Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/15/2006 James F.King,President ��OF SQUjyQ Town Hall Jill M.Doherty,Vice-President 53095 Route 25 Peggy A.Dickerson P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen • O Telephone(631)765-1892 Bob Ghosio,Jr. Q Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD b0 '°17? 1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES ^�` 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD �/�?40 & '2 � G 3 MINUTES '.a Y,v +Ir.InA 4 Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5 6:30 PM 6 7 Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice-President 8 Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee 9 Robert.Ghosio, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. 10 Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant FIELD 11 12 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 13 NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at 8:00 AM 14 NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 6:30 PM WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM 15 APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 18, 2006. 16 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, welcome to our 17 November meeting. I'm Jim Kind, chairman of the board. Before we get going, I would like to introduce the rest of the 18 board to you. To my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him, Peggy Dickerson; and we have our vice-president, Jill Doherty; 19 to my right is Lauren Standish, she's our office manager and; _ I would like to welcome sob Ghosio, who is just elected to the 20 board. This was a special election because Al Krupski was elected to the town board last year; in January, the Town 21 Board appointed a former trustee, John Holzapfel to fill that vacancy until an election to be held or a new trustee could 22 voted into office. Bob. welcome. Anything you would like to say? 23 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll do the best I can. 24 do. TRUSTEE KING: That's basically what we are all trying to TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Actually, I'm honored to be here. I 25 worked with you folks for quite a while so it's almost like I have been promoted within my own company. Page 1 NOVMIN-FINAL 2 1 TRUSTEE KING: Bob was a former chair of the Conservation Advisory council so he's kind of familiar with the routine. 2 He's got quite a bit of experience. And to my far right is Brownell Johnston. Brownell is our legal eagle, does a great 3 job. Doing a heck of a job, Brownie. MR. JOHNSTON: Very serious attorney, okay. 4 TRUSTEE KING: And two CAC members, is Peter Young with the grey shirt on and Mr. Jim Eckert, with the blue shirt on. 5 And our stenographer is wayne Galante. He keeps track of everything we say. 6 I'll try and give everybody a brief rundown of what we been up to in the past year. we have been struggling through 7 a new mooring code. we are still in the process of writing it. The first draft was a little on the complicated side so I 8 think we'll try and simplify it some. we are rewriting our shellfish code which is chapter 77, 9 trying to upgrade it and make it a little more streamlined. Now we have a new -- shellfish is -- 10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 219. TRUSTEE KING: 219, so. we've also got some runoff 11 problems, storm water runoff we are trying to address. It's really a very slow process. we have had, when you see these 12 heavy rains, it brings it to everybody's attention, then things slack off and you don't get much rain and everybody 13 kind of forgets about it, but it's a serious problem throughout town. we try and address it as we re-do 14 applications for bulkheads and that type of thing and new construction. we try to get gutters and leaders to drywells 15 to help the problem. But the main problem is road runoff throughout the town. It's just a difficult thing to handle. 16 we are working on it. we have a couple of projects in the hopper now. 17 other than that we have a pump out boat. we have a pump out boat this year which, thanks to Dave Bergen, did a lot of 18 work getting it, and we have another one for Fishers Island. so we have two pump out boats this year. That's another giant 19 step. so I think we are making some progress. Does anybody 20 else? we are looking at the wetland code, revise it. we are looking at that also, trying to keep ahead of things as much 21 as possible. so with that, we'll start the meeting. There is a number of postponements tonight. we'll go 22 through them so nobody sits here waiting for them to come up and they don't come up. 23 Number under Amendments-Extensions and Transfers, number eight, Mary zupa has been postponed. And Coastal Erosion 24 wetland Permits, number three, Ronald stritzler has been postponed. JMo consultant for Susan Rentchler has been 25 postponed. And wetland Permits, number 15, Vincent Basilice has been postponed. Number 16, Grace Burr Hawkins is Page 2 NOVMIN-FINAL 3 1 postponed. Number 17, George Guimaraes has been postponed. Number 18, Eve Macsweeney has been postponed. Number 19, 2 Maria Trupia has been postponed and; number 20, FITF, LLC has been postponed. 3 we will not be addressing any of those tonight. we need to set our next field inspection for December 6, eight o'clock 4 in the morning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. 5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve? 6 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting will be December 13, 7 2006, 6:30, with the work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. 8 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 9 TRUSTEE KING: Did anybody read the minutes of October? Because I have them. 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have some changes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I gave my changes to Lauren already. 11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have not given in my changes. would you like me to go through them? There is only four. or would 12 you like me to do it in writing at a later date? which would you like? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, have you had a chance to look at the minutes? 14 TRUSTEE KING: I have not looked at it. MR. JOHNSTON: You should really wait then. Is it okay? 15 TRUSTEE KING: We'll pass on approving the minutes until next month, okay? 16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. 17 I. MONTHLY REPORT: 18 TRUSTEE KING: Trustees monthly report for October, 2006. Check for $12,557.26 was forwarded to the supervisor's office 19 for the general fund. 20 II. PUBLIC NOTICES: 21 TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the town clerk's bulletin board for review. 22 III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: 23 TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of state environmental 24 quality reviews and we have a resolution to read. RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of 25 Southold hereby find that the following applications more fully described in section VII Public Hearings section of the 4 Page 3 NOVMIN-FINAL 1 Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 15, 2006, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and 2 Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. 3 Theodore and Kathryn BUCCI - SCTM#71-2-10 New Suffolk Properties, LLC - SCTM#110-1-12 4 Matthew Kar - SCTM#111-14-14 FITF, LLC - SCTM#9-8-2 5 Paolo and Jean Blower - SCTM#58-1-3 Nancy Carroll - SCTM#90-1-21 6 NOFO Properties, Mark Gordon - SCTM#13-1-1 Marion Lake Restoration Committee - SCTM#31-17-1 & 31-7-9 7. Maria Trupia - SCTM#78-1-10.20 Norman and Adele Grudman - SCTM#106-6-27.1 8 Ronald Stritzler - SCTM#94-1-14 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. , - SCTM#53-5-12.5 9 Elizabeth Siddons - SCTM#97-8-25 Jonathan and Andrea Parks - SCTM#111-9-5.1 & 5.2 10 Robert G. Bombara - SCTM#54-4-19 Heribert orth - SCTM#115-17-17.12 11 Joseph and Diana Corrarino - SCTM#43-5-6 & 43-5-20 12 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 13 TRUSTEE KING: Next we have Resolutions and Administrative Permits. 14 Do you want to do it one by one or can we group them? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Group them for consistency. 15 TRUSTEE KING: That's what I don't understand. I didn't think administrative permits were reviewed under on the LWRP 16 and I don't understand how it could be reviewed when I have the file. 17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing.) we'll mention that and group it together. 18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, it was also number one where there were conditions attached to it, so. If I remember from the 19 field report. TRUSTEE KING: Then why wasn't -- was Melnick found 20 inconsistent also? why wasn't Melnick found inconsistent? That's less than 100 feet from wetlands? 21 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Without Mr. Terry here, we can't answer that. 22 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So group them together, just mention the two, the conditions for Melnick and -- 23 TRUSTEE KING: For Melnick there were no conditions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a buffer. 24 TRUSTEE KING: oh, all right. Let's just pull out one and three. we'll approve two, four, five, six and seven. All 25 right? I'll make a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 5 1 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Wayne, you'll list them in the minutes, Page 4 NOVMIN-FINAL though. Thank you. 3 TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Mark Melnick, requests an 4 Administrative Permit to raise height of the roof on an 18x32 foot area of existing dwelling, construct new 9x12 foot 5 addition on first floor and new 9x12 foot second-floor addition. Located: 405 Private Road #3, Southold. 6 I believe we conditioned that they'll have a ten-foot buffer. 7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KING: And gutters and leaders to drywells for the 8 new construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they were going �o do some plantings 9 in the front, we told them that it didn't need a permit. TRUSTEE KING: Right, the restoration is exempt from the 10 permit process. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just note it for the record in case it 11 comes back. TRUSTEE KING: So I would make a motion to approve. 12 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 13 (ALL AYES.) 14 TRUSTEE KING: And number three is Clifford Polacek requests an Administrative Permit to construct an addition of 15 a one-car garage to the northwest side of the existing dwelling. Located: 2905 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. 16 I looked at this myself so I'm familiar with it. It's a small garage to be constructed on the north side of the house 17 where there is an existing blacktop driveway. And I guess the only reason it was found inconsistent is because it's less 18 than 100 feet from the wetlands. And I explained to the applicant when I saw him over there that we would ask him to 19 put leaders and gutters to a drywell to take care of the runoff. on the north side of the house there is a gutter and 20 leader coming down to the driveway. so that would also be run into a new drywell . 21 so with those conditions I would make a motion to approve. 22 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would make it consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. 23 TRUSTEE KING: In my eyes, it makes it consistent with LWRP. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 25 (ALL AYES.) 6 1 MS. STANDISH: Can we just go back to Melnick. where is the ten-foot buffer to run from? Because the bulkhead is 2 extended to the property. TRUSTEE KING: (Indicating) 3 MS. STANDISH: Ten feet right across. Do you want to put it on the plan, plan or -- 4 TRUSTEE KING: I can draw it up. Page 5 NOVMIN-FINAL MS. STANDISH: You want to go to the moorings and duck 5 blinds. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. 6 V. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS: 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Moorings and duck blinds: 8 James Andrews requests a buck blind in west creek. He's had this buck blind there and he did not pay for it, so last year 9 it was cancelled and he is reapplying and there is no waiting list so I make a motion to approve a duck blind for Jim 10 Andrews in west Creek. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 12 VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS AND TRANSFERS: 13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have applications for amendments 14 extensions and transfers, starting down at the end. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I haven't seen this, Jim, so. 15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, you looked at number one Burton Tremaine, requests an amendment to permit #5552 to include the 16 existing three-car garage. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. 17 TRUSTEE KING: This has been ongoing thing. He had, instead of building an attached garage he made it a separate 18 garage so we are amending the permit to reflect that. It's, I think, would be an as-built. He has drainage for it. 19 Motion to prove? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 20 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 21 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, before we get to the next one, these are not public hearings, so technically we don't have to 22 take public comments on these, but we do want to give the public an opportunity, if they want to speak very briefly and 23 please leave their comments to be brief. This is, I'm addressing any applications for amendments extensions or 24 transfers. 25 Number two, Catherine Mesiano, Inc. , on behalf of Heribert Orth requests an amendment to Permit #6047 to revise 7 1 the design of the previously approved dock to a 4x42 foot low-profile (fiberglass grid) dock with fixed 6x12 foot 2 north-facing "L" at the seaward end on six-inch piles with 10 foot penetration and one six-inch pile off the South end of 3 the dock and a one-year extension to Permit #6047 as issued on December 20, 2004. Located: 640 Willis creek Road, Mattituck. 4 we went out and looked at this and made our way through the woods and got down to the water's edge and found this, and 5 one of our concerns with this was the fact that there is a dock that has been previously done across the way and with 6 this dock, the two docks, this dock is requested plus the one Page 6 NOVMIN-FINAL that is already there previously will narrow the opening way 7 down. so we were concerned about -- we had no problem with the 8 extension of the permit, just with what is being applied for to see if we could somehow reduce how this dock goes into the 9 water so that it doesn't reduce the size of the navigable water way. 10 MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. Jill and I had spoken on Monday about this issue 11 and I have been going over the plans and trying to come up with something workable and I'm tryying to serve two masters 12 because Mr. orth is my client but he does have a buyer for the property who has given some input. So I'm trying to protect 13 Mr. Orth and at the same time come away with something that the buyer would find usable in his circumstances. 14 And what I would ask you is this; how to verbalize it. we have changed the plan, the revision of the plan is 15 basically adding the "L" and a pole for tying up a boat, and I understand your objection to the "L." 16 what would your reaction or input be if we were to -- and I'm dust exploring options here -- to if we were to eliminate 17 the 'L" but put in pilings that would allow someone to tie a boat at this dock. Basically, let me see, where we have the 18 "L" proposed is about a two-foot depth. If we were able to instead of having the "L" and tying up outside of that, if we 19 were able to tie up our boat at that two foot, two to two-and-a-half foot depth, and have piles to secure the boat 20 to. so we were tying side to, for example, the starboard side of the boat to the seaward end of the fixed dock, without an 21 %,", having two piles on the port side of the boat, surprised I know that, two piles, if two are necessary, one or 22 two, whatever is necessary, in order to secure the boat. would that be something? 23 TRUSTEE KING: I prefer to see the piles in line with the dock and not extend. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The neivhbor further down, Mr. Sheika (sic) called me and he couldn t make it to tonight's meeting 25 but he was concerned, because even at low tide, that section of the creek is getting shallow, and at low tide he has 8 1 trouble navigating and he would be concerned of anything going out further. 2 MS. MESIANO: Is that creek under any dredge maintenance program by the state? 3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately it's not. That section of the creek is too far in. The county doesn't go that far in. 4 And is does need dredging. I mean, if the people want to apply for a dredging permit we would certainly review that, 5 entertain that, but at this point the county would not go that far in. 6 MS. MESIANO: Okay. Pat Moore is here and she is representing the prospective purchaser of the property, and I 7 just would like to give her the opportunity to speak. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could -- absolutely Ms. Moore could 8 speak. But just one thing I want to mention, because it adds Page 7 NOVMIN-FINAL to this discussion, is it was found inconsistent under LWRP 9 and it was found inconsistent because of the issue that we are talking about, that the navigable channel is narrow and this 10 would reduce the size of the waterway, impeding navigation to the channel . 11 If you would like to, may I suggest both of you approach for a second and we'll show you what we are talking about here 12 in the diagram MS. MOORE: Yes, because I couldn't understand what you 13 were asking. (Ms. Moore and Ms. Mesiano approach.) 14 TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is what we were talking about. You were saying take the "L" off and put the pilings out there. we 15 are saying take the ."L" off and put the pilings here so that they are in line and not going out any further into the 16 waterway. That would make this consistent. we would deem it consistent with LWRP. 17 MS. MESIANO: Right. I amended my application. You don't have the amended. Because I eliminated this and did put it 18 down here. MS. MOORE: The only problem with that is I don't know 19 what is there now. The concern that my client had is that what was there presently was stairs down, I think. 20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: This here, and what was proved -- MS. MOORE: Yes. It needs some form of a platform at the 21 end because to bring a boat up to the end of the dock you need some fixed area. 22 TRUSTEE KING: That's what they call a dock. MS. MOORE: well , yes, this dock, the original one had 23 steps down and unfortunately you don't really have anything. TRUSTEE KING: Just do away with the steps and bring the 24 two pilings. MS. MESIANO: That was my intention, to eliminate the 25 steps. Ms. MOORE: But possibly expand the end somewhat, because 9 1 you have four feet that goes out and then how do you tie -- you are tying the boat to the front -- 2 TRUSTEE KING: That's what the two poles are for, tying up the boat and so -- 3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The poles are for tying up the boat. MS. MOORE: So there is a here and a tie there. 4 TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And they walk off the platform. MS. MESIANO: we eliminated this step, which was what was 5 approved before. we put an pile here and a pile here for the purpose of securing the boat, and then they'll need the normal 6 string to keep it off the dock, but this dock is fixed and you don't have a tremendous rise and fall in tides. so my 7 objective was to, when the boat was tied, side to the end of the fixed dock -- 8 MS. MOORE: It would be perpendicular to the end of the boat 9 MS. MESIANO: Yes. Then, again you could gain access to the boat here and the boat would be something with an 10 eight-foot draft, a whaler of some sort. Page 8 NOVMIN-FINAL TRUSTEE KING: Eight foot beam, I think, you mean, 11 Catherine. MS. MESIANO: Yes, sorry. Eight foot beam. so we would 12 still not be out here a long way. The reason that it was proposed here other than here was 13 the distance over the wetland and also the depths of the water. 14 Ms. MOORE: what was the width of this end platform at the time? was it 4x8 -- 15 TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was no platform. It was a 4x40 foot dock, and the steps were 6x2 foot. 16 MS. MOORE: Maybe designing something like the neighbor has across the way which is a narrow, very narrow. 17 Ms. MESIANO: That would probably be less safe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I like the idea of what has been 18 talked about; it's a walkway out or catwalk out with a pole here and pole there, and not to go further seaward of the 19 dock. MS. MESIANO: so this now is going to come in line with 20 this and we are going to eliminate the "L." Ms. MOORE: what s the water depth here? 21 Ms. MESIANO: we are trying to keep it under two foot. Here is a better copy, so you could see. so he's at two to 22 two-and-a-half foot, so we are at that depth because he's going to tie off the docks. He's not bumping. so he's in two 23 to two-and-a-half feet of water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. 24 MS. MOORE: All right. MS. MESIANO: so we'll add one pole to what I had proposed 25 and eliminating the "L". TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. 10 1 Ms. MESIANO: There is one other modification. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not what you originally proposed. 2 MS. MOORE: No, it's what you just revised. MS. MESIANO: Right. I just want to make that clear. And 3 there is one other revision pursuant to the prospective purchaser's request. we are renewing the permit for the house 4 and garage, and I would like to add, within the building envelope, 75 feet back from the edge of the wetland, a pool of 5 18x36 and to extend -- TRUSTEE KING: This is an awful lot. 6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, hang on. Jim: if I may. what you are asking for is amendment to the permit for the house, 7 correct? MS. MESIANO: we reoriented the house. same house. 8 Reoriented it. And one of the conditions of the contract was can I get a pool . I demonstrated that there is room for a 9 pool and still be able to meet all your qualifications. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what I'm saying, come back to us with 10 that as an amendment to that permit that was issued. In other words we are not going to attach this to the dock, okay? 11 MS. MESIANO: okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we should maybe wait until you 12 transfer the permit to the new buyer. Page 9 NOVMIN-FINAL MS. MOORE: We are actually now in contract. What's your 13 deadline for -- so the next will be a transfer with that amendment, so. we'll be back anyway, so. 14 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. CAC approved, just so you know, they resolved to support the application. 15 So what I'm proposing then is that we approve this amendment to -- we first off extend permit 6047, then we 16 approve the amendment to 6047 to reflect that we are removing the stairs, from what was originally approved at the end of 17 the dock. We are then approving the two pilings, one on either side of the dock, not to go seaward of the dock, not to 18 extend seaward of the dock. TRUSTEE KING: We are eliminating the "L." 19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are eliminating the "L." Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Thank you. 20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that a motion? I make that as a motion. 21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? 22 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. 23 TRUSTEE KING: Can we get a new set of plans reflecting that, Cathy? 24 MS. MESIANO: Yes, I'll have that drawn up and get it to you as soon as possible. 25 TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. 11 1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Young & Young on behalf of Nancy Carroll requests an Amendment to Permit #6316 to demolish the 2 existing residence and replace an existing first floor framing in its entirety, maintaining the existing footprint. Located: 3 350 West Lake Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? 4 MR. CHAST: (Sic) My name is Bob Chast, I'm from Young & Young, 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead. we are here basically 5 to maintain the existing house, maintain the footprint that was approved already by the Trustees and the Building 6 Department but replace the first floor structure; in other words, the sheathing and the floor supports, the floor oists 7 and repair and rebuild some of the foundation wall , in lieu of patch and repair. Basically that's it. Nothing changes in 8 regard to setback, size of house, distance to the property lines, distance to the bulkhead. 9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. I believe when the board went out and looked at this, we felt that the footprint had been 10 expanded, and at this time -- do you have outstanding violations at this time on this piece? 11 MR. CHAST: There was a stop order issued by the Building Department. That's one of the reasons why we are here. This 12 was done without benefit of going to the Building Department on behalf of the owner and contractor. 13 However, the footprint is not being extended, I assure you. But you can see by the application in front of you, the 14 site plan that was submitted in March, with the Trustee Page 10 NOVMIN-FINAL approval at the time, and the new one that the footprint is 15 exactly the same. There may be some overburden on the soil . TRUSTEE KING: What was approved in the permit was a 16 second-story addition, not a complete demolition of the house. The feeling of the board is to deny this amendment and 17 you'll have to reapply for a permit to build that house the way it's being built now. 18 MR. CHAST: As part of the permit and part of the building permit, we were demolishing, selectively demolishing most of 19 the first floor. TRUSTEE KING: we were out there and it looks like the 20 whole thing is selectively demolished. MR. CHAST: I agree with you on that. The first floor 21 structure has actually been removed. TRUSTEE KING: It's just a big hole in the ground now. It 22 went far beyond what the original permit was issued for. That's our point. 