doesn't go over 32-square feet. MR. HARROUN: So it could be 4x87 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. MR. HARROUN: So the width can stay, we you just have to chop the front off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: However you want to that. MS. LARK: If you chop the front off, you are chopping the view. Part of the value of the platform is the view from the platform. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: However you want do that, you can decide that later and submit plans to us. We don't care how it is, as long as it's no larger than 32-square feet. So you can go back to the client and confer, and once we get the plans, we can -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a letter from the owner. MS. LARK: The owner is here if you would like to speak with her. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And in the letter they spoke about this being a, they used to call it Cardiac Rest. It's just a place to rest on the way down the stairs. MS. LARK: But it does add to the value of the property. And I do have someone here to speak as to the value it adds to the property of having a platform and observations, a place to stop and gather the view. So I would like her to speak also. But only if Ned is through with his presentation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just have one quick question for Ned. Before the Spring comes, with the prevailing easterly-northeasterly that comes through the winter, do you have any plans or recommendations for stabilization either with, you know, annual rye grass or some plantings on the slopes? MR. HARROUN: We could seed it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or, if approved, to plant in total this Fall? MR. HARROUN: We could. This is an excellent time to seed. I mean, we have our cool nights. MS. LARK: It's a good time for planting, Ned, seeding, but is it a good time for planting all you want to plant. I think that's what he's asking. MR. HARROUN: Yes, certainly. And the other thing I think we failed to put in there, was the, as you go in the backyard on the right side, there is a lot of deterioration from the neighbor where he lost a lot of land. And did you look at that? Where there is just -- Board of Trustees 24 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw that on the right. MR. HARROUN: We had wanted to build a little retainer there, with six-by's. Not sheathing or anything, just a small retainer to hold that corner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the top of the bluff, you are saying? MR. HARROUN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That probably could be incorporated by reference if the Board moves to approve a permit, and that would require an amendment to the plans along with changes in the deck. MR. HARROUN: Okay. Thank you, very much. MS. LARK: How far are you asking the fence be moved back? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approximately to the flagpole. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: See where this post is. That was the existing fence. Ms. Lark: So that's not very far. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was like six or seven feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it was even that much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak? MS. LARK: I would like to have Erica McKenzie of Andrew Stype Realty. She just wanted to address the Board on how preserving the existing stairs and platform enables access to the beach and how it does, how not to allow it will affect the value of the property. (Trustee Doherty exits the meeting). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can I ask for a point of order. We were told to hold the meeting for a couple of minutes. The Chairman had to leave unexpectedly and I don't want to have comments put forward without her hearing them. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. But for sake of orderliness of the public hearing, apparently she got an emergency call and had to leave for a minute. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we take a five minute recess, everybody. (After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go back on the agenda. One note before we go, I do have to leave. I got a text my son is being taken to the hospital but I don't know which one, so t have to wait to find out if I have to go east or west. So I'll be leaving the meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are continuing the hearing in the matter of Ellen Emery, and I guess you want speak to the issue. MS. MCKENZIE: Good evening, my name is Erica Stype-McKenzie. I am the sales manager and licensed sales associate at Andrew Stype Real Estate. My father Andrew Stype, who is a real estate general appraiser, could not be here today. He has studied this property and has found sales of waterfront properties that have similar unobstructed views as this property, with platforms and stairs to the beach. He then compared them to recent sales of waterfront properties that do not have or have limited views with no access to the water. These homes range from Greenport Laurel. The findings have been a value difference between $200,000 and $250,000. This is between waterfront properties with observation platforms as compared to waterfront properties Board of Trustees 25 September 21,2011 that do not have waterfront proper[les. A formal report will be submitted to you later this week. Now, speaking from a salesperson's point of view who has shown numerous waterfront properties in this neighborhood, I can say the difference between showing waterfront properties with a 180 degree views versus no views is basically incomparable. Buyers are not willing to pay waterfront prices or waterfront taxes if there are no water views. Stabilization is needed to keep this bluff an observation platform as is. If the necessary repairs can't be made and the bluff happens to erode, the value of the entire property will significantly decrease. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. LARK: I would like to have Ms. Emery, the applicant and owner, come forward to address the Board. MS. EMERY: Good evening, my name is Ellen Emery, I live at the property we are discussing right now. Those stairs and that deck have been in existence since 1969. They have been replaced, think the phrase is in situ, as they were, twice. No one has ever raised any objections whatsoever. So from what I'm gathering from listening to what you are saying, is that you want take away property of mine and not enhance the property ~n any way, which is what the intent was when it was first built. You are also saying that I have to have six feet back from the top of the bluff to put a fence in. There is only 50 feet from the foundation of my house to the top of the bluff. So you are now taking six to ten or what did you say, six to eight feet? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we measured it about six to seven feet. MS. EMERY: Of my property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is right where the fence used to be. MS. EMERY: The flagpole is there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, there is a fence post right there that shows where the old fence was. MS. EMERY: So you are saying it's from the tip -- I thought you were saying from where the fence is now it has to go back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, we were suggesting it go back to where the old fence used to be. MS. EMERY: Okay. But it's the stairs and the observation deck, Board of Trustees 26 September 21,2011 or Cardiac Rest, that I really don't understand why you are taking this from me since it has been there since 1969. With no objection from anybody. This is what I don't understand. It's like stealing property from somebody. That's all I have to say TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we close, I want you to know that I do sympathize, and I understand what you are saying, and I have -- this is a quandary for me every time this issue comes up. We've had this issue come up several times, and it's almost, it comes up even -- particularly disturbing is when it comes up when there are catastrophic situations that would, you know, sweep this away, perhaps. But what happens, as a Board, we are bound by the code. We don't create the code. The code is created by the Town Board. And that is where the quandary really lies. And we have to, our roll is to, I guess to administer the code to the best of our ability, taking all things into consideration. And I just wanted to say that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. So I put the motion forward to close the hearing. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application with some modification. I would move to approve the application subject to the following requirements: That the treated deck surfacing material be non-treated lumber; that the platform, observation platform, be limited to 32-square foot total; that a non-turf buffer which would also allow, just allow the existing grass to simply exist unmaintained. That would be seaward of a point that connects the flagpole to the old fence. And that a fence be moved landward of that six to seven foot non-turf buffer; that the applicant perform some form of stabilization and provide a planting plan for the bluff face where it has been cut; that the applicant may submit amended plans to include the construction of that smaller observation deck; also with a small retaining structure for the, along the property line to the south, to incorporate soikkeeping features there, to prevent erosion at that the side of the property. I would move that, I believe that incorporates, and by doing so, this application will be brought into consistency with the town's LWRP program, by having the structure comport with the requirements of our code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on this motion? (No response). All in favor? (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, Board ot"l'rustces 27 September 21,201 I aye. Trustee Bergen, recused). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, note for the record I recuse myself from that vote. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Also note for the record Jill Doherty stepped away. 3-0-1 is the final vote. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Ed Goodwin on behalf of BERNARD COSlMANO requests a Wetland Permit to replace 100' of existing bulkhead with new navy style bulkhead, in-place and with vinyl sheathing, construct two (2) 20' returns, backfill with approx. 50 cy. Clean fill from an upland source, and install a 5' non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead. Located: 845 Waters Edge Way, Southold. The Board did go out and looked at this. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. And it was found exempt under the LWRP. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? MR. GOODWIN: I'm for it. I'm Ed Goodwin. If there are any questions, I'm here to answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know in the description it includes constructing two 20-foot returns, and when we went out and looked at this, this is a bulkhead that meets contiguously with bulkheads on either side. MR. GOODWIN: There is a return wall on the north side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: North is pointing landward, so let's go with east side or west side. MR. GOODWIN: The association side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's west, okay. MR. GOODWIN: That one is there right now, connecting to the association bulkhead. Now, the neighbor on the east, his bulkhead is ready to blow out, probably in the next storm. So to protect the bulkhead I'm going to put in, I'm putting a 20-foot return right down the property line, to protect him in case the neighbor's blows out in the next storm. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just questioned the need for the returns. You had in your applications asked for a five-foot non-turf buffer. As you heard, the Conservation Advisory Council recommended 15, and our field notes we had suggested a ten-foot non-turf buffer since the area will be disturbed anyhow, so we would like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer there. MR. GOODWIN: Ten foot is fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that covered all of our questions. So is there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). Not seeing anybody, any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the application of Ed Goodwin on behalf of Bernard Cosimano, at 845 Waters Edge Way, Southold. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 28 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Ed Goodwin on behalf of Bernard Cosimano as described with the addition of amending the requested five-foot non-turf to make it a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this has been found exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Janet Moses on behalf of PAT IAVARONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace approx. 111 linear feet of existing bulkhead with a 6' inland vinyl sheathing return and 14' return in same place; existing CCA timber inland retaining wall proposed to be repaired as needed; backfill bulkhead with approx. 100 cubic yards clean sand; and replace existing 28'X 15' inland boardwalk inkind/inplace. Located: 995 West Rd., Cutchogue. MR. IAVARONE: I'm Pat lavarone. I'm the owner. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before you go any further, I need some things to do. This application is found to be consistent with the LWRP review. It does suggest we have a silt boom installed on any intertidal construction. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with a condition that a 20-foot non-turf buffer be installed along the landward side of the bulkhead; the retaining wall continue to the left side of the staircase with returns to stabilize the steep slope; and construction materials are consistent with best management practices. Is there anybody here who would like to address the application? MR. IAVARONE: I'm Pat lavarone, I'm the owner. I would first like to note there is an amendment to the paperwork you have in front of you. I believe you have new paperwork would advise to show the removal and putting back of both the cabana that is existing and I have a permit for, and the staircase, and upping the amount of fill to 200 yards. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When did you submit that? MR. IAVARONE: That should have been mailed in the end of the week. I have a copy of it here. I didn't make all of you copies. I was advised by my expediter it was submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I have this. This is showing the existing shed and overhang which was removed. This is a project that we issued an emergency wetland permit on. Is there a permit on the on the shed? MR. IAVARONE: Yes. 1996 that was approved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does it include the cabana? MR. IAVARONE: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions from the Board? Any commends? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe in the field, in the report of the Board of Trustees 29 September 21,2011 field notes we had a couple of suggestions regarding the possibility of pulling in the bulkhead and then also with regard to the replacing of that deck that is 28x15. We have been downsizing those decks as they have been replaced in that immediate area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the notes here, suggesting downsizing the deck, pulling the bulkhead back to match the neighbor to the south. MS. IAVARONE: That extension has been there for over 40 years. You are basically taking property away from me, that I paid hard money for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was just a suggestion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there we noticed yours steps out further than the neighbor. MS. IAVARONE: It does. I think at one point, from what I could tell, from the remnants, there was a cement or concrete bulkhead that was at one point built in front of it and that's what created this situation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was just a recommendation, but the thought was also you might avoid the cost associated with having that two large retaining structures as far as overall cost and maintenance expenses associated with the property. MS. IAVARONE: What was happening, I had applied for DEC approval, I was doing this project in the Fall. And Irene prompted me to try and expedite this now. The paperwork for the DEC, I do have in my possession. I do have approvals for. I have material on my property. I was starling this project thinking that I have received a letter from a friend of mine that the governor had allowed emergency operations without permit. So I staded. I got stopped by the bay constable and that's what brought me here. I stopped immediately. I still have an excavator on the property. I have all my material there and I'm ready to go. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it was just a suggestion to save a little cost, plus it would have resulted in a contiguous line of bulkheading. But you are absolutely right. The survey shows you own that property there. We have, when there has been catastrophic loss, allowed people to replace bulkheads out there. So it was just an option for you. It was not something this Board is mandating. MS. IAVARONE: Again, at this point, I sort of contracted to do the bulkhead and what is happening now, I contracted to do retaining wall also, so I had not counted on that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about reducing the size of the deck, is that something you would consider? MS. IAVARONE: Again, I have a permit for that. I have to abide by what you say, but the cabana itself takes up a part of that deck so it only allows me a small area to put some chairs out there. And what I have done in the past and will do again, in front of retaining wall, I use pea gravel as my buffered area. And I could replace that with the silt clothe underneath it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, I know there was a neighbor two doors, I Board of Trustees 30 September 21,2011 believe to the north, who was in two years ago for, I don't know, maybe a year ago, two years ago, for a bulkhead that had a large deck and cabana, and that deck was reduce. I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly how much it was reduced, but I know that was reduced also. So it's, I think it's a matter of going by the code, 32-square feet, and work from there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Like I said before, I have a hard time, particularly when something catastrophic occurs like this. Any other comments on what to do with the deck? From the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, but that other property, that was a catastrophic loss of their bulkhead. So it was really an identical situation to this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only question I have is the decking on what is considered a bluff. That was -- is it considered a bluff? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't say the size. It just says deck on it. MS. IAVARONE: The survey shows the size from that 1996, plus I also have current survey. TRUSTEE KING: It says deck and 8x12 cabana. