Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/17/2010 Jill M.Doherty,President ��F �U�jy Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road James F. King,Vice-President ,`O l0 P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 Bob Ghosio,Jr. G Q John Bredemeyer �O Telephone(631) 765-1892 O Fax(631) 765-6641 �y�4UNTY,�� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES J U N 2 2 2010 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 9 � ' Southold Town Verk Minutes Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Jim King, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Robert 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, April 14, 2010, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 21, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening everyone, happy St. Patrick's Day. Welcome to our March meeting. We've been busy. A lot of applications are still streaming in. We're not as busy as we have been in the past, but it seems to be steady. And we are working on different code changes and haven't really gotten into the meat of anything yet, but we are in the talking stages of making some changes to our 275 and LWRP changes are coming up to make the exemption list larger, so that means if you fit into that exemption list, you don't have to go through the LWRP process. So we are trying to make it easier for the applicants and as we do our review. Board of Trustees 2 March 17, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, I believe when you talked about 275, there is a public hearing coming up next Tuesday night at the Town Board hearing on changes to 275. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. I was not sure when that was set. I guess it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, next Tuesday night. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are some minor changes we proposed and the Town Board is having a public hearing on those changes. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Is that on the website? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was published in the Suffolk Times last week and also you can obtain it from the town clerk's office. Since it's scheduled for public hearing, it goes through the Town Clerk's office. But check last week's Suffolk Times, if you didn't throw it away. It's there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, we'll set the next field inspection for Wednesday, April 14, 8:00 AM. forgot to introduce the Board. I forgot that part. To my far left is John Bredemeyer, one of our Trustees; Dave Bergen; Jim King is vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our office, runs the office for us; Bob Ghosio is the other Trustee and; Lori Hulse is our attorney, she will be here, hopefully soon. And Anne Trimble is here representing the Conservation Advisory Council who reviews all our applications and gives us their advice on it. Wayne Galante is here taking the minutes, so when you do have something to say, please come up to the mic and introduce yourself for the record and speak clearly. And anything on the public hearings we ask that your presentations are five minutes or less so we can keep them moving along. Okay, with that, we'll start. Next field inspection, Wednesday, April 14, 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, April 21, 6:00 PM, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for February, 2010. A check for $4,190.72 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. Board of Trustees 3 March 17, 2010 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, March 17, 2010, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. The list reads as follows: William & Dolores Kreitsek - SCTM#114-9-14.1 Donna Wexler- SCTM#86-5-9.1 Chris Cyprus - SCTM#99-1-4.2 Trust UNV of R.C. Kopf F/B/O Kristen Powers - SCTM#123-8-26.1 Michael & Carolee Levison - SCTM#57-1-14 Brenda Helies & Patricia Colagiuri - SCTM#123-8-13 James G. Anderson & Rosemary Ellis - SCTM#53-6-2 Carol Pufahl - SCTM#87-2-25 Kenneth & Elizabeth LeStrange - SCTM#123-10-1 Bud Holman - SCTM#123-7-8 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on the SEQRA? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, JAMES P. LATHAM requests an Administrative Permit for the clearing of the dike of phragmites and for future maintenance of the phragmites at 12" in height. Located: Peter's Neck Road, Orient. Did we want to, on this, have him -- do you want to have him plant anything or just see if the Baccharis, how that grows back and maybe inspect it in a couple of months. TRUSTEE KING: Did he clear up the violation on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He cleared up the violation and paid the fine. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anything on the survey that shows where he's going to do the work? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's doing it the entire length of the dike, from what I understand. Not just where we stopped him, but the entire length, he wants to clear all the phragmites. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know this area pretty well. The limit of the Baccharis is typically the tip of the dike, on the dike seaward edge. What if we limited maintenance to the dike itself? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I guess he's asking for, is that-- TRUSTEE KING: I would say just the phragmites only. Don't whack everything off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just the phragmites on the dike, that's what I believe, Jay is saying. Board of Trustees 4 March 17, 2010 TRUSTEE BERGEN: To cut by hand, not to touch any other vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but what I'm asking is the vegetation that he touched already that he got the violation for, do you feel it will grow back? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It will grow back. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we don't really need to request him to do any replanting, just leave it alone and not touch it again. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The permit will only allow him to trim by hand the phragmites. Everything else will have to grow back. That's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application to trim the phragmites by hand only and to let the, don't touch anything else and let that, grow back and we'll inspect it in what, two months, and see -- TRUSTEE KING: Do it after the summer. Give it three or four months of growth. Give it to September or October. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so we'll inspect it in the Fall. So again, the permit is to clear the phragmites on the dike only, to a foot high. And by hand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (All AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Tom Wickham on behalf of the NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC., requests an Administrative Permit to remove some concrete rubble; add compost materials; till the soil and plant native beach grass, wild flowers and other low-maintenance vegetation. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. We all inspected this and I did, we were playing telephone tag, but I left messages and let me just read the letter here he faxed over. We asked him what he was going to do with the pieces of asphalt because we didn't want him to till that into the soil, and he faxed us a letter. (Reading). The ground contains chunks of cinderblock, concrete, asphalt and other obstructions to tillage. We propose to remove by hand those obstructions that interfere with surface tillage, including the chunks of cinderblock, concrete, asphalt, wood, rock, steel and anything else that we find. So they are going to clear all that by hand and then till the soil. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, what he's saying there is they'll clear only that material which would obstruct the tillage. All that crushed asphalt will not obstruct the tillage. He can rototill that crushed asphalt right into the ground. So you have to be very careful on the language that he's using there. I think we made it pretty clear we want the crushed asphalt removed within our jurisdiction. And I'm not comfortable with proceeding forward with this until that is part of the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just make that a condition of the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Whose name is the permit going to be in? Board of Trustees 5 March 17, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's in the'-- TRUSTEE KING: Did he have authorization or anything from the Peconic Land Trust so they can -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the letter is here. We checked that already. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I must have missed it in my E-mail. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve the request for the Administrative Permit to remove the concrete rubble, all the asphalt, chunks of cinderblock, wood, rock, steel, to remove all that to an upland site before they till any of the soil, so they can plant the wild flowers. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And allow them to add the compost materials? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, allowing them to add compost materials and native beach grass. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does somebody want to take the next one? TRUSTEE KING: Frank Notaro on behalf of CHRIS MESKOURIS requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing patio/deck and replace with a new porous stone patio/deck and pergola above. Located: 1400 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. We all went out and looked at this. By pervious, this is going to be porous stone. It's supposed to be pervious. Does that mean it's set on sand, is it set on concrete? I mean, we seem to be going round and round with what is pervious and what is not pervious. It's exempt from LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's interesting, he's calling it porous as opposed to using the term pervious. TRUSTEE KING: I really don't think it's an issue in that area. Everything is sand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As long as it's either on the sand, pebble, stone, rock, you know what I'm saying, as long as it's not sitting on a solid concrete base. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to specify that the base is pervious as well. TRUSTEE KING: You look at these houses that are basically on sand, runoff doesn't seem to be an issue in that whole area. don't have of a huge issue with it, so I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that, given the site conditions there. It's unusual, there is so much sand, and the road and the dune both swale to keep all the site drainage on the site naturally. TRUSTEE KING: It will stay on site, there is no question about that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Certainly a point for us to be cautious in future discussion concerning pervious and porous. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Is there a second on it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second. Board of Trustees 6 March 17, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to note for the record, the New Suffolk Waterfront came in consistent with LWRP and the previous one is exempt. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS TRUSTEE.DOHERTY: I think we can group -- can we group one through five? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers one through five, we reviewed all the files and they are all in order, so I'll make'a motion to approve the extensions and transfers, numbers one through five. They are listed as follows: Number one, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of BERNARD & CAROL KIERNAN requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6538A, as issued on March 21,,2007. Located: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold. Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB, requests a One-Year Extension to Permit#6851, as issued on April 16, 2008, and an Amendment to Permit#6851 to add a new split clamp above the existing to allow the decking to be raised, making the elevation of the fixed pier uniform and above spring high tide elevation. Located: Fox Avenue, Fishers Island. Number three, Docko, Inc., on'behalf of SHEILA KENNEDY requests an Amendment to Permit#7090 to reflect a 6.5' beginning elevation of the dock to maintain a four-foot clearance from the substrate. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. Number four, John Guido on behalf of MARY MANZI requests a Transfer of Permit#7161 from Joseph Manzi to Mary Manzi, as issued on August 19., 2009. Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. Number five, John Guido on behalf of JOSEPH G. MANZI, JR., requests a Transfer of Permit#7160 from Rockhall Development Corp., to Joseph G: Manzi, Jr., as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, DONNA WEXLER requests a Transfer of Permit#5046 from Roland and Karen Grant to Donna Wexler as issued on August 25, 1999, and amended on January 26, 2000, and an Amendment to Permit#5046 to include two eight-inch diameter offshore pilings. Located: 1775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The Board did go out and look at this and we did not have any problem with the transferring of the permit, but with regard to the amendment to permit 5046, 1 have from the CAC, they resolved to not support the amendment to the permit because of Board of Trustees 7 March 17, 2010 lack of water depth at the end of the dock. I also have an LWRP report that states the information submitted to review the ,action is incomplete to accomplish a coastal consistency review pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Southold Town Code. The following information is required: Water depth at the end of the dock in relation to vessel dimensions and the draft of the vessel. So, as I said, we did go out and look at this and we had the very same -- again, we had no problem with the transfer of permits. We looked at it and we really had a concern about the depth of water at the end of the dock, plus the addition of two eight-inch piles out there offshore, when there really is not any depth --when 1 say there is not any depth, it seems to be about two to three feet, possibly, of depth. And we were out there at pretty much full high tide. And there appeared to be two or three foot of depth, because we took our measurement ourselves there at the time. So that is what we found. So are there any comments that I missed from the Board with regard to this one? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I would do is I would make a motion to approve the transfer of 5046 from Roland and Karen Grant to Donna Wexler and amended on January 26, 2000. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Lauren is telling me the amendment is noticed in the public hearing, so we need to ask -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. Normally, transfers, extensions and amendments are not part of our public hearing, but I was informed it was noticed, so we can take comments from the audience. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this application? (No response.) Not seeing anybody coming to the microphone, is there any other comment from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think you said it all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that, again, my motion is to approve the transfers as stated, or as described, and to dis-approve the application for the amendment to 5046 to include two eight-inch offshore pilings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. ' TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excuse me, legal counsel, is that wording okay? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. WEXLER: Can I just say one thing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why we asked a minute ago if anybody had any comments. MS. WEXLER: I thought if you had a problem. I have this receipt that didn't go through. I'll give this to you and you can put it in the file. MS. HULSE: One second, Ms. Wexler. Could you reopen the hearing Board of Trustees 8 March 17, 2010 if you are going to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I would like to make a motion to reopen the hearing with regard to application number six under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Amendments, Donna Wexler. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, go ahead. MR. HULSE: Ms. Wexler, before you get started can you just for the record tell Mr. Galante what you handed up to Ms. Standish. MS. WEXLER: Donna Wexler. And I handed Lauren a returned letter that was registered to one of my neighbors and it just said that they moved and they didn't leave a forwarding address, so it was not deliverable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. WEXLER: ,Sorry. The question 1 had, the reason we asked for the pilings was to keep the boat away from the dock because otherwise it's laying on the bottom of the creek. So what could we do to keep the boat from laying on the bottom of the water? Because it just seems that does more damage than having it floating in minimal water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is other ways to do it. There is mooring whips. TRUSTEE KING: What size boat is this? MS. WEXLER: 27. TRUSTEE KING: That's a big boat to bring up in that area, because of the water depth. MS. WEXLER: It just seemed if we had it out that much further to where the steps ended. Because the steps are always pretty much under water, the end of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there, we felt the depth was pretty even all the way out, so we didn't feel that going out was going to gain you any more depth. That's why we didn't see a reason for the pilings. MS. WEXLER: Should we ask for the pilings to be further out? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, that's not going to -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's past one-third TRUSTEE KING: I'm fairly familiar with this area. Most of the people that came in applied for a catwalk and a ramp and a float. I know the DEC denied --we approved a couple with ramps and floats, the DEC denied every one because of water depth and they made people put stairs at the end of the dock. MS. WEXLER: My neighbor has a floater. TRUSTEE KING: That was probably put in a while ago. MS. WEXLER: I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on the situation. TRUSTEE KING: The main concern is the lack of water depth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The mooring whips you have there are good because they'll keep a boat away from the dock. But what you are concerned about is the boat sitting on the bottom at low Board of Trustees 9 March 17, 2010 tide. And I are a feeling that the intention, originally, of this dock was not to -- obviously we don't approve docks, and I don't want to speak for previous Boards, but we don't approve docks where vessels are going to be sitting on the bottom. MS. WEXLER: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's just, the docks I think that were there were to allow the property owner, now being yourself, access to get out into the water, be it kayaks or small boats, Sunfish, whatever, rather than boats of depth that are going to have them sitting on the bottom at low tide there. MS. WEXLER: The channel is not too far from there. You can really see it at low tide, the channel. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One good thing about going out in the winter time is the water is so clear, and we could actually see, because of the wind, the way it was blowing, the channel. We could actually see the actual channel coming through. So the channel is, it's pretty much right in the middle out there. It's not really coming up to the dock MS. WEXLER: All right, thank you, all, so much. I appreciate it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can just note that the previous resolution stands or do you want to review the resolution? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, the hearing has been reopened, Counsel, should we take a vote on it again? MS. HULSE: No, you can close it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the hearing of Donna Wexler again, number six on the agenda under Applications for. Extensions, Transfers and Amendments. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next agenda item, item seven, Teri Mitchell on behalf of LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Amendment an Amendment to Permit amendment to permit six#6228 to construct a four-foot wide boardwalk along the landward side of the existing bulkhead and to trim the phragmites to 12" as needed. Located: 2360 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. Pursuant to a plan that we have stamped in the office, February 18, 2010, the Trustees went to the site and visited this proposed walk and we really didn't have a problem with this amendment, which we considered minor, and would be suitable for an administrative -- suitable for an amendment. And we did feel, though, that the trimming of the phragmites should be by hand so as to protect other native vegetation. Is this on for hearing or is it just an amendment? . TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just an amendment. You can ask if anyone is here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: is there anyone here who wishes to comment on behalf of this application? (No response.) Board of Trustees 10 March 17, 2010 Any further comments from the Board? I think I covered it. TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered it, Jay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion on the proposed amendment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Andrew J. Schmitz III, A.I.A., on behalf of CAROL PUFAHL requests an Amendment to Permit#6979 to replace the railings and deck surface on the existing second-floor deck; remove the existing built-in barbecue and replace with a masonry barbecue in a new location; square off the existing section of an existing deck; add deck area over near new barbecue; place relocated hot tub onto a deck structure instead of a slab on grade; remove and replace the deck surface finish; remove and replace the existing deck railing; and repair or rebuild sections of the deck structure as required. Located: 700 Teepee Trail, Southold. This has been found to be consistent with LWRP. CAC did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. The Board went out there. We took a-look at it. I don't recall there being any comments or concerns out in the field. If there are no comments or concerns I'll make a motion to approve this amendment. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Just, if I could make a record on this. Considering that the applicant is now deceased and that was not the situation upon application, I'm just going to ask if we can contact the movant here, Mr. Schmidt, to have him re-affirm that he still has the authority to move forward on this, or if he would choose to substitute another owner or another person for the applicant. So with the Board's permission, if we could have a letter go out to that individual, Andrew Schmidt. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and just so you know, we did ask that question of the contractor out there and he said, yes, that he had that. But I agree, we should have.it in writing. MS. HULSE: Very good, thank you. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go to public hearings, go off the regular meeting and go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, MARTIN KOSMYNKA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock consisting of a 3x8' ramp and 3x28' Board of Trustees 11 March 17, 2010 fixed dock with a ladder at the seaward end, and a piling and pulley system. Located: 5800 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. This application came in last month and the seaward end of the dock was not staked so we asked Mr. Kosmynka to stake it. We went out and looked and it was staked. It comes in consistent with LWRP and CAC supports the dock in this area, however the project was not staked and there was concerns about the size of the lot in that location. There is a DEC permit on file for this. We have it in the file. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application. MR. KOSMYNKA: Martin Kosmynka, the property owner. Hello. I have a couple of letters here I would like to submit to the Board. One of them is the property owner just to the north of me. Of course she is saying I don't have any problems with it. She also states.she had a dock on it years ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On your property? MR. KOSMYNKA: No, on her property. She has the same size as my property but adjacent to it. Then I have another letter from a neighbor that lives just on the corner, a house, on the corner of Sterling and Skunk, they also have a fixed dock over there. They don't have a problem. And I have another neighbor on the block that lives there and doesn't have a problem. And I asked a few of the other neighbors to come down to say hello and a few other folks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you. All three letters are stating that they have no objection to having a dock at this property. When we were out there, we saw the stakes and it did go out a little further than the existing docks. It went out further than the line that we usually try to draw across the docks. Would it be possible to move the fixed structure back, landward two feet? MR. KOSMYNKA: No problem. When we move it back can I keep the same length of dock? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That depends on how much you are going to encroach on the right-of-way, because it's the road right there. don't know how far you are going into -- MR. KOSMYNKA: I don't know how--the only way to get to change the elevation that's better for me is with the ramp. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: l,don't think we have a problem with it. Maybe just check with the Highway Department to see how far off you need to be from the road. MR. KOSMYNKA: Okay, and two feet on the fixed dock or two feet on the everything, on the pole, too? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pole seemed to be in line with the other poles so I think I can speak for the Board, I think the pole was fine. We just need the fixed structure to be landward two feet. And that would bring it a little further in from the dock to the left and still a little further out from the dock to the right, so it's in that line of sight that we usually draw. Does any Board members have any other comment? , TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would say when you make the motion, just to Board of Trustees 12 March 17, 2010 stipulate it doesn't encroach on the right-of-way, that's all. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? MS. HULSE: I just wanted to note for the record that there are two pre-submission applications in this file for the same property, which one was previously denied in writing by the Board of Trustees for a dock with a float and a ramp, and the other one was, I guess tacitly denied, but there was nothing in writing to the applicant. But that was the two pre-submissions prior to this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. These lots that are in this area do not fit our criteria of keeping 15 feet off the property line because they are so narrow, it's a series of lots that-- they are different widths but all of them are very narrow and believe the purpose of these lots when they were made were lots for the landowners, the upland landowners, so they would have access to the creek and the purpose being so they can have their boats here. personally don't have a problem with the catwalk pole system in this area. We have not traditionally approved a ramp and float with them, so what you are applying for fits in to what is already existing in that area. TRUSTEE KING: I think the original intent was probably for a stake and pulley system on these small lots, not for a dock. It was for access only. Probably just a skiff they could pull up to the beach to use that for access. I just have a problem. The property is so small. it's 12 feet by 14 feet. -You are looking at 168 square feet of property and you are putting 108 feet of structure across it. I think it doesn't even come close to meeting any of our standards, so I can't support this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. I have very strong feelings that docks, because of their comfort, order, safety and convenience for the residence of the town, that in almost all instances where we can have a suitable dock structure, it's in the best interest of the individuals and the town. I think the various requirements for side set-offs and such have to be looked at in view of a standard that provides safety for the community. And also since we are primarily interested in protecting the natural