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The original permit says wetland permit to construct a front porch, one-car garage and second-floor of 24 existing dwelling -- there is no existing dwelling at this point -- and renovate and alter existing first-floor within 25 existing footprint. And the board is inclined to rescind this permit, deny your amendment, and have you come in for a new 12 1 permit, because you extended the parameters of your existing permit. 2 MR. CHAST: If I could, I think the altering and restore the existing first floor was part of the work, and that really 3 meant taking most of the walls down to the deck. The thing that really changed is the floor deck itself. 4 TRUSTEE KING: But the deck is not even there anymore. MR. CHAST: Not the deck, I mean the structural flooring 5 for the first floor. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the excavation has gone beyond the 6 boundaries of the footprint. MR. CHAST: The excavation is part of the garage and steps 7 and the porch. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But that was not part of our original 8 permit. MR. CHAST: The garage extension I think was part of the 9 original permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The excavation that was being done -- 10 MR. CHAST: The excavate to build the garage, you mean? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we saw out in the field we felt the 11 excavation was beyond what was necessary with the permit that was given. so we would like to just have you come back in and 12 re-review the whole pro]ect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well , apply for a new permit. Apply for 13 an entirely new permit; to rescind the permit that was originally provided to the Carroll 's, or Ms. Carroll , and to 14 apply for a new one to accurately reflect the job that this now this project has turned into. 15 MR. CHAST: Okay, I'll pass that on to my client. My position is that really there is really very little change 16 except, it may look like a big hole. And I understand that. Page 11 NOVMIN-FINAL Because the flooring is gone. But basically if the flooring 17 was there it would be no reason for me to be here tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, the feeling of the board was -- 18 and I'll make a motion to deny the amendment to permit #6316, and to rescind permit #6316 so that you can come in and 19 reapply with new plans. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. 20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 21 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services 22 on behalf of Cleaves Point Condominiums requests an Amendment to Permit #6384 to place 200 cubic yards of clean 23 light-textured sandy soil to create a dune-like feature 155 feet long by 15 feet wide, to be planted with native species 24 and such other vegetation as recommended in the USDA-NRCS suggested planting plan dated June 21, 2006. Located: 2820 25 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. The board reviewed this and has no problem with this 13 1 amendment as per the DEC request and the applicant's request, so I make a motion to -- Yes. Sorry. 2 MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald, Proper-T Permit services. The description here, if you write the amendment 3 that way, it doesn't cover the rock revetment and that in fact is where the change is. we originally asked for 40x12 feet 4 and the DEC in their wisdom said they thought that was much more than what was needed. They just want one row, two or 300 5 pound stones. so the dimensions of the rock revetment are changed on the plan to 40x2 feet. And that should be included 6 as part of the description. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. 7 TRUSTEE KING: so the size of the revetment is reduced to 40 feet long by two feet wide. 8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the original -- we just, the plan says 15 feet wide in the written text. And then it shows 9 40 feet here. So it has, it's contradicting. so this description here -- 10 MR. FITZGERALD: This applies to the shaded area and this applies to the little box there. 11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this is not in the description I read. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: And if you put it in -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay. so the amendment is for the 13 proposed rock revetment, 40 feet long and two feet wide as per the plan received October 27, 2006. 14 I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 16 TRUSTEE KING: Number Five, Proper-T Permit Services on 17 behalf of the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Park District requests the last one-year extension to Permit #5832 as issued on November 18 19, 2003. Located: 9430 skunk Lane, Cutchogue. Page 12 NOVMIN-FINAL TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I have this. Is there anybody 19 here? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm here. 20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is for the gazebo. They did the fence, the wood fence and theyy did the walkway. Has the 21 gazebo been built? This gazebo has not been built yet? MR. FITZGERALD: That s correct. 22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a storage shed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a storage shed and a gazebo next 23 to the storage shed. This is an additional gazebo, correct? MR. FITZGERALD: That's the old. 24 TRUSTEE KING: what's the proposed location there? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The proposed location is sort of -- 25 TRUSTEE KING: Did we have a set of stamped plans that we approved? 14 1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is May 10. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, these are not stamped. 2 TRUSTEE KING: Is it in the resolution on the permit? what does it say on the permit? 3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the permit it says wetland permit to construct covered wood gazebo. But I remember we looked at it 4 and we wanted -- we met you there. MR. FITZGERALD: We went over the boardwalk thing on the 5 inside, on the landward side of the fence. Remember that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But this is not on -- what we are 6 looking for is a stamped survey of where -- (perusing.) This is the bath house, this is the picnic area. 7 TRUSTEE KING: These plans are from 2005, May of 2005. TRUSTEE BERGEN: These plans here are from 2000. These 8 are very old. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember we changed the original 9 location and there is nothing here and nothing on our permit that specifies. I remember we moved it. 10 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this where you want it, where the picture shows. 11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where the original flags were. I don't see anything else in here. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: well , if you would be inclined to extend the existing permit, whatever it is, then we would get, we, 13 will get straightened out, whatever the problem is, because as I said, I thought that -- 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's fine, once we can look at the location again. 15 TRUSTEE KING: We'll extend it and go out and look and make sure it's going to the right place. 16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you stake it for December so we could look at it? 17 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We moved it closer to the picnic area. 18 Instead of it being -- they had it right in the middle, between the existing gazebo and the bath house. They had it 19 right in the middle, and we kind of moved you down toward the terraced area. 20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. And you don't have that drawing? Page 13 NOVMIN-FINAL TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Apparently not. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: I' ll Vet you everything you need. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That s fine. so stake that before we 22 get the permit. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the extension 23 and we'll look at it next month to make sure the gazebo is in the right place. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 25 (ALL AYES.) (TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm going to abstain on this because I'm 15 1 not familiar with it. 2 TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Peconic Associates on behalf of West Lake Associates, requests a one-year extension to Permit 3 #6053 as approved on December 20, 2004. Located: West Lake Drive and Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. 4 I believe this was for a dredging protect and also a bulkhead. I don't think any changes have been made to the 5 plans. we'll give them another year. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 6 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 7 (TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm abstaining on that as well . I am not 8 familiar with the application. 9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Patricia C. Moore on behalf of Gabriel scibelli requests a Transfer of Permit #5581 from Patricia 10 Wiederman to Gabriel scibelli to rebuild the damaged bulkhead and as issued on June 26, 2002. Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive 11 East, Southold. we reviewed this and I will make a motion to transfer the 12 permit. Should we do separate motion for emergency fill or can I make it all in one? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Make it all in one. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, did you get an estimate of fill that 14 you'll need? MS. MOORE: I already submitted it. 15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just don't have the file in front of me. 16 MS. MOORE: It's 125 cubic yards of fill . I have it, the drawing is in your packet, but I'll get you another one. 17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. This section of bulkhead was blown out in the last storm and they lost a lot of fill . so 18 in the motion to transfer the permit for the 90 feet of bulkheading, I also will make a motion to grant an emergency 19 permit to place approximately 125 cubic yards of fill in redoing this. 20 MS. MOORE: There you see, I had Bob Fox write up specifically with the area, the shaded areas, 125 feet where 21 the clean fill needs to be installed. obviously you saw it when you were, when you went out there. The 90 feet of 22 damaged bulkhead is along the southeasterly end of the Page 14 NOVMIN-FINAL bulkhead, and then I just filed, as a matter of fact this 23 week, for next month, the amendment to this permit to replace the balance of the bulkhead. so, it will come up in your next 24 meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what do you mean? Because we were 25 sayying we wanted a full permit for the rest of the bulkheading. 16 1 Ms. MOORE: I filled out a full application but I thought you said do it as an amendment of this. 2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is no permits for the rest of the structures on the property, so there is nothing to amend. 3 MS. MOORE: I think I just owe you a fee difference, Lauren. I came so many times this week I'm trying to remember 4 what I paid. MS. STANDISH: If it's an extension to the existing 5 bulkhead you can amend it to the rest of the bulkhead. MS. MOORE: November 15, I filled out the full application 6 but I'll have to check my checkbook to see if I paid you $250 or $150. I don't know 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was extensive and there is this bulkheading up here. This doesn't have permits. we felt it 8 was extensive enough that we wanted to see full permit. Ms. MOORE: The same paperwork is there. Yes, that's 9 fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. 10 TRUSTEE KING: Could we give them an emergency permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That s what I just proposed. 11 TRUSTEE KING: And then a float permit for the whole thing to include that. 12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I just did. MS. MOORE: Sorry, Jim, I couldn't hear you. 13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right now she is only here to transfer the existing permit, which is 90 feet, and to then -- and then 14 the new person fix that and what is not included in that permit is all the fill , so we'll give them an emergency permit 15 to replace the fill . she then has to apply for the rest of the stuff that she wants to do. And we can discuss later 16 whether we do it with an amendment or full permit. MS. MOORE: You have the same paperwork. It's just a fee 17 difference. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: so we'll discuss that later because 18 it's not in front of us tonight. so I'll repeat my motion to transfer permit #5581 from Patricia wiederman to Gabriel 19 scibelli to rebuild, which the permit is for 90 feet of bulkhead on the east side of the property and an emergency 20 permit to place approximately 125 cubic yards behind the bulkhead according to the plan dated -- does anybody see a 21 date? MS. MOORE: Dated November 14, 2006. very small print on 22 the bottom. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Dated November 14, 2006. I make 23 that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Page 15 NOVMIN-FINAL (ALL AYES.) 25 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ms. Moore, one thing you might want to take a look at before you come back with the other permit, on 17 1 the left side, near the return that is coming landward, that soil there has been eroded and there is, it's got an odor as 2 if oil or creosote or something is in there. You may want to take a look at that to see what we could do to remediate 3 that. MS. MOORE: That's on the opposite, on the west side of 4 the property? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. 5 MS. MOORE: I'll have the client ask the contractor who ultimately works on this to take a look. Thank you. 6 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go over to the 7 regular hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 8 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 9 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10 COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS: 11 TRUSTEE KING: We'll go over to our public hearing section. These are our public hearings. 12 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now that we have gone to public hearings we will entertain comments from the audience. we are asking 13 you to please limit your comments to five minutes. we are going to coastal erosion and wetland permits, number one is 14 Julie MCGivney on behalf of Karnick and Haci Garipian requests a wetland Permit and coastal Erosion Permit to replace, 15 in-place, the existing bulkhead or repair same, dismantle the dilapidated steps to beach, cap off the unused clay drain hole 16 leading to the beach, remove existing portion of deck landing seaward of the bulkhead, and plant a ten-foot non-turf buffer 17 east of the deck along the top of the bulkhead. Remove existing enclosed porch and renovate and enlarge the existing 18 dwelling, install drywells and new sanitary system, if required. Located: 54715 North Road, Southold. 19 Now, the applicant came before us last month with this and we explained that there was an outstanding violation and 20 that we would not rule on this until that violation was taken care of. Has this violation been taken care of? 21 MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes, it was disposed of. There was an unconditional discharge. 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. All right, now, I know, again, we went over this last month and talked about various issues. 23 would you like to -- we'll give you a chance to make some comments here, if you have any. 24 MS. MCGIVNEY: The only thing I just want to mention, first of all , is the application had requested also to include 25 for a foundation permit that the Building Department required, and that's not in the description. I just wanted to make sure Page 16 NOVMIN-FINAL 18 1 that's in there, and I don't think I have anything further than that. we have gone through, pretty much, everything. 2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC resolved to support this application. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: Julie, do you have documentation on the resolution of the court thing. 4 MS. MCGIVNEY: I do. I apologize, I thought -- MR. JOHNSTON: We would automatically get it. Right 5 MS. MCGIVNEY: Not automatically. MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, they E-mailed it to me. 6 MS. MCGIVNEY: Unfortunately I only have the one copy. MR. JOHNSTON: That's okay. I just want to look at it. 7 I'll just tell Wayne that I've looked at it and stipulate it's in the record. 8 MS. MCGIVNEY: (Handing) . MR. JOHNSTON: (Perusing) . Thank you 9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, just briefly to review from last month, we talked about the bulkhead being replaced in-place 10 with helix screws going into the bluff to help reduce the damage to that short bluff, correct, you recall that? 11 MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. I just wanted to make sure we went 12 over that again. This was, initially last month found inconsistent, the reason being the residence is within 100 13 feet of the bluff. And, I'm sorry, I don't have the minutes from the last meeting, but I believe we talked about the need 14 for drywells, gutters to help mitigate any water runoff to help address the LWRP concerns. 15 MS. MCGIVNEY: Right. Drywells would be at the top near the bluff. 16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking for the coastal erosion line on this, through the porch. 17 MS. MCGIVNEY: It goes through the porch. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There we go. Is there anybody else from 18 the public that wishes to make any comments or address the board regarding this application? 19 (No response.) were there any other comments from the board with regard 20 to this application? (No response.) 21 If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 23 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this permit as read, Julie McGivney, Esq. , on behalf of the Garipian's 24 with the inclusion of the items that we talked about at our last meeting, our October meeting. So we'll make sure we go 25 back to the minutes of the October meeting to make sure they are included in here, to make sure they are included in this Page 17 NOVMIN-FINAL 19 1 project, will be gutters, downspouts and drywells; that there will be staked hay bale line, between -- seaward of the house, 2 between the house and the bluff, the top of the bluff; that there is, as noted on the permit, a non-turf buffer of ten 3 feet, that we make sure that's included in there. MS. MCGIVNEY: Sorry to interrupt you. CAC requested it 4 go across the entire bluff line, where we only had it on the right. 5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. we'll ask it go across the entire bluff line. Again, we'll refer to the minutes, but 6 we'll make sure the bulkhead is inkind, in-place, with the use of helix, deadmen rods, so to speak so there is not the need 7 to excavate the old deadmen or pull any of that out of there. since it was mentioned before, I'll mention again, don't 8 use CCA lumber. we want to make sure since that was used before that it's not used again. That's what caused the 9 violation. MS. MCGIVNEY: Right, and will that also include -- 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, as required by the Building Department. Yes. 11 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? 12 (ALL AYES.) (TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.) 13 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll be abstaining on this one. I'm not 14 familiar with the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, the mitigation efforts 15 will deem it consistent under the LWRP. 16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Young & Young, on behalf of Robert G. Bombara requests a wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit 17 to construct a single-family dwelling, detached garage, swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal 18 facilities. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. MR. DANOWSKI: I would. My name is Pete Danowski . I have 19 been recently retained by Mr. Bombara to appear here tonight. Representatives of Young & Young are present. Doug Adams, our 20 engineer is in the audience as well as Jeff Siemen, our environmental consultant. 21 I would like to hand up the affidavit of posting is signed and additional Mr. Adams has produced some further 22 mapping that we would like to have you further provided with, if I could approach to hand up the document. 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. JOHNSTON: Lauren, who is the agent? 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Young & Young. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We just have Young & Young. We don't 25 have anything from Peter Danowski . MS. STANDISH: He's not the agent of. 20 Page 18 NOVMIN-FINAL 1 MR. DANOWSKI: Mr. Bombara may be heading down here tonight so -- he is here. so, he can certainly give you the 2 authority for me to make this presentation. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you do that, sir? 3 MR. BOMBARA: Yes. MR. DANOWSK2: Maybe I'll wait for all the distribution 4 before I make any comment. There are three distinct sheets each one of you should 5 have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, I think we have all of them in 6 front of us MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you. I would like to start out by 7 saying I recognize you routinely deal with coastal erosion hazard areas and the permit process, but you have to take a 8 look at the purpose for the statute itself, and going back to its initial enactment in 1981 one it was referred to as the 9 shore owners Protection Act, to protect the owners from erosion caused to their own pproperty: And I point that out 10 because after that enabling legislation most towns, as did the Town of Southold, adopted a code basically incorporating the 11 codes that were used by the state in the enabling legislation. 12 But again, the purpose was to locate areas where there was erosion. And where those areas were identified, the state 13 presumably produced an accurate map. Now, as much as I say that, the state has an obligation under that statute to 14 revisit the issue every ten years. They are supposed to come out, take a look and see if there is a change of 15 circumstances. Also, they are, if there is a big storm, supposed to come out and evaluate after a year whether the map 16 should be changed. I make mention of it because when we looked at the 17 particular mapped area on this particular lot, and the surroundings, we found that there is accretion rather than 18 erosion on these particular lots in the vicinity. so it is not Ion term subject to erosion. 19 I'll be handing up a copy of the existing county tax map as well as a copy of the old deed and the new deed that has 20 been handed in to Mr. Bombara. The reason I hand these documents up is back that in 1947, there was an original 21 mapping done by a gentleman named Miller. It covered the lots in the area. In 1947, deeds were passed, in that time period 22 and immediately thereafter, which located the descriptive term for the lot. so we have these descriptions on lots that were 23 then placed on the Suffolk county tax map. Recently, if someone bothered to order a new survey, the 24 surveyor would go out there, re-identify the water lines and locate the lot with descriptions. And what we found out, and 25 you can notice it on the copy of the tax map, I point out, there is a bump out, and actually there is an accretion on 21 1 these lots as opposed to erosion. From 1947 until now the beach has actually been added to. And that is very important 2 when we consider what was the purpose in the state legislation and what is this board's purpose when they evaluate someone Page 19 NOVMIN-FINAL 3 asking for a permit. Now we are here, Young & Young have filed for Mr. Bombara 4 the permit application, and Mr. Bombara is the owner of land. it is often said and in some quiet bit of jest on the 5 telephone to me today, he said he's an attorney -- I met the gentleman only through this application -- and he says maybe 6 the old saying is true. when an attorney represents himself, he has a fool for a client. 7 And the reason I say that is that he contracted to buy this property without a condition that it was subject to the 8 issuance of a building permit. He, however, went to the area, looked on the public road to the left and to the right of his 9 lot and saw some beautiful homes being built. Some of those were under reconstruction. And maybe all of them were, so he 10 knew people were working on homes and improving them. There are several very nice wood frame structures. There is one at 11 the far east end next to the municipal parking field. They are beautiful , and in fact Mr. Bombara just presumed that he 12 would have the right to build. He was smart enough, however, he tells me to go and ask 13 people in the Building Department whether he could build the house he wanted, and he described it by square footage, and I 14 think it's excellent that people in the Building Department will respond to a member of the public, have a conversation 15 and advise them what they honestly feel are the facts. And they advised him he could build his house. 16 He then closed on it for $1.1 million for a vacant lot. He is now told he has to go through this process and is here 17 before you. I truly believe the Building Department looked at the 18 zoning code, looked at the building setbacks, looked at the area lot where you could locate your house and what size house 19 you could locate. whoever he spoke to, obviously honestly gave him an opinion. He relied on it. That's said. 20 we are here now to talk about what are the natural features on the property and is there erosion or isn't there. 