Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/16/2005 James F.King,President ��OF SO(/r Town Hall Jill M.Doherty,Vice-President 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Peggy A.Dickerson Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen G Telephone(631)-765-1892 John Holzapfel COU Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES RECEIVc® Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:00 PM MAR 15 2006 Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President g James King, Vice-President S 12�� . GVuCI, 42 Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA Seconded. ALL AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 20, 2005. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, - - - TRUSTEE DICKERSON Seconded. ALL AYES Approve Minutes of October 19, 2005. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING Seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: For October 2005, check for$13,766.23 Board of Trustees 2 November 16, 2005 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Welcome to our regular monthly meeting for November. I'd like to introduce other Board members, Ken Poliwoda, Peggy Dickerson, Jim King, Lauren Standish, who you all probably know from the office, Artie Foster, Brownell Johnston, our legal advisor, Heather Cusack is also in our office and Jack McGreevey, CAC member, who reviews all of our applications. Peggy and I would like to briefly thank all of you for the confidence you placed in us last week. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you very much for all your votes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd like to share the legislative agenda that we're currently working on now, or maybe Jim, we've got a long list here. TRUSTEE KING: We drafted changes to Chapter 97, our wetland code, 2002-2003 we were working on it. We had public hearings on it in 2003, and it was enacted I think in March 2004. Right now we're currently working on changes to 37 and 97. And this year and next year we're drafting changes to 77, which is our shellfish code and Chapter 32, which is boats and wharfs. And also this year we have been working on drafting a new Chapter 34, which is a mooring code. We're taking public information; it's going to be a while until it's done. We have had some public meetings, guess Al will mention when we have had those public meetings on these issues. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had two public hearings on the technical corrections to Chapter 97, which the Town Board passed after the public hearings, and we had a hearing on the new Chapter 37 also, which the Town Board passed the corrections and changes we proposed. We're also working on a new chapter, moorings and anchorings. Peggy, would you like to give us a brief summary about those changes? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We've held and will be holding a series of public hearings, information work sessions on the new Chapter 34, moorings and anchorage law. We have had four meetings so far. All the revisions and first drafts are just that, we're still gathering information, nothing has been set in stone. We have received some very important input from many of the Southold town residents and yacht 2 Board of Trustees 3 November 16, 2005 clubs and we're going to take on Chapter 77, shellfish. For the record, we have several proposed changes and we appreciate any additional suggestions from any of you and those meetings will also be publicly informed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Being in public office, you have the Town code that you work on and that's the Town law, but as the town changes -- and the town is constantly changing --we try to keep up with the times and we try to stay ahead of the changes a little bit, and that's the reason for the legislative agenda that's been described to you tonight under Chapter 97 and under Chapter 37, and the new mooring proposal, Chapter 34. We have been very fortunate to have had a great deal of community input on all of these changes. And in fact, some of the things I've heard recently we're going to be putting into the new chapter for the shellfish code that was just described because changing conditions and changing environment, changing people in the community, we try to be aware of those things and make the changes necessary to the betterment of the town. So if anyone has any suggestions as we go along, please don't hesitate to contact our office, through the office, through writing or email or fax, whatever, any suggestions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just wanted to mention tonight, I don't know some of you may be aware that this week, Ronnie Wacher passed away this week and for those of you who know her and those of you that don't, she was one of our very strong environmental stewards in our town. She's worked many, many years alongside my father without pay, without any motivation except that she was concerned about our area. She worked to prevent a number of nuclear power plants from coming to Long Island. She worked to prevent the wetlands from being filled up. Anything that affected the Peconic Bay, she was always there working for the betterment of our area. We have lost a tremendous steward to our environment, and I just wanted to speak of her this evening because our positions on the Board are to do exactly what she was doing out there voluntarily. And I think for those of us who have been on the Board, I know that Al will continue when he goes to the Town Board, to our new members, Jill in the audience, and Dave, I hope that we can all take a part of her with us and continue to protect our local environment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, Peggy. That was well put and she will be missed, certainly. MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, would you like to work in a form of a 3 Board of Trustees 4 November 16, 2005 resolution that we can send to her family in the form of appreciation, something along.those lines might be appropriate. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'll work with Heather on that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of items that have been postponed and before anyone has to sit here until 11:00 to find out, let's go through those. Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permit, Claeys Bahrenburg has been postponed. Under Wetland Permit, 16, Alan Cardinale has been postponed; 22 Ann Marie Nelson has been postponed; 27, Sim Moy has been postponed and then three applications on Fisher's Island, Peter Baccile, Susanna Doyle and David Johnson have been postponed. These next items here under Administrative Permits, an Administrative Permit is a permit that sort of expedites the permit process. There's no neighbor notification, there's no public hearing, they're for minor operations conducted within our jurisdiction that don't require a public hearing; they don't require a full Board review, one Trustee will go out and visit the site. There's a safety net there, that when the one Trustee reviews it, you can apply for it but one Trustee does have to review it, and sometimes they feel it should have a full review with a neighbor notification. If that's the case, it's required. Then there are other resolutions and amendments, extensions and transfers, these are not technically public hearings, however, if anyone would like to comment during any one of these things that come up on our agenda, please be ready to come up and comment. Use the microphone, identify yourself for the record because we would like to hear what anyone would like to say, but we want to keep the meeting moving along also. III. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS 1. SUSAN MELAMUD requests an Administrative Permit to enclose the outdoor alcove and convert into living space. With no change to the existing footprint, no new foundations, no excavation. Located: 18603 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM#17-5-3.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ken, you looked at that? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit on behalf of Susan Melamud. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No hay bales needed? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, no excavation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. . TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 4 Board of Trustees 5 November 16, 2005 2. Kevin Stakey on behalf of BENNET & BARBARA HESS requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 7.6' by 22' addition on the north side of the existing dwelling. Located: 6242 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#128-2-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to make a motion, Peg? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure, I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit to construct the addition on the north side of the existing dwelling at 6242 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES IV. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER 1. MICHAEL & NANCY FOLEY request an Emergency Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the bluff face by spreading clean fill on bluff face by hand and replanting with perennial rye grass. Located: 62675 County Road 48 in Greenport. SCTM#128-2-4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anybody here? MRS. FOLEY: Yes. MS. CUSACK: Who is your contractor for the project? MRS. FOLEY: Stanley Skrezec is going to do the work for us. He's going to do the fill work and then Chris Moore will come in and do the planting work. MS. CUSACK: We also talked about maybe pulling back the grass area like where you have the beach rose, maybe doing some more planting at the top of the bluff so you're not washing over and have it happen again. MRS. FOLEY: Absolutely. MS. CUSACK: That would be good. I would suggest putting in some beach grass, plugs of beach grass instead of just seeding at this time of year. MRS. FOLEY: Okay, we'll do the plugs. MS. CUSACK: We can put it into the permit when we write it up. MRS. FOLEY: The rye grass was what Alan Connell had recommended. That's why we went with that. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Should put the rye grass in, gives it quick germination this time of the year, sure it will. You think it's too late for a cover crop? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It loves this stuff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the north face, away from the sun, the soil never heats up. TRUSTEE KING: I would pretty much follow with what Alan 5 Board of Trustees 6 November 16, 2005 suggested. He more or less said everything we just said. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to back that up? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Back that up 10 feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Basically the only change would be to put a nonturf 10 foot buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to have the plans changed. We can issue you a permit tonight, but we need the plans changed to include a 10 foot nonturf buffer behind the planting, and the inclusion of what we just discussed, planting of American Beach grass on 18 inches on center. MRS. FOLEY: Behind the planting you mean on the grass or down on the bottom? TRUSTEE KING: Where you have the hay bales, if you come landward about 10 feet and get rid of some of that turf, I think it would help you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then plant the American Beach grass down the slope. MRS. FOLEY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: With those conditions, I'd recommend approval. Basically what Mr. Connell has suggested already are really good suggestions in here, I would follow those pretty much. He suggested you plant the rye grass and the beach grass. MRS. FOLEY: Okay, we will do that. TRUSTEE KING: So I will recommend approval on this as we talked about. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we'll have to have those plans amended indicating the nonturf area behind the hay bales. MRS. FOLEY: Very good and I'll see Lauren tomorrow. 2. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GERI ARMINE-KLEIN requests an Emergency Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install four bluff catch walls in two gullies, recently created during the recent heavy rains. Located: 160 Sound Drive in Greenport. SCTM#33-4-35.2 TRUSTEE KING: We were all there, saw what was going on. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS 6 Board of Trustees 7 November 16, 2005 1. WILLIAM PENNEY requests an Amendment to Permit 4379 existing detachable floating dock. Located: 2200 Hobard Road in Southold. SCTM#64-3-4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe we all looked at this. Did we get pictures of it? I believe it was the feeling of the Board, we called it a float -- is Mr. Penney here? -- And I believe it was the decision of the Board that one float be removed; is that your feeling? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, just deny. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mike a motion that the amendment be denied because it was the Board's feeling that there was an existing float and this would indicate a second float; is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. NICHOLAS NOTIAS requests an Amendment to Permit 6030 to increase the height of the timber retaining wall to 30", plant Northern Bayberry bushes on the bluff side of the retaining wall and fill in the planting bed between the concrete paver and fence with pebbles. Located: 460 Inlet View Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#100-3-10.11 TRUSTEE KING: Heather and I went out there the other day and I went out there again and met Mr. Notias. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anything new? MS. CUSACK: The exact locations of the plants here and here. TRUSTEE KING: The location looked familiar. This is what we asked him to do last hearing. MS. CUSACK: He said he would remove that soil and put it in in the next 30 days. TRUSTEE KING: Right. That's what I suggested, remember he came up with the no planting area 75 feet, well, it's right over here somewhere. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, for the record, I don't know if you remember, but Goggins faxed to me a draft covenants and restrictions which was between Janice Chew and the applicant. However, the document was only signed by Chew and there was no evidence that it was actually recorded or finalized. But reading the document, it would have only limited the plantings for trees more than eight feet even if it was to apply to whatever area. So I don't think we should give judicial notice or administrative notice to a draft document in any case. TRUSTEE KING: What happened, I went out there in the field 7 Board of Trustees 8 November 16, 2005 and that area was identified and it's not even close to where he planted the trees. MR. JOHNSTON: What I'm saying is they said they were going to get us a document, they haven't done that. TRUSTEE KING: One tree is 10 feet off this angle here, and the other tree is planted just southwest of that corner of the wall in those two locations. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What kind of trees? TRUSTEE KING: I suggested oak trees because that's what's there naturally. If you could advise him on another type, he'd rather have a maple or something. MS. CUSACK: He called today and asked if he could have a maple, I said that would be fine too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What kind of maple? TRUSTEE KING: And I suggested to the Board 6" circumference diameter. Now, on the pool area, he was supposed to remove the top soil, hasn't been done, chain link fence has been installed which maybe we should include in this amendment. It's around his pool a chain link fence for security. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, sure. TRUSTEE KING: I kind of told him, you know, if you had done all this before you put the fencing in, it would have been easier. He's going to scrape this down and fill this with gravel the way you're supposed to and I felt the 30 day time limit for everything and he's home free. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As long as the trees stay alive. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do one year. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment and include the chain link fence around the pool and the planting of two oak trees or maple with a 4" to 6" trunk diameter and check them in a year to see if they're still alive, and if they're not, they will be replaced. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We checked in October. TRUSTEE KING: October. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before they lose their leaves. TRUSTEE KING: The tree locations are on these approved plans now. Maybe he can initial this. We can highlight them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, let's just issue it. TRUSTEE KING: So the two trees are on either side of the wall on the northern end and on the southern end, and I think that was it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to include the fence in the 8 Board of Trustees 9 November 16, 2005 amendment. His feeling was he wanted to secure the pool immediately for the winter, and I think that's everything we had covered. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. Michael Liegey on behalf of DAVID & ELIZABETH SHANKS requests an amendment to Permit 6042 to enclose the existing porch and to amend the proposed second story addition to 1,275 square feet. Located: 1175 Calves Neck Road in Southold. SCTM#63-7-34 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. LIEGEY: Hi, Mike Liegey. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, the land side porch, I have no comment. I'll make a motion to approve the request of Amendment on behalf of David and Elizabeth Shanks. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. MCGREEVEY: If that deck wasn't there and you were adding an extension on the back of the house, would that be approved? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But it is there. MR. MCGREEVEY: Even though the deck is present there, if it wasn't there would you approve it? In our estimation -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with that, but it's enclosing an existing structure. Is your concern that it's going to become living space? MR. MCGREEVEY: Our concern is based on the limited knowledge that we have to work with in the application, that he's too close to the bluff. You've got to put in a new foundation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: For the deck? MR. MCGREEVEY: You're creating a new room. MR. LIEGEY: It's really a screened-in porch. It's not an additional room space. It's not heated. It's really just to keep the bugs out and get out of the rain. MR. MCGREEVEY: Our concern is that it would be too close to the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know what you're saying about it being too close, but it's an existing deck that's now going to be enclosed, correct? MR. LIEGEY: Correct. And there's no real foundation work going on except for extra supports underneath. MS. CUSACK: Drainage on the structure. 9 Board of Trustees 10 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Have a roof runoff going into a dry well. It probably exists already, right? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the proposed second story, is it going out over that area? MR. LIEGEY: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So really nothing is going any further. MR. LIEGEY: It's just a change in the roof line. 4. David Cichanowicz on behalf of ROBERT LAWRENCE requests an Amendment to Permit 5952 to install a timber retaining wall on the south side of the property and modifications to the stone wall. Located: 800 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#103-13-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board visited this site last Wednesday. There is numerous correspondence in the file pertaining to this amendment request. I don't know if you want to get into comments? The concerns of the Board on the site on field inspection were that the structure is close to the northern property line and could effect drainage and could effect erosion in that area because of its proximity to the property line and the possibility of directing water in one area. It was a recommendation of the Board that the timber retaining wall be moved from the end of the stone wall in a straight line to the utilities. Take out the one northerly jog, the westerly run and the one small southerly jog to make a straight line to try to minimize the amount of drainage impact on the neighboring property. originally the retaining wall was proposed closer to the house. The Board didn't have a problem with the deck addition that's being applied for. Comment? MR. CICHANOWICZ Dave Cichanowicz, I represent Robert Lawrence, I'm his landscaper. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could I show you what the Board recommended on the site? This is the wooden wall. The Board recommended moving that wall to the south, from the corner of the stone to the corner of that jog by the utilities. The rest of the wall is more or less out of the Trustee jurisdiction, and this would be more in line with the original application. MR. CICHANOWICZ And the reason for this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just drainage questions. MR. CICHANOWICZ What about if we can resolve drainage issues. We have already several dry wells on site. All of the downspout water is already controlled on dry wells, catch basins on the driveway. We're extremely sensitive to the erosion problem there as we are on all jobs. This was 10 Board of Trustees 11 November 16, 2005 originally staked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This was on the original stamped plans, Al? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It was a retaining wall there, but it was in a different location. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think our concern here is drainage here hitting the wall and channeling along. That was our question. Honestly, we run across these retaining walls, there's one in Mattituck, almost every month where people raise the grade on their property and we try to reflect on how that's going to affect the neighbor in every case because there have been some cases in town that have been a disaster. MR. CICHANOWICZ I'm not really happy with this because first of all the Trustees have been faulty on letting me know straight up what was allowed and what was not. You and I have had conversations. You made it very clear to me that there was not a problem. I do not do things that are not legal or permitted. I have no intention to bend anybody's rules. This was orally told to me. I know it wasn't stamped, but it was told to me that this was fine to do. Now I come back and now we have to take all this out, which is going to cost a lot of money. Who is going to pay for that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If I led you to believe that that was appropriate, then that's my fault because the conversation that we had, I thought that part of this wall would be changed to wood. I didn't know the location was going to change, and I didn't see a problem with a wooden wall here as opposed to stone because environmentally it's going to be the same. It's going to retain the same amount of fill. It's not going to affect any drainage. It's going to be the same distance to the house. If you change the location, now maybe you said that and I didn't understand what you were saying. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because when you brought that back to us, that's what you said, you said they're just changing it from rock to wood. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then the Bay Constable set out and what he told me, what I remember him telling me was that most of the wall, the change is out of our jurisdiction, and I think he said six to eight feet, which would have been this part of the wall, would be changed to wood. To me, that sounded like what happened at the neighbor's here where they tore the whole house down and they had to come in and amend their permit and those things happen. So we amended 11 Board of Trustees 12 November 16, 2005 it without a lot of fanfare. So, anyway, putting all that aside, so the Board went out and inspected it on Wednesday and those were our recommendations. MR. CICHANOWICZ I'm still not clear on why I was not notified first of all of your site visit and had no clue that you were coming, had no clue that this was even a problem until today. Today was the first time I knew that this was a problem, today, any time. Meanwhile, we're proceeding along going that there is absolutely no problems by this town agency, that I'm doing everything legal, and now tonight I'm being told that this is no good. Now, again, who is going to take care of this? Who is responsible for letting me know that? Shouldn't you notify the owners when you come to visit the site? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I assume that the owner knew they applied for an amendment. MS. CUSACK: When you apply for amendment there's always a site visit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't the owner, didn't they apply for the amendment? MR. CICHANOWICZ I applied for the amendment on behalf of the owner. So I'm the one that should be notified when there's any site visit. MR. JOHNSTON: How did you find out? TRUSTEE FOSTER: How did you find out about this? MR. CICHANOWICZ: When you showed up today was the first time I found out there was a problem. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I asked him if he was aware of it because I felt he should be notified. The work continued and I thought there's something wrong here. So, yes, I said that to him. I'm just surprised you weren't notified. AUDIENCE MEMBER: You had those plans of that location a long time ago. MR. CICHANOWICZ In September you had a site visit there, I can't exactly know who was there, but you were there to also inspect where the hay bales were. At that point it was built, not one thing was said to me after that visit. Actually one thing was mentioned about adding a couple of ties to make sure we don't have any erosion. That happened right after that visit. Now, again, why does it fall back on me now after we had all this time when you could have said take this thing back, let's do this over, this isn't right. That was in September. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're right. Comment? MR. BRESSLER: That's not right, and I want to set the record straight that's not right. My name is Eric Bressler, 12 Board of Trustees 13 November 16, 2005 Bressler, Wickham, Gordon and Geasa, on behalf of the neighbor, Debra Doty First of all, what we're dealing with here is a very simple situation, there is an approved plan and there was a gross deviation from the plan. That's what you got, you don't get any vested rights, you don't get any special considerations. That's number one. Number two, when this came to Miss Doty's attention, she went to her neighbor, gave him a copy of the permit and said, you're acting in excess of the permit. His response: We're going to go ahead anyway, if we have to rip it out, we'll rip it out, I'll pay for it. He knew from the get-go exactly what he was doing. Get Miss Doty on the record to confirm that he knew; is that right? MS. DOTY: Right. MR. BRESSLER: He knew from the beginning and he was willing to pay the price. So I don't think this Board should sit here and listen to the plea of, well, who's going to pay for it. We know who's going to pay for it, the homeowner's going to pay for it. And I don't want to hear the applicant's representative coming in here and blaming it on the president of the Board of Trustees who in no way, shape or form could have given approval for something that you hadn't seen. You hadn't seen a picture of it, you didn't know what it was going to end up to be, and if the evidence in front of the Board is that you did such a thing, I don't believe it. Who could approve something that they hadn't even seen? I don't buy that at all. There was a point when I talked to the assistant town attorney and she didn't understand what was going on because she was told by Heather, well, it was a simple substitution of wood for stone, that's entirely consistent with what you were told; that one little piece, that's what happened here, and instead there was grab. That's what happened. And this case presents to this Board a very sharp and clear opportunity to do the right thing and say we don't do things like this in the Town of Southold. I've never seen anybody so grossly deviate from a permit and keep on going, maybe make an application months later and then come in and say, well, I've done it as late as 4:30 today to feverishly try to get this thing done so that they could come in here and make the plea. This is environmentally unsound. You said it, Mr. President, all the Trustees know it; you were all there. That wall doesn't belong there, and, by the way, what about the moved hay bales and the two extra dump loads of fill that's going in to what remains of the wetlands? 13 Board of Trustees 14 November 16, 2005 There is reoystering of that creek going on. You people all know that and it's been somewhat successful, very successful, in fact. I don't want the runoff going into that creek. I don't want nitrates and whatever else are in there. I think this Board not only has to cut back on the wall, it has to provide for a plan for natural revegetation. I don't want sod three feet from the wetlands with fertilizer all over it. That's what I think is a minimum that that Board should require, and I heard in a prior application there are people who know what has to be done to revegetate that thing. I don't want sprinklers five feet from the wetlands. I think Trustee King was down there and noted the hay bales aren't in the right place. They're nibbling, nibbling, nibbling and God only knows that the grade is down there. I know the Board has in its possession a letter from Tom Wickham, who also lives on the creek, and we have copies for all the Members on the Board, and he raises the same concerns, not only for the neighbors but for the nature of the process. We're very concerned about it, and we concur, the wall has got to be moved, and we ask you to take some steps with respect to the wetlands to do something down there. Make them take that fill out and make them replant. And just in that regard, Mr. President, I don't believe you ever told them to move the hay bales and put in fill. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There's a little discrepancy with the hay bales as noted by me when we were out there in September. didn't pay too much attention to the wall; I was paying more attention to the hay bales and talking with Rich, and according to Rich, the hay bales were not put where they were originally proposed to be put. He said I believe they were put 13 feet landward of where they were supposed to be. That's the way it went. And I'm also of the impression that we thought that since they were put there and worked around for the course of the entire job that that's where they should stay. Am I right? MR. BRESSLER: I don't think there's any doubt about it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Jim and I have that same feeling. MR. BRESSLER: You go down there now and see how close it is. MR. CICHANOWICZ: We did think that that's why the line was where the builder put them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right. But in reference to that, if they are in fact where they were originally permitted to be, what do we do about that? There obviously was a misunderstanding 14 Board of Trustees 15 November 16, 2005 between the Board and the applicant or the contractor about they should stay where they were. However, they were originally permitted to be where I believe they are now. It seems to me that they're seaward further than what they were, but that was September and this is November. MR. BRESSLER: I don't see any measurements on these diagrams. TRUSTEE FOSTER: No, I was looking for that earlier and I didn't see measurements either. MR. BRESSLER: So I don't see how you can see anything tonight without measurements. I mean, I just look at it and I say-- TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, well, when I looked at it today, I said 13 feet, that seems a lot further than 13 feet, but you know, when you pull the tape out, that's the proof of the pudding. In all fairness, I was in the contracting business for many, many years. I know how painful it can be when things like this happen, and they historically happen all the time, so -- MR. CICHANOWICZ: We did have the site visit from the Trustees to locate the proper location of the hay bales. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I was there. And I remember Rich saying, Oh, we want to move the hay bales, and I'm pretty sure we said no, why don't you leave them where they are. We like them where they are. I seem to remember that and Jim does too. But, as I said, in all fairness, if they are where they were originally proposed to be, I see why we have a dog in that fight, we originally approved them there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, we're getting off the retaining wall topic, now. We're going to move into the hay bales, which hasn't been resolved, but -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: And the fill seems to be an issue; was there an allowable amount of fill to be brought in? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. Let me read the permit so everyone's clear. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I figured it was probably an extra hundred yards to fill the wall from where it was originally proposed. That was where it wound up to be or maybe a little more. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The permit was issued to remove a one-story frame house and construct a two-story frame house with attached two-car garage; extend the driveway, construct the dry stone retaining wall and excavate and fill as required with the condition that the line of staked hay bales be placed down along the 20 foot buffer, and dry wells and gutters are installed to contain the roof runoff. And it's July 24, 2004. So there was no fill requirement as far 15 Board of Trustees 16 November 16, 2005 as the number. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There wasn't a number put on it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wasn't quantified. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It says "as required." MR. BRESSLER: It was a volume behind what the Board approved, and, obviously, when you went further, the amount would be -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: If the wall was six feet high, it would require more fill. MR. BRESSLER: So my calculation was roughly what yours was. I'll give you 130 yards of extra fill not counting what's now gone down below the stone wall. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Right. So that says 20 foot buffer for the hay bale line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. We'll move onto the buffer then. We measured the buffer on field inspection. I'm looking for the notes. We measured them from the house instead of measuring from the wetlands, which was flagged still, made it easier to make a finite mark. MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano. I'd like to make note of the fact that since the August 17th hearing when Mr. Bressler and I approached, we had been trying to get the Board's attention to bring to your attention the fact that the activity that was occurring was far in excess of the permit. Please, somebody look at it, somebody communicate with the applicant, the permitee, the longer this delays, the more egregious the problem is becoming. And Mr. Cichanowicz said it clearly, had he known, however, we have been attempting since August 17th to bring this to the attention of the Board and have someone act on it, and it has not been given the proper attention. There's been correspondence from Mr. Bressler, Miss Doty, Tom Wickham and still the proper attention has not been given the matter. We have been trying to ward off this problem. MR. BRESSLER: And now is the opportunity to address it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a letter from the architect in July, July 2004. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do agree with you, I did send the Bay Constable. MS. MESIANO: I did speak to the Bay Constable, and he told me he was directed not to issue a violation, that notices of violation were no longer being issued and that he was instructed not to issue a summons even though he felt that there was work being conducted that was outside the scope of the permit. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Instructed by who? 16 Board of Trustees 17 " November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He spoke to me, based on his description, I thought it was more appropriate to have an amendment. MS. MESIANO: We've made numerous attempts to not let it go to this extreme and we have been unsuccessful in getting anyone to pay attention. And if our position was incorrect that there was a permit, that this is okay, that's all we wanted to know, but there's been no evidence provided to us since August 17th, when we asked for this matter to be reviewed and the work has been ongoing. As a representative of Miss Doty, I did not feel it appropriate for me to contact the applicant, the applicant's contractor. I felt it appropriate to go to the agency with jurisdiction. My problem is that we have been trying for three months to make it stop. Make everybody stand back and say what's going on, what are you allowed to do, what have you done, quantified exactly what has been done. We have spoken about the magnitude of the wall, the extent to which it was built that exceeded the permit, the extent to which you wish it to be cut back to. We haven't touched on the amount of fill that's been placed between the wall and the hay bales. The fact that it is graded in the direction of the wetlands, the runoff will be significant into the wetlands. The nitrate loading will be significant into the wetlands. The sprinkler system, it is obviously going to be sodded, and again, I know I'm repeating myself, it could have been avoided. MS. CUSACK: We had measured from the hay bales to the stone wall 34 feet; is that what you had? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured back from the wall. MR. BRESSLER: Does that mean from the house to the hay bales, from the stone wall to the hay bales; was that before they were moved or after? TRUSTEE FOSTER: That was after. MS. MESIANO: Is the present location of the hay bales at the seaward edge of the required nondisturbance buffer or is it at the landward boundary of the wetlands? MR. BRESSLER: Say that again. MS. MESIANO: Is the present location of the hay bales at the landward edge of the required nondisturbance buffer or is it at the -- MR. BRESSLER: Edge of the wetlands themselves. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Neither. MS. MESIANO: Has the 20 foot buffer been retained? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's the question. No, not based on our field inspection. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a report here 12/2/04, signed 1 17 Board of Trustees 18 November 16, 2005 would guess by Ed Forrester, that the pre-construction hay bale line is okay. When we went in September and looked at it, we didn't measure the hay bale line, or I didn't measure it. TRUSTEE KING: This is where they were. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And no one thought to measure it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We didn't measure it. Rich said, we want to move the hay bale line 13 feet. MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. We wanted to move it to where the approved plans said we could put it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I thought he said it's 13 feet or more landward of where it's supposed to be. I seem to remember that. And I thought we said -- I'm pretty sure that we said that we wanted to leave it where it was. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought the purpose of the inspection was that it was a request to move the hay bale line. I think that was the purpose of the inspection, not to look at the retaining wall and the amount of fill. TRUSTEE FOSTER: The wall was mentioned too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When the wall was mentioned we said no, we still want to maintain the 20 foot buffer, that's what I remember. MR. CICHANOWICZ Here's where the hay bales were when you came to the site (indicating). We came down and you all agreed that this was what was approved by the Trustees to move it to, and that's where the hay bales went. It didn't go straight down, it went on a jog. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy, do you remember this in September? We went out to look at the hay bale line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You did, I didn't. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, okay. Kenny? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I wasn't up there. Sorry. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sorry. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So much for that. I don't remember them being in the wrong location. I remember saying that we didn't want to see them moved further seaward. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I believe so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was my recollection of it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was mention of the wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did have a conversation about moving the hay bales, and I said the Board should look at it. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Absolutely. We weren't going to touch them until you came. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then we came and looked at them on our regular field inspection. We said don't move them. MR. CICHANOWICZ: You went to my foreman, Rich was staking 18 Board of Trustees 19 November 16, 2005 where we could move the hay bales; that was the purpose of your visit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I thought we said nobody move them. MR. CICHANOWICZ: The hay bales that were there were there from the beginning of the construction. They were barely noticeable because they were so badly deteriorated. So we were going to put new silk cloth and place hay bales at the accepted location, fine. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I remember all of that, but I don't remember saying, okay, go ahead and do that. What I remember is, no, we'd like them to stay right where we were. MR. BRESSLER: And all of this points up the difficulty of why we're here. You get a permit, you're supposed to do what's on the permit. If you want an amendment, you apply for an amendment and the Trustees say yes or the Trustees say no. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually what we explained on field inspection last week, we talked to Miss Doty and we spoke to your wife, just in this neighborhood what's happened, a retaining wall was built and the applicant came in and changed the permit to make it comply. Two doors down a house was completely removed without Trustee approval. don't believe a violation was issued, but the applicant came in and amended his permit to further his project. So, the way the system works as far as violations go, that's what we're trying to do with the notice of violation because the notice of violation gets the applicant into the office to apply for whatever conduct it was, whether it was a new project or an existing or an amendment to an existing protect. If the applicant's already in to amend a project then they're already in and the notice of violation serves no purpose. MR. BRESSLER: But if someone makes an application to amend the permit, that is not a green light to do whatever you want. In this case, the applicant well knew that that work exceeded the scope of the permit, made an application to amend, and then decided to move forward, and unless you are going to change the procedure in this Town, that's not the way it should work. And I think this points up the difficulty. Like I said before, you could not possibly have approved a project whose scope you didn't know. Did you say, okay, Dave, do whatever you want down there and come on in for a permit, that's absurd and you don't do business that way in front of this Board or any other Board that I'm aware of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why the Bay Constable looked at it. 19 Board of Trustees 20 November 16, 2005 It had already been built. It had already been done. MR. BRESSLER: Well, the Bay Constable, if he had described accurately what was there reflecting what you saw when you went down there, your reaction might have been different. Look, I don't think there's any doubt about it, it would have been something akin to what we're hearing tonight. Go get that stuff out of there. MS. MESIANO: May I make a suggestion? I think it would be appropriate at this point in time that the surveyor be called back to the site and quantified everything that's there. What you have is a rendering of a site plan, but you have no idea what the amount of fill was that was brought in; you have no contours, and there was an original survey that contained all of that data, so you will have an original condition and you will be able to quantify all of the changes that have occurred on the property. And I think it will give you and Mr. Cichanowicz and the homeowner a better grasp on the magnitude of the excess of the activity and how best to undo some of the problems. MR. BRESSLER: However, I would add that answering your question more specifically, if the Board is proposing that that wall be moved as you previously described it, that aspect would be satisfactory to our client provided that when you see the picture nothing else comes up, look at it and say the contours are terrible, I can't live with it. But provided everything else is okay, that aspect would be satisfactory to us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's go back to the original permit issuance, and we have pictures here. When we originally viewed this parcel, I would guess in July, might have been May, when we originally viewed the parcel, we saw a single-family residence with a lawn that ran all the way to the creek and at that point in time there was nothing to stop anything that was put on the lawn to go directly into the wetlands. As part of the permit procedure, we required that the applicant provide a 20 foot nonturf buffer, which would, in fact, filter anything that came off the lawn in a heavy rain event from entering directly into the wetlands. Now, environmentally, to me that's an improvement over what was existing. The addition of a wall, that's going to be a problem that would impact the neighbor. We didn't see that at the time. But the 20 foot buffer, that was the environmental improvement on it. The placement of the fill, I don't know-- and, Artie, you can talk to this because you know about fill and amounts and what not -- I don't know if the amount of fill is going to be an issue here. 20 Board of Trustees 21 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Not the way the permit reads, it says fill as required. MR. BRESSLER: But you don't know what the slope is. TRUSTEE FOSTER: But the amounts required to do the wall as it was originally proposed is certainly not as much as required to do the wall as it was built. So the fill wasn't an issue, wasn't an issue because you didn't specify an amount. MR. BRESSLER: But you were referring to the fill below the wall, between the wall and the wetlands. TRUSTEE FOSTER: There was no question about fill being put in there, that wasn't even addressed. MR. BRESSLER: If it's going to be sodded, then I would have to disagree and say your environmental improvement may largely be wiped out and negative by that. MR. CICHANOWICZ: So does the neighbor's because the neighbor has the lawn going the same distance down adjacent to, so then she should take out her lawn and put a buffer in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wait a second. This is what we're saying, there was fill, there was lawn, it shows fill added here, also 11 foot contour is new. It would tie in with this. MR. BRESSLER: But it's all over now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand. We all want to be heard, let's just listen for a minute. The 11 foot contour starts here. They picked it up and extended it out. MR. BRESSLER: All we know is there have been a bunch of trucks dumping stuff down there. We don't know what's there. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another concern was the buffer. Now, do we have any concerns over the grade here? MS. MESIANO: My concern is that it is sloped toward the wetlands, and when it is irrigated and the sprinklers go on -- TRUSTEE FOSTER: But it always was. MS. MESIANO: But it wasn't sprinklered. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But it was lawn. (Discussion.) MS. MESIANO: In the original application, the application asks the question, how much fill. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment for Robert Lawrence to include the deck on the northwest side of the house, to extend the retaining wall from the end of the stone wall towards West Creek Avenue directly to the corner of the utility retaining wall as per on the plans, and the reinstallation of the shrubs after the 21 Board of Trustees 22 November 16, 2005 retaining wall and soil are removed, and the creation of a berm landward of the existing hay bale line one foot high, to eliminate and contain runoff from the lawn towards the wetlands. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 5. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL GRIFFIN requests an Amendment to Permit 5252 to reconfigure the existing 6' by 20' seasonal float to be straight out from its currently approved perpendicular "T" configuration and supported by four 6" diameter piles. Located: 425 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM#37-4-14&15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: On site inspection, I believe the Board looked to deny this because it looked like the new configuration would interfere with navigation. We did request soundings. Is the applicant here? MR. HALL: Yes, Dan Hall here for the applicant/owner. I have soundings on the plan currently, two and a half feet where the float is, obviously it's going to be deeper further out. I have aerial photographs here, it shows the area of the project site and shows where the channel is by the deeper water, the blue. So obviously it's deeper water. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Can I see that? MR. HALL: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We assumed it was deeper water. We were concerned about navigation. MR. HALL: What I did at the site a couple weeks ago, there were boats moored that were further out to the west of the proposed dock that was (inaudible)ed on navigation than simply moving the float from a "T" to an "I". He has a boat now that has an eight foot beam. If you put that on to the six foot wide float, that's 14 feet. We only want six more feet out, any boat moored to a float in this configuration that we're proposing be moored parallel to the float wouldn't be further into the pond infringing on navigation. And Mr. Griffin had spoken to Larry Madsen, head of the maritime association, I guess he helps plan out some of the moorings in here, etcetera, and he recommended that Mr. Griffin go try and get this approved in this configuration. He didn't think that that was going to infringe upon navigation. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Another concern that we had was that this dock would leap out ahead of the other docks. 22 Board of Trustees 23 November 16, 2005 MR. HALL: Any dock that you put there would go out further by the contour of the geography there, if you look in the aerial. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thanks, Dan. Can I have your comment? MR. PETER: Yes, my name is George Peter, I'm president of the Gardiner's Bay Estate Homeowner's Association reading this particular claim. As you know in the Trustees file and from previous submissions, we own the bottom of Spring Pond, and two years ago when Mr. Griffin asked for an extension of his dock out to water so his boat could be navigable even in low tide, we gave him temporary permission relative to our current mooring basin. We also have an application in to the Board and the DEC and Corps of Engineers to extend one of our current long-standing slips on the other side of Spring Pond to extend it to add more slips. If that is approved, then we have to reassign our moorings, which will definitely impede his submission. But the primary reason I'm here is Mr. Griffin, because we own the bottom of the pond, never applied to us in writing what his plan was. This is the first we hear of it in this itinerary tonight. So right now we object totally until we have a decision to move forward on our association plans. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do we have a legal comment? They're the owner of the bottom and object to him going out with a piling to secure his float; what would the Board of Trustees' position be? MR. JOHNSTON: You don't have the authority to use somebody else's bottom. MR. PETER: Can't hear you, sir. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: He says we wouldn't have the authority to allow a pile to go into somebody else's bottom. MR. PETER: We have the authority. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: You have the authority to apply for it since it's your bottom. MR. PETER: This is Chuck Larger, who is the co-chairman of the maritime committee. He just spoke to Mr. Madsen, who is in Florida. Mr. Madsen was never notified of Mr. Griffin's permission. We, myself, the association, the board, never got anything, a request in writing as we did two years ago when he requested an extension of the dock to make his boat navigable beyond low tide. So it's another reason. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Shall I proceed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Go ahead. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to deny the request by Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of Michael Griffin 23 Board of Trustees 24 November 16, 2005 for the application as presented tonight. Deny because they are not the owners of the bottom as well as navigation. MR. JOHNSTON: You don't need that if you think there's a navigation problem, you can deny it for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were prepared to deny this under a navigation anyway. We did a field inspection last week. We were out there last week. MR. JOHNSTON: Ken, my thought on that is for you to deny it -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Based on navigation. MR. JOHNSTON: -- based on navigation, I don't have a problem, but to deny it on the other there would have to be something in the record to establish that they are the owner; have you seen something in the record other than them just saying they own it? MR. PETER: We pay taxes on the bottom of Spring Pond. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay, deny it based on navigation. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 6. Bertani Builders, Inc. on behalf of W. BRUCE BOLLMAN requests an Amendment to Permit 5901 to move the footprint of the dwelling 2.6' to the east, abandon the existing septic system and install a new septic system, and requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to allow for construction activity in an approximate 32 square foot section seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM#31-13-4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? Yes, sir, you are? MR. BRESSLER: Eric Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa on behalf of Jennifer Gould, the neighbor. Since I heard nobody in favor of it, I would like to speak on behalf of Miss Gould. I think first several procedural issues. I noted with interest the fact that the legal notices for this evening don't seem to contain this item, and, in fact, if you remember several hours ago, I was here at 6:00 for the work session, and it was Miss Gould's understanding that this was on the work session calendar upon advice from staff or that it might be administrative. Well, it's neither, and we don't see any publication. Aside from that, we don't see this as an amendment. There was no Coastal Erosion Permit ever applied for, so it's difficult to conceive of how this could be an amendment to such a permit. Moreover, the sanitary system falls within the same category. That having been said, I would note that because 24 Board of Trustees 25 November 16, 2005 of the way this came on, Miss Gould has not had the opportunity to review the file in this matter, and would certainly, notwithstanding the comments that we make this evening, would certainly like the opportunity to address what may or may not be in the file. Now, moving to the merits of this particular application to the extent that we're aware of them, not having the notice -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interrupt you for a second? On the procedure it's actually an amendment to an existing permit, and an application for a Coastal Erosion Permit. So it's not an amendment to the coastal erosion. MR. BRESSLER: You have it listed under amendments that's the only reason I bring that up, and I don't see anything in the newspaper about being an application, any application. So imagine our surprise when we showed up and found out that this is an actual amendment and application. So we are surprised and first off, like I said, notwithstanding what I might say, we want that opportunity. I want to know what's in the file and I want that addressed. To the extent that we do know what's going on, this is a most interesting situation, and I don't know that the Board is fully familiar with the history of this particular project, but it does present an interesting set of facts. What we have here basically is a parcel that had two residences on it. I don't know whether the Board's aware of the fact that the renovated structure to the rear or the road side of the property has actually been lived in for three and a half years, and is a residential unit. I mean, you only have to go out and look at the dish TV up on the top, the barbecue. And they were basically in front of the Zoning Board and there were admissions that people had been living there for three and a half years. So the first issue is from an environmental point of view; are you going to have two residences on one lot, that's number one. Number 2, the entire basis for the application for this particular location was that it would be a hardship to put this dwelling in a place other than it existed because there was a foundation. That was the basis in front of the Zoning Board and I don't know what they told you. And miraculously, when it came time to actually build, there was no foundation to speak of. It could not be built on and it all got torn out. So any basis that may have existed for granting any variances in front of this Board in this location don't exist. All bets are off. This thing can be put anywhere. 25 Board of Trustees 26 November 16, 2005 Now, why doesn't it belong where it is? Well, it doesn't belong where they want to put it because it violates any number of setback requirements. The 100 feet for septic, the 100 feet for a residence, and it also violates the rule about not being seaward of the neighbor's houses. So with all that in mind, we believe that there is no basis for giving a permit for this house or a sanitation system in the proposed location when there are other environmentally sound alternatives. There is a building envelope toward the rear of the property, the septic can be located toward the rear of the property away from the water under the driveway with a pro forma Health Department approval of ring cover that you won't crush. In short, there's no reason at all why this has to be where it is since the foundation isn't there. This thing is 35 feet, not 100 feet away, and we think this Board ought to require that proposed location be moved to the rear and the septic be moved to the rear and there's no reason why not. Of course, not having seen the application, I don't know what reasons they gave you, but based on my knowledge of the file and the proceedings in front of the Zoning Board, that's what we know as of this time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. The CAC made an inspection the last time in April, so they did make an inspection, but did you make one? MR. MCGREEVEY: No, I did not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think from our standpoint, the LWRP review has been deemed incomplete by the LWRP reviewer, so there is no consistency review in our file. So we can't act on this application. MR. BRESSLER: So you're going to carry it over? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The earliest we can act on it is December 21 st. MR. BRESSLER: Will you keep the public hearing open, so we can review the file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. MR. BRESSLER: Okay, we'll look for a notice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because the hole had been dug we did send Heather out to make a field inspection to see whether or not it was in fact going to be an emergency or not because once a hole like that is dug, our concern is for destabilization of the neighbor's property and destabilization of the coastline. MR. BRESSLER: It's very interesting that you bring that up because we brought that up and said the digging of the hole 26 Board of Trustees 27 November 16, 2005 and an absence of shoring was a plain OSHA violation. There's no doubt about it. We have the OSHA regs. These people did absolutely nothing to protect the adjacent landowner and as a result it started caving. There's shoring that can be done, our engineer looked at it, there are things that can be done; this is not an emergency. The only emergency is that which was created by the applicant and can be cured by the applicant. So, we don't believe it should be dealt with on that basis and apparently it's not going to be and we will be back in December, whenever you schedule it, and we will have looked at the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: December 21 st. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Therefore, I'll make the motion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. DONNA WEXLER requests a Transfer of Permit 2048 from Agnor& Elaine Benson to Donna Wexler, for a bulkhead and dock, as issued on August 28, 1985. Located: 1175 West Hill Road, Southold. SCTM#70-4-23 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was the Trustee to look at this property, and what I looked at was for a Wetland Permit, your expansion, your addition, I didn't go behind the house and look for what was existing and not existing at the bulkhead and dock. So I'm going to have to;request we table this. MR. JOHNSTON: Was it staked, Kenny? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No. MS. WEXLER: When I bought this property it was handed to me and all I was told was that I just had to have my name put on it and changed. I was there when the DEC was there and the DEC -- because I'm applying for a DEC letter of nonjurisdiction, and they looked and they said they wanted the bulkhead repaired because there was a lot of sink holes. And I said, well, you better talk to the Town because I can't do that unless you give me your letter, and then they give me their letter and in the meantime, they said that it's not good. But this is just a matter of changing it over. I don't really need to change it over. I could just use theirs because it's just passed down from purchasing the property. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Somebody has to look at it before you get the permit in your hands. I didn't go around the back. looked at your wetlands. I didn't think there was a transfer as.well. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You can do that without a transfer, right? 27 Board of Trustees 28 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Your project was not staked as far as your Wetland Permit later on in the evening. Sorry you have to wait an hour but normally this amendment process takes twenty minutes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it critical that you get this transferred this evening? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to approve the transfer of the permit and table the application for a Wetland Permit on behalf of Donna Wexler. There's been a motion to approve the transfer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor. And the Wetland Permit will be tabled. Have somebody stake it. 8. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT requests a One-Year Extension to Permit 5832, as issued on November 19, 2003. Located: 9430 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-8-6.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this the permit for the fence or the gazebo or for the shed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 5832 is for a covered wood gazebo. This doesn't address -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Fitzgerald, there's a gray shed on the park district beach; is that permitted? MR. FITZGERALD: It has no foundation, I have no idea. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's actually by the entrance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Where the existing gazebo is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's right next to it, and I know you've come in for permits for the fencing and the gazebo, but I thought maybe there was a permit for the shed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we'd like to see a permit for the shed added to this permit. Where this has been applied for in a timely fashion, I don't have a problem approving the extension, put your shed on it. I'll make a motion to approve the One-Year Extension to Permit 5832. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE SUFFOLK TIMES. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. 28 Board of Trustees 29 November 16, 2005 PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS 1. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ANGELO PADAVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit to construct a single- family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway and bulkhead. Located: 22455 Soundview Avenue in Southold. SCTM#135-1-23&24 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone, here to comment on this application? This is an open hearing. MS. MOORE: You've heard all you're going to hear. Padavans are ready for a decision. LWRP response is already in your files and the last time this was on you asked for an adjournment to review our response. And I guess at this point we're ready for a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing; is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whereas Patricia C. Moore, an agent for Angelo Padavan applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions under the Wetland Ordinance under Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code, and Chapter 37 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, application dated December 22, 2004, and Whereas, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, Whereas, the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council recommended disapproval of this proposed application, and, Whereas several Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, Whereas, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, Whereas, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, Whereas, the action is found to be inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, Whereas, the existing permitted structure is a 10' by 14' shed, and the proposed house is 708 square feet, which is 29 Board of Trustees 30 November 16, 2005 greater than 25 percent of the existing structure, and, Whereas, in accordance with Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard area, Major Additions are defined as greater than 25 percent and are not allowed in the Coastal Erosion Hazard area, and, Whereas, the existing structure is a storage shed, and not a habitable structure, with no sanitary system, electric, insulation or plumbing, and, Whereas, the proposed house is located on the beach, as defined in Chapter 37, and all development is prohibited on the beaches, and, Whereas, the proposed house is inconsistent with the following LWRP policy standards: 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, and 8.3. And is therefore inconsistent with the Town of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and, Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Trustees deny without prejudice, under Chapter 37, the application of Angelo Padavan to construct a single-family dwelling, sanitary system, gravel driveway and bulkhead, and, Be it further resolved that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's unanimous. 2. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 Aquaview Avenue in East Marion. SCTM#21-2-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is a hearing that was closed. And this is the hearing that will be reopened. This hearing will be reopened and comments will be reviewed and may be submitted in writing until December 9th at 4:00; are there any comments here this evening? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing tonight with the provision that comments in writing may be submitted until December 9th at 4:00; is there a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES WETLAND PERMITS 1. SUSAN ROGERS GRUN requests a Wetland.Permit to replace the steps from the bulkhead, replace the concrete 30 Board of Trustees 31 November 16, 2005 porch with wood and replace the roof over the concrete porch. Located: 54305 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM#52-1-6 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MS. GRUN: Good evening, I'm Sue Rogers Grun. I have the affidavit of posting and the proof of mailings (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. GRUN: I don't have much to add to the written application so basically what's there is there, but I'll answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments from the public? CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition the bluff is revegetated after it's disturbed and nontreated lumber is used. CAC questions the request of a roof replacement of a roof that doesn't exist. MS. GRUN: There was a canvas roof that was supported with piping and the piping is all there, the canvas is not there, but I would like to put a roof, not a canvas, that has to go on and off. I think it's 14' by 10', and it's fairly large to be messing around with a canvas awning. I think the picture shows those. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It looks straightforward to me. It's all behind the bulkhead. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Susan Rogers Grun as requested and restore the vegetation of the bluff if it is disturbed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 2. ROBERT KOEBELE requests a Wetland Permit to construct 103.5' of bulkheading immediately in front of the existing damaged bulkhead. Located: 1525 Gull Pond Lane in Greenport. SCTM#35-4-12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on this? MR. KOEBELE: No, you've been there to take a look at it, you've made recommendations and I agree with them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we have discussed with you that instead of doing in front, you'll do it in place? MR. KOEBELE: Right, and I have brought revised plans down that reflect your recommendations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP review is consistent. And CAC didn't look at this. 31 Board of Trustees 32 November 16, 2005 MR. MCGREEVEY: CAC looked at it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition of the 25 foot nonturf buffer landward of the bulkhead. MR. KOEBELE: You're just going to get all kinds of runoff because of the slopes, we've got to stabilize it some way. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's directly landward? MR. KOEBELE: There's a six foot walkway and a fairly sloping area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it turf or-- MR. KOEBELE: It's existing grass except for the walkway. MS. CUSACK: Generally when walkways are replaced -- MR. KOEBELE: There's a small retaining wall there which goes back about 12 feet and the rest, it's stable and we're putting helix in just so we don't have to disturb any of the upland side. It's $1,000 a helix that's $14,000 just so we don't have to disturb that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's between the retaining wall and the bulkhead; is there grass there? MR. KOEBELE: No. It goes back 12 feet and there's 30 year old lumber boardwalk. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it's all nonturf already for that area between the bulkhead? MR. KOEBELE: It's at least six feet and there's also some vegetation that goes back another four, five feet TRUSTEE KING: I don't think he needs to do anything there at all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When the Board inspected it, it's an existing walkway that doesn't need to be disturbed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can include the walkway in the permit. MR. KOEBELE: That's what the plans show. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct the 103.5' of bulkheading in-place, and that the six foot walkway be the buffer between the new bulkhead and existing wall, existing retaining wall; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 3. DONNA WEXLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, repair the 32 Board of Trustees 33 November 16, 2005 existing deck and construct a new deck, relocate the sanitary system, maintain the existing driveway and construct stone walls at the north entry. Located: 1175 West Hill Road in Southold. SCTM#70-4-23 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I make a motion to table the application due to it not being staked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 4. SUSAN BECKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 60' fixed dock with a 4' wide access pathway and a 4' by 9' stairs at the seaward end. The dock will extend into water at approximately 29' from the edge of the marsh with no greater than 6" pilings. The docking facility and boat will not extend more than one-third across the lateral distance of the creek. Located: 4883 Wells Road, Peconic. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment? MS. BECKER: I'm Susan Becker and I don't have much to add, but please approve it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: This is the one we measured. It's only 76 feet across the creek. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KING: I think the catwalk should be a little shorter because with the one-third rule we have, if it's 29 feet plus the width of the boat, it's going to be far more than one-third of the way across because the creek is fairly narrow there. MR. JOHNSTON: Ken, were there any CAC comments? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes. CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition that the docking facility does not exceed one-third across the width of the creek and there is clearing for the path only. MR. MCGREEVEY: One of the comments was we figured it exceeded one-third and the other thing is the information that I have that was given to me -- I visited the property -- it doesn't give the width of the property. I paced off from the southern boundary line, which I could locate, but there is no northern boundary line staked out. So I don't know what the width is. But in pacing it off in coming up with an approximation where that dock is going to be located is very, very close to where the northern boundary would be and possibly even over that boundary line. So unless we can determine exactly the width of that 33 Board of Trustees 34 November 16, 2005 piece of property, which I don't have, my estimation is it's very close to that boundary line or possibly over. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't look so on the survey. Did you get a copy on the survey? MR. MCGREEVEY: I see the survey and I agree, but the survey shows it is within the boundary lines. Now, I'm saying there's a possibility that they have the markings in the wrong location than on the actual site. That's my concern. I paced off 140 yards on the side boundary line from the markers on the trees, so if you had the exact footage, you could approximate if it's within the boundary line or outside. There's no stakes on the northern boundary. MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald, former consultant to Miss Becker. MR. JOHNSTON: Who are you representing? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm not representing anybody. I'm a friend of the Court. You know when you say is there anybody else that would like to comment? MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. I just want to make it clear that you are not speaking for the applicant or you are speaking for the applicant? MR. FITZGERALD: No. Actually I'm speaking for the Board because I would like to remind them that they approved that very permit or the permit for that very dock some years ago, and it wasn't built and here it is again. The other thing is -- MR. JOHNSTON: Can I ask you a question? Is it staked in the same place that it was staked the last time? MR. FITZGERALD: I have no idea. And the other thing is is that the survey was done by a guy with different instruments and everything instead of pacing it off. So I think it's reasonable that it's pretty accurate. I think it will be built the way it's shown on the survey. That's what I think as a concerned citizen. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One Board comment, Mr. Fitzgerald's claim is correct; there was a permit for exactly what was applied for today, Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 60' fixed dock with a 4' wide access pathway 4' by 9' stairs at the seaward end of the dock will extend into the water approximately 29 feet from the edge of the marsh with no greater than 6" pilings. The docking facilities and boat must not extend more than one-third across the lateral distance across the creek. MR. FITZGERALD: As you note that that's accurate, Mr. President of the Board of Trustees measured it with a 34 Board of Trustees 35 November 16, 2005 kayak TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct, many years ago. What year is that original permit? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: September 25, 2002. TRUSTEE KING: I have June 20, 2001 it measured at 80 feet across. And we measured it across, it's 76 feet. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So one-third would be 25 and a half. TRUSTEE KING: Even the previous approval at 29 and a half was more than a third. But that wasn't in code then either. Now it's been codified. I don't have a problem with it, just keep it so we stay within the third. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. The bottom line is according to the guidelines in black and white in Town code, the dock instead of being 29 feet from the edge of the marsh as shown, 25 and a half feet from the edge of the marsh, so it would have to be shortened three and a half feet. And that would be by code. MS. BECKER: Was the creek measured? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, Mr. King measured it. TRUSTEE KING: The original measurement in 2001 was 80 feet, and I measured it Monday or Tuesday at 76; even at 80 feet, the 29 feet is still in excess of the one-third rule. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that fine with you? You can get 25 a half feet beyond the edge of the marsh. You can still have a 60 foot dock but the other three feet will have to go upland. TRUSTEE KING: Instead of going to the DEC and trying to modify, just build your dock for 60 feet, but it would be landward. That way you're still conforming with the DEC permit. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Susan Becker to construct a 4' by 60' fixed dock with a 4' wide access path and a 4' by 9' stairs at the seaward end. The dock will extend into the water approximately 25 and a half feet from the edge of the marsh with no greater than 6" piles, and the docking facilities with the boat will not extend more than one-third across the lateral distance across the creek. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 35 Board of Trustees 36 November 16, 2005 5. CHERYL HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 405 Williamsburg Road, Southold. SCTM#78-5-17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? MS. HANSEN: I'm Cheryl Hansen. I will apologize, I spoke to Mr. Metzgar, I asked him at the end of October to go out and stake out the property, sent him a check, called November 4th, asked him if he had staked it out, they said, yes, they had, and when I came from the airport yesterday evening about 4:00, they had not. So that's why they rushed this morning, staked it out and took these pictures. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: These pictures are from this morning? MS. HANSEN: This morning because they had said they did it on November 4th when I called and confirmed it, and they didn't. It was an error on their part. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP says that it's consistent with their policies and CAC tabled because it wasn't staked. However, the proposed dwelling appears too close to the bulkhead and at least a 35 foot nonturf buffer is recommended. Did we talk about buffer when we were there, anybody remember? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We generally require and in this case it's a bulkhead to fill lot, turf up to the bulkhead. What we do is when the bulkhead's replaced, we require a nonturf buffer to be installed after the bulkhead replacement, that's what we would do in this case also. MS. HANSEN: If and when the bulkhead's replaced? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, because that area's being a disturbed area. MS. HANSEN: And something will be done, not a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How much buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When the bulkhead's replaced TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, so we don't need it now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling. Located: 405 Williamsburg Road, Southold. We need a hay bale line on the plans, and gutters and dry wells. MS. HANSEN: Yes, not a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We need a new set of plans. MR. MCGREEVEY: There's a question in there from the water to 36 Board of Trustees 37 November 16, 2005 the face of the building and it says 75 feet. TRUSTEE KING: This is the building envelope; it's not necessarily going to be in front of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think in this case we thought it was appropriate because of the size of the lot. The previous development of the lot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want new plans on this though, no? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can just adjust those to reflect hay bale lines and dry wells and gutters. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. So otherwise it's okay. And do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 6. Michael Liegey on behalf of CURTIS & ANGELA DWYER requests a Wetland Permit to convert the existing sun porch into a kitchen. Located: 720 Mechanic Street, Southold. SCTM#61-4-11 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. LIEGEY: I'll be here to answer any questions on that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other questions? I looked at it as far as the Board is concerned, very straightforward application, existing sun room into a kitchen, same footprint. CAC recommended approval with the addition of a dry well to catch the roof runoff, so make that part of the stipulation for the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about hay bales? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't know. MR. LIEGEY: I was going to do that anyway. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I was thinking you weren't going to trash the whole lawn. Okay, put a row of hay bales in too during construction. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: And I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Curtis and Angela Dwyer to convert the existing sun porch into a kitchen with the stipulation that a dry well to catch the roof runoff be added as well as a row of hay bales during construction. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 7. Vicki Toth on behalf of JACK CIPRIANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story single-family 37 Board of Trustees 38 November 16, 2005 dwelling, sanitary system, and driveway. Located: 8150 main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM#87-5-23.6 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would you like to comment on this application? MS. TOTH: Good evening, I'm Vicki Toth. The project was before your Board a month ago, but it wasn't staked out because it was too wet and rainy at that time of year. But now it is staked out and I'm sure you were able to see the corners that were there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Now construction creek side I believe we have a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer on the books, so leave 50 feet from that berm top landward. We'll leave as a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer. Any other comment from the public? MR. MAXWELL: My name is Doug Maxwell, and I live adjacent to that parcel. I have lived there for eight years and I thank you for your care and concern about the environment. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: In the condos or across? MR. MAXWELL: In the Cove condominiums, yes. I'm in the unit that's next to it. I'm a music composer, and I've been hired for the last three years by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals to produce recordings of nature for their blood pressure medicines, and so I've become intimately acquainted with the creek at all hours of the day and at all seasons. So I feel in a way that I'm here to speak for the two families of swans and all the swans that live behind that parcel and the deer that access and egress through the parcel and the fact that that parcel is part of one of the last remaining untouched perimeters of Corey Creek where there is no development. And I would like to just say that I know when we purchased our home, one of the few taxes we enjoyed paying was the one for the land preservation fund, and I don't know what special provisions are available to us, but I would like to ask that that parcel be considered as especially valued to the wildlife, either to purchase it or if that wasn't acceptable to the owner, I would like to see if there could be special provisions made to extend the buffer zone to protect this very special part of the creek. And in closing, I would just like to give you all a copy of the last CD of the wildlife that has been recorded on the creek, and I would give you listening to the voices that we claim to be protecting on this disk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the buffer? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 50 foot nondisturbance buffer as 38 Board of Trustees 39 November 16, 2005 declared, that's on the books. They are going 90 to the house that leaves 40 and 50. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, you wouldn't think they would clear next to the cove next to the tennis courts. I think one thing we'd specify on our permit too, there's a lot of garbage that's been dumped there. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Have you seen it? MS. TOTH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even though the permit will contain a nondisturbance area, we'll allow a provision for them to clean up the garbage that has been dumped because it would fall within the nondisturbance area, so the nondisturbance area would be a place they couldn't trim anything, they couldn't mow anything, they couldn't clear anything at all, and that would be back from the creek, but in that area there's a pile of plastic bags, and there's a substantial amount of yard waste that's been placed there. So we would allow them to clean that up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Vicki, would you be willing to do any more than of a buffer; would you consider another 10 feet? MS. TOTH: They have to be 50 feet from the road, right, the house? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 35. MS. TOTH: My only thing is I don't know what the setbacks are for other houses. (Discussion) TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Jack Cipriano for a two-story, single-family dwelling, with sanitary system and driveway with the stipulation that there be a 60 foot nondisturbance buffer from the edge of the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Don't forget the debris clean up. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: As well as the debris cleaned up after construction, as well as the hay bales line at that 60 foot nondisturbance buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 8. Environmental Survey, Inc. on behalf of JAMES BROWN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 3' by 64' dock and replace with a 3' by 70' open pile dock in a 39 Board of Trustees 40 November 16, 2005 new location with a 3' by 12' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock with two dolphin piles. Located: 170 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-52 and 53. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application or to represent the applicant? All right, there's two things, one, we met with the applicant two months ago and the application was supposed to be staked for this month's meeting and it wasn't. And it was also deemed inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator for Southold Town. So I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 9. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of BRADFORD WINSTON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool and wood deck, attached to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 485 Breezy Path, Southold. SCTM#89-2-8 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Winston. This is another one of those permits that never came completely to fruition. As you probably noticed when you inspected the site, the remains of the last line of hay bales is still there, and this new construction that we're proposing is all within that remains of the line of hay bales. And yes, I know it looks like a funny deck and a funny pool, the reason being that there is some question in the minds of the applicants about exactly what the design of the pool and the deck will be, but we would like the opportunity to build the deck and the pool essentially as it's shown there within that framework, and we would of course provide a detail of the exact construction when that's decided upon. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Any other comments? CAC recommended approval of the application with the condition of a dry well be installed that contains the pool backwash and the surrounding areas remain natural. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm familiar with the site. I recognize it from the odd-shaped building footprint. It meets our setbacks, the applicant could have turf there instead, so if they have decking there, environmentally I don't see where it would be insensitive, they're not going to apply fertilizer to the deck. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree, black and white code says you 40 Board of Trustees 41 November 16, 2005 must have at least 50 foot setback off the wetlands for any accessory structures and according to the survey 75 feet, so you exceed the setbacks. So I don't see any reason to deny. MR. FITZGERALD: Ken, the nondisturbance buffer will be 50 feet? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I didn't mention anything about a nondisturbance buffer. I'm just saying accessory structures must be minimum 50 feet from the wetlands delineation line and you have 75. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Over here it's only 50? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Oh, 57. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The marsh comes in here. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 57 from the road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the building envelope from years ago. So environmentally I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Okay. I'm comfortable approving it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one question, what is the elevation of the deck; is it a first floor deck or second floor deck? MR. FITZGERALD: First floor. It will be at the level of the pool. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: With that, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Bradford Winston as submitted for an in-ground pool with deck, with the stipulation that a dry well be placed for the pool backwash. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES 10. Dru Associates, Inc. on behalf of JOAN MCDONALD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, porch, garage, driveway and sanitary system. Located: 705 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-3-9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BASIL: Good evening, Mr. President, Members of the Board, for the record, Joseph F. Basil, I'm an attorney for Miss McDonald, and speaking tonight would be Mr. Ron Abrams from Dru Associates. I would just like to make a few brief comments before calling Mr. Abrams. The application seeks a Wetland Permit in accordance with the permit already issued by the New York State DEC concerning the construction of the 41 Board of Trustees 42 November 16, 2005 dwelling, the garage, driveway and sanitary system on property known as 705 Bayshore Road, which backs up to the Pipe's Creek. It is on the northerly side of Bayshore Road, a little over 495 feet off Kerwin Boulevard. The site maintains a little over 20,000 square feet and goes back to a subdivision map filed in 1933. There was a prior approval issued on this site. The applicant then went forward to the New York State DEC and obtained New York State DEC approval and has now come back to this Board seeking a new approval in accordance with the DEC permit. Unless the Board has any questions, at this point, I'd like to bring up Mr. Abrams. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's inconsistent and also when we were out there we said we were going to have to move back -- (Discussion.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There's also a letter-- DR. ABRAMS: Dr. Ron Abrams, I'm a consulting ecologist and I teach environmental science at Long Island University. I was asked to look at the property and last year we obtained from the New York DEC Tidal Wetland Permit for the application you now have. Just briefly, the DEC required the 75 foot setback, there's a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer, then there is a retaining wall behind which is a three to four foot raised platform of fill for the house, that was necessary also to obtain a sanitary design done by Young and Young that would satisfy the Health Department, and so that's the application. Those are the factors that led to the current form of the application that you have in front of you. This project was designed to protect the tidal wetlands and the tidal wetlands water quality and to control the erosion and storm water flows and to prevent pollution from a sanitary system from reaching the sensitive environment, the tidal wetlands. Within the 75 foot setback area we have extremely sandy soils and we will be retaining 50 foot of the dense vegetation that's found on the site now. This sandy soil will effectively filter storm flows and any sanitary flows that might want to move towards the tidal wetlands, and, in fact, due to the percolation rate in this sandy soil and the fact that just down several feet below the surface is a layer of gravel and sand, which will enhance the percolation, there will be virtually no horizontal flow in any direction away from either the house, where there would be some generation of storm water, or the sanitary system, which would be the usual leachate that would go downward into the soils and be filtered in the sand. In fact, it's probably adequate in the sand of this 42 Board of Trustees 43 November 16, 2005 property to have an even shorter setback as witnessed by the fact that the one neighbor has a yard that extends all the way to the tidal wetlands completely cleared and that tidal wetlands has no adverse impacts from that yard. There's no evidence of erosion, there's no shoreline loss, and there's no degradation of the wetland vegetation. So we feel that the 50 foot vegetated buffer is more than adequate to protect the wetlands. In terms of meeting your standards for issuance of permit, the project as proposed and has been determined by the DEC's tidal wetlands bureau will not adversely affect the wetlands. There will be no direct impact on the wetlands and the buffer, as I said, will be more than adequate to buffer that wetlands. The soils in this area are not prone to erosion. Again, the sand acts as a filter and passes water very easily. The water quality of tidal wetland will be protected. The Health Department criteria for the sanitary system will protect not only the tidal wetlands but anybody in the immediate vicinity. That sanitary system will not fail as designed and as approved by the Health Department and there will be no loss of the functional benefits of the wetlands or of the buffer that will be left. In fact, this will be one of the densest buffers in that whole strip of residential development along Pipe's Creek. So from an environmental science point of view, I find that the project as proposed, and, of course, as agreed by the DEC does meet the standards of issuance for a permit from your Board. And I'm here for questions, if you have any. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. MR. BASIL: I would just add that the sanitary system is, of course, under the jurisdiction of the Health Department, and has been designed to be a new fully complete system and in full conformity with all Suffolk County Health Code requirements regarding the sanitary system. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Conservation Advisory Council recommends approval of the application with the condition of a 50 foot nondisturbance buffer and the pervious path is maintained. The LWRP review is inconsistent, and I believe the main concerns from that review was that the fill would cause raised elevation and runoff and they are recommending that the house be set back 100 feet to protect Pipe's Cove. There's also a letter in the file from Michael Hughes and Sarah Hughes, I'm not going to read the whole thing, but they say they have two main concerns. The first 43 Board of Trustees 44 November 16, 2005 being her proposal to backfill the property with 100 cubic yards of fill thereby building up the portion of the property that the dwelling would be built on by approximately seven to eight feet in addition to building a masonry retaining wall to hold back the mountain they will have quite unnaturally created. Of course, our main concern with this is that it will create water and dirt runoff directly onto our property. Since the location of the front of her house will be almost even with the back of our house, we are concerned with the impact this will have on our property, home. We do not currently have a water problem in our basement and do not feel that she should be allowed to create this problem for us. Second concern is the location of the proposed septic system. Since we are in public water and our two neighbors across the street are not, the septic system as proposed to be located on the side of her house, which is directly outside my kitchen back door. And those were their two main concerns. MR. BASIL: The setbacks distance on the sanitary system is off the well, across the street. The county has a sanitary setback distance. The applicant has to comply with it, which prohibits moving the sanitary system further forward than it is. As I indicated, it will be a brand new, fully compliant system which should not generate any odor problems as it will meet all county health code requirements. As for the amounts of the elevation, I would ask Mr. Abrams to again touch on that point as well as the drainage. DR. ABRAMS: There are two points about the elevation. First of all, the elevation is not a mountain; it's three feet graded over 20 feet, which is a very modest slope. Secondly, the new fill will be placed on the bed of sand that's there. There's not going to be any storm water runoff. The new fill will be fully stabilized because it will be the yard around the house and waters that percolate down into that soil will disappear into the sand and gravel beneath it. The reason the neighbor has no flooding in the basement is because you have the sands along the whole shoreline there that drain very, very quickly. There will not be an increased amount of sand. If the Town engineers were to determine that it were necessary, dry wells could be added adjacent to the house in the new fill, if, as I say, the Town engineer disagrees with the design of our engineer. However, our engineer feels that's not necessary. And as for the concern about the position of the house and the elevation, the architect has chosen to raise this house 44 Board of Trustees 45 November 16, 2005 slightly in order to comply with the flood zone requirements and to get the first floor elevation to 14 feet, so as to remain consistent with FEMA. As for an inconsistency with the LWRP. I just disagree. The LWRP intends to protect Pipe's Cove. Well, the plan here will protect Pipe's Cove. The New York DEC, whose responsibility is tidal wetlands, agrees with me, the soils and the vegetation agree with me, and while there may be a proscribed setback or a recommended setback, setbacks are meant to be considered on a case by case basis; and in this case adding another 25 feet back will do no more to increase the protection to the wetlands, absolutely nothing. It would just be pro forma and in this case perhaps punitive. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to answer the LWRP question, or subject, this Board does not make the LWRP reviews. That is something that we get in from another Town agency. DR. ABRAMS: I understand. But I have read the LWRP and I'm offering my professional interpretation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, we have someone else that would like to speak. MRS. MACALUSO: The letter was from my husband and myself. The Board spent a good part an hour earlier in this meeting talking with several people regarding a prior application regarding a retaining wall, and in that you stated that there have been many catastrophic problems with retaining walls and neighbor's property. We're talking about the same situation here. One of the reasons that I do not currently have a water problem in my basement is because my house is located in an S water zone, whereas Miss McDonald wants to build her house in the AE flood zone build that up. She has the availability to put her house in the same water zone as mine if she puts it closer to the road, but then she wouldn't have a water view to her side, which is what she's trying to do, push her house farther back than anyone else around her, so she can see the water in every direction that she looks out. And the only reason she wants to build up the property is so she can have a better view of everyone around her. The septic system, again, I realize it's a Health Department issue, but the Health Department also states that you do not locate a septic system in a side yard when only it's more convenient for you to do that. She has to make available to the neighbors across the street, but if she's willing to pay to hook them up to public water where then they could put the septic system in the front yard in an X flood zone where they wouldn't have to worry about it overflowing. 45 Board of Trustees 46 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, when I drew the line of 100 foot jurisdiction and this is the houses within that jurisdiction, the problem we have had with retaining walls in the past is that they typically drain the rainwater onto the neighbor's property and now any retaining wall with fill, the requirements would be some sort of French drains or drainage system that would contain the applicant's runoff. MR. BASIL: I think as Mr. Abrams said, we're happy to have our engineer take another look at that and take it up with the Town engineer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As well as standard permitting procedure is dry wells for roof runoff, that's standard in our permits. DR. ABRAMS: They can be added without any problem and reminding the retaining wall's four feet high, it's not a large structure. But we can add a dry well behind it. MS. MACALUSO: You're talking about building up her property four feet higher than mine. So where does that -- how does that stop when it gets to my property line? I have this four foot wall going up on the side of my house? DR. ABRAMS: Yes, it does. MRS. MACALUSO: It does? I'm going to have a four foot wall. DR. ABRAMS: No, ma'am. If you could read a plan, the grading lines on each side of the house grade down -- that's what I mentioned earlier-- over a 20 foot distance it goes down four feet. That's a very gradual slope. MRS. MACALUSO: So with this sloping down towards my yard and the neighbor on the other side, so that when we have water runoff, it's going to runoff onto both properties on either side of us. What is the purpose that she has to be put four feet higher than anybody else? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's another woman that would like to speak in the back? MRS. MACALUSO: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Would anyone else like to make a comment? MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue. I'd like to inquire about the Board's -- I'll put it this way, your position on cesspools that can be hydraulically pumped because of their altitude above seawater. This sounds like it's in that range, that it's simple physics, that that's what happens when the water goes up into a height equal to the inside of a cesspool. I know there's expertise on the 46 Board of Trustees 47 November 16, 2005 Board, and I would hope that you consider how that works out. Another question I'd like to raise is whether in this case it was mentioned that the water will go straight down, there's extensive clay in this area. It can be empirically observed that the water rapidly flows horizontally through the sand when you have these clay, sand strata situations, have there been borings done? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, yes, we do have test hole situations. MRS. MACALUSO: Can I make another comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MRS. MACALUSO: Last month when we had the extensive rains that we had, I'm an insurance agent, I work for Roy Reed Agency, I spent three straight days talking to people about flooded basements, okay, and most of those people didn't have flood insurance, and most of those people didn't have coverage on their homeowner's policy, and it was not a happy time to talk to everybody. I, myself, was lucky and did not have water in my basement. However, the back portion of my property, which has never had water come up, flooded one-third of the way up on the left side, and we have never had water come up that high ever, and it flooded and came up well past where my property has ever seen water. So him saying that there's not going to be any water runoff, and this was from rain, the high tide mark was well above where the high tide mark has ever been. And by the way, you need to go out and reflag the wetlands because those little things are gone that you put there, whoever was out there in that rain, those disappeared. This is what you're going to get. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you live east or west? MRS. MACALUSO: I'm the one that has the lawn that goes all the way back to the water because the house was built in 1978, when you were allowed to do those things. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Actually, the septic system is located outside of our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction only goes 100 feet landward. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there any consideration to move the house back? One of the things the Board always looks at are the houses in relation to the neighbors. And this house is quite a bit out of sync. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seaward. MR. BASIL: I think a lot of time and effort has preceded the application tonight in terms of the design of the house, the location of the house on the property, considerations of 47 Board of Trustees 48 November 16, 2005 preserving the Pipe's Creek area by applications to the New York State DEC, sanitary location to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and all those agencies have approved it. We believe that the location of the house will fall within this Board's jurisdiction still the 50 foot nondisturbance buffer as Mr. Abrams testified, clearly is adequate to preserve the Pipe's Creek. The sanitary system has been approved, as I understand it, by the Health Department and is outside this Board's jurisdiction and the specific conditions of this parcel, we believe the location of the house works. MRS. MACALUSO: You said that the sanitary system was approved with the property being built up, which they haven't approved yet. MR. BASIL: There are multiple agencies that issue approval before you can build. MRS. MACALUSO: But you have your Health Department approval on the septic system done based on the fact that the property was going to be built up, which they haven't said that they will do that. MR. BASIL: I'm not disputing that but I don't see what your point is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because the Board has a concern with the inconsistency from the LWRP and we as a Board feel that it needs to be moved back. My approval would be with that recommendation, that the house be moved back -- can we say that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know. If we move the retaining wall back to 100 feet it will be nonjurisdictional at that point. MR. BASIL: I'm sorry, that's not something the applicant can consent to. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's the feeling from the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We couldn't issue a permit then, right? Unless we issue a permit for a retaining wall at 99 and a half feet, we can't issue a permit for something outside of our jurisdiction. MR. JOHNSTON: Then you just deny what they're asking. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Because they're not going to consider that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Fine. MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, do you have him as an agent for Mrs. McDonald? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In this file, no, not that I'm aware of. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you sign something having him as your 48 Board of Trustees 49 November 16, 2005 agent, Mrs. McDonald? You're going to send us something, correct? MR. BASIL: I'll send you whatever you want. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. Normally if an attorney's representing a client, there's a form that we have in our application packet that authorizes you to speak for it. You were just making some comments on her behalf. We don't have anything here to allow you to do that. MR. BASIL: If it was in the application packet, I'm sure we submitted it. I'm happy to provide another one. I know saw letterhead of my office being circulated on the desk, so it's not like it's the first time we have appeared with this file. MR. JOHNSTON: You're an attorney? MR. BASIL: Yes, I am. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. BASIL: Yes, I do. MR. JOHNSTON: I want a statement that she signs authorizing you or your firm to be her representative. MR. BASIL: All I'm saying is if it was in the application packet, I don't have every bit of paperwork on this file in front of me right now, if it was in the application packet, it would have been filed. I'm happy to file another copy, but it's my understanding it was filed. MRS. MCDONALD: Do you want me to sign something right now? MR. JOHNSTON: No, a simple, yes, I will sign something and we would have been done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm going to make a motion to reserve the Board's decision. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 11. Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of THOMAS & MARY IRENE MARRON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling and to expand the existing deck. Located: 3125 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM#70-4-10. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. STRANG: Good evening, Garrett Strang, Architect, Southold, on .behalf of the Marrons. Quick overview, which is somewhat spelled out in the application, but just a 49 Board of Trustees 50 November 16, 2005 little history here, the home my client presently owns was previously owned by her mother who unfortunately passed on. So she now has it and due to a growing family situation, they need to expand the house to make it function better for their present use. The proposed expansion to the house itself, you'll see on the site plan is not to extend beyond the line of the existing building line on the one corner, and similarly, the proposed deck expansion is not to extend beyond the line of the existing deck. For the record, the existing house line is 91 feet back from the high water mark and the proposed deck is back 77 feet from the high water mark. Beyond the house and the deck that's presently there and proposed to be built under this application, there is and will continue to be a lawned area that is established, and has been established for some time, up to the point where there was rock revetment put in in lieu of a hard bulkhead some years ago that this Board gave a permit to do. So, it's pretty much an overview of what we're proposing and if the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I actually inspected this and the rock revetment was very nice. Conservation Advisory Council tabled the application because the project was not staked. However, the CAC recommends gutters and dry wells installed to contain road runoff and a 20 foot nonturf buffer. LWRP reviews it to be consistent. I did look at this; I thought with the revetment there I didn't know that there would be a need for the buffer. I would ask that the hay bales be staked landward of that tree line. Those trees are going to stay, I hope. MR. STRANG: Yes, the trees that are existing will remain, and, as a matter of fact, I think as per a conversation with neighbors there will be no additional screening or anything planted either. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling and expand the existing deck, with gutters and dry wells installed for roof runoff and that the hay bales line be staked landward of the existing tree line. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 50 Board of Trustees 51 November 16, 2005 12. Robert Barratt on behalf of JULIE TSAI requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling and to expand the existing deck. Located: 3125 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM#70-4-10 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll recuse myself from the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Apparently this is incomplete. It's been determined by the LWRP coordinator that the consistency form is incomplete, recommendation cannot be given to the Board at this time. Please have the applicant assess if the proposed action will or will not support the LWRP policy and resubmit the form to your department. The policies are listed below. So this means we can't proceed with this. MR. BARRATT: Members of the Board, my name is Robert Barratt, and I'm representing Julie Tsai who is actually here this evening. And I was asking a question regarding what the gentleman had indicated was incomplete. MR. JOHNSTON: His answer was the LWRP consistency form that's submitted with the application is incomplete. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He just needs to refile in its complete form. Heather can -- MS. CUSACK: Just contact Mark Terry in the Planning Department. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else here to comment on this? MS. POPPY: My name is Trisha Poppy, I live at 282 Northview Drive Southold, I am also president of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association. As the Board is well aware, we have as part of our stewardship a wonderful piece of area that has been most recently been given the moniker "Great Pond Wetlands." You the Board have also seen fit in your last meetings over the last year or so to designate many of the lots there as a wish-list for preservation. Due to the efforts of the Kenny's Beach Civic Association and its wetlands preservation committee, you were able to preserve one area which we'll call the Harper area and as in a letter that we wrote to the Trustees on behalf of the civic association, we know that you also disapproved an application vis-a-vis the Mazzanoble property. We would like to think we're on a roll here in an attempt to protect this very vital, fragile freshwater wetlands, so designated by our environmental expert. I believe the association paid for that expert to prepare a report for you, which enlightened all of us to the presence of this particular land. This application is looking to build a one-family home within 55 feet of that wetlands area. I think that we 51 Board of Trustees 52 November 16, 2005 need to see a little bit more than what that drawing seems to show us. I physically went out along with a couple other residents -- there were others here as well but because of the lateness of the evening they have gone home -- but some of the measurements don't seem to be exactly right. So I know that you will be very concerned about that and make sure that the stakes are in the proper places for this particular application. I just want to quote from what we did write to you and it did say that if Kenny's Beach Civic Association does indeed respect the property rights of individuals, but they also must factor in their commitment to protecting and preserving the environments, which is clearly supported by the wetlands law, especially Chapter 97-12. This law should make it easy for the decision to disapprove the Kenny's Beach Civic Association will support you in your decision to continue to preserve our land from destructive development. And in the letter that I just wrote to some of the members of the council who were just newly elected; I said that we do really need to protect the land because Mark Twain said, "They ain't makin' anymore." Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. LEHNER: My name is Gerard Lehner. I've lived in Southold since I was five years old in the summer time. I'm 54 now. We lived in the Weil house on Lake Drive. Across the way where this permit is possible, if they can get away with it, is a little pond that has water in it when there's a draught, it's small but you can find it. And 40 years ago or 40 something years ago, Mr. Osbourn, who had the large house with the bulkhead on the sound, he had the whole area bulldozed and before that there was a swamp in that area, and there was a bluff where the road makes a slight uphill turn and often people would drive off the road there. There used to be a bluff there so the road the Town constructed was correct, but the bluff was plowed over into the swamp. So it might be a place where they're going to have a lot of water seepage into their situation, and they may have to landfill the area to raise it up. And then we're going to have neighbors higher up across from us again. So anyway, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: Ma'am, would you mind just mentioning the names of the people that are here on the record so they don't have to come up? MS. SINI: Anna Sini. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Richard (inaudible), my letter's on file. 52 Board of Trustees 53 November 16, 2005 MR. LEHNER: Gerard Lehner. MS. MCTIEGHE: Mary McTieghe. I did want to mention one crucial item, and that is with the rejection of the Mazzanoble application, if this were to be approved, it would open up the flood gates. It would set a stack. Once that property is gone, it's gone. So thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MS. AGASINI: Amy Agasini, I live down the block from the property that we are speaking of. Fourteen years ago bought my property out here and I was drawn to Southold because of its beauty and nature, and its willingness to keep that. I would never want to deny anybody from moving into this town to enjoy what I have so enjoyed for the last 14 years and hopefully for many years to come. However, they need to build within reason. We have -- and it's been documented -- we have a precious and rare environmental area in that spot, and we would like to maintain that. So we were very excited about your views in previous meetings and we hope that you continue your commitment to saving what is left of our natural resources here. Thank you. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? CAC wants to table the application. They want to see the wetlands flagged and I agree, I would like to see the wetlands flagged myself. We were in there, and it was very difficult for myself to see exactly where they are. So I would like to table this application until those wetlands are flagged. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is that a motion? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, you want to make sure that the agent agrees to that and knows what he has to do. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's also incomplete. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Barratt, did you understand what has to be done? MR. BARRATT: I would prefer to have anything from you in writing. TRUSTEE KING: You need a letter from us requesting you to flag the wetlands? MR. BARRATT: Are you requesting? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, of course. MR. JOHNSTON: You need a letter from us telling you to fill out the LWRP consistency form completely also? MR. BARRATT:. The wetlands were flagged by En-Consultants, 53 Board of Trustees 54 November 16, 2005 and the flags were surveyed by a licensed land surveyor, Joe Ingegno, down in Riverhead, and that information was put onto the survey, which also had all the contours and everything on it. TRUSTEE KING: But I didn't see the flagging in the field. We physically go out and look at it, but I didn't see it in the field. MR. BARRATT: It's taken some time, as you probably can understand because there have been all these other issues come up since the survey was done. Have to tell you the flags were about nine or 10 blue ribbons, and they were surveyed within a month of them being put up. MR. MCGREEVEY: There are stakes and ribbons on that site and unless they correspond to what they want to indicate, there's a lot of letters on these stakes. MR. BARRATT: No. The ribbons I'm talking about are about one inch wide blue ribbons, and they were tied to various plants that were assessed being of a critical wetlands nature, and those flags are what the surveyor went ahead and added to the survey. Now he has summoned and sealed the survey to the effect that the survey shows where those ribbons are. I'm not sure, do you have a copy of that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. We're looking at it now. TRUSTEE KING: It's been a year since it was flagged. It says flagging was done in November, 2004. MR. BARRATT: That's right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We couldn't locate them. MR. BARRATT: They were there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We're not saying they weren't. TRUSTEE KING: They're not there now that I could find, so we need to go out there and see them. That's why we're asking to get it reflagged. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, when was the application made; do you have a date for that approximately? TRUSTEE KING: Received application 10/7/05. MR. JOHNSTON: Which was 11 months after it was flagged. MR. BARRATT: Because there were other discussions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a problem with getting it reflagged? MR. BARRATT: I can't speak for my client. I'll ask him, I would assume. MR. JOHNSTON: You were authorized to speak for your client according to what's in that file. MR. BARRATT: That's true. But generally one does confer with one's client, but I don't see that to be an overriding problem. What concerns me is the fact that a licensed land 54 Board of Trustees 55 November 16, 2005 surveyor surveyed those flags, placed those positions of the flags on the survey, and now I'm trying to understand you want to go to the site and do your own survey? TRUSTEE KING: We go to the physical site; we do a lot of measuring and a lot of double-checking, not that we don't trust anybody we just do it. MR. BARRATT: You want to verify the surveyor's work is what you're saying? TRUSTEE KING: Right. MR. JOHNSTON: In addition, Mr. Barratt, the CAC, when they go out, would like to have this flagging so they can identify it as well. MR. MCGREEVEY: So the information we have corresponds. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So between this time and next month, the flagging needs to be done, and the LWRP form needs to be made complete before we go out again. MR. BARRATT: Absolutely. I think I understand, and, actually, one of my clients is here, and I think she's going to go along with what you're saying. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this until next month's field inspection. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Recuse. 13. Alpha Consulting on behalf of LARRY KULICK requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing fixed catwalk and wall section in-place with C-Loc vinyl, CCA piles and nontreated topping and construct a 4' by 12' access ramp landward and resting on grade, add a 4' by 6' platform, 3' by 15' ramp and 6' by 20' floating dock secured by three 8" by 16' pilings to the existing structure; construct a split-rail fence on the three sides of the property; construct a free-standing 10' by 10' gazebo to be situated 60' landward of the wetland boundary; trench for water and electricity to the dock; and removal by hand of poison ivy in the vegetated buffer area east of the dock. Located: 2200 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM#87-3-61 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANGEL: Members of the Board, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ted 55 Board of Trustees 56 November 16, 2005 Angel, Alpha Consulting on behalf of Larry Kulick. The last time we discussed this application, ladies and gentlemen, there was some concern about the consistency. I have spoken with Mr. Mark Terry. He gave me his thoughts on it, that he no longer has any objections, and he did say that he would relay his thoughts to Heather, who would then convey them to the Board. It was a reservation at the last meeting having to do with those issues. The ramp and float was reconfigured to be parallel to the shoreline, and as the Board had agreed on physical inspection that Mr. Kulick's improvements could go out just six feet beyond the existing improvements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? There's a letter from Mr. Kulick. I'll read the letter. "There is currently a plan submitted before you to allow for us to replace in-kind the existing portion of the fixed dock with environmentally sensitive materials to extend our walk out six feet and have a ramp down to a 20' by 6' float running eastward parallel to the land. The counter proposal is to deny the portion of the project to reconstruct the existing portion of the fixed dock. A previous request to rebuild the dock area and bulkhead to alleviate flooding and erosion on our property as well as our neighbor's was rejected. "We respectfully do not accept this proposal because if allowed to decay without allowing replacement in-kind, the new portion will continue to exist, but we would have to jump from the land to the existing portion of the dock, approximately 20 feet. "We have owned this property for nine years. From the outset we have chose not to proceed with an attempt to construct a home, but rather wanted to utilize this open land, an extension of our property at 1895 Minnehaha. Toward that end we have attempted the following: one, removal of existing overgrown vegetation including huge amounts of poison ivy. We were willing to replant areas with appropriate waterfront ecologically sound plantings. We are extremely allergic to poison ivy. I have pictures of myself inflicted to poison ivy from this property causing most of the skin on my face to come off. Comments by prior Trustee that there are over-the-counter creams for prevention as opposed to removal is completely inappropriate. "Two, creation of a bulkhead or natural berm to further prevent erosion to my property and my neighbors. It should be noted that property to the west is completely 56 Board of Trustees 57 November 16, 2005 bulkheaded and to the east is a very small piece of beach. Both neighbors support my request for a bulkhead. The Trustees have denied such a request but do not offer any counter proposal or assistance of what could be done to preserve the land. We respectfully ask that you look at the entire picture and see what we are doing to seek to utilize our land as an extended backyard to our home and not to do ecological destruction to the north fork. "Specifically, one, full eradication of unnecessary vegetation and lowering of remaining vegetation to a suitable level, replanting where applicable; two, bulkheading of some fashion to protect the land from frequent erosion; 3, creation of a dock suitable for sitting as well as a float appropriate to handle at least two boats approximate lengths 20' to 26', maintaining suitable depths for dockage; 4, a gazebo; 5, bringing of quality fill to raise and level land by preventing flood rains on the property; 6, fence for privacy and security. "Your response to this letter is requested, including explanation for any denials specific to our property. We would expect reasonable alternatives to any denial in an effort to achieve our goal of utilizing our property for our family enjoyment and maintaining our property for further generations to come." You have a copy of that letter. I'll address these one at a time. Number one, full eradication of unnecessary planting, I don't know if we want to define -- MR. ANGEL: Al, excuse me, sir. I did explain to Mr. Kulick that you can't just take out the vegetation. If you would look at the site plan, which was the latest revision, which was 9/16/05, it shows the parallel ramp and float with three piles. I explained to Mr. Kulick also that if the DEC would consider allowing the wall to be replaced in-place, we would ask that you do the same. If the DEC does not, then, obviously, he cannot replace the wall section that's in place. But the short extension, the 4' by 6' platform, the ramp, the float and the piles are in full conformance with everything, and we don't anticipate any problem. So, if you would set aside Mr. Kulick's commentary, because I have spoken to him since he did write this letter, and I do have a copy; he understands that basically the plan that I have provided is appropriate, it's acceptable, and it was just a question of on the top of the exist fixed catwalk, it measures 53 inches as opposed to 48 inches, and he would like to have that existing width maintained. And it's a question of your approval contingent upon DEC approval of 57 Board of Trustees 58 November 16, 2005 replacing the wall section in-place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me get back to your comments about Mark Terry. MR. ANGEL: Yes. He says -- this was earlier today when I spoke to him, because I had addressed each one of his citations and the inconsistency letter and basically they don't apply to this application, and he did say to me that since he basically examined the earlier application, this has since been a revision, and he said he would have no objection if you disregard his commentary on his letter of inconsistency, and he said he would mention that to Heather as well for conveyance to the Board. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So is he going to rewrite his review? MS. CUSACK: He didn't speak to me about this. MR. JOHNSTON: Why don't we table it, give him time to respond? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what has been the problem with this Board from the start is this wall, and one of the -- I'll go over it just again for the record -- one of the suggestions of the Board was that if you have this little bulkheaded area here, you could do some limited dredging and put a float in it and have your access or you could extend your dock out to get better access. And we actually offered the alternative of digging the slip into the applicant's property to make it even larger. Which apparently wasn't attractive to the applicant and that's fine. MR. ANGEL: But if the Board has the agreement, then the wall will be removed and what we will have is what you see on the site plan, which is the catwalk, the bump out platform, 4' by 6' platform, the ramp and the float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the gazebo. MR. ANGEL: Well, the gazebo is landward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the fence. MR. ANGEL: But what I'm saying is that basically if it's the matter of the wall, because there may be a problem with the DEC and replacing that wall in-place because there is some vegetation, he has authorized me to withdraw the request for the wall in the interest of time and getting the approval. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: : Is there a purpose are for that little bump-out on the northwest side? MR. ANGEL: We're accessing usable depths and it's giving us the six feet that the Board originally said you can go out six feet because originally the float was out -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you come up here? I don't know if we're talking about the same. 58 Board of Trustees 59 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're not. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This little jut out here (indicating). MR. ANGEL: That's preexisting. (Discussion) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES MR. ANGEL: Al, excuse me, one other item came up with the tax map. I don't know if Mark Terry had mentioned that to you. It appears that the Laughing Waters Homeowner's Association, which. is adjacent to his property, owns a tax lot, which is the underwater land, that runs in front -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's right. MR. ANGEL: We didn't know about this, and when he told me about it, I contacted Mr. Kulick. He then contacted the Board of Laughing Waters Association. Because evidently it's not part of the adjacent property, but it's a separate tax map that is under water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes: MR. ANGEL: So he's getting a permission letter,which then also has to travel to the DEC, but they're not meeting until December 6th. So I just wanted you to know that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we'll condition our approval upon that. MR. ANGEL: Nobody knew about that and it just happened to come up on a tax map that nobody had. But it's well that it did, at least this way he's covered. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the application for a 4' by 22' access ramp, replace the existing catwalk 4' by 22', with a 4' by 6' "L"; 4' by 6' platform to complete the fixed portion of the catwalk; 3' by 15' ramp; 6' by 20' float; three (3) 8" piles to hold the float; gazebo; 475 feet of split-rail fencing, all as per stamped plans. MR. ANGEL: Also, would you add the trenching for water and Electric? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And trenching to include water and electric service to the dock. MR. ANGEL: And removal by hand of the poison ivy in the vegetated buffer area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we have a 50 foot undisturbed buffer there; is that correct, on that property? MR. ANGEL: Yes. But he wanted to remove the poison ivy. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Can't touch that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it's a nondisturbance buffer, we can't 59 Board of Trustees 60 November 16, 2005 allow that. I don't have the old permit here. MR. ANGEL: But the DEC had given him that permission earlier but it was never carried through. No work was done under that permit, an earlier permit that was expired in 2001 1 believe. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we'll include that tonight. I made the motion; is there a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 14. En-Consultants on behalf of 343E18, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling. Located: 115 East Side Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-19 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. The portion of this project that's within the Board's jurisdiction as read into the record is just the demolition of the dwelling, though I would ask the Board hoping it will issue an approval this evening that we also include the abandonment of the existing septic system. As the Board would, I'm sure look for, the septic system that's existing and well within your jurisdiction, nonconforming setbacks from the wetlands is going to be abandoned and replaced with an upgraded and reloaded system located landward of your jurisdiction. We would expect that the Board would look for a project limiting fence and hay bales to be established during the construction and that will be established as shown on the site plan. If the Board has any other questions, I can answer them, but if it should be pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE KING: It is consistent with the LWRP. Do you know anything about a right of way down there for an access to the water? MS. MOORE: Pat Moore, we reviewed the file today because I'm retained to do some zoning there, variances that we may need, and I was researching the file. Are you talking about South Lagoon? TRUSTEE KING: There's a letter here from a Carol Fester; it's regarding -- MS. MOORE: Let me answer the question that I think is at issue. There's a South Lagoon Drive, which apparently in the '80s the DEC acquired through -- I don't believe it was 60 Board of Trustees 61 November 16, 2005 eminent domain, but they bought South Lagoon Lane, and they bought a tract, all the wetlands that are south of it. So there's actually a deed from this parcel south and for a large tract on the south end of all the wetlands area. Now, the deed at the time apparently there must have been this property as well as other properties and very few of them, I think there are four of them, that are actually listed on the deed that the DEC got that is subject to right of these particular parcels to have access over that what is a paper road. It's not an actual built-out road. So the DEC couldn't abolish the rights of others that were already in place, but they very specifically listed those by deed already in place, but they very specifically listed those that by deed have rights to cross over it and no other. So actually it's the equivalent of open space except for the fact that individual parcels still have a right of access which the DEC couldn't abolish, that's South Lagoon Lane. So I think that that may answer your question. It's a paper road. It's grass, so I guess the DEC could access it if they wanted it because I think they're the ones who might want to access. The parcels that have rights of access over it. There's really no place to go. There's a tree at the end of it that blocks any further access. It's by deed but not by practice. MR. HERMANN: And it's adjacent to the property. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, this construction isn't going to have any impact on the right of way. No, I looked at it this week. Yes, sir? MR. KITZ: My name is Chuck Kitz. I own the house across the street. And I was under the impression that this was purchased from the state. MS. MOORE: DEC, state. MR. KITZ: And it was still DEC available that you were to access it by permit, and you were allowed to use that permit. MS. MOORE: I don't know if the state issues permits for access. I know that -- TRUSTEE KING: You can get access permission to the wetlands. Actually, it's only by permitted access to go into those wetlands. MR. KITZ: Right, by the DEC because I had a permit. Now that is actually a paper road and cleared right next to this dwelling. MS. MOORE: About there? MR. KITZ: No. It's cleared all the way down and it. actually goes all the way down. There's a little ramp right 61 Board of Trustees 62 November 16, 2005 in between. Kerwin and Rogers own the property next door to it, and there's an actual ramp between there for that access. TRUSTEE KING: Right. I've got a pictures of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's not right because on this survey it shows the ramp on this property not on South Lagoon Lane. MR. KITZ: There's access here with a dock and access right here and the yellow house, I forgot their name. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this ramp is separate from that ramp? MS. MOORE: That's somebody else's ramp. MR. HERMANN: This is not the property. I don't know why we're discussing it. It has nothing to do with the property we're discussing. TRUSTEE KING: This is not a state access because it's on their property. MR. KITZ: So the access is right next to it then? TRUSTEE KING: Right, here's the ramp right there (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the project wouldn't impede? TRUSTEE KING: Right, no impact on that at all. MR. KITZ: Like I said, this was the first one I saw the posting of the sign for the demolition. This project, what kind of dwelling is being proposed? MR. HERMANN: There's a new dwelling being proposed in place of this dwelling, but the new dwelling is out of this Board's jurisdiction. So it's actually not a subject of this hearing. MR. KITZ: So my question would be would this access still be accessed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. It won't be affected by this at all. MR. HERMANN: Whatever the legal access is for you to South Lagoon Lane now, and I can't represent to you what that is, would be unaffected by this project. MR. KITZ: Just as long as the owner knows that so it doesn't get all encroached and filled in. MR. HERMANN: There's nothing proposed in that roadway and Mrs. Moore would have to testify as to whether you could propose anything in that roadway. MS. MOORE: I wasn't aware the DEC actually issued a permit for access. I know that in the deed from the DEC it's actually very specific stated who has a right of way and no others. It's not for public access. So you're one of the neighbors that have actually a right of way? MR. KITZ: There are four or five people that actually have deeded rights. 62 Board of Trustees 63 November 16, 2005 MS. MOORE: That's it. Those are the only four that the state technically has to allow. TRUSTEE KING: All that stuff that the DEC owns you can go in there, but you have to have a permit. You can access it from the water, but you have to have a permit to be walking around or off the road. That access might be private. MS. MOORE: No. The description on that deed includes that whole piece of property. I read it through and saw there's only four people that have access at all. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody can access it with a permit but not necessarily through that path. MR. HERMANN: That adjacent existing grass and dirt road is shown on this map. It's shown right there. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MR. HERMANN: Jim, could you make sure that there is language regarding the abandonment of that existing system in the event the Health Department actually makes them fill it. I just want to make sure that's authorized. TRUSTEE KING: And you're going to have a row of hay bales during construction and the old septic system is going to be abandoned and filled. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ALEXANDRA & KEVIN OWARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion permit to construct approximately 226 linear feet of rock revetment, consisting of 4 to 5 ton quarry capstone over 50-100 pound core stone, on filter cloth, backfill with approximately 60 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American Beach Grass 12 inches on center; and revegetate denuded portions of bluff face with Beach Grass, Bayberry, and Virginia Creeper. Located: 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#72-2-2.2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants here on behalf of the applicants, the O'Maras. 