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does, I know. But it doesn't say what size deck. My assumption is that it would be the same deck that is on here. That's why I'm saying -- and I have a tough time -- TRUSTEE KING: It looks like, to me, it's a structure with a valid permit on it. MR. IAVARONE: I have the -- it's not scaled. It shows the diagram from,this is from 1968, actually, showing the cabana and showing where the stairs are, if you just measure off that area, that's the extent of the deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It basically shows the same thing this shows. Anybody want to see this from '69? Can I keep this? MS. IAVARONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: It's on there. I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It certainly is a catastrophic loss. It's not a deck on a bluff face. And it's a permitted structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, and again, it was a permitted structure. We just had two on Nassau Point a couple of months ago that we reduced, on the east side, and the property two doors to the north. TRUSTEE KING: Were there valid permits on them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: One there was. I can speak to one. One there was. And then the one just two doors to the north. I'm just thinking of consistency with what we have done with others. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, knowing that it is consistent with LWRP and that the owner brought in valid permits. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor Board of Trustees 31 September 21,2011 (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Bergen, nay). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, have I no problem with this entire project. I have no problem with the deck. But I'm going to vote nay only because I feel we are now being inconsistent and we are not, with what a property, excuse me, we are being inconsistent with a property that has suffered a catastrophic loss two doors away where we forced them to reduce their deck. So I vote nay, with that explanation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Richard Boyd on behalf of DEBORAH PENNEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 1,817 square foot dwelling, attached garage and enclosed porch; remove existing wood platform, driveway, brick walk and septic system; construct new 2,631 square foot two-stow dwelling with 1.5 stow attached garage and roofed-over porches; new 538.8 square foot on-grade stone patio; new paver on sand driveway and walkways; new septic system; and new leeching pools for roof run-off. Located: 160 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck. This was found consistent with LWRP and also a notation here from Zoning Board. I guess they to go to Zoning for this also. The applicant will install a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer landward of the bulkhead. And the Conservation Advisory Council moved to support the application with the condition of a 10-foot non-turf buffer. There were variances granted by the Zoning Board on this property. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes. Good evening. My name is Steve Christianson, I'm with Richard Boyd Architects. We are located at 206 Richmond Avenue, Massapequa, New York. I'm here for the Penney residence at 160 Sailor's Needle Road in Mattituck. You can see that's the location of the rear of the home. There is an existing home on the site. We are looking to construct a two-bedroom home on the site. We had to go through zoning. Everything was approved. The back of the existing home is 40, it's actually on the drawings, 43.79 feet from the rear yard property line. Sorry, that's what we are proposing. And the existing is 40.73. So we are actually pushing the house back from the rear property line. It's pretty self-explanatory. It's just a two-bedroom home. That's about it. TRUSTEE KING: There are some letters in here but they are all for the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are not for us. There is a letter here addressed to the applicant, evidently in suppod, from a neighbor. MR. CHRISTIANSON: There were eight letters submitted to the Zoning Board, all neighbors. TRUSTEE KING: They are in here. TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it. It's a small piece of property. The whole area pretty is well developed. I don't think we had any real issues. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not that I remember. Board of Trustees 32 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE KING: It's a 20-foot buffer takes up a good piece of that property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It isn't very much. MR. CHRISTIANSON: You can see currently on the photo to the left is where they are looking for the buffer. Once again, you were out there, so you did see the big buffer that is currently existing. It's about 15, 20 feet in along the whole side of the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't see the buffer on this one. MR. CHRISTIANSON: If you go back one photo. That's it on the left, behind the trailer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, that's the side yard. TRUSTEE KING: The buffer is behind the bulkhead, on the seaward side. I don't know if we have a shot of that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't. Where I was, I was standing at the bulkhead taking this picture. You can see there was not very much space to begin with. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody for or against this application? (No response). Board comments? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, there might be other comments from the audience. MR. CHRISTIANSON: The homeowner is here. MS. PENNEY: I'm confused, maybe you can clarify something for me. I'm aware the Zoning Board did approve our application with a provision for a landscape buffer, but they didn't specifically tell me, ~ thought it was for a side yard, because I had a neighbor complaining. I had no idea that the buffer was on the water side. TRUSTEE KING: No, it says applicant will install and maintain a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer landward of the bulkhead. MS. PENNEY: Can you just explain what that means? MS. HULSE: She is going to have to get that from the ZBA. You can't interpret that for her. TRUSTEE KING: We would require a non-turf buffer right along the bulkhead there. MS. PENNEY: What does that mean? TRUSTEE KING: It means no sod, no grass to the bulkhead. You can have gravel, you can have plantings. We have sometimes a boardwalk along there. Anything to prevent fertilizer and stuff from going over the bulkhead and into the water. That's the whole idea of the buffer. MR. ZALUSKh I'm Steve Zaluski. I'm another owner. MS. PENNEY: We are just trying to understand so we know we are doing the right thing. MR. ZALUSKh We have the one bulkhead and then there is five or six feet -- Board of Trustees 33 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE KING: Is there like a lower walkway there? MS. PENNEY: Yes, there already is a buffer. MR. ZALUSKI: Yes, and there is sand under that and everythin9. MR. CHRISTIANSON: There is actual back-to-back bulkheads. TRUSTEE KING: I think what you need to do -- I would recommend -- I know it's a very small yard, in my mind. I would like to see at least a five-foot buffer along that second bulkhead in. But I think you need to go back to these folks and ask them exactly, have them show you on a survey where they want that buffer. Because in my mind, with all the buffers we put in landward of the bulkhead, it's adjacent to the bulkhead. MS. PENNEY: We didn't understand. Because we thought it was a side yard. When they said to us that it was a buffer, we assumed side yard, because we had a neighbor complaining. We had no idea. Because we did not get anything in writing yet. So we had no idea they were talking about a buffer the length of the water side. It's just there is not that much land there anyway. TRUSTEE KING: I know it's a small yard. We are well aware of that. MS. PENNEY: And we already have two bulkheads. We have one and another. It's double-bulkheaded, which was approved, so -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Either way we can't supercede the ZBA TRUSTEE KING: This was evidently a recommendation from the LWRP coordinator to the Zonin9 Board, to have a 20-foot buffer. MS. PENNEY: So we should talk to them about that. TRUSTEE KING: I would, yes. MR. ZALUSKI: Because that was a recommendation, though, right? TRUSTEE KING: No, this is a condition. MR. CHRISTIANSON: We'll 90 back to them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I guess that means we can't supercede that. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Once again, because we were all under the assumption it was the side yard. And she just mentioned it. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want us to table it until you find out? MS. PENNEY: No, I need to get this moving. It's already been put back 60 days. TRUSTEE KING: How about this. We approve it with a 20-foot buffer along the bulkhead. If you go to ZBA and they so no, no, we went meant that on the side yard. MS. HULSE: No, you can't do that. Just say consistent with the ZBA decision. You have the decision on that. MS. PENNEY: Okay, so stick with them, and ask them what they are expectin9. Is that what I should do? MS. HULSE: You should go back to them if you have any questions. TRUSTEE KING: To me, like I said, and I think the rest of the Board, landward of the bulkhead means adjacent to the bulkhead on the landward side. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Again, we just want to clarify because there is the two bulkheads, it's a fully decked area, so their property is actually back further from that. So. TRUSTEE KING: I understand. MS. PENNEY: Okay, so we won't take up anymore of your time. We Board of Trustees 34 September 21,2011 didn't understand. That's why we are asking. MR. CHRISTIANSON: What would be the minimum that you would state at this time? MS. HULSE: They are making it consistent with the ZBA decision of 20. MR. CHRISTIANSON: So after, from tonight, if we go back to the zonin9, then we just go back to your office? MS. HULSE: It can be discussed in the office if he has any further questions. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Just because we don't want to grant something tonight and then -- TRUSTEE KING: Any change would be an amendment to the permit. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the provision of a 20-foot wide, non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. And we'll probably need a row of staked hay bales durin9 construction. MR. CHRISTIANSON: It's on the plans. Full erosion control is around it. TRUSTEE KING: And I'm looking for drywells for the roof runoff. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, it's in the back. There are two rings in the back. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember seeing them on the plan. MR. CHRISTIANSON: It's on the plot plan, if you look at the plot plan. TRUSTEE KING: You mean the overflow -- MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, there are two of them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aisc maybe revised plans from the buffer, right? TRUSTEE KING: We'll need a survey showing the 20-foot buffer along the bulkhead. And I think that's it. Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL PHILLIPS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove the existing single-family dwelling, swimming pool and appurtenances, and construct farther from the bluff a new two-stow, single-family dwelling and swimming pool, each with a smaller footprint; install a drainage system of leaders, gutters, and drywells; establish in place of existing lawn along the top of bluff a 15' wide approx. 1,500 square foot non-turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation; remove existing sanitary system and install an upgraded sanitary system located entirely landward of the 100' setback; and install a new driveway beyond Chapter 275 jurisdiction. Located: 1000 Sound Board of Trustees 35 September 21,2011 Dr., Greenport. This has come before this Board previously and we had asked it to be tabled pending going before ZBA. Do we know if this is a received approval from the ZBA? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. We were heard by the ZBA and I was advised verbally it was approved as submitted and presented in front of you today. I don't have a written resolution on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lori, would that suffice that we can move forward or do we need in writing from ZBA their approval? MR. HERMAN: We were told specifically by of course the chairwoman, who is not here, that we did not need a written decision. That we were asked to go and appear before the Zoning Board, which is what we did. I spoke with Jill again since that time and she said that she would verify also, independently, what the Board, what the decision was. But I can only represent to you under oath what I was told TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'm comfortable with moving forward with this. Obviously the applicant won't be able to move forward with the project unless he has ZBA approval, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anything in the ZBA approval that is different than what is being applied for? MR. HERMAN: The one thing that was discussed in this was the LWRP coordinator's recommendation was that the landward limit of the buffer be equal to the coastal erosion hazard area boundary, which would widen the buffer a bit from what is in front of you tonight. And we agreed to that and we would agree to that independently with your Board anyway. So that was not a problem. We were actually not sure why the Board had deferred reviewing our application to be heard by the ZBA in the first place. We have an application for a wetland permit before this Board and I assume that you can review the application on its merits under Chapter 275. MS. HULSE: They are reviewing it now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to review for the record, the Conservation Advisory Council did go out and looked at this and they did suppor[ the application with the condition of fences removed along the top of bluff. And has been mentioned LWRP did review this. They found this consistent with the recommendation the buffer be extended landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. And the only thing in the notes that I see here from our first visit is to make sure the flagpole is included in this, on this survey. That is within our jurisdiction. So now as is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, I know the Board has been out there. The existing site is characterized by a swimming pool located approximately 37 feet from the top of the bluff, and a dwelling located about 65 feet from the top of the bluff. The lawn currently extends to the bluff crest. There is on the property Board of Trustees 36 September 21,2011 an antiquated sanitary system located a little more than 100 feet from the top of bluff, and no drainage system present on the property. The proposed project seeks to remove these existing structures and to construct a new, smaller swimming pool, located 65 feet from the top of the bluff, and a new dwelling also with a smaller footprint than what exists, located 82 feet from the crest of the bluff. To install a drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells, to collect and recharge roof runoff, to install an upgraded Health Department approved sanitary system located more than 150 feet from the top of bluff, and to establish as originally proposed a 15-foot wide planted buffer along the top of the bluff in place of exiting lawn but would agree to extend that farther pursuant to the LWRP coordinator's recommendation. Although the newly-proposed structures don't meet a 100-foot setback from crest of bluff, in which case we would not be here for the construction, the project design and incorporated mitigation measures produce actually a significant net benefit to the environmental conditions of the property and to the adjacent natural resources, including, one, lot coverage by structures will be decreased by 735 square feet, or approximately 3% of buildable land. Number two, wetland setbacks will be increased and a minimum structural setback to the crest of bluff will increase by approximately 28 feet or 75%. Number three, onsite septic treatment will be improved and located farther from surface waters through upgrade and relocation of the sanitary system. Four, the proposed drainage system will capture and recharge roof runoff to reduce surface water runoff. Five, the quantity and quality of surface water runoff that does reach the bluff will be mitigated through establishment of what would now be more than fifteen-hundred square feet of naturally vegetated buffer to be established in place of existing lawn. Which serves both as a sink and filter for storm water runoff and contaminants contained therein. And finally, the area of property treated with fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides will be reduced and set farther from surface waters by this proposed buffer. This is why we had argued that the project would be consistent, most relevantly to policy six under the LWRP, and I understand the recommendation by the LWRP coordinator was that it be deemed consistent, and I believe that the Zoning Board followed that recommendation, and we would ask you to do the same. This is a spot where actually the existing swimming pool, as you probably saw, does not really have to be replaced or removed. It is functional. It is in fine condition. But in order to create the best possible site plan on the property, the applicant is willing to remove the swimming pool and increase the bluff setback by almost 30 feet, with a new, smaller pool, Board of Trustees 37 September 21,2011 as part of the redevelopment of the dwelling on the properly, which also will be moved substantially farther back and will have a smaller footprint. Again it's a little bit of an unusual project probably because the, as I just mentioned, the lot coverage will actually be decreasing by an order of more than seven-hundred square feet. As a result of project wetland setbacks are increased, bluff setbacks are increased. So we certainly hope the Board would consider all of these design initiatives a favorable thing for the property and grant us the wetlands approval. If you have any other questions, I'm here, and Michael Phillips, the owner, is also here in the audience. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given what you told us tonight, Rob, would you be willing to amend the application before the Trustees to reflect that the non-turf buffer would follow the contour line of the coastal erosion hazard? MR. HERMAN: Yes. And we would have to do that anyway. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here it is, by the way. I found it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only thing I can say, I'm very familiar with the property, it's up in my neighborhood. Your plans look great. It will be an improvement. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No other comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Eh-Consultants on behalf of Michael Phillips, at 1000 Sound Drive, with the one condition the non-turf buffer be created seaward, starting at the coastal erosion hazard line, as depicted on these plans. MR. HERMAN: We would have to give you a -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if it goes along, in the Minutes, with the coastal erosion hazard line, I feel that the plans will depict that. MR. HERMAN: That's great TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plans that are dated here February 2, 2010. MR. HERMAN: The most recent date is the March 29, 2011. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Which, for the record, was the same site plan that was reviewed by the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are right. Down at the bottom, March 29, 2011. That is on these plans. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). Board of Truslees 38 September 21,2011 All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is En-Consultants on behalf of ARTHUR & RUTH VENTURA request a Wetland Permit to legalize the existing bluff stairway with landings and an on-grade 8'X 13' wood patio. Located: 125 Sound View Rd., Orient. The LWRP indicates that the 8x13 platform makes the project inconsistent since it was constructed without a permit. And Chapter 275 would limit the decks or platforms associated with stairs and they can be no larger than 32-square feet. The Conservation Advisory Council did not suppod the application because it was an as-built stairs as a violation, and there are buffer issues. I inspected the site. The only issue I believe for the Board of Trustees was the discussion concerning the platform at the top of the steps. There is a, essentially, in the file, photos indicate, there is essentially a five-foot and somewhat variable non4urf or native vegetation buffer that is somewhat being cut and maintained. I don't know if there is additional interpretive information on the buffer issues that Conservation Advisory Council member Derek has for us or not. MR. B©SSEN: Derek Bossen, Conservation Advisory Council. I have to recuse myself from discussion of this because when the Venturas originally built the house I was the landscape designer for the project. And I was -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry to put you on the spot like that. MR. BOSSEN: What I know of that project at the time was that I don't believe stairs were allowed to be build. And that's what I'm aware of. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here who can speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants. There is two, a couple of issues that you raised; one more easily explained than the other. John, there is, as pad of this structure of the stairway, there is a top platform that is integrated structurally to the stairway, which is not the deck that you are talking about or that is in the LWRP reporL That is less than 32-square feet. Separate from that, on the ground, what I would almost call like a wood patio, it's not really a proper deck - TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The description is it's in the ground. MR. HERMAN: Yes. So I would argue it's not really having any impact on anything, but if it's the Board's disposition we need to remove that as part of this 32-square foot rule, the applicant has no issue removing that. Which would leave just the stairway proper, with all of its landings and steps. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The stairway proper has no excessive landings. I've walked it, measured it. Everything is conformity with the current requirements of the code. MR. HERMAN: Right. So we have to legalize that and get rid of that wood patio, however you want to describe that, that's not a problem. Board of Trustees 39 September 21,2011 With respect to the buffer, it is a little bit, this project, I think when this property was developed, was caught in a little bit of sort of a Twilight Zone between when before the Board had jurisdiction up to 100 feet from the top of bluff, so as I discussed with Mr. Ventura -- who is also here, in case you have any questions of him -- this Board actually issued in 2003, and I think in 2004, again, letters of non-jurisdiction for the development of the property. Of course noting if there were going to be any structures or activities within the coastal erosion area, within the wetlands jurisdiction, they would have to come back to the Board. The problem was, at that time, because the dwelling is less than 100 feet from a bluff on Long Island Sound, they also had to go to the ZBA. Now, as you know, the ZBA, by routine, references these projects on the bluff to the Soil and Conservation Service, at the time the Soil and Water Conservation District. And the ZBA was given a letter from Soil and Conservation describing all sorts of things that should be done in your jurisdiction to control storm water, et cetera. In the ZBA file, and I could give you a copy of this, if it's important enough for you to have it, a letter to ZBA dated March 12, 2004, and the comments are as follows: The shape of the bluff should be stabilized to a natural angle of repose, which is no more than a one-to-one slope. This may be done by cutting back the vertical of the overhanging lip. This will also affectively shorten the distance between the bluff top edge and the proposed house. Surface water runoff should be directed away from the bluff face. This may be done by adding a Iow berm along the bluff top edge, planted to a permanent cover. Any bear area should be planted with Cape American beach grass and so forth and so on. So at the time the Ventura's took this letter, took the recommendation from the ZBA and put in this Iow lying berm and planted it with ground coverage and things that you saw, not having any idea that in following the recommendations of the ZBA and the Conservation Service that he would have had to come back to this Board for permission to do that. Now that would not be an issue because in all likelihood you would have a permit that would have impacted that area, you would probably have required your own buffer area or whatever conditions you would normally apply for the development of a previously vacant lot on the Sound. So all of this is a Iongwinded way of just saying the Ventura's were basically just following what each agency in the town told them to do, without really being fully aware there turned out to be some conflict in terms of the placement of this berm and so forth. But I think it's still consistent, probably, what this Board would recommend. So we would ask for forgiveness for that, and again, as an action that probably would not have that Twilight zone between the two boards occurring anymore because you now have jurisdiction over that area, that you didn't have in 2003-2004. Board of Trustees 40 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we'll just blame Derek. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you for the relevant history. Actually, it was very beneficial for myself because I sort of fell through the cracks during that period. It was very helpful. I did not see any evidence of erosion. The bluff looks really great. So as far as adoption of Soil and Conservation practices, whoever the developer of the site was, it looked fine. And it didn't appear they were fertilizing right to the edge or anything so I don't think from my site inspection report to the Trustees, I don't think there is an issue with that. MR. HERMAN: I didn't either. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments from the Board or otherwise? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application subject to limitation of the platform to be no more than 32-square feet, with plans comporting with the reduced size submitted to the Office of Trustees. TRUSTEE KING: The platform will be removed, right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He'll have it down to 32-square feet. MR. HERMAN: I was just asking Mr. Ventura. If the condition is that it has to be reduced to no more than 32-square feet, that's fine, because either he can do that or he can just remove it. I think most importantly he does want this process to extend any longer. So if it's the most expeditious thing just to remove it, he'll remove it. So that's sort of your pleasure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll withdraw my motion to reduce the size and make a motion to remove the inground patio as we are calling it, and that will bring the application into consistency with the LWRP. That's my motion. MR. HERMAN: If they want to add a proper deck there, they can always come back and seek your approval for a 32-square foot or smaller deck. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of EILEEN & VINCENT J. FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling with renovations and reconstruction of portions of the existing dwelling and addition of a subsurface drainage system for rain water run-off for the dwelling and existing driveway. Located: 470 Inlet Way, Southold. This application was found consistent with LWRP, with the Board of Trustees 4I September 21,2011 recommendation we recognize and preserve the existing buffers landward of the bulkhead. And it was resolved by the Conservation Advisory Council to support the application, with no stipulations. The Board was out there and we took a look at the project and we reviewed the plans. And the field notes didn't find anything irregular or anything that we really wanted to change to the application. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels and Steelman Architects, Cutchogue. It's a very unique site, there is no doubt, in my experience. I think we are trying to keep it as it is, to the maximum extent possible, and yet still find a way to improve an old house which is simply in need of more than a simple project would give it. That's why we are in to recreate part of it in situ. So I'm here to answer any other questions, as is my client. And Mr. and Mrs. Flaherty are here to answer your questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody want to see the plans? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we had any issues. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of MICHAEL & CORRINE SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition to the existing dwelling; one-story addition to attached garage; new basement .access door; and remove and replace the existing decking and railing at pool enclosure. Located: 1435 West Rd., Cutchogue. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP, with the recommendation the Board require creation of a landscape buffer incorporating existing vegetation landward from the edge of the wetlands adjacent to the residential structure. In addition, it is recommended a pool de-watering drywell be installed and specified. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-tuff buffer installed along the landward side of the entire bulkhead; gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain runoff. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this application? MS. STEELMAN: My name is Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Board of Trustees 42 September 21,2011 Architects, from Cutchogue. I think you understand what the project is. I don't think we have a problem with the ten-foot buffer, and my drawings do show we have a drywell for runoff on the survey, on the site plan. TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any questions? (No response). This whole area here looks pretty natural the way it is. It's not manicured by any means. Is there anybody else here want to comment on this application? (No response). And we have drywells for roof runoff. Did you get approval for -- MS. STEELMAN: For the garage, no, I don't think there is one actually on there. There is one on for the living room addition, but we'll put that on our drawings. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, I don't have any questions. Is there is nothing further, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of LISA GRATTAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 2,465 sf. Single-family dwelling, porches, brick patio and sanitary system; construct new 3,250 sr. 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. This was a permit application which the Board addressed last month. Just to review, it was found inconsistent under the LWRP. It was found inconsistent with the recommendation for the complete removal of the current structure and have the applicant specify the restoration of the area. It further recommends the Board preserve large oak tree east of the current structure to the greatest extent possible. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. They supported the application with the condition that they save as many mature trees as possible. Now, at the last Board meeting we had brought up several concerns that this Board had based on the first visit that the Board performed at this site. And we made some suggestions at the August meeting to address those concerns. The Board did go back out there this month, and at that time we reviewed it, and we reviewed it for purposes, a couple of things. First off, we wanted to look at the wetland boundary again, and specifically the location of the wetland boundary as relates to the current Board of Trustees 43 September 21,2011 structure that was there, and second, we wanted to look at what we thought would be a possible footprint for the construction of this, of a house there. In our recommendations to the applicant last month, we had indicated we were concerned about any structure going forward of the line between the homes or the adjacent property to the east, and to have the Agent go back to the applicant and discuss with the applicant all of those concerns. I do have in front of me a survey that the Board used when they were out in the field where Trustee Doherty had drawn in or sketched in what we would consider for a possible location of the house, and the one other matter that came up last month was the fact that I believe it was talked about last month, that the septic system, majority of the septic system was outside our jurisdiction, when in fact it really was because it was noted the last month there was a freshwater wetland across New Suffolk Avenue to the north which brings the entire septic system into Trustee jurisdiction. I think I covered the items from last month. I know since then we received a faxed letter yesterday, and we had received some new plans that are stamped received September 20, 2011. And so with that, I would ask if there is anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application. MR. CORCORAN: There certainly is. My name is Kiernan Corcoran, I'm from Lackey Hershman LLP, on behalf of the applicant. I have with me Bruce Anderson from Suffolk Environmental. I also have some fine architects from Barnes Coy in Bridgehampton. And I have the applicants here as well. As painful as it was for the applicants to hear the concerns raised by the Trustees at the last meeting, they did listen. And they took them to heart. And in fact they engaged their architects to do a substantial modification of the plan based on those concerns. And that included collapsing the program as far away from the wetland as possible, on the road side, on the eastern side away from the wetland; moving the pool and related structures beyond the minimum setback of the Trustees. Well beyond, such that they are between 65 and 85 and the pool at all times is 75 feet away from the wetlands. Forfeiting several features of the program, including screened rec-room and cabana and screened terrace; acceding to the Trustees' suggestion that the house be built on piles; depicting the erosion control measures that were suggested by the LWRP coordinator; incorporating a planting and buffer plan that was also suggested by the LWRP coordinator, and essentially redoing the project. Now, as to the concerns about the location of the wetlands, it was actually delineated by Mr. Herman and Eh-Consultants, who appeared here tonight and regularly appears before this Board and whose work the Board regularly relies upon. And in fact the believe the Board retains his services to delineate wetlands from time to time. It is an official survey wetland delineation, and it's on record. Now, that being said, whether the wetlands Board of Trustees 44 September 21,2011 are as Mr. Herman delineated them or if they are some number of feet, closer landward, we are faced with a situation where there is a house existing right there. A large, substantial residential house, and septic system, right up against the wetland. And this applicant proposes to move the house, though yes a nice house and a house of their choosing, but to move it to the far corner of the property. That this the house is, I believe, in front of all the neighbors' houses already. So when we are talking about concerns about how far in front the house will extend beyond nei§hbors' homes, we've got to do take into account there is an existing house out on the edge of the wetland. And this project will move the sanitary system, remove an ancient septic system that could be 80-years old, and replace it with a state of the art sanitary system as far away from the wetland as possible. There could be no dispute that this project in all ways is an incredible improvement to the environmental situation present on this property. That being said, the applicants designed their original plan with the intent of co-existing with the environment and improving the situation on the wetland. They spent a lot of time and money coming up with that plan. They heard the Board's concerns and they spent a lot more time and money coming up what they think is a solution to those concerns. If the Board continues to have concerns, I have lots of people here that are willing to talk about that, willing to talk about their approach in addressing those occurrence, and making for a home that is co-existing with the environment here, that is much better for the wetlands, much better for the beach, much better for the neighbors than the situation that exists at present. May I hear the Board's thoughts? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Thank you. Again, the Board did go out and looked at this. And we walked all the way around this structure and we do disagree with the wetland boundary as indicated by Mr. Herman. Now, just telling you that we do. And we feel the wetland boundary goes much farther landward than what is indicated here. In fact it goes probably close to what is stated on this survey as the limit of moderate wave action. Not quite. In other words, to the north it probably is a little seaward of what is stated there. But the majority of it is, in fact probably about a third to maybe a little more of this current structure is within the wetlands. Whatever happened over the years since that house was built, has happened, and the wetlands boundary we feel is up there. So in fact, the entire piece of property is within our jurisdiction. So we agree with, in principal, of what you are saying. And I think we even mentioned this last month that the construction of a house, a new facility, and the abandonment of this old house is an improvement to the wetland. No doubt about it. We agree with you on that. It's just what we are concerned about the footprint of the house. Now, we appreciate, I can only speak for myself, ~ do appreciate everything your clients have done here since the Board of Trustees 45 September 2 I, 2011 meeting last month. I also, as I stated, and you are welcome to come up and take a look at the sketch that Trustee Doherty sketched out in the field, showing where we thought a footprint for the house could be. And what you propose here does exceed what is on the sketch. And like I said, you are welcome to come up and take a look at this sketch if you would like to. When I exceeds it, it exceeded it too far toward the west. Again, going very close, we feel, to the wetlands. With that, if you would like to come up and take a look at this, you may. If not, that's okay. And I open it up to other comments. MR. CORCORAN: Well, we would be happy to take a look at it but with all due respect to sketch made onsite, the applicants have a scientific evaluation of the wetland as plotted on the survey. There is no other wetland delineation in the record here today. You say you disagree with that, that's fine. We have an expert delineation of the wetlands. And it begs the question, what is the better solution, okay. If the wetlands are closer, then you have a big house on top of the wetland. We disagree with your premise that that would be the situation. What is the alternative for the applicant? They have a right to that existing house. They have a right to build back from that existing house. They have a right to put a pool in the side yard. This is their project design: Architectural, footprint size. They are a bit more than half of the zoning lot coverage allowed. This code is designed to protect the wetlands, but taking due consideration of reasonable social and economic development within the town, okay. What is reasonable economic and social development of this property, given the amount of money invested in this purchase, the amount of money spent designing an appropriate project, to the applicant's desires. Well, by zoning anyone can walk off the street and get 20% lot coverage without having to talk to any review board. They are requesting 14%. That is eminently reasonable by any standard. That being said, I'll ask Mr. Anderson to talk about some of the more scientific aspects of the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had a couple of questions that might be appropriate to ask Mr. Anderson if he's going to be bringing the science portion forward, I guess. I'll wait until you make the presentation. MR. ANDERSON: I want to add a couple of items. We were advised to take look at the size of this structure. And this structure overall has been reduced by 28% over what you saw last month. To say it's a substantial modification is really an understatement. It's a complete and total redesign. The Board should take note of that, because there is a lot of time, a lot of expense, a lot of willingness to work with this Board already evident in this record. We can talk about where we think the wetland boundary is. It certainly is not the limit of moderate wave action. It certainly does not go through a house. It certainly must go around the house. And what we are proposing here is on the other side of the house. So any discussion we want to have on Board of Trustees 46 September 21,2011 wetlands, the conclusion has to be that this is a far superior design from an environmental standpoint over what we had. What I have not heard thus far, but I want to point out is, we also have a house that does not comply in any respect with the town's storm water controls, and I think we can all agree that the septic system that serves the house is consistent with the cesspool approximately 18 feet from where we believe the wetland boundary is. If it's the town's position that the wetland boundary is closer, all the better reason for relocating it. This house is substantially closer to the street than the house that presently exists. It was designed that way because when the clients came to me, what I advised them, which I think is good advice, is stad with a compliant septic system, and that compliant septic system must be located on the northwest corner of the house. So what you see is a septic system profile that consists of a septic tank and a clustered leaching pool system which minimizes its area. You will see that there is a retaining wall that surrounds the septic system. You'll see that the setback between the leaching pool and the retaining wall is ten feet because that's the minimum setback accepted by the Health Department. Then, if you then calculate the distance between the existing house and the road, you come up with 50 feet at its closest point. In other words, this house is located as close to the road as can be located, given the required septic system. You should know, you have not heard yet, but we did make an application to the Health Department. This septic system complies with the Health Department regulations in all respects. And we received a notice back from the Health Department. That request that we provide them with copies of wetland permits. So that's where we are with the Health Department. So there is no redesign of the septic system that is required in that application. And that's important to note. So the important thing is we start with a septic, and we started with the point of impact, which is the septic system. And we dealt with that first. And we said that area of the property must be reserved for the septic system. So that you know, the existing house -- one second here -- is 102 feet from the road. We are at 50 feet from the road. So this house is entirely landward of the existing house. You also note that the seaward reach of this house has been substantially reduced. So if you look at the survey before you, you'll see a proposed pool, you'll see stairways, and if you come across the property, you'll see that we have encroached no closer to the bay than what is already there. And I think that's an important point that needs to be stated. Because the proximity of the house relative to the shoreline appears to be a concern of this Board. It is addressed in this amended application. So we are farther from the wetland, closer to the street, and no closer to the shoreline than what we have today. And those are all important points. Board ot'Trustees 47 September 21,2011 I don't think anyone would argue that I couldn't renovate, restore, rebuild, the house in its present location. This is a lawfully existing house. But it's not a good house. And it has problems with it. And we spoke about that the last time we were here. And to do that would cost a great deal of money, would be contrary to the purpose of this regulation that we are operating under, and would not fully serve the needs of the clients who have invested a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of energy into the house that they propose. Now, I have a project architects here if you want to get into the design issues. But I before this Board very regularly, and it's not usually an area that this Board gets into. They are interested in footprints, they are interested in layout, they are interested in runoff controls, they are interested in septic upgrades. And this plan accomplishes all that. The earlier comments relative to the LWRP were actually addressed in last month's meeting, namely, the revegetation plan, which is in your record now, and we did propose a revegetation plan that would encompass that area of the house now removed, leaving scarred earth with plantings. Now, I should probably, and I'm agreeable to adjusting that to reflect the new building. But you have before you the revegetation plan. You have an amendment of the survey before you today that shows a line of hay bales and silt fence that controls the construction related and potential impacts relating to the demolition of existing house and the construction of the new house. So that is before you as well. When we pull the house back further from the shoreline, so that it would be no closer to the shoreline than is the existing house, that resulted in maximizing preservation of trees that otherwise would have been cleared under the previous plan. Which I believe addresses the LWRP concerns and also the concern of the Conservation Advisory Council, which otherwise is supportive, suggesting we attempt to preserve as many trees as possible. It may be important to note that there are a number of trees that would be west of the proposed house and north of the existing house, that we would preserve, because we have no need to clear them. That further bolsters the argument that the trees would be preserved as much as possible. Finally, there is a matter of concern regarding the quote, fresh water wetlands across the street. And I think there is a little bit of confusion here. And I'll hand up to you a copy of the New York State DEC Freshwater Wetland map, and on this map I have located the existing property and you'll see that there are no freshwater wetlands across the street. I think what is referred to here are tidal wetlands across the street and west of Linden Lane. And that may be what the concern is. But that distance relevant to the septic system is well beyond 100 feet. So I don't think there is an issue, regulatory issue with respect to the tidal wetlands that would be nodh of New Suffolk Avenue and west of Linden Avenue or Moore's Lane. You should also Board of Trustees 48 September 21,2011 note, and I have not heard -- yes? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was referring to is actually east of Moors Lane. MR. ANDERSON: There is are no wetlands east of Moors Lane. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We saw them. They are there. We could disagree, but we saw them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a small amount of formerly connected wetland in a spot there that has Baccharus and -- MR. ANDERSON: That's not a freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I think the typification of freshwater may have been mistaken. It's a wetland. MR. ANDERSON: You find a cluster of Baccharus on the other side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But it's damp and it also has some phragmites in it as well. TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me, at one time that tidal wetland extended through, either through a culvert or maybe before the road was there, I don't know. There is a fringe of tidal wetlands up in there. Some indicators. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Please finish your presentation. MR. CORCORAN: I think if we can, we would like to have the applicant homeowner speak. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They can. I want to make sure Bruce is through with his presentation first. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Well, in conclusion, you could see the changes we have made. You can see that it's greatly scaled down. You can see it is no further seaward than the existing house. You can see it's more distant from the wetlands, wherever you may think the wetlands are on the property. You can see it would comply with the town's storm water controls. You can see that the construction-related impacts would be controlled by a line of hay bales. You will note that a vegetation plan has been provided. One another thing I have not heard is the curb cut entering the property would remain the same, and it's designed to take advantage of that existing curb cut. So there is no additional clearing related to the driveway, as it connects to the road. So this is a project that is, although nicer than what is there, for sure, is designed in all respects to increase compliance, regulatory compliance, in every respect, in every manner, I can think of. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Can I just ask a question here. Will you bring in any fill for the raised sanitary system? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we have to. TRUSTEE KING: How much are you bringing in? I see nothing indicated as far as the amount of fill goes. The top of the wall I believe is eight-and-a-half feet. MR. ANDERSON: Finish grade is nine. And we are dealing with that area just in the septic system. I don't see it here but I could certainly provide that for you. I think the important thing to understand is the amount of fill, and I'll certainly Board of Trustees 49 September 21,2011 provide that for you, is only that amount necessary to create a septic system that complies with the Health Department regulations. This is a house that is on piles. TRUSTEE KING: I understand. We've looked at these in the field where they are staked out and when we go back and look, we have no conception of how high or how huge they are. You are going from six foot of elevation here to nine or ten? MR. ANDERSON: The wall is 8'5". The grade at the wall is slx feet. So you are talking about a two-and-a-half foot walL. Okay? The grade will increase to nine feet as it travels toward the house, but will be limited to the northwest corner of the site. You should also note that the grades on top of the septic system, as it grades toward the wetland, to the west, would be graded at a slope of 5%, because that's the current Health Department regulations. So it would gently slope toward the west. And I would be happy to provide you with an estimate of that. It may even be in here, maybe I'm not seeing it. But I'll look. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think also what could help is if we could receive a cross-section showing that wall and that sanitary area. MR. ANDERSON: It's on there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. I apologize. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have, Mr. Anderson is -- MR. ANDERSON: Ln fact I could calculate it right now, maybe I will when I sit down. I could do that quickly for you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question t have. Your revegetation plan, would that -- and you have an area that you, on the original revegetation plan, area of passive revegetation. What specifically would your plans be for the passive area? MR. ANDERSON: Well, what you are seeing today is you are seeing s~me incursion of Baccharus landward. And I think that's what people are talking about when they see, you know, a disputed wetland line. The way wetlands are typically flagged is that you look for an area where there is a 50/50 competitive advantage between wetlands and upland plants. So if you had an area that had grasses, and intermixed in these grasses were individual Baccharus, you would not hang a flag at the most landward Baccharus, because that would be over-approximating the wetland boundary. Having said that, you can see that there is Baccharus that is colonizing upland areas, or areas let's call them landward of where the wetland boundary was flagged. So in a passive situation, what you can expect is more of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we noted the lawn cutting there had inhibited the recolonization of the site with the Baccharus and I think there was a some iva fruitescens, there was a couple of other indicators there. MR. ANDERSON: No doubt, over the years, maintenance of lawns have restricted natural adjacent areas and high marsh. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have is would there be value to something in the project that would allow for greater flourishing of the wetland but that would limit impacts from the Board of Trustees 50 September 21,2011 house, such as a Iow retaining wall or railroad ties or similar construction that would be located fairly close to the house so that this area, without arguing the wetland line as it is or as it might be, but allow for as much flourishing of that wetland up to the new structure, and to limit activity, you know, seaward of that or to the wetland side of that very strictly so that it would allow for a very full flourishing of that wetland and also that would maybe address some of the concerns of the grading back off the sanitary toward the wetland area so we would not have a continuation of let's say a developed lawn area over the sanitary in the front of the house, continuing to be cut and mowed into this area that would probably like to go back to a typical Baccharus wetland. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would say this. That certainly the area where the septic system, you'll want to stabilize the top of that with some sort of turf. It would grade down. There is an area between, let's call it the most westerly leaching pool and the existing curb cut that runs approximately 80 feet. In that area we are intending to obviously preserve all the large trees in there. But you would never see that incursion in the septic system area because it would be bifurcated by the gravel -- the driveway. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I guess I'm talking about -- MR. ANDERSON: Now, as we go seaward of that, to the south, it's a question of what reasonable buffer this Board wants to impose. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A walkway around the house with, you know, a fairly narrow constraining walkway with some kind of a retaining structure just on the other side of it and the rest has to go, would seem to me, should go natural. That's my view of the project. I think this site wants to be wetland all the way up to where the house proposal is. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the owners are here, the architects are here. Maybe they can speak to that, what their willingness might be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we get to that, we can certainly get to that question, I have another question for Mr. Anderson. Last month when you were here, we gave you the suggestion to eliminate some of the structure seaward, which you have done. Obviously. We also gave you suggestion to downsize the footprint of the house. And I'm looking at what we had last month and what we have this month. And while you have a small section of the footprint listed as cantilevered above, essentially, it looks to me, unless I'm wrong here, the footprint of the house as proposed last month ks identical to the footprint of the house this month. So you reduced structure for the overall project, absolutely. I don't disagree with that. Because I heard that argument made. But I don't see where you reduced, as we suggested, the footprint of the house. MR. ANDERSON: I would defer the square foot numbers of the house to the project architects who are here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm talking about the footprint. Not the house itself, but the footprint. Because what was alluded to earlier, that Board of Trustees 51 September 21,2011 is what we are most concerned with, the Trustees, is not the architectural design of the house but the footprint and its affect on the wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'm sure the architect can speak to that. MR. CORCORAN: I think the footprint is close if not equivalent to that of the previous proposal. The design has been collapsed into that footprint. Okay. And you have to recall that there is an existing footprint of a 2,500-square foot house on the wetland. So there is, you know, a 3,000 and change square foot footprint of a home moved all the way to the corner of the property. I don't see how the Trustees could have any concerns about the impact of the environment on that beneficial change. It's hard to imagine what the expressed concern is, and if there is one, I would like an articulation of it. How is that a problem? It's a much greater solution. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, because I want to allow others to have comments, including other Board members, but I'll repeat what I said earlier. We are not saying, or I'm not saying as one Trustee, that to abandon this whole house and to build a new one is not better for the wetlands. It is. It is better. I'm agreeing with that. MR. CORCORAN: That's going to be one of the alternatives that is left for the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But what I'm saying is we had suggested last month that the footprint of the house be reduced. And I haven't seen where that happened. MR. CORCORAN: Okay, but I'm saying the Trustees should not be in the business of designing houses. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm not designing the house -- MR. CORCORAN: Or drawing footprints of houses on site inspections and in telling people how big their house should be, when they push it to the far corner of the property, which is what the code is designed to suggest, and what they have done. So to tell somebody you can't have as big a house as you want without any articulation of why not is prima facia arbitrary and capricious, and perhaps a regulatory taking. They have come here, hat in hand, asking for permission, changed their project completely, spent a lot of their hard earned money, okay, and done just about everything one can ask of them. And now you are saying we want more. You don't need as big a house as you think you do TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, have we said no yet? We haven't said no yet. MR. CORCORAN: Of course you haven't. But I'm allowed to make my argument. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So let's not approach it like we have denied the application. MR. CORCORAN: We have been asked again why haven't you scaled down the footprint of the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't hear that. I heard just to address it. I will tell you, based upon what I'm looking at here, and I just Board of Trustees 52 September 21,2011 folded up the paper to incorporate your new plan on to the drawing of what we did out in the field, kind of indicating what we thought we would like to have for a building envelope, and based on what I'm doing here, the only thing that is not inside that envelope is the stairs coming off the deck by the pool. Aside from that, it fits into that. We were out in the field, we did that. It's kind of what we were looking at for a building envelope. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's pretty close. MR. ANDERSON: We are in agreement, then. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm trying to say. We are in -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As an individual Trustee I don't have a problem with the building envelope, I just want to allow for a maximum flourishing of the wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: I understand what you are saying completely. MR. BARNES: Good evening, Chris Barnes, Barnes Coy Architects. There is a very simple comparison we can make. There is a southernmost wall of the existing house -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry. One moment. MR. BARNES: I have to point something out here. MS. HULSE: You just need to wait. They can't take testimony right now. MR. BARNES: Gentlemen, this is the current application. Now you'll see, here is the southernmost wall of the existing house and you'll see the terrace, the footprint, the actual footprint, is now aligned with this southernmost wall. Last month when we were here, there is the southernmost limit of the footprint. So we have reduced the footprint substantially, and by the numbers, it's over 2,000 square feet. This one -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we are not disagreeing, MR. BARNES: This is 8,145. This one is 5,949. So about 2,300 square feet less of actual footprint. So somewhere it was just mentioned we didn't reduce the terrace or the footprint. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me clarify. What I was alluding to -- we agree. You have reduced the footprint of the total project. Absolutely you have. What I'm saying is the footprint of the house, we had suggested last time go back to the client and talk about reducing the footprint of the house. And the footprint of the house looks to be approximately the same. MR. BARNES: No, it's no way near the name. The footprint of the house is drastically reduced. May I approach again. I want to explain something. The survey is not that easy to read in terms of what the house is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, help me. MR. BARNES: These structures here were actually attached to the house. This was part of the house. But because part of it was on the second floor above the pool, it doesn't show as something touching the terrace. So the house actually came down to there. We have now reduced it back to here. And the house itself is 700 square feet less than last month. So the house has been substantially reduced and in fact the part that we did reduce is Board of Trustees 53 September 21,2011 a two-story wing that proceeded south way past the southern most wall of the existing house, right in the possible view of the neighbor to the east. That two-story wing has been totally removed. And that contained important things. That contained the master bedroom, the master study, the master bathroom. That was like a major part of the design. So when we went back to address your concerns, and we were all here last month, we did a total redesign. The house is a different shape. It looks different. Everything is in a different place. The master bedroom is back by the road now because the entire house is back by the road. And I would submit that this is substantially reduced, in its shape and in its approach toward the beach than the one we came here with last month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hear what you say. But I'm sorry, I disagree. I'm looking at the two plans that are identical to the two plans you just had. MR. BARNES: You can't disagree, we designed it -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, I'm looking at those very plans right here. MR. BARNES: Doesn't that look closer to the beach than that? This is the extent of the house. That's a substantial difference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we are not disagreeing with that. Here's the footprint of the house. MR. BARNES: No, here too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, maybe this will help out. Maybe there was a misunderstanding. My understanding last month was this was the footprint of the house. MR. BARNES: That's incorrect. It goes all the way to here, because these are real parts of the house that were connected by a second-floor wing. So this wing was actually two-stories tall. Of course you can't tell that from the survey. TRUSTEE KING: This is my big concern was all this stuff. That was my concern. MR. BARNES: Which has been removed. TRUSTEE KING: I see that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we appreciate that. MR. BARNES: But also the footprint of the house, I know it's hard by just looking at the survey, that doesn't give you elevations. We could come here with elevations, which we have. We even have a computer generated image. And you would see that that two-stow wing, which was of a big deal before, and something that of course the clients love because it places their master bedroom with that view. In our redesign, we lopped it off. It's totally gone. So I think that's a pretty significant redesign. MR. ANDERSON: I would like to make a further point, if I may. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: Trustee Bredemeyer asked about creating some barrier. I'm going to say something in order, like a curve of sorts, that would separate your sort of usable land from land that would recover. And we were discussing that earlier, in Board of Trustees 54 September 21,2011 relation to Baccharus, which was migrating in parts landward of where we marked the wetland boundary. There is a line on the map known as limit of moderate wave action, okay. Now, what that means is, it's a creature of the flood plain. And what it does, it says, if you are seaward of that line, you must build on piles. You can not have a conventional concrete foundation with the flood vents because we are in an "A" Zone. What I would suggest is we take that line and make that our barrier. And I think this would address your concern. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think some of the discussion that we had in the field was along the lines that that point seaward should have the protection of a non-disturbance zone. Then the question would be a suitable barrier that also does not impede or endanger wildlife, if you are going to make it along those lines. My prior thinking about a boardwalk or walk closer to the house was to, something that would limit and provide usefulness for human activity in the immediate area of the house, and let the rest of it go. I'm not sure a curve at that point is really necessarily what we would say is the best environmental. But certainly the protection from that limit of moderate wave action line is something the Board has come up during the discussion where we were not looking to split hairs over wetland line, when we were in the field to say, yes, this line looks to where the wetlands want to be. MR. ANDERSON: Now, one caveat to that. This is a beach front home, so we would want to maintain our path to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe the survey should be reflected to show that. But I don't know that a boardwalk is necessary. I'll defer that to the clients. But I understand what you are saying. TRUSTEE KING: Could be a split-rail fence, anything just delineate that line. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe a split-rail fence. We'll come up with something. But we are agreeable to that concession. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, on this plan that we got tonight, excuse me, got yesterday, what is the square-footage of that footprint · for the house? Just the house. Not the pool, not the terrace. Just the house. MR. ANDERSON: I'll defer to the architect on that. MR. BARNES: We didn't calculate it that way. We calculated the house, terrace and pool because that constitutes the footprint. So the house by itself we could provide for you but I don't have that number right now. That was not seen as a significant number, but we could get it for you. It's 700-square feet less than the previous house last month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the square footage of the current house, do we know? TRUSTEE KING: 2,600, something like that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So that would be 1,300 a floor? MR. ANDERSON: No, the footprint -- is 2,465 by our calculations. Board of Trustees 55 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2,465. That's the footprint of the existing house. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The footprint. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was 2,600. MR. BARNES: You could see on the satellite photos, it's not a small house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a small house, but I didn't think it was 5,000-square feet, both floors. MR. ANDERSON: Our description is inclusive of the patio. The patio measures -- that patio is eight feet deep and 51-feet long. TRUSTEE KING: Are those houses going to be on piles? Is there a garage under it. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, there will be parking underneath. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I said at the last hearing, we have had this kind of instance happen just down the street, where we downsized a planned home, much in the same way, and moved it as far away from the wetlands as we could. And again, that had a cottage on it that was there forever. This is the same kind of situation except you are dealing with a larger structure and a bigger piece of property. My concern generally is I'm not a big proponent of raised septics. However, in this particular case we are taking the septic way out of where it's really in a bad spot and bringing it a lot fudher away from what is existing. MR. ANDERSON: One other thing, Trustee Ghosio, the last meeting you asked that I would discuss the septic system and alternatives to the septic system with the Health Department. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What did they say? MR. ANDERSON: I want you to know I discussed this specifically with Ed Lyons, who regulates most of the residential construction, and he tells me that this is the system. You cannot, there are no alternative systems available to my client other than what he is proposing. TRUSTEE KING: So you'll have this raised system, I take it will be graded flat within the contained area and then tapered down to the west MR. ANDERSON: At a 5% slope. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And unlike some other systems I've seen it's only two feet above ground. MR. ANDERSON: And as a second, I think very undesirable alternative, you can take the top of your septic system, you can grade down 5% for 20 feet and add another retaining wall. If I do that, I may wind up knocking down more trees. But that is an alternative. I thought it would be nicer if we sort of graded it back toward the driveway. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think, I mean it's a reasonable, in my opinion, I'm only one person on the Board, I think it's a reasonable alternative to what was there. It may not fit exactly into what we thought we would have hoped for out in the field. But I think a lot of effort went into it, and I see it as being a lot better than what is there, t don't have a whole heck of a Board of Trustees 56 September 21,2011 lot of trouble with this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Likewise, I feel the same way at this point. I think water quality wise it will probably improve surface water quality discharge, either under MS-4 or through the sanitary, it will be improved by at least 100%, and it's the best can you hope for at this time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know you mentioned, I know there were others that wanted to speak. I want to give them a chance. MR. CORCORAN: If you can let us know if the Board has other concerns you would like to address. I can't imagine that there are. But we are all here, so let us know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the only other thing on the field notes that I saw, and Trustee Bredemeyer already alluded to, was wherever the footprint of the house ends up here, if we do go with approval of a new structure here, there will be a requirement of a non-disturbance buffer between some reasonable distance near the house to the current wetlands. Particularly to the west there, is what we are talking about. MR. CORCORAN: Yes. Absolutely. MR. CORCORAN: Is the Board prepared to vote? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, again, is there any other comment from the audience on this application? MR. CORCORAN: The applicant, Lisa Grattan. MS. GRATTAN: Thank you, Kieran. My name is Lisa Grattan. I appreciate all of the time both last month and this month that the Trustees put into reviewing this application. I'm here with my husband Bob Moriarti. As you can imagine, we appreciate that you take your job seriously, that you have an obligation, and certain authority that is given to you of course by statute and regulations. And as ~ sat here for the first part of the meeting and observed other applicants, you have reiterated and I think tried faithfully to stick to the guidelines which is that you are here, you don't write the codes, you don't write the laws, and you enforce them. And I watched that happen with numerous applications, including approvals of properties which are acknowledged to cause substantial environmental mitigation and to generally speaking, in your view, better the property. i'm hopeful that this is a situation where we perhaps at long last, from our perspective, we bought this home about ten-and-a-half months ago. We are in violent agreement about the fact that what we have proposed first, and certainly now, with the benefit of all of the comments that each of you has made, and to which one by one we have responded to, and complied with, that there will not be an applicant and more importantly, there isn't another applicant, who will take as seriously the responsibility to develop this property as we have. I want to put this into some context for you, if I may. Some of you may know I was born and raised in Mattituck. My father's family came here in the 1800's. I have dozens of first cousins who I socialize with, who are not able to visit out here. I have four children of my own. They have 20 first cousins. We didn't set Board of Trustees 57 September 21,2011 out to build a house that is larger than some people's and smaller than another just because we wanted to. We set out, on the one hand, to design a house that would accommodate the needs of our families. We have certain members, I have certain members of my family who have chronic conditions. They benefit from the use of a swimming pool. That access is very important to them. We didn't designed a deck and a pool for no good reason whatsoever. And I realize that is not an issue but I'm trying to give some context to the application. At the same time, when we bought this property, we knew there were approximate wetlands. We thought it was a very special place. We bought it because of our appreciation for the wetlands and the beach, and not in particular because of the condition of the house that exists there today. I think you have all been there, you can appreciate that. We had it, as a matter of right, as a matter of law, an opportunity to rehab the existing structure. It would have been instant gratification. It would have been, in the near term, less expensive. And we thought that was unconscionable. So we didn't do it. There have been times, I confess, during this process, including earlier on this evening, but i'm confident we are past it, that this has felt for us like an example of no good deed goes unpunished. What we did is we did our homework. Bob and I both went to law school. Some habits die hard. We searched for the finest architects we could find, who specialize in the development of waterfront property. We found them, we paid them what they are worth. We found not just one but two experts to help us to get right where are the wetlands. What do we do to protect them. We had Rob Herman, pre-purchase. We have Bruce Anderson, currently. And there has been discussion here tonight, which has been concerning to me, about other people's view about where something should be, whether there is or isn't a dispute about something which is documented by two experts. I understand that neighbors have issues. I understand that you each have your own sensibilities. I also understand that we are all trying to do the same thing. And we have not taken this lightly. And we would ask that you take that into consideration in making your final determination. This is a very, very, very thoughtful project. And to be candid, what you have before you tonight is not the project we wanted. Last month's was. We took a 30% hit. We have already adapted and conceded to something that was just raised here tonight, without giving it a whole lot of thought. And that will be our stewardship of this property, once we do it justice, but removing what is there and taking a responsible approach. Is it a house of a certain size with certain features? Yes, it is. And we are not apologetic about that. We worked very, very hard. We have a very large family. And the reason we bought the property is to accommodate all of those interests. I think peopte make mistakes, and governing bodies do, and they assume that the developmental interests of a property owner are automatically inconsistent with the preservation of the Board of Trustees 58 September 21,2011 environment. It may be rare, but this is an instance where collectively we can do both well, and right. It is late. You're tired, I'm tired. You spent a lot of time. We spent a lot of time. And, a lot of money. So I'll let you get on with your business, but I hope can you with appreciate the posturing from which we come Before you tonight with this application. And I do thank you very much for your time. I'm very grateful for it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a nice project. That's my opinion. We have to do some things here with the non-disturbance area, limit the fill to the septic system, and I think it's, in my mind, personally, I think it's a nice project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any suggestions as far as non-disturbance buffers go? TRUSTEE KING: I would say this limited wave action line, everything seaward of that would be non-disturbance and give them a four-foot path down to the beach. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have to have some disturbance for knocking down the house. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But side from that, after the project is done. TRUSTEE KING: And that area where the house was would be re-vegetated, I suppose. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And access to the knocking down of the house, you know, could take place through the current, with the proposed footprint of the new building. So that would help limit the amount of clearing that has to be done to take down that house. Do you follow what I'm saying, Bruce? Would you agree to access to the old structure to be torn down would go through where the proposed new structure footprint is so we are disturbing as little other areas of the property as possible with the destruction of the old house? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, and that would include the existing driveway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: I want to mention something else. I want to take this plan and change it slightly to show, list the actual fill required for septic system because that needs to be there and it's not there. And I apologize for that. We are going to have to put in, redirect the power lines to the house. See the overhead line running from the pole at the corner of the property. That will come down. It's my understanding it will be routed underground to the house. So you should be aware of that. And we'll plot some area for that to take place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As that is overhead, it will be very little disturbance to the ground. TRUSTEE KING: He's putting it underground. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, sorry. Board of Trustees 59 September 21,2011 MR. ANDERSON: The way to do this is take the riser down to grade and trench it from there into the house. That's the best way to do this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's only 18 inches down, so it's a small trench. MR. ANDERSON: The other thing is we should probably show where the path to the beach is, so that's understood. And we'll come up with some sort of barrier delineating that limit of moderate wave action. Whether it be a curb, fence, we'll show something. So it can be distinguished now and in the future, and we'll integrate that into the existing path, so that it makes sense. Those are the plan changes I would recommend. And obviously the re-vegetation plan will be adjusted so the footprint shown on that plan agree with the footprints that hopefully you'll be approving. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel? These are a lot of conditions here. Do we want to move on this upon receipt of new plans depicting all this or do we want to wait until we get receipt of new plans as well as a landscape plan. TRUSTEE KING: I would be comfortable moving ahead on condition we get new plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The language is clear and the offerings are clear and what we are dealing with at limit of moderate wave action is already a given on the plan. MR. CORCORAN: We would request a vote tonight, if at all possible. We'd hate to have to start over. I know how these things go. You have a lot of applications, a lot of work to do. I think we flushed it all out here tonight. So the applicants here really would like some closure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm amenable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the line of hay bales and silt fence that is proposed on here, what I want to consider here is initially words depicted on the plans, putting it there, because that will help protect the environment for the destruction of the house, then how would you feel about them moving it to, after the house, after the old house is gone and taken away, and that area is revegetated, and moving that hay bale line and silt fence for the construction of the new house and pool, et cetera, to the limit of the wave action line. MR. CORCORAN: Of course. MR. ANDERSON: So we'll show a second hay bale line. MR. CORCORAN: Phase one and phase two. MR. ANDERSON: To be installed after removal of the old house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that will work. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far away are you from having all your permits in line? MR. ANDERSON: Health Department, I can tell you is a lot. And I have not heard from DEC. MR. CORCORAN: This is designed to be fully compliant with zoning so there should be no requirement to go to ZBA. It meets all setbacks and zone requirements. The thought was to come to this Board of Trustees 60 September 21,2011 Board first since this Board has the most sensitive jurisdiction over this piece of property. I think, given what we have been, the road we have been down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, if there is no other comments I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Lisa Grattan at 11860 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, as in accordance with the plans stamped received September 20, 2011, in our office, with the following conditions that will be shown on a new set of plans that will be submitted: That the house will be on stilts. It wilt be a non-disturbance zone indicated from starting at limit of moderate wave action line seaward. There will be a four-foot path allowed for from the construction project to the beach. That access for the removal of the whole house to the extent possible we limited through the footprint of the new house so as to not disturb as much area as possible. And that it will be a two phases to the line of hay bales and silt fence; phase one as depicted on the plans during the removal, destruction and removal of the current structure and revegetation of that area, and phase two, prior to construction of the new phase, that hay bale line and silt fence line will run along what is listed as limit of moderate wave action. Obviously this will have to comply with 236 of the Town Code. That's the storm water runoff code. MR. ANDERSON: Do you want to see fill calculation? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Re-vegetation plan adjusted. Underground electric shown. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And we have to address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the establishment of this non-disturbance buffer, that we have found -- and the removal of the old structure and revegetation of that area, that we have found this consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Everything is covered, right? TRUSTEE KING: Just the amount of fill to be brought in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, Bruce had mentioned that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of STEVEN H. KR.AM requests a Wetland Permit to excavate and remove entire bulkhead and install new bulkhead inplace utilizing vinyl sheathing; remove and replace timber platform and stairs to be serviced Board of Trustees 61 September 21,2011 seasonally; in-place replacement of return on east side termination to be armored with 10 yards core stone; proposed 26' replacement in-place return termination to be armored with 10 yards core stone; fill void areas with 60 yards clean sand; and install a 10' non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 2 Sunset Lane, Southold. The project is deemed consistent with LWRP with the recommendation of a silt boom during construction because of the proximity of intertidal wetlands in the area. The Trustees went out to the site. It's pretty straightforward. I don't think there was any Board issues; possibly concern that the core stone might be on neighboring properties as far as the issues for the core stone, was the possible question we had. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excuse me, Bruce, I neglected, the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because of the practice permitting returning bulkheads causes the property to become a peninsula. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends the entire bulkhead is moved landward approximately 20 feet to the average mean high water mark with minimal returns. The Conservation Advisory Council was questioning how far the Trustees are willing to allow a property to extend into the bay. MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respond to that. Just so you know, the mean high water mark is seaward of the existing bulkhead. So it does not extend into the bay. And you have before you a survey that those that the beach seaward of the bulkhead is also owned by the applicant. You should know that the bulkhead would be replaced inkind and inplace, so there would be no further encroachment anywhere. I do agree with the core stone argument that if it does need to be installed, it needs to be installed with the permission of the adjacent property owner. And you should know there is contemplation of using some of the existing structures, some of the piles, perhaps, some of the stringers, and so forth. That decision really has not been made now. But in no event would this structure further encroach out closer to the bays. This is a fully functional bulkhead that experienced some very serious failure to the sheathing directly as a result of Hurricane Irene. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any members of the Board, any additional comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion on close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted contingent upon submission of a letter of permission from the adjoining property owners granting approval Board of Trustees 62 September 21,2011 for any core stone which may be placed offsite. I so move. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Any fudher discussion? (No response). And it's found to be consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it was. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC, request a Wetland Permit to legalize the existing wood decking and steps located off the eastern side of the existing restaurant, containing 1,050 sf.; legalize the existing stone paver patio and steps located off the southeastern corner of the existing restaurant, containing 475 sf.; legalize/reconstruct the existing wood decking and steps located between the southern side of the existing restaurant and the boat basin, containing 690 sf.; reconstruct the existing bulkheading located along the north side of the boat basin measuring 153 linear feet, relocate 3' further south and elevate to match the existing surrounding grade; clarify/legalize all existing 50 slips, main floating dock 6'X 98'; secondary floating docks, 24 total, 4'-5'X 15'; wood walkways 685'X 5'; and various wood ramps/platforms, all within the existing boat basin. Located: 64300 Main Rd., Southold. As I understand it, I think this application was put in, I guess essentially to legitimize a permit that was already there, yes? MR. ANDERSON: In part TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. The LWRP coordinator found it to be inconsistent. In his repod he does discuss that it is inconsistent. The decking, in particular on the eastern side, the stone patio, of the southeastern corner of the restaurant, and the deck located south of the restaurant, are inconsistent with Policy 6.3 Protecting and Restoring Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands. He does note that the proposed above described actions were built without the benefit of the Board of Trustees review. And all other proper reviews. Building Department, Zoning Board of Appeals, DEC. The proposal of reconstructing the existing bulkhead located along the north side of the boat basin is consistent, however, with LWRP and therefore is consistent with LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: Say that again? What was that last sentence? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The proposal to reconstruct the existing bulkhead located along the north side of the boat basin, measuring 153 linear feet, is consistent with LWRP policy. So you have a consistent and inconsistent. Part of it is consistent, another part is not. The Southold Conservation Advisory Council did resolve to support the application but did note that the deck and patio were not depicted in the plans that they have. That being said, I know we all went out there and took a Board of Trustees 63 September 21,2011 look at it. I have some pictures. We didn't have any comments at the time, so is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants Mill Creek Partners, LLC. As a housekeeping matter, I want to make note that the notice omitted the westerly decking which consists of 990 square feet which was shown on the plans submitted by the applicant prepared by Samuels & Steelman. There was a lot going on there, but that westerly deck is part of this application, and you should be aware of that. The second point that is worth while noting, that these improvements, including the decking and so forth, benefited from a previous building permit. This has always been a very difficult application because at that time I had a client who would do certain things and tell me, and do other things and not tell me. He would do this and do that. It was very hard to get a sort of overall control of this property. And it caused me some angst. I know it caused the town some angst as well. We are fortunate now to have clients who are serious about the redevelopment of this property and who will do an excellent job in doing so, I believe. You'll note that when you look at the bulkheads, they were installed by my previous client. You may have noticed they were installed backwards and you may have noticed they are already cracking. And yet that bulkhead is only a couple of years old. We need to install a proper bulkhead. It's noted as consistent with your LWRP. And you'll note that there is a small decking area that already exists on top of the bulkhead, which is shown in the photo we are looking at right now. That area is merely expanded to cover the top of the bulkhead. So there really is not an inclusion or excursion or impact to tidal wetlands whatsoever. Here the tidal wetlands consist only of surface waters and it's worthwhile further noting that the entire bottom land is privately owned. We have a deed and that deed goes out to the mouth of the basin. This is a complete manmade basin constructed many decades ago. As to the docks, they were originally put in by Dean Blakey. I believe was in the 80s. He had purchased this about 1984 or so and just proceeded to sort of fix up the docks. So we ask you for your forgiveness for that, with the knowledge that my current client has no involvement whatsoever in the docks that exist today. They certainly serve a useful function, an important amenity for the community, so we would like to keep those. So we had a building permit. We have had all these items included or most of these items included in that building permit. We have a deck that I want you to take notice of and we have a new bulkhead. That's what we are asking to do. And a stone paver patio, which is really just a landing at the base of the stairs. That's all it is. It's a commercial properly. It's Board of Trustees 64 September 21,2011 an important property. It needs some gussying up and I'm sure it will be gussied up and I think ultimately it will serve as just a great commercial property that all the town will be very proud of, and I think it will be done correctly. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm understanding this needs to go for site plan approval? MR. ANDERSON: No, it does not. Mr. Berger, who is involved with the Mill Creek Partners, met with Heather Lanza of the town and was told that we did not and were not going to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval. And that is consistent with the prior findings of this town that allowed me to obtain a building permit for the decks and the restaurant that you see today. MS. HULSE: Do you have anything in writing, Bruce, from Planning? Because there were numerous meetings regarding this property that indicate that there would be the need for site plan for the marina. So that's in direct contradiction to what the department's information that we received told us. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I am looking at a notice of disapproval that we received on September 21, dated March 25, that the application was, a notice of disapproval, that site plan approval from the Town, Southold Town Planning Board, is required. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the year of that? March 25 of what? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: March 25, 2011. This Spring. MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, part owner of the property. That notice of disapproval, what is it attached to? What does that dis-approve? MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, just to get back to this, do we have anything in writing from Planning indicating they are not going to review it? MR. BURGER: No, but before I purchased the property, I went to see Mike Verity and he told me to go speak with Heather. I went up and spoke with Heather and she said to me absolutely not. There is nothing there that needs site plan approval at this point. Now, I have here with me the building permit plans that show both of those decks. They have ZBA approval on them. MS. HULSE: They don't have ZBA as depicted. They are larger. What you have planned for that, the decking is larger than what the variance allowed for, because I actually mapped it out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean what I just proposed. MS. HULSE: Yes. Bigger. MR. BURGER: Correct, that shows a staircase going down to the extended bulkhead being that three feet further. We discussed that at the meeting on the job site. So -- MS. HULSE: You are going to need a ZBA variance for that. For those decks. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me for a second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The notice of disapproval that I have, to answer your question, is for the part of the permit to alter the number of marina slips. MR. ANDERSON: I have a question here. We do notice approval Board of Trustees 65 September 21,2011 applications. They consist of filling out a building permit and paying a $50 fee. I filled out no building permit. I paid no fee. I don't know how in the world you could have something like this. MR. BURGER: That's what I'm confused about. That's why I'm asking why did they disapprove it? Who asked for that? What does it say? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: When did you take over the property? MR. BURGER: I want to say July, August. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because this goes back to March. MR. BURGER: Right. I'm very confused about that. What are you disapproving, first of all? That needs to be answered. MS. HULSE: That was the application of the previous attorney then. It was -- MR. BURGER: Maybe. As far as I'm concerned that has nothing to do with us. MS. HULSE: It's still an issue you'll have to address. You still have to make an application. MR. BURGER: Lori, I'll address every issue the town asks me to address. MS. HULSE: I'm saying before the Trustees can render a decision on this. I'm not saying that you won't. MR. BURGER: I don't agree with that at all. First you have to tell me -- MR. ANDERSON: Whoa, wait a minute. We are not asking the Trustees to hold our property in abeyance while we chase down some notice of disapproval that we didn't even apply for. MS. HULSE: I know you are not asking. I'm recommending -- MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, our request is that the Trustees rule on the application before them. MS. HULSE: Okay, and what I'm saying to you, Bruce, is that from the town's perspective at this point there is a site plan that is necessary for the marina. That's what we are saying. Regardless or whether or not that you've made that application. That's why I asked if you had something in writing from Planning MR. ANDERSON: It is common practice for us to obtain wetland permits and then go to the Planning Board, if required. An example would be the project we handled for Ratsey Construction. Another example is the project you approved for Port of Egypt. MS. HULSE: Totally irrelevant that you are citing these examples. MR. ANDERSON: No, these are examples of where this Board is not barred from issuing a permit based on an application which is submitted, and we don't want, we are here to obtain a permit for something that I don't think anyone has a problem with. MR. BURGER: Lori, you have a point about that deck that goes along the front of the structure. That was not approved by the ZBA. You know, at that point, that was not even part of the program. Now, just to bring you guys up to speed, we are proposing to extend the new bulkhead three feet out further. So it's already like two-and-a-half feet, and what we want to do is Board of Trustees 66 September 21~ 2011 cover the top of that bulkhead. You'll have these two bulkheads, we want to cover the top, creating this deck. If that's an issue to have that deck on there, then we won't do that and I'll go in front of the ZBA for that, if you are very concerned about that. I mean, we cover the top of bulkheads all the time. MS. HULSE: That's not my call to make. I'm just saying from my review of this, the point of this is, is that site plan does take into account the rest of the agencies that are involved here. So the Trustees would be able to weigh in on that if they chose, because Planning would request them to do so. Too bad you didn't get something in writing from them because I think that would alleviate a lot of this problem. MR. BURGER: The deal with that deck, they don't even know about. MS. HULSE: Right. I'm just talking about the marina issue. MR. BURGER: I think maybe part of what Heather's point, you already have the permit. It's already a permit. You have the ZBA, what the town building department did is issue a permit without the Trustees' approval, which is a mistake on their part. MS. HULSE: No, what you don't have is you don't have a permit for the docks that are out there. You don't have that. You are asking the Trustees to legalize, basically double of what is permitted out there. That's the point of what we are talking about here. That's why the Trustees to do that would be very inadvisable. MR. ANDERSON: The procedural point is that the Trustees are not stopped from making a regulatory decision today. MS. HULSE: I'm just saying that obviously the better practice would be for them to allow site plan. Because their recommendations would factor into that. MR. ANDERSON: It would, be a much better practice for us to resolve this tonight. MS. HULSE: I'm sure that's your position. I can understand that. MR. ANDERSON: Particularly for something that was built in the '80s. And particularly because we never made an application for a notice of disapproval. We have to do whatever the Building Department tells us to do, or appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. But we would certainly like to get through this leg of it. MS. HULSE: That's what was just referenced when Bob brought up the fact that there was disapproval here. The previous attorney did do exactly that and got a disapproval and was sent to the Planning Board. MR. BURGER: There is no paperwork -- MS. HULSE: There is. There is. There is a disapproval in the file. MR. BURGER: What does it say? MS. HULSE: Bob will show it to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My dilemma here is that I recall the previous owner coming in with a plan before the Trustees to do a lot of work on this marina, and included permitting in everything that there was at the time. And that this Board, also part of that permit, and this is going, obviously it's not in front of me, so Board of Trustees 67 September 21,2011 I'm going by recollection from a couple of years ago also included in that was some issues with the restaurant. So it was the building and basin. It was a permit for issues addressed in the building and for the basin. And the basin itself I thought the Trustees approved, including all the slips at the time. But apparently the permit was never given out or picked up or, you know, it was never given to the applicant. So the applicant never got the permit. So, you know, I would like to go back and see what is in the record. MS. HULSE: I don't think that's accurate, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I don't have it in front of me. I'm going by memory. And you can be absolutely right, Lori. I'm just going by memory. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The permit from June, 2006, was to construct a restaurant over the existing foundation of what was a restaurant, with the condition of gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. A pump out facility was included. A non-turf buffer to the east, landward of the bulkhead. And all as depicted on the plans for the restaurant only. And not for the marina. On the survey by Hands on survey last July 24, 2006. Which -- so that's this plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Thank you. That clarifies it for me. So we did not approve the marina. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: There is a larger issue here and that is that your Trustees and those of you know me know how supportive I am of the Trustees. And I can't imagine a process where you are prevented from executing your authority based upon the action of some other board. I don't think that exists anywhere in the statute. And should not exist any anywhere in practice. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's well put. Personally, I agree with that and appreciate the support, for sure. So I'm speaking as just one Trustee, though, there would be concerns that because this got a little more complicated post our meeting with Mr. Burger-- MR. BURGER: How did it get more complicated? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because there is apparently prior history that, myself, coming back in public service on the Trustees, was not aware of these discussions in prior permits. So for myself it's more complicated, for sure. But certainly there was apparently in files, in the Minutes that I saw earlier today during the course of stopping by the office, there was some discussion concerning the deck and whether or not that was a legal structure, what was previously not part of the permit. And I'm greatly concerned, as a member of the Board, that I would move ahead in a process that would give you approval for such things as large decks that might impact on seating, it would back into uses in the building and sanitary quality. I have my own experience with the site going back with the Public Health Department and its repeat and persistent failure of an overflowing sanitary into the waters of Mill Creek such that raw sewage was going into Mill Creek on every incoming tide. So I Board of Trustees 68 September 21,2011 have a different perspective. But, again, I would be very reluctant to participate in a vote here where it would seem to give approval for something that still might need more parking spaces, might have severe limitations to use to comport with existing gallonage capacity and sanitary. It's one of those cases where it's a chicken or egg thing, but I have my own issues. MR. ANDERSON: Consider this, procedurally, and consider this in itself. The Building Inspector presumably may or may not require us to go to different places, okay. As a person who does this for a living, I can tell you that if I was required to get four different regulatory approvals for the same thing, and I was only able to get three of them, that doesn't equal a project. So the regulatory process that exists today is self-policing. And what I'm saying to you is, if we can't act tonight, then you are kicking us down the road to perhaps a site plan approval. That could take many, many months to complete. Only to return here afterwards and look at a fate accompli. I would rather know, and since I made an application, what the opinion of this Board is, even if a subsequent board causes me to change a design, forcing me to come back with an amendment. Because if I do it the way I described doing it, there is regulatory efficiency. And that's good for all kinds of things. It's good for the economy, it's good for the town's tax base, it's good for town's business base, it's good for its people. MR. BURGER: John, if I may. Getting back to the existing decks. You are afraid to approve the existing decks. You just said that. I have here a stamped building -- set of plans stamped by the Building Department that has both decks on it, that were approved by the ZBA and approved by the Building Department. True, mistakenly, because they didn't have the Trustee approval. But the other aspect was it was already approved by them. Lori is right about the lower deck on top of the bulkhead. That wasn't. And if that's a concern, we'll take that off. But these decks were approved by the town and the restaurant already has certification for 182 seats. And we are not trying to change that at this point or anything like that. The septic has been inspected, approved. So that's not where we are going with this. MR. ANDERSON: I also want to add to that. I have a letter in my possession from Walter Hubert to Jim King, October 24, 2006, which says that our septic system is compliant. It says: We have reviewed the documentation of Mill Creek Restaurant existing sanitary and find it acceptable for use without upgrade. Please be advised while the Office of Waste Water Management will no longer be involved in this project, the Food Unit of the Health Depadment must still issue a permit for the use of the kitchen. Which is reasonable. So we don't anticipate, we don't have a septic problem and we don't anticipate going to the Health Department for this. MR. BURGER: Would you just like to take a peek at this? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point I don't really know what use Board of Trustees 69 September 21,2011 it serves for me individually and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because if I have a ZBA and I have a Building Department, and I don't have Trustees, then the only thing t need is the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me see what you have. TRUSTEE KING: I have the Minutes from 2006, where we talked about rebuilding the restaurant. Then there was talk, John Holzaphel was one of the Trustees, and he asked about a pump out station. And he was addressing Mr. Anderson, that there should be a pump out station, because this is an expansion. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's in the permit, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: And the discussion goes on a little bit, and they get into the docks. MR. ANDERSON: You know what, Jim -- TRUSTEE KING: Let me just quote you. You are talking to Mr. Holzaphel and you are saying, let me be clear, we are going to completely re-do the docks. In '92, your last record, goes back to when Dean Blakie operated it, and there were, I don't remember the numbers, but for the sake of argument there were is 20 slips, and now there is more like 40. So this thing went from 20 to 40 over 15 or 14-year period with apparently no paper approval record. So one of the things I have to do is come in and fix that. When did you fix it? You never did. MR. ANDERSON: The problem is -- TRUSTEE KING: Nobody ever came back. MR. ANDERSON: Here is the problem. This is why I tried to say this earlier. I had problems with the applicant. You understand. And the applicant went broke. And this property was repossessed by the bank and eventually purchased. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe Bob can make heads or tails out of this for me because he's been through this before, for me. I'm at a total loss as to what is happening here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's kind of interesting, this has gone on so long there is only two people up here that have any prior knowledge to the history prior to 2006. Those approvals were done even before I was on the Board. I do note after that approval there was things that had occurred along the way, I think four amendments that were involved as well. But my feeling was, when we were out in the field and we were looking at this, there was not a whole heck of a lot that we saw as an issue. In fact, we had some discussion, I don't remember who it was, noting that it's a private basin. It's also a commercial entity. And that there really was not an issue for us as to how many slips were there. Now, I understand that if there are parts of this that he's got to get, that the owner has to get permits and Zoning Board approval and site plan approval, okay, I mean, you know, a lot of times we do like to get the ZBA taken care of before we vote, but it's not, we have done it the other way, tOO, SO. MR. BURGER: Bob, if I may. At the first meeting we had, we went Board of Trustees 70 September 21,2011 through this, there was two stages to this whole process. I would like to get the decks done and covered, just so they are safe. Because of a liability issue. Right now. But the game plan was we were going to do this bulkhead so the building is secure, because that's one of my concerns. Then I'll put in an application, which I'll try get going on right away, to redo the bulkhead. We'll do Iow profile, Iow sill bulkhead, we talked about all that, and rock revetment on the beach there. There is a whole big application. We'll be coming back in front of you for. And that was, I laid that all out on the table to you guys. That was our intention. We wanted to dredge the boat basin. So what I'm really looking for now is to just get the bulkhead, get the decks. I think Lori has a point about the lower decks not on the ZBA to cover that bulkhead. I don't have an issue going in front of the ZBA for that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have any issue on this, what is labeled on this plan on the new deck? MR. BURGER: It is a little different than what is on this plan. If you look at this, Lori, I don't know if you looked at the existing plan that was approved -- MS. HULSE: Yes, ~ have it there. MR. BURGER: This one shows the staircase going down, when we create this knew bulkhead, there will be a space roughly five-and-a-half, six feet from the edge of the building. It was my intention to cover that with decking. Basically I'll have two bulkheads side to side. I wanted to cover that and bring a set of stairs from this upper deck, I'm not changing the upper deck. I want to bring a set of stairs from that down to, on both sides. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So your approval is that. This is what you have approved. And this is what we are looking at. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The ZBA and Building Department, without the Trustees' approval. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me just do a quick comparison. (Perusing). All right, so essentially what is happening here is that this section, which is the lower deck, to this corner, is not approved. And because of that, you are going to have to go to the ZBA for that. Is that the gist of it? MS. HULSE: Not from the scaling that I did today in the office. The map that you are putting the pen on now, the way it's depicted in terms of measuring it out, the two decks on either side are not the same size as was authorized by the ZBA. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so -- MR. BURGER: I think this might even be bigger, Lori. You guys can see it better than me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's different scales. MR. BURGER: I was thinking this deck is bigger, with the exception the staircase, the lower part of it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now, as I'm looking at it -- MR. BERGER: You are looking at the other side. This side here. And I'm comparing this one. Board of Trustees ? 1 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What these are showing, based upon this line here, which is the easterly section of the wall, all right, on this plan he's showing roughly -- MR. BURGER: This is already there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is here. Okay. It comes down to here, comes back in, comes down to here, and comes across. Now, I'm not standing here, but based upon what I'm looking at here, and again, doing plans as much as I do, it looks like it. The only difference is that he's got this section here, the lower part, is not -- MR. BURGER: Which I'll hold off on that. I'll go to the ZBA for that. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Now this side, this is bigger. MR. ANDERSON: One way of doing this is to, if you are inclined to grant the permit, is grant the permit subject to any other permits that may be necessary. That's an easy way of doing it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think what we are trying to avoid is we say, okay, under the impression you folks said you didn't have to go to the ZBA, then have you go out and build it, then get violated, then boom, we find out, well, the Trustees said. We are trying to avoid that. MR. BURGER: You know what you could do, too, Bob. If you give approval to do this or even approval to do this, but not do the lower without the ZBA approval, contingent to. And I won't do that lower pad until I get ZBA. If I don't get it, then I don't do it. And if I get it, then I don't have to come back in front of you guys for it, or we can try and do it as part of the boat basin application and put it in front of you do re-do it with the docks. MR. ANDERSON: We'll be coming back here again. MR. BURGER: The thing that is sitting there is a very dangerous situation right now and I would kind of like to clean it up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just uncomfodable if he needs site plan for the marina. That's my problem. MR. ANDERSON: Why not just simply say subject to any other permits that may be required. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I thought I heard being said here, was what we are considering here right now is these two decks, taking out the proposed new deck that is on the eastern side, taking out the new deck, six foot wide that is adjacent to the bulkhead, so all we are talking about here possibly tonight is just approval of those two decks and the bulkhead. Because also the bulkhead is a safety issue. That way we are not addressing the boat basin, other than the bulkhead, we are not addressing the boat basin marina at all. That all has to go through the approval process, and any additional deck has to go through other agencies approval. MR. BURGER: So you want the approval, Lori, you want the approval of the slips to go through the Planning Department. MS. HULSE: My understanding is that was the recommendation, that Board of Trustees 72 September 21,2011 there was disapproval, and this was not yours, it was prior attorney's, that it would definitely require site plan, and I would always advise them, regardless of whether it's this application or any other, with this kind of global site plan that would be obviously advisable in this kind of scenario, why you would not want to do that first when you obviously will have the opportunity to weigh in on that process. It makes sense. It's just the way things should typically go, given the best case scenario. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Overall, I don't think it will change your results. MR. BURGER: It shouldn't. I'm not going to do anything immediately with that floats. And honestly, it was a suggestion of you guys at the meeting, let's clean up what's here. TRUSTEE KING: It should be cleaned up. Right now you have a permit for 20 floats. That's the bottom line. MR. BERGER: And there is 48, 50 slips there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm saying, I'm agreeing with Lori as far as the marina goes, except for that bulkhead, because that's a dangerous situation. I'm also understanding the realty of site plan approval is that could take some time. We could argue back and forth if it's one month, ten months, whatever it is, we have seen from past practice that could take some time. So that's why, I'm thinking to myself, look at it as two separate things. The marina is one project, and the building, the restaurant building, is another project. And if we could address those two decks, taking out the other decks as I alluded to before, then what's there is the new deck and deck landward of the bulkhead, and then address that bulkhead. Because it's a dangerous situation. That should take care of cleaning up of the safety hazard. And it's not affecting what has been previously approved by Building. So I don't understand where that would need site plan approval, that is what I'm limiting this to. MR. BURGER: I think her thing is about the two different slips. MS. HULSE: That's right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Leave that out. MR. BURGER: Let's just run through this, then, Lori. If these guys approve two decks and the bulkhead tonight, and that would be it, as part of this. Then I'm coin9 to re-do a plan for the whole entire boat basin, as per what we discussed the day we were on the job site, and I would submit that to the Planning Department. MS. HULSE: To the Buildin9 Department. I guess you have to go to Building first. TRUSTEE KING: There is some mixed messages here. Because Heather told me way back when, when the other guy had it, he needed site plan approval for that marina. MS. HULSE: That's always been the discussion I've had, because I was involved with the violation. That's always been the discussion I had. MR. BURGER: One person that was very concerned about this, it Board of Trustees 73 September 21,2011 was actually by Mike Verity's recommendation, I went upstairs and spoke to her. She told me no. TRUSTEE KING: We are getting mixed messages here. MR. BURGER: What she said to me, you are going to need Trustee approval. So I knew that. And I'm going to need that. And that made perfect sense to me. MS. HULSE: That's why if we had that in writing, we would not have a problem. MR. BURGER: Actually, it doesn't matter. Like you said, it really not going to affect, any work or anything out there, can only happen as pad of the second phase of this thing anyway. Which I plan on getting going on. I'll make that, I'll take that stuff to Lori. If it just takes a letter, then it will be a letter, if it takes full site plan, then that's what it takes. Also you're saying to cover that bulkhead, I have to go to ZBA? MS. HULSE: I'm just saying -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the lower deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the lower deck MS. HULSE: And -- MR. BURGER: And it stays in M-1 zoning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that what is it, M-l? TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was M-2 MR. BURGER: Bruce, what am I, M-l? MR. ANDERSON: It's permitted -- TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was M-2. MR. ANDERSON: Sorry, M-2. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A portable pump out, given the length of time, if you do get involved with other agency approval, since there was a prior requirement for a pump out, a portable pump out, would seem to comport well with the appropriate thing for us. I mean regardless of whether we are viewing it -- we are not viewing the marina now, but there was prior approval that required a pump out. TRUSTEE KING: There was discussion of it. MR. BURGER: But that changed afterwards. MR. ANDERSON: No, he just went out of business. He was -- TRUSTEE KING: It just fell apart after that. Everything fell apart after that. MR. BURGER: I thought it was re-inspected. MR. ANDERSON: He started doing stuff and he ultimately just ran out of money and never finished what he was supposed to do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's going to be an operating marina presumably next Spring, but if you are still going through site -- MR. BERGER: I would love that. I don't think that's going to happen. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's an operating marina and you are still going through site plan or ZBA or something else, you really, in the interim -- MR. BURGER: You are right about that, there is people in there. MR. ANDERSON: Well, for sure, if Heather is saying you don't need site plan and a prior document that says you do, you either Board of Trustees 74 September 21, 2011 do or you don't. You know. That's -- so we have to get to the bottom of that. (Trustees reviewing documents). MS. HULSE: I just did my homework before, just as a courtesy to try to help the Trustees, but it's their decision. It's not my decision. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the approach is to continue -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we were to table this for a month, how much does that hurt you? MR. BURGER: I would like to be able to get the deck that is there covered and safe. You know, I would like to be able to put the deck down and feel like I'm nbt wasting my time, and rip that up. I can't finish the lower deck until the bulkhead is done. That will take a couple of months for sure. The upper deck is already framed by the previous owner. I would like to get my railing post in, get the decking down. I can do that simultaneously. MR. ANDERSON: Could we authorize the bulkhead and upper deck and table the remainder of the application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Or we would just give you the permit for that, and then subject to other permits. That's the best I think I can come up with. Because I'm worried, based upon what Lori presented, and that the deck as proposed, and even on the plan, may not be the deck that was approved by ZBA. So I'm worried about that. MR. BURGER: Have you looked into the ZBA stuff at all? MS. HULSE: I saw the ZBA decision today. It's not in the file. MR. BURGER: Did you compare it to the plan? MS. HULSE: That's the only reason I brought it up. MR. BURGER: What plan did you compare it to, the new plan we submitted or to the one that -- this was the plan that the Building Department approved, the Mark Schwartz plan. This other plan was done by Samuels & Steelman after we decided we were going to extend the bulkhead. So the one that I was looking for approval tonight, was the one from Samuels 8, Steelman, initially, until you pointed out that I may need ZBA to cover that bulkhead. What I'm saying, if you guys were to approve this one, at least I could get the upper deck done. That's the one the Building Department and the ZBA had already approved. Assuming the Building Department did their homework, and the ZBA, but I imagine it would have went to the Building Department first for this approval, then to the ZBA, so this should be the approved plan, right? Because that's the way the process is supposed to work. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is the Board comfortable with that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm comfortable with it. I think there is a clear understanding and discussion on the record that other governmental agencies permits are required. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? Board o1' Trustees 75 September 21,2011 MR. BERGER: So the boat basin stuff, the slips will be part of the -- MR. ANDERSON: Or maybe not. If they'll decline to require a site plan, we'll be right back here. TRUSTEE KING: I think you will need to go to Planning with the existing permit, from '92, the survey of what is there now, and say, look, here is what I have a Trustee permit for, here is what is there, do I need to go to you, Planning. If they say, no, get it in writing and back to us. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only thing I would like to stipulate is we require a pump out before the 2012 boating season. Portable pump out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have a permit for that as part of the existing permit. So the pump, you want the pump out facilities done before the next boating season? Can we stipulate that? You are good with that? MR. BURGER: I think so, yes. MR. ANDERSON: It's a portable pump out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I said portable because I didn't want to hook it up and get it involved with other plans at this time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's something that is connected with a previous permit I would rather leave it like that and leave this clean. The reason is now we are getting into approving something connected to that marina. The pump out is not connected at all to the use of a restaurant. MR. BURGER: There is port-a-potties there now, you saw that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if it's already been addressed previously, I would rather keep it clean with of the previous permit approval, and just stick to -- MR. BURGER: I like that, too. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you still intend on coming back with the Iow sill bulkhead and the revetment, so that maybe is the place for that. Ideally, that will move quickly. MR. BURGER: Let me ask your opinion. What would you like to see? Should I be thinking about putting in a little bathroom structure? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board's requirement with the pump out goes along with marina expansions. It's in the code. And it's unspecified. It's probably a degree of engineering latitude that you have. We don't have -- the code requires it but there is no set of engineering specifications based on gallonage and use, so it's your bailiwick as far as what you propose. Most operators put in fairly small tank-based systems on wheels, depending on the site considerations. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's true. Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: ~ think we'll hold off on the pump out and keep it clean. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's something you know that we need to put in there, so. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. Board of Trustees 76 September 21,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to figure out how to word this. MR. BURGER: Bob, if I could make a suggestion. Maybe do, as per the approved building permit and ZBA, and I'll go back to double check to make sure things are in order. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And submit another set of plans. MR. BURGER: No, these are the plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean for our file. MR. BURGER: I have some copies of these. You can have this one right here and now. Why don't you take this. MS. HULSE: I think the hearing was closed, wasn't it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it was. MS. HULSE: So you need to reopen it if you are accepting documentary evidence, and additional testimony. Otherwise this is not part of the record. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll use this set of plans instead. TRUSTEE KING: These are the plans that were approved by ZBA, correct? MR. BURGER: We believe so, yes, because they have the Building Department stamp on them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have the Building Department stamp on them. MR. BURGER: I'll follow up on the ZBA and check if it's those plans, just to make sure. If there is any discrepancy, I'll bring it to your attention. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application noting there is a change on the plans and that we are actually approving the plans stamped by the Building Department as approved, and these plans are dated 7/27/06, drawn by Mark Schwartz, architect, making a note that there is to be no movement on the marina or any further movement on decking, aside from what has been already approved. And the bulkhead that has been incorporated in this is to reconstruct the existing bulkhead located along the north side of the boat basin, measuring 153 linear feet to be located three foot fudher south and elevated to match the existing surrounding grade. And with those changes we find it to be consistent with LWRP. We also request any further action or plans on this property go before the proper permits from all other agencies. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). Board of Trustees 77 September 21,201 I It's clear to everybody? All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf RYAN STORK requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing timber bulkhead along the southern shoreline of subject property with a new vinyl bulkhead in-place of the original bulkhead. Located: 3270 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. This was found consistent with the LWRP with the recommendation of a silt boom on all intertidal construction. I believe the high water mark was offshore, so I don't see the need for a silt boom. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition native vegetation is planted on the terrace and the ramp is seasonal. Is there anybody here to comment on this application, for or against, MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. Pretty standard application, the request to do the planting, we already have the lower level planted with beach grass. To the extent it is disturbed we'll replant the beach grass. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it's heavily vegetated between there already. So just maintain that. Replant it after it's been damaged. What ramp are you talking about with CAC MR. ANDERSON: I think they may be talking about, this thing has a 3x3 platform and it has an aluminum hinge ramp that runs parallel to the bulkhead that is lowered down so you can access the shoreline and they pull it up during the winter time otherwise they just keep losing the stairway. Is that right? MR. Bossen: I think that's what the issue was. It was brought up by one of the members of the Conservation Advisory Council that the aluminum ramp is a seasonal ramp. I didn't inspect the property. MR. ANDERSON: But it's a nice, sort of a nice solution to a problem rather than constantly re-building the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at it. It's just of a straightforward bulkhead replacement. I have no issues with it. Any other comments? Board? Anybody? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall be replanted with American beach grass after the bulkhead has been built. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 78 September 21,2011 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much, for your patience. I appreciate it. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Resolutions, are we doing anything with this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had a question for Lori. I read the stipulation of agreement, or settlement, I should say, in discontinuance. And it's obviously very brief. I mean there is only one paragraph. It's one sentence long, that really is the meat of the issue. Or two sentences, anyhow. And I just want to make sure that, again, I know you and I had the discussion privately, that with what we are agreeing to here, that there is a fish registration process, that is going to be done through the DEC electronically and not be the responsibility of the Town to take on. MS. HULSE: It will be done both ways. You can do it either way. A person can opt to do it online or to come in and do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is the Town Board aware of that? MS. HULSE: Yes, they are. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's all I need to know. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: My question is how will it be enforced? If you register and you are out there fishing and DEC comes over and says what are you doing. Well, I'm registered. How does he know? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It should be interesting. TRUSTEE KING: I mean you have no physical piece of paper to show him, yes, I'm licensed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me make this resolution then. The Board of Trustees, being a party to the action herein, hereby resolves to support authorization of the stipulation of settlement and discontinuance in the case of the Trustees et al, versus Pete Grannis, Commissionerand the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, index number 09-38761. So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill second it and would like to offer just a brief bit of discussion. We have the hearts and minds of the people. This resolution effectively wipes the slate clean. So to continue to have the hearts and minds of people we'll probably have to continue discussion with other Boards of Trustees and may have to meet occasionally at boat ramps or docks or other facilities in the years to come. That's all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are probably right. Any other discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). Any opposed? (No response). Resolution passes. Ill make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 79 September 21,2011 Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2011 .... · ~.~t.F. ~ .., ,,, Southold Towa Clef[