21 I'll hand up these documents -- Doug, if you could hand up the tax map, a copy of the old deed as well as the new deed. just 22 for the record. (Handing) . TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At this point, before we go any 23 further, I think the feeling of the full board is that at this point we don't feel we can give an approval of something that 24 is against what our existing codes are. so if you have more to say, if you can condense it. 25 MR. DANOWSKI: I will condense it. I just need to put my comments on the record as to the points of law with regard to 22 1 this and I would like to, not to burden Lauren on this, but I recognize that permits have issued on that street and I need 2 to have the record incorporate, and we can certainly incorporate by reference, the permits that have issued by this 3 board for, and you may have an opinion that these all dealt with non-vacant lots, but permits did issue from this board 4 for coastal zone erosion permits, and I will indicate the names at least for this point: (sic) Paskov, Betche, von Page 20 NOVMIN-FINAL 5 zubin, Pearlstein, Rosicki , sonnenborn. I would just merely ask that rather than copy all the documents and put them in 6 the record, that we ust make reference to those permits so that the record in t,ose files could be available for any 7 review. MR. JOHNSTON: Peggy, would you be happy to stipulate 8 that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. 9 MR. DANOWSKI: I'm saying whatever permits you issued on that street, I would just like to make part of the record. It 10 saves a lot of copying costs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. To continue to that note. The 11 information you just gave us, the two surveys and the two maps, there is no coastal erosion line on any of those four or 12 am I not looking at the fine print? MR. DANOWSKI: Let me make comment on that. 13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, but I just wanted to make a comment that when and if they do come in, we always ask for 14 that to be so the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Coastal erosion line must be on the 15 survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In the file, but not on the ones we 16 just recently got. I also want to mention that the CAC doesn't support the application because development seaward of the 17 coastal erosion line is prohibited as per chapter 111 of the Town Code and also LWRP review has come in inconsistent with 18 similar issues, so. MR. DANOWSKI: The issue is, and I think I have been shown 19 the coastal zone erosion map, I'm not sure what the date was on that map, but it certainly on that public roadway, and I 20 recognize it's your position that the entire parcel is seaward of that mapped line. 21 we all recognize, however, that the map line was from aerial photography, even I think the state will admit it's a 22 pencil mark on a map that has a certain width. some people suggest it's as much as 30 feet. But I think better than the 23 map, I think your board, agreeing with me or not, would be similar to most boards saying erosion or lack of erosion or 24 accretion is something that happens from year to year and happens longterm. so similar to the wetland ordinances where 25 someone said it's nice you produced a map from 20 years ago where a wetlands is, we want you to go back out there and have 23 1 an expert in the field relocate the map and have a governmental person, be it the state or the town, relocate the 2 boundaries and identify what the features are. And that's why I say, even though there may be a map produced by the state, 3 which you refer to in your ordinance, which must be updated every ten years, you have to go out there and identify the 4 features. one of the plans that I submit before you establishes the 5 position of my client and Young & Young. And that is that this is a beach area. It is a beach area by definition. The 6 definition talks about a physiographic change. That change is on the one map that we produced for you. we have distanced Page 21 NOVMIN-FINAL 7 the hundred feet which is referenced in your code and in the state regulations. And that beach area is something to be 8 protected. It is something we do not wish to build on. in all our building construction is outside that area. 9 Now, I recognize you may take the position that the entire lot cannot be built on. I don't believe that is a fair 10 view of the law. I believe you are allowed to issue permits. Even on secondary dune areas, the state legislation allows you 11 to do that. I think your own law allows you to do that. Albeit the type of construction, the raising of the building, 12 the posts, the open area, as far as the foundation, are a requirement. 13 so all I'm suggesting to you, as politely as I can, still taking a position that may be contrary to yours, is that there 14 is a map. The map is outdated. The map is a reference point. It's what is on that site today that should be 15 governing your decisions. And I'm suggesting and Young & Young is suggesting and Mr. Jeffrey Sieman is suggesting, 16 there is a each area. The beach has accreted, it's probably 40 feet of additional beach that's there. The beach goes over 17 into the grass beach area and we are staying out of that area. 18 I believe you have the power and the authority to consider granting a permit with whatever conditions. And I 19 will say this. I read through some of the conditions you placed on the other permits you issued. I thought they were 20 fair, I thought they were reasonable and I thought the houses that got reconstructed are well done, and I commend the board 21 and the owners of those properties. Because I think they are very attractive, they are well done and they consider things 22 as replanting beach grass, no turf grass, build-on on poles and you made a decision in those particular cases; each one is 23 different, each one you considered and you rendered a decision. 24 All I'm saying as part of my presentation here is I believe if you evaluate that lot, look at the accretion, make 25 a determination, that you are allowed to issue a permit. And that is my comment for the day. 24 1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay. I want to make a comment to that, then see if anyone else wants to speak. 2 You mentioned things, permits and buildings that have been done in the past and one of the things we are always 3 doing is looking ahead and not looking back, and always reviewing and revising how we see things and taking into 4 consideration, you know, as much new information, scientific, et cetera. And one of the things we'll continue to do, when 5 Jim mentioned at the beginning of the meeting we have been reviewing, we as a board have been working very seriously, 6 meeting after meeting after meeting, with revising our codes, for shellfish and the mooring; 275 is in the midst of 7 revisions and chapter 111 will also be updated and reviewed, and comments that you have made tonight can certainly be taken 8 into consideration. But as per this application, I believe our board has come Page 22 NOVMIN-FINAL 9 to a decision, unless there is anyone else here that wanted to speak to this. 10 MR. BAIS: (sic) My name is Christian Bais. Just so I'm on the right page and at the right nanosecond of time, I want to 11 make sure we are asking about 54-4-19. I'm a resident of the village of Southold and I have an 12 interest in this situation because seven families in the village of Southold have owned the adjacent two lots, which 13 continue to be vacant to this property. we have been making an effort over the last two years with the land preservation 14 committee of the Town of Southold and others to donate the development rights on our two parcels. 15 I would suggest that this land owner, rather than pursue this course on this property, talk to the land preservation 16 committee about purchasing the development rights off of his parcel . otherwise any action to the contrary will jeopardize 17 the seven families who have owned this property, these two lots adjacent to this lot in question, we'll seek expeditious 18 conclusion of their permits to build two more houses there as well and while the town watches a defeat for waterfront land 19 preservation. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here tonight who would 20 like to speak for or against this application? (No response.) 21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No one is raising their hand. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor. 23 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a resolution before me that I 24 would like to read into the record. The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on 25 Wednesday, November 15, 2006, regarding the above matter: WHEREAS Young & Young as agents for Robert G. Bombara applied 25 1 to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under provisions of the wetland ordinance under chapter 275 of the town wetland 2 code and chapter 111 of the Town code of the Town of Southold, application dated October 17, 2006; whereas said application 3 was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and the Local Waterfront Revitalization program 4 coordinator for their findings and recommendations. WHEREAS the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council 5 resolved to not support the wetland permit and coastal erosion permit applications because development seaward of the coastal 6 erosion hazard area is prohibited as per chapter 111 of the Town code and; 7 WHEREAS the proposal has been found to be inconsistent with the Local waterfront Revitalization Program as no 8 construction is allowed seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area; 9 WHEREAS here the natural protective feature is a beach area and; 10 WHEREAS a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on November 15, 2006, at Page 23 NOVMIN-FINAL 11 which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and; 12 WHEREAS the staff of the Trustees and town have first reviewed and are familiar with the premise in question and 13 surrounding area and have reported to the trustees regarding the location of the proposed development, and; 14 WHEREAS the proposed construction is located on the natural protective feature of a beach as per definitions in 15 chapter 111, coastal erosion hazard areas of the Town code. WHEREAS the board has considered all the testimony and 16 documentation submitted concerning this application. WHEREAS a single-family dwelling garage and swimming pool 17 do not require a shoreline location and; WHEREAS according to chapter 111-12 of the Town code 18 beach area D, all development is prohibited on beaches, unless specifically provided for by that chapter and the proposed 19 development is not provided for as such and; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees 20 deny without prejudice the application of Robert G. Bombara to construct a single-family dwelling with detached garage, 21 swimming pool and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities because of the following reason. 22 In accordance with chapter 111, coastal erosion hazard area, all development is prohibited on beaches in the coastal 23 erosion hazard area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not 24 be considered a determination made by any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same 25 or similar projects. very truly yours, Jim King, President of the Board of 26 1 Trustees. second? 2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? 3 (ALL AYES.) (TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.) 4 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll be abstaining. I did not see the project. 5 WETLAND PERMITS: 6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under wetland permits. Number one, 7 Arthur R. Torell requests a wetland permit to construct a single-family dwelling, one-car garage, gravel driveway and 8 sanitary system. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport. The board looked at this a couple of months ago. To 9 refresh your memory, it was a wooded lot that was very narrow and the house was very narrow. we talked about maybe moving 10 the house west. There was an easement that we needed more information on and, um, I'll see if I covered it all . Yes. if 11 you look at the pictures, notes. (Perusing.) Yes, September 13, we went out and looked at it. if you could give us a 12 minute to refresh our memories here. If you want to look at the pictures. (perusing.) Page 24 NOVMIN-FINAL 13 TRUSTEE KING: I thought we were going to try to get them to move the septic. 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we asked them for a bunch of information which we have and we haven't had time to review. Do you 15 remember this, Dave, it was a very narrow lot? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't remember it at all . 16 TRUSTEE KING: when I parked the van, the wheel almost fell off the side of the road. 17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Deep in the woods? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Bingo. This was deep back into the woods. Okay, I do remember it now. 19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A permit was given in 2002 and it has not been constructed and the permit has been expired, so they 20 have to come in and reapply. what we asked for was agreement on the easement and I 21 don't know if - but I don't know if that was ever mentioned. we have a lot of information here. 22 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? 23 MR. TORELL: I am. I'm the property owner, Arthur Torell . If I may, I want to point out that I did mail it. it 24 should have been arrived Monday. The documents that were submitted to the Suffolk county attorney for the easement, 25 they have all been approved and at this point the Health Department is writing the permit. The DEC permit, they 27 1 already have and they have both been written into the -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a copy of the DEC permit? 2 MR. TORELL: Yes, you should have one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it in the packet you sent Monday? 3 MR. TORELL: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: If I remember right, we tried to move the 4 house further to the west to get it away from the wetland more MR. TORELL: when I got the call a month ago from the 5 Trustees' office I called Peconic surveyor and his comment was, um, you would have to go before the Planning Board and 6 possibly get ten feet back further. But that ten feet would probably equate to four or five feet being further away from 7 the wetlands, with that corner of the home. In other words it's so narrow that moving it back means -- 8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But we wanted to shift it west which would -- we've got it 40 feet away from the wetland, when we 9 were out there. MR. TORELL: But the question to me was move the house 10 back in the lot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. If you want to come up here, I'll 11 show you from the survey that you have. (Indicating.) The farther west you go, move it this way. The wetland, not back 12 that way, but this way. MR. TORELL: But it's this corner here that's the issue. 13 so ]ohn said if I move it back ten, if the Planning Board would give me that ten feet or 12 feet, it would mean like 14 four feet right here. Because it's, it doesn't, you know, cut away. It's a shallow, soft marker. Page 25 NOVMIN-FINAL 15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can the house be smaller? MR. TORELL: It's only 25x47 right now. I mean, I'm sort 16 of shoed in to whatever the DEC and the Health Department have suggested and given me as far as a building lot. 17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to review, we have the easement that we asked for, because the cesspools are in the easement. 18 That's what he submitted to us. we just got that on Monday. A copy of that. I think I would like our legal people to 19 review these documents. Is there any other comment from the audience, for or 20 against? (No response.) 21 I don't see a copy of the DEC permit. Do you have a copy? The CAC resolved not to support the application. The 22 CAC, because the proposed structures are too close to the wetland, however if the Board of Trustees voted in favor of 23 the construction, existing deteriorated hay bales should be replaced. And it is found inconsistent with LWRP. 24 MR. TORELL: Is doesn't say -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, this is the easement. This is the 25 easement. This is not DEC. MR. TORELL: Oh, that's the easement. 28 1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Which we have a copy of that. The DEC will clearly say "DEC" on it. 2 MR. TORELL: I'm positive that was sent, but I could send another. 3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could get us a copy of That, that would be good. The LWRP is inconsistent because of the 4 100-foot setback. Is there any other comments from the board? 5 (No response.) I think we need more time to review these papers, so I 6 would like to table the hearing. MR. TORELL: That's fine. 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we might want to -- Peggy is saying maybe meet somebody out in the field next month on our next 8 field inspection to discuss the design. MR. TORELL: Sure, myself or I should bring the surveyor 9 or the gentleman from the DEC. I have been trying to accomplish this and build this house for a while. This would 10 be like the third and fourth permit I have applied for, since way back when, and for a number of reasons, family, kids, it's 11 always been pushed aside. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our field inspections are December 6. 12 It's a Wednesday. so we'll get in touch with you as to the approximate time or whatever. 13 MR. TORELL: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if you could make sure the stakes 14 are still there. MR. TORELL: I will . 15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can discuss our concerns further and review the easement paperwork. we really want to be 16 careful on granting anything in an easement without reviewing the paperwork properly. Page 26 NOVMIN-FINAL 17 MR. TORELL: All right. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to table this 18 application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 20 TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Eugene and Maryann Krupski 21 request a wetland permit to clean up and restore the existing pond to include the removal of lilies, one tree, brush and 22 poison ivy, and relocate the driveway. Located: 2230 soundview Avenue, Mattituck. 23 Anyone here to comment on the application? MS. KRUPKSI: I'm Marianne Krupski . I was here last time, 24 so. TRUSTEE KING: so the violation has been resolved. 25 (Perusing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did we get the surveys in? we needed a 29 1 survey to denote the property lines. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you get us the survey that we asked 2 for? MS. KRUPSKI: No, I didn't know we were asked to get a 3 survey. I didn't hear that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay 4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: As you recall at the last meeting there was a question of property lines going through this pond in 5 your requesting to take out vegetation in the pond and we would need permission from the other property owners. That 6 was just one of the concerns that we had. MS. KRUPSKI: Are any of them here, the other people, that 7 would be concerned? Because I don't think anyone cares either way. or they would be here. 8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well , we need that in writing. MS. KRUPSKI: From them. 9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. KRUPSKI: That's fine. So can I continue with the 10 driveway and the tree that's on my part of the pond? Because the excavator is coming tomorrow. And then the lilies would 11 be addressed with the other owners. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the tree in the way of the 12 driveway? MS. KRUPSKI: No, the tree is falling. when the excavator 13 is there, it's easier to remove it at the same time. It's more convenient. 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You spoke to Allan Connell . What was his position on the tree? 15 MS. KRUPSKI: Who is he? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From Natural Resources. 16 MS. KRUPSKI: I never spoke with Allan Connell . The tree is falling into the pond. It's dangerous. 17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and when we were in the field we asked you when you speak to Allan Connell , ask him. Because 18 you had originally asked that Kathleen Cole. That's probably -- Page 27 NOVMIN-FINAL 19 MS. KRUPSKI: There was a Nicole that came to the house. TRUSTEE KING: I have a letter in here from her. I'm just 20 looking through it quick. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you remember what her comment was 21 about the tree? Because you had asked how could we save that, or support it or whatever. 22 MS. KRUPSKI: she didn't say anything either way. she didn't have a comment. she said she did what she feels is 23 necessary. That was her comment. TRUSTEE KING: she is recommending you wait until 2007. 24 Ms. KRUPSKI: For the lilies. Not for the tree. TRUSTEE KING: They are talking a lot of work on the pond, 25 excavation and everything. I don't have any problem with the driveway. It's what's around the pond that's going to cause 30 1 us concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can maybe separate the driveway. 2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have a problem with the driveway. 3 MS. KRUPSKI: What about the tree? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be included with the 4 excavation around the pond. MS. KRUPSKI: The thing is they are coming tomorrow. It 5 will cost more money to come back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You should have waited to see what 6 approval you got before you arranged for them to come. MS. KRUPSKI: Okay, but the tree is really on no one else' 7 property but mine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. 8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's part of the pond ecosystem. It's part of that habitat at this point. 9 MS. KRUPSKI: But there is no one here rejecting to moving it. 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we are saying we are concerned about the removal of the tree. When we went out there in the field 11 inspection there had been a lot of work done removing, cutting down and removing vegetation around that pond without a 12 permit. That's why there was a violation issued. You then approached us about the tree and you approached us about using 13 herbicides in the pond. The last meeting there was somebody who spoke, a neighbor who owns part of the pond who stated 14 that pe was very concerned about using any chemicals in that pond because of the wildlife that is contained within the 15 pond. so what we are concerned about is that pond. we are 16 saying the driveway is okay but that tree we are not, what I'm hearing right now is we are not going to give you permission 17 to take that tree down right now until we look at that entire pond, whatever the project is for that pond. Because already 18 there was clearing done that we did not approve for which there was a violation. 19 MS. KRUPSKI: But is there no herbicides removing the tree. 20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. What I'm saying is we are looking at the pond as an entire project that includes Page 28 NOVMIN-FINAL 21 that tree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want to piecemeal that part of 22 the project. MS. KRUPSKI: wouldn't he be here if he was going to 23 reject that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our opinion is we don't want to 24 piecemeal that project. whether everybody objects or nobody objects, the board feels we don't want to piecemeal that part 25 of the project. we are willing to take the driveway part out and piecemeal that part, but not the rest at this point. 31 1 back?MS. KRUPSKI: so what do I do? I have to keep coming 2 TRUSTEE KING: can we do a wetland for the permit for the driveway and have her come in and amend that? 3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: she has a permit for the driveway, so it's amendment, we can give her an amendment tonight for the 4 driveway. That's what we are all -- that's what TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was clarified in the minutes from 5 last month, Tim. MS. KRUPSKI: There is a permit for 100 feet. 6 MS. STANDISH: That involves excavation or activity around the pond. 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a permit for the driveway. It was 100 feet away, but the excavation was going to be within 8 100 feet. so they have a permit. They would like to move it to 50 feet, which nobody has a problem with. so we can amend 9 that permit to move the driveway to 50 feet away. That's permit #6264. 10 TRUSTEE KING: why don't we do that tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can. 11 MS. KRUPSKI: And we still have to wait for the truck. so what do I have to do? I have to come back again? That's all 12 I'm asking. How many times am I going to have to keep coming back for the same issue? 13 TRUSTEE BERGEN: If she likes we could deny that tonight. And that way she doesn't have to come back. we can deny the 14 work on the pond. MS. KRUPSKI: All together? 15 TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are asking not to come back again, so we are saying, fine, we can deny it. 16 MS. KRUPSKI: Do you understand my point? How many times do I have to come back, if no one even cares about removing 17 it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We care. 18 MS. KRUPSKI: why do you care? It's a hazard. You even said yourself, you have a 10-year old son, you would not want 19 him on that tree either. That was your words TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know. I did say that. 20 MS. KRUPSKI: so what's the problem? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem is we don't know exactly how 21 you are going to remove it. It's part of the ecosystem. We don't want to piecemeal your project on that pond. 22 MS. KRUPSKI: I don't think that's piecemealing it. I don't. It's not the lilies. It's not what's within the Page 29 NOVMIN-FINAL 23 water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You want to come back to take out one 24 plant at a time? That's what you are asking for. MS. KRUPSKI: I'm not really. I'm asking for safety on my 25 property so my child doesn't get hurt. That s what I'm asking for. I'm not asking about the lilies. I could put them 32 1 aside. I'm asking for safety now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. we asked for more 2 information. TRUSTEE KING: This shouldn't turn into a debate. we need 3 a planting plan and a restoration plan for that pond, for starters. we also need letters of permission for adjoining 4 property owners to go along with this otherwise, it's part of his property. 