resource of the town, since there is no standing beds of eel grass or any particular natural resource concerned, it seems to limit individual's rights to wharf out of where it's the customary and ordinary use in this creek, it seems a bit extreme, so I definitely am in favor of this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Kosmynka, what do you plan on, the material you plan on using? MR. KOSMYNKA: Well, with the DEC and going through with those folks, they recommended 60%, or they told me 60% of the planking has to be the clear through, whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Flow-through. MR. KOSMYNKA: And the discussion with them, and the consultant, Board of Trustees 13 March 17, 2010 they basically said we much prefer to have a fixed dock -- and I'm no scientist--than having you walk on to the shoreline, rip apart the shoreline, stepping on it, with the boat and whatever traffic. I mean, I'm just looking at what is already pre-existing and how the grass is still coming up, whatever you call that, eel grass, whatever. You know, you are keeping the shoreline in tact. There is no runoff, as long as nobody is running on it. I'm no scientist but it sure makes a heck of a lot of sense to stay off the shoreline and get on your boat. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Will the flow-through decking be useful? MR. KOSMYNKA: I believe it's working, it's actually working on docks. It has to be two feet above it is what the DEC permit says and, you know, you see the grass growing underneath all the docks over there. I think it's, you know -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Will that work with the wheelchair? MR. KOSMYNKA: Yes, I have a boat that has a winch set up on it, I get on to a Bosoms' seat. If that boat goes over there. One of the primary reasons, my kids are in the Old Cove Yacht Club and I could get a sailboat on the other side of Nassau Point. was looking at this and that's what I wanted, you know. Whatever. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from anyone? MR. WALKER: Peter Walker from Cutchogue. I'm a neighbor of Marty's. I'm also the past president of the Nassau Farms Association. I'm a board member for NFEC, although I'm not speaking on their behalf. But I looked at it and I have absolutely no problem with it. I think it's good by all standards and if we did get into it, if we see it, I don't think it would be a problem there. I was a bayman for many years and being a member of the NFEC, being an ex-bayman, I'm very particular about the water and the environment. So, again, what is there and what he proposes, I see no problem with it and I hoped you would grant him that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. PISARELLI: My name is William PisaRelli and I own that piece of property where the nose of the canoe is and I have the adjacent fixed dock there, and at this time I would just like to say I have absolutely no objection to Mr. Kosmynka's proposed structure and I would request that the Trustees consider it in the affirmative. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MS. AMEND: Adelaid Amen, I'm the current president of the Nassau Farms Association. And I agree. I know the lot is small but that is history. And the rules were changed after the lots were allocated. And I have no problem with having the dock there, nor do most of the members of Nassau Farms Association. MR. LENNERT: Rob Lennert. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Nassau Point Property Owners association. I'm the vice-president, and Marty asked me to speak about the dock. And it's basically the association does not have a problem with this Board of Trustees 14 March 17, 2010 application. We share the creek with them, so we don't, you know, I would just like to support it. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, anyone else have a comment? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Martin Kosmynka to construct a dock consisting of a 3x8' ramp and a 3x28; fixed dock with ladder at the seaward end.and piling and pulley system, subject to receiving new plans showing the structure to be two feet landward, moved two feet landward, so as not to encroach on the right-of-way of the town road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about doing a role call vote on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Nay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Doherty, yes. Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show it's four to one approval of this request. (Trustee Doherty, aye; Trustee Bergen, aye; Trustee Ghosio, aye; Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.) (Trustee King, nay). MR. KOSMYNKA: One more time, thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next matter is a hearing in the matter of CHRIS CYPRUS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the middle of the dwelling and construct a new foundation under the newly constructed middle of the dwelling; lift up the second-story portion of the dwelling and add additional blocks to the existing concrete block foundation; add drains to the foundation; add drains to the existing garage and new raised roof to match the rest of the dwelling. Located: 1100 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CYPRUS: I'm the applicant. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees went out and inspected site. have a report from the Conservation Advisory Council to support the project. Any questions from the Board? (No response.