63 Board of Trustees 64 November 16, 2005 This project is a proposal to place 4 to 5 ton stone rock revetment along the toe of an eroding bluff, which once the revetment is installed and the toe of the bluff stabilized will be backfilled and revegetated with native plantings as shown on the plans. This is an application filed only after a bluff replanting project was undertaken which represented the soft approach, quote/unquote, often requested by the involved regulatory agencies before a hard stabilization approach would be considered. Further, the project design has taken into consideration not only the standards set forth by Chapter 37 of the Town code, Coastal Erosion Law, but also those legislated by the Town much more recently by the Chapter 97 revised last year and also the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program passed this year. Chapter 97, for example, specifically speaks to hard stabilization projects along Long Island Sound, and, in fact, specifically allows for them under certain conditions. Ones that are applicable to the sound include if the project will not increase erosion on neighboring properties; if it's a vertically faced bulkhead or retaining wall it must be armored with stone; that there is excessive erosion occurring at the site, and that CCA materials are not used. The uses of an engineered revetment which can be naturally sloped and angled at its returns enables the project to satisfy three of those four requirements, and, of course, the project is only being proposed in response to the excessive bluff erosion which has actually increased since the application was originally filed--as the stakes that were originally set at the toe of the bluff were washed away. The toe eroded further landward and the surveyor was supposed to reset the stakes, which I hope was done by the time the Board went to look at the property. The LWRP, which is now also guiding this Board to whatever extent the Board allows it to be guided, sets forth one of its policies applicable to the project which is Policy 4, which seeks to minimize loss of life, structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Policy 4, Section 41.D specifically advises that hard structural erosion protection measures should only be used under certain conditions. We have indicated in our LWRP application that the proposed revetment is consistent with this policy as the proposed hard structural protection measure is proposed only where a nonstructural vegetative erosion control program was implemented, but ineffective where the natural protective feature -- in this case the bluff— cannot be enhanced without stabilization of the bluff toe; where a 64 Board of Trustees 65 November 16, 2005 hard structure is the only design consideration that can practicably and effectively provide such toe stabilization; where the proposed protection measure is engineered to provide 30 or more years of effective erosion control, but also designed as naturally as possible, that is a sloped, natural stone revetment rather than a vertically faced retaining wall; where vegetative bluff face enhancement is incorporated into the project design; and, where due to the natural design of the revetment, including its slope and angled end returns, there will be no adverse impacts or increased erosion to the adjacent property owners. Obviously there will be no significant direct or indirect cost incurred by the public as a result of this privately sponsored project. One thing that is important for the Board to bear in mind for this application is that the revetment is being proposed because the conditions at the site, which are easily evidenced in the field and also documented in the photos submitted with our application, evidence a bottom-up style of bluff erosion; that is the bluff is being eroded by wave action causing toe scour, causing the bluff to collapse from the top down rather than a bottom down style of erosion that we also see on Long Island Sound where runoff from the top of the bank can cause erosion of the face of the bluff and cause the erosion to occur from the top down towards the toe, in which cases toe stabilization is not necessarily the proper first course of action. Specifically you can see in the photos submitted with the application and you can see in the field that standing on the shoreline of the sound, the top half of the bluff is actually in pretty good shape. It is uniformly vegetated. It continues to a vegetative area along the crest of the bank and above, while the bottom of the bluff has been completely denuded of its vegetation. This is typical of a site where the scour is occurring at the toe and effectively causing a failing of the vegetation pulling it from the top down again, as opposed to the reverse. If the Board has any questions about the application, I'm here to answer them. Mr. O'Mara is also here. I would like to note that Tom Samuels of Charles H. Rambo had intended to testify tonight on this application but due to the time of the hearing was unable to attend. think there is a larger issue here, particularly as this is a 60 percent or more --whatever it is -- outgoing Board, that there be something done in terms of the timing of this because . this is not really fair to the public, and it's not really fair to you all. 65 Board of Trustees 66 November 16, 2005 So, I will say if this application is tabled tonight and held over to December that there is some accommodation made for this hearing to be heard earlier in the evening so Mr. Samuels can attend. If it's held over and it continues to be held at this time at night, we'll be precluded from having Mr. Samuels ever testify. So I hope the Board would take that into consideration moving forward. TRUSTEE KING: I have a question, Rob, on access. This is going to be accessed from Duck Pond? MR. HERMANN: The access is shown on the plan. It is going to be from Duck Pond Road according to Mr. Samuels. TRUSTEE KING: From the road itself? MR. HERMANN: That was the information he gave. TRUSTEE KING: There's been a lot of problems with that road and with erosion and everything else going on. MR. HERMANN: That would be one issue I would hope Tom could respond to. TRUSTEE KING: There's not a lot of beach in front a lot of those bulkheads to the east. I haven't walked this stretch in a long time. MR. HERMANN: Tom discussed this with me, and I also asked him about the excessive distance of Duck Pond Road. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a lot of material to move in a lot of ways. MR. HERMANN: And from what he had told me that that was as far as he knew from initial view the closest he could get to that site, but again, if he were there he could address that, and if there were a different access point that he could use, I'm sure he would be happy to use it, but I can't respond on his behalf. It's a legitimate concern. I don't know how to answer it in his absence. MS. STUBA: Couldn't it be brought in by barge, Rob? MR. HERMANN: I refer to my prior statements. MS. STUBA: Kathy Stuba. Mr. and Mrs. Gallagher's daughter. The past bulkheads that are down from on the east side of my father were also brought around from duck pond. There were rocks behind the bulkheads and all along there they have done it that way. I brought pictures too to show you where the water was coming all the way up to the cliff. It's severe erosion, I agree with them as far as the toe of the cliff is going. We have been there for over 60 something years and this is the worst erosion we've ever had, but a lot of it too is coming from the top of the cliff with the water, I guess with the heavy rains and everything that we have had, but the other bulkheads that were put in along the beach, we personally watched them go right down 66 Board of Trustees 67 November 16, 2005 with the big bulldozers back and forth to Duck Pond. So that's the way that they access it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. HERMANN: And I do want to clarify, I agree with her there is inevitably going to be runoff that occurs from the top down, and I don't mean to testify that that won't contribute, but unlike some of the sites that we have looked at together where you see huge gullies that are coming down from runoff from the top, particularly sites that have been completely cleared down to the sand, you see that pattern is not present here on the O'Mara property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This property has been completely devegetated down to the sand up to the top of the bluff. We were on the site last Wednesday. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There did seem to be an excessive amount of clearing at the top of the bluff. MR. HERMANN: Kevin, the president has a question about the clearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is and when we have seen it happen numerous times, in fact, we addressed two of them this evening earlier, about people who had cleared until the edge of the bluff, planted lawn and their bluff was completely destabilized, and our concern when we went to your site is that there was a lot of clearing that had taken place right to the edge of the bluff and that's going to destabilize the bluff. MR. O'MARA: We did do some clearing, unlike Mr. Kulick, none of us lost our faces, but we were having some serious poison ivy problems. I've got four young boys, and balls would go over the fence, and they would come back there to get the ball and the next thing you know we'd be having poison ivy problems. One of them actually had to get a steroid injection it got so bad. So we sent someone back there to clear the poison ivy. To be honest, I didn't know that you needed an approval to clear poison ivy. I assumed since it was hazardous to people's health it was just okay, but anyway, we're sorry. In the process we planted 500 juniper plants out there; unfortunately because of the dryness --we didn't irrigate because of the top of the bluff, we were afraid that would destabilize -- the dryness, particularly in August, killed a lot of them. The ones that were closer to the fence seemed to survive. I think they were getting a little wet. But we didn't put grass in it. In fact, other than the juniper, we left the trees, we didn't really do anything back there, and the juniper was 67 Board of Trustees 68 November 16, 2005 just to revegetate. MR. HERMANN: And there could be, at least with a number of these permits at least in my experience with this Board and the with the DEC, there can be additional native plantings that are required and proposed in that area that won't have to depend on irrigation and fertilization. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would encourage you to do so because once you start to lose it, then it's really a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Plus more natural vegetation might be a little heartier toward the elements. MR. O'MARA: Right, we were told the juniper would grow there, that it was salt resistant and all that kind of stuff, and it actually had a complex root system, which was one of the things that we wanted. But I'm happy to, if it makes a difference, to do the Bayberry Beach Grass and Virginia Creeper mix. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. As far as it is revetment goes, I don't think we had a problem. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, it is one of the things you guys mentioned was the bump-out there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, there's an odd bump-out. towards the west side. MR. HERMANN: And that was essentially an effect of where and it's probably not there now, but when the survey was originally done and staked, the surveyors had picked up on a little bit of an angle that had started to be cut into the toe of the bluff and that was a little bit difficult for me in the design of it because we can't set the structure out and create a new straight line that takes up what is currently beach. But I also didn't want to show any more cutting into the bluff because it's a revetment rather than a retaining wall. We just went with the natural contour. So we can do something to modify that in some way. As I said, I didn't know what to do with it because I couldn't show filling onto the beach, but I didn't want to show any cutting back into the bluff. It was genuinely how the toe of the bluff was positioned at that time, and that's how it was originally staked, and that was probably just a ramification of how the material was sloughing towards the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't notice it. MR. HERMANN: It's probably not there anymore. The survey was originally done before we had the 40 days of rain or whatever it was. So it probably evened itself out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we would just like it parallel to the toe of the bluff. 68 Board of Trustees 69 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. That's how the description would read. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there an answer for those stairs? MR. HERMANN: Yes, it was obtained by Samuels and Steelman. MS. CUSACK: I found the permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, Heather. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments, concerns from the audience, from the Board? MR. MCGREEVEY: A way for accessing that property from the west, can they do that? MR. HERMANN: They have to post a bond and, Jim, you may want to talk to Tom directly and see. TRUSTEE KING: Usually they have to go to the Highway Department and post a bond to get access. Sometimes they have to remove a guard rail if there's a guard rail there. I think the Town went down and dumped a bunch of fill down there. MR. HERMANN: It's something he's going to have to contend with one way or the other. TRUSTEE KING: He'll have to work that out with the Highway Department. MR. MCGREEVEY: Another concern that I think we ought to think about moving heavy equipment east and west on that beach, especially with this condition that he's talking about with the toe. MR. HERMANN: The toe scour. MR. MCGREEVEY: That indicates that you're having a higher average high tide than usual. And if heavy equipment is going to be moving up and down that beach east and west and you have an excessive high tide, it's something to consider, something to think about and have an alternative, like bringing in a barge or something. MR. HERMANN: Yes, it's strange because I don't know if the point of access becomes a part of your permit or not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does in a way. The next application is to barge in stone, so it's not impossible because then it could be off-loaded on site. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Costello? MR. COSTELLO: I'd like to speak to this application for the simple reason that it's the right time of year to do it because there's less public access along the beach. First of all, the tides are higher with northeast winds, they are also lower with northwest winds. It's the right time of the year to access. It's also the time of year that there is more erosion due to the northeast storms. That's the only 69 Board of Trustees 70 November 16, 2005 practical access along the beach. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You don't have a window, John. MR. COSTELLO: This is the time to move it. People are not around, people just left. But the fact of the matter is you can't barge them in. A barge draws about 18 inches with nothing on it, and with rocks on it, it draws about eight feet; so now you're way offshore. As long as you don't put rocks on a barge it's fine. So there is no barging of the materials into beaches. It just doesn't work. That's the practical point of it. And the tide does correct itself. It corrects that beach, and it also takes that beach away. It's been occurring for years and this property is certainly eroded. MR. MCGREEVEY: John, is it possible to use LCM? MR. COSTELLO: You could bring in about two rocks at a time and all you need is good weather, not northwest and not northeast. MR. HERMANN: Thanks, John. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES MS. CUSACK: Is there an LWRP? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't see one in here. MS. CUSACK: You could approve it based on --we've done that before. MR. HERMANN: For the record, the applicable policy for LWRP was Policy 4, which I would like to believe we did address exhaustively, and I actually read into the record almost verbatim my response on that policy. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And also to mention the Highway Department? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What should it be? TRUSTEE KING: To arrange the access with the Highway Department, and, if necessary, he has to provide a bond. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve En-Consultants request of Alexandra and Kevin O'Mara for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 226 linear feet of rock revetment consisting of 4 to 5 ton quarry capstone, stones over 50 to 100 pound core stone, on filter cloth; backfill with approximately 60 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland 70 Board of Trustees 71 November 16, 2005 source and planted with Cape American Beach Grass and revegetate denuded portions of the bluff face with beach grass, Bayberry and Virginia Creeper, to also be revegetated on the top of the bluff with same that's approved with the condition that the LWRP review comes in consistent, and that access be coordinated with Southold Town Highway Department. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 17. J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to place approximately 375 boulders two foot to six foot in diameter along approximately 655 foot beach for shoreline protection. The boulders shall be placed above the average high water level and aligned to break wave energy, which has caused erosion to the toe of the existing bluffs and shoreline. Located: Robbins Island. SCTM#134-3-5 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment? MR. JUST: Glen Just of J.M.O. Consulting, here to answer any questions the Board or the public may have on this application. TRUSTEE KING: This is consistent with the LWRP. We all walked through it. I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't think anybody else did either. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 18. Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing house and construct a new house, two-car detached garage, sanitary system and retaining wall. Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM#87-6-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening. This is an existing house that is, because of the condition really it's a demolition with a reconstruction. But the setback to the Peconic Bay is not going any further than what the existing house permits, 71 Board of Trustees 72 November 16, 2005 except for there's a new bay window area. For your purposes the terrace is on grade to try to keep everything consistent. We also have -- I've heard it all here tonight -- the need to abandon the existing sanitary system and they're going to be building a whole new sanitary system on the road side. We have proposed the dry wells to collect all roof runoff, and I guess that's it for now. I'd be happy to answer any questions and Nancy's here, the design professional. We also have Mr. Costello is doing the bulkhead, and we thought he was going to go first, so kind of both applications are working at the same time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The issue that we had was in the fill going in, not only around the house but around the bulkhead; how you would contain the runoff from the site? MS. MOORE: Actually, we knew you would ask that. As you know because of flood elevations, you have to bring the house up to certain levels. It has to be at 9.8 for flood elevations. It has to be a mounded system, all the fill is there for the system because you can see that the water level is at 3.5, so we have a very shallow sanitary system. The sanitary is surrounded by the wall that really goes along the property line. You can see that there are steps down, and then it's a retaining wall around the road side of the property. This is a very unusual street because the property's surrounded by one very large property. And think you have actually had that property, people, the family wanting to put a house somewhere on that property; and it's changed so this piece is kind of a little cut out. There are really only two homes on this street, this house and there's a piece in between breaking it up. Then there's another piece and the property already has bulkhead. So the fill is really what's necessary, one, to bring for the sanitary system, but it also will be bringing the grade up so you don't have a Hamptons-style house, where still it's really high up and the fill will be brought in, but it will be graded at about a six percent slope to the side. So they're being careful not to create any problems on the side property lines. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's where the problem is though. We all want to see that pitched down to the neighbors. MS. MOORE: Remember we have dry wells for the roof runoff. So we are catching all the water collection that ordinarily would runoff to the side. We have dry wells at every point, so you don't have roof runoff, and when you're talking about the neighbors, you are only talking about 72 Board of Trustees 73 November 16, 2005 somewhat of an open space because the piece, there's really no buildable parcels on either side. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, another thing we talked about when we were talking about the drainage is the possibility of a French drain, would that be conceivable? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thirty yards is a lot of fill. MS. STEELMAN: The groundwater is very high and we're needing to put this whole structure on piles. And there's probably close to four and a half feet difference from the first floor level down to the existing grade. We're afraid that along that beach edge having that house raised up on those pilings. So we're trying to soften it by bringing the fill in. So that's one of the issues. We can also bring in additional dry wells that we can pitch more into the center of the site. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: French drains along the bulkhead, we're going to make you put in a nonturf buffer along the bulkhead anyway, so that would act as ay French drain, and then along the road you'd have to do some sort of-- well, we're going to kill two birds with one stone. MS. MOORE: You were saying something along the road? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Along the road, that's going to be elevated also with the retaining wall MS. MOORE: Yes, that's a sanitary retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So some sort of drainage right along -- MS. STEELMAN: The perimeter to the wall. MS. MOORE: Because you can't put dry wells near the sanitary, limitations on setbacks, so a French drain is fine. MS. STEELMAN: But on the front side we could use rings? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: You're the agent? MS. STEELMAN: Yes, I'm Nancy Steelman. MR. JOHNSTON: And did you delegate your assistant to speak on your behalf? MS. STEELMAN: Yes, very much so. MS. MOORE: Yes, I have been retained. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit request for Jonathan Zang to demolish the existing house and construct a new house, two-car detached garage, sanitary system and retaining wall, that would be 73 Board of Trustees 74 November 16, 2005 stipulated also that there be French drains along the road near the septic, around the perimeter of the retaining wall. And we're satisfied with the fill and what they're doing with it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the drainage is adequate to contain that, you're going to have to show that on a plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And that drainage plan be on a new submitted plan, also that the Conservation Advisory Council approved this application, and LWRP reviewed as consistent, gravel driveway. That's a motion, do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 19. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests a Wetland Permit to construct 164' of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing bulkhead, in-kind, using C-Loc 9000 vinyl sheathing. Backfill area behind bulkhead with approximately 225 cubic yards of clean trucked in granular fill, re-grade and re-vegetate area. Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM#87-6-7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting, and we are the agents for Jonathan Zang on this application. I think the Board is making a wise decision asking for the French drain to circulate all the green runoff on that property throughout the property itself and the clean granular fill that will be brought in, and if there is any around the house it will also be used to elevate some of the property. As you all know, the tides are rising and this is prone to erosion anyway and it's eroding on both sides, and it appears it does have a little island there out in the wetlands area. And I think it's wise to disburse it over a a large area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What do you think about the buffer? MR. COSTELLO: I think it's going to be a buffer whether he wants it or not because I think the overspray of salt, you're going to have a bunch anyway. He's tried and can't maintain a good vegetated lawn in the front portion of it anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So 20 foot buffer? MR. COSTELLO: I think he's going to have a 20 foot buffer whether he wants it or not but it certainly would be a condition because it's wise he won't be able to maintain it. 74 Board of Trustees 75 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you'll have a 20 foot buffer? MR. COSTELLO: Right. MS. CUSACK: You said put in some Bayberry and -- MR. COSTELLO: It will be vegetated. He's going to need American Beach Grass and whatnot, just to be able to keep the sand in there because if gallonages of water comes over just by spray, it is going to take some degree of soil out. So he'll vegetate it. I recommended American Beach Grass, it's is doing quite well up here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you discuss replacing the bulkhead in-place? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, and I'm surprised that CAC -- I was trying to find their recommendation. MR. COSTELLO: We're going to remove the existing piling and put the vinyl sheathing up against it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you just pull it all out? MR. COSTELLO: It exposes it to some potential problems, and there will be some materials eroding on just natural tide. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we would like in-place. MR. COSTELLO: I hope I can talk him into that. It's quite a bit more costly because of the disposal fees down that road. You know what the road is like going there? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that what the Board would like, in-place? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, you bring the fill in and bring the material out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim? TRUSTEE KING: What is the bulkhead like; is there bulkhead on either side? MR. COSTELLO: The exposure of losing material, you'll be bringing more material in, the tide on both returns you see where the tide goes, not only would you be excavating just for the backing system, which would be approximately 15 feet, you'll probably be exposing 40 feet to excavation only because if you don't, it's going out in the bay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In-place is consistent with what we have been doing, so I would make the permit for in-place/in-kind. MR. COSTELLO: It's never going to be in-kind. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In-place with a 20 foot vegetated buffer, in-place. MR. COSTELLO: Personally, I just have to get the owner's permission that he would pay to dispose of all the existing material and leave himself that exposure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I'll pass the motion; do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. 75 Board of Trustees 76 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES 20. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to dredge the ferry terminal boat basin at the New Suffolk site and the area surrounding the docking facility at the Robins Island site and maintain for 10 years. Located: New Suffolk and Robins Island. SCTM#117-8-19 & 20 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agents for Belvedere Property Management. It's the maintenance dredging permit, and this time instead of coming on every few years, we would try to request a 10 year permit. We're trying to keep the fill in the system, and all the fill that is dredged on Robins Island will be used to try to soften other eroded areas on the island. Right now there's some erosion on the east/northeast side, and we'll be using it above the high water mark, but it will be just trying to soften some of that erosion on the island. Now, the other application, as you can see, we have been doing it and would have been offering the fill to the Town, and I think that is an asset that the Town should use, and they have on several occasions. And I see right now that the Town is going out for bid to purchase some sand for snow removal for the winter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do they balk on that quality of sand because of the gravel in it? MR. COSTELLO: I think they were at one time when we originally took the top off because there were some shells in it, but since then I don't believe there's been any -- the only trouble is if they have too much and they don't have any room. Heather, can you contact Pete Harris tomorrow and see if they can use any sand? Thank you. MS. CUSACK: How much? MR. COSTELLO: There will be almost 400 yards but there will be a 1,000 -- they're going to use a little bit beach nourishment right on the site, but the balance is certainly available. TRUSTEE FOSTER: In New Suffolk? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with the LWRP. And they do recommend the use of a turbidity screen to be employed during dredging to minimize turbidity in the water column. 76 Board of Trustees 77 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the DEC require that? MR. COSTELLO: Not yet, but they have on occasion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How would you do that out in the bay with that deposition basin? MR. COSTELLO: The screen is quite large and you just encompass the area. It's only a small area, that deposition area. So we have a couple -- recently East Hampton Town recommends doing some of it. Some areas it's worthless, but in a calmer area, it does quite well. We just got finished using it in Shelter Island and you'd be surprised the settlement on location seems to work. Tom Samuels employed it on Plum Island and it got destroyed the first day. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Too much tide. MR. COSTELLO: The waves and whatnot. It wouldn't work on the sound, but it works in the bay. It works excellent in creeks. TRUSTEE KING: If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES 21. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing floats from dock "A" and relocate as part of new dock "B". Install 6' by 30' floating dock and re-use two existing pilings. Dock "B" construct a 4' by 30' fixed dock with a 42' by 12' ramp onto relocated floats from dock "A" continuing onto new 5' by 28' floating dock, ending with two 4' by 20' floats perpendicular, and install four new pilings. Located: Fox Island, Gardiner's Bay Estates, East Marion SCTM#37-4-18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Some of the guys from Gardiner's Bay were in earlier and they said they were going to withdraw -- they didn't actually say withdraw, so I'm going to make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE KING: They said they wanted to reapply. MR. COSTELLO: Can I speak on it anyway to put it into the record? It's all going to be contingent upon approvals from other agencies, as they all are. You can get five permits and not get the sixth one and it's a no. But the application was made because I think there's 174 lots in the 77 Board of Trustees 78 November 16, 2005 original subdivision, and there's 60 or so that actually are on the water. So the inland properties, they have this little Fox Island and what they do is they use it to put dinghies, and I believe they accommodate something like 17 moorings in that bay, so that some of the upland property owners have access to the water too. I believe they cut down on the moorings, so there's 13 in there now and what they wanted to do is put a dock in there to be able to accommodate a few more of the dinghies instead of dragging them up through the wetlands. And there's a couple paths through the vegetated wetlands areas, so that was the original proposal. And I believe they had Mr. Hamilton stop by the property last week and the gentleman said, whatever will accommodate the wishes of the DEC we'll listen to. Mr. Hamilton wants us to come back with a possible alternate plan that allows rebuilding and expanding the existing dock instead of putting a second dock in. That's all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. COSTELLO: That's where that stands. I'm sure this Board has opinions of it too, and I'd like to hear some opinions of which direction to go. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think the Town code would let us put two docks on one property, that's one property. So if they were going to expand that, we wouldn't want to see a major expansion because again, you're getting into navigability issues there, so. MR. COSTELLO: As you know, it's shoal water anyway, the only boats that would be accommodated here would be the smaller outboards. Try to accommodate the hundred or so homeowners that do not actually live on the water. There are individuals that have their own docks but they're just trying to accommodate a few. But without more discussions with Mr. Hamilton, I don't know what I'm doing as far as the DEC's concerned. To tell you the truth, he's reluctant to allow two docks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 23. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC-LOT 1 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, pervious driveway, deposit 700 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source and maintain the existing wood frame and canvas building within the subject property. Located: 78 Board of Trustees 79 November 16, 2005 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.6 and 12.7 24. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of GREGERSEN'S KEEP, LLC-LOT 2 requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and attached garage, attached terrace off the southeastern corner of the subject dwelling, an attached terrace off the northeastern corner of subject dwelling, gazebo, pervious driveway, and deposit 1,200 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source within the subject property. Located: Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM#35-3-12.6 and 12.7 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. When we were here last, a number of things were requested, including revisions of the survey, including installation of French drain adjacent to the house on the side lot lines, the showing of a 20 foot right of way that led to a dock. The installation of dry wells and the like, and that information was all provided to you. There was an effort that was under way to coordinate this with the Town's Planning Board, and I believe that's gone well, and I believe what we're left with here is an application which I think is approvable on its face. It would feature the 50 foot buffer that was requested by this Board, and all other concerns met in this application. What I'm hopeful to get from this Board is an approval of these plans subject to the conditions contained in the plans, and also sent to the actual filing of the subdivision map, which is expected to occur within next week or so. I think the rest is fairly straightforward. MS. CUSACK: The only other thing we asked for in the field was planting plans along the shoreline. MR. ANDERSON: Our response to that is we do anticipate doing that for purposes of this application and for purposes of many other similar applications; we're simply showing a buffer which is a nondisturbance buffer, which I think is consistent with the past decisions of this Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is in Lot 1 but not in Lot 2, where there is sort of more of an active situation there. Do we have pictures in the file? We just got a letter from John Metzgar, and could you come up here for a second? I don't know if I can explain this properly. He's saying this straight line here is the edge of the wetlands here, when actually this big clump of intertidal wetlands is here. MR. ANDERSON: No. I went out and measured it. These 79 Board of Trustees 80 November 16, 2005 points are staked. You will see there's a stand of Spartina alterniflora out there. The measurement from the deck/porch of Spartina is actually 77 feet. What we did, the wetlands boundary that is shown on this is actually landward of the Spartina. And because the high water will come up and completely flood this Spartina and the rack line is actually about two feet landward of the Spartina. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, that was another thing. We still have the Planning Board issue that until it's finalized, we can't issue a permit for two homes on one lot. MR. ANDERSON: We have filed separate applications on each lot, and all I'm saying is that as a condition of the approval that the lots are created and final in Suffolk County. Because you can't build on them anyway until the subdivision is filed in Suffolk County. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then, just like we went through with a couple of applications past, we want to make sure there's sufficient drainage on this side of the property. I know there's a French drain between the two, sufficient drainage on this side of the property to accommodate this extra fill coming in. MS. CUSACK: You said you wanted the engineer to certify that (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, did you submit the LWRPs? MR. ANDERSON: I think we did. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think you did too, I just can't find them. MR. ANDERSON: I think what was requested of this Board. All I would request is whatever you think you need, make it a condition of the approval so we can move forward, because we're not objecting to what you think you need, the planting plan, we can certainly develop a planting plan for this. It's November, we're not going to plant anything until the spring or until construction is under way, but it would seem to me that in this situation, the 50 foot nondisturbance buffer is what you asked for. And as far as the erosional effects are concerned, any planting I do up in this area, I don't think I'm going to try to plant a Beach, I'm certainly not going to replant the Spartina that exists there. I think that's really the applicant's problem and not yours, you know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see it stabilized. I mean, this lot here is so stable, it's just a nice -- MR. ANDERSON: You mean like a row of plants by this area? 80 Board of Trustees 81 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: More like this (indicating). This is a stable shoreline; you have no erosion in here. It's wide open and they suffer from erosion. MR. ANDERSON: We have a stand of wetland vegetation here, we have a bit of an escarpment here, and I'm not really proposing to fill the escarpment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it would be in your advantage to have it planted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lot 1 is all planted. It's very nice. It's Lot 2, you've got that little bank here, and it's subject to erosion. If it were graded and planted, you would stabilize that. MS. CLAUDIO: You would soften this and plant where? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Plant more Spartina across the front, and then up here going up the bank you should plant that also to hold that Rosa Rugosa. It's nice, but it holds the bank in nicely and it does flower. It's attractive. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not going to fight you on it, and we may amend the planting plans along the way anyway. Can we simply make it subject to receipt of the planting plan? We want to get moving here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's two options, Bruce, one is to close the hearing withhold decision, when the Planning Board acts, then we can act. We don't need to wait for another meeting to act. Two, is if you think the Planning Board is going to change any of this, because -- that would be the best. MR. ANDERSON: You know what's even easier, is you can make the decision withholding the permit subject to your planting plan and your certificate of filing, certificate of map filing. MR. JOHNSTON: Table, reserve decision. MS. CUSACK: It has to be consistent with the Planning Board subdivisions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll close the hearing and withhold decision. Because we don't need a public hearing to act. I'll make a motion to close the hearing on Gregersen's Keep Lot 1 and Lot 2, and reserve decision on those two hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the meantime, we're expecting the applicant to come in with a planting plan. 25. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on 81 Board of Trustees 82 November 16, 2005 behalf of ROBERT FOX c/o KIMOGENOR POINT CO. requests a Wetland Permit on reconstruct 151' of existing timber bulkhead situated along the northern shoreline of subject property, extend the western terminus of the bulkhead by 6' and extend the eastern terminus of the bulkhead by 6', both with vinyl sheathing. Construct.an additional low-sill vinyl sheathing bulkhead off the northern shoreline measuring 145' and measuring 1.75' in top elevation. Deposit 100 cubic yards of clean fill within the section of the property directly to the north of the existing frame building to match the top elevation of the bulkhead 4' elevation. Deposit 40 to 50 cubic yards clean fill where necessary along the landward side of the proposed low-sill bulkhead and the edge of the existing vegetation therein to provide a more uniform grade, and actively vegetate this area with Spartina alterniflora planted on 6" on center. Located: Kimogenor Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#116-6-24.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of applicant. Just to bring up the reason why we're delayed here is because when we brought the application in and we looked at it, we couldn't get a low tide and the interest in this application really has to do with a low-sill bulkhead. What's happening here is the underlying body is sloughing off and you're losing more and more tidal marsh. The purpose of this low-sill bulkhead is to stabilize that and plant additional Spartina that will prevent the sloughing off of this underlying bog. So, since then you were hit with rains and winds and all kinds of stuff and presumably you've been out there to see it as a Board, and I'm certain you must have seen exactly what I saw, and that is that underlying bog that continually sloughs off. The second thing that happened was that Mark Terry had deemed it inconsistent and just listed a bunch of policies without any real explanation. I met with Mark. I discussed it with him, and we went through it, and I addressed those and provided him with photos, and I think his problem was he didn't understand. I think he saw a new bulkhead and said no, no, and I provided both you and him with a detailed rebuttal of that. And the important thing about that is the photos that were included in that package, those photos show the association having set a series of stakes on the shoreline in 1996 and monitoring them until last year. There are actually four sets taken and you could 82 Board of Trustees 83 November 16, 2005 see that anywhere between 4' to 6' of shoreline of intertidal marsh was lost along the entire eastern reach, and that is your proof that the low-sill bulkhead is needed, or in the alternative what will happen is you'll just continue to lose intertidal marsh. So I think that was done very well with them and many of the things cited in the declaration of inconsistency were a little bit quirky, such as it's inconsistent because it doesn't comply with your rules. And I suggest it most certainly does. And it's inconsistent because it doesn't comply with the rules of the DEC. And in our discussions we know that they are going to approve it. We've already had this discussion and we're just waiting for the permits to arrive. So with all that said, I'm hoping we can close the hearing and move the permit issuance, but I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to speak? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a tremendous hesitation for hardening of the shoreline, and I understand what you're saying, and it's very nicely visual in these photos, but I really hesitate with what I thought appeared to be a health marsh. MR. ANDERSON: It is a healthy marsh. It's just shrinking. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Erosion's going to happen along the shoreline no matter where you are. MS. CUSACK: Talking about the bog, that's what marshes do, and that's how they come to the conclusion that the bog does slough off and then it (inaudible). TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem with the bulkhead on the north end, I just don't feel at this time it's necessary to do any more additional hardening of the shoreline. I mean, we hear it over and over and over again to not add more structure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How about rock placed in there under the toe, Peggy? A row of rock, not big rock, 40-50 pound rocks, placed under the toe that would armor it somewhat and that was pointed out to us on that last field inspection, the natural connection between the water and the bluff. Usually where we do the low-sill bulkhead you don't have a natural marsh; usually where we do it it's just dirt, dirt up to the steeply eroding bank and no bog. MR. ANDERSON: This is bog. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Beautiful healthy bog, and if you cut that flow of nutrients, you put the water flow, the exchange of-- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Blue claw crabs, mussels, everything. 83 Board of Trustees 84 November 16, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you put a random -- not a tight -- row of rocks, place them without mortaring, one row of rocks, like cement rock size rocks, along the base of the bog, it would armor it to a certain extent, armor and support it, and you would still get that natural exchange. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Beach would still interact. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is the hesitation. You do have a beautiful marsh there and usually --we just looked at one here on Glen Road where it's just a dirt bank, and it would be a perfect place for a low-sill bulkhead because it would establish a marsh, but here you already have a marsh and a bog. MR. ANDERSON: Then what I would ask you do is let me talk to the clients and see what they want to do. Let's wait and see, I don't know what they will say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will work, though. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's primary for weak fish to spawn in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to rebuild the existing bulkhead in-place with vinyl and use no turf, but we're going to allow fill behind it on the north of the existing frame building with the addition of two 6' extensions with the 6' returns. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MR. ANDERSON: Do you want to say applicant may -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're just not going to do anything. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just approving the north bulkhead, that's all we're going to do. Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 26. Suffolk Environmental Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NSHE WILLIAMSTOWN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove wooden deck on the seaward side of the existing dwelling; remove porch on the western portion of the dwelling; remove two plus/minus 23 foot long concrete walls off the southwest side of the dwelling; remove plus/minus 49.6 foot section of the dwelling located on the northern corner of the dwelling; remove plus/minus 24.8 section of the dwelling located on the seaward eastern corner of the dwelling, and remove a plus/minus 17' by I' section of the southern corner of the dwelling. Construct a plus/minus 515 foot addition off the existing northwestern side of the dwelling; a 725' garage connected to the southwestern end of 84 Board of Trustees 85 November 16, 2005 the extension; a plus/minus 77.18' extension to the southeastern side of the dwelling; and a plus/minus 71.4 extension to the easterly facing notch of the existing dwelling. Located: 220 West Shore Drive, Southold. SCTM#80-5-4.1 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant. It's so straightforward, I don't know if there's a problem at all. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's consistent on LWRP, dry wells be installed to contain roof runoff, a silt screen including hay bales to be installed prior to construction; and a nonturf buffer to be required. Not so much the nonturf right now. MR. ANDERSON: So just dry wells and silt screen hay bales? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, silt screen and hay bales. CAC recommends disapproval of the application, says the property was not staked. MR. ANDERSON: Really? Well, the house is there so it's pretty easy to figure out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's how I figured it out. You removed the wood deck seaward. And I can envision that. I don't have an environmental problem with it. I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of NSHE WILLIAMSTOWN, LLC as requested. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Geri Armine-Klein, I'll open the hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES 85