Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/14/2011 Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:00 PM RECEIVED* Soulhold To,,v~ 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, January 11, 2012, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our December meeting. Before we get started, I'll just go over some postponements we have on the agenda. Page two, under Amendments, DONNA WEXLER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5046 to add a 4'X 15' extension to the existing catwalk; add a 4'X 12' dock in an "L" configuration; relocate stairs to southwest side of dock; and add two swim ladders at northeast and southwest ends of "L' section. Located: 1775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, has been postponed. Page three, under Wetland Permits, number one, JOSEPH & ELIZABETH BRITTMAN request a Wetland Permit to construct a 24'X 36' detached barn/garage. Located: 80 Glenn Rd., Southold, has been postponed. , Bgard of Trustees 2 December 14, 2011 Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge to 3' below mean Iow water approx. 82 cubic yards from channel at entrance to Association docking aroa as needed, within the docking area itself; dredge as necessary in the same areas to maintain width, depth and full accessibility of entrance channel and docking aroa on a maximum of four additional occasions during the next ten (10) years. Spoil will be removed to an approved upland location for deposition. Located: Main Bayview Rd., Southold, has been postponed. Page four, number 11, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of FRANK & MINDY MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6'X 16' walkway along the south side of the house connected to the previously approved deck and fixed pier; install a 4'X 44' fixed dock with a set of 4' stairs in the middle; proposed dock to be elevated 2.5' above the wetlands and constructed using an open grate decking; dock to terminate in a "T" shape and have a ladder at the seaward end. Install additional 524 square feet of new buffer areas on the north and south sides of the approved new dwelling. Located: 3450 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck, has been postponed. We will not be hearing those tonight. Then before we even get started, tonight is my last meeting. As most of you know, I'll be moving to the Town Board in January and I just wanted to say this last six years has really been a pleasure working with you guys and it's been a lot of fun working on the Board and I'll miss it. But I won't be too far, I could still bug you. But you guys have been a groat group of guys to work with. Thank you. (The Board responds in kind). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next field inspection, Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, January 18th. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With a worksession at 5:30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to set the organizational meeting for Monday, January 9th, at 5:30? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: Board of Trustees 3 December 14, 2011 The Trustees monthly report for November 2011. A check for $8,498.69 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., December 14, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: These are listed as follows: Alan Fidellow SCTM#128-6-1 Joseph & Elizabeth Brittman SCTM#78-2-11.3 Anna Pope SCTM#114-7-7 Swanson Living Trust SCTM#26-2-25 Marratooka Club, Inc. SCTM#123-8-14 Susan Magrino-Dunning SCTM#17-1-2.1 Richard E. Wright SCTM#34-5-3 Renate Hertel SCTM#90-2-25 Souna Koolik SCTMf143-3-10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion for that? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Administrative Permits, SCOTT AMBROSIO requests an Administrative Permit to trim and cut trees along the west side of the driveway and conduct light grading and seeding. Located: 1940 Mason Dr, Cutchogue. We all saw this out in the field. We know this is part of a piece of property contiguous to the house and a separate detached garage. We had asked the homeowner to mark the trees that they plan on removing. You can see the white marks on them. The white tags. It was this one and now this one. Now, when we were there we said that while we didn't necessarily have a problem with the clearing of the lot and installing a lawn, at this line here, where he put that rope, that is kind of the wetland boundary, what we find to be the wetland boundary, and we wanted to establish a non-disturbance buffer from that boundary toward the, from there to the water. So I would suggest that we make a motion to approve the application with ~3oard of Trustees 4 December 14, 20l 1 the stipulation that we are establishing a non-disturbance buffer from that line toward the shoreline. From there to the shoreline. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that line already marked on the survey? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's got that line there that he has marked, as best we could tell out in the field, because I marked it on the survey, is 20 feet from the established edge of the wetlands that was delineated by En-Consultants when we did the first application in 2008. So I'm suggesting that we make the non-disturbance buffer from that line, which is 20-foot landward of the wetlands line on the survey. And just make that all non-disturbance buffer. So it is, I have it marked on the survey here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Sounds good. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. AMBROSIO: I just want to make sure I'm clear. So I could do what I want from that line forward to the road? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do what you applied for. MR. AMBROSIO: Yes, what I applied for. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob, what was your question? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Whether or not that was a covenant on the property. Any time you do a non-disturbance buffer, doesn't that go with the C&R? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, automatically, that's part of-- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean if we could stipulate it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because any conditions we put on has to be filed with the C&R's. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we just stipulate that. I'll make a motion we stipulate on this application that we also have those conditions put on the C&R's and filed with the county. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of MARTIN SENDLEWSKI requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 8'X 10'. Located: 1810 North Oakwood Dr., Laurel. This came as inconsistent with LWRP because it's so close to the wetlands, but this shed is an existing shed that has been there for a long time. I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the natural buffer that exists today remains, and that would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that natural buffer on some type of survey? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of LOIS ANDERSON requests an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites by hand to a height no greater than 12". Located: 2515 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. goard of Trustees 5 December 14, 2011 This is a request to trim phragmites. They are to be hand trimmed, no greater than 12 inches. The only thing we need to see is before and after pictures. I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ail in favor? (ALL AYES). V, APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Permits. We have three of them, we all reviewed them and they are pretty straight-forward applications. I'll make a motion to approve the three as submitted. They are listed as follows: JACQUELINE ENTENMANN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #3994 from William Penny III to Jacqueline Entenmann, as issued on March 26, 1992. Located: 3500 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck. Jerry Cibulski on behalf of MARTIN SENDLEWSKI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6609 from Estate of Eleanor Bastone to Martin Sendlewski, as issued on May 16, 2007. Located: 1810 Oakwood Dr., Laurel. Jerry Cibulski on behalf of MARTIN SENDLEWSKI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #3748 from John & Eleanor Bastone to Martin Sendlewski, as issued on April 27, 1989. Located: 1810 Oakwood Dr., Laurel. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the regular agenda and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Amendments, number one, Garrett Strang on behalf of RENATE HERTEL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7330 to increase the size of the proposed first floor addition and reconfiguration of the existing brick walkways. Located: 205 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold. The Board has reviewed this application. The CAC did go out and looked at it. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf vegetated buffer, and that the goose fence is removed. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. STRANG: Good evening, my name is Garrett Strang for the applicant, Renate Hertel. And what we have here is an amendment to a permit that had been previously issued by this Board. The reason for the amendment was initially the extent of the work was nothing more than increasing or enhancing, I should say, an existing first-floor bathroom so that it would be more easily accessible. There has been a change in the family circumstances regarding the fact that there is a grandchild on the way and Board of Trustees 6 December 14, 2011 they need to add a small bedroom to act as a nursery off one of the first floor bedrooms, which is the parents' bedroom. So obviously we have amended our application to include this addition of the bedroom. And once again, that particular bedroom addition as well as the bathroom addition, which was under the previous application, sort of falls mostly underneath the existing deck and over an existing brick terrace that is already there, but we are going to continue or move that brick terrace out a little bit as a walkway so we can walk around the house. We do come a little bit closer to the edge of the wetlands than we did previously, needless to say, with this addition. And that's the nature of our amendment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Garrett, I'm looking at the original permit that was given for this. And I read in permit number 7330 dated June 16, 2010, that the permit included the condition of the removal of the goose fence. MR. STRANG: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what I see here is the Conservation Advisory Council making the same recommendation. Has that goose fence been removed? MR. STRANG: It has not because we have not done anything because the circumstance changed. So we have not done anything to move ahead, if you will, with the process. So having that condition continue into this amendment is perfectly fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And as I recall, and fellow Board members, help me out, when we reviewed this back then in June, 2010, there was discussion about the, as I recall, about the buffer down at water's edge, and it was already a nice buffer there. But as I recall, it was a grass buffer. I would ask the Conservation Advisory Council, did either of you go out and see this piece of property? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes, I took a look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you notice whether this was, as you went down to where the goose fence is, whether this was a turf or non-turf area? MR. MCGREEVEY: It was buffer right after the fence TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And again we didn't make it as a condition of the last permit, a non-turf buffer. How would the Board feel about including a non-turf buffer in this, or is it that the fact that it's the house -- I'll wait for to you finish your discussion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go ahead. I'm just commenting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the distance there, since you have the survey? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's the shortest from the proposed patio is 49 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so do you feel there is a need to make a non-turf buffer down there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just look at the pictures you have. I recall there was already some kind of buffer out at the edge of the water. I don't know if we have pictures of that. ~3oard of Trustees 7 December 14, 2011 MR. STRANG: There is natural vegetation between the goose fence and the edge of the water. Because there is a little bit of an embankment there. But the lawn, as it exists and has, for as long as I could recall, quite a good number of years, does go right down to that goose fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a buffer there TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to make it bigger. It shows on the survey here, a little bit. Line of existing natural vegetated buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. That's a small area, I didn't know if there was any feeling of the Board, to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: if the buffer were broadened a little bit with the goose fence coming out it might discourage the goose goop. I'm not saying that we have to put it in permanent or anything, but in other words if you rough that area up a bit, there certainly was a lot of goose goop in the area, even with the fence. MR. STRANG: There is not much you can do to discourage with the fence. It's sort of like trying to solve the deer problem. TRUSTEE KING: Teach the deer to eat geese. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what's the feeling on the Board regarding the buffer that is there, to remain at that size or is there any desire to increase the size of that buffer? TRUSTEE KING: It wouldn't hurt to increase it. Not mow down there. Leave it alone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pick a number, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: About 15 foot non-turf buffer down at the water's edge? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 15 feet additional, or total? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 15 feet total. MR. STRANG: So that would be from the edge of the high water. It's not really high water, because it's still in there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That seems reasonable, standard width. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. STRANG: Is there any particular material you would like to see in that non-tun' buffer area? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just native plantings, something that is not mowed. And native plantings. Any other comments from any Board members? (No response). Any other comments from anybody in the audience? MR. MCGREEVEY: I have a question. When you resolve to ask the applicant to put that non-tuff area in, is that annotated to the plan and then the plan made a record in terms of the covenant and deed, as in many of the other cases that we review? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-tuff buffers we have not made a covenant and restriction, a C&R, is what we refer to it as. And we have not done that with non-tuff. Non-disturbance, we have, as we did in a previous application. But not non-tuff. We have not done that before. MR. MCGREEVEY: My question relates to a subsequent owner perhaps abandoning that without any compulsion, basically, or compliance required. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Dave, I'm being told non-tuff buffers can go on Board of Trustees 8 December 14, 2011 C&R's also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any conditions we put on the permits go on the C&R's. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is your answer. I was not aware of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any conditions that we put on an application are required to be placed on the C&R's. MR. MCGREEVEY: In the deed, the covenant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was not aware of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any conditions on the permit whatsoever, such as if there was a size of -- MS. HULSE: The buffers. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just the buffers. Okay. MS, HULSE: Other conditions can go on it, but typically it's the buffers. And what happens is a lot of the consultants will send it to me to look at it and approve or else they'll do it on their own, but it has to be filed with the county clerk's office within 90 days, approved submitted to the office. TRUSTEE KING: That tightens it up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have been doing that for a while now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment of Garrett Strang on behalf of the Hertel's at 205 Cedar Point Drive West, with the reiteration of the condition that was listed in the permit of removal of the goose fence, and with the additional condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the water's edge. And what we would like to do, if you could, is just submit a survey with that depicted on it. MR. STRANG: Fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next applicant requests we hold off because someone apparently wants to come and speak that are not here at the meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob is on his way. So, Lori, do we have to make a motion to skip over this? MS. HULSE: No, you can just skip over it. COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll take number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of SUSAN MAGRINO-DUNNING requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the rehabilitation of the existing dwelling and deck including deck replacement, new siding, new Board of Trustees 9 December 14, 2011 windows, porch enclosure, expanded entry, new roof, and to repair the existing foundation on the eastern portion of the dwelling. Located: 925 Stephensons Rd., Orient. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. LWRP came in as inconsistent, and the reason why it's inconsistent is -- no, it's two reasons. One is it didn't -- let me back up a little. The previous owner applied for an application to remove this house and move it back. Got an approval for that, decided not to do it. That permit has since expired. LWRP takes note to that and says that's one reason why it's inconsistent. But if a person applies for a permit and decides not to do it, that's up to them. So the other inconsistency is that it is in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The Board reviewed the application that came in, and this construction was done in 1981, which predates Coastal Erosion as an area code. So the Board has decided not to review it under Coastal Erosion Hazard because it was done so long ago, and we'll refund the application fee for that portion. However we'll review it under the Wetland Code. So with that said, is there anyone here to talk on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental. The one correction I want to make is that we were here -- we have been here several times. The initial two applications were to demolish the house and build something much bigger, much grander, with pool and decking and so forth. So we were never -- we never made an application to pick the house up and move it back. So, to the extent that it is inconsistent for that reason, those facts are just plainly inaccurate. I don't know that I have anything really further to add other than this is, for us, kind of a paperwork exercise. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I do want to add the reason you are back to us is because it's a condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals permit. They put a condition on your permit to come to the Trustees and seek permits. And you did, and we told you to apply for full permits. In review of your description we realized it was the addition that was put on in '81, which shows that on the property card that the town has. So Does the Board have any questions on this? (No response). It was pretty straightforward. There is nothing different. And we don't have a problem with the repair of that foundation on the eastern side, which is out of the Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I believe there was the verbal report of the bay constable who was familiar with the property because he's familiar with the house there as an access point for law enforcement purposes. He said essentially there has been no change there for as long as he can recall seeing it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he finds no violations out there in recent history, so. All right, with that, I'll make a motion to close .the public hearing. Board of Trustees 10 December 14, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Susan Magrino-Dunning for a Wetland Permit as applied for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay, do you want to go back to yours, since Rob just walked in? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of En-Consultants on behalf of SWANSON LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 132 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approx. 50 cubic yards of sand fill from an upland source. Located: 1390 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. The Trustees reviewed this. I went out and did an inspection of the site. It's a straightforward replacement of an existing bulkhead which has failed. It's an existing buffer that is somewhat variable in width, but it's between, anywhere between 16 and 19 feet in width on the property. It's basically a straightforward replacement. The project is considered consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has approved it with a request that provisions are made for public access. That said, there is no public access over the private property on this house, but there is public access along the beach from the end of Narrow River Road, and the structure itself is proposed entirely on private property, and the beach does afford walking along the beach somewhat, at some tidal states, although admittedly the water does go up to the bulkhead at high tide. Those are the facts we have. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. John has summarized the application as well as I can, so I don't have anything else to add other than on the issue of the buffer, it probably is a little bit of variable width, but we had asked the surveyor to locate that area and he showed generally 15 feet behind the bulkhead, so we just showed that same 15 feet behind the bulkhead to be revegetated and remain as a natural buffer, as it is now. Yes, there are no, as far as access, I'm not sure what would be provided other than a set of beach stairs that would allow access up and down the bulkhead if somebody happened to be right in front of this house during a storm or something and had to get up and off the beach. So I'm sure the owner would not object to having an allowance in the permit to add stairs, but we were not asked to propose any, so they are not on there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments on behalf or against this application, members of the Board? (No response). l~oard of Trustees 11 December 14, 2011 Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition of maintaining a 15-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. Thank you, for giving me a chance to get in. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two under Wetland Permits, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FERUClO FRANKOLA requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place existing wood bulkhead 118' with new wood bulkhead 6" higher than existing bulkhead, to include fender piles, sheathing, wales, tie-rods, backer piles and lay logs. Excavate as necessary to add a total of 244' of vinyl sheathing on the landward side of the existing wood bulkhead; repair, replace or add anchor structures as necessary. Provide 10' non-turf buffers behind each bulkhead. Dredge as necessary within 10' seaward of bulkheads to recover spillage from construction. Located: 1900 Glenn Rd., Southold. This is an application that was tabled last month. Just to review real quick, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. It was found to be consistent with LWRP, and we had basically postponed it, as I understand, or as I recall, for some questions we had, and some issues with drainage pipe, and also the boat lifts, as I recall. MR. FITZGERALD: The drainage pipe belongs to somebody else. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To you? MR. FITZGERALD: No, but if we take it out, I get to keep it. It's the Town's. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We know, we had conversations with the Town on it. MR. FITZGERALD: That's bad press. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is. MR. FITZGERALD: So where does that stand, as far as we are concerned? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why we are here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll talk about it now. I know you talked late this afternoon for this to be postponed, so. MR. FITZGERALD: That's because I didn't know that, I got word, Mr. Frankola would be here. And I don't see him. Are you here, Mr. Frankola? (No response). MR. FITZGERALD: Let the record show. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So do you want move ahead with the discussion? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the other stuff, what was the other issue you wanted to revolve? l}oard of Trustees 12 December 14, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the floating docks, we had asked you about, and you gave us a letter from the owner describing exactly what was there, and, urn, we looked at all this -- MR. FITZGERALD: No, Jill, he gave you that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He brought that into the office, okay. MR. FITZGERALD: I would never. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought it was from you to him. Whatever. It's in our file. The information is in our file, and that's where it needs to be. I believe the Board, when we reviewed it, we reviewed the Zoning Board of Appeals decision from years ago and, giving the approval to have several boats in this area, and if it's okay with the applicant, we can just add the description of all these floating docks to this application, and that way that will be part of this permit, whatever we give you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, ZBA gave permission for all those docks? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, they gave permission for more than six boats. That's how it reads. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are still considering granting permission for the docks as applied for under our current code? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. Based on the Zoning Board variance. TRUSTEE KING: He never applied for floats. He applied for bulkhead replacements. So the floats were existing, it was mentioned in the ZBA hearings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We discussed it with Lori. TRUSTEE KING: There was a mention -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was not part of the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: There was a mention of a dock in the ZBA hearings but there was no mention of floats. But I think our feeling was this was an improved mini-marina, so to speak, that is privately owned, and the existing floats are there, have been there, are not a problem, so why not include them on this permit. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Boat basins shall be limited to use by residents and property owners. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is ZBA's letter? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it should be entered into the record since it's part of this permit application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought he said it had ZBA approval and I just mentioned it had ZBA approval. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me if I made an error here, but what I thought I heard was ZBA approval for extra boats, not extra docks. So if there is something in there that supports extra docks, I think that should be entered into the record to help support the application. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: On July 30, 1966, the Southold ZBA decided the following: Granted a variance for permission to construct and maintain a boat basin for the dockage of more than six non-commercial boats at this property. It was resolved that the owner at the time, Ernest Willsburg, be granted permission to maintain a boat basin for the dockage of more than six non-commercial boats on property located at the south side of Board of Trustees 13 December 14, 2011 Glenn Road, West Creek Estates, Southold, New York, bounded on the north by Glenn Road East by lot number 19 of West Creek Estates; south by West Creek; west by lot #18 of West Creek Estates. This permission is granted subject to the following conditions: This boat basin shall be limited in use to only the residents and property owners of West Creek Estates development. There shall be no services for party boats, no boats shall be rented or leased. There shall be no sale of any commercial products. And that's primarily it. And this condition is without prejudice to any future application to permit the sale of gasoline at the premises for the boats moored at this boat basin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. I just wanted that entered into the record. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So with that being said, it's probably a good idea to put this all on the application. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, do you need anything more than the list that Mr. Frankola gave? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't believe so. The list -- TRUSTEE KING: We have a survey that shows everything on there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The list coincides with the survey, so we are good, I think. TRUSTEE KING: There was a note to Jim. MR. FITZGERALD: The survey in effect says there are floats. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Since we are clarifying everything, I'll read this for the record. Before starting a new bulkhead, removing existing two 5x20 floating docks; one 5xl 10 floating dock; two 4x20 floating docks; one 6x30 floating dock; one 6x10 floating dock; one 4x30 floating dock; one 4x15 foot aluminum ramp; two fifteen-hundred pound davits; 2x40 laid down brick walkway, which -- and that all shows on the survey that we have for this. Upon completion of the job, will reinstall the existing items listed above in the same location, thank you, very much, have a great day, Frank. So we'll add that to the description of your application. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, now I remember there was discussion about the davits. We are okay with that now? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should be okay, considering a commercial marina. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm fine with it as well, I just wanted to make sure. Which brings us to the last issue at hand, as I remember it, is that pipe. MR. FITZGERALD: So what about the davits? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are fine, considering the ZBA approval that you got. It's basically considered non-commercial. It's non-commercial, but has the ZBA approval. MR. FITZGERALD: Now, with regard to the pipe, do you want me to take care of it or get Jamie Richter to get it out of there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think -- MR. FITZGERALD: I'll be happy to do it if that's the way we Board of Trustees 14 December 14, 2011 should do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have had initial conversations with Jamie Richter, and he -- well, we'll have to have more conversation with him. The Town does own a paper road across the street. That might be usable for some drainage, I don't know. We have to talk to Pete Harris. But I think at this time the Board feels since this is direct discharge, that it really should not be put back. There is no, you know, we have allowed pipes in other areas, but they have had other filter drainage before it went over. This is direct discharge. There is no filtering. So I think at this time -- sorry, bob, for taking over. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are going to request that the pipe not be replaced in through the bulkhead. MR. FITZGERALD: Fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we believe there is a reasonable alternative so that it's not something that we have to have a pipe. MR. FITZGERALD: It's Jamie -- the other Jamie will take care of that. So you are saying whether we dig that up, we are just going to put a cap or something on the end of it and whatever happens, happens. Until Richter fixes it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll have discussions inter-office with appropriate departments. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I'll issue that before anybody starts any digging that I talk to Jamie and see what he wants to have done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or you could just let the office know, the Trustee office know, before the work gets done. And we'll keep in touch with you with what's going on. TRUSTEE KING: Jim, do you have any idea when he'll start work? MR. FITZGERALD: No, I would think not until Spring. TRUSTEE KING: That gives us some time to work on this drainage issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This drainage area is on the list. It is on the priority list. I don't know where it falls on the priority list but the Town knows about it. Maybe we can move it up on the priority list. TRUSTEE KING: They've been using that piece across the street was suggested by the LWRP coordinator, too. That was his suggestion. And I think we should move in that direction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what has been said but I would like it as a condition of the permit that this pipe not be reinstalled. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. I'm with you on that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, questions, concerns? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as we have already read, with the addition of the list that Board of Trustees 15 December 14, 2011 includes the floating docks that we read into the record, and also with the condition that when this bulkhead is replaced, that the drainage pipe that is coming through the bulkhead is abandoned and some other form of drainage is figured out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob, I don't want to put that part on the condition, because that's for us to do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then it will just not include the drainage pipe. TRUSTEE KING: Both bulkheads are going to be plastic. One bulkhead will be in place of -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will all be plastic, as we discussed last time. So to review the conditions, we are including the list of floating docks on the application; we are making it a condition that the drainage pipe be abandoned and that the whole replacement bulkhead is the vinyl sheathing. With that -- and it was already found to be consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOHN & JEANETTE COLLINS requests a Wetland Permit to excavate a 60' area landward of existing bulkhead; re-align face of 60' of existing bulkhead and install new backing system; replace excavated material and re-vegetate disturbed area to match existing. Located: 515 Waters Edge Way, Southold. This is an application to straighten out a bulkhead and do some other work. It was found consistent with the LWRP, recommending the landscape buffer. Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. Conservation Advisory Council also recommends the jetty is removed because there is no need for it. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting and we are the agents for John and Jeanette Collins on this application. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's been modified a little bit from the original description. The bulkhead well be straightened out -- MR. COSTELLO: It's falling over. TRUSTEE KING: There will be a 15-foot non-turf to put in place. And the jetty will be cut down to a Iow profile. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any questions from the Board? (No response). We are all pretty satisfied with the new plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You said there will be a new, what was the change that you mentioned? TRUSTEE KING: 15-foot, non-turf buffer has been added, and the Board of Trustees 16 December 14, 2011 TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE shown. TRUSTEE ~vor? jetty will be cut down to Iow profile. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Those are the only two changes. Other than straighten the bulkhead out. I thought this was pretty straightforward. Any comments from anybody else? Any comments from the audience? (No response). If there is no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application GHOSlO: Second. DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP. KING: Yes. DOHERTY: All in favor? BERGEN: With those conditions as stated, right? KING: Right. The new plans are here. Everything is DOHERTY: The motion was made and seconded. All in (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five,Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ANNA POPE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing ladder to beach; construct new 6' north return; construct 63' of new bulkhead immediately in front of the existing bulkhead; modify as required and reinstall ladder to beach; backfill area landward of bulkhead with 40 cubic yards of clean trucked-in fill; and re-grade and re-vegetate area with Cape American Beach Grass. Located: 2690 Westphalia Rd., Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the concrete blocks in the area 30-foot from the bulkhead are removed, and the height of the bulkhead is consistent with the neighbor's bulkheads. It was found consistent under the LWRP with the recommendation of silt boom required during construction. As I said, we did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting and we are the agents for this application by Anna Pope. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, when we went out and looked at it, one of the questions we had also, and you really can't see it in this, but there was a line of concrete blocks that the CAC just described. And it was a distance off of bulkhead. I'm not sure if it was ten, 20, 30 feet off of the bulkhead. Do you have any idea what that line of concrete block is? MR. COSTELLO: It was an upper retaining wall when the cliff started to erode and fill the bulkhead that was falling over. They put those blocks there quite a few years ago, and the same ' ' Board of Trustees 17 December 14, 2011 thing, the neighbor used to have blocks, and basically we won't need them. Because they will be either removed under this fill because we are elevating the bulkhead to match the next door neighbor's, and we are bringing in the sand. And when we do that, those blocks are useless. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that would also address the other condition that the Conservation Advisory Council brought up that you are elevating the bulkhead to match the neighbor's bulkhead. MR. MCGREEVEY: It was on the plan but not in the narrative, and we concur with the heightening of the proposed bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: If you see that bulkhead at high tide, normal high tide, it's about 18 inches from going over the top of the bulkhead. And that was the problem. And that's the same thing we did for Homika's (sic) on the south of this, we did the same thing, because it was just going over the top of the bulkhead on any easterly tide. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another question we had for you, the existing stairway that goes from, I'll call it right in front of us here, from the top of the bank down to the bulkhead, if you would like that permitted in so they could maintain it. MR. COSTELLO: Right now they won't spend the money on it. They barely could swing the bulkhead. But they want to know if we could just straighten them up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying. If they had not been permitted in the past, we can just include it in the description here that way they are permitted and there is no problem with them maintaining it. MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. There is no other way for them to get down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the concrete blocks, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but I would rather just leave them as is, since they have been there so long, I would rather not disturb them and I would rather just leave it. MR. COSTELLO: Well, it doesn't make a lot of sense. We'll probably remove, when we are doing the backing system, putting the helicals in, most of them will probably either disappear or will take them down to Jimmy's and put them on his boat for ballast. TRUSTEE KING: That would be about the only thing I could catch. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other comments from the Board with regard to this application? (No response). The LWRP coordinator had recommend the use of a silt boom during construction in front of this area. Are there any Board members have any feelings with regard to that requirement? TRUSTEE KING: Wouldn't hurt. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we'll place that as a condition that a silt boom be used during construction of the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: Certainly willing to place it there, not that it will do any good. Because it will bottom out at three quarters Board of Trustees 18 December 14, 2011 of tide, but it's not a problem, we have them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience like to comment on this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Anna Pope as described at 2690 Westphalia Road, with the condition that we'll include in this description as depicted on the plans the existing stairway from the top of the bank down to this bulkhead area, and that a silt boom will be used during construction. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, very much, have a happy holiday. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number six, KPC Planning Service, Inc., on behalf of FNV LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 39' dock with a 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock, three (3) two-pile (12" diameter) float securing dolphins and two (2) two-pile (12" diameter) boat securing dolphins. Located: 1500 Mason Dr., Cutchogue. This application has been deemed to be inconsistent under the Town's LWRP; a number of items, which I'll go over momentarily. The Conservation Advisory Council initially tried to inspect the property but the dock was not staked at the time, and they have not revisited. The Trustees, similarly, had an inspection and returned to see if the dock was staked and subsequently performed an inspection, and it's my understanding there is still a pending violation for clearing of vegetation on the property that would prevent us from moving on a permit. But we can open the hearing and discuss some of the issues surrounding this application at this time. Before I do that, there is a number of issues on the LVVRP that relate to its inconsistency. It indicates that the size of the vessel is not indicated; that the proposed action is within the state critical environmental area; that provisions to protect the intertidal wetlands and wetlands during construction operation such as silt boom are not indicated; there is a question concerning the extension of the dock and whether it will result in a net decrease of public access to town underwater lands; and a question about the water depth at 2.5 feet. Those are the essentially the issues on the LWRP inconsistency. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? · Board of Trustees 19 December 14, 2011 MR. TREZZA: Anthony Trezza from KPC Planning on behalf of the applicant. Let me start off, I know you guys went to the property and you had the staff fax me a sketch of the concept that you came up with, and I'll address that. But first I want to start off with what we are proposing, since that was the nature of the application initially. I want to start off by giving the Board members an aerial here. This is of the proposed. I only have a few colors. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this the same ones that were in the file? MR. TREZZA: Well, we changed them, added a little additional information to clarify it. One is from 2007, on color aerial, we give the 2007 because it better shows the channel through Hayground Cove. And the 2010, we wanted to show, you know, the conditions have not changed too much. So it's really for reference purposes. As you could see from what we are proposing, based on the standards, 275-11 of the Town Code, based on the width of the waterway here, we are not proposing anywhere close to that 33%. In fact if you look at the aerial, our dock as currently proposed is quite far from the navigation channel, certainly a lot further away than the adjacent property to the west. So we wanted to show this to you because, you know, we understand the standard as it relates to the 33%, presumably on each end, and so this almost works out perfectly that the navigation channel comes out directly in the middle of this waterway, and certainly what we are proposing is, you know, consistent with the requirement in terms of length. It doesn't affect the public access, as apparently was one of the concerns of the LWRP, I heard about it today. Also it's consistent in terms of configuration of the other docks in the area, which are not really angled, as you guys had proposed. So we wanted to show this to you to show that in fact what we are proposing is not going to have a particular impact on public navigation through the channel. But I do want to show you on these plans here, this is an aerial overlaying your proposal and also the revised plans to show, and we have concerns about this. Particularly with the adjacent dock to the east. If you look at the aerial and then subsequently look at the plan, because we did superimpose the adjacent dock on the plan, we'll be 57 feet from this dock. And it seems that there is potential there for conflict in terms of navigation. So I would submit to the Board that in fact this proposal seems to potentially cause a problem with the adjacent property whereas the one we were proposing provides a direct access to the channel without impeding access for anybody in the area, and certainly for vessels coming through. So I think it was important to show this because, and again, you know, we took is this and we appreciate your comments, that's why we did the analysis. We want to look and certainly if there is any merit to something, we'll take it into consideration. But I think in this case, if you look at it, it will be an issue. And if you compare the two aerials together, our initial plan I think is Board of Trustees 20 December 14, 2011 the better plan in terms of meeting the goals of not impeding access through the channel there. 