5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. I would say give the amendment for the driveway and we need to see a plan and the ownership 6 issue revolved. TRUSTEE KING: You are going to have to have that 7 ownership resolved. Yes TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is information we asked for last 8 month and we need that information before we can make a decision on it. 9 MS. KRUPSKI: A survey of the pond. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, a survey of the pond and a letter 10 from the adjacent owners of the pond and restoration plan, planting plan, restoration .plan. That's what we had asked for 11 MS. KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the plan, if you are removing things, 12 we would like to know what you are going to replace them with. I know you were not happy with the lilies, but in place of 13 that we would want you to put back into that pond vegetation. MS. KRUPSKI: I don't want to put vegetation. I want to 14 put fish in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the edge where it's completely clear, 15 we need to see vegetation. MS. KRUPSKI: That's fine. I'm not even worried about 16 that now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are saying we want to know ahead of 17 time when you do the removal . That's another thing we need to decide. we need to know what it's going to look like, what 18 you'll do to it, beside putting fish into, what it will look like environmentally when you finished. 19 MS. KRUPSKI: I have another question. If I can't remove the tree, can I cut the tree so I don't have to worry if he 20 goes up the tree. The limb doesn't go into the pond? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO. 21 MS. KRUPSKI: How do you keep a 10-year old from going into a tree on your property. 22 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't get into parenting. MS. KRUPSKI: I know, I'm just saying, this is going to be 23 a constant concern of mine that my son is going to try and climb the tree. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well , get us the information that we asked for last month, the survey -- yes, get it to us as soon Page 30 NOVMIN-FINAL 25 as possible because it's already been advertised so. our meeting is on December 13, and we can table the hearing until 33 1 then and if we have all' the information, then we can act on it. 2 MS. KRUPSKI: what happens if you don't get the information until next spring? 3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then we'll have this conversation again. 4 MS. KRUPSKI: Okay. Do I have to pay for a new permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. we are going to separate the 5 driveway and table the rest of it. MS. KRUPSKI: The hold is indefinite. I could leave it 6 until after the winter? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Until we get the information that we 7 want. TRUSTEE KING: Have you got any plans of excavating the 8 pond? MS. KRUPSKI: Do I have any plans? The only thing I want 9 to do right now is take the tree out. The lilies, because they are so overwhelming, it takes them so much to remove 10 them. I don't have the money to remove them. That's why I'm asking if I could remove the tree. I'm asking to remove the 11 tree. I'll never touch the lilies. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The request is to clean up and restore 12 existing pond. one tree, brush, poison ivy and relocate the driveway. if that's not what you are doing anymore then 13 you'll have to amend your description. MS. KRUPSKI: I'm not doing that. 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you have to amend your description. Because we are basing all this discussion on -- 15 MS. KRUPSKI: So I can't amend it standing here? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We still need information. we don't 16 have a proper survey. we don't have the letter from the people. 17 MS. KRUPSKI: why? You've seen the property. You have all been up there. You know where the tree is. 18 This is like -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't repeat it again. 19 TRUSTEE KING: We can amend the existing permit to move the driveway. we can do that. 20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Table the hearing for the other. TRUSTEE KING: Table the rest. 21 MS. KRUPSKI: So can I start building the driveway tomorrow? 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, you have to get the permit in your hand. 23 MS. KRUPSKI: That's why I'm asking the question. When do I get the permit? 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let us actually make the resolution and the approval then we'll -- Jim is just reviewing. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Do they need permits from other agencies? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if the DEC would get involved Page 31 NOVMIN-FINAL 34 1 in this or not. Probably it's not on the wetland map. I doubt it. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: when she asked can I start tomorrow, I think we have to be careful to say we are only giving the 3 permit relating to our responsibility. she may need other agencies and other permits. 4 Do you understand that? MS. KRUPSKI: I do, but I don't know who. Then I should 5 be told that because I don't know who else I would need to get the other information from 6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we don't have the full information so we can just table it and then do the amendment for the driveway. 7 MS. STANDISH: This is where it was approved originally. TRUSTEE KING: Right. okay. I'll make a motion that we 8 amend permit #6242 -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we need to table the hearing and close 9 that one and then take that part out. Make an amendment. TRUSTEE KING: Approve the relocation of the driveway -- 10 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, I didn't know what the procedure is. It's your call , Jim. 11 TRUSTEE KING: It moves it along. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. 12 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to amend permit #6242 to move the driveway from 100 feet away from the pond to 50 feet 13 away from the pond as indicated on survey dated September 25, 2006. 14 DO I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 15 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 16 TRUSTEE KING: And I'll I make a motion to table this hearing in regard to the pond restoration and what will be 17 done in that area until we get a planting plan and whatever she is going to do and a survey. And also information from 18 the neighbor that owns part of the pond; permission for which she could do the work. 19 DO I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 20 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 21 MR. JOHNSTON: Is it clear to you, ma'am, what three things they ask you to get? 22 MS. KRUPSKI: The survey of the pond, the plan how we are going to fix it and what's the third one? 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Permission from the neighbor. MS. KRUPSKI: why do I have to have his permission if I 24 own more of the pond than he does? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's majority rules. He owns 25 part of the pond. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has rights also. Page 32 NOVMIN-FINAL 35 1 Ms. KRUPSKI: I own three-quarters of it. He didn't even own quarter of it. That's neither here nor there. You said 2 also I should find out from other people about moving the driveway. who are those people? That's more of the important 3 question. MR. JOHNSTON: what I said is we are not making an opinion 4 or permission for all other agencies that you may need to go to, for example, the DEC, other town agencies, et cetera. 5 MS. KRUPSKI: which are the other town agencies? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you get an application form, 6 originally? MS. KRUPSKI: No. That's why I'm asking this. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: It's on the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's. on the last page of your original 8 application form. MS. KRUPSKI: For the application for what? so I 9 understand this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: From our office. when you got the 10 original application. MS. KRUPSKI: Application for what? 11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The application for this. MS. KRUPSKI: To build the house? 12 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Either one. If you took an application 13 from our office, the last page lists those agencies. MS. KRUPSKI: who would have to approve that. 14 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. It says you may have to -- MS. KRUPSKI: To speak to other agencies, other people. 15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. And there is a whole list of addresses, phone numbers off the last pa e. 16 MS. KRUPSKI: How long will it take for me to receive the permit, or approximately? 17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have to call them and find out even if you have to apply to them. 18 MS. KRUPSKI: Yours. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you get us the information -- 19 MS. KRUPSKI: There is no information. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not what we approved tonight, the 20 driveway permit. You can contact the office by the end of the week. we may have it toward the end of the week since it's an 21 amendment and not a full permit. MS. KRUPSKI: so possibly Friday I should be able to have 22 that permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Possibly. Call the office. Save 23 yourself a trip. Call the office ahead of time and just ask if it's been completed yet. 24 MS. KRUPSKI: Call Lauren. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. 25 MS. KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good night. 36 1 Page 33 NOVMIN-FINAL Number three, Marion Lake Restoration committee requests 2 a wetland permit to trim the phragmites surrounding Marion Lake to 12 inches. Located: Bay Avenue, East Marion. 3 This is an application dust to cut the phragmites. The Marion Lake Restoration committee is working on bigger plans 4 to restore and come in with an application to restore and replant the area. They are in the process of applying for 5 grants and figuring out the detailed plans. But for now they just wanted to cut the phragmites around the lake. 6 Is there anyone to here on behalf of or against the application? 7 (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jill , is that just the parameter of 8 the cutting, is just the whole perimeter? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole perimeter of the lake. The 9 town is going to be doing the maintenance around the bridge. The holdup with that is we are trying to find a dump site for 10 that which we think we have found but we have to go through the DEC process and apply for permits for the spoil site. So 11 that's what we are doing on that end. so this is, again, is just to trim the phragmites to a 12 foot high. is there any other comments or questions from the board? 13 (No response.) CAC, did you have a chance to look at this? 14 MR. YOUNG: Jack McGreevy and myself actually looked at this and we felt we were in support of this conceptually but 15 felt it was more detailed, that detail should be provided in terms of the plan, basically how they were going to enter and 16 where they were going to cut and what kind of machinery, if any, was going to be used in the pond, the ponds or pond on 17 either side of that bridge, limits of what they were going to cut. so we just felt more definition to the operation was 18 appropriate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. what they plan on doing is go in 19 from each individual property and go that way and cut that way. By hand. And what was your other? No machinery. It's 20 going to be done by hand. MR. YOUNG: Everything is by hand. 21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And gone through each individual property and we have a list in the file of the restoration 22 committee, which is all the property owners around the lake. And they have the letter saying that Laurie Lusher is the 23 point person on this and they do understand that if one section is cut outside the perimeters of the permit, it will 24 get a violation, the committee will get a violation, that particular landowner will get a violation, and so it's up to 25 the committee to make sure that it's done properly. MR. YOUNG: okay. 37 1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment? (No response.) 2 I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 3 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Page 34 NOVMIN-FINAL (ALL AYES.) 4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the request of the Marion Lake Restoration Committee for the 5 wetland permit to trim the phragmites surrounding Marion Lake to one foot high; to trim by hand only. And that's it. 6 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? 7 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: They are talking to the DEC for this, too? 8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they are talking with the DEC. Actually, one of the grants that they are applying for is 9 through DEC. They are talking to other groups, Ducks unlimited, a nature conservancy and they are really doing 10 their homework. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know who they could talk with. 11 Connecticut has a program for removing phragmites now. Actually I think contact their DEP to get some ideas. 12 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Fred Kessler mentioned that, from Ducks unlimited. I'll make sure they go that route. 13 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Samuels & Steelman 14 Architects on behalf of Nancy R. Ross and others requests a wetland Permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct 15 a new two-story dwelling on a piling foundation with new sanitary system. Located: 3350 Park Avenue, Mattituck. 16 is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? 17 MS. ROSS: I am Nancy Ross, I'm currently residing in Yardley, Pennsylvania and Tom Samuels is here with me from 18 Samuels & Steelman. we have all the information that is required. 19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. This is just an opportunity for you to address the board if you have anything you would like to 20 say. You don't have to. MS. ROSS: we have been in the process of getting all the 21 permits for many years now. we hoped to be underway with the project by now but it has not worked out that way. I heard 22 that before tonight, too. So, I'm here to answer questions of yours. I don't have anything else to say. 23 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The board did go out and look at this. stand by for a second. It's not on the list. 24 MS. STANDISH: You could do it in two ways. You can either don't do anything with the LWRP recommendation or we 25 could move forward with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What we are discussing is the Local 38 1 waterfront Revitalization Review coordinator has not had an opportunity to review it and so the board needs to decide 2 whether we, because it's gone beyond the 30 days that he's required to review it, if it's the decision of the board to go 3 forward without it or not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I suggest is that we talk about it a 4 little bit tonight but, again, just so the public understands, Mr. Terry was on vacation this month and was gone for a long 5 period of time this month. so he had very little opportunity Page 35 NOVMIN-FINAL to complete the reviews required under the LWRP. He completed 6 and we just got today a bunch of reviews but apparently we did not on this project. So technically we can't move on this 7 tonight. So we could postpone this entirely or we could get some comments on this tonight. Because I heard you say you 8 came from Pennsylvania. MS. ROSS: Actually I came from Madrid. we are living 9 abroad this year. My co-owner is my sister and she lives in Katmandu. 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: well given the fact you have come such a long distance, just understand, we are not going to be able to 11 act on this tonight because unfortunately we don't have that review. I know the board has gone out and looked at this and 12 my understanding is there was a great deal of work done with the DEC to approve this septic system. I see Mr. Samuels. 13 Maybe Mr. Samuels would like to speak to this. MR. SAMUELS: Yes, Tom Samuels, architect. This review 14 from the DEC and more importantly, I think, the Department of Health, was very lengthy, very thorough and I think probably 15 looked at some of the same issues the LWRP has in mind, although obviously not all of them and I wonder if it's not 16 possible you take into consideration all that review and all those years and months of study that were put into this 17 project and perhaps find it in your power to act because unfortunately we are being disadvantaged by Mark Terry's much 18 deserved vacation. I'm not sure if you are actually absolutely prohibited from acting but if there is a 19 possibility for you to take into consideration all of the review, and I mean three years of review went into this. It's 20 an existing house. we had the permit. You granted us a permit and extended it twice; not you individuals, perhaps, 21 all of you, but the board of trustees, and so the project was adequately and completely thoroughly reviewed by you guys. 22 unfortunately, the board of review at the Health Department went beyond reason in terms of time. 23 we had a permit from you until last month when we came in for a building permit and it was decided it was a little too 24 late. So please, if you could, act tonight on this and we'll be happy to answer any and all concerns that we can. Assuming 25 we can answer them adequately, maybe you could act. TRUSTEE KING: Is there any changes, Mr. Samuels, to the 39 1 structure from the original permit? MR. SAMUELS: No, essentially the same floor plan. Me 2 steepened the roofs a little bit to take it away from the appearance of a ranch house. It's exactly the same house. we 3 have here former plans and we have here our plans. But it's the same plan. Also received a variance from the zoning Board 4 of Appeals, by the way, which have to do with, of course, pre-existing nonconformities. It's a very odd site. There is 5 no doubt about it. very odd site. The house that is there has been there for all intent and purposes forever; maybe not 6 in terms of trustees' jurisdiction, but a long, long time. we are replacing it in the footprint with minor additions 7 that are only intended to make it usable as sort of a boat Page 36 NOVMIN-FINAL shed attached to the side. we are putting a boat shed back on 8 the side and we are making it a little bigger. That was all reviewed before and we are not deviating from the footprint. 9 MS. ROSS: The scope of the project has stayed the same through the whole years of the application. 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stand by for a second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Samuels explained since this has 11 been originally been approved, the code has been updated and changed. so we have different things we are looking at as 12 well . MR. SAMUELS: As far as the sanitary and some of the 13 physical aspects of the project are concerned, it's as far as could possibly be from wetland. The DEC did flag the 14 wetland. I'm not sure what else we could really do. That's their minimum shallow system that is it going on in there. 15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DEC said non-jurisdiction because it's crossing the road? 16 MR. SAMUELS: No, we have the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought. 17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for the record, also, CAC did not make an inspection, so they don't have any recommendations on 18 this project. MR. SAMUELS: But I'm sure they did in the earlier -- 19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. I apologize for these delays. what we are trying to do is find out if we could move 20 on this tonight, even though -- well , if we can move on this tonight. 21 what I have been advised is we can move on this tonight. So I apologize for the delays but I wanted to make sure that 22 we made an appropriate decision here. MR. SAMUELS: After all this time, if a little extra time 23 is appropriate. Ten minutes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the concerns the board had out 24 there when they looked at it is obviously, and you know this, how close the structure is to the setbacks. How close it is 25 to the property lines. I believe I had seen some place or heard some place it's going to stay within the same footprint 40 1 but I also know there was a porch. so is the building itself going to extend out so that the porch is now enclosed and 2 becomes part of the habitable area or does it remain a porch? MR. SAMUELS: No, it's covered but open. No problem with 3 that. In fact the ZBA probably said it can't be enclosed. MS. ROSS: The ZBA also asked for slight modification on 4 the line on the deck in the front so it's parallel to the property line. 5 MR. SAMUELS: It's actually a little smaller than the existing. 6 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is an extensive septic area. I'm gathering that's because of a combination of the 7 environmental issues that are there plus the number of bedrooms this house is calling for. 8 MR. SAMUELS: That's the minimum size of a shallow system, which is a five-pool system, two foot dig grades built 9 literally at or above existing grade by only two feet. But you Page 37 NOVMIN-FINAL need a little fill . It's the distance to ground water that is 10 the issue and to meet that distance to ground water, which we did. For the DEC and Health Department. 11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm understanding you telling the board here, even if there were fewer bedrooms in the house, it 12 would still require the same septic system. MR. SAMUELS: That's the minimum shallow pool system for 13 the Health Department. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we needed to know. 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a copy of the DEC permit in the file? 15 MR. SAMUELS: I hope so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not that we need it for our decision. I 16 just wanted to see if there were conditions on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we do. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: Are there any conditions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The conditions that the DEC set are some 18 of the same ones we would, specifically that there is some type of erosion control measures made with hay bales, silt 19 fencing, et cetera. MR. SAMUELS: Of course. 20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Dr wells, any fill be clean fill , construction equipment be confined to the driveway south of 21 the road, driveways and parking areas of pervious material and no disturbance of the natural vegetation is done. 22 MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So all those are similar conditions we 23 would have also. MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely 24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any other comments or questions from the board? 25 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How much fill is going to be needed to be brought in for those shallow pools? 41 1 MR. SAMUELS: Not all that much, probably 25, 30 yards. It's a compact area. They literally touch each other, then 2 there is a low wall , then you just fill in the rest. so it's really sand to enclose them as much as anything. The bottom 3 of them is at the right elevation. we are Just enclosing them with fill . so a couple of truck loads is all they'll take. I 4 don't know exactly to be honest. I can calculate it, but I'm not sure. I could look at the detail of it on the health 5 permit. It is clean sand. It must be by their standard, as well . 6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And your driveway will stay the same? MR. SAMUELS: Yes, sand/gravel . Definitely permeable. 7 I'm not changing elevation or anything. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions from the board? 8 (No response.) Are there any other comments from anybody else in the 9 audience? (No response.) 10 If not, I would like to make a motion to close this public hearing. 11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Page 38 NOVMIN-FINAL TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? 12 (ALL AYES.) I would like to make a motion to approve the application 13 of Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Nancy Ross and others with conditions as follows: That there are erosion control measures 14 utilized, meaning staked hay bales and silt fencing around the property, that roof runoff be addressed through drywells, 15 gutters and we make sure the driveway remains a pervious material and there is no disturbance to the natural vegetation 16 around the site. with those conditions we'll deem this application be 17 consistent under the LWRP. I make that motion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 18 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Stageberg Architecture PLLC on behalf 20 of NOFO Properties c/o Mark Gordon regrests a wetland Permit to rebuild and extend an existing wood deck by 6. 5 feet, 21 rebuild the existing wood steps to roof and widen to meet code, construct new roof and deck with guardrail and extend 22 the master bedroom over the roof of the existing ground level roof. Located: 1150 Northview Drive, orient. 23 is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? 24 MS. STAGEBERG: Hi , my name is Jane Stageberg, Stageberg Architecture. I have here an affidavit of posting. 25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You could bring it up to Lauren. MS. STAGEBERG: I also have copies of the survey which 42 1 have the coastal erosion on it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. I'll take that. 2 MS. STAGEBERG: Seven copies, I believe, here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we can take five. Any other comments 3 you want to make to us? MS. STAGEBERG: other than to just describe, basically, 4 what we are asking for. There is an existing deck on the house that is in disrepair. The wood is rotting. And we are 5 proposing extending that existing deck, rebuilding it and extending it by six-and-a-half feet toward the water to make 6 that deck more usable. And we are also building an extension alongside the house and rebuilding a set of existing stairs 7 that go up to the roof on the house. Those stairs right now do not meet code. 8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we saw a wire fence along the bluff. Is there a purpose for that fence? 