The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-01/20/2010 Jill M.Doherty,President QF SO(/�yO Town Hall Annex James F.King,Vice-President �O �� 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. John Bredemeyer �l� �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 COU Fax(631) 765-6641 I�,� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED 4 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES MAY 2 6 201O L'1'd:s8p►, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD n� ' Southold Town Clerk Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President James King, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our first meeting of the year. I was honored by the Board making me president. I would like to introduce the rest of the Board. Our newest member, to my far . left, is John Bredemeyer. Welcome, John, to your first meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. This position is no relation to my political leanings. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee rDave Bergen; Vice-president Jim King. Lauren is our office manager, as you all know, she does everything for us, and Trustee Bob Ghosio. And Lori Hulse is our legal counsel. She should be here soon. We have Jack McGreevey representing the Conservation Advisory Council here tonight for us and Wayne Galante is recording everything. So Board of Trustees 2 January 20, 2010 when you do come up to the mic please say your name and speak clearly. And the reminder is that the public hearings are five minutes or less. would like to go over postponements. We have a couple that are mentioned on here and a couple that are not. We have, starting on page three, number one, B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x3' access platform, 2.5'x9' ramp and a 3x12' floating dock. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport, has been postponed. The applicant has not notified the neighbors in a timely fashion, so he had to postpone it. Page four, number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting on .behalf of MICHAEL & BETH NEUMANN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x75' open grate fiberglass catwalk supported by untreated 4"x4" timber posts, a 3x15' ramp and a 6x20' float secured by two 10-inch piles. Located: 3329 Grand Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number eight, Jeffrey T. Butler PE, on behalf of KEVIN FAGA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing dwelling to top of foundation; repair foundation and elevate to make flood compliant; rebuild house with addition and square off house on west side. Located: 12580 Main Road, East Marion, has been postponed. And number nine, Patricia Moore Esq., on behalf of JOHN & MARIA ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct 485' stairway down a bluff with steps to the beach. Located: 5405 The Long Way, East Marion, has been postponed. So with that, we'll get started. Our next field inspection we have here Wednesday, February 10, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion to accept that date? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next meeting will be Wednesday, February 24, which will be two weeks after the field inspections, at 6:00 PM, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to accept that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December, 2009. A check for $10,170 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Board of Trustees 3 January 20, 2010 Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 20, 2010, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA.. We have a list of them there. Michael & Beth Neumann - SCTM#107-1-12 George Baldwin - SCTM#57-2-21 Ian McKay - SCTM#115-3-2.1 George Kofinas -SCTM#110-7-18.2 Frederic Endemann - SCTM#117-5-51.1 Mattituck Park District- SCTM#140-1-19.1 Katherine Perretta - SCTM#118-1-18.3 Do I have a motion to accept? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under resolutions and administrative permits, we have two. They are both exempt from LWRP. One is CHARLES DIGNEY requests an Administrative Permit to completely remove a rotting tree and stump. Located: 350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. The other is HP Broom-Housewright, Inc., on behalf of JAMES BAILEY requests an Administrative Permit to remove two existing dormers and replace with the larger framed dormers. Located: 474 Wilderness Point, Fishers Island. We reviewed these applications and feel there are no problems. I'll make a motion to approve both of these applications. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to do the next five, Jim? V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Sure. I have applications for extensions, transfers and amendments. We'll lump one through five together. Board of Trustees 4 January 20, 2010 We try to do this to speed things up a little bit. Usually if it's just an extension or simple situation, there are no problems, we group them all together. They are listed as follows: Number one, HENRY TRAENDLY & BARBARA CADWALLADER request a One-Year Extension to Permit#6806, as issued on January 23, 2008. Located: 13000 Rt. 25, East Marion. Number two, NIKOLAOS KATOPODIS requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#6804, as issued on January 23, 2008. Located: 1540 The Strand, East Marion. Number three, David Olsen Esq., on behalf of THOMAS S. & ISABEL J. WACKER requests a Transfer of Permit#2059 from Louise Preziosa to Thomas S. & Isabel J. Wacker, as issued on August 1, 1985, and amended on December 16, 2009. Located: 760 Old Pasture Road, Cutchogue. Number four; Frederick R. Weber, RA, on behalf of ROBERT & CLAIRE RICCIO requests an Amendment to Permit#6992 to relocate the proposed swimming pool enclosure fence. Located: 6512 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. And number five, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVID WILMERDING requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7061 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7061 C to eliminate the 8x57'fixed dock previously approved for reconstruction and instead install two tie-off piles, and to place two 2-4 ton boulders in area of Concrete removal to match the existing retaining walls. Located: Private Road, off Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. I'll make a motion to approve one through five as stated TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS PETROSINO requests an Amendment to Permit#5944 to authorize the installation of two 6"x6" walers atop the upper water of the existing bulkhead to function as a flood screen. Located: 900 Rogers Road, Southold. The only thing that was not on the description was the non- turf buffer that will be added, and I think there was an addition to the deck that was also not on the description. MR. HERMAN: Jim, I did submit a revised description by letter January 11. Rob Herman, for Thomas Petrosino. Did you want me to talk about it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE KING: Everybody was out there, I explained to them how that non-turf buffer was designed. It didn't exactly follow the shape of the bulkhead. It kind of just contoured it off and gained a little bit. We lost a little bit by the deck and the gazebo but we gained it in that corner. So, I think everybody was happy with it and there was no problem with it. So I'll make a motion to approve based on the new plans and new Board of Trustees 5 January 20, 2010 description of that project. You can see where the little posts are, the non-turf kind of blends in around that corner, almost on an arc similar to where the stone is there. MR. HERMAN: That's right. And you have the plans and description, TRUSTEE KING: And I think the buffer will be on the east side of the house, the one little section on the bay side. MR. HERMAN: It's ten feet straight across. Most of which is already non-turf buffer but there is one corner that has to be revegetated. TRUSTEE KING: And it's all on the new set of plans. I'll make a motion to approve, based on these new plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of GEORGE, FLORENCE, ALEXANDER & DEMETRIOS VASILAKIS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7178 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7178C to eliminate stone toe armor and install batter pilings to reinforce new bulkhead. Located: 21625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Rob had talked to us about this and I spoke to Lori, and because the code has not been changed yet for the stone, I would like to table that portion of this application and move ahead with the amendment to install the batter pilings and until such time, if the code gets changed, then we can proceed accordingly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what you are saying, if the agent will just eliminate the wording in here, eliminate "stone toe armor," and so it's just to install batter pilings? Is that what you are asking for? Just for clarity. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we would table. Not to eliminate. We would table that section. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then you are tabling the whole thing. MR. HERMAN: Well, Dave, that's what the Board did, I don't know if you remember the Stanton application, you approved the dock but there was the addition of the mooring pilings, and the Board and your counsel effectively bifurcated, for your purposes, the application. I didn't change anything. You just said you would go to motion on one part of it and reserve decision on the other part. So we can do this however you want to do it. I mean right now the point of this is to let the contractor finish the job and get the batter pilings in. I would prefer not to have to give you revised plans and then give you revised plans again, if I could help it. So if there is some way you can go to ' resolution on the batter pilings and reserve decision on the rock until such time as it's appropriate. That's how we hoped to handle it. I actually hoped Lori would be here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Lori about that and she said that was okay to do it that way. If the Board felt that was, they were comfortable in doing it that way. Board of Trustees 6 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just trying to get the wording correct, for the record, and so that the office can understand exactly what goes into the permit. MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure you would issue the modified permit until the whole process was completed. TRUSTEE KING: I would just prefer to amend it to install batter pilings. Because you still have two years on the stone issue. The permit is valid for two years and if this hopefully gets changed in the code, just do an administrative amendment to remove the stone from the project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The reason why it is requested to do this way is because he's applied once for it and he doesn't want to have to pay the fee and apply again and do all the paperwork again. He already did it once for this and Lori felt it was not a problem of segmenting this. TRUSTEE KING: If we could sidetrack the stone, I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I agree. I'm just trying to get the wording straight for the record and for the office. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the wording Lori suggested was to clearly say we are tabling the elimination of the stone toe armor and we would approve the installation of batter piles to reinforce the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: The only question I have, following Dave's line of thinking, is would we receive, we would not receive anything in writing yet or we would? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And the amendment would say table one portion. MR. HERMAN: All right, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public hearings. I'll make a motion to go off the regular agenda on to public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is number one under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bear with me, it's a big file. TRUSTEE KING: It's kind of an ongoing saga. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. That's what I'm trying to gather. MS. MOORE: But I'm here to try to clean it up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, before I start it. Board of Trustees 7 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: I wish Lori was here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She said she was going to be here. She's running a little late. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking for one particular item here. MS. MOORE: Are you ready? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, but I will be in a just a second. (Perusing). This has not been reviewed under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Look on the left side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did already. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we don't have the complete application then it hasn't been sent to them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, they applied for the LWRP and it's here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was the previous. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's this one. MS. STANDISH: The original application with completed plans that's why Pat is here to figure out the plans that Mark can review the requested plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have not opened this yet so. I was just reviewing the file trying to prepare for opening. So I'll open it now. It's Coastal Erosion & Wetland Permits number one. Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of MARIO ABBATE & JOSEPHINE PADOVAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the sand excavated from the bluff and to restore the bank along the edge to the original configuration/breadth. Located: 22615 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This has been before us. I see in the field notes, in October, when we went out and looked at it, we had questions about the drainage on the house from the second floor deck; drainage from the driveway; their replanting of the restored area. The drawings and plans that had been submitted were, back then, were pretty vague and so -- MS. MOORE: Are you talking about these plans? That's a lot of writing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. So now the application is before us. There was an application filled out for the LWRP but I see it has not been sent forward for review because the office had determined that the application was not complete yet. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved in October of'09 not to support the application. This is what was submitted in October now, not to support the application. MS. MOORE: Wasn't the application to restore? Isn't it an application to restore? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: So Conservation Advisory Council recommends keeping it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just reading, because insufficient -- TRUSTEE KING: They were probably not happy with what they saw. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Conservation Advisory Council doesn't support the application because of insufficient information and detailed restorations plans that should be submitted. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application Board of Trustees 8 January 20, 2010 MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mrs. Padovan and her son. I got brought into this very late in the game, I guess. He had been -- Mr. Abbate, is his name --was in the field, I guess field inspection with you guys and he -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was in November. MS. MOORE: It was at the November inspection? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, it was November. MS. MOORE: So I was not privy to that conversation, so you'll forgive me, I'm kind of listening and trying to get to finish this project out so that everybody can go back to their homes and be happy. He was told that he had to remove the sand that was placed along the bank. That sand was all locally obtained from the other end of the bank, so it was taking that sand off and returning the property to its original elevation, which at the time they didn't realize they had an existing survey, and I provided to Lauren, it should be in your file, an existing conditions survey which shows, from Young & Young what the elevations were, how the property was sloped prior to the sand being placed there. So that was something that the Board wanted to have as a survey showing that, and we in fact did have that. So I thought that would be helpful so when he's removing the sand, it won't take very much, the removal of the sand and then ° placing the sand back on the I want to say the tow of the slope. TRUSTEE KING: He actually dug like a hole into the bank, Pat, and -- MS. MOORE: Right, and he has to put that sand back in that hole. That's my understanding of what he was told he has to do. He's prepared to do that. Then I called Dave Chicanowicz to find out about getting grasses, the pods for the grass restoration and I checked with him and he said, yes, I could get it through him. It's available in March. Planting season begins in March, so once that sand is removed then, and put back, then the area can be re-planted with the grasses. Most of the grass that was there prior to had generated itself-- I have photographs -- it was tall grasses. It wasn't the hay grass it was actually the grasses that grew out and just had never been cut or anything, so it was quite high. That area will regenerate itself naturally as well as with the plants that are going to be planted. So we can provide that for you if you would like. It's in the area of disturbance, so anywhere that has been disturbed will be revegetated with the grasses. That was my understanding of what the Board had asked of the applicant. And I'm here to listen if there is anything that have missed. In addition, there was, back, back, way back in '06'07, when we were going in for the steps down to the beach, I'm going back some time, steps down to the beach and for the shed. During that process we got approval for the stairs that went straight, but as it turns out, Mr. Padovan shortened the steps and turned them toward the house. That change required an amendment and I had been in the process of the drawings, Board of Trustees 9 January 20, 2010 already had the drawings in my file. And what happened is Mr. Padovan became very ill and died. So I didn't really have a client. Mrs. Padovan was really distraught. It was difficult for her. There was nobody I could speak to, and you guys, I want to personally thank the Board, the Board that was in place at the time, was very patient with them. It was a very upsetting and it was a surprise that he became so ill and died. It was a very short time. So personally I want to thank you because I did get the letter, I was aware of it and I did tell Mrs. Padovan eventually you do have to come back and get that straightened out. And as I said, I had the drawings already prepared from '07. They were drawn July 26, 2007. And the, yes, all the drawings were done. I just couldn't do anything with them, so. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, wasn't there an issue where the retaining wall, too? MS. MOORE: The retaining wall actually had been in place in my application at the time. I didn't realize the retaining wall was part of the application. So that was missing from my application. It was in place at the time because it shows up on the photographs that I had taken for that application. So part of that amendment needed the retaining wall as well as the steps. And sure enough, I have it here, on the drawing. So you can tell me if the drawings are acceptable, we'll include that as part of the overall plan. I just didn't know if you wanted me to do it as an amendment to the original permit or incorporate it into this permit. It kind of left me -- sorry, 1 don't have that many. Thank you. There is a lot of clean up here, I'm sorry, and we really didn't know how you would prefer to handle it, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Myself,.personally, I mean, we were dealing with one issue and that was where the applicant removed the sand and tried to put it back, and we were not pleased with how it was done and where it was placed. So we were dealing with that as one issue. MS. MOORE: Did he already try to move it back? I didn't realize that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This sand was excavated out. Vegetation was taken away. Then there was, to the west of the shed, there was a hole dug. MS. MOORE: That's where all the sand came from. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That sand came in, was put on top of the vegetation. Our concern was that, you know, it was put on top of what was naturally vegetated and now we wanted that revegetated. So now you are adding to it this, the steps. MS. MOORE: That I found from my file that need to be cleaned up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I recall that. And we also were concerned about the, we are still concerned about the runoff from the driveway, the runoff from the new addition that was done, think it was a second floor deck that was done, we have pictures of construction that happened there that we were not aware of Board of Trustees 10 January 20, 2010 it. So I think tonight, you know, when we talk about all this, we can postpone, for preparation for postponing so you can come in with a new set of,plans that depicts all of these changes and an application that depicts the whole project, so hopefully, like you said, we can all move on. MS. MOORE: Okay. Do you want to start listing the things as we go? Because I was listening, not writing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's start with what we started on, which is the revegetation of this area that was buried. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think there was a list on one page in the file, so. MS. MOORE: You have something that was listed somewhere? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think our notes. MS. MOORE: Okay, clarify for me, is the picture there sand that has already been removed or that sand is still there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the sand that is still there MS. MOORE: That was my understanding is he hadn't done anything from the placement of the sand. After that he stopped what he was doing, and now we are back to restore, I'll call it restore and revegetate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So what I would like to see is a set of plans that depicts this revegetation, and just like we usually do, showing the revegetation and what is going to be placed in there, so that we have a little better idea. Because, you know, we don't know if you are talking about putting in seed grass and/or planning on just, oh, we'll put topsoil and sod it. MS. MOORE: No, no, no, no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm saying we need to know what the applicant is going to be planting in there. MS. MOORE: My understanding is what he thought he had to do is get seed grass. I checked to see if the seed grass was available as seedlings, as seeds. I don't know if it's available as seed. If it is, great, we'll just put lots of seed down. Or if it has to be as pods. Dave has access to pods, so know how to get it, because he was asking where do I get it from. So I have a source. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's outside of the planting season right now, that's the problem. MS. MOORE: It would be March, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next month is February, so by the time we get approval, it will be the right time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We'll be approaching the planting season again. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a profile drawing to show this slope and also the other bank. If you have a side view of it. MS. MOORE: I gave you --what I gave you as existing conditions. You told him -- I don't want to incur expenses to Mrs. Padovan that are not necessary. I gave you an existing conditions survey, that Young & Young. That's the original Young & Young survey. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This says 2006. . MS. MOORE: That's what the previous existing conditions were. Board of Trustees 11 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We are asking for the existing. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. Well, I'm getting rid of all that so it doesn't make sense for me to give you this when I'm taking it out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does this show, this survey, the one you just gave us. MS. MOORE: Oh, no, no. I didn't mean to confuse things. This only gives the stairs and retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you have elevation lines on there. MS. MOORE: That came from the existing conditions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I wanted to find out. So we don't have elevations of what is there today. MS. MOORE: But I don't, that's an extremely expensive survey of Young.& Young when you are asking us to remove what has been placed there. And to remove what has been placed there, it will be relatively easy because when you remove the sand you'll see the grasses underneath. It has not been killed, it's just been buried. So I was assuming that it's all going to be done by him by hand. Or a worker with him, taking the shovels out and putting it back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I may suggest, maybe what we can do instead of having them go through the expense of the survey, after the job is done, have Young & Young certify that-- MS. MOORE: We are back to the original elevation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so he has his license certifying, that I'm still certifying this survey of 2006. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does that make sense to everybody? That way it's a little less expensive. MS. MOORE: And we have to do a confirmation survey rather than something I'm taking away. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and that way we have our proof from a licensed professional. MS. MOORE: Okay, my other thought was also, when the sand is removed, having somebody come in and inspect, one of you guys come in and inspect to see if it's obvious that it has been brought down, it may not even be necessary to have the elevation survey if you can see the ground. I suspect when you take the sand away, you are going to see the vegetation, but maybe, I mean I don't know until its excavated. TRUSTEE KING: You should be able to. MS. MOORE: I have a picture. It was pretty thick grass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have pictures, too. MS. MOORE: So can we kind of think of the existing conditions survey until you inspect and let me know? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine, we can go out and inspect. MS. MOORE: Great. Then you don't need another elevation survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also, there was a condition of drainage from the second floor. And I have a picture here. What it is is they have gutters and leader. MS. MOORE: And it all comes to the same -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It all comes to a downspout that drains right Board of Trustees 12 January 20, 2010 down to the beach. MS. MOORE: Is it in the back or is it a drain in the front that comes to the blacktop, that drain? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's from the garage toward the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, first I'm dealing with the second floor, the porch. MS. MOORE: Do you have a drawing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a picture of it. MS. MOORE: I never heard anything about this. So this is new to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: See, what you have (indicating). MS. MOORE: And it goes straight down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's doing a washout down to the beach. So that was one drainage issue. A second one was -- MS. MOORE: Drain from second floor deck, connect to leaders to drain. Okay. Great. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another drainage issue, and I can recall us talking about that to the Padovan's, way back when we were dealing with the shed, is the driveway. And we have an idea on that. MS. MOORE: You have an idea on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have an idea. MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll listen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if we could put up -- if we have a picture of the driveway. MS. MOORE: I know what you are talking about because I was working with Mr. Padovan on that at the time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because what was happening is, while a French drain was installed at the very bottom of the driveway, when the driveway was asphalted, you have all of the water coming down that driveway and some of it was detouring to the west making its way down along the concrete pad, making it's way along the concrete pad to the left there, then going down seaward and scouring out the beach. MS. MOORE: That has actually always been there, because the driveway was poured cement before that. It was all at the same time. 1t was existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. But we also have a condition where the drainage off the roof drains, on the west side of the house, drains down to that driveway. So that driveway is getting all the runoff from the driveway, it's getting the runoff from that side of the roof, which you can't see in the picture, the house, and it's all going down and pouring down and creating a gully down to the beach. What we were suggesting is on, really it would be the southwest corner just off that cement pad; Bob, if you could pass the pointer down. I don't know if there is a better picture of it. Because it's in the clouded area there. MS. MOORE: In the beach area, the sandy area, or in the grass? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right in there. Okay, what has now been, on the corner here. Right off the corner here is where this gully-- Board of Trustees 13 January 20, 2010 MS. MOORE: Where the grass is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. The applicant put in sod there. And what we were suggesting is a drywell there to collect all this water that is coming down here that doesn't get into the French drain, would be collected right into that drywell right there. That would prevent water from going all the way down here and down on to the beach. MS. MOORE: Okay. I had talked to him about doing something like that. Okay. Drywell in grass. TRUSTEE KING: Actually it's not even a French drain, it's just a gutter. MS. MOORE: It's just a gutter, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And those are the only things I see in our field notes. Were there any other.issues? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, to remove all the debris that was placed in the area that was dug out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. It's on here. In the area that was dug out to remove the excess debris that was placed in there. Because you'll be putting the sand back into that area again. As I understand it, the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All that. That was not there prior to him clearing everything out. That was all vegetation. MS. MOORE: Is that all the wood and stuff that Mr. Padovan stored there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's junk. TRUSTEE KING: It's twice what was there. It's twice as much. MS. MOORE: No, no, it's just consolidated. Believe me. I don't think it's new. I think it's consolidated stuff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could have it removed. That's what we are asking for. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other comments from the Trustees? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you covered it. MS. MOORE: How do you want me to deal with the retaining wall and the modification to the steps? Can we incorporate it into this? Are we amending the previous, is it--from it's, the previous design? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it could all be one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Incorporate it into this. MS. MOORE: Now, he's already paid for an application. Can just revise the paperwork? MS. STANDISH: Yes. MS. MOORE: Very good. I'll re-do the paperwork. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions? (No response). Any other questions from anybody in the audience? (No response). Not seeing any, I'll make a motion to table this application of Mario Abbate and Josephine Padovan. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 14 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we need to inspect this again? Did you say that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: Now? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, not now. MS. MOORE: Oh, after and during the restoration, we'll do an inspection for adequacy of sand removal, I guess? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: They should notify us when they start the work. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could do that. Notify us at commencement of construction and then we can go out when it's maybe.halfway along to see if everything is going well. That would help the applicant. And we can say, yes, go ahead, you are doing it great or, no, modify it a little bit this way or that way. Again, it would be of assistance to the applicant MS. MOORE: I agree. Again, I think it would be helpful. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a motion and a second to table. All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one is postponed. Number two, under Wetland Permits, En-Consultants on behalf of KATHERINE PERRETTA requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 65 Linear feet of vinyl bulkhead (including return) in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approximately ten cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 1000 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. Is anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. This is a fairly straightforward application to replace the existing bulkhead, although it will be raised six inches. You can see the adjacent bulkhead has been recently replaced with vinyl sheathing which is the same manner in which this wall would be replaced. TRUSTEE KING: When we were in the field, Rob, we were talking about raising that to the same height as the neighbor. MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure that there would be any objection, if we can get the approval from the DEC to go all the way up. TRUSTEE KING: To keep everything uniform, you know. MR. HERMAN: Yes. I mean it would just require more fill behind it, but, if the Board is willing to consider that, it would certainly-- TRUSTEE KING: I know that was one of our'considerations. MR. HERMAN: It makes sense. TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, the CAC resolved not to support the permit application. The CAC does not support the application and recommends 65 feet of bulkhead is removed and replaced with rip rap or gabions. Conservation Advisory Council also questions the purpose of raising the bulkhead six inches. Jack, Board of Trustees 15 January 20, 2010 what was the reason for not simply replacing the bulkhead in place and going to gabions instead? MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm looking for my notes on that one. TRUSTEE KING: All right. While he's looking, it's exempt from LWRP. It's a minor action. It's replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structural facility. So it's exempt from that. And I think we talked about a ten foot-- I don't know what the buffer was. Limited backfill, we talked about making that-- MR. HERMAN: It's pretty much natural there now. TRUSTEE KING: Just to maintain what is there, as it is, in its natural condition. MR. HERMAN: There is no lawn or anything there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we know approximately how wide that is? MR. HERMAN: I mean, until you start to even go up that up-slope, it's probably at least six feet and then ten feet or more back to where the natural vegetation is. MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, as I recall, the reasoning for not going along with replacement of the bulkhead as it is right there, is the Conservation Advisory Council would like to see more waterfront restored to more of a natural setting. It's a recommendation. We don't know how far it will fly, but this will be our position from this point on that we would like to see more natural restoration, still protecting the person's property, and if you do go higher with the bulkhead, what you might do is set a precedent that later on you might regret. TRUSTEE KING: We looked at the neighboring property and we felt it was more consistent to keep that same height as the neighbor. MR. MCGREEVEY: Consistency is one thing. TRUSTEE KING: Why have that step there. It would just encouraging more erosion in that corner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We try to make a practice, particularly when bulkheads have been replaced and there are newer bulkheads, and that's the case here next door. You could see it was probably replaced, as far as age of bulkheads go, fairly recently, probably within the last five years or so. And to do so, as Jim alluded to, it helps reduce erosion issues, because as you can see where the property lines meet there, there is quite a drop off, and if that was all made even it would eliminate the runoff issue there. MR. MCGREEVEY: There is another application coming up tonight where the CAC is recommending trying to set a precedent with public property and hoping that in justifying our position that in the future private property will look at it and see the value of it, restoration to a more natural setting. John was sitting at our meeting that day and heard the back and forth between the members and we all seemed to agree to those two points. Maybe you don't want to set a precedent by raising bulkheads from where they are or, as I had said, a one-time bump up as you have, a one time bump out, and that would be it. The other thing is, we would like to see more, as we recommend, some kind of rip rap in lieu of what has Board of Trustees 16 January 20, 2010 been recommended. So, just a recommendation from the CAC. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. A question comes to my mind, if low sill bulkheads are functionally good in creating viable marsh, and this is a case where it's natural buffer, instead of going up, you went down, because the question comes to my mind, in retrospect, looking at this, you bump it up then successive, the property owner to the southerly, I guess, the question is if they're not bulkheaded then you'll just have a creeping bulkhead line. I'm just thinking functionally, in the unvegetated buffer, low sill bulkhead just going down nominally would bring that into a productive area. It's just something thrown out. If the low sill bulkheads are so functional and so good. Because this is an interior, this is not a shoreline area exposed to a huge amount of wave energy, at least to my mind, so. MR. HERMAN: I could make a few comments, for the record. What I would say, Jim, in response to your original comment, would be to allow the latitude to be raised up to 12 inches. In response to, only because I don't know, when I looked at, it seemed that we could raise the bulkhead a little bit to make it more consistent with the adjacent property without having to bring in an abundance of fill, because'as you get closer to the center of the property, and then this speaks to John's comments, that you have a shoreline there that has some small amount of rip rap along the shoreline. So you'll never see a bulkhead in that location. So while I don't think you'll ever have the problem of the creeping height bulkhead here, I think you also don't want to create the problem of coming up too high and causing a drop off where there is actually a natural shoreline of marsh. So I think probably staying closer to six inches is probably a better compromise, although if the Board is willing to allow a slightly higher increase in height and goes up seven or eight inches, we won't be in a position where there is a violation of permit. It's probably not the right forum to get into a philosophical catharsis by the Conservation Advisory Council in terms of changing the entire nature of pre-existing shorelines in Southold, but I can say that in a site like this, typically the least disturbance that you can create is simply to maintain the status quo of replacing this bulkhead. If you were to take that bulkhead out and put in gabions, for example; gabions take up several feet. So you would have to either cut back into the shoreline, which again starts to disrupt the marsh adjacent to this, but you would also essentially be filling out into what are now tidal waters and wetlands. So swamping out a bulkhead for something like gabions here would make absolutely no sense to me at all. And that's probably as far as I want to get into it in this forum because, again, it's a fairly simple application. Obviously it's going to be up to the Board if, you know, there are dozens of applications you hear a month to replace bulkheads are going to produce this kind of Board of Trustees 17 January 20, 2010 conversation, well let's turn the clock back a hundred years. That's up to the Board. But as it stands now, the code allows the bulkheads to be replaced in place. We are replacing them with vinyl as opposed to the treated timber that is in a lot of the waterways now, and you are either maintaining or creating non-turf buffers where now they are either unmaintained in any formal way or maintained lawn areas behind them. So you are creating an improvement to a situation without otherwise really changing the condition. can also mention that the, there is, as a practical matter, a substantially higher cost to doing an entire redesign of a shoreline that has been bulkheaded for a long time. This is a fairly straightforward replacement project. It's also not an area right now that is within the intertidal area. So you would have to bring in, not only as John mentioned, which you would still have to build a bulkhead. You would still have a bulkhead there, it would just be lower. But it would have to be farther out because you would have be able to grade the land back in a way that it would support the proper elevations for that ecosystem. And we often have the opportunities to do that where there is an intertidal marsh fringe that is sitting right there and it's being severely eroded and you really are trying to maintain that. There are a lot the opportunities to go with the low sill bulkhead approach. But I don't think really a situation like this where there is a functioning bulkhead is really the place to necessarily venture into that. TRUSTEE KING: I think the issue is do we replace the bulkhead in place or try to completely restore it to its natural condition. That's the issue. MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Right now, as things stand, we are replacing inplace. It's exempt from LWRP. MR. HERMAN: And your code allows for it. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's something you may want to look at down the road. But not tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? (No response). Do the Board members have anything to say? (No response). It's pretty straightforward. Being no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to support the application as submitted, with the option of I guess six inches is sufficient to raise the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How about we say six to eight, as Rob was saying. Board of Trustees 18 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. Make it six to eight inches higher than the existing bulkhead. And it's really the whole sandy area now should just remain in its natural state. It's quite, as you come toward the other neighboring property, it gets quite a bit wider, so it's pretty hard to put an exact measurement on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As it presently exists. Maintain it. MR. HERMAN: I would just say that the naturally vegetated slope there where there is currently no turf, that there be no new turf introduced into any of that area. TRUSTEE KING: We have pictures in the file so we can verify it. MR. HERMAN: It's pretty obvious the distinction between the lawn area here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, just maintain the area of non-turf. TRUSTEE KING: We have some excellent photos that show it. So that would be my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 63 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of(and one-inch higher than) existing timber bulkhead; construct approximately 124 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of(and one-inch lower than) existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace (inplace) 15' timber return with vinyl return; permanently remove 60' of outer timber bulkhead and approximately 65 cubic yards of sand fill contained therein, which is to be reused as backfill behind new. bulkhead; extend existing groin landward by approximately eight feet to close gap created by proposed removal of outer bulkhead and fill; remove and replace existing fencing behind bulkhead; and remove and replace five existing pilings/pipes securing floats with eight-inch diameter timber pilings. Located: 1215 Love Lane, Mattituck. This is exempt from LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council's comments is they have tabled the application and request an opportunity to meet with the Town Board and investigate other options. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the Park District. Again, this is a fairly straightforward, ordinary maintenance application to maintain the existing bulkheading on the site. However, there is that area that is shown in your .photograph right there that serves no current purpose. And so we would propose to permanently eliminate that entire section of bulkhead and all of the fill behind it, returning that entire area back to a tidal inundated area that would come back to the primary bulkhead on the property, which of course maintains the public use of the property; the parking, the staging area for boats, use of the boat ramp, et cetera. Board of Trustees 19 January 20, 2010 We have proposed that there be actually a vegetated non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. And there is a difference in height right now between the two sections of bulkhead, so we are lowering the one section and raising the other to even off the height of the bulkhead that is there. I don't know, Dave, if you have the laser, but up in the far end, if you come all the way in from the end of that groin, right there, once that outer cage is removed, it would just be a small portion of that, effectively, groin extended back to contain that fill in that area. There is incidental to the bulkhead replacement, just a proposal to replace the deteriorating pilings and pipes that hold the floats at the facility out. Of course the floats are not in now. But I'm pretty sure the Board is familiar with the site and the use, and those are all shown on the plans. I had had some opportunity to, I think with both Jill and Jim, quite some time ago, when the Park District folks had originally approached me on this, and I think there was some question as to the configuration of the floats and what had been previously permitted and what had not been. Lauren helped me find some very, very old historic permits of the site. There is a permit that dates back to 1964 to install this, the bulkhead that is there. So I guess one thing I should mention for the record, this is actually a legally permitted bulkhead. This is not a pre-existing bulkhead. It has permits, and also floating docks. Of course the configuration seems to vary over the decades. So I don't know how the Board exactly wants to handle that issue. If you want to incorporate language to try to create some, memorialize what is there in some way, so that if there were changes made or wanting to be made from here on out, that there would be some record of exactly what the configuration and components of the dock is now. And then obviously the Park District would know they would have to apply to the Board to make any changes to that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think an amendment to, now that we finally found the permit, an amendment to that permit to reflect what is existing. MR. HERMAN: Right. When we firsf started, we didn't know if there were permits or not. TRUSTEE KING: These are all floats? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's a catwalk. It's a fixed dock. MR. HERMAN: And it goes out to a ramp and it's just-- it seems to me there is a lot fewer floats than were originally there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this was fixed and it has a ramp. The floats go right out here, where the original permit had it in a U-shape. MR. HERMAN: They "L" off to the left. It seemed originally back in the '60s it was predominantly floats, almost in a marina type configuration. And then at some point that switched to the configuration that is there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was a couple of things. One is a non- turf buffer behind that. On our field notes we have maybe make Board of Trustees 20 January 20, 2010 it a berm immediately behind that and have it non-turf. And also we noticed there was a pipe coming out. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I forgot to mention that. That is on the plan to be cut off. That is typically the Board's requirement, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any idea where what it's attached to? MR. HERMAN: I don't. I don't. Although one of the district commissioners is here. TRUSTEE KING: We'll find out when we block it off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just curious. I know it's been there a long time MR. HERMAN: It's hard to, in terms of the physical evidence at the end of it, it doesn't seem like it's an overly-active discharge. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so. MR. HERMAN: So you may not get the surprise on the other end of that, but. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any signs last time I saw it of it being very active. Because the county did a huge project right next do to that. MR. HERMAN: There is some minor shoal there but nothing you would see if that was discharging at any sort of full capacity, I don't think, anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the audience? Jack? MR. MCGREEVEY: Conservation Advisory Council would recommend very highly that some kind of test be done on the possible origination of that drain pipe to find.out if it actually is connected up. I personally have seen drainage coming out of that pipe. The only time you can really see it is at exceptional low tide, and I was there at low tide and there was water coming out. TRUSTEE KING: Any amount, Jack? Was there a lot of volume? MR. MCGREEVEY: I would not say heavy flow but there was a flow of water coming out of it, and I have not had the opportunity to come, to be there right after a heavy rain. You have to time it with the low tide. But there was water coming out. I would recommend, or the Conservation Advisory Council would recommend that a test, some kind of dye test be done up on CR48 and see if it feeds into that pipe. TRUSTEE KING: It shouldn't be from anything from 48 feeding into that now because of the system the county put in. It's an old pipe and I don't think we have the slightest idea where it originates. I'm just saying if we block it off, we'll find out where it originates, then we'll handle the process. MR. MCGREEVEY: Then you do a retroactive job and that would be extensive. Conservation Advisory Council thinks it should be addressed at this point. TRUSTEE KING: Do you recommend we leave the pipe in place when they put the new bulkhead in? MR. MCGREEVEY: We would recommend in this application, and we recommend also a comprehensive plan, more encompassing than what Board of Trustees 21 January 20, 2010 has been presented, because it brings into the picture the town, the Mattituck stakeholders and the Park District. And outside of just our environmental concerns about the pipe, we would like to see a more comprehensive plan put together. MS. HULSE: Can I just ask, in the file, it says the CAC had tabled the application. Are your recommendations or the recommendations of the CAC documented that we could have at this juncture? Because you are saying there was recommendations, but what the Trustees had is there were no recommendations and that it was tabled. MR. MCGREEVEY: There were no recommendations -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you are saying was not put in writing to Us. We are hearing it for the first time from you now as a representative of the CAC. MR. MCGREEVEY: Conservation Advisory Council assumes when we make our report that it be followed up by somebody in the town. We make our recommendations and reports to the Trustees. Based on that, we are asking you to table it because we would like to confer with the town board and we are assuming, maybe the assumption is wrong, but I'm assuming the town trustees would have taken that into consideration. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I hear what you are saying. I don't know, we always just said cut off the pipe and stop the flow going into the creek. We never made the applicant do anything as to why it's coming. As long as it stops, that is what our concern is. MR. MCGREEVEY: If you cut off a pipe and the drainage is still there, you'll create a situation where that water will back up. If it's connected to catch basins. So I would recommend, the Conservation Advisory Council would recommend, that some kind of test be done at the catch basins on CR48. See if you get a feed from that pipe, then correct the condition or have the county correct the condition. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could ask the applicant, is there any type of easement you are aware of for this pipe? MR. HERMAN: I would have to ask the Park District commissioner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, if one of the Park District commissioners wishes to step up to the mic and introduce yourself. So it's on the record. MR. DEEGAN: Nicholas Deegan, Mattituck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are one of the park commissioners? MR. DEEGAN: Yes. Trustee BERGEN: Thank you. MR. DEEGAN: We are not aware of an easement and we are doing a search of that at this time to see if we were granted an easement in the past for this pipe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And to the best of your knowledge that pipe is not draining anything from the Park District property there? In other words there are no catch basins around there? MR. DEEGAN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'm surmising that probably this pipe is draining water or was draining water from off site your property, whether it was town or county or somebody, and as such Board of Trustees 22 January 20, 2010 it's, I don't see it's the responsibility of the Park District to then go forward and try and figure out where this water is coming from. So I would not hold up this application because of this pipe at this point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I think that I agree that as long as we tell you to cut off the pipe, that is going to stop the water from going into the creek, and I would think it would be in the best interest of the Park District to do their research. I don't think that the Trustees have to make that a condition of this permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I would have is, many years ago, I had the opportunity to talk to a gentleman from the New York State Department of Transportation, when there was a pipe going into a body of water from the state highway, and somewhat indignantly, the gentleman indicated he had a proscriptive easement and he was going to enforce putting the pipe in. So guess the concern I have is if you don't research the pipe issue thoroughly, you don't necessarily want the Park District to go forward to find out that some other legal entity says they might have a proscriptive easement and try to enforce the pipe where you don't want one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not for certain, but I think the pipe was probably, if it's county, on that road, they just in recent years did a whole revamping and drainage system there, that whole corner, so it's a site that has been improved on a lot. And by closing off this pipe we can just make sure it doesn't go in there, so. MR. HERMAN: First of all, it's the Board's practice and policy and request that this be done. That's why we included it. Having a -- without going into a long story -- having a much smaller pipe over a short distance running under my own driveway that the town I live in installed about 50 years ago, to actually track exactly where the water is coming from, you would have to be able to find the source. And in order to know what the volume of output is you would have to be able to pump a volume of water into that, that you simply, you can't come by unless you had a three or four or five-inch rain storm. I did ask Doris McGreevey the question of, you know, has the pipe been observed during rain storms, et cetera, and the answer has been there has been no significant output coming out of that pipe. Unless we can identify, and apparently no one can identify, a specific catch basin that the water is sourcing from, I'm not sure exactly how it would be tested. So, again, we are happy to oblige the Trustees by capping it. If that causes some additional water to form in a county highway, that is more than 100 feet from the wetlands, I don't know that that is your problem. I mean somebody might judge you for saying well let it be somebody else's problem, but as I understand, your role here is to prevent pollution directly into the waterways that you have been elected to protect. Not to control flooding on Rt. 48. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To expand upon that, I don't think it's the Board of Trustees 23 January 20, 2010 responsibility of the property owner then, meaning the Park District, to take care of that problem. In other words we have a town drainage code that says water will be retained on your property. And if it turns out it causes a pooling on another person's property or the property of the town or property of the county, that is theirs to deal with, not the Park District. So. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I would like to move on from this. Are there any other comments on this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 'I have another question for one of the park commissioners. Are there any bathroom facilities located there? MR. DEEGAN: Yes. Yes, we have a bathroom and it's in a concrete building right there on site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, the reason I ask is I know I was approached by somebody from the state department about grant opportunities to construct pump out facilities or bathrooms and if they had been down there and they were wondering if there were any bathrooms, and if not, they were going to offer grant opportunities. So you say there is already a bathroom there, so it's taken care of. That's all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What would the ramifications be if we tabled it? MR. HERMAN: Tabled it for what? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For a month. MR. HERMAN: But I mean for what reason. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's irrelevant. I mean for whatever reason. MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure., TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In other words, if we were to table this would it cause any undo stress on the project? Would it be postponed, costing them money? What would the ramifications be? MR. HERMAN: The potential ramifications would be if the other permits were secured within that time period and they were ready to get to work on the project we would still be waiting for your permit. Otherwise nobody will be injured over it. But the reason that I ask for what reason is because we would want to have some rationale for tabling it other than just for the heck of it TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Obviously. MS. MCGREEVEY: Doris McGreevey, Mattituck Park District. The timing is relevant because we are trying to move ahead with the project. We know there is a boating season and, you know, as soon as we get the permits we can deal with the rebuilding process. We are trying not to interfere with the boating season. We are trying to get things in place as soon as possible. Plus we have a few other projects at this time. We have, it's not waterfront exactly, but we are doing work at the park and we are doing a few other project. So we want to move along with these as soon as possible. So that's an important view from the Park District. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. MR. MCGREEVEY: I would like to make one more comment, if I can. Speaking for the Conservation Advisory Council. The CAC is looking at it with a much broader, in a broader scope, not just Board of Trustees 24 January 20, 2010 relative to the Trustees. We are looking at it from the town's perspective, and I'll speak with our idea in dealing with the town. We would like to see somebody initiate a program to look at this site, incorporate it into the town, downtown of Mattituck, where the stakeholders also have input as to what is going on and also the township. And in Port Washington, they revitalized the waterfront there and we envision that something could be done with this property that would be very, very --whatever the word might be -- good for the township. Incorporate the Park District, the stakeholders and the Township of Southold and look at this from a comprehensive point of view to come up with a better plan. That's what we would like-to see. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that what you anticipate to bring to the town board? MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is, I mean you certainly, as the Conservation Advisory Council, have the right to do that. But as we are looking at this, basically, even though this is a Park District, it's not a town piece of property, it's a private piece of property that the incorporated people of the town belong to and pay taxes on. And this is what the Park District is applying to us for, and we are reviewing it under or codes for this. MR. MCGREEVEY: CAC realizes that. But we are looking at it from a much broader perspective. The township, the people of the Township of Southold has an opportunity here to make public property, huge property, public property and incorporate it into a bigger picture. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is, it's public in the sense it's a Park District but it's not public to the whole entire town. TRUSTEE KING: It's only for Mattituck Park District. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think that has no bearing on what we are reviewing tonight and if the Park District would like to come .back to,us at a future date with a different plan, that's their prerogative. But at this point this is what we have in front of us. MR. HERMAN: And with respect to the Park District, in response to Jack's comments, is what is being petitioned for here does not preclude the CAC or the Town Board or the Park District people from looking at that in the future. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. That's what I'm trying to say. MR. HERMAN: This is not an analogous to like the New Suffolk fund project where they are trying, they are in the active process of trying to rebirth a site. This is just maintaining a legally permitted existing bulkhead to maintain the integrity of the site and the use. Doing this does not preclude people from examining a much more comprehensive approach to whatever this use is within the Park District. But that's not what is being applied for now and it's not what is before the Board. MR. MCGREEVEY: Bob brought up a point. Would it be any negative impact by putting this off a couple of weeks, a month, to let people look into this project. Board of Trustees 25 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought about that because we knew what your recommendation was. MS. HULSE: Jill, if I could just jump in, just to reiterate. The CAC's recommendation is the matter was tabled. So if that's changed from the time that that document that has been filed with the Trustees until today, then there should be additional documentation to clarify that. There has been a lot of comments that have been made on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council verbally here that is not codified in that memo or any other memo to the Trustees, so it's a little bit of a concern because obviously the applicant has the ability to review that prior to coming here tonight, and a lot of the recommendations that were proffered were not documented as it were in the file. So I'm just cautioning you as to what the CAC's actual recommendation is because what you have in the file obviously differs from what is brought up tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll read it again, to clarify. Conservation Advisory Council tables the application and requests the opportunity to meet with the Town Board and investigate other options. So they didn't ask the Trustees to table it. They had, they tabled it themselves. Jack, I see there is a letter in the file from you. Do you want to comment on that? It's in here for the record. That the office received January 14. MR. MCGREEVEY: Is it a short letter? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is. MR. MCGREEVEY: Would you hit the highlights on it? I don't have it in front of me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to borrow this? And you can make it brief. Hit the highlights. MR. MCGREEVEY: Sure. The documentation takes, you know, an official letter to the Conservation Advisory Council to the town board, we'll do that if that would suffice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Lori is saying is what is being discussed here was not documented in our file, to have all the other people involved to review your comments. You are just bringing them here to us tonight, and at this point I don't see any reason for this Board to table this application. MR. MCGREEVEY: That's fine. We'll follow through with the town board then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be the way to go. MR. MCGREEVEY: I think the points have already been made, the highlights. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I was not sure if you wanted to add anything to what you said. Thank you. Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The width of the berm. If we could just get, the applicant has agreed to a berm, we just haven't discussed the dimensions at all, and I just want to get it at least reasonably clear so we are all on the same page. MR. HERMAN: I think it would be something very, very small, just Board of Trustees 26 January 20, 2010 to prevent runoff. TRUSTEE KING: A foot, 15 inches high, something like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And, you can put it landward to the limit of the backfill, around that location, that you have on your survey. MR. HERMAN: We don't see any problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I want to note the comments Jack just referred to is a letter from Jack McGreevey, not from the CAC. MR. MCGREEVEY: From me personally, yes. MS. HULSE: And they will be incorporated as part of the record, Jill? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they will be incorporated as part of the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I made a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted by the Park District, to include a berm landward of the limits of clearing, approximately 15 inches high, and it's a non-turf area between the bulkhead and the berm. MR. HERMAN: You are talking about between the -- between what would be a ten foot -- let me start again. Between the parking area and the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where the berm would be located. MR.'HERMAN: Where the parking ends and you have that small berm that would separate out-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would help retain water, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the area between the berm and the bulkhead shall be non-turf. MR. HERMAN: Got it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It varies in width, but it's clear on the survey. MR. MCGREEVEY: I would like to pose a question. TRUSTEE DOHERTY:We are in the middle of making a motion. So that's my motion. If we could have revised plans showing the berm on that. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we just need the berm showing on that survey. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of GEORGE KOFINAS requests a Wetland Permit for the inkind/inplace replacement of an 11x50' wood deck and 8x32' bath house. Located: 552 East Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP has determined this to be exempt, and the Conservation Advisory Council would not support this application under any circumstances. We were out in the field and we all saw it. And we, Board of Trustees 27 January 20, 2010 frankly, I don't think it was an awful lot of support from the Board to move ahead with this. So with that said, would anybody like to speak toward this application? MS. MESIANO: Yes, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. As you -- the project is as you described. We met at the site and the Trustees had a number of questions, and I would like to address those issues. First of all, I need to state the structure that is the subject of this application was a pre-existing, nonconforming structure that was destroyed in an arson fire in August of 2006. 1 do have a police report that I'll give you for your records. And Mr. Bergen had asked me was the person who did this found, do they know who it was. There had been two arsons. The first one yes, and restitution was paid. But the person who caused the second arson fire was not caught. So we have requested the arson report from the Suffolk County Police. We have not gotten that yet but I'll give you this police report for your records. Lauren, I would also like to give you my affidavit of posting. Also at the site, we talked about the fact that I have obtained a DEC permit, and you asked for a copy of that, so I'll give you that as well. Some comments were made on site regarding, well some of the earlier comments, the fact that it looked a little too formal, a little potentially habitable. The plans were amended and I believe five copies of plans were dropped off at your office, later, last week, and you should have those. Windows were removed, it was shown to be a simple board and batten siding. The windows on the side, sides, that would be east/west and the north side were removed. So it's just windows and door on the south side. The windows were made smaller and higher, trying to address your concerns of it being habitable or potentially habitable. And the layout of the interior is very simple. It's a changing area, a storage area, and just a oenter open area. It was intended to have electricity only to the structure for the purpose of security and service. No water; strictly a beach cabana to replace the structure that had been previously existed. We are not looking for anymore than what previously existed. We are asking the Board's consideration for an inplace -- inkind inplace replacement of the structure. Since this was not a deliberate act on the part of the owner, it's not a blatant attempt to put a new building down on the beach, etc. This was an act that was a malicious, intentional act that caused the total loss of the structure, and we are simply looking for replacement of the structure. I believe that there are some cases that have come before this Board in the past where the Board has approved applications that are similar to this. One is the Shank project which was in Nassau Point, and in that instance there was an approval to build up to the existing deck, and I believe an enclosed porch up to the existing, up to and on to, excuse me, up to and on to the existing bulkhead. And that's down in Fishermans Beach Board of Trustees 28 January 20, 2010 section. Another example of a situation where an inplace replacement of a fire-damaged structure is the Soundview Motel. That was an inplace replacement with roof line modifications only, to a nonconforming structure that was fire damaged. And the third project that I'm aware of was a project in Paradise Point on Basin Road. It was the Keitt project where the Board approved a swimming pool up to the bulkhead on a high, very steep bluff. And there was no clearance. I will provide the Board with copies of all of those decisions. I was not able to get out here because of the extra day off, it kind of took some of my work time. But I'll provide the Board with copies of those determinations. I'm not asking for anything that the Board has not seen fit to prove in the past. We are not looking to enlarge or expand. We are asking for the Board's consideration because this is, would call it a special circumstance. An arson is certainly something that none of us should have to suffer loss from. And we agree with Dr. Kofinas that he should be entitled to replace the structure inkind. And, again, the DEC has given its approval. I have an application in the Building Department in preparation for my Zoning Board application. And we request the Board's consideration on it and I'll be glad to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, how do these plans compare to the approved DEC plans? MS. MESIANO: These plans are the same footprint. The only thing that is different is we minimized the exterior of the structure and that some windows were removed. The windows that were left were made smaller, and some of the trim was removed. TRUSTEE KING: Because we have the permit but we don't see the approved plans. MS. MESIANO: Same footprint. TRUSTEE KING: It says by East End Design Associates. MS. MESIANO: Same footprint, same roof line, and again, it's because they were so large, I didn't have the opportunity to copy them, but I'll give you a copy of the DEC approved plans as well. You have the written portion of the permit. But I'll give you the plans and you'll see that the footprint and the roof line is the same. The difference is the fenestration, really, since our meeting the other day. TRUSTEE KING: You mentioned the motel that burned. MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That was not completely gone. I think it's a different between the roof being gone and whole structure not being there. MS. HULSE: And it wasn't an unpermitted structure. MS. MESIANO: I would not say mine was an unpermitted structure, because it was a pre-existing structure. MS. HULSE: Right. But it was never given a permit, is my point. It was never permitted. MS. MESIANO: I can't say that for sure because I'm trying to Board of Trustees 29 January 20, 2010 track down the CO. I have to confirm that as well. Because I can't agree that it was never permitted. If we have a certificate of pre-existing use. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question on this. On the cabana, you say no plumbing, electric for basic lighting and security and service. What does "and service" mean? MS. MESIANO: If someone wants to take a blower and blow out the sand or take a vacuum cleaner to clean the place. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if you want to list that, you have to be a little more specific. Service can mean anything. It says and service so we put water service there. MS. MESIANO: Okay, I could be more specific. But I think we did say no plumbing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You did, but, I'm just trying to tighten it up so it's not a problem here. We could just take the words "and service" off. MS. MESIANO: Just put electricity. What we do with it is irrelevant, if is there electricity down there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was not on the Board when this happened and the first application came in to revegetate the bluff. So in looking at the pictures, this happened while the construction was going on in the main house? MS. MESIANO: That's correct TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see any pictures in the file of what was there originally. MS. MESIANO: We tried to get those pictures for you and we ended up with some scanned Polaroids and they were mostly family photographs, and it was more people than structure. So I'm still working on getting you something. However, I can show you, I have an aerial photograph from Aerographics that clearly shows the structure existing on the date of this photograph, which is 1976. And I also have a 1977 as-built survey done by Van Tuyl that shows the structure. I'll have to give you copies. These are my only. So I can't leave them with you. But I'll share. I have this where I have this post it, you'll see the outline of the structure right here as we proposed. And this is a copy of what the DEC approved, but I'll give you a better copy than this. (Handing). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think this is the same as what we have in the file. MS. MESIANO: The original submission I made to you was what the DEC approved. What I remitted was changed only as far as the exterior-- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Windows and such. MS. MESIANO: Yes, it's not something I would go to the DEC for an amendment for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. MS. MESIANO: If you would like copies of those, I'll provide them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to see a picture of what the structure actually looked like. Board of Trustees 30 January 20, 2010 MS. MESIANO: This just shows the deck and the deck around it and the foot, you know, the roof of the structure. What I'm working on getting whatever older photographs that I can. I'll do the best I can on that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I would just repeat what I had said out in the field, since we are on the record, now. Believe me, I hear what you are saying about the loss of this structure was caused by arson. But it was a previously nonconforming structure and I know that the, I believe it's even in the code, that when a previously nonconforming structure disappears, for some reason, it doesn't mean that we can automatically say, yes, that there should be a new structure of the same size or even smaller there. MS. MESIANO: I hear what you are saying, and I think the operative concept here is that you don't just automatically say that, yes, there should be, but that there could be. I don't think you are prohibited from granting relief in this instance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. We are not prohibited. I don't feel we are. MS. MESIANO: I don't either. And as we briefly touched upon in our field inspection, there has been a matter before this Board that has gone on ad nauseam in which there was a structure that was not pre-existing and it was totally nonconforming, there was never a permit for any part of the structure, any modification, expansion of the structure. And the structure had been removed at a point in time and then reappeared at a later point in time. And then the Board ordered its being moved to a different location. So if the Board can take a structure that was not legally entitled to exist under any circumstances and be as generous in that instance, then I think that the Board should at least consider our request. Because we are not, I don't believe we are creating any damage by what we are looking for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry, but what were you referring to? MS. MESIANO: I'm referring to the.dock in the Paradise Point basin. That was clearly demonstrated by me that the structure did not pre-exist zoning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with all due respect to that, I'm just speaking for myself, dock and basin, to me, sorry, has nothing to do with a beach house being proposed in Peconic Bay. I'm just saying, it's apples and oranges to me. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. MS. MESIAN& I'm looking at the nonconformity aspect and the Board's willingness to be lenient in one aspect and not be lenient in another. And I'm asking for comparably consideration. We spoke briefly about what the use of this structure would be, what it was, what it would be, and it's intended to be exactly that, a beach cabana where your beach toys, your beach furniture, your boats, your things that you are using on the beach, are stored and secured. And it was mentioned by one of the Trustees, just drag it up on the beach. And I have to say it, if one is dragging up a few Sunfish and a Board of Trustees 31 January 20, 2010 raft and a few plastic things and some beach furniture above the high tide into the area that is vegetated, that has to be more damaging environmentally than to have this structure that is constructed minimally. There will be no foundation for it. It will be on.pilings. There was a deck. There will be a deck so there is not a tremendous runoff situation occurring. And the material and equipment would be secured inside the structure rather than outside where it is subject to further vandalism, theft, you know, the mischief that kids tend to get into on beaches at night without adult supervision, as we saw from the arson. I think the potential for damage, environmentally, is greater, having to drag this equipment up into that adjacent area than have a designated place for it to go as it's always been down there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could ask a couple of questions. I'm looking at the plans here and I have read, these are plans stamped January 14, 2010. And I'm looking at the cross-sections and such, and it looks like, and this is what I'm asking for, is the construction material, looks like it's the same as the material used on the main house. In other words it looks like, and I'm calling it a terra cotta roof, it looks like clay pipe roof. MS. MESIANO: I'll defer to Craig Arm on the design of the plans. MR. ARM: Hi, I'm Craig Arm from East End Design Associates. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My question is, is this designed to look the same as the house? MR. ARM: Somewhat. We did decide to propose the terra cotta clay roof tile, which actually is relatively environmentally sensitive where you don't have any great runoff from like an asphalt shingle or any harsh chemicals from it because it's a natural product. So that does match the house. Originally we were proposing to maybe go with like a stucco or something that matched the house, but in the revised plans and after conversations with the Kofinas', we really wanted to keep it just really a basic beach structure. So it's, you know, all marine grade, wood, nothing that, you know, should surprise anybody if it was being built out on a pier or dock. It's really just all marine construction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Meaning non-treated. MR. ARM: Exactly, completely non-treated, wood. As far as interior, and exterior, Cathy did mention to me some of your comments regarding concern possible, you know, habitable space, and anything you want us to change or suggest about that, the Kofinas' are completely open to. There is really no intent -- the layout inside, when I met with the Kofinas', literally, we took an old survey, and I was like okay, what was there before, because I had never been in the structure. They said well, there was a wall here for this, wall here for that. "And this basically became the plan that you saw. So if there is something you want changed with that;there is really not any issue with it. They are just looking to put back, basically what Board of Trustees 32 January 20, 2010 they've had for the same use that they've had for many, many years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another.question, possibly last question I'll have is, would they entertain, instead of having a bath house here, just a wood deck down there? MR. ARM: I don't think they would. Basically at this point they are really looking to enclose what they have, just really as a storage building and building to use at the beach. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Typically, most sheds are 10x10, right? Building Department allows a 10x10 shed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: 100 square feet without a building permit. MR. ARM: And I completely understand what the Board is saying regarding non-conforming uses. And had it been destroyed by the elements, you know, from storms or things like that, I think also could definitely agree with you not necessarily having the right to rebuild it, because obviously something detrimental did happen to it and it shouldn't have been there. But in this case since it was arson, I believe that they should have some rights to rebuild what was there. And regarding any bits of the foundation, part of it was built, on the bulkhead that was there, was part of the support for it. So it's not entirely all gone, and part of it was still there, but after the fire was removed, because it actually created an unsafe situation for anybody on the beach if they were if to go near the burnt structure. So it's not even, granted 99 or 95% of it was destroyed, but not 100% of it was destroyed. Some of it was removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Regardless whether it's arson or mother nature, it's beyond their control. That's how we are looking at it. You know, it's a sad situation, nobody wants to go through that, but whether it's a hurricane that took it away or fire, it still remains the same that it's not there, it was not permitted and it's nonconforming. And we have the choice to either prohibit it or not prohibit it. MR. ARM: I understand. But I just think in the scheme of things, I think there is definitely a difference, for everybody's mentality or sort of almost, what you would think would be some sort of rights, even through I know that doesn't really exist, for having something if it was, something that was not controlled by them or by mother nature. I think there is a very, very big difference. And I think there is past precedent as well. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a legal difference? MS. HULSE: To answer Jim's question, there is no legal difference. The applicant would not even have the right to make repairs to it if it was an unpermitted structure. So to argue that it's gone and the reason why it's gone really doesn't bear on the Trustees' decision, legally speaking. And I forget my other point. I had something else to say. Maybe it will come to me two more applications down the road. Board of Trustees 33 January 20, 2010 MR. ARM: I do know, as Cathy mentioned, she is looking into seeing what type of paperwork did exist, something regarding like a pre-CO or something else. MS. HULSE: I know. Just to make the analogy with the 10x10 and the building department, it still has to comply with zoning laws. So even though there is not a permit to required for something of that size, obviously, this pertains to this issue, you still have to comply with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That just pertains to the Building Department. MS. HULSE: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would the applicant be open to substantially reducing the request on the deck size as we well as the structure? MR. ARM: I think if you wanted to propose something, it could be a point of discussion, obviously, if that's where it led us. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any interest from the Board? MS. HULSE: If I could advise you, you may want to just make a decision on this and if the applicant wants to come back and revise it substantially, because that would obviously be a substantial revision -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was thinking. MS. HULSE: (Continuing) it would not be a simple modification. I think they could reapply. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, I would be interested in hearing some further comments from the representative from the Conservation Advisory Council, because I know in their comments they said, they absolutely do not support this under any circumstances. If you could provide, if possible, a little more, abbreviated reasons. MR. MCGREEVEY: With very limited background in the legal end of it, we based it on what we thought would be a legal decision. Is it permitted or is it not permitted. And it would be entirely up to you people, but based on the little we knew, we figured it'should not be restored, strictly on a legal basis. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a concern, I mean I have a concern that this is below a substantial topographical feature that the bluff area there is rather large. And if it were in a difference place in the town, it would have been, it just would not be possible. If it was in a coastal erosion hazard area or other areas, and it almost looks like a dune starting to form in front of it. There is deposition of sand in addition to what looks like Spartina or patens that is in front of it. MS. MESIANO: If I could interrupt you. That's bamboo. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm talking seaward of, in fact the bulkhead, is Spartina. The stuff actually there is Japanese Knotweed, which is an invasive -- MS. MESIANO: Right, out on the beach, there is bamboo that is taking over. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The dune is out toward the beach. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The dune is definitely toward the beach Board of Trustees 34 January 20, 2010 which is actually part of the dune that is more to the east. So there are natural features here,that ordinarily you would not be placing a structures seaward of a major natural feature, which essentially is a bluff. MS. MESIANO: With all due respect, it's not in another part of the town, it's not in a coastal erosion hazard area. The fact that the structure stood for at least 50 years and it finally succumbed to arson, not the elements or water or hurricane, I think is relevant. And I think that the Board has the latitude and I'm asking for the Board to use that discretion because as I mentioned, there are other instances where the Board has used its discretion and given latitude to property owners to build things that are not strictly within the confines of the code, and you have the ability to do that. You have done it in the past and we are asking for something minimal. MS. HULSE: I agree with Cathy, there has been some discretion used on the part of the Trustees. I don't recall any case where something like this has ever been authorized by the Trustees. I don't think there is a precedent where you could point to that cites very similar or the same facts. Because the ones that you have cited that I'm familiar with are not similar factually. Although I understand your point. MS. MESIANO: They are similar to the extent that the separation distance, which is what the Trustees are looking for, the separation distance is similar. The fact that-- MS. HULSE: What do you mean the "separation distance"? MS. MESIANO: The setback from whatever your setback point is. In this case we would have to use high tide because that's not, that's --the wooden structure is not a bulkhead per se. The definition of a bulkhead is a structure that separates earthen material and water. And the definition of a retaining wall is a structure that separates earthen material from earthen material. So that structure, that wooden structure that is shown there, is at best a retaining wall. MS. HULSE: I appreciate that but you are making my point which is the facts are not the same. Is that they did impart their discretion in certain circumstances, and you cited a few, but it's not exactly the same facts, and I think that will have to be part of their analysis. It has to be applied specifically to the facts before them if they are going to use their discretion in a way that will deviate from the norm. MS. MESIANO: My point then is they have deviated from the norm in numerous other situations and their motivations -- I'm not privy to what their motivations were, however there has been deviation from the norm and there has been consideration granted to applicants in the past and because of the special circumstances we are asking for that consideration. MS. HULSE: I.understand that, Cathy, I'm just saying.as their legal advisor that you've cited precedent, it's not an exact Board of Trustees 35 January 20, 2010 precedent because they are not bound by it. But it is obviously advisory. They can take it and use it in whatever manner they choose. It's just not a strict precedent they have to follow. That's my only point. MS. MESIANO: I understand that. In an area that is as unique as the North Fork where no two properties are alike, it's rare you'll have two identical situations, but you'll have conceptually similar situations, and I think that's my point. We have conceptually similar situations where the Board has granted its discretion and I've seen the Board grant its discretion time and time again over the past 20 years that have been working here. So I do know that it's possible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, do we have a picture of where the stairs are coming down, or no? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With the stairs coming down (Perusing). I don't think I have one here. (Perusing). I think at this point we are kind of belaboring some of the points that have already been made. MS. MESIANO: I would request the Board held this open, because as we mentioned, I have other information to give to you. If you would like revisions, I would like to be able to come back and discuss them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, this is what I'll say. As most people here know, I suffered a total loss due to fire. So I do understand the ramifications and the.things that you are describing. That being said, this is a somewhat unique situation. This was essentially a non-permitted structure. Me personally, I would be open to hearing other ideas, something considerably smaller, substantially smaller than what was there, but at this point I think that the Board in general is ready to move on the application as it is, so I'm going to go ahead and move it with the understanding that of course the applicant can come back at any time with another idea, another application. MS. MESIANO: I would like to make a comment. You and other members of the Board keep saying non-permitted structure. We have not concluded definitely that this meets that definition. If it was constructed prior to 1957, then it was a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. If it was built without benefit of a permit at some point in time after 1957, then you might say that it was an illegal or non-conforming structure or non-permitted structure. But the age of the structure is, would be relevant because of the terminology that has been employed by various members of the Board. A nonconforming structure is exactly that, it doesn't meet the present code. But a pre-existing non-conforming structure bears more weight as far as its legal viability. So I just want to clarify that, because the term has been used loosely and I just want to say for the record that it's my belief that it is a pre-existing nonconforming structure. Not simply a nonconforming structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, what are your thoughts. MS. HULSE: What do you base that on? When you say your belief, what do you base that on? Board of Trustees 36 January 20, 2010 MS. MESIANO: I have been sold that and I'm trying to get my hands to something old enough to prove that. MS. HULSE: I understand what you mean when you say it might bear more weight and certainly might to the Trustees, I can't speak to them on that. However I don't know that it gives you anymore right to having it rebuilt. MS. MESIANO: I just would like the record to reflect a consistent use of the correct term because the terminology has been used loosely and it's been used incorrectly and I would like -- MS. HULSE: I don't know that it's been used incorrectly. It's your burden to come in here and show us whether it is pre-existing nonconforming. You have not done that yet. You might-- MS. MESIANO: Then I don't want the Trustees to make definitive statements. MS. HULSE: They are making statements based on what the record shows at this point. And at this point I would have to agree with their assessment of it. I think it's a fair statement they are making. But that's not something I think we should be arguing. Legally speaking, however, it doesn't give you any more leverage, it doesn't give you anymore right. But if the Trustees want to take and allow the adjournment for you to consider that and provide more information, that is, again, that's totally within their discretion. MS. MESIANO: Since we have the application, rather than having to go through that process all over again. MS. HULSE: That's their decision to make. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could add to Bob's comments. I agree with what Bob said. My other concern with this is that when this was the Mothersele property, what was there esthetically and what is being proposed esthetically are completely apples and oranges. You are constructing something to look like the house up above, granted the windows are smaller and the door is smaller, but in my opinion, esthetically, this would not fit in at all for any beach structure that we have approved in this area. And I don't remember any that we've approved in this area on Peconic Bay period. But any that are currently there on Peconic Bay. So I'm also not inclined to support this application for the reasons Bob said plus, esthetically, it doesn't fit in at all. I've leave it at that. MS. MESIANO: Esthetically, we can change anything. MR. ARM: Craig Arm, once again. The structure that was there originally was very, very similar in the exterior esthetic with one exception of the roof line, which had a simple shed roof line. So if that is something, as I mentioned before, on the design element, that the Trustees really see as that detrimental in changing the roof line, that is something that is not going to effect the use for the Kofinas', by all means, that is something we would entertain discussing, as far as changing the roof line back to the original shed. That, I guarantee they would note have any issues with. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Dave, of course, I never got to see the original Board of Trustees 37 January 20, 2010 structure. You are more familiar with that. This is completely different than what was originally there, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: To be honest with you, I remember a structure being there but I can't honestly say I remember specifically what that structure was. As I recall, it was a simple wooden structure that was, at the time, I knew relatives of Mrs. Mothercele, they used to store Sunfish and beach chairs and that was it. I can't tell you what the size was. I don't recall the size, I don't recall anything. It was a very simple wooden structure. And this was one of my point. Just one of the points in my decision making process, is that it just doesn't come close esthetically to what was there and it would not match anything that is along that shoreline. . MS. HULSE: What has the applicant provided in terms of proving what was there originally? This whole conversation is almost pointless. We are talking about replacing something and there is nothing in the file that even demonstrates what we are replacing, that the Trustees are considering? MR. ARM: I believe that's what Cathy was showing for the footprint and we have proof of the footprint. The actual elevations or pictures of it is what we have been having a little bit difficulty time. I have a very poor scanned copy of a Polaroid that then got faxed through to me today which I can, I have to check and see if I have here. It's almost illegible though. But if you would like, by all means, they are sending me that picture, which we'll be happy to submit to you, to get color copies to submit. But I did see the structure before it was burned. I was involved with the structure above, so that was always down there. We kind of looked down on the structure from up above, and I had been down to it from the outside. Never actually in it. And it was a wood, vertical wood sided structure with a shed roof. And we definitely will provide pictures of such. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Again, I just don't see the Board's wanting to table this. I just don't see the support for it after hearing the testimony. I think we would probably be more prudent to move on it. If you want to make another application for something different, by all means, it's within your rights. The one thing I do want to touch base on quickly before I move ahead is, we had talked about it out in the field about removing the lower fence. I believe we still want to have that done. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As a condition of the previous house permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. So we appreciate if that got taken care of. If there is no further comment, I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we do that, I believe the removal of that fence was connected with the stairs. And is there some way we can condition a timeframe now, since it's been a significant period of time since that was done, condition the timeframe to have that fence removed within this motion? Or is that -- Lori, Board of Trustees 38 January 20, 2010 is that something that can't be done within this motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Perusing). This is for the stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall for the stairs, and it has not been removed, can we now give them a specific timeframe in which to remove those stairs in conjunction with this motion or does it have to be done separately? MS. HULSE: You can do it as a recommendation right now and I could follow that up with the bay constable, but it should not be part of this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Should not. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion, based upon the record that we have in that there are no specifics or surveys that have been presented by the applicant demonstrating what the applicant is replacing, that we deny without prejudice this application for George Kofinas. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MESIANO: If I may comment. I did provide you with a survey and aerial photograph from 1976 and '77, respectively, that did demonstrate what was there at the time. Esthetically, it did not represent what was there, but I did provide you evidence back to 1976 as to the structure that existed at that time, both on the survey and on the certified aerial photograph that is used that was accepted by the DEC, so I would -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's the stuff you presented tonight that you have a copy. MS. MESIANO: Yes. So I think it's an incorrect statement to say that I provided no evidence of what was there. Because I did provide evidence of what was there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to move on. We closed that vote. The next application -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have to make a motion on that fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we were just going to make a recommendation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you want to phrase that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't want to make a recommendation. would like to see the fence removed within 30 days. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Cathy, can you come back, we would like to talk about the fence that is related to the stairs. MS. MESIANO: The fence had nothing to do with the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was on the house application, right? MS. MESIANO: No, there was never an application for stairs. The fence was there previously. The fence was left there during the construction. The fence was discussed during the time that I came before the Board for the revegetation of the bluff from the arson damage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so that was connected to that. Board of Trustees 39 January 20, 2010 MS. MESIANO: And it was requested that it stay for the duration of the construction for security purposes, and I don't know if there is any construction still ongoing on the main level, because I'm not involved with that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The permit that I have here from April 20, 2005, states: Wetland Permit to renovate the existing residence, construct a second floor addition, install an inground swimming pool and pavilion and install a chain link fence along the top of the bank. All with the condition that drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and the pool backwash, and existing chain link fence along the bottom of the bank is completely removed within six months from the date of the permit. And it's all depicted on the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bingo. MS. MESIANO: I'll Bingo you back because during the time -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's move on. MS. MESIANO: I need to address that. During the time of the application that I had before you for the revegetation, the Board granted additional time for that. I don't recall what the end date, if there was one. And it was, it had to do with the duration of the construction, and the security of the site, which I think we have proven is necessary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One minute. We'll look in the file. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On September 20, 2006, Wetland Permit to revegetate approximately 2,500 square feet on the bluff face that was damaged by fire as per restoration plan prepared by Cathy Mesiano, dated 8/16/06, and repair, replace the cap of the pre-existing retaining wall as depicted on the plans surveyed by Joseph Ignano, revised August 22, 2006, with the condition that any oak trees that are alive in the Spring of 2007 remain on the bluff, and any that are dead may be removed by cutting at grade without disturbance to the bluff. That's it. No reference to the fence at all. MS. MESIANO: I'm sure if you read through the transcript, there was discussion about the fence. I have no control about how the resolution is made. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does say on the field notes from August 16, 2006, as part of the modifications discussed by the Trustees -- and I was not a member at that time -- modifications recommended were to remove the fence. MS. MESIANO: Right, it was discussed at the hearing about security. I don't recall the verbiage. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, let's move on, and do we want to make a resolution now requesting them to remove the fence? MS. HULSE: You don't need to do it by resolution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Cathy can you make sure the fence is removed? MS. MESIANO: I'll pass the word along. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting Board of Trustees 40 January 20, 2010 on behalf of IAN MCKAY requests a wetland permit for the existing 413.5' timber catwalk, 3x2.7' steps, and a 208 square foot brick patio. Located: 560 Sunset Avenue, Mattituck. This came in inconsistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition a non-turf buffer no less than 15 feet is installed at the base of the slope contiguous of the shoreline. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. I came into this matter late. The matter, because of a Justice Court matter that Mr. McKay tended to by himself with the town, he was cited for rebuilding the dock that was there and a patio with a wood deck was there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Without a permit MR. ANDERSON: Without a permit. So as part of that Justice Court process, we agreed to make applications. That's why we are here. You should know, a similar process was undertaken with Mr. McKay with DEC. That process culminated in an order on consent to make application to plant various bushes, which was complied with. And the outcome of that was that the dock could remain, the paddock could remain, because there was no harm with respect to the environment. Docks in fresh water ponds are a little different than docks elsewhere because in dealing with a fresh water pond like this one, there is an effort and encouragement to use the resource and it was felt the docks provided limited access so that resource can be used and enjoyed. So it's not, we don't have the usual demands and usual conflicts here that we would elsewhere, so I don't think that there is really anything wrong with the dock per se. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a problem with putting a non-turf buffer? MR. ANDERSON: I have no problem. But I think it probably should have been exempt if it was already there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me go through that. Policy Six, 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands, and he lists that whole policy, requires the determination of length of dock width must include the dimensions of vessel, if dimensions of vessel is not specified, the type of vessel should be clarified. Obviously, well in our code, there is no, it's a fresh water lake so there is no engine allowed there. MR. ANDERSON: It's a kayak or canoe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it would be a kayak or rowboat. The proposed action is located within a New York State Critical Environmental Area. At the discretion of the Board of Trustees any operation proposed in critical environmental areas may be subject to more stringent requirements than detailed in this section. Such requirements may include but not limited to denial or certain operations shortening size of structure and increasing the width of a non-disturbance buffer. I don't know the rest of the Board feels but I looked at this and I think by putting 15-foot non-turf buffer like the CAC Board of Trustees 41 January 20, 2010 suggests would bring this into consistency. And as you mentioned, the patio really has no environmental concerns. It's brick, it's pervious. You know, it's a structure that has been there quite a while, from what I could see. Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was rather minor, myself. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to close the public hearing? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve this application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Ian McKay with the condition that a 15-foot non-turf buffer is installed at the base of the slope contiguous with the shoreline. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. MR. ANDERSON: Contiguous with the wetland boundary, I believe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll revise that. Contiguous with the wetland boundary. That's a better description. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second from Bob. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Jill, the buffer will render it consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, with the buffer, we'll determine that makes it consistent with LWRP. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six. JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FREDERIC ENDEMAN requests a Wetland Permit to resheath approximately 36' of timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing, construct approximately 160' of low sill timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and to plant area with Spartina Alterniflora 12" on center. Located: 840 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. We did go out and looked at this. It is deemed consistent with the LWRP but with a recommendation to evaluate the placement of the Spartina Alterniflora in relation to the apparent high tide. Normally vegetation is planted landward of a low sill bulkhead. And installation of an erosion control structure he is saying is necessary on this site. The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support the application because the proposed low sill bulkhead does not conform to the code and recommends rip rap or gabions with at least a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. As I said, we did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application. MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you, for coming. I do have a letter here dated January 10, to the Trustees, Glenn, from yourself, saying you met with the DEC and the DEC had recommended the proposed low sill bulkhead be relocated and Board of Trustees 42 January 20, 2010 placed just seaward of the apparent low water line. Elevation of the sheathing to be nine inches above apparent high water line. Did they give you any reason for that? MR. JUST: You know, I have gone back to them since that meeting. There was a lot of ice there when we were there on January 6. That's the reason the stakes were not in. I couldn't put them in because of the ice. I was there with Karen Grolick and Chris Arston (sic)from the DEC's Bureau of Habitat Protection. And my idea, as you can see, there is a lot of debris, oyster shells, I have been told, historically, this lot was'filled in with oyster shells from various oyster shucking houses throughout the years that built up the bank. As you can see, there is not really much tidal action but I think it's more boats backing up or prop wash eroding that bank. My idea was put a low sill bulkhead in tight to the bank, perhaps removing some of that fill and debris putting it landward of the low sill bulkhead, planting landward of that bulkhead. The low sill bulkhead being six to nine inches elevated above the line of apparent high water, at times of full moon and new moon that area will be flooded and that marsh will be inundated and let that marsh grow. I have to disagree with what the DEC has and has recommended, and that's what I want to come back with, right along the edge of that bank, perhaps put a little bit of that fill back off that bank so it's not a straight vertical drop, perhaps get the top side of it back a little bit to eliminate a lot of runoff as well, and perhaps try to save some of the roots of the trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, what I see you submitted is page two, sheet two of two, dated December 22, it shows Spartina in front of the low sill. So what I'm hearing you say is you would like to reconsider that and plant the Spartina.landward of the low sill. MR. JUST: Correct. And again with the low sill bulkhead being just above apparent high water, the elevation that it's at, during those times of lunar tides it would be flooded and the Spartina would get its feet wet, for lack of a better term. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the questions 1-have for the applicant to consider, did he want to, because of all the material that is sloughed off from that bluff, obviously this area is filled in. Would the applicant want to consider dredging seaward of the low sill bulkhead so that getting some of that what has fallen into the water and made it shallower, put it back behind the low sill bulkhead to produce a substrate for the Spartina to grow on. MR. JUST: That's what our revised plans we put together we would like to see done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. JUST: I have gone through the records of the DEC, unfortunately not with the Trustees yet, but it seems historically that basin has had permits to maintenance dredge as well. It's nothing new that is happening in that area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's our understanding as well. We don't have it in the file, but we understood that. Board of Trustees 43 January 20, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Glenn, how far seaward of the tow would that low sill be? MR. JUST: I'll tell you, that's high tide right there. It's a lot higher than I've seen when I've been there before. I would think it would be just at the base of the second tree you see at the left above the capital E. It's as tight to the bank as possible. There is some Spartina Alterniflora just seaward of the tow of that bank there, in various spots. Not the whole shoreline, but it's spots there. TRUSTEE KING: Would it be advantageous to go further out with the low sill so you have more of the wetland behind it? .MR. JUST: That's what Karen suggested, but given that, I still see the, at the periods of the lunar tide some of that sloughing off happening. And with that, you have more chance of that material that is.up there to go into the intertidal marsh. If the structure is tight to the tow of the bank there, to be less of a distance for that material if it would slough off to tend to the marsh. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll agree with Jim. I'm extremely familiar with this area and I was thinking the same thing. If the low sill was to go a little more seaward and then it was dredged in front and that dredge material put behind the low sill. You'll create a pretty good area there to plant the Spartina to grow. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And you'll have a more gentle angle of repose. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. MR. JUST: That's what we were.trying to get. I could definitely go with the recommendations of the Board and revise the project to show that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How much further out would we be? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we see it staked out a little further distance out to give us a better idea. MR. JUST: There is no rush. I wanted to have it staked out but because of the ice I couldn't have it done. TRUSTEE KING: It would clarify it for me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One of my concerns for snugging it up so close what is the possible loss of the vegetation and trees that are there, if it was out a little further you may be able to save stuff. Because you don't know what the root system is in trying to get the low sill bulkhead in there. MR. JUST: They are getting close now: They are getting their feet wet in the salt water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we could move it out and fill that and possibly save those trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those trees are basically the only thing keeping the entire bank from failing down. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I don't think he'll really lose any depth of space in terms of boats going in just by coming out a couple of feet. MR. JUST: I don't think so either. The floats are pretty far up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Board of Trustees 44 January 20, 2010 MR. JUST: I'll be more than happy to revise the plans to show with these recommendations. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in'the audience comment on this application? MR. MCGREEVEY: My concern, Jim, would be would this be public encroachment on public land by moving that bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: I think it's all private property. MR. MCGREEVEY: Did I miss that? MR. JUST: I had some revised surveys prepared because of that fact. MR. MCGREEVEY: In a different setting that would be a concern. But this is private bottom. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. JUST: I have surveys that go back to the early '70s showing it was a dredged basin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was. It was dredged by Mr. Tuthill. MR. JUST: That's why all the surrounding areas are owned by -- okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, with that, since the applicant wants to come back to us with some revised plans based on our recommendations, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to reinspect it next month, have it staked and reinspect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And have it staked and reinspected next month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's it. I'll make a motion to close the hearings, to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. (ALL AYES). RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2010 .QY So hold Town Clerk 1