Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/18/2012 James F. King, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Michael J. Domino 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, July 18, 2012 6:00 PM RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2012 Present Were: Jim King, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael Domino, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 20, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our July meeting. Before we get going there are a few items I want to go over. We have some postponements. On page four, number two J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install a sub-surface sewage disposal system; existing leaching pool to be pumped out and filled with sand; new 1,500 gallon septic tank and a 500 gallon pump station tank to be installed; and new tank and leaching field. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island, has been postponed. On page five, number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of SIMEON & ELLEN WOOTEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a covered walkway (wood or stone) and provide a handicap access to the new front door. Located: Old Mallory Rd., Fishers Island, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 2 July 18, 2012 And on page six, actually page five and six, number 11, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' wide pile and timber pier and install an 8'X 20' floating dock with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladder. The overall length of the pier from the shore waterward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation is 120'. Located: 33 Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island, has been postponed. And number 12, Sheri Winter Clarry on behalf of VANSTON PARTNERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing platform and stairs with new timber in same location as existing; replace existing 3'X 20' fixed timber dock with new timbers in same location as existing; proposed 3'X 10' long timber ramp; replace 10" pile with new in same location as existing; proposed 6'X 20' floating dock to replace storm damaged dock; and proposed 10" pile to replace storm damaged pile. Located: 5015 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue has been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight. MS. MOORE: When do you think you are going on to Fishers Island? TRUSTEE KING: August 8th or 9th. MS. MOORE: Early, okay. TRUSTEE KING: We have Wayne Galante here taking down what everybody says. If you have any comments to make during the public comment period, public hearings, please come up to the microphone, identify yourself so he can get it on the record, and please keep your comments limited to five minutes or less, if you can. We have Jack McGreevey here from the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council goes out and ask many of the same inspections we do and gives us their input and thoughts on the project. Last but not least, this is going to be Lauren Standish's last meeting with us. She will be moving up to the Supervisor's office. I would just like to say, Lauren, I think it's 14 years you have been with us. It's just been an absolute pleasure working with you. You are a real asset, a big help to us, as Trustees and to the Town. And I really value your friendship. Ill be calling you now and then. You know the history. You know who the good guys and bad guys are, so we'll stay in contact. It's really a loss to our office. She's done a fabulous job for us. So sad to see her go. We'll set the next date for the next field inspection, August 15, eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: We'll be going to Fishers Island also, I believe the 8th or the 9th. We'll be doing field inspections there also. But our regular field inspection here on the mainland will be August 15 at eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting August 22, at 6:00, with a worksession at 5:30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 3 July 18, 2012 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of June 20, 20127 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of June 20, 2012. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for June 2012. A check for $6,036.94 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Ih PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., July 18, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Barry Root - SCTM#86-6-20 William Turnbull - SCTM#52-1-1 Robert Sullivan - SCTM#104-13-8 Vincent & Carol Manago - SCTM#118-4-10 Paradise Point Association, Inc. - SCTM#81-1-16.10&16.11 Thomas & Mae Maud - SCTM#63-7-33 Lazarus Alexandrou - SCTM#33-1-11 Vanston Partners LLC - SCTM#111-14-3 Margaret P. Latham Trust - SCTM#32-1-9 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, in an effort to move things along, if we find they are simple with no controversy with them, no problems, we group them together. So I would like to group together one, two, three, four, five, six and seven together and make a motion to approve those. They are listed as follows: Number one, STEPHEN WALSH requests an Administrative Permit to install an 88' linear feet stockade fence along the south property line. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Rd., New Suffolk. Board of Trustees 4 July 18, 2012 Number two, NICK POLOGEORGIS requests an Administrative Permit to install a 3' high picket fence along the retaining wall and side yards, and a flagpole with associated lighting. Located: 22655 Soundview Ave., Southold Number three, WARREN & SUSAN CANNON request an Administrative Permit to install a 4" Palisade 6'X 8' panel fence along the west side of the property. Located: 4625 Aldrich Lane Ext., Mattituck. Number four, MICHAEL DiLEO requests an Administrative Permit to install a split-rail fence less than 48" with wire mesh screening to the rear of the property. Located: 100 Knoll Circle, East Marion. Number five, MICHAEL R. WILSON requests an Administrative Permit to install a generator system on the seaward side of the dwelling. Located: 590 Tarpon Dr., Southold. Number six, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC on behalf of BARRON KIDD requests an Administrative Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling; extend the existing deck; construct new ramp to access the addition; and install a new sanitary system. Located: 8732 Clay Point Rd., Fishers Island. And number seven, John Bertani Builder, Inc. on behalf of PAUL RAGUSA requests an Administrative Permit to construct a second story deck addition over existing I ¼ storyl roof with access to deck from a door from the existing 2nd story master bedroom. Located: 165 Wood Lane, Peconic. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, this is VITO & DINA MOLES request an Administrative Permit to install a post and rail fence on the west side of the property no closer than 10' to the mean high water line. Located: 4200 Kenny's Rd., Southold. We went out there and inspected it. We have one infamous fence in Mattituck that we have had nothing but a series of problems with. It extends down to within ten feet of the high water mark. This one here is a little different situation. We went out and checked it out and we took a measurement. And what we are going to allow is for this fence to extend 75 feet seaward of the deck, so it does not go down to within ten feet of the high water mark. It's shorter than that. But I think the Board felt this kind of shows where the property is, where people are actually going up on their deck, I guess. MR. MOLES: Yes, I'm coming for that. I'm Dina Mole's husband. That's great. TRUSTEE KING: This is not a public hearing. MR. MOLES: Sorry, I apologize. TRUSTEE KING: That's okay. So I would make a motion to approve the fence at 75 feet seaward of the corner of the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MOLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Meryl Kramer on behalf of DAVID KORCHIN & JOAN RENTZ requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built wood deck. Located: 2085 Bay Ave., East Marion. This was found inconsistent. Probably it was found inconsistent Board of Trustees 5 July 18, 2012 because it was built without a permit. Have you looked at it, Jay? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did look at it. It was a very small pre-existing deck. Um, yes, the deck was constructed without a permit so that was the cause of the inconsistency. TRUSTEE KING: Environmentally, it was okay? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Environmentally, it was okay. They are also recommending a natural vegetated buffer incorporating existing vegetation trees westward from the wetland to the picket fence to preserve the existing vegetation. That is reasonable. There is an existing picket fence that provides an orderly line that would provide a reasonable amount of protection. So I would think the recommendation of the LWRP coordinator would be reasonable. So based on my field inspection, I did see the fence there, I would make a motion to approve this application subject to that it is now acquiring an as-built permit and that there be, existing vegetation seaward of the existing picket fence, that should be a non-disturbance zone, because it's largely inhabited with freshwater wetland indicator plants, and thereby addressing the inconsistency that was mentioned by the Local Waterfront Revitalization coordinator. So I would approve with those two conditions. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Application for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, we do the same thing, if they are simple and no problems, we try and group them together. So we have number one and two on page two; three, four and five on page three, and I would make a motion to approve. MR. CACIQPPO: Excuse me, can I just say one thing about number three? I know it's not a public hearing but I just discovered with the Building Department today if we were to remove the deck they would consider that structure an accessory structure and, urn, it then would be in the side yard. So we would actually like to leave the deck that we already had approved and we were trying to, I guess make in a sense make the place more natural. But they won't allow that. We would just like to do the gunite and not remove the deck. TRUSTEE KING: All right, we'll just pull three out for now. So we'll approve one, two, four and five. They are listed as follows: Number one, Chris Dindal on behalf of JAMES BAILEY requests a One-Year Extension to Administrative Permit #7370A as issued on August 18, 2010 and Amended on May 18, 2011. Located: Private Rd., off East End Rd., Fishers Island. Number two, Latham Sand & Gravel, Inc., on behalf of PAUL KEBER requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7145 and Board of Trustees 6 July 18, 2012 Coastal Erosion Permit #7145C, as issued on July 22, 2009 and Amended on June 22,2011. Located: 14345-14349 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue. Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JAMES LUHRS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7735 to allow the installation of a 1,850 pound manual boatlift davit at the offshore end of the dock. Located: 1455 Bay Ave., Mattituck. And number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of DAVID & lO,ANNA MOORE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7282 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7282C to include the a 1500 pound capacity boat lift on the bulkhead. Located: 21075 Soundview Ave., Southold. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And we'll go back to number three and take another look. MR. CACIOPPO: Does that mean it's postponed or you can still act on the gunite part of it? TRUSTEE KING: You want to leave the deck? MR. CACIOPPO: Yes, only because the Building Department said, I called them today and said what do we have to submit, assuming we get approved, and he said you can't remove the deck because now it's an accessory structure. So we were going to try to leave the deck, if possible. We already have an approval to have the deck there as it is. It's only the gunite pool we would want to include in this Administrative Permit. Or Administrative Amendment. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's a huge issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not a huge issue environmentally. They are essentially equal choices, submit revised plans for the amount of deck or -- TRUSTEE KING: So we'll just do an administrative amendment to replace the stone coping and grass around the pool and replace existing vinyl pool with gunite. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The administrative amendment is really, the administrative amendment is just a change from the existing vinyl pool to gunite pool. None of this other stuff even comes into play. TRUSTEE KING: What about the stone coping and grass? MR. CACIOPPO: The stone coping, that's already part of the pool. That's part of the edge of the gunite pool. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have already given him a permit for all that. This was to change it from a wood deck to grass and gunite pool. Now he's eliminating the grass part of it and he's just keeping it, he wants to make it gunite. TRUSTEE KING: So this is Administrative Amendment to go from vinyl pool to gunite pool. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Exactly. Right? MR. CACIOPPO: It does have a stone coping, that's how gunite pools are topped off. But the deck will be beyond that, will be Board of Trustees 7 July 18, 2012 retained beyond that. TRUSTEE KING: All right, I think we could approve that, so I'll make a motion to appr.,ove this, and we need plans just showing a pool replacement. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE KING: On page three under Moorings, we have six mooring applications, they alt seem to be okay. We reviewed them all. I would make a motion to approve those six. They are listed as follows: Number one, JOAN TURTURRO requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow River for a 13' boat, replacing Mooring CHB-30. Access: Public Number two, JOHN LARSEN requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 35' boat, replacing Mooring ¢EC-10. Access: Private Number three, EDGARD EL CHAAR requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 28' boat, replacing Mooring ¢EC-90. Access: Private Number four PAUL A. REINCKENS requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 27' boat, replacing Mooring ¢90-TC. Access: Private Number five, MARK SCHAEFER requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 17.5' boat, replacing Mooring ¢30-TC. Access: Private And number six, SHEILA BAKER requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for an 8' boat, replacing Mooring ¢20-EC. Access: Public TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearings and onto our Public Hearings section. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM TURNBULL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit ¢7551 and Coastal Erosion Permit ¢7551C to extend the west bulkhead return from 5' to 14' and modify the platform with stairs from 5'X 7' to 10'X11'. Located: 54005 North Rd., Southotd. This was found consistent with the LWRP for the bulkhead. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application based on recommendations of the Board of Trustees and the violation of the Town Code. The CAC does not support the application because Chapter 275 does not allow for new bulkheads and bulkhead and a bulkhead would direct wave energy onto the town beach. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this amendment? MR. HALL: Yes, my name is Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of the Turnbull's This is a request to amend an existing permit for a bulkhead and rock placement along the shoreline. What had happened is onsite conditions forced the Board of Trustees 8 July 18, 2012 contractor to make some minor amendments, which we are here to get final approval on with the Board. They include extending the bulkhead return on the west end, to 14 feet because that's what was required to meet the eroded scarp at the bulkhead, and the platform was changed because the construction of the bulkhead, there were pilings that were p~aced on center, urn, and the stairs go straight down would hit a piling. So they put the platform to jut it over so the stairs can go down. The stairs are now offset from, originally they were, it was a linear set of stairs going down to the platform, and then down to the beach again. But since the placement of the piles obstructed the path of the stairs, they had to amend the size of the platform to accommodate the stairs to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: Dan, I don't think the Board had any real problems with the deck behind the bulkhead. What we did have a problem with is the construction of the bulkhead, we feel it was not built according to the original plans, and that's wh~.~u need a longer return on the westerly side, westerly end. It appears like it was built more like in a northwesterly direction and they pushed that west end further than it should have been from the toe of the bank. If it had been built correctly they only would have needed a five-foot return, which was on the original plans. That's our concern. I would also like to see the DEC plans and approved plans and any special conditions that were put on that permit so we can compare it to ours. We are pretty unhappy with that bulkhead construction. The construction itself, material wise, is good. But I don't think it was built the way it was supposed to be built. MR. HALL: As far as location? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, particularly on that west end. MR. HALL: Okay, the contractor is here tonight. He would like to comment on this application. TRUSTEE KING: You can actually see on this, in this aerial. The original plans showed that bulkhead being parallel to the bulkhead to the east. If that had been done so, the northwest corner would have been tucked in closer and you would not need this longer return that you need now. MR. TROVITCH: Michael Trovitch, Shoreline Bulkheading. If we came straight back and only five feet, the angle of repose on the bluff would have come over and around it. So we had to angle it a little bit just to save the land and to create the vegetation. We also had to kick the bulkhead back a couple of feet also, I'm not sure if you guys were aware of that, in the permit. We were not able to keep the bulkhead line. We had to actually shift it back three-and-a-half feet or so, and that changed the angle of the bluff. It changed everything. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What do you mean by kick it back? MR. TROVlTCH: It doesn't follow the same line that was there. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That what was there? MR. TROVlTCH: The new bulkhead line. Our new bulkhead line is behind the old bulkhead line. You guys made us come back a Board of Trustees 9 July 18, 2012 couple of feet. So it just kind of changed, you know. TRUSTEE KING: There was no bulkhead there. MR. TROVITCH: The bulkhead line from the properly next door. Our original thought was to go straight in line with that neighboring bulkhead and just travel west with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original plans we have shows it as having a four-foot return. MR. TROVlTCH: On the west side? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Starting on the east side, the starling point was four foot south of the bulkhead to the east. MR. TROVITCH: Four feet back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. So your starting point seems to be okay. TRUSTEE KING: There was no reason that bulkhead had to come out. Not in my mind. Have you gone to the DEC to modify the original permit? What did you have from them? MR. HALL: Yes, I put an amendment for the return and the platform. TRUSTEE KING: Was it the same set of plans that you showed us that you gave the DEC? MR. HALL: Same set of plans that was submitted to the Board. I think the bulkhead matches up on the east side, it's about four feet. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it does. We have pictures here that show, and we have the original plans. That bulkhead was supposed to be parallel with the bulkhead to the east. And it's not. As far as I'm concerned it was improperly constructed according to the plans. MR. TROVITCH: You are saying I went out seaward too much? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The corner out there is out further than it's supposed to be. MR. TROVITCH: I don't understand what you are saying. TRUSTEE KING: The plans show this bulkhead right here. This bulkhead was supposed to be parallel with that. It's not. You can see it tips out at a slight angle. That's why you need the longer return. If this had been straight out like that, you would have been okay with the five-foot return. MR. TROVITCH: We went on the flags, when the property was flagged. That's our survey stakes. That's where we went to. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think you might have a problem with the surveyor. MR. TURNBULL: William Turnbull, I'm the property owner. Originally when we applied for the bulkheading because of the storm damage, the plan was to tie into the neighbor's bulkhead, because she is like two feet into my property with her bulkheading. So it would have been natural to do it. For some reason they wanted it back four feet. And I don't know why. Now, but, I left it up to the professionals, because hopefully everybody knows what they are doing. At the other end when they were putting the bulkheading in, I have pictures of all of it, but when they are putting it in, they lined up right at the toe of the bluff on the western end of the bulkheading. That's where the piling went in. Now, to bring it in at an angle closer to the embankment, it would have meant we would have to excavate Board of Trustees 10 July 18, 2012 part of the embankment. That didn't make any sense to me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nothing looks like the pictures we have. It was all eroded at that point. In fact you had, I'm looking at the picture, in order to do what you did, you had to bring fill in. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to table this and review the DEC plans and DEC special conditions and possibly even talk to DEC about how they feel about this. I think that's the best way to go. So I would make that motion to table this. MR. HALL: You have the original DEC permit. I'm asking for an amendment. It will be the same conditions. They won't give me a new set of conditions. It will be amended to the plans, if they approve it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see it in the files here. MR. HALL: I have it. I could fax it over tomorrow. You can take a look at it. TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to table this amendment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HALL: So just so we know, what are you looking for from us besides the DEC permit, that we already have? Are you looking for the amendment? TRUSTEE KING: We want to see how they feel about how this was built and if they are going to approve the longer return. Because I'm sure they are going to have questions, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Have you applied to the DEC for the amendment? MR. HALL: Yes, but the first time I'm hearing tonight is that the bulkhead was built -- the paperwork I have from Mr. Turnbull just mentions the return. TRUSTEE KING: Mike Domino went out to do the final inspection on it. When he came back to the office, he said I'm uncomfortable with this because it doesn't look right. So I went out. And, Mr. Turnbull, believe me, it's not your fault. And in my opinion that bulkhead was built improperly on the western end. It was out seaward more than it should have been. MR. HALL: Okay, no problem. I was just not aware of that before the meeting, that's all. Thank you: WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct circular stairs from 2nd floor deck; replace back deck and extend 2', from 8' to 10'; install egress windows to basement; replace windows and door, shingles and roof; and install a front stoop, driveway with retaining walls and landscaping. Located: 2700 Sound Dr., Greenport. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was found inconsistent under the LWRP because the action was conducted without the benefit of a permit. The Conservation Advisory Board of Trustees 11 July 18, 2012 Council resolved to support the application with the condition of construction materials comply with town codes, ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bluff and drainage plan for the dwelling. This was a situation where a violation was issued for work done without a permit. And question for counsel, has this violation been settled? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I have a couple of letters here to read into the record. One is from an Elenora Kopec (sic) at 2700 Sound Drive. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing the name. I11 read this letter. This was received on July 18 by our office. I come before you, the Southold Town Board of Trustees this evening to tell you of a very serious concern. A very high price was paid by those who live along the Long Island Sound not only financially but as caretakers responsible for the protection of the environment. It is not only hurricanes that bring harm to our bluffs, but landslides from excessive rains can occur without warning. Several years ago one summer after four straight days of rain, everyone awoken to find that their slopes and stairways had fallen down to the beach. This happened even though there was no erosion on anyone's land. It was very costly for everyone to repair and replace the destroyed area, but all worked hard to protect our land and we constantly continue to do our best to protect our fragile environment. My bluff has been solid and without erosion. Unfortunately that changed a few weeks ago with the building of my neighbor's new stairway to the beach below. In doing so, the bluff has been dug out several feet over my boundary line, creating a potentially dangerous situation. No one has come to me to acknowledge this grave error and now not only is my bluff compromised but also my neighbor's. Where no erosion existed, there is now a landslide waiting to happen. What will be done to replace the foliage that was torn away to expose the soil. What affects one eventually affects all. We are a country of laws and everyone is responsible for obeying them. Building permits are required not just to protect people but also the environment. In closing I want to thank the Board of Trustees for the consideration to the urgency of this concern. Sincerely, Elenora Kopec. The address is 2800 Sound Drive in Greenport. TRUSTEE KING: Is that to the east? MS. MOORE: That's west. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I have a second letter from Elenora Kopec, stamped received July 16, 2012. This is addressed to Patricia Moore, copied to the Trustees. Dear Ms. Moore, I'm responding to your letter dated July 9, 2012, not out of ill will but of concern. In March I received a similar note requesting a permit to build a stairway to the beach for Mr. Alexandrou. I'm enclosing my reply to that note. As for reCeipt of your recent letter all work seems to be completed with the exception of the landscaping and outdoor circular stairway. The stairway to beach is completed and a great deal of bluff has been exposed from the Board of Trustees 12 July 18, 2012 beach to about 20 feet high and several feet across my property line. Will the landscaping indicated in your letter include returning the bluff to its original state? My late husband planted many bushes and shrubs in order to preserve and protect the environment. It's been disconcerting for me to see a wind barrier taken away in addition to my privacy. I also want to inform you a little more than two months ago, several neighbors told me that Mr. Alexandrou said that I filed a report with the town which caused a work stoppage at his home. I have been wrongly held responsible and this allegation has caused me a great deal of emotional stress in addition to questioning my good reputation. I have been a resident in my home more than 40 years and have performed exemplary service to my community for nearly as long a time. I did not file a report. I have spoken to Mr. Alexandrou about this situation. In closing I want to assure you I'll continue to remain a good neighbor since we all and want deserve what is best for our community and I'm sure the Trustees feel the same. Sincerely, Benora Kopec, 2800 Sound Drive, Greenport. The other letter we received is dated July 12, is stamped received July 17, from Patricia Moore to the Board of Trustees. Dear Pres. King and members. My client advises that Gary Fish, Building Inspector, inspected his property this morning at the Trustees' request to issue a stop work order for work allegedly being done in the rear of his property. Gary Fish confirmed no work had been done to the rear of his property. As you know, we are scheduled for public hearing July 18, 2012, at which time I hope this permit application will be approved so my client can continue with his renovation of his home. Thank you, very truly yours, Patricia Moore. Now, we did go out to look at this property in June. June 13, to be exact. And then we went out to look at it on a recent field inspection on July 11, 2012. The picture that is now on the screen is the picture taken during the June inspection. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And now that one there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And now the picture on the screen was taken in July. So is there anybody here to speak to behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Alexandrou. He's here tonight so that hopefully we can address all issues and he can move ahead with the renovation of his house. Um, just for the record, Mr. Alexandrou purchased the house in March of 2012. As soon as he had received the permit for the beach stairs, access to the beach stairs, um, his intentions, the house had been significantly unkempt by the prior owners. They were elderly. They had not put much money into the house. The shingles were rotting and the roof needed repairs. The yard was, urn, overgrown with landscaping that had never been cared for. So Mr. Alexandrou should have checked with the Trustees as far as the work that he had planned to do to make sure it did not need a permit. But he learned the hard way, as many people that end up in Justice Court, that he should have come and checked with Board of Trustees 13 July 18, 2012 the town. So that was resolved. We resolved it through a settlement, paid a fine and then, um, the goal was to continue the process here. As you can see from your own photographs, the house was previously, it's an existing house, it's a post and beam house, so structurally windows can pop in and out. Shingles were replaced, I think they were asbestos shingles previously, and there was a deck in the back, that same deck. The deck had, it was not secure enough. It needed to be replaced. So he started the construction and, you know, of course he needed the permit, because the house, the entire house is within the hundred foot jurisdiction. There is specific code with respect to normal maintenance of structures, roofing, windows, shingling and things like that. The deck, because he was, in his deck replacement, he was going to put in copper, what are they called, gutters. Copper gutters and leaders and really make it a significant improvement, we stopped at that point when the town put a stop work order, advised us, no, don't do anything more, and the Trustees come back and let's make sure you have a permit for everything you are doing. So that's what we ended up doing. His wife is an avid gardener. The house as you can see from the aerials, had lawn going to the top of the bluff. There was vegetation on the sides. On the east side, I gave you previously, but I'll provide for you, for the record here, the neighbor is Mr. Lucasos (sic). He had asked Mr. Alexandrou if he would please take care while the equipment was onsite, if he would take care of removal of overgrown shrub that had been infested by bees. There were rodents and small pets and so on because of the condition of the house. So he took care of that. On the west side where the neighbor is complaining, that area had been overgrown and was unkempt, and his plan was to do landscaping. The plan was for a landscaping to replace the overgrown shrubs and any shrubs that were not native and drought tolerant. Again, after that work was done, you see the remainder of the property, which is the crabgrass, was removed, and the shrubbery was removed in order to replace it with landscaping. I have the letter from the neighbor, which when I brought it over was questioned why it wasn't notarized. So I had it notarized, to verify in fact that the neighbor had seen the condition of the property, was very well aware of the property. Since that time we have been in touch with David Chicanowicz -- are you conferencing or do you want me to wait? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm listening. I'm with you. MS. MOORE: As long as somebody is listening. Good. We retained David Chicanowicz, who is a very skilled landscaper, and his advice was make sure that we put a drywell on the west side of the house in order to capture all roof, runoff and that will enable him to put the drywell in while the construction work is going on. And he's preparing a landscape plan that will come back to you. We had already planned on a ten-foot buffer, anticipating that the Board would want a buffer at the top of Board of Trustees 14 July 18, 2012 the bank. The bank is in fact sloped toward the road, so there is no water runoff that is occurring by the roof or by the improvements, since the property significantly slopes down and all water runoff heads toward Sound Drive. Nonetheless, the plan is to provide for a vegetative buffer. The initial, as a starting point, the ten-foot vegetative buffer to be plant with Dwarf Franklin Grass. But there is more that he wants. His intention is to provide privacy screening on both sides of his property, and I suggested let's put it all into a landscape plan so that we don't have any disagreements with the Trustees. We don't want to be slapped for putting in landscaping without the Board's permission. When you were there, you saw the deck -- excuse me, not the deck. The stairs to the beach, um, where it was being constructed, the contractor explained to you that because of the angle and site conditions, there had to be some slight modifications of the stairway in order to minimize disturbance to the bluff and to minimize disturbance to the vegetation. You can see on the east side, both sides, east and west side, they tried to clear only that portion that they needed for the stairs. I see the picture of the stairs, that's why I'm addressing the stairs. The stairs permit also includes revegetation. So part of the overall landscaping plan will be to revegetate any of the disturbed areas that are associated with the stairs. I'm also going to come in with an amendment for the stairs because the steps that were designed originally were going toward the east, and it didn't make sense. We would have had to clear vegetation in order to have the stairs going toward the east rather than have the steps go down straight to the back of the property. So those are onsite conditions, modifications, that the contractor has asked that we get the amendment. So we'll come back with an amendment for that. And that's a simple amendment for the beach stairs. Unless you want to include it here. But I'm assuming you want it to come in as an amendment to the stairs. Um, let's see. That pretty much sets for[h what is going on on this property. The deck, his construction, his piles, go beyond the 50 feet, or go up to the 50 feet, the structure, and my, in reviewing the plan and the history of this property, he was not aware the Zoning Board had granted a variance along the way, and the existing deck had been constructed under an approved variance. So the issue right now and the debate is going to be whether we go to the Zoning Board and ask for a slight variance amendment to that variance or an additional variance to allow an extra three feet to keep the piles where they are and whether or not he's going to cut it back. Right now the permit request is to cut back the deck to the 50 feet which has been provided on the map. That is the setback that the Zoning Board had used and when we prepared the survey we used the same setbacks that the Zoning Board had applied when the Board of Trustees 15 July 18, 2012 variances were granted. So you used your tape measure but we used the surveyor's measurements, which is based on historic surveys. I think that's pretty much it. I think I have explained all of the activity. Thank you, very much, also for allowing the front of the house to continue, because the driveway needed to be finished and there was a stoop, the entryway to the house, had a roof over it, a little tiny portico roof, that had been removed and the stairs were replaced because they were not in very good condition. Again, that was all front yard stuff. So the Board very kindly allowed him to continue so that at least he could bring things into the house rather that than have the mud and the disturbance of the front yard go beyond disturbing this property owner but disturbing the neighbors. Do you have any particular questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have questions right now. I have several comments that I'll make on behalf of the Board. I was waiting for you to complete your presentation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. What is your intention as applicant for the Alexandrou's, as far as the Zoning Board of Appeals? It's not particularly clear to me. MS. MOORE: My suggestion was, so that he could finish the house, is we'll close out the permit with what we are requesting, cutting the deck back, and if he chooses and wants to proceed with the Zoning Board and spend that kind of money to ask the Zoning Board for a few feet, I11 go to the Zoning Board. If the Zoning Board says yes, then I'll come and amend the permit with you rather than delaying it or leaving it unresolved with the Board. We'll just provide in the permit, once we get a building permit, we obviously won't close out that permit until he's decided close out your permit on the deck until he's decided whether he's going to proceed with that extra foot-and-a-half on the deck or not. So, if that's acceptable. That will enable him to finish -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me go over some comments now. This was a project, again, that we had gone out to, based upon a violation. As you alluded to, there was a stop work order to any exterior work. We had granted permission for work to continue, as you alluded to, on the front of the house. Work continued on the back of the house, the stoop going down from the sliding glass door, when this picture was done, the siding was done, you see a railing up there on the top of the deck that was done after the stop work order. As far as the deck goes, this was originally, I believe an eight-foot deck. The applicant, without permission, extended it to 16 feet and is now found, because of the Zoning Board ruling of a 50-foot setback, that that deck actually has to get cut back to a total of ten foot. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, what happened was an eight-foot deck became a 16-foot deck. We are now faced with having to bring that deck Board of Trustees 16 July 18, 2012 back to ten feet to comply with the Zoning Board. MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was also clearance done on the property. I don't know if that was part of the violation or not. But during that clearance, what we observed out there in the field last month when we were out there, in other words the June inspection, was also of concern to us, and that was the northeast side of the property, the elevation now, has, it looks like has been modified at that time in June you could see where there was very little growth there, and now there is an issue of runoff to the property next door. A potential issue of runoff to the property next door. So I want to remind the applicant under the requirements of 236 that all water must be retained on their property. And as you can see on this picture that is now on the screen, from the June inspection, you can see up there at the top of the property where we are concerned about a runoff issue. As far as the stairs to the beach go, our recommendation is an amendment be filed with, regarding the stairs to the beach, so we can address what we found out there, that the stairs were not constructed, the top of the stairs, the top catwalk or landing of the stairs, was not constructed according to the approved plan. So I would suggest in your amendment on the stairs, you address that. MS. MOORE: They actually cut it back. That was, the contractor, the way it was constructed, I mean, he can explain it. But it was, where the stair begins and ends is the issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That can be addressed in the amendment for the stairs. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have read into the record the letters from the one neighbor, so I'll also read into the record the letter that you just handed me tonight, which is dated June 20, 2012. And again, I apologize if I mispronounce the name. Vasilos Lucatos (sic). I reside at 2600 Sound Drive in Greenport for the past 30 years. My house is located on the east side of 2700 Sound Drive in Greenport. I'm very familiar with the bluff and vegetation, both my backyard and my neighbor's. I know Mr. Alexandrou has not disturbed the soil on the bluff. He removed two shrubs that border our house because they contained beehives. Which are a hazard. I'm happy Mr. Alexandrou is renovating his house and property. The previous owner neglected both for the past 20 years. Sincerely Vasilos Lucatos. Again, I apologize for mispronouncing that. So for us, this property, we are very concerned about this property; because of the amount of work that was done without a permit; because of the work continuing after a stop work order; because now a clearing that happened that potentially is going to result in an erosion issue; and also because this deck, which should have been eight foot, was extended to 16. And now your request is bringing it back to ten to comply with ZBA. Board of Trustees 17 July 18, 2012 So with that, those are the issues the Trustees had. We'll address, just so you know, for the stairs, there is CCA material used to the platforms and those will have to be addressed also. That's with the stairs to the beach I'm talking about now, and the platforms associated with the stairs to the beach. Just to be very specific about it. I didn't want to confuse it with the deck or something else. MS. MOORE: Ill have to get the contractor. I don't know about the stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So those are the issues that we have. MS. MOORE: So to address some of the things that you raised. The clearing of the vegetation for purposes, was intended for landscaping. It was stopped at the time right before it was done in early June in order to prepare for all the planting, and because the Trustees said, stop, he stopped everything and couldn't vegetate what, you know, to address any kind of runoff issues. So the goal here is going to be to keep all runoff from, really we are talking about runoff to the sides of the property. Because, as I said, the slope is toward the street. Mr. Chicanowicz can provide you with testimony when we come in with a landscape plan that it is very clear he did not bring either . soil on to the bluff or do anything, any land disturbance to the bluff. And you can tell by Mr., where Mr. King is standing, I think that's him, standing over there, just to the west of him is a mature vegetation, and if soil had been pushed over, you would not have seen that or it would have been covering those roots. So you can tell there was no soil pushing. It was, again, all part of the process of getting the property ready to plant. You are not going to plant on top of really inappropriate vegetation. That's all part of the process of landscaping. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can tell you, respectively, I stood out at that corner, I respectively disagree with you. That elevation had been changed, from my personal observation, material had been moved. Whether it was material that was on the property had been pushed around or brought in, or whatever, I don't know. But it had changed. The landscape had changed. And it appears as though the elevation has changed. So I know we'll want a revegetation plan with the landscape plan. MS. MOORE: That's fine. We actually want to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, I appreciate that. But we'll need that. So if you want to move on to some of the other issues, you certainly can. MS. MOORE: There was confusion as far as what work was done. The re-shingling and reroofing, there was the directive, don't, you know, stop. The Building Department had a stop. But it was recognized that re-shingling and reroofing is an ordinary maintenance issue that does not require Trustees' permit, doesn't require Building Department permit. So we actually came in, got a building permit for interior work. The stoop had already been done by the time I was involved, which is when you issued the stop work order. So that's, see the stoop there. Board of Trustees 18 July 18, 2012 That's the same stoop. So, Mr. Alexandrou has young children. The second floor, the deck is ready, it has not been finished. In order to protect from having anybody fall off of the roof, he put up the railings. But they're not permanent, as you can see. They are just temporary, to prevent anybody from accidently falling off the second floor. And, you know, that's what code enforcement, that's why a violation was issued, and we paid the violation, he learned his lesson, but our goal here is to, you know, keep this project going. People, you know, I understand the Board's punishment, but once the Justice Court matter is over, we hope that, you know, people will be given a fair shot to renovate their house. We are not talking any environmental issues here. We are actually improving the existing house, making it conform to the state building code, conform to energy standards, conform to the hurricane standards, and he's putting in copper drywells, and we want to put in -- excuse me, copper gutters, pardon me, and we want to put in a drywell. So we are in the process of trying to make this conform. This would alt be a finished project had this been done a different way. And he is at fault for that. But here we are several months later and we would like to move this along. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple comments, then I want to move on with this. First off, environmentally, this has changed. The work that has been done here on this property has impacted the environment. I have already addressed the vegetation issue. A deck has been increased in size here, so there will be additional drainage issues associated with the deck that doubled in size, potentially, from eight to 16. Whether or not it ends up at 16, that's a ZBA issue. This Board, you know, we have to go with the original ZBA issue of ten foot. I also respectively take exception to you saying that the Board of Trustees punished your client. Your client did work without a permit. The Town of Southold issued a violation. And through the justice system there was a decision made that took care of that violation. There was not punishment rendered by this Board of Trustees. So I would ask that you please think carefully about that, because we do take exception when that is said to us. MS. MQORE: I don't want to see him punished at this point through the permitting process when he's already been punished through the criminal court. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a very good way of putting it. That's very different from saying the Trustees punished him. MS. MOORE: I apologize. I short cut the conversation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. So with that, comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a comment. This is the second application this evening in which a defense was molded around that if contractor decided what was a slight modification. And, um, I'm not aware of, I think the mission of this, our mission, seriously, I think modifications are our Board of Trustees 19 July 18, 2012 domain, not in the contractor's domain. MS. HULSE: Could I add, as this is applied for, the Trustees are unable to approve an application that is requesting an extension from eight to ten when the deck is actually 16. You can't approve this as it is drafted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you. MS. MOORE: Yes, we are actually asking that it be cut back. That's the reason, I didn't want to cut back a deck because you would say it's a violation if we cut something back. So I'm actually asking to cut the deck, this deck back to ten foot. MS. HULSE: Not according to your application. It says extend to two feet from eight foot to ten foot. MS. MOORE: Oh, because -- it's not consistent. On the east side it's actually another two feet. So that would be an extension. This portion is the cut back. And you can see from the survey, the survey actually identifies it clearer. It shows -- MS. HULSE: That's not part of your application. Unless I'm missing it, I don't see anything about cutting back the deck from 16 feet to 10 feet. Where is that in the language of the application? MS. MOORE: Well, I say cut the deck back to ten feet. I know it's in there. MS. HULSE: It's not before this Board as part of this proposed resolution tonight, so I mean at this juncture -- MS. MOORE: I'll look in my papers but our goal here is cut the deck back. MS. HULSE: I understand what you are testifying to, but what reading here and part of what they're considering tonight is just the extension from eight foot to ten foot. This Board can't approve something that's out there at 16 feet, at this juncture. They can't do that. MS. MOORE: I understand that. I'm not asking for that approval. I'm asking for an approval of ten feet. He'll have to cut it back to ten feet. MS. HULSE: That's not what you applied for. MS. MOORE: It is what I applied for. MS. HULSE: Look at what is on the agenda, Pat. .MS. MOORE: I don't know how you guys wrote it, ~ have to look at how my application -- sometimes the way it's written doesn't necessarily match. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could provide clarification. I have the application here stamp dated June 20, 2012. The project description: Circular stairs, et cetera, replace back deck, extend deck two feet from eight foot to ten foot. MS. MOORE: West part of deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, west part of deck. To maintain a 50-foot setback. MS. MOORE: So we have to maintain a 50-foot setback. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so, again, in our opinion, what you have done, you have taken an eight foot deck, it's now become a 16-foot deck, and it's now being requested to be cut back to ten Board of Trustees 20 July 18, 2012 foot to comply with ZBA. MS. HULSE: That was not part of the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that is not part of the application, no. MS. MOORE: If you are just trying -~ you know, I think it speaks for itself, particularly with the survey. Um, you have in fact identified what the size of the deck is. I can't ask this Board to give me a deck that the Zoning Board has not approved. So I'm not asking for a 16-foot deck. I don't know how, I mean, that's just semantics. How would you like me to say it? MS. HULSE: No, it's not. Because this is the way it was noticed. This is the way the LWRP coordinator reviewed it. It's your responsibility to apply for it the way you want this Board to review it and the LWRP coordinator and have it noticed. And that's not the way it was done here. TRUSTEE KING: I think it should have been an application to cut an as-built 16-foot deck back to ten feet. That's how that should have been applied. It's an as-built 16 foot to be cut back to ten. That's how it should have been applied for. MS. MOORE: I was only at the Board three times and I asked for multiple requests, guys, some of this work is not, it's standard work that doesn't require a permit. The deck was already an existing deck. And you are right, the eight foot deck was grandfathered and could stay. But the addition of that deck was, would have only been permitted to go out a certain way. You know, excuse me for not making it clear but I think the Board understands what it is that we are doing, and the plans, the survey was provided to all the neighbors so that it's real clear what we are trying to do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: At this point, I think both points have been made and I think the Board's concern -- I don't think, I feel the Board's concern is from a legal perspective that we make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed here and the language in the application is correct. So I want to first see if there is anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this application. (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see anybody else. Recommendations from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think it should be changed, for starters. MS. MOORE: How would you like me to -- sorry, I can't hear. TRUSTEE KING: We can table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My recommendation at this point then is to table this application to give you have a chance to amend your language in your application to correctly reflect exactly what has to be done with this deck. MS. MOORE: Here is another alternative. Which is take the deck out of the application. I'm coming back anyway for the landscaping. By then we'll have, I'll know what Mr. Alexandrou wants to do on the deck. In the meantime, we get everything else that is -- we are trying to finish, the windows, the, you know, the railings on the stoop in the back. I mean it's really Board of Trustees 21 July 18, 2012 straightforward stuff, and he's prepared to start some landscaping, but if you want a full landscape plan Ill be back next month with the landscape plan. Either way. And then we can talk about the deck. I just don't want the rest of the project held up over a deck that, you know, we are actually trying to make the deck comply. So however that gets accomplished, whether it's by cutting it or, that's really the only common sense thing to do is to cut it back. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm very concerned about repeat segmentation of projects. MS. MOORE: This is a Type II action that has no segmentation issues. SEQRA deals with segmentation, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate your option you provided us. Thank you. I'm going to recommend to the Board that we table this application at this time to give the applicant the opportunity to adjust the wording in her application to include a landscape and vegetation plan and to come back before us. So that's my motion. Sorry, I apologize. I withdraw that motion. At this point I'll make a motion to -- well, no, I don't have to close the public hearing, I can just table it. So I'll reissue my motion, is to table this application to give the applicant the opportunity to address the wording in the application to correctly reflect what is being done with the deck and the opportunity to come in with a landscape plan to include revegetation for the yard. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we wish to include the amendment to the stairs at the same time? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That can be done as a separate application, an amendment to that permit that was already granted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have some of my concerns here about splitting it up. MS. HULSE: There is already a separate permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I have a motion to the floor. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ill second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BOSSEN: Dave, can we address the drainage problem at this time with a simple application of hay bales? Because judging from what I see, you still have a drainage problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, but the application has been tabled at this time pending work to be done. MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you. WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is number one, under Wetland Permits, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM MURPHY & KIMBERLY REECE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (within footprint and approx. 1' higher) existing one-story portion and two-story dwelling in place); install a drainage system of roof drywells, leaders and gutters; construct a 14'X 24' screened porch in place of and within footprint of existing deck and a 15' X 26' on-grade masonry terrace in place of existing Board of Trustees 22 July 18, 2012 10'X 22' brick terrace; construct various on-grade stone/masonry walkways in place of and/or in addition to existing walkways; replace existing timber steps to dock path and construct new timber steps; construct new stoop in place of existing stoop; remove existing driveway and install new pervious gravel driveway; construct 18'X 38' swimming pool, 7'X 7' spa and 480 square foot on-grade masonry pool patio; install pool fencing, pool equipment, pool drywell, and plantings to screen pool; maintain approx. 9,448 square foot area of natural vegetation adjacent to wetlands as non-disturbance buffer; and establish approx. 3,440 square foot area adjacent to non-disturbance buffer as variable width non-turf buffer. Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. The application has been deemed consistent with the town's LWRP, with two comments relating to the project plans. One is that it was recommended that the limits of the non-disturbance buffers and non-turf buffers be clearly marked on the plans. The ledger doesn't differentiate between the two and in the field. So this might be a point to discuss in the context of the plans, from the LWRP. And it was it was suggested that native drought-tolerant plants might be used for the pool screening. With respect to previously, the Board had the application and noted a violation that was issued in the field. I'm wondering if we have a status on that. MS. HULSE: It was resolved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so that is a non-issue. The Conservation Advisory Council on their initial inspection didn't see staking, and there was a, they did not support the application because they didn't, they were not aware of a drainage proposed for the pool or dwelling, but in fact the stamped plans that came into the Trustee office do have on the legend, they have pool drywell they have RDW, which stands for the roof drywell, which was issued there. The plans actually clearly show there is the required drainage. I think that attends to most of the housekeeping issues to get the hearing going. Anyhow, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants Klm Reece and Bill Murphy, who are both here. Stacy Bates is the landscape architect is here if you have any questions. There were a couple of questions raised by the LWRP, one of which I can respond to and the other Stacy can respond to. There is actually a differentiation that the hatching is the same. I'm sure Stacy would be happy to differentiate the hatching but there is sort of a cloud line or, for lack of a more sophisticated term, a squiggly line that runs through the hatching. And what is on the wetland side of that squiggly line is intended to demarcate the currently existing, naturally existing vegetation adjacent to the wetlands, and any additional hatching that comes on the landward side of that closer to the house would be the non-turf buffer. So we are just trying to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So what you are saying, that cloud line which I think is the limit -- MR. HERMAN: That's the clearing line, existing clearing line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Existing clearing line, that provides the Board of Trustees 23 July 18, 2012 clarification. Looking at the plans, I was presuming that. But I assume the question the LWRP had, that clarifies that. So you are looking at anything waterward or seaward of the cloud line will remains as existing, non-disturbance, native vegetation. MR. HERMAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that the landward portion of that cloud line would be the new proposed non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: Correct. And what Stacy has done on the plans is if you sort of start on the north side of the house where there is the proposed porch in place of the existing open deck, she has set measured offsets to the nearest points of the proposed non-turf buffer. So starting at the northeast corner, that ten-foot setback, then a 31-foot setback, still going counterclockwise, 15 foot, and she has those set around the whole plan. We went through this on a similar variable width buffer, I think it was DeLaVega (sic), where that's how we set up the plans, so that if the Board went out for compliance purposes you can physically stand there with a simple tape and run off each corner to the edge of the non-turf buffer. So I'm not sure if Mark picked that up in his review, but we did anticipate your requesting that and we did include those offsets. That's the violation that was resolved, what is on the screen there. Lori, I mean I assume the Board is aware, but that fill was removed so the grade level pathway that was there previously, from the previous owner, is what is back on the ground now. I mean there is, just quickly, I mean, I guess the Board will let me know, I could go through a brief presentation of the proposed construction and mitigation or I could bypass that and you can let me know if you have any specific questions pertaining to the design. I mean, there is really a few elements, is basically the reconstruction and raising of that one-story portion of the house, replacing the terrace in back of it, enclosure of the deck as a porch, and the addition of the pool and patio. And as mitigation, there is drainage shown, as John mentioned. There is the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer with and a non-turf buffer. The area of the non-turf buffer actually exceeds by about 50% the area of the new ground coverage, and most of the new ground coverage is all on-grade stepping stones, walkways, patios, because the footprint of the house has not actually increased. And of course there will be additional plantings proposed outside the buffer area just to screen the pool because it's in that location as you kind of come in off the roadway. There is one issue I wanted to raise, which is that on the back side of the house where we show the proposed masonry terrace in place of the existing brick terrace, what we figured out since the time we submitted this, was that because we ar~ raising the dwelling, that section of the dwelling, that the patio will have to come up about 12 inches with it. So Stacy can explain this, if necessary. She has revised plans to submit Board of Trustees 24 July 18, 2012 tonight, assuming the Board doesn't have an issue with it. But basically that patio would be raised along with the elevation of the house, which necessitates inserting a couple of steps into it, so that patio would increase by about 18-square feet from what is on the plan in front of you tonight. It doesn't make a big difference to this Board, but just under zoning code it changes the lot coverage as defined by code. Because a raised patio counts. On grade doesn't. But we are still well under the 20% at less than 17. So that, it shouldn't present an issue, but again, I can hand that up to you. Apparently it doesn't change the wetland setback. It just causes us to sort of push out a step in this corner here. So if you just compare it to that step is what we are talking about. So if the Board were inclined to approve the site plan, we would ask you to substitute that one just to reflect the fact it will be a raised patio in the back. As defined by code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the Board had any issues with the proposed house construction, and the wetland issue has been clarified. I don't know how the Board feels about the amendment. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to the application? Any Board members have any specific things to add or questions? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the amendment to the patio. Do we need additional copies or any other noticing on that? Anything else we need on that? (No response). I would move to approve subject to the application as submitted and the clarifications that were presented that answer the questions of the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: t'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of MARGARET P. LATHAM TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 152 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and +/-7' easterly return in place of (and 6" higher than) existing concrete seawall and return; construct +/-8' westerly vinyl return; and backfill with approx. 15 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 2425 Peters Neck Rd., Orient. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent provided that following best management practice clarify that the backfilled area will be re-planted with indigenous vegetation. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this Board of Trustees 25 July 18, 2012 application. They noted that, they are suggesting 15-foot, non-turf buffer, and recommend that the bulkhead is bumped out -- no definition of what "bumped out" means -- to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Basically what we are trying to do is just a very simple inplace replacement of the existing concrete seawall. On the west side of the property we are proposing a little angled return. That is where the flooding on that corner is most intense on the property, which is why that whole section of the wall over there is the most damaged. So the outer few feet of that wall will be abandoned, while the inner few feet will be reconstructed and then protected with that little angled return upland of the high marsh. We are proposing to raise the wall about a half foot just to provide a little bit of protection against flooding during higher high tides. There is not a heck of a lot of yard on that side between the wall and the house, so I think we would anticipate a ten-foot non-turf buffer, if that was acceptable to the Board, and hashmark out the area that is anticipated to be disturbed on the plan. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, I was remiss in not mentioning that the Trustees in their visitation suggested a five-foot non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: Okay, well, I'm sure the applicant would be happy to stick with the five. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, I know the Conservation Advisory Council had comments. MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't personally inspect it but it was recommended by the observations of the people who made the inspection, is it allowable to do a bump out, for their concerns. MR. HERMAN: I don't know what that means. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, to place a new structure in place of that concrete structure so as not to take out the concrete structure or disturb -- MR. MCGREEVEY: That's what I understand. To do a bump out, with limitations. MR. HERMAN: I don't know if we want to do that. The marsh goes right up against the wall. The DEC, I mean, not including you, would also object to that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you understand what we are saying, Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: I understand that. I'm just reiterating what was recommended. MR. HERMAN: My guess, Mike, is that wall is probably reaching a point in which there won't be a whole lot of extreme effort to get it out. It's taking itself out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Demolition will be fairly easy. MR. HERMAN: Yes, it's self demolishing at the moment. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Board of Trustees 26 July 18, 2012 I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion we approve this application with the condition that we satisfy the concerns of the LWRP concerning the native plantings, and to include a five-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to resheath landward side of approx. 197 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead (forming filled jetty) with vinyl sheathing and backfill inside of jetty with approx. 150 cubic yards of sand and gravel; construct approx. 72 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approx. 15 cubic yards of sand; and place 10-20 pound stones on grade in 10'X 10' X 10' triangular area landward of bulkhead to form stone return at most southerly end of reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 4800 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. The whole Board was out to see this, this past week. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to suppod the application as it was submitted. The LWRP coordinator has deemed this to be consistent with LWRP. And as I recall, on our visit, we had one thought or one change in mind. That really was to move or tip in that small return so that you won't have to put any stone in there at all. MR. HERMAN: You mean all the way at the southerly end? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, where the bulkhead comes straight in, Rob. If that was tipped in at like a 45 degree angle, it would clean the whole thing right up. MR. HERMAN: Ironically, that stone was your idea five years ago. TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't my idea. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He takes it back. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I mean this actually, it really is a proposed rebirth of an application, I should say, of a permit that was approved by the Board back in 2005. But the association, as I'm sure the Board is aware, was invested in other matters. So they are now turning their attention to this. I do, kidding aside, think that the stone had turned out to be a bi-product of some sort of comment from the Board at that time, and it was added. It didn't seem like a bad idea to me because once you get to that, if you can zone in on it a little bit, because once you get to that back side, instead of building a bulkhead return back, you are kind of just creating a little wave break with the stone. So I'm not sure I would second guess the idea, honestly, because I thought it was actually a clever way to do it and a natural way to do it as opposed to running a vertical face Board of Trustees 27 July 18, 2012 return back through there. So, I mean, we are not married to one way or the other but I think the way you approved it the first time, I would just stick with it. It makes sense to me. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind that dead ends and there is a lot of wash out behind that, at the south end of that bulkhead. Because if you went back to the third pile and took that in -- MR. HERMAN: You are talking about coming in like that (indicating). TRUSTEE KING: Right. Take that in on a 45 degree angle, that would button it right up against the toe. MR. HERMAN: I mean, to me it's almost six of one, half a dozen of another. TRUSTEE KING: Sticking out in midair it serves no purpose. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It may actually cause more damage the way it is. MR. HERMAN: Yes, and do that in lieu of the stone. Sure. If you are inclined to approve it that way, we could get you revised plans. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would make a better job of it. MR. HERMAN: Sounds good to me. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think what it does, it takes it and tucks it in a little closer to that hill, which if I had to guess, is all dredge spoil. MR. HERMAN: Sure. Absolutely. Okay. Sold TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that I think it was a pretty straightforward project. Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the gallery? (No response). if not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the only change being that that last 24 feet, roughly, of the bulkhead -- MR. HERMAN: I don't think it's going to be that much, Bob. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is it six feet between poles? MR. HERMAN: Probably. It looks to be to be tighter there. I'm going to guess like 12, 15 feet. I mean the smart thing to do would be for us to go out and establish the number. So if you want to give us a reasonable range. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll just figure out the scaling. TRUSTEE KING: About 12 feet. MR. HERMAN: I would say 12 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So the only change there would be take that last 12 feet, bring it in, tip it in on a 45 degree angle and eliminate the use of stone. Aside from that we would keep the application the same. MR. HERMAN: Okay. We'll give you revised plans. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 28 July 18, 2012 (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of ROBERT SULLIVAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a screened porch over part of the existing rear deck and not expanding the lot coverage and install drywells to control water run-off from the porch. Located: 2715 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. This was found consistent. Conservation Advisory Council supports application with the condition of a five-foot non-turf buffer landward of the timber wall. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We are just looking to build a relatively small screen porch over an existing deck. We have ZBA approval because we are within 75 feet of the existing bulkhead. We will pipe the roof drainage into the existing drywells, and there will really be very little disturbance to the existing grade, so we have not shown a hay bale line. But if you that's required, we'll show that also. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that will be necessary, Mark. It's really a very minor project. I think the time to address the buffer, is when this is ever replaced. If this is replaced, then we'll address the buffer issue. The bulkhead can handle the retaining wall so there is a buffer there already. Is there anyone else to speak to behalf of this application? (No response). Board comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO requests a Wetland Permit to construct second floor additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 8225 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. The Board did go out and looked at this proposed project. It was deemed exempt under the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. So the project would have to comply with Chapter 236. Is there anybody to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yup, Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We also have been in front of the ZBA, we expect approval within the next week or so. Same situation, we are within 75 feet of the bulkhead. The ZBA also mentioned they would, they want to Board of Trustees 29 July 18, 2012 have a roof drainage piped into drywells, which it is currently. We are not adding any additional roof area. It's just different slopes of the roof, dormers and things like that. And there will be very little disturbance to the existing grade because it's all second floor work. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think this is very simple, it's within the footprint of the existing structure. I think this is a very simple application so if there are no other comments, Ill make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Mark Schwartz on behalf of Vincent and Carol Manago as described with the condition that it complies with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, LeeAnn Romanelli on behalf of BARRY ROOT requests a Wetland Permit to demolish a portion of the existing dwelling and reconstruct with an addition. Located: 6315 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The LWRP has deemed this application to be consistent with the town's coastal policies. The CAC moved to support the application. And the Trustees performed a field inspection on July 13. I believe both the CAC and Trustees had noted at the time that the project had not been staked, in deference to the meets and bounds of the project being within essentially the outline of the existing, I'm not sure but I think the Trustees felt they could waive the staking. It's unusual that we do that, and for future reference, we prefer to have the project staked. Did anyone see it staked? I don't recall it being staked. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, not the new addition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of information, ordinarily we want to see stakes. MR. MCGREEVEY: It was just an observation made by the CAC. There might be a violation. We question the legality of the wire fence along the property line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that might be an issue that we would refer to the constable for review. I don't believe the fence came up as a point of discussion. I think it was a pre-existing fence that did not, it was, it didn't raise suspicion during the course of our inspection. But it would be something we could have looked at. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could make it a condition, if we get to a Board of Trustees 30 July 18, 2012 permit tonight, make it a condition of the permit to remove the fence. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. So that covers the housekeeping issues ahead of the comments. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. LeeAnn Romanelli, for Barry Root. I actually was told it was staked out, so I apologize. I think either the builder or architect was supposed to have gone out. So I thought that was done. But obviously not. Do you have the Zoning Board approval? Because I have that here. It was approved by the Zoning Board and we do have our DEC application, which was supposed to be hearing that on August 6. If you want a copy of that. Basically we are requesting the variance from 60 -- we had 69-feet existing and we are requesting 65-foot feet to be bulkhead on the new construction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess we should have that ZBA determination for our file. And it's closest, the project will be 65-feet to the northeast corner of that bulkhead; is that correct? MS. ROMANELLI: Correct. Do you want the ZBA? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should have it. TRUSTEE KING: Have they made a decision on it? MS. ROMANELLI: Yes, they approved it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great if we had that in the file. MS. ROMANELLI: I have an extra copy. This is August 6th is their, when they expect to give us their decision. He does have all the provisions in place for all the roof runoff, drainage; the drywells are on the survey here, French drain along the entire back, proposed patio. And we do have the line of hay bales. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? MR. MCGREEVEY: John, there is no mention on what I have here, but the CAC did raise a question about the new driveway, whether it was within the boundary of the present applicant. It seemed like on the application it was going over into an area of concern. To the east, the new driveway on the east side of the property. On the right side looking in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the question is to whether or not the driveway is going to go across the property line? MR. MCGREEVEY: Right MS. ROMANELLI: I think it abuts up right along the east property line. Part of the neighbor's dirt drive, actually, comes over on to our lot. But his, no, his is within, it does come right up to the property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is appears it comes right up to the property line. It's confusing because you have the neighbor's driveway and this driveway merge. And it does get confusing. But it appears as though that their driveway is contained within the meets and bounds of their survey here. MS. ROMANELLI: Yes, it will be. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to comment on this application? Board of Trustees 31 July 18, 2012 (No response). Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application subject to a hay bale inspection and that the fence, the wire fence on the west side of the property be brought into conformity with the Town Code for fences. MS. ROMANELI_h Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. ROMANELLI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of KENDALL TODD requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing concrete walkway landward of bulkhead; remove existing wooden ramp and 5'X 18' floating dock; remove 76' of existing bulkhead; construct 76' of new bulkhead and new 6' east return in-place, raising top elevation of new bulkhead 2'; install new 30"X 16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 8" diameter anchor pilings; dredge an area 30'X 25' below dock to -4' below mean Iow water, removing approx. 40 cubic yards of soil; dredged spoil to be placed as backfill for voids landward of bulkhead; supplement dredged spoil with clean trucked-in sand (approx. 35 cy) as needed; and provide a non-turf buffer of 6" well compacted gravel on filter cloth landward of bulkhead. Located: 670 Bayview Dr., East Marion. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application recommending a 15-foot, non-turf buffer, drywells to contain runoff, and a disposition plan for the concrete. The CAC also questions the need to increase the size of the dock. The Trustees visited the site on the 13th of June and noted it was a straightforward project. There was also a letter from the Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association that supports this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, my name is John Costello, from Costello Marine Contracting, is the agent for this application for Mr. Dodd. This is an inplace replacement of whatever is there. And it is the removal of the concrete which is settling just behind the bulkhead. And the non-turf buffer, it is intended that the entire frame within that structure be a non-turf, with gravel, so that the water, when it comes in with a storm, and the reason to elevate it, when there is a storm, there is water in that site, to percolate down through the sand. The sand will act as a filter. That's the design of it. If the Board has any questions, I'll certainly try to answer any of them. Board of Trustees 32 July 18, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Weren't we talking in the field about trying to straighten that bulkhead out a little bit? TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's not in the notes, Jim. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had some inferential or side discussion in the field, thoughts about were there any other design possibilities designed to lessen the number of feet of bulkhead, possibly simplify the project, possibly to eliminate one of the corners and go straight. I believe that was the point, right? TRUSTEE KING: That's what we talked about. MR. COSTELLO: Well, there is a multitude of different shapes you could make it. The only reason we particularly went with this is because it exists. We thought it certainly made the Army Corps, the DEC, the Department of State's permit easier, to go exactly in place. I mean, to redesign anything would mean we would have to go back to any of those agencies. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were thinking possibly eliminating that one corner and going strai.~ht would enable possibly some wetland creation. Because we were looking at the bigger picture. Possibly eliminating any number of feet of construction costs for the applicant as well. It was something that was out there. It was discussed. TRUSTEE COSTELLO: The only vegetation is right on the inshore corners. There is vegetation and I don't know if you could get more to grow there. I'm sure there is wetland species on the returns, on both returns. And that was one of the reasons to add the six-foot return on the west end, so the fill did not go down into the wetland. I'm not a big fan of going and asking for a lot of amendments time and time again, I mean. Because you will get another comment out of the DEC: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NORA FLOTTERON requests a Wetland Permit to remove 100' of existing bulkhead and 360 square feet of existing wood decking; construct 100' of new bulkhead and 360 square feet of decking in-place; remove approx. 20 cubic yards of sediment from immediately in front of bulkhead and place as backfill landward of bulkhead; and repair frame shed (boathouse) foundation as Board of Trustees 33 July 18, 2012 needed. Located: 1480 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. This is a hearing that we opened up last month and we tabled. And we were looking for more information and permission from the owner of the underwater lands. The file has not changed since last month, and I think it's the Board's feeling we should probably table it until we get the information we are looking for. Is there anyone anybody here who would like to address the application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello, still. And we are the agents for Nora Flotteron. And I would like to answer any of the questions. Now, certainly, the Board did go out and inspect the site. Certainly, the bulkhead, the age of the bulkhead, must indicate to the Board that it certainly has been there for a while. I project that that bulkhead was built quite a time before I was in the business. Which is 49 years. So this probably dates back into the 50's, that bulkhead has existed. Now, I'm certainly not a lawyer and I'm not going to say anything about adverse possession or whether the ownership of some of these ponds and the location of it, but that bulkhead has been there. And the deck has been there. And so has the shed. And the shed has been patched, the bottom has been repaired, and some of the locust posts need to be replaced in order to support the lightweight shed that exists there now. Any questions that the Board would have in regard to the ownership of that area, I believe that at one time, there is an adjacent piece of land that is on the tax rolls. That whole pond, basically, the majority of the pond, lagoon, is on the tax roll as lot 11.4, and it's owned by Perry and Berell (sic). Which portion -- they pay no taxes -- which portion of that, is under their direct their ownership and title, t doubt this bulkhead is included in it, where it cedainly has some degree of adverse possession over the life of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a letter from Jonathan Perry and I do believe we read this into the Minutes at the last meeting, where he writes about his strong opposition to the wetland application and claims to be the owner of the lagoon bottom where the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead is proposed. This has been kicking around for a while. It has been going back and forth. There have been issues there. And I think overall, at least at this point, I don't feel like I can make a decision because I don't want to, I don't want to do something or approve something that is really not approvable. Until we resolve this issue of ownership, I'm not comfortable voting on it. How does anybody else feel? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question for our attorney. How do parties normally resolve these issues of boards would not ordinarily want to get in the middle of these kinds of disputes. Do people mediate or negotiate these matters? MS. HULSE: In this particular instance Mr. Perry has provided documentation in an attempt to show the town that he is in fact the owner, that the lands were transferred to him, that predated Board of Trustees 34 July 18, 2012 the Andros Patent. It could be done through litigation, obviously. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We always recognized it historically. I remember my previous terms on the Board, Al Krupski, and I think at this point, Jim has been a longstanding member and it's always been noted it's privately held. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll say that the packet that Dr. Perry provided along with this letter does show a long history of claim to it. And the title insurance policy, and it seemed fairly convincing to me when I read through it. I did take the time to read through it. Of course I don't necessarily understand all the verbiage that is involved. But I can read the diagrams, so. Would someone like to address the Board? MR. COSTELLO: I only know a little bit of it, through time, I have learned a little about it. I did own the bottom of a canal. Fordham Canal in Greenport. I owned the entire bottom of that at one time. And I had title up to a certain point, the high water mark on most of the shoreline. Since that time, I know people have built bulkheads that were actually out on to my property. Operating under the pretense that that bulkhead was not theirs, it was mine, at that time. After a period of seven years, I found out through adverse possession, they owned up to the high water mark. And even though they took some of the property. At that time, it was recognized by the court then. I would talk to the people, and I sold each one of the people, the portion that they took, accidentally, or thought they were taking, for a hundred dollars a piece of property. In this lagoon here, you are going to see, there are several structures that go out into the pond, the lagoon. And I don't know, this one certainly has been there, 50 years or more. But I don't know what ~- I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to say that this doesn't have to be handled elsewhere, but certainly, to replace that bulkhead, inplace, would be a logical request. TRUSTEE KING: What if you built the new bulkhead behind that bulkhead then cut the old bulkhead down and removed it? Because the DEC, if it's behind a pre-existing bulkhead, it's non-jurisdiction. He doesn't own behind that bulkhead, does he? MR. COSTELLO: I know. But the only problem I would have is -- TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest problem is the dredge issue. MR. COSTELLO: The dredge. Or could t take the bulkhead out. Is he or somebody else going to claim ownership of that bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: There is another gentleman here that wants to speak. MR. COSTELLO: I know. But I would doubt it. But we could certainly pull it back six inches or eight inches and put in another bulkhead. Of course the correlation would make it a little further back than that. But that's certainly a logical way to do it. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I want to recognize the other gentleman. MR. FLOTTERON: I'm Joe FIotteron, I own the adjacent property. My wife owns the property in question. A couple things. First of all, the letter you are referring to only is referring to the Board of Trustees 35 July 18, 2012 dredging portion. If you read the letter. Not referring to the bulkhead or the building or the other structure. That's the way I read the letter. And I read it three or four times before coming to that conclusion. I come buffer today with regard to the dredging portion of the permit for lot 117. I'm requesting to return the land and the area of the soil that is eroded into the lagoon. This soil was the backfill of the existing bulkhead. The lagoon bottom in front of lot 117 does not belong to the Perry-Berell family. The property was sold to my predecessor owner Beatrice Glenn (sic) on November 28, 1947, by Charles Hammond (sic). In addition, the bottom of the lagoon from lot 101 to 107 and lots 117 to 121, to the midpoint of the lagoon, were purchased by Beatrice Glenn and are part of our title chain. I've lived there for 20 years without problems or incidents. This sale was recorded and filed by the Clerk of Suffolk County 26 years before Perry Berelt purchased their property. The tax records for the lagoon bottom are incorrect and are not the proper documents to rely upon to determine ownership. Filed and recorded deeds with the Suffolk County Clerk are, and I request permit to dredge be approved and I brought you the copies today of that recording, as well as outline of what was sold. If I could give this to you. TRUSTEE KING: I wish we them a while back instead of tonight so we could look at them. MR. FLOTTERON: These are three copies. The orange outline is my property and my wife' property. The yellow is the lagoon that was sold in 1947. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, good. MR. FLOTTERON: What is even more frustrating is this is a discussion of soil falling into the lagoon over many years. Trying to block what is a mess on a property that was one of the worse properties in Southold Township, for ten-plus years, it was my neighboring property. I hope that at least puts a better bearing on the question of ownership or ownership of this lagoon bottom. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think what I'll do, this is not the appropriate time to really review all of this, I'm going to make a motion we table this once again and so we can take a look at this to see if we can establish whether or not we have the ability to make an approval. MR. FLOTTERON: Bob, can I ask you a question? Or the Board, I should say. Does that letter refer to dredging or does that letter refer to the entire project? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This letter refers to the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead as proposed. That was verbatim. MR. FLOTTERON: The way I read it, it had to do with touching the bottom of the lagoon. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We have a motion on the floor. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Ill withdraw the motion for the time being. MR. FLOTTERON: It's the bottom of the lagoon has to take three, four, five, years; the condition, safety. I can go on and on as Board of Trustees 36 July 18, 2012 to why. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just in reviewing this letter, my interpretation is the objection is to excavation of approximately 20 cubic yards of the bottom of the lagoon and disturbing the bottomland. So that is my interpretation. I would agree with you. MR. FLOTTERON: Like I said, I read it a few times to come up with that conclusion. Although I would like to have the bottom dredged, the necessity of the having the bulkhead, the dock, the building repaired, is urgent. Pulling the soil out of the lagoon is equivalent to two pick-up trucks. It's not a lot of soil we are requesting or talking about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, you heard the option that Jim proposed to the applicant to consider. And then that takes this issue of the bottom of the lagoon out of it so that you could proceed forward with the bulkhead and -- it's not up there anymore -- the boathouse and the deck part of this. It's just an option to consider. That's all MR. FLOTTERON: Why can't we build the sheathing right where it already is without changing the location and not disturbing anything beyond the bottom? MS. HULSE: That application is not what is being requested. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We realize that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe your motion was correct. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should table it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of THOMAS & MAE MAURI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling; construct new dwelling with new sanitary system in front yard; install in-ground swimming pool and patio; and install drywells as required. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. We will not be able to move forward with this tonight because there was no LWRP on it. I think the LWRP coordinator wants to go out and do an inspection on this. That's what the note says. The CAC supports the application with the following conditions: Installation of silt fence and hay bales during construction activities, storm water management plan, relocate swimming pool to no closer than 50 feet from the wetland boundary, installation of drywells to contain pool backwash, and a permeable patio. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Maud. Mrs. Mauri is here at as well to help address any issues. This is an existing house that the Mauri's bought, and the house is in poor condition, and in order to do the kind of renovations that would be needed, it's just not capable of sustaining it. So, this is a proposal to demolish the existing house, which is Board of Trustees 37 July 18, 2012 closer to the wetlands than the proposed house. The proposed house is being moved back about 20 feet from where the existing house is located. It is meeting the zoning code, so we can go as close as 40 feet to the front yard. The inground pool is proposed at 50 feet from the edge of the wetlands. As the CAC suggests -- well, it's actually more than 50 feet, because we make the patio at 50 feet. It's about six feet, an additional six feet back. So 56 feet from the edge of the wetlands. The proposed patio, I have confirmed with Mrs. Mauri that it is, they are stone pavers on sand, so it continues to be pervious. And the, there are drywells proposed to meet all storm water runoff issues, the storm water code. Also, the existing sanitary system is going to be replaced with an updated system, and that system is shown at the front, east side of the corner of the property, more than a hundred feet from the edge of the wetlands. So it's taking it out of the Board's jurisdiction. Overall this is actually an improvement from the existing house, which has compost and leaf compost in an area that is within 50 feet or less of the top, or the edge of the wetlands. The Board did do an inspection and we are here to discuss any additional mitigation that you ask us to incorporate into this plan. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I know I mentioned it in the field but on the survey it says 26.7% of lot coverage. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's actually not -- John Metzger is never quite sure which to use, as far as the actual lot coverage is the 6.7 of the house and the inground pool. The patio is actually not lot coverage for the Zoning Board, and it is a pervious patio, so it's not considered lot coverage. But, urn, I didn't have this changed because it just takes a long time to have a modification on the survey. It's not applicable. If you want me to have a new print done taking that out, I would be happy to do it. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to recall the slope of the land there. I just don't understand what the height of the proposed pool would be compared to the proposed patio. MS. MOORE: They are going to stay at the same elevation. Um, this, the house you see the covered porch on the survey, the steps down to the patio, and then the pool is at the same level as the patio. The property was never, a lot of the houses along Calves Neck Road were regraded at one point. They have lawns going all the way down to the top of the bank. Urn, this property pretty much stayed ungraded. And so we have kind of all of the slopes all over the place. And you can see that there are some existing rock walls that try to address it. Existing loose slate patio is there with some rock walls. Those are the existing. Those are actually not going to stay there. It's going to be planted and natural. They want to make a more natural setting of the property and incorporate plantings around the pool, and the areas that are right now kind of bare. You could Board of Trustees 38 July 18, 2012 see it's bare. Am I correct? If you want to speak, we need to put it on the record. MS. MAURh I'm Mae Mauri. The lady that was the previous owner had not done anything for a very, very long time, according to her nephew who sold us the house. A lot of those bushes that you see are all gnarly on the bottom and they don't flower, and the steps coming down are loose, and I have grandchildren that I'm concerned about. So eventually I'll get a landscaping plan to you, once I find out what you are going to approve and what you won't. And I want to re-do it_with some of those bushes and shrubs that don't need a lot of water, that have good root systems that will hold the land. Because if you go down closer to where the water is, you could see the roots coming under the ground because of erosion. So, you know, I want to keep the property the way it is. So I don't want anything to deteriorate. So I'm open to even any suggests. But I'm getting a landscaper in who knows his stuff on the water and get shrubs that will hold the soil. TRUSTEE KING: I'm still confused about the height of the pool and height of the patio. Is there any fill to be brought in and regrading to be done? Because the location of that pool is much higher than where the patio is supposed to go. Maybe we could see the elevation of the patio and the elevation of the pool staked, then we would know. MS. MOORE: It was staked out. Oh, you mean the height. Sorry. The elevation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or the cross-sectional plan of the patio and pool. MS. MAURh The way it is, if I could show you there. The way it is on that plan, where these trees are over here, that's all flat. Then it slopes down this way. The pool is going to be flat on there but the way it is on the plan, it comes out a little bit so it will have to be done with some kind of retaining wall around it just to would hold that part up. And it doesn't affect down here. If you have another suggestion, I would be happy to listen to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the plan. The contour line shows a definite change in elevation, in the pool as well as the patio. There is an opportunity here to think about of, because also we had a concern about how close the pool, the proposed pool and patio is to the top of this bank. And is there an opportunity to consider tucking that pool in closer to the house so that we are, that pool, it takes the contour line out of play, and downsizing the pool so that it gets as far way as possible from the top of the bank. Because normally we look for 50 feet setback from the top of the bank for a pool. Minimum. MS. MAURh There's two other options. If the pool went up and down instead of side to side, it's flat up there. MS. MOORE: That's kind of where the compost pile was, if you recall. MS. MAURh That's totally flat and you would not have to do too Board of Trustees 39 July 18, 2012 much elevation. You might need a retaining wall. MS. MOORE: We can't be closer than 15 feet, I believe. Setback wise. It has to keep a certain setback from the property. MS. MAURI: Or you could do it on a diagonal and try to use as much of that flatland as possible. MS. MOORE: We have to make sure because of zoning to keep the pool in the rear yard. So it has to be behind the back of the house. Otherwise you are dealing with pools and side yards so, urn, there is some flexibility; I think what she is suggesting is the configuration of the pool, to try, I know what you are saying to try to follow that contour line that is like, 18 contour line 18, if I'm reading the contour line well. Or 17. It kind of cuts -- see the 18. It kind of carries along and then it cuts in. So you could actually, because the patio looks like it is actually following part of the contour line of 18 here. That's contour 18. So we could actually keep, design the pool either this way or design it in such a way that it's inside like the contour line. Does that make sense? TRUSTEE BERGEN: My suggestion is, you've heard our concerns tonight. My suggestion is you go back and work with the applicant and come back to us and we'll get some alternatives. MS. MOORE: If I you give us some guidance-- MS. HULSE: They can't do that here though, Pat. MS. MOORE: This is a public hearing, so. MS. HULSE: That is exactly my point. This would be something that would be the subject of a worksession. The public hearing is for what you applied for here. So I'm just going to advise them they should not negotiate or give advisory opinions during this public hearing. MS. MOORE: I understand. We are not asking for advisory opinions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have additional problem that there is a bit of Board confusion in the plan before us and elevations and we don't want to amplify problems that could occur because of misinterpreting both the conditions, ground conditions we found in the field and what you have on the plan. So there is so much confusion to it, we don't even really have a secure point to start a discussion from. At least that's my own feeling. I feel that certainly there are probably a lot of options for you but we don't, we are not planning your project for you either. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean the one thing we do know is the setback in the code is "X" off the top of the bluff. And it's typically 50 foot as a minimum. So that's the starting point you are looking for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The starting point is the 50-foot setback. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Right. MS. MOORE: The reason we were not taking it from this bank is that on Calves Neck you have sloped properties that are, that they are all a gentle slope going down to what the, to the wetland. So the surveyor, I mean if you look at the house next door, he has a bulkhead that flattened out the entire property. Um, where we are actually trying to work with the topography Board of Trustees 40 July 18, 2012 that we have So I don't disagree with you trying to give you some more information and maybe in the field it would be more helpful; would you like me to have the surveyor mark out the 18-foot topography line here, that is showing on the survey? Would that be helpful? TRUSTEE KING: That would help. I would like to see the proposed patio and the height of that staked, and the pool. And a couple of positions of the pool. MS. MOORE: What you want is the elevation where the pool and the patio is going to be. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, elevation of the pool and patio. MS. MOORE: Okay, just mark us for the inspection and that way I11 have you or your husband, there. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments? (No response). I don't know when Mark Terry will go out and look at it. I don't know. So Ill make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MAURh Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, James F. ~ Board of Trustees RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2012 · ~