9 MR. GORDON: Yes. Jesse Gordon, Costello & Gordon, LLP. I can speak to that. I represent the owner NOFO Properties. 10 That fence is placed there to support Rosa Ragusa which is planted along the bluff line to stabilize the bluff. It was 11 done in conjunction by Peter sterling at, I forget the name of his company. Plantings by the sea. Thank you, very much. And 12 essentially it's also there to protect from our children falling off the bluff and dogs falling off the bluff. 13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: One of the things we usually do when Page 39 NOVMIN-FINAL we have any construction is we try to increase those buffers 14 and we like to see it come back about ten feet -- to be ten feet. Not ten feet more, but to encompass ten feet. so I 15 don't know if you want to just -- and we really don't usually have fences along the bluff. 16 TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that, a little fence like that. I don't have a problem with that. 17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a problem increasing it? I don't know what it is now. Is it five foot now? 18 TRUSTEE KING: It's probably four or five. Not even that. It goes almost right to the top of the bluff. 19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we would just want it moved back. TRUSTEE KING: In other words we are looking for a 20 ten-foot buffer along the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It just improves if for your own area 21 so you don't have problems in the future. we have seen so many problems along the sound area. 22 MR. GORDON: Right. The issue with that is the plantings are meant to grow over the fence. The fence is not there for 23 any sort of, you know, support itself. It's lust for the plants to cling on. That would involve actually bringing the 24 plants, taking the plants out and moving them back. TRUSTEE KING: Can you just plant more plants? 25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you leave the fence and increase the buffer area to ten feet, which is what we ask anyone to do 43 1 along the sound shore doing any kind of construction? It's just increasing it. 2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want to see the lawn up to the top of the bluff, non-turf. 3 MR. GORDON: so other plantings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Just not grass. 4 MR. GORDON: We could do something, I'm sure, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? 5 TRUSTEE KING: That was the only thing we thought would be very helpful . Ten foot non-turf buffer. 6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are pretty sure we understand all the additions and improvements. The CAC supports the 7 application with the condition drainage plan and installation of gutters and drywells. And this is an addition, so we 8 didn't have to worry about the LWRP. Is there anyone else here tonight who would like to speak 9 for or against the application? (No response.) 10 No further comments? TRUSTEE KING: Be sure drywells are indicated on the 11 survey. I didn't see anything. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you include drywells on the 12 survey? MS. STAGEBERG: I did not ask. No, I haven't included 13 them on the survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can we get them included on the 14 survey? MS. STAGEBERG: Sure. 15 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the Page 40 NOVMIN-FINAL hearing. 16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? 17 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the 18 application for a wetland permit to rebuild and extend the existing wood deck by six_ and-a-half feet, rebuilding existing 19 new steps to roof and widen to make code; construct new roof and deck with guardrails and extend the master bedroom over 20 the roof of the existing ground-level roof. we also want to see the drywells, gutters and drywells on the plan. we also 21 would like ten-foot non- turf buffer. we would like to specify it be native, you already started, native natural 22 plantings along the buffer area. MR. GORDON: Beach grasses of some sort. 23 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, non-turf grasses. Natural beach grass, et cetera. 24 Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 44 1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Patricia Moore, on behalf of 2 Norman and Adele Grudman requests a wetland permit to construct an addition over the existing dwelling, a new wood 3 deck with steps to grade, a new garage addition and two one-storyy additions to the dwelling. Located 630 North Drive, 4 Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this 5 application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. I brought over to your file 6 a drawing with the exact dimensions of all of the additions. we had actually measured, in the dark, measurements that were 7 pretty accurate considering the drawing that I have. we have a proposed deck in the back which is angled, which follows the 8 contours of the property, so it angles in a northerly direction. we also have an existing space that was completed 9 under, it was started before and we are including it in this permit, and we have a proposed addition on the landward side 10 of the house, which is the garage addition and living space. so this house is getting an addition on both sides. one is on 11 the water. The other portion of the addition is landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. The deck, for the trustees' 12 information, is approximately 17x20. And it is angled so that the tree does not have to be disturbed. 13 MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application with the 14 condition of drywells, gutters are installed and does not support the wood decking as proposed because of the close 15 proximity to the wetland. CAC recommends 75-foot setback maintained from the wetlands. 16 unfortunately, we don't have LWRP comment and it's within the 30 days, so we cannot act on this permit tonight. 17 MS. MOORE: okay. Page 41 NOVMIN-FINAL TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from 18 anybody? MS. MOORE: I would just point out that this property, the 19 elevation where the wetlands are, as the crow flies it's less than 75 feet but topographically it's quite high. so I think 20 that's why, if the CAC was looking at a survey, it would be deceiving because on the, as you know from visiting the site, 21 the property is really high and is looking out over Mattituck creek, so. 22 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: would anybody from the CAC like to 23 elaborate on their request? MR. ECKERT: Done wilder did the inspection and he thought 24 it was too close. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. 25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there an other comment? (No response. 45 1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have to table the hearing? MS. MOORE: could it be approved subject to the LWRP or do 2 you have to have the report? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we have to have the report because 3 we have to review it. MS. STANDISH: Table it or close it and reserve decision. 4 Either way. MS. MOORE: I don't think if makes any difference. I 5 would rather keep it open just in case something comes up that you need additional information, I'll provide it. 6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to table the application until we receive LWRP. 7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? 8 (ALL AYES.) 9 TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental consulting on behalf of Paolo and Jean Blower requests a 10 wetland Permit to construct an elevated timber catwalk 4x205 feet situated within the central portion of the subject 11 property, as well as pathways four feet wide, maximum, connectin said catwalk from both the existing dwelling and 12 the top the bluff. Located: 5865 Soundview Avenue, Southold. 13 Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental 14 Consulting for the applicant, the Blowers. Probably the best exhibit you have is the aerial 15 photograph that I provided with the application. what we are trying to do here is, what we have is a house that is well set 16 back from the water. Actually the land between the house and the water is, it's sand dunes really is what it is and wedged 17 between two tunes is this sort of inter inter-dunel wetland situation. So we try to cross that at its narrowest point. 18 To the east, you have Peconic Dunes, a park which I'm recently very familiar with because we had our Boy Scout 19 outing there. And what they did there is just, basically Page 42 NOVMIN-FINAL built a road and built it up and kind of filled in the wetland 20 so you could walk from where you camp to the water. To the west you have Tim Gray's house, a local 21 contractor, and then there is just a clearance of, down there you probably went toward Tim Gray and you walked out to it and 22 you could see hopefully the seaward stakes of this catwalk structure. 23 My feeling is you are better off building a structure because unlike the properties on either side this is the one 24 that would protect that inter-dunel wetland, more than the adjacent properties have. That's pretty much all I have to 25 say. TRUSTEE KING: I'll give you fair warning now this has not 46 1 been reviewed under the LWRP so we cannot -- MR. ANDERSON: If you have any questions, I'll answer 2 them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what access did the property owner use 3 prior to this? MR. ANDERSON: Tim Grays. 4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And that's not acceptable at this point? 5 MR. ANDERSON: It was, it's sold. we used to share access. No we no longer can. 6 TRUSTEE KING: Tim Gray is to the west? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there is no access to the property line on the east, to the camp? 8 MR. ANDERSON: No, you have, to enter the camp and you have to walk where the huts are and stuff. 9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I walked all the way to the end of the property and it's just as thick on that end as it is 10 throughout the whole thing. MR. ANDERSON: I think we laid it out as best we can. And 11 , I thought we should have a structure from the house all the way to the beach. I was sort of discouraged from doing that. 12 So I tried to limit it, you know. TRUSTEE KING: we couldn't even get through it to get to 13 the seaward side. MR. ANDERSON: You have to walk on to Gray's property or 14 Peconic Dunes. You have to walk all the way around. It's the only way to get there. I have photos of it. It's staked out 15 by a surveyor. TRUSTEE KING: How would they even construct this without 16 even disturbing an awful lot? MR. ANDERSON: You have to go in by hand. There will be 17 some short-term disturbance. clearly it has to be better than what property owners do there and there has to be some way of 18 getting to the beach. I think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other structures like this 19 down in that area? TRUSTEE KING: Not that I could see. 20 MR. ANDERSON: And for the most part they just mow down the wetlands. That's how they get there. 21 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If they mow it down, they wouldn't be Page 43 NOVMIN-FINAL able to get through it. It's pretty deep in some points, 22 right? MR. ANDERSON: Well , if you go to the Peconic Dunes side, 23 they bulldoze through the wetland then they filled it with sand so it's dry. If you go to the Gray's, they sort of, I'm 24 not saying they did it, I don't know who did it, but it's puddles. You go through some puddles on your way there. But 25 the clearing the Peconic Dunes side is probably, I'll say ten to 14 feet. The Gray side is little less, maybe ten to 12 47 1 feet. You could drive a four-wheel vehicle to the beach from either Peconic Dunes or from Tim Gray's house. 2 TRUSTEE KING: Was there ever a fire in that area? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, there was. I think it was caused by 3 lightening. TRUSTEE KING: I saw signs of a fire. 4 MR. ANDERSON: There was a brush fire down there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The fire Department must have a heck of 5 a time getting in there. MR. ANDERSON: It was relatively recent. 6 TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing) . The CAC -- it was tabled. The project was not staked. It feels more details are needed in 7 order to make a determination, such as type of material and method of construction. 8 MR. ANDERSON: Well , it is staked and you would have to construct it by hand. That's really the only way you could do 9 it. And it would be a nasty job to put it there. TRUSTEE KING: Environmental technicians comments, if I 10 could read them. The proposal is in a maritime inter-dunel swell ; the catwalk would fragment the habitat; part of natural 11 heritage program designation. You also have two large oaks, two large oaks have been topped and wood is in the fresh water 12 wetland; sweet pepper bush, bayberry in freshwater wetlands. I didn't see any oak trees that had been topped. 13 MR. ANDERSON: Was this Heather? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 14 MR. ANDERSON: I consulted with her before I made the application. 15 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw a couple of topped trees. They were top topped. 16 MR. ANDERSON: Where? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you head out from the pool straight, 17 the minute you got, just as you approach the wetland line, right where the fire was, and it was obviously chain sawed off 18 the top. TRUSTEE KING: Not recently. 19 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would not say too recent, no. TRUSTEE KING: It was a long time ago. I was under the 20 impression somebody just topped it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's hard to tell based on what was down 21 in the wetland. I couldn't really tell . TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was debris in the wetland or you never 22 saw it? TRUSTEE KING: To me it looked like there was a some fire 23 damage there. It looked like there was fire damage from years Page 44 NOVMIN-FINAL ago. It was not anything new. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The trees. MR. ANDERSON: It's charred. 25 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Charred wood sitting there. Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. It's going to be difficult 48 1 for me. I would like to go take a look at it, too. we can't move forward because of the LWRP. 2 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, can we go through Peconic Dunes to go to the beach front next month? 3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure it's okay, if you want to go 4 through Gray's. You have to walk around. You can't walk through it. 5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, go through Grays, it s easier. 6 TRUSTEE KING: I would like us all to take a look at it, in the meantime. All right? 7 MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to meet you down there. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we'll do that. so I'll make a motion 8 to table the application and we'll revisit it in December field inspections. 9 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 10 (ALL AYES.) 11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, RLH Land Planning Services, Inc. , on behalf of Joseph and Diana Corrarino requests a 12 wetland Permit to construct a new porch at the front (west side) of the house; to construct a 12 foot deck on the eastern 13 side of the house where there currently exists three steps approximately 30 inches in length. The upstairs deck also on 14 the eastern side of the house will be extended to the extent of the proposed 12 foot deck on the first floor. Located: 129 15 Inlet Lane, Greenport. is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this 16 application? MR. HILL: Good evening. I'm Ron Hill , RLH Land Planning 17 services on behalf of Joseph and Diana Corrarino. In addition to what has been said I would like to just add the property is 18 currently improved. The proposed project will not alter the existing physical characteristics of the site because there is 19 no clearing or grading that is going to be necessary to construct the decks. we feel that there is no adverse impact 20 as a result of the physical changes of the site. we also feel that the project as proposed is consistent with the 21 surrounding community and in all other respects consistent with town zoning regulations. we also feel that the property 22 as proposed, the project as proposed, is reasonable, given the size of the parcel , existing conditions of the site and 23 existing use of the layout of the site. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. 24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The CAC voted to support this application with the condition that gutters and drywells are 25 installed. The LWRP finding was inconsistent and so we need Page 45 NOVMIN-FINAL to deal with that. 49 1 MR. HILL: Inconsistent in what way? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Minimum setback being 100 feet from the 2 water. That was it. MR. HILL: That's the purpose why I'm here. 3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. Bear with us. we did, we also agreed with the cAc's recommendation would ask 4 the gutters and drywells be installed here to control roof runoff, we also had noted that the buffer, we thought the 5 buffer was very good on the south side, but as you move to the north side, we were looking to increase that buffer. This is 6 the side of the property where there is right now, there is a barbecue, a chimenia kind of thing, that's to the west. My 7 compass bearings are a little off. what we wanted to do was to increase that to a ten-foot buffer so it would in line with 8 the buffer that is already there. In other words it's a very nice buffer on the rest of the area, it's just that corner 9 there is no buffer and we are looking to just in that corner, put in ten-foot buffer there. Does that make sense? If you 10 like, you can come up and I could show you exactly on the plan here what we are talking about. 11 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's suggested to make the buffer just don't mow it. 12 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Here you go. Talking this corner here. You notice there is a great buffer along here, but 13 there is really very little there. we are saying that little area there to pull the buffer out some. 14 MR. HILL: Basically extending this across that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: correct. Is that acceptable to you? 15 MR. HILL: I believe it will . I would have to confer with my clients regarding it. I'm sure they won't have a problem 16 with it. As long as you approve it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I like You. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: He's tough. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are just suggesting in that buffered 18 area to continue to plant Rosa Ragusa. That's already in the other buffer that looks really good. so just continue with 19 Rosa Ragusa in there. Those are the only comments we had. were there any other comments from anybody in the 20 audience pertaining to this application? (No response.) 21 if not, I'll look to any other comments from the board. (No response.) 22 I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? 24 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve 25 the application of RLH Land Planning services on behalf of 7osep and Diana corrarino with the condition that gutters and Page 46 NOVMIN-FINAL 50 1 drywells are added to the house, that the buffer on that western corner is also increased and with that work that we'll 2 deem this to be consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 4 MR. HILL: on behalf of the Corrarino's, I thank you. 5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: David Corwin on behalf of New Suffolk Properties, LLC, requests a wetland Permit to install new 6 subsurface sanitary sewage disposal systems to replace existing systems. Located: 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. 7 Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application? 8 MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. I don't have any comments but if you have questions about the application, I 9 would try to answer them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually the board was very impressed 10 with the system that you have in your survey. CAC's comments were that they supported the application with the condition 11 the system is a proven engineering technology. MR. CORWIN: The Health Department has approved it, so. 12 That was a tough hurdle, I'll tell you. So it is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the existing cesspools are going 13 to be filled in; abandoned and filled in with sand? MR. CORWIN: Yes. 14 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to this application or any other board 15 comments? MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes. Ray Huntington speaking for the west 16 Neck Property Owners Association. We went to the Suffolk County Department of Health 17 Services hearings concerning this matter and we learned quite a bit about it there, too. while we are not experts, we were 18 impressed, again, as you were, with the design. It seems to be a good deal better than what we regarded, than the current 19 situation, which is problematic. It is an existing circumstance that is being improved. we don't support going 20 further into new construction, but that is not the matter before us. The owners of this marina have been good 21 neighbors. so we are very supportive of their continued efforts to make this better. 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Being no further comments, I'll make a 23 motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 24 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 25 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this for New Suffolk Properties to install the new subsurface sanitary Page 47 NOVMIN-FINAL 51 1 sewage plan as per the survey stamped out October 13, 2006, and to replace and fill in the existing systems at 3350 West 2 creek Avenue, Cutchogue. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. 3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would also like to commend the applicants for coming up with this new technology to address 5 this issue. That's what this board is always looking for and I think that's excellent. Thank you, very much. 6 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Ian Crowley on behalf of 7 Matthew Kar requests a wetland Permit to remove 6x33 feet floating dock, 3x12 foot ramp and 4x7 foot platform and 8 replace with 6x20 foot floating dock, 3x12 foot ramp and 4x7 foot cantilevered platform. Located: 750 Little Peconic Bay 9 Road, Cutchogue. This is basically an application to, this is an existing 10 structure. we asked them to reduce the float and that's what they have applied for. 11 Is there anyone here to speak to behalf of this application? 12 MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley on behalf of Matthew Kar. I don't have any comments but I do have the affidavit of 13 posting, certified mail receipt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. It's an inkind, in-place -- 14 well , it's a reduction of what is there. so I believe it's exempt from LWRP, correct? 15 MS. STANDISH: It's consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: YuP 16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. CAC resolved to support the application. we were out in the field last month and asked 17 the applicant to reduce the size of the float. He has. Is there any other questions from anyone? 18 MR. CAVANAUGH: Tom Cavanaugh, I'm the adjacent property owner to the west, 600 Peconic Bay Road. 19 You indicated that this is not subject to LWRP review? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I asked that, but Lauren corrected 20 me and said it is and it's found consistent. MR. CAVANAUGH: Thank you. 21 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anybody else? (No response.) 22 I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second. 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Ian Crowley on behalf of Matthew Kar to replace existing structure 25 with a 6x20 foot floating dock, 3x12 foot ramp and 4x7 foot cantilevered platform. Do I have a second? 52 1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Page 48 NOVMIN-FINAL 2 (ALL AYES.) MR. CROWLEY: Thank you. 3 TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, Catherine Mesiano on behalf 4 of Elizabeth siddons requests a wetland Permit to construct a 4x24 foot low profile dock with open fiberglass decking and 5 with a 4x12 foot platform. Located: 715 Monsell Lane, cutchogue. 6 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? 7 MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. 8 Jill called me on Mond%y with comments that arose from your field inspection and I had made some recommendations to 9 the Siddon's for alternate designs and I have a couple of alternatives that rather than try to explain it to you, I 10 would just like to show it to you briefly so, to see if this is more in line with something you are comfortable with. 11 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is revisions from the deck. MS. MESIANO: I explained to the siddons' what the 12 objections was and they understand that. And in an earlier application you had approved a fixed dock, low profile fixed 13 dock with a kayyak slide and I have taken, I just sketched this very rudimentally so we can discuss it. But this is the plan 14 that you had approved with the kayak slide and what I come up with here is that we eliminated, we have eliminated the 15 platform and in line with this kayak slide design, instead of a platform, we have a ramp that, and I have shown the ramp in 16 two different configurations. I think, if I make it too short, we are stepping off into a mucky area and I think if we 17 can bring it down on a more gradual slope it would be the wiser of the two choices. 