'You know, and the other thing, I know this was some time ago and, I have, having been on that side of the fence before, for the Town of Southold, you know, we understand that things change and policy changes over time, and I only have a few copies here, and this was done about a decade ago, but this design that we proposed is the same exact design that was approved by this Board on another property, for the same applicant, actually, the Salice family, so we actually took this proposal and sort of mimicked what was approved on another one in terms of its configuration and as it relates to the dolphin piles. So I just wanted to show that to you. And also, to give you a complete record, I don't know if I should give this to Lauren, for your records, we actually do have a DEC permit for the proposal that we did. Miraculously we got this approval in six weeks from the DEC. So that was good. And I understand the clearing violation. I'm not too familiar with it so I'll have to go back and figure out exactly where they are with that. I was aware there was some violation relating to that. And obviously it will need to be addressed before you could approve this. But I did want to get the Board's take on this because I think when you look comparatively on the plans we are showing you, the plan we are proposing is in fact I think better. And certainly, you know, in terms of addressing the inconsistencies, as it relates to the no public access, one of the policies that Mark was talking about in his LWRP, certainly the aerial photographs that we provided show that is not the case. In terms of the wetlands protection measures, the size of the vessel, all that information can be provided, and I'm happy to give it to you, in writing, and certainly any changes to the plans. The boat that my client is talking about is pretty big. It is 36 feet. It's not too big for this particular area. But it is big enough and has a lot of weight to it. And that's the reason why we are proposing the design that we did. We wanted to make sure that the integrity of the structure we are proposing is not compromised. So the dolphin piles, which provide the additional reinforcement of the bearing, the main bearing pile on each of the, you know, dolphin pile systems we are proposing. But in fact the dolphin piles that we are showing, although they are a two-pile systems, they are combined to act as a single structure. And I think we need to make that distinction, that although it's a two pile system, it acts as a single structure. And that's the intent. The one pile is reinforcement. And certainly we want to protect the structure from any potential issues. I'm certainly here to answer any questions that the public or the Board has with respect to this application. Or any other concerns. The one thing that I will say is with respect to the plan we are proposing, we did show on our plan a three-pile ' ' Board of Trustees 21 December 14, 2011 system for the float securing piles. We could do the two on each end and we could eliminate the third one adjacent to the ramp. We don't have a problem with that. But we would like to keep the other, if we can, certainly to keep it straight. Again, you know, we looked at this previously even before coming to the Board, and I just think that adjacent property to the east is really going to be a problem to angle this. It just, it doesn't look good when you look at it from the perspective of the plans that we proposed and the aerial photographs, which I think speak for themselves. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you say a 42-foot vessel? MR. TREZZA: 36. Its draw is two feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Twin screw? MR. TREZZA: I couldn't tell you. Just to reiterate point of Mark's comment with respect to LWFIP, I think a lot of these can be addressed in terms of size of the vessel, any of the environmental protection measures that are typically required, certainly we'll show those on the plans. We don't have any issues with that. As it relates to his comments regarding water depth and public access, well, we reached the water depth, that typically, the minimum you would be required, and I guess I simply don't agree, I guess with the one statement as it relates to impeding public access. I just don't think that's the case. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for your comments. Seeing as we can't move on it, but we still could take comments, are there any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I find it interesting that you are mentioning you are going to use only environmental, take care of all the environmental issues as pertains to this dock. I'm looking at this aerial photographs from 2010 you submitted and I see, you know, quite a bit of green that is not there anymore. And I wonder why that environmental concern was not there when we cleared the property without permits. MR. TREZZA: And I understand your concern. I didn't represent the Salisi family previously, so I couldn't speak to it. However, any clearing violation on the property, as you said, are going to be have to be addressed. So, you know, we'll certainly address it. And, like I said, I'll have to go back and find out more about this violation and the extent of the violation and exactly what the remedy is. I'm assuming it will involve revegetation and whatever else needs to be done. But I can't speak to why my client cleared the property, I didn't represent him at the time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any further comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for further consideration after the violations are settled. MS. HULSE: We are in motion practice, so it might be longer than a month, just to let you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? · Board of Trustees 22 December 14, 2011 (ALL AYES). MR. TRE77A: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of SOUNA KOOLIK requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 68 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and +/-21' vinyl return in place of existing timber bulkhead and return; backfill with approx. 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; remove existing concrete and dilapidated wood from inside existing boat ramp (landward of high water and inter-tidal marsh); and construct +/-3.5'X 5' wood platform to existing dock in place of existing platform. Located: 1200 Sandy Beach Rd., Greenport. This application has been found to be exempt from LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, and also recommends that the two groins are removed. Groins. And when we went out and inspected it, the one condition that we brought up was a 15-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. It is for the most part a pretty straightforward application of replacing the existing bulkhead. Basically we are proposing to replace the interior side of the slip there. The other side is, really ties into the neighboring property. There is a bunch of trees there. So our sense was just to leave well enough alone adjacent to the neighboring property. The issue of the groins is an interesting one because I think the owner may want to have the right to remove the groins, but from my looking at the site and looking at aerials of the site, those groins there are actually allowing that fairly healthy stand of intertidal marsh to exist. If you look at where those two groins are for the marsh that is kind in front of his property and next door, I think it's keeping that area still enough and keeping the elevation of the bottom just high enough. You can see that going down. And if you look at the aerial photo, we submitted photos with the application and in figure four we had an aerial view of the subject property, and you can see that marsh fringe there. There is really no other motive for the owner to keep them. So if the Board for some reason felt strongly about their being removed, I don't think you would get an objection from the homeowner. But seeing that it was, I mean they just seem to be holding that area of marsh. I don't think there is any great reason to go in and mess with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In fact on both sides, on the neighboring side as well, between their groin and their dock. MS. HALLIGAN: Emily Halligan. I'm that neighbor and I would love to keep it there. And anything to support that grass is fine with me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can see there is nothing anywhere else. MS. HALLIGAN: I'm not sure how sturdy that is. MR. HERMAN: That's the thing. I mean, I don't think that any application to remove them and replace them would be Board of Trustees 23 December 14, 2011 particularly well received by anybody, necessarily. I don't know how functional they are, but they do, just the correlation between the presence of the marsh and the groins, I think there is something to it. So I wouldn't say the owner would want to forfeit his right to ever propose to have them removed if they ever really just start to fall apart. But for now I think we should leave them, and if the neighbor is here supporting that notion, I don't see any big reason to change the proposal. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, you wouldn't need a permit to remove it, if you decided to remove it. As long as it's not repaired at all, just let nature take its course. MR. HERMAN: I don't think he has any intention of doing that. And I had discussed it with him specifically, and he, if that is how it's, if that's the situation, I would say just leave it that way. Otherwise I don't think there was anything unusual about the application. I had talked to him about the buffer, I think he would prefer, once all is said and done there, to try to limit the buffer to ten feet, if the Board is willing to allow that. But otherwise it's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the area of disturbance for the construction going to be, will that be about -- MR. HERMAN: We show about 15 feet, and that always tends to be a function of the installation of the tie rods. So, and 15-feet brings you back a little bit near the back of that slip, so. And it's not a huge thing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with ten feet on this. There is nothing there now, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If he's going to disturb 15 anyway, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's going to be disturbed, I would rather go with 15 foot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He has a lot of room back there. Just to be consistent with what we have been doing, I suppose, and we have backyards that much distance. MR. HERMAN: Fair enough. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board? MS. HALLIGAN: It's probably been made clear, but I'm not sure. The ramp that exists, is that going to be closed? And the cement, I wasn't clear on that. MR, HERMAN: To answer the speakers's question, the ramp would not be, there is no proposal to seal off the ramp. We would propose -- you are the property owner -- MS. HALLIGAN: Yes. MR. HERMAN: We would propose to replace this and keep this intact, almost as a return to this section of bulkhead, and we were proposing to just leave it as it is, to not disturb the vegetation on the speaker's property. But within the slip here there is a bunch of old broken concrete and wood and it will probably wood surface at some point, is what it looked like, so he just wants to get all that cleared out of there. Otherwise he would maintain the ramp as it is. You can't really see it in that photo because of the leaf litter. TRUSTEE KING: I saw it. Board of Trustees 24 December 14, 2011 MR. HERMAN: You could see the wood. So basically the contractor would just clean that up and that would become just a natural grade slip there where he could take a boat in or out or whatever. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we stipulate that ramp will stay essentially a non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There won't be any -- MR. HERMAN: Yes, and again if you go 15-feet with a non-turf buffer it will tie right through that over the property line. That's correct. MS. HALLIGAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, are there any permits on those docks, do you know? MR. HERMAN: Hold on (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: We just questioned it in the field whether it was even our jurisdiction. I know there is some funny lines thera on jurisdiction. MR. HERMAN: No, we didn't find any permits for this site. We make a regular habit now with these applications of trying to look on the website to see if there is anything there or if we have trouble finding something, we check with the office, but we didn't find anything here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Jim is alluding to is probably the dock is in the Village of Greenport and not in the Town of Southold. The line kind of goes crazy there. MR. HERMAN: Oh, because of the way the jurisdictional boundary cuts through. Yes. That, I don't know. It might be close. I mean we have a, the 1974 aerial that is on the New York State DEC's tidal wetland maps and it shows the dock in 1974. So the dock has been there for an awfully long time. And it may go back to the point where there is just no permits on it. Are we able to include the dock as it exists as part of this permit? I haven't really thought about that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If it's not in our jurisdiction, we can't do it. MR. HERMAN: Right. How would we -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Find out and amend it? MR. HERMAN: See I-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe what you need to do is find out where the line is, get that on the survey, and then whenever you need to repair the dock then come in for an application. MR. HERMAN: Either come in or go to the village. All right. That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: I just don't want to see them go fix the dock then there is a violation because it's a non-permitted structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, what I'm finding out now, if it's attached to our jurisdiction then it's considered our jurisdiction. MR. HERMAN: Better yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would it be all right for him to come in, because we don't have the dimensions on anything, to come in for an amendment afterwards? MR. HERMAN: The dock is on the plan, on the survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can do this subject to the survey. Board of Trustees 25 December 14, 2011 MR. HERMAN: It's on the survey. Is was a survey from Nathan Corwin, October 6, that shows the dock. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there, we measured it, and we came up with, there is a 2x12 ramp, sorry, there is a three foot by 32 foot catwalk; 2x12 ramp; 6x18 float; 6x20 float and two poles. MR. HERMAN: What did you have on the catwalk, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Catwalk we had 3x32 foot. MR. HERMAN: That scales to 33 on the survey. And then the survey shows a 13-foot ramp, and then the float going out is 18. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, 6x18. MR. HERMAN: And not including the width of the float, which is six feet, there is another section that goes out 20 feet. So it's like a 6x18 and a 6x20. Is that what you have? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. What we are tending to think here is it's probably wiser to have come in with an amendment for this. MR. HERMAN: Come in separately to deal with the dock when it's time to deal with the dock. TRUSTEE KING: When it's time, yes. MR. HERMAN: As part of this application we do have the landward section behind the bulkhead being replaced, just to maintain access, because it's falling away where the fill has been lost. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we saw that. You can see it there. MR. HERMAN: I only mention it because I'm sure when the work is done, Angelo will probably straighten up that whole edge around the bulkhead. So I want to make sure he doesn't run into a problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's under our code, the part of the section of the dock that doesn't, so it has to have more conversation. MR. HERMAN: Okay. Fair enough. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of the 15-foot non-turf buffer on the landward side of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of MARRATOOKA CLUB, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing timber bulkhead, including easterly jog/return, and construct partially landward thereof and in line with adjacent vinyl bulkhead to east approximately 130 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead; construct +/-36' vinyl return in place of existing westerly return; backfill with approximately 75 cubic yards of sandy fill from an upland source; remove and replace (in place) Board of Trustees 26 December 14, 2011 existing 3.5' wide wood walkway through vegetated buffer; and construct 4'X 4' wood platform and 4'X 11' steps to beach. Located: 2670 Park Ave., Mattituck. The Board was out there and we noticed there was a flagpole in our jurisdiction, so we would like to add that to the description, as that code has not been changed to meet the exemption yet. One of these years we'll get that in there. And the LWRP finds this consistent. The CAC supports the application with the condition of drainage plan for the building and the two non-functioning groins are removed. The Board usually doesn't do the drainage on a building when we are reviewing a bulkhead. But we can talk about that. And the other comments the Conservation Advisory Council had was the non-functioning groins, which we did discuss in the field. That is not part of this application, correct? MR. HERMAN: No. And I'm not sure that I described the groins as non-functioning either. We have on done a series of groin replacements along this beach, probably two or three if not four, with groins in similar condition in each case as per the Trustees' usual policy, we would be allowed to replace the groin that was functional out to Iow tide and as a Iow profile structure. But those are not part of this application. The effort is simply to repair the storm-damaged bulkhead from Tropical Storm Irene, and that's it. The groin that is right, just to the west was the Healy's, the vinyl groin, and the Board just approved the reconstruction of that structure not long ago. Not as long as its original length. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a picture in the file, urn, figure two on your pictures that you submitted, and it shows the groins and I think -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which groin is the one that is definitely not functional? TRUSTEE KING: In the foreground, it's just some remnants. MR. HERMAN: I guess that's the, near the easterly property line. That doesn't even show up on the survey as a structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does that belong to the Marratooka Club or the neighbor?. MR. HERMAN: It looks like it's just on the Keller side. We also had represented Keller a couple of years ago after the series of bad nor'easters in the Spring. Jim, when was that, was that '09? They are starting to run together at this point. TRUSTEE KING: I don't remember. MR. HERMAN: But those are just a couple of wood spikes sticking out of there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The picture, and what we remember, and also the picture shows, we feel these groins that are there are functional. But they are not part of this application. MR. HERMAN: They are. It's the two that are shown on the survey. Again, in figure two, those remnants that are near the easterly property line shared with Keller, I mean that's not a structure anymore. That's just -- it will be driftwood pretty soon. But BOard of Trustees 27 December 14, 2011 again, I think technically that may actually front the Keller property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. MR. HERMAN: There is a naturally vegetated area behind the bulkhead now, you can, about 20 feet, and that was surveyed and we showed that in the plan as a 20-foot non-turf buffer to remain, once the work is done. The walkway that leads down to the bulkhead is to be replaced, and we are proposing a platform and stairs parallel with the bulkhead for beach access. Also we should point out that you can see on the plan, on the east side, the existing bulkhead, actually runs out seaward of the Keller bulkhead to the east. There is a little is jog there. I don't know if Bob has any shots of that, but you can see it in figure two, same picture in our photos. That jog will be removed. The new bulkhead will be a, will continue in line with the Keller bulkhead. So roughly half of this bulkhead will actually be constructed landward of where it is now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I got it. MR. HERMAN: So that little bump out will be removed and that section of the bulkhead pulled back landward to be a straight line continuation of Keller. And it will tie back into where it currently exists now on the west side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you for pointing that out. MR. HERMAN: You're welcome. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any questions of the Board? Anybody else? Any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application of En-Consultants on behalf of the Marratooka Club, Inc., with the addition of the flagpole on the property, and that the 20-foot vegetated buffer is to remain. MR. HERMAN: As a practical matter, Jill, what do you want us to do about the flagpole, because that is not - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can we just finish the motion. MR. HERMAN: Sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can draw it in and stamp it. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, inc., on behalf of ALAN FIDELLOW requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and expand upon the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 4030 Peconic Bay Blvd., Mattituck. This is to renovate and expand existing single-family dwelling. It was found exempt from LWRP. The Conservation l~oard of Trustees 28 December 14, 2011 Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a drainage plan for the roof runoff, and non-turf buffer area between the top of the bank and the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we looked at it in the field inspection, during the field inspection we noticed that it was a deck attached to the house, but it was not in the description of the application. So we called the consultant and asked him to add it to the description. So he put a letter in the file asking to add the deck that is attached to the house. The stairs and going down the bank and all the other structures on the bank, they'll come in at a later date to apply for those structures. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. Because we'll have to re-do -- he called, the client called in the middle of all this and said they wanted us to move forward with bulkhead repairs. So I just thought it was easier to clip the stairs with the bulkhead, so we'll be coming back. And I apologize, Jim, because I didn't hear what you said in connection with the Conservation Advisory Council. What was -- TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of drainage plan for roof run-off and a non-turf buffer area between the top of the bank and top of the bulkhead. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Which it already is, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: It's there. MR. MCGREEVEY: It's not on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: It's in a natural state. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: He just wants it put on the plan so it's in perpetuity. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that would be addressed during bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: You said you are coming in at a later date for bulkhead repairs. MR. ANDERSON: No, what I would like to do is amend the plan to show that, to label that so you have a record of that. And I would like to give you the drainage plan, because it's required by Town Code anyway. So if we are in a mood to approve it with those conditions, that would be fine by me. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had an issue with anything. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it would just be subject to showing the drainage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, I had a question. The deck, you can see the pointer is on right now. That looks like a deck that had been, because of the material used, looks like it's something that has been recently replaced? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was that permitted, is the question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the deck we are talking about that we added into the description tonight. That's included in this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are considering in this permit to include a deck going from the house to the top of the bluff. B~ard of Trustees 29 December 14, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. As I explained before and as it shows on the survey, it's the deck attached to the house, that's the one currently there. He's not asking to add a deck. It's what is there. It just wasn't in the original description of his application. And so now he's added it into the description. MR. ANDERSON: This is an old house. This was built some time ago, and, I mean, trying it remember, that looks almost like it's Trex. Is that what it is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looks like that's what it is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which means it was done in the last couple of years. MR. ANDERSON: Somewhere in the last ten anyway, right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just approve this as submitted, including the Trex and vegetated buffer, and show us that on new plans. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE KING Any questions from anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as stated based on new plans that shows the vegetated buffer and shows the deck on the house, and drainage system. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next matter, I already recused myself from the file. I have to absent myself from the meeting. My wife has an interest in the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD E. WRIGHT requests a Wetland Permit to replace upper 2'X 44' section of CCA timber retaining wall with 2'X 44' concrete retaining wall and brick cap on existing 2'X 44' concrete footing at rear of property. Increase existing 3' non-turf buffer to 6'. Existing 9' buffer on adjacent property in front of wall plus addition will yield a total of 15' buffer. Located: 120 Atlantic Ave., Greenport. The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however the proposed work has been completed. And it was found consistent under the LWRP. It's recommended the Board specify an indigenous plant species be placed within the non-turf buffer. Just note for the record this is applied for as an as-built permit to address the concern or comment of the Conservation Advisory Council. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Bbard of Trustees 30 December 14, 2011 for the applicant, Mr. Wright. There was always a wall there. It was a CCA retaining wall that was replaced in the fashion you see. It has no connection to the waters really because there is a road between it and the waters are actually the Sterling Boat Basin. So it's one of those things where they should have gotten a permit. We treat it as as-built, we've paid the appropriate fine, but we don't foresee any environmental problems with the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you have any issue with us conditioning an indigenous plant species being planted in the non-turf buffer? MR. ANDERSON: I think that's reasonable. Or at least non-fertilized dependent plants I think is really what you are saying? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just reading what the recommendation of the LWRP coordinator was. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the members of the Board? (No response). Any other comment from the members of the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Richard Wright as described at 120 Atlantic Avenue, Greenport, with the condition that indigenous plant species would be used or planted within the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye). (Trustee Bredemeyer, absent). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Submitted by, Jill ~ Doherty, President{! Board of Trustees · FEB 2 3 2012