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think in the comments, one of the concerns we Had: Is this going to be a demolition? Because you are demolishing the middle of the house and you are picking up other Board of Trustees 15 March 17, 2010 pieces of the house to put more concrete block under it to raise the structure up. Is this in fact going to be a demolition? Because what we have had in the past, we have run into applications like this and we have gone out and find nothing there anymore. MR. CYPRUS: No, is the answer to your question. The middle of the house is largely 1952. The garage is 1993, which is on one end. If you had a picture -= TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have it MR. CYPRUS: I have one here, if that would help. I brought several pictures with me, if you would like. So I can point to exactly what I'm referring to. Same pictures -- if I may approach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. CYPRUS: Same pictures I put in with the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are saying you don't feel that-- MR. CYPRUS: I have no intention nor is it of any value to me. If you look at this home, it was built, oh, my God, at least five different add-ons. Okay, the garage on the far west side, far west side is 1993 vintage. The two-story piece on the far east side is first floor 1986, second floor 1992 or'93. The middle of the home is predominantly 1952 and 1960. The permit I had last year was to just re-do the house where it sat without raising anything. That didn't work with the Building Department, and with the amount of changes I was making, they wanted me to raise it to meet the FEMA requirements. So now that I have to raise it, there is no point in raising that middle section, I feel I'll be in more trouble than I bargain for. But I have called in folks and the garage is staying as is. We'll just change the roof, so that's not even up for discussion. And the two-story is fine to lift. It's a. cinderblock foundation underneath, to be added. So no, I'm not demolishing the whole thing nor do I want to go through the expense of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we say if they want to demolish, they can, through this permit? Because what's happening is we say, okay, when you start construction and say find out you have to demolish it, you have to stop, come back and amend the permit, to include the demolition. So a lot of times when you get into it, you find out, wow, you do have to demolish it. MR. CYPRUS: Let me ask you a question. I have no intention of it. The garage certainly will not be demolished. There is no reason., it will have a raised roof. If I were to come back and ask to demolish the two-story, would the answer be no, that I need to put another wicket in the process here? It's not my intent. There is no reason to. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem is that people stood up here before and said the same thing and then what we found out, we are driving by and all of sudden there is no building there, and they didn't come back to us and then there is a violation and you have to go back to each department. So what I'm saying -- Board of Trustees 16 March 17, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: What we are being told is, well, the sill was all rotten and we put in a permit to the Building Department and it was okay, and you guys should know we can't raise the building if the'sill is rotten. You should use common sense. We get this routine going and it's, we just want to clarify things. You are raising it up, nobody has a problem with it. If you go to raise it up and it falls apart, you need to come to us to say it's being demolished. Just to stop this aggravation. MR. CYPRUS: I'm not trying to create aggregation. I'm actually smarter than I was when I got here, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm suggesting, why don't we say, if we do an approval, why don't we say in the approval if this does need to be demolished that it's okay, that you could demolish it so you don't have to come back here. MR. CYPRUS: That's what I was going to ask. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so you understand, it's subject to approval from other agencies within the town. TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure you do. MR. CYPRUS: I been doing this for over a year. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And as long as it goes back in the same footprint and not make the footprint larger after you demolish it. I mean, because in this case -- MR. CYPRUS: I submitted all the plans because I have gone through them. I would like to build that, even if I had to demolish everything, but the garage for whatever unknown reasons, plan on building the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: Most of these have been older homes, stuff out of '40s and '50s. They say they'll raise it, then they find out in the process it's going to fall apart, then they go ahead and do it without letting us know. Then they exceeded the permit. Then they have a violation, then we have a problems and it's all our fault. MR. CYPRUS: What I'm trying to do here is, I brought folks in, the middle piece is the old piece. I'm told there is no problem raising the other. Until someone actually does it, I don't know, but I appreciate you making me smarter and allowing me the ability to do it if needed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because a lot of times, when somebody comes in and wants to demolish it we might think at that point, okay, should we move the house back further, should we do this and that. In this case we won't obviously do that because there is no room. And I don't think, I mean I don't have a problem with you demolishing and rebuilding if you had to. So I don't see a problem with putting it in this. TRUSTEE KING: I don't either. As long as the footprint stays the same. MR. CYPRUS: You said the footprint says the same. Underneath the overhang, you have the site plan, as well as all the others. Okay, so there is those two pieces that we are squaring off, that are both underneath the overhang. I'm just being clear, just to make sure, you know, and that's the site plan and that's Board of Trustees 17 March 17, 2010 what we intend on building. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. CYPRUS: Fantastic. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe in the comments, also, we had a question regarding that concrete patio. Are you planning on keeping that or are you going to rip that all up and do some other type of decking out there? MR. CYPRUS: Right now I hope to have enough funds to take care the building and I have no plans to touch that patio at this time. I would suspect down the road that my other half would like to turn that into the pavers, as you call it, but I'm not tackling that. The yard is a secondary issue. Not today. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was looking forward to maybe coming down and playing a little basketball there. MR. CYPRUS: It's a great party deck, anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There being no further comments, I would make a motion to close the hearing in this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application allowing possible demolition, if conditions occur during the construction phase that would require a demolition of larger than the application has before us, but to stay within the existing footprint. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Frank Uellendahl. Architect, on behalf of JAMES G. ANDERSON & ROSEMARY ELLIS requests a Wetland Permit to convert the existing attached garage into living space, construct a second-floor addition above the existing garage, construct a new 17x25' garage with breezeway, install new windows and doors, existing roof above stoop to be removed . and stone stoop to be widened, and construct a second-floor balcony above stoop. Located: 2875 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. This was reviewed by the CAC and they resolved to support the application. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent as applied for, and I'll state, what I'm specifically saying as applied for: The Board went out and looked at this and at the time we had plans, when we reviewed this, we had plans that showed an addition of a second story on the seaward side of the house, which the Board had no questions about really at the time. MR. UELLENDAHL: Landward side of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). You are correct. We had, we have one question before I get into the new plans. The location of Board of Trustees 18 March 17, 2010 the sanitary system for this house -- I now see it. I stand corrected. I see it on the new plans. It's on there. So, since then, since the reviews, there has been a new set of plans submitted stamped March 16, 2010. And that says existing two-story house to be renovated, where that was not in the first set of plans. It just said two-story house. So, again, we just want to make sure, our question is, is the renovation going to involve the demolition of that entire house? MR. UELLENDAHL: No, we are going to save the main house, the two-story structure. It's in decent shape. We are going to renovate it. We are taking a few walls out, turning the four bedrooms into three bedrooms. But it looks like, looking at the attached garage, we may have to put in a new foundation for the second-story addition landward of the existing structure. That's not explicitly mentioned in this application but depending on what I find, if I find a 36 --three-foot deep foundation, I don't have a problem. But if I don't, then I would really like to make sure that I can do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, you are talking under the proposed second-floor addition. MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. Which is the current existing garage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Were there any questions from any members of the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see there was quite a bit of, it was damage on the south facing, on the second story, seems it was blown out a little bit? I know the CAC indicated there was some problems there. Structurally, is it intact? MR. UELLENDAHL: I looked at the structure. I thought it was a structural brick building, but it's not. It's actually 2x4, 16" on center wood frame building with a face brick, which is actually not properly anchored into the wooden structure. I didn't find any sufficient anchors. I just found like nails. So there are lintels above the window openings, metal lintels, that are corroded and so it looks like, at a minimum, we would remove the brick on the gable ends, but we may just remove the entire brick and clad it with red cedar shingles. This is something to be determined TRUSTEE KING: So basically it's a wooden frame building with brick facing on it, and you could remove the brick. MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. We are going to put in new windows. We have different masonry, rough openings anyway, and I have a feeling it's going to get way too expensive to rebuild it in face brick, so it's going to probably be a wooden or hard plank siding. TRUSTEE KING: As long as the building doesn't fall down when you take the bricks off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to do the same thing, if they need to demolish it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just leave this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there provisions for drywells? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What Jay was addressing was provisions for Board of Trustees 19 March 17, 2010 obviously, in compliance.with Chapter 236, the drainage code, which would include gutters, leaders to drywells to contain all the roof runoff on the property. MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. And the site plan does show two new drywells and the