18 This is 25 feet from the edge of the marsh. That would result in the walkway being 16 feet long, the fixed portion of 19 the dock with a ramp that if it were going to the existing bottom, would give us a 25-foot ramp. It s about a one-on-one 20 slope. Now, in order to facilitate the kayak slide, as we had 21 used in the other plan, I have two suggestions. Mrs. siddons was concerned about the cumbersome nature of all of this. so 22 what I'm proposing is if we could widen the landward edge by two feet, to make it six feet wide, for a distance of ten 23 feet, and then put the kayak slide on that which would be the south side of the dock. That would allow them to store -- 24 because -- and I'll back up. That would allow them to store their kayak, canoe, et cetera, on top of the decking of this 25 dock because pursuant to earlier permits from the construction, they are not allowed to store anything in this 53 1 adjacent area. so they would be able to launch their canoe or kayak, then draw it back up or store it on the side and still 2 have a walkway that is reasonably safe. Does that make any sense, do you have any questions? 3 Suggestions? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It makes sense. Page 49 NOVMIN-FINAL 4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to see it stay because I'm curious if you widen this, I don't remember what was on 5 the side of the proposed area. TRUSTEE KING: what's the advantage of going up here or 6 this end here somewhere? MS. MESIANO: Just not having to drag it that far. 7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: weren't there three, I saw like two kayaks and a canoe. My point is it will only give them 8 storage for one of them. MS. MESIANO: Right. But at least they can stage their 9 launching and whether or not they re stored here or here, it gives them the ability to stage the launching of them in a 10 safer manner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How wide is a kayak? 11 MS. MESIANO: They are about two feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you would not need ten feet wide 12 here. MESIANO: It's not ten feet. 13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, but you are saying make the whole dock ten feet. 14 MS. MESIANO: No, six feet. Two feet added for a distance of ten feet, because generally a canoe is 17 feet long. 15 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought you said 20 feet wide. MS. MESIANO: No, total six feet in width for a distance 16 of ten feet, then the balance of it being, that would be 15 feet, or 13. And the balance being four feet. 17 It was something, they and I talked about it and they said if I could come back with approval for something rather 18 than nothing, they are willing to work with the trustees. They would like to be able to utilize their waterfront without 19 treading through the vegetation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So what is the projection beyond the 20 edge of the marsh? In other words from where June is standing there in the picture. 21 MS. MESIANO: okay. At this point would it would bring us just past the low water mark. This would bring us -- 22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that 25 feet? Is this distance 25 feet? 23 MS. MESIANO: No, because the parallel to the grade distance would not be 25. This is the length of the proposed 24 ramp. So that would not be the distance. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That would go out 25 feet. 25 MS. MESIANO: The distance would be shorter. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm trying to get how much that is 54 1 going into that now. TRUSTEE KING: About 23 1/2 feet. 2 MS. MESIANO: I know that would be a consideration which is why I have two proposals that are 20 foot. so let's just 3 stake it. so I'll stake the farther limit and then we can, we'll know, that, anything back from that. okay. I'll have 4 that done. So we are holding that for next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we don't have LWRP anyway, so. 5 TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to table the hearing. Page 50 NOVMIN-FINAL 6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 7 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: And we'll look it at it next month for the 8 stakes. 9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Jonathan and Andrea Parks requests a wetland Permit to repair 10 the damage to bluff using approximately 200 cubic yards of fill ; replace existing bulkhead to secure bluff; repair and 11 replace (where needed) existing stairs to beach; regrade yard and install plantings to prevent further erosion; install 12 drywells and catch basins in front yard to prevent water from reaching bluff; regrade and install retaining walls 13 (approximately 80 feet from bluff) to level portion of waterside yard; construct 32x50 foot addition to existing 14 dwelling; install pool and patio; and revegetate bluff with beach grass approximately 18 inches on center. Located: 3995 15 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. I hear paper fluttering so obviously something else has 16 been added here. is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this 17 application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the 18 applicant. The paperwork that I just handed you are the revisions and additional data that was requested by the 19 trustees subsequent to the site inspection last week. That information basically pertains to the replacement of the 20 existing bulkhead and landward retaining wall , and the filling of the breach in the bluff that was the subject of an earlier 21 emergency permit. we have had extensive discussion over the last few hours 22 with our project manager and Pat Moore who represents the case's who are the owners of the property to the north and Mr. 23 and Mrs. Santiago and their attorney who are contract vendees for the case property. And because the portion of the bluff 24 that failed is so close to the case property, they are of course very concerned with, first of all , how and why it 25 happened, what's been done to mitigate the problem, and how the problem is going to be handled in the future. 55 1 There are a number of items we have discussed, and generally agreed upon, although Mr. and Mrs. Parks are not 2 here, we'll just let them know tomorrow what they have to do. we are going to be doing -- let me back up a little bit. 3 on the site plan that you have, you can see that the location of the pool and the proposed dwelling has been moved landward 4 so as to comply with your request that we maintain a 70-foot setback from the bluff. And is that to your satisfaction? 5 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MESIANO: okay, in addition, we have shown on the site 6 plan various drainage structures that are or will be installed to mitigate additional runoff. 7 The initial problem was created at least in part by clearing and landscape work that was performed in the front Page 51 NOVMIN-FINAL 8 yard which caused a runoff problem into the backyard. So substantial work and monies have been put toward this effort 9 and the front yard has been regraded, swales have been created for collection of storm water runoff, drywells and catch 10 basins have been installed. The driveway has been regraded and rebanked so as to direct the runoff from the front yard 11 into the swales so it doesn't continue to be a problem. Now, the neighbor and the prospective owner of the 12 neighboring property are of course concerned with what else is going to happen and how is it going to occur. And I'm caught 13 between a rock and a hard spot because our failed bluff is, the problem is continuing to grow. we have more failure. we 14 have more erosion. So I'm going to try to offer up a solution and I welcome anybody to jump in at any time. 15 what I would like to accomplish in order to satisfy your needs, are to provide you with an updated topographic map and 16 an engineered grading and drainage plan that has been certified by an engineer that has more technical information 17 than what you presently have. we are also going to gather more information to be able 18 to demonstrate the neighboring steps and the terracing on the neighboring steps so that we can create a restoration plan 19 that would tie into the neighboring property in an effort to have a longterm solution to the problem. 20 Along with those retaining walls we would of course need to do vegetation to work in conjunction with that. we would 21 also offer up that, at your, the final inspection that you will require, you will be provided with an engineer's 22 certification that any work performed under a permit issued by the trustees would have an engineer's certification. And in 23 conjunction with that, our engineer would oversee and inspect the work in progress to assure that it is done in conformance 24 with an approved plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Cathy, while you are mentioning that 25 can I just ask that in that report of this engineer, that he address the impact of that pool and that specific area. since 56 1 it is very near and close to this major blowout and that in someway way he assure that that construction is not going to 2 effect that area. MS. MESIANO: Right. And I want to add as well that while 3 it appears just to be a pool around, an integral part of the pool is a retaining wall that in part will serve to -- let me 4 back up and say that again. That retaining wall will have a finished elevation equal to the first floor elevation of the 5 house, which I believe is 58 feet. Therefore there would be fill involved in that area so 6 that there is not additional runoff created from that area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: what's the height, proposed height above 7 grade of this retaining wall along the northern boundary of the property? 8 MS. MESIANO: okay, we have an elevation that goes from 52 feet to 48 feet, and the finished elevation of the retaining 9 wall -- okay. Since I don't have the engineer's plan I'm going to say that I believe the first floor elevation is 58, give or Page 52 NOVMIN-FINAL 10 take a couple of feet. The finished elevation of the retaining wall will be approximately the same as the first 11 floor elevation of the house. Therefore, if it is 56 to 58 feet, the distance above 12 grade then would be at its greatest point, eight to ten feet. Because we have a grade of 52 to 48 in the area that we are 13 -- no, eight feet. we have a grade -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: My interpretation is also -- 14 MS. MESIANO: I was looking at the hay bales. Sorry. The grade at the area of the retaining wall goes from 50 to 52. 15 Therefore, at its greatest point it would be no more than approximately eight feet. 16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. And the distance from that property line to the north of that retaining wall? 17 MS. MESIANO: Let me just get my scale. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looks like it's very minimal . 18 MS. MESIANO: It is. And the parties are working in an effort -- 19 TRUSTEE KING: Six, seven feet. MS. MESIANO: It's premature to get into a lot of the -- 20 MS. MOORE: It might be helpful . Since we have the Santiago's here who are going to be buying the property, I 21 have think their longterm plan would be to have a plan that matches their grade to the finished grade that the Parks' are 22 proposing. So if their retaining wall is close to the property line is at 58 feet, the tennis court that is there 23 right now is at 52, so the plan by the Santiago's and we asked them specifically, is that they are probably going to end up 24 redoing the tennis court and raising the elevation of it to address drainage of the tennis court, so. 25 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I'm sorry, Cathy, I want to give you a chance to complete your presentation before we open it 57 1 up for other comments. MS. MESIANO: This all came about when I got here tonight 2 so if I'm a little hesitant it's because I haven't practiced it six times and they are all watching and listening. 3 Also, I just would like to say that during the course of this project, we did have an emergency permit issued. The 4 Parks' have made every attempt to do what they need to do as they have been required or requested by the trustees and in 5 conjunction with what their professionals are advising them and that it will continue in that same vein. Now, the zinger. 6 what I'm hoping, what I'm -- I know I'm asking for a lot but I have to ask because of the emergency nature of this lot it 7 continues to deteriorate. And if I may ask you a question, does the board have questions, are you conceptually opposed or 8 are you conceptually in favor of what I'm describing? can I clarify any points? 9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: well , as you have already stated, this is a multifaceted application. As a matter of fact, when I get 10 to the CAC comments you will see how they have broken down with parts one, two, three, four, five. so I can't answer 11 that question. If you would like to go to one part of this or another, Page 53 NOVMIN-FINAL 12 absolutely, we can address this. Because we do have a bunch of questions for you here tonight. 13 MS. MESIANO: Of course. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, I can't answer that question. 14 MS. MESIANO: Then I would just like to say that my objective tonight is to be able to come away with something 15 that will allow us to act on the emergency nature of the project. 16 I have next month, I have .January, to deal with the other issues. But I'm most concerned about the condition of the 17 bluff and that it's continuing to deteriorate. It's reasonable of me to anticipate that I might get from the DEC a 18 letter of non-jurisdiction because I can document the existence of the bulkhead to 1958. I have surveys of the land 19 with this bulkhead shown. So it's a reasonable expectation to come away with a letter of non-jurisdiction. of course, being 20 the DEC, it doesn't mean that I will , but it's reasonable to anticipate that. 21 so, if I'm fortunate enough to come away with my NJ then I don't have an eight or ten month wait for a permit to 22 restore the bluff that will be ten times worse in eight or ten months from now. 23 So my -- I hope to be able to come away with something from the board that will at least allow us to stop the 24 bleeding and to put an end to the damage of the bluff. Because our bluff damage is impacting our neighbor and their 25 property, their stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That one I can address. when this came 58 1 in for an emergency permit, it was a similar situation, as a matter of fact, we dealt with in the work session tonight also 2 at the Barton/Baxter property line. They mitigated this with an emergency permit where they came in and they put in some 3 work that was successful . what the Parks' , what your clients have done here, they attempted to mitigate this and it didn't 4 work. My suggestion is if they would look at what the Barton and Baxters did, and did that same work, they would not have 5 this continual sluffing off or this continual erosion problem. I am not a professional in this area but I Just went and 6 looked and they put a couple of 4x4s with a couple of pieces of plywood in there hoping that would stop the erosion from 7 continuing and that didn't work. MS. MESIANO: No, that was as much as we were allowed to 8 do is placing the hay bales and shoring up that gapping hole. TRUSTEE BERGEN: what I'm saying is if you go and observe 9 what we approved as an emergency permit also, what Barton and Baxter did, it would help. It would probably help your client 10 out. Because that worked down there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They used different material than just 11 plywood. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was much more extensive work. And it 12 was successful . MS. MESIANO: okay. 13 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to get other comments, if there were other comments first, before we proceed forward. Page 54 NOVMIN-FINAL 14 MS. MESIANO: That's fine MS. MOORE: We were out there and our major concern, we 15 were out in the hallway and our primary concern is addressing the bluff and I think that Cathy understands and certainly has 16 tried to convey that to you. we really, what they do with respect to their house and pool , we have no objection to 17 that. It's up to you whether you are satisfied with those plans. But I think that we would be very concerned that you 18 give them permission to do terracing, in particular, to connect to the terracing that is on the Case property because 19 what we see is below the stairs, there is terracing there at different levels, and the return, the breach, seems to have 20 occurred on the other end of those returns. So if you had their retaining walls connecting to our 21 retaining walls and then with vegetation and fill , we could address that area of the breach almost, well , immediately. 22 what, I think Joe Fiscetti was the engineer in the Baxter case because he actually came and looked at this on behalf of my 23 clients, the estate of case. And I don't know for sure, I never spoke to him about the details, but is it retaining 24 walls that were placed at the Baxter property? Some form of retaining walls? 25 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was one wall right at the top, right where the blowout is. There were no retaining walls down 59 1 there. As an emergency, they just -- it's hard to describe. MS. MOORE: Are we talking about the Baxter property? 2 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Up on top where the blowout was, they went around the perimeter the Baxter and the Barton 3 with some vinyl sheathing and that worked. They didn't -- nothing else was approved by the board because we knew they 4 had to come in for full permit for that MS. MOORE: So that was just a temporary measure. 5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And we were saying then, I guess a month, two months ago, where there are emergency 6 permits for both Parks and Baxter, we are recommending the very same thing, to be treated the very same way. 7 MS. MOORE: That's fine. we are actually a step ahead, I would hope in Cathy's case now because what we want to see 8 happen is approval of some type of retaining wall system that is properly engineered. Bob Fox provided a cross-section of 9 what a standard, typical retaining wall , how it would be constructed, but I think the important part there is to 10 identify where the retaining wall ends on the Case property so that, again, they get connected. 11 That, I think, from all the opinions that we have, and we have three engineers in total on these properties, that would 12 solve that area of the breach. Beyond that, I think that they will have to talk to their engineer as to other areas where 13 there has been vegetation that has become stripped away on their property but it falls in different spots. so that 14 either can be handled through some type of matting or smaller retaining walls. But this area is a significant area that has 15 to withhold or retain significant area of 200 cubic yards of fill . So we think it needs much more attention. Page 55 NOVMIN-FINAL 16 we are very anxious to see that be approved and we are certainly here in force to support that application. I think 17 she already mentioned the different stages and certainly we want to see some more engineering of the area that is seaward 18 of where the pool is proposed. I think that ultimately she, unfortunately, none of us 19 have seen the engineer's plan because I think somebody has it, Chicanowicz may have it. He's not here. The area between the 20 proposed new structures and existing structure and the top of the bank may require some regrading and some additional 21 drainage structures. we hope that that is being addressed by the engineer's plan. we don't know at this point. 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. with regard to the retaining wall , there is, I see on the plan, I just want to make sure we 23 all understand. There is one retaining wall on the plan at the toe of the bluff. 24 MS. MOORE: No, that's been modified TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at a plan. There is one 25 retaining wall at the toe of the bluff, approximately 200 linear feet with two ten-foot returns. Now, if there is 60 1 something else proposed, I don't see it if on the plans here. MS. MESIANO: what Pat is referring to is in addition to 2 the retaining wall that is at the toe of the bluff, she was referring to terracing. That would be comprised of a smaller 3 or lesser substantial retaining wall type structure. But as far as a, from my plan, I had asked for inkind or rather 4 in-place replacement of the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. we will get to that. we have 5 questions about that also. MS. MESIANO: And the existing retaining wall at the toe 6 of the bluff. Now, those are the retaining walls that we, I was talking about now. I think what Pat is referring to is 7 the retaining wall that is around the swimming pool . MS. MOORE: No 8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. Hang on, please. what you are saying is there is terracing called for and there is no 9 terracing in these plans. So right away that's going to create an issue for tonight. 10 MS. MESIANO: Right, I know. MS. MOORE: our concern is in the hallway what all the 11 property owners felt was the plan was deficient in the sense that that would address the problem but it's not showing on 12 any plan. So we asked Cathy to have the surveyor identify the location of the retaining walls that are on our property. we 13 give them permission to enter our property, identify their location, so that we know approximately where on our property 14 it falls so that they can then look at it with the engineer and identify how it needs to extend out beyond our property 15 into their property so that it coordinates and in a sense surrounds the breach. It will be catching that area so that 16 it starts to accept and retain the soil that is going to be included. Am I explaining it clear enough? 17 TRUSTEE KING: I just want you guys to work something out together and then come back to us. Page 56 NOVMIN-FINAL 18 MS. MESIANO: what I was going to say is this. I don't think that it's appropriate of me to expect you to approve a 19 plan conceptually where we don't have the answers to your questions. so I'm going to ask you to keep this open until 20 December when I can come back to you with a plan that I'm comfortable with. Because I'm not comfortable with where we 21 are at right now and I don't want any misunderstanding by anyone and I don't want there to be down the line somebody 22 saying he said she said. So I would much rather -- MS. MOORE: well , our only concern, our concern with that 23 is we are taking one more month. what we were trying to do and I thought we had agreed out in the hallway was to do the 24 retaining walls, extend the retaining walls and the basic description that has already been put on the record, and have 25 it drawn and submitted to you so that it backs up what has been presented to you. 61 1 You are as qualified as we are in the sense that we have to rely on an engineer to certify whatever has been drawn. 2 You just have to worry, as we do, that that soil is contained and we don't have further deterioration of that sloppe. 3 Ms. MESIANO: I think what I could offer would be a resolution to that. 4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Very quickly, because I want to move on. MS. MESIANO: I'll go as fast as I can because I want to 5 get out of here more than you want me to. I think that perhaps if we can get the contractor back in 6 there to do the staving as I initially instructed him to do. I don't know why it ended up with plywood. But the staving as 7 Baxter job, if that staving were put in appropriately, that's going to stop the major part of that. 8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: You' re ahead of me. MS. MESIANO: so I would like to do that. Because I have 9 a history with this board, believe it or not, I used to be, you know, respected. I don't like to be come to the board 10 with a plan that is not substantially appropriate. And I'm uncomfortable asking you for something of this 11 nature. so I will see to it that the emergency permit is, emergency work is conducted in a better manner and then come 12 back to you with a more complete plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. 13 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: can I suggest that maybe that plan be brought to us prior to the -- 14 MS. MESIANO: I'll make every attempt to have it to you in a timely manner so you are not sitting there looking at it not 15 knowing what you are looking at. Because I'm trying to please many masters here and not doing a very good iob of it. so 16 I'll get it to you as soon as possible and 111 get the contractor back out there to do the staving on that emergency 17 permit as soon as possible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I would like to see if there are 18 any other comments from the audience before I go through a shopping list of issues that we still have to address. 19 Yes? MS. MOORE: Are you going to go over the other issues? Page 57 NOVMIN-FINAL 20 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm planning on it. MS. SIMPSON: I'm Eileen Case-Simpson, one of the Case's. 21 And I just want to go on record as saying that we never had any problems like this and since 1920 when the house was 22 built, and I was down the day that there was that torrential rain and I saw the tennis court fill with rain and the folks 23 next door had done whatever they did, but it was just piles and piles of sand and it was just gushing and I don't think 24 anything like that would ever happen, could ever happen again because of the drainage things and so on, but I just want to 25 go on record as saying we have never had anything like this. It comes at a very bad time. I feel badly for the Parks' and 62 1 their problems but had they not uprooted, you said tonight and in many other cases about the vegetation and other things, 2 they upset the balance of nature. That's all . And I hope we can conclude with some great plan. 3 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Dave, before we go any further, I would 4 like to recognize Al Krupski , former chairman of this board. I don't know why he's here. You must miss it Al . 5 MR. KRUPSKI: I took a wrong turn. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else like to speak on behalf of 6 the application? (No response.) 7 This was found inconsistent under LWRP, primarily because of the distance the pool was originally from the bluff, and I 8 know that has been addressed with this new proposal is to move the pool back. 9 And the CAc comments, supports the repair of damage to the bluff; the replacing the existing bulkhead; repair or 10 replace as necessary stairs to the beach; regrade and install plantings; install drywells, catch basins in front yard; 11 regrade and install retaining wall to level portion water side yard. They tabled the application to construct the 32x50 foot 12 addition, to the existing dwelling to install pool patio. They support the application for revegetation of bluff with 13 beach grass. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. 14 Now, some questions to consider for when you come back that we had. Again, we talked about the moving of the pool . 15 The bulkhead itself you are asking for complete replacement, inkind, in-place of this bulkhead? Is that what you are 16 asking for? MS. MESIANO: In-place replacement of the existing 17 bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. we looked at it and, you know, 18 there was some whaler damage but the rest of the bulkhead didn't look in bad shape. If you want to continue the 19 application to include a replacement, you can. The deck itself on the stairs, you have decks down there, we were concerned 20 about the dimensions of the deck to make sure they coincide with what is in current codes. so they don't exceed current 21 code. so it's just something to consider. MS. MESIANO: On that plan I reduced it as fill had Page 58 NOVMIN-FINAL 22 required. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only other thing, I don't know what the top is rebuilt as. 24 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not on this plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what's the dimension of the top deck; is 25 it 12x12? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rebuild lower deck smaller 10x20; rebuild 63 1 deck 12x12. And steps 80x4 inkind, in-place. It doesn't say upper but I'm sure that's referring to the upper deck. 2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The 12x12? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. 3 MR. ECKERT: Dave, if I may. CAC also requested a 20-foot non-turf buffer. 4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. There will have to be a buffer considered with this. I can tell you based on what I heard 5 tonight, I'm concerned with this retaining wall around the pool with the fact it's six foot above grade. That's very 6 high. so I just want to let you know I have a concern about that. The drywell that's marked to the southern end of the 7 pool , looks like the shallow end of the pool . Is that a pool drywell? I want to make sure on the plans here. I didn't 8 know if it was from the house to the pool . Looks like it goes from the pool . I just wanted to double check. 9 Ms. MESIANO: It was going to be from the house and the pool . 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Both. MS. MESIANO: Yes. Because it would not be raining 11 torrentially when you are backwashing your pool , so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. So when you talk to the 12 engineer, looking at this, if they would look at that also to make sure it's sufficient for this. 13 And you had mentioned the driveway had been regraded. I thought the last time we were in there, well , the driveway is 14 really outside our jurisdiction, but it looked like the driveway was being leveled by hay bales. That hay bales were 15 holding the driveway up and I didn't know, it's outside our jurisdiction but I wanted to make sure we noted that. 16 MS. MESIANO: The driveway has been regraded and reconstructed with a compacted RCA base and the bankin was 17 done for the purpose of directing the runoff from the ront yard into the swales and drainage containment in the front 18 yard. so, no, it's just that the hay bales there kind of confused things. 19 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the other condition we had down here, just to make sure there is not going to be sprinklers 20 installed on the bluff. In other words no irrigation system on the bluff. It didn't call for it but we just wanted to 21 make sure it was noted. Ms. MESIANO: You mentioned the 20-foot non-turf buffer. 22 From experience that I have had on other projects, and comments that come from the soil and water conservation Board, 23 it's been recommended that small berms be constructed or placed at the top of the slopes to prevent any runoff. would Page 59 NOVMIN-FINAL 24 that be something that the board would be in favor of? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll certainly consider it. 25 MS. MESIANO: Because that would be part of a non-turf. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we would certainly consider it, if 64 1 it came in on the revised plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's like the neighbor to the south 2 has berms like that. MS. MESIANO: Yes. I have a number of jobs where that has 3 been requested. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was all that I had. I wanted to 4 make sure, see if the board had any other issues to assist the applicant for when she comes back in next time around. 5 MS. MESIANO: Could I possibly get, perhaps tomorrow, Lauren could E-mail me or fax me the CAC comments because I 6 guess that's where you are taking these items from. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can get that. No, I'm not taking 7 these items from the CAC comments. You can get that. MS. MESIANO: Okay, I have most of it. 8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are off the top of my head. Ms. MESIANO: okay. I have most of it here. None of them 9 were surprises. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so we are understanding, what I'm 10 going to do is make a motion to table this. But before I do that, you already have permission with the emergency permit to 11 address this erosion problem at the top here. so that has already been given. so you can certainly do the work 12 necessary to address that MS. MESIANO: I'll see to it that it's done properly. 13 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. If there are no other comments I'll make a motion to table this application. Do I 14 have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 15 TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 16 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Thank you. 17 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Costello Marine Contracting 18 Corporation on behalf of Breezy shores community, Inc. , requests a wetland Permit to remove and replace inkind/inplace 19 eight existing jetties, dredge basin inlet to four feet below AMLW (approximately 800 cubic yards) and use spoil as beach 20 nourishment. Located: sage Road, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this 21 application? MR. COSTELLO: I believe it was four or five months ago we 22 were here at a board meeting and we tabled a hearing. we were waiting for a decision from the DEC and chuck Hamilton on how 23 he wanted to approach this jetty situation. Being that there is eight jetties and the dredging and since chuck Hamilton is 24 not here in the audience I'm going to give him some credit for coming up with a very fair compromise. 25 He gave us the eight jetties but you'll notice that the jetties have been shortened up to a low tide only, meaning Page 60 NOVMIN-FINAL 65 1 most of the jetties were approximately 35 to 40 feet in length. The jetties have been in existence for about 40 years 2 or better and seem to be working out pretty well . The material that we are going to dredge is our own 3 material that was washed away from the east to the west and sort of clogging up the entrance to the little clay basin. we 4 are going to take that material and re-nourish the beach above the high tide mark. Basically what we are doing is we are 5 negating any down drift effect of these jetties with our own material . That's all the comments I have. 6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else here? 7 MS. SZARKA: Helen Szarka, I'm a shareholder at Breezy shores and I'm here to ask you to approve the jetties as the 8 DEC has done to help us protect our beach and the bulkhead and our property. Thank you. 9 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The last board had looked at this and our new board has been there to look at it. And the last 10 board had a very, very cold inspection with snow on the ground and we were able to see this last inspection on a very nice 11 day. I think one of our biggest questions is that the jetties 12 are appearing to this board, do appear to be non-functioning. Now, I forget which way the numbers start. Number one, we 13 didn't have a problem with. Two, three, four. Right. MR. COSTELLO: Number one is to the east. Eight is to the 14 west. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the feeling of the majority of the 15 board, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we still are of the decision that we would like to see them removed with the 16 exception of the eastern jetty and the reason being when we were there again, we had taken pictures back in, do you 17 remember, Jim, if it was December of last year? TRUSTEE KING: I don't remember. 18 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When we were there last. I know there was snow on the ground. The shoreline doesn't appear to have 19 been removed at all . we have taken pictures where the shoreline was above the beams of the bulkhead and it appeared 20 to be, Jim even noticed, almost exactly in the same place if not more. so our feeling was that the existing, not number 21 one but the two, three, consequently going down the beach, are non-functioning and they should be removed. 22 MR. COSTELLO: And you are concerned they are not needed, because the beach is pushed up? 23 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the exception of one and eight, right. 24 MR. COSTELLO: one and eight, first and last. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. 25 MR. COSTELLO: okay, if you were to look at a set of aerial photographs over a period of time, you'll see that that Page 61 NOVMIN-FINAL 66 1 beach comes and goes. we just had a blowout to the south and I believe it was three weekends ago it was a pretty heavy 2 southwest wind or south, southwest wind and a lot of material was pushed up. If we get a northeast wind cut through there, 3 then you'll see all the material down drift at the basin. if you were to calculate the amount of yards that we propose to 4 dredge, that's about 800 yards of material . well , that 800 yards of material came from our beach. so we are losing beach 5 there. obviously to the east is the worst. And over time I think you are going to see a lot more erosion there. Again, 6 depending on the weather. If you get abnormal blowout of the south, which doesn't happen often, you'll see some beach 7 pushed up right against of the bulkhead. simple as that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And just to clarify. No one on the 8 board have any problems with the dredge; dredging the basin. That's not an issue. 9 TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we at one time talk about reducing the number of jetties and relocating them? I thought that was 10 one of the -- MR. COSTELLO: It was mentioned toward the end of the 11 meeting that you were thinking about doing four. we also discussed the theory, everybody seems to have a theory on the 12 distance between jetties, length versus the distance between them. Army Corps has a theory, Chuck Hamilton has a theory. 13 we have our own theory. I sort of like the theory that is existing for 40 years or better: Eight existing jetties 14 maintained at property for a lot longer than some of us have been on this earth. so chuck Hamilton took that as a hint. I 15 took that has a hint and the 31 property owners taken that as a hint. 16 You know, what has been working in the past seems might work in the future. Although these things have been shortened 17 up, so that is going to negate some of their effectiveness but I hate to go alone. If we had a storm of the wrong magnitude, 18 from the wrong direction, we would be back in about ten minutes later requesting to have these permits reinstated. 19 Now, I realize they are non-functional but if you realize how difficult it is to et 31 people to go the same direction, 20 it takes a little bit o time. Takes a little thought. obviously takes some financing. And that's why I have not 21 been here in front of this board or the previous board sooner. Simple as that. 22 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the items we talked about last 23 time was the possibility of -- this project will require the removal of what is there and a construction new. so what we 24 had talked about last time was the opportunity to remove them, do number one and eight, and give it a year to look at it and 25 then come back in a year and if there has been substantial erosion to reconsider those other jetties being allowed back 67 Page 62 NOVMIN-FINAL 1 in, to be put back in. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. I don't remember the one in eight 2 jetties but I know we talked about the possibility of putting some jetties in and taking some aerial photos. 3 what if I came up with aerial photos right now from history and showed you what happens to that each with the 4 jetties and without the jetties so that we don't have to jeopardize anybody's property and have to go through this same 5 scenario again. I mean I have a DEC permit that will last me five years, 6 which is a good thing so, you know, if there was a major problem I could come back to this board. But if I could prove 7 the case by aerial photos, would you consider that instead of experimenting? 8 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But your aerial photos would only show that, what you are saying, that the jetties are saving the 9 beach. There would be no evidence of what would happen without those center jetties. 10 MR. COSTELLO: well , I think you could go by other case histories on Peconic Bay with non-functional jetties. I'm 11 sure some of these cases have come up in front of the board. Maybe not this board but other boards. where people have not 12 replaced their jetties and had some serious erosion on the bay front. Do you guys know of any cases like that? I could cite 13 a couple of cases in Nassau Point. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you are saying the beach we are 14 observing, that appears to us because it s non-functioning, that the beach is there, you are saying with other weather 15 conditions it actually is less? MR. COSTELLO: No. It changed. Obviously if the jetties 16 were functional , either the jetties would be full or empty depending on the material coming down the beach. what I'm 17 saying, what you looked at and what I can show in aerial photographs with the Jetties intact or slightly intact, that 18 there is less beach there. so what I'm afraid of, I don't want to experiment with 19 someone's property. If I can prove the case with aerial photographs, instead of taking them all out and only replacing 20 one in eight, am I making that clear? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what You are saying. 21 MR. COSTELLO: I don't want to gamble if I don't have to. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying, but the 22 natural occurrences are beaches are going to come and beaches are going to go. Just in the short time I have been on this 23 board I don't know how many people came to me and said do you realize how much beach we've lost in the last ten years. And 24 I say I sure do. It's nature. It happens. And the proposed solution of putting jetties all the way down the beaches is 25 not something that environmentally has been supported. in other words, environmentally what has been supported 68 1 is let nature take its course and there will be natural ebb and flow; sand is going to come, sand is going to go. over 2 time it could mean a lot of sand is going to go. And that Page 63 NOVMIN-FINAL could happen. 3 MR. COSTELLO: And the end result of that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: could be the sea takes away what we have 4 had for years. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that. But what I'm saying that, you know, there are issues with these betties 5 with increasing the hardening of the shoreline and putting more jetties in. That's what I'm saying. That's where the 6 concern is. MR. COSTELLO: I understand. The jetties are a tricky 7 situation. But your concern, if we were to put eight jetties in, what do you think is going to happen? what is the problem 8 that you foresee? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right now it's probably more structure 9 than what is there, since we all agree these are non-functioning, the structure that is there is less than what 10 you are going to put there. And speaking for myself, we are constantly trying to reduce the number, the amount of 11 structure on our shorelines. So my point would be if we replace one in eight, we are 12 not replacing eight, so we are reducing the structure, which by Peconic Estuary pro gram,s longterm goal is to actually 13 reduce the structure along the shoreline. And I totally understand your concern and I totally understand where you are 14 coming from but I think what we've proposed, because as you say your DEC permits are for five years, and as Dave said and 15 I know Tim and the last board and I proposed, replacing one in eight and giving it a year and if what we think is going to 16 happen doesn't happen and what you are saying is going to happen, happens, then we would consider the other jetties. 17 But, again, we have talked a long time about it and I think the board is still -- 18 MS. SZARKA: Aren't you placing us in more jeopardy by removing the existing jetties that we have now. 19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But they are non-functioning. They are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. 20 MS. SZARKA: They are not totally non-functioning. If you take those out you are putting us at Jeopardy. we have 1,800 21 feet of bulkhead. who will pay for that if that disappears on us? we don't have the funds to do that. what happens then? 22 what alternative do we have at that point? TRUSTEE KING: I would assume they are all going to low 23 profile? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, 18 inches tall . 24 TRUSTEE KING: where would the landward end be compared to that whaler that's almost flush with the beach now; height 25 wise? MR. COSTELLO: 18 inches above grade on the down drift 69 1 side. That's the way chuck Hamilton wrote the permit. 18 inches tall versus what is there. some of them are probably 2 three or four, five feet tall . Four feet tall , maybe. The tallest. And what I'm saying they have already been reduced 3 almost by half from the original Jetties. TRUSTEE KING: I was trying to envision in my mind the 4 height that they would be above the existing beach now at the Page 64 NOVMIN-FINAL bulkhead. 5 MR. COSTELLO: At the bulkhead is 18 inches. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When you say shorten, is it shorten 6 the length or just the height? MR. COSTELLO: Height. 7 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the length? MR. COSTELLO: The first one is 17-and-one-half feet and 8 the second one is 27-and-a-half. That's relative to the beach at the time that Mr. Hamilton was on site. 9 MS. SZARKA: The average length now is 25 where what is existing or what was when it was in 9ood condition was 40. 10 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I saw Mr. Costello's hand up before. Did you want to make a comment? 11 MR. COSTELLO: There was discussion of trying four and see what the effects were. But to remove more than you have to, 12 there will be an effect. Tides are rising. There is going to be more severe storms, whether we want them or not. You know, 13 there is development on the waterfront. There has development has been there for many, many years. Successful . You know. 14 But one of the reasons is that they are successfully is structures are there, were minimal and they were functional . 15 And for going to reduce the functionality by reducing the length, reducing the height, that's fine, but it's cutting 16 back on structures and some reasonable alternative should come out of this. 17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are these new plans since they 18 reduced, DEC reduced the -- this is stamped March 21, 2006. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We received them March 21, 2006. 19 MR. COSTELLO: No. The permit was issued October 19, 2006. So. 20 MS. SZARKA: That's from Bob Fox. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we don't have a current -- 21 MR. COSTELLO: My mistake. MS. SZARKA: The current high and low tide. 22 MR. COSTELLO: Do you have a copy of the DEC permit? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think we do. 23 MR. COSTELLO: (Handing) . TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends disapproval of the 24 application. This goes back to April 12. To disapprove of the application to replace eight jetties, however recommend 25 approval to remove/re lace number one Jetty on the south end of the property, complete removal of the seven remaining 70 1 groins and replace the dredge spoil on the southeast of the number one jetty. 2 MR. COSTELLO: Whose recommendation is that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC. They made that recommendation in 3 April . TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing) . In my mind, the beaches - 4 MR. COSTELLO: There is a profile on page eight or nine showing the 18-inch height. 5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, any thoughts? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could see going with four. 6 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you gentlemen see this? Page 65 NOVMIN-FINAL MR. ECKERT: No, this is before. 7 MR. YOUNG: we are too young for this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I didn't know if you had gone out to 8 see it. MS. SZARKA: Low profile is only 18 inches. 9 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No new jetties permitted. Net results net decrease in total number of jetties. so the way I read 10 this, it's saying only number 275 now, only low profile jetties, only inplace replacement, and no new jetties or 11 groins permitted unless the work results in a net decrease in the total number of jetties in the subject area. And the last 12 part is there has to be an opportunity for public passing. which we know. 13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: would you be willing to reduce any number of them? 14 MR. COSTELLO: well , I think the idea that was talked about on our last meeting was to try four and document the 15 results. And then go from there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be willing to do that. 16 would you feel comfortable with four? MS. SZARKA: I would feel real comfortable with six. 17 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I feel comfortable with four. TRUSTEE KING: what do you feel is like the height of the 18 beach as, like we are out there was about even with the whaler. 19 MR. COSTELLO: That was in the middle of the property. If you go to the east, it's a lot lower. on Helen's end. Helen 20 has the last, the most eastern cottage. so that's why she is a little upset. 21 TRUSTEE KING: The beach a lot below that whaler. what if you build a low profile groin with the top of the groin even 22 with the top whaler? wouldn't that fill to that height? MR. COSTELLO: well , we'll pre-fill them so we are 23 negating any down drift effect. we are taking 800 yards and putting it back to the beach. The idea was to take it and put 24 it in the corner of each jetty, then evenly disperse the spoils, the 800 yards. So they are full , you know, a week 25 after they are constructed. That was the whole idea, just to maintain 18 inches of 71 1 beach in front of the existing bulkhead. And it's all about the bulkhead. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about the 2 damn jetties. TRUSTEE KING: 18 inches of their property is lower than 3 18 inches in the middle. MR. COSTELLO: Contract. 4 TRUSTEE KING: Can we get a top measurement from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin where it meets the 5 bulkhead and go from there? MR. COSTELLO: Sure. I just have to go on site and mark 6 each one of them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Say that again. 7 TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a measurement taken from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the landward end of 8 the groin to see what it is. Above the beach. Just like you Page 66 NOVMIN-FINAL said, her beach is way below the whaler. so if you put an 9 18-inch groin in there -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that. Do you want that 10 measurement prior to approving or do you want to make it -- TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go out and take another 11 look, to be honest with you. with that dimension showing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you get the dimensions for 12 December 6 when we go out and look at it? MR. COSTELLO: Sure. 13 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to ask for measurements if we are thinking of four, where the other two would be? 14 TRUSTEE KING: Could you stake them out? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I'll mark them on site. 15 TRUSTEE KING: could you show where you would put the four groins? 16 MR. COSTELLO: I'll mark them on site and you could see where the measurements are. 17 TRUSTEE KING: I think that would be the best thing. Let's go look at it one more time. 18 MR. COSTELLO: Obviously the eastern end is in the most danger and the center of the property is where the material is 19 the highest on the beach, is less of a problem, less of a concern, I should say. At present time. 20 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good. Appreciate it. TRUSTEE KING: Because I'm inclined not to do the gamble 21 bit so much. That's my personal thought. MS. SZARKA: What's that? 22 TRUSTEE KING: I'm inclined not to gamble. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To give you something more protective 23 MS. SZARKA: I don't know where we would go if our bulkhead disappears. what do we do? where do we get the 24 money from to fix it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we understand that. we are just -- 25 some of us have different ideas of what would happen. So I'll make a motion to table. 72 1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? 2 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we'll see the stakes December 6. It's 3 the first week. 4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 14, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Theodore and Kathryn Bucci requests a wetland 5 Permit to remove 15 feet of existing bulkhead and replace in-like, inplace and add two 12-foot returns. Dredge area in 6 front of bulkhead to four feet below AMLw (approximately eight cubic yards) and truck spoil off site to an approved disposal 7 location. Located: 200 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of 8 this application? MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr. , representing the 9 applicant. what we are doing is there is a 15-foot existing right of 10 way that is deteriorating, amongst a couple of other pieces of Page 67 NOVMIN-FINAL property, and we want to replace this existing bulkhead. For 11 a little insurance we are just going to put a couple of 12-foot returns so the next door neighbors don't repair their 12 bulkhead or have a problem with their bulkhead, it doesn't effect our client. 13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was one of our questions. Has there been any contact with the next door neighbors to maybe 14 repair both at the same time? MR. COSTELLO: As much as having a letter of permission 15 from the next door neighbor to cross his property. At this time he was not willing to do any work on his bulkhead. 16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. CAC supports this application and requests a 20-foot non-turf buffer. we 17 thought maybe a 12-foot buffer to come back to meet with the return, non-turf. 18 MR. COSTELLO: Can I have a little pathway going through there so a guy can jump overboard? 19 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Is there any other comments from the audience, the board? 20 (No response.) It's consistent with LWRP because it's inkind replacement 21 or in-place replacement, I should say. Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close 22 the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Theodore and Kathryn Bucci to 25 replace bulkhead as applied for with 12-foot non-turf buffer, and that's it. 73 1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? 2 (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. 3 we have to make a resolution to go off public hearing. I'll make that motion. 4 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? 5 (ALL AYES.) 6 VIII. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go back to our regular meeting, number two under Resolutions. The scallop season started 8 almost two weeks ago and the reports back in Hallock's Bay, we have reports there is basically just bugs there and there is 9 really no resource right now. So in light of that I would like to make a resolution to amend our original resolution of 10 September 20. Be it resolved that the Southold Town Board of Trustees 11 open the following dates to scallop harvesting: From Monday, November 6, 2006, from sunrise to sunset: through 12 Sunday, November 19, 2006, inclusive, for non-commercial Page 68 NOVMIN-FINAL scallop harvesting only. 13 From Monday, November 20, 2006, from sunrise to sunset, through Saturday, March 31, 2007, inclusive in all town waters 14 with the exception of Hallock's Bay, where that area will close on Monday, November 20, 2006. 15 All gear is permitted pursuant to chapter 219 of the code of the Town of Southold. 16 I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. 17 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 18 Just to clarify, Hallock's Bay will be closed to scalloping as of Monday, the 20th. 19 MR. ANDROSKY: why? That's why we sat here for four hours? why? 20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As I explained, it has been told to us there is no resource there. 21 MR. ANDROSKY: If there is no resources, okay, no one is going to go in there. You do something like this, you close 22 down an area like that to dredging. It may never get open again. I dealt with this two years ago. went through the 23 same thing. If there IS nothing in there, nobody goes in there. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was closed in 2004 and it was opened last year. It was open this year. 25 MR. ANDROSKY: I don't want to see it closed at all . There is no reason to close an area down. Because you get, 74 1 say you do get some bugs in there, then you get a crowd of people in here saying they don't want dredges in there, 2 because you get ignorant people in there that don't know anything about scallop dredging then they want to close it. 3 And we have such -- this is it. This is what represents us now. 4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are closing it to everybody, not just dredging. 5 MR. ANDROSKY: it shouldn't be closed at all to anybody TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see what the difference is. 6 MR. ANDROSKY: If is there is no resource, nobody goes there. There's going to be no scallops, no dredges, nothing. 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For us to close it, it makes enforcement that much easier. 8 MR. MILHAN: Charles Milhan, 15 Wilson Road, Greenport. what's the reason to close this? what's the reason? Are you 9 hoping to save the scallops that are in there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's part of it. 10 MR. ANDROSKY: There are no scallops in there. So why close it? 11 MR. MILHAN: How do you know what's in this creek at this time? Hallock's Bay. Where do you get your information from? 12 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the bay constables who got it from the people that are -- 13 MR. ANDROSKY: There you go. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. One person at a time, please. 14 MR. HARDY: Charles Hardy. I been doing this for 50 Page 69 NOVMIN-FINAL years. I can go in there tomorrow and make two, three-hundred 15 dollars. This is what I do for a living. You' re taking a piece of my year's pay away from me. 16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is nothing in there, there is nothing there to harvest. 17 MR. HARDY: Who said there is nothing in there? MR. ANDROSKY: You can maybe go there and scrounge up a 18 day's pay for a day or two. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the only area we are closing. 19 There is other areas in the town. MR. ANDROSKY: It shouldn't be closed at all , though. 20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Today is the 15th. So you have until Sunday at sundown. 21 MR. ANDROSKY: First, that's for the recreational people. what about commercial people? That's for all the yahoos you 22 see in the front paper. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can go in there. 23 MR. ANDROSKY: No, I can't go in there after tomorrow. I can't go in there period because I'm a commercial person. I 24 don't do recreational . TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can get your residential limit. 25 MR. ANDROSKY: Do you understand I do this for a living? He did does. He does. we don't go in for half a basket or a 75 1 couple to eat. You are taking my living -- am I taking your living away from you? 2 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. If there is nothing in there then we are not taking anything away from you. 3 MR. ANDROSKY: You are taking away the right for us to go in there anyway. 4 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a matter of protection of the resource. Again, what we have been told by the bay constable 5 is there is essentially no scallops in there other than bugs, and so we are trying to protect what is there for the future. 6 MR. ANDROSKY: How you going to protect it? By what? TRUSTEE BERGEN: By not having anybody go in there and 7 harvest or disturb what is there. MR. ANDROSKY: Nobody takes bugs. 8 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to provide you with feedback as to why this decision was made. That's all I'm trying to 9 do. MR. ANDROSKY: I don't think you guys should be getting 10 any feedback from the bay constables because the bay constables don't know anything about what is going on either. 11 MR. ANDROSKY: Ben Androsky, Post Lane. First thing, when they planted the scallops in there last year, they lost 90% of 12 them. All right, they did this with no studying, no survey, no recommendations from the shellfish, no nothing. They dump 13 a bunch of scallops there, bugs, feeding frenzy for the predators. No protection. Where does this bug go? It's got 14 no place to hide. It's not out in the bay. It has no cockle shells. The bottom was barren last year. Absolutely barren. 15 so there goes a waste of all them scallops. Nothing around. okay, no advice, put them in the bay: They can grow. They can 16 move. They can hide. They tried this in Goose creek before, Page 70 NOVMIN-FINAL 100% wipe out. Did they have any advice? Did they learn from 17 this? No. Nobody says they want scallop at Hallock's. we know what it's all about. It's for the public. To make you 18 look good. we know that. Now we keep the baymen out of there because there is a few people that don't want dredge dredging 19 in there. who they influence, I do not know. But they definitely influence somebody. 20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With respect to the area that -- MR. ANDROSKY: Okay? Now, as we all know, as Mr. King 21 knows, the bottom of that water, the bottom of that bay, creek, is like a farm. You don't work that farm, you don't 22 get a crop. You put dredges in there to work that bottom, get that silt up, get everything, get that air moving, you going 23 to get a product. You basically, you want dredges in there if you got bugs, you want them bugs scattered. You want them 24 moved. You want them to deeper spots. You want them shifted all the way around. where you are getting your advice from, I 25 don't know. wherever you are getting it from, evidently it looks like it's wrong. 76 1 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We haven't gotten an official from Cornell . we had a conversation with Cornell with respect to 2 their area that they had their, I don't know what they did there -- 3 MR. ANDROSKY: They closed off the eastern portion of the creek, put about a million bugs back there. None of them 4 lived. That goes to show you where you get our resources from. They put all this time and effort to put the scallops 5 there and nothing lives. They all died. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what they told us and we asked 6 did it go into the other sections of the creek. They said no. They said there is nothing else in the creek. 7 MR. ANDROSKY: You got predators coming in there by the millions. That's a feeding frenzy. There is no study behind 8 this. MR. MILHAN: can I Just say one thing. 9 MR. ANDROSKY: Go ahead, I'm gone. You're wrong. MR. MILHAN: It's impossible to catch scallop without 10 dredging on the bugs. It can't be done. Because scallop lives for 16, 18 months, then it dies. It spawns once during 11 the summer. Then when the season opens or they are done spawning you catch it because it's going to die anyway. You 12 have to dredge up the scallops to catch it. They been doing it for a hundred years. According to that, they should have been 13 wiped out 100 years ago if you kill them by dredging them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not saying they will be killed by 14 dredging. That's not what we said. MR. ANDROSKY: Every year now this problem comes up. 15 Every year it comes up the same old mess. MR. HARDY: You going to do what you going to do anyway, 16 so. we are just asking you, just sitting here listening tonight I could see the board is really working hard to take 17 care of the environmental problems and stuff but this is not just a Hallock's Bay problem. This is the whole Peconic Bay, 18 Gardner's Bay. It's everywhere. There is no grass growing, no Page 71 NOVMIN-FINAL scallops anywhere, no clams growing. It's pollution. start 19 looking into some of the sewer plants, road runoff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are working diligently on storm water 20 runoff. MR. HARDY: Stop selling all the junk people put in the 21 lawns and stuff. MR. ANDROSKY: Yeah, issuing people grants to build houses 22 on the water, then they get these nice big green lawns, what do you think when they put all them pesticides or stuff on the 23 lawns, you see all the water coming from. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are working on. You 24 heard us tonight asking for the buffers. we are doing the best we can. 25 MR. HARDY: The problem is thousands of the houses now that don't come into compliance. Every time it rains, 77 1 something on the lawn, bush, where does it end up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. It's a fight we are 2 willing to keep fighting. MR. HARDY: Why close the creek? You're putting a 3 Band-aid on a boo boo. MR. ANDROSKY: Grass is a weed. weed killer kills weeds. 4 That don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. MR. MILHAN: I could tell you, I used to clam down there. 5 I clam, I would wear out an area the size of this room. I go back on the next year, just as thick as it was the year 6 before. so, the answer is not closing the creeks. or, something that has to be done about the pollution. 7 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Meanwhile let's work on, give us some more answers. 8 MR. ANDROSKY: Why are you closing it? Why?. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we feel it's the best -- 9 MR. MILHAN: The only thing you do when you close it is set a precedence. I don't know if there is anything there. 10 MR. HARDY: People keep taking away from us and we keep getting pushed into a corner. Don't go here, don't do that. 11 only take so much of this. MR. ANDROSKY: And there is the possibility it may never 12 get open again. So don't tell me it can't. Because it could happen. 13 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't say it can't. MR. ANDROSKY: You said you'll open it again next year. 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not -- I didn't say that. I'm not going to base next year's decision on this year. 15 MR. ANDROSKY: If you don't close it. It's not an issue. This has been an issue about three years ago. It opens, they 16 go in there. If there is nothing -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the 90s they closed it, too. 17 MR. ANDROSKY: We did close it once for the same reason. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And it did reopen after that. 18 MR. ANDROSKY: I don t like to see it closed. It's scary. You might not ever get it back. And like Carl said, 19 we had so much stuff taken away from us in the last years. . why take more away from us? 20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You understand the intention here is not Page 72 NOVMIN-FINAL to permanently close it. That's not the intention. 21 MR. ANDROSKY: You don't understand. You don't do this for a living, do you? 22 TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I don't. MR. HARDY: You can throw them back dead all day long but 23 only 60 pounds to bring in. MR. ANDROSKY: The saving of the bugs that Cornell plants 24 there is ridiculous. They are going to live if they want to. They'll set where they want to. Not because of Cornell . All 25 the money that this town pisses away in that place. I mean, it's ridiculous. Because I see it. I'm out there every day. 78 1 I see all this spat they put out where they dump all these millions of clams and all these oysters you read in the paper 2 and all these millions of dollars worth of scallops. I never seen nothing come back. Nothing. Maybe a million clams, 1%. 3 Maybe a million 2% oysters. zero percent on the scallops. where are you guys getting all the money to do this stuff? 4 You don't see any of this return. That's where you are taking your advice from. Your resource. Cornell . 5 MR. HARDY: You reseed the oysters in the creeks. Get them from Fishers Island. It's natural . 6 MR. ANDROSKY: That's going against Town Code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think they have done that in the past. 7 I don't know what the results were. I think it's unfortunate, I feel bad for my comment 8 before you had to sit here for so many hours. But as you said, we appreciate your comments, we are trying to improve things 9 and little by little we are trying to create buffers and increase buffers and trying to cut back on structures and 10 trying to work on road runoff and we to the best we can. And this decision, we feel as a board was the right decision 11 because we are trying to improve and help things out. And you have a different perspective because it's your profession. So 12 you have a different perspective. But from our perspective, we felt this was the right thing to do. 13 MR. ANDROSKY: Can I speak for a second. You are going to close it. when this makes the paper, that the trustees close 14 Hallock's to dredging, is it going to be because on the recommendation of the bay constable with no, nothing known, 15 not even a mention ahead of time to shellfish advisory committee. what do you have a shellfish advisory committee 16 for? Aren't you supposed to work together as a team? No, all of a sudden we find out today this is all done behind their 17 back. Because the bay constable said close it. That's your answer. That's what's going to be in the paper. And all the 18 people from orient are about going to be happy. Trustees did us a favor. They'll dredge us out of here. correct? Going 19 to make you look real good. MR. ANDROSKY: I'm on this committee and I been on it for 20 some time now and now I'm officially on the shellfish committee. This was back-doored. we had a meeting two weeks 21 ago. This was unheard of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was brought up to us last week. we 22 did not back-door it. Page 73 NOVMIN-FINAL MR. ANDROSKY: First I heard about this. I just found out 23 about this at 11 o'clock this morning. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We discussed this a week ago and we did 24 not consider the shellfish advisory for one reason. MR. ANDROSKY: why didn't you consider the shellfish 25 advisory? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was our mistake. we didn't bring 79 1 it to the shellfish advisory. Excuse me. I'm trying to talk. Could you please be quiet so I could finish my sentence. 2 Thank you. we did not think to bring it to the shellfish advisory committee. That was our mistake. we were thinking 3 of the dates. we wanted to get it done before Monday because if we close it by Monday, make sure that we have enough notice 4 to people. And that is why we are doing this tonight. MR. ANDROSKY: That's the notice? I'm on the shellfish 5 advisory committee. There is a meeting at seven o'clock tonight and I find out eleven o'clock this morning? I have 6 eight hours notes? That's the notice the committee gets? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm telling you, we did not notice the 7 shellfish advisory committee. That was our mistake. MR. ANDROSKY: How do you overlook that? 8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we are not required -- you are a committee that works under the trustees. 9 MR. ANDROSKY: I think something you advise them of if you are going to close town water to shellfishing. wouldn't you 10 advise them or tell them or give them heads up? God, if nobody told me, I wouldn't have even known. 11 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think you made your point and we have a resolution. 12 MR. ANDROSKY: One more thing, I can quote you, you said you did this on the recommendation of the bay constable. 13 That's exactly what you said. I can quote you on that. what bay constable told you to shut it? 14 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, both bay constables we spoke to and they spoke to people that were out there. 15 MR. ANDROSKY: And what was their reason for shutting it? what reason did the bay constable give you? 16 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is no resources there. MR. ANDROSKY: Did the bay constable tell you it's not 17 good to put dredge in there and work the bottom? I'm asking. I'm allowed to ask. 18 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The bay constable didn't come to us and say close this down. He said there is no resource there. He 19 came to us and we said, how do you know. He said all the people that they have talked to while they were out patrolling 20 said there was nothing there. It was bugs. And he suggested that we make a decision on what he want to do for commercial 21 part. And this is our decision. MR. ANDROSKY: They talked to you. All right, there is 22 only non-commercial let in there, allowed in there. They don't scallop for a living, they do nothing with the water for 23 a living, they buy $3,000 worth of scuba gear. But they don't ask the shellfisher. They know. 24 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for all our comments. Page 74 NOVMIN-FINAL MR. ANDROSKY: First, one question, what right does the 25 bay constable have to advise you to shut something down? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't advise us to shut anything 80 1 down. He explained to us what the resource was out there. MR. ANDROSKY: Pretty much advised you to shut it down. 2 where else did it come from? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't come in and say shut this 3 down. He came and said there is no resource there and consider what to do for the commercial season. That's what we 4 did and we thank you for your comments. MR. HARDY: Good night. 5 TRUSTEE BERGEN: It s difficult because this is how these men make their living and their resource has dried up. It's 6 the same situation, Jim, I'm sure you went through with the lobster die off a couple of years ago. It's frustrating as 7 hell . It's affecting their pocketbook, their way of life. so I understand their frustration and their anger but if they were 8 listening to each other they were killing each other's rationale off. And all you could do is listen and say thank 9 you very much. There is no way we are going to make those guys happy tonight. I feel sorry for them they sat here all 10 night. 11 TRUSTEE KING: Now, the Sim Moy resolution. WHEREAS, Suffolk Environmental consulting as agent for Sim Moy 12 applied to the Southold Town Trustees to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, 13 retaining wall and sanitary system, under the provisions of the wetland ordinance of the Town of Southold, application 14 dated January 31, 2005, and, WHEREAS said application was referred to the Southold Town 15 conservation Advisory council and the Local waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator for their findings and 16 recommendations, and WHEREAS the Southold Town conservation Advisory council 17 recommends disapproval of the application for the following reasons: 18 The concern with raising the septic system and the proximity to the water table. 19 The concern with drainage. The concern with a suitable buffer area. 20 status and condition of the bulkhead is unclear. And 21 WHEREAS, the Town of Southold senior Environmental Planner and Local waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator has 22 recommended the proposed single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system be 23 found inconsistent with the following Local waterfront Revitalization Program Policy Standards: 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 24 6.3 and which recommendation attached hereto and therefore be found inconsistent with the Town of Southold Local waterfront 25 Revitalization Plan (LWRP) and WHEREAS, numerous public hearings were held by the Board of Page 75 NOVMIN-FINAL 81 1 Trustees with respect to said application, with the first one on March 23, 2005, at which time all interested persons were 2 given an opportunity to be heard and, WHEREAS, the board members on multiple occasions personally 3 viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, 4 WHEREAS, the board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, 5 WHEREAS, the application does not comply with the standards set forth in chapter 275 of the Southold Town code and, 6 WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and 7 general welfare of the people of the Town, and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck is located 27 feet from the 8 bulkhead along the inlet to West Lake, the proposed house is located 30 feet from the bulkhead along the inlet to west Lake 9 and 31 feet from the bulkhead along Little Peconic ay, the proposed septic tank is 24 feet from the bulkhead along the 10 inlet to West Lake, the proposed cesspool is 40 feet from the wetlands and the proposed driveway is two feet from the 11 bulkhead and, WHEREAS, the minimum setbacks from chapter 275, wetlands and 12 Shoreline of the Town code, Section 275-3.D, that apply to any and all operations proposed on residential property within the 13 jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees are as follows: (1) Residence: 100 feet. 14 (2) Driveway: 50 feet. (3) cesspool : 100 feet. 15 (4) Septic tank: 75 feet. And WHEREAS, the subject property is surrounded by tidal 16 wetlands on three sides and, WHEREAS, these wetland systems are typically found within and 17 comprise an intertidal saltmarsh/beach ecosystem, and WHEREAS, the board of trustees found the proposed action does 18 not comply with the purpose of chapter 275 which states,"it is the intention of this chapter to ensure for the citizens of 19 the Town of Southold the protection and preservation of its wetlands and that they shall be regulated in order to maintain 20 their values, including water pollution control , groundwater, flood control and protection of wildlife habitat and plant 21 habitat," and, WHEREAS, a document submitted by the applicant titled 22 Groundwater Flow Analysis For Moy Property was reviewed by Ron Paulsen, a hydro-geologist with the Suffolk county 23 Department of Health Services and Daniel O'Rourke, project hydro-geologist of camp Dresser and McKee, a consulting 24 engineering company and both found the document to contain discrepancies, 25 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, for the reasons stated above, that the Board of Trustees finds the application of Sim Moy to Page 76 r� NOVMIN-FINAL 82 1 be inconsistent with the Local waterfront Revitalization Program, and, 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees deny without prejudice the application of Sim Moy to construct a 3 single-family dwelling: attached rear deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system and, 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other department or 5 agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. 6 Motion to approve? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. 7 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) 8 (TRUSTEE GHOSIO ABSTAINS.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm abstaining I never saw it. 9 (Time noted is 10:45 PM.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RECEIVED a 24 /,d0 25 FEB 2 6 2007 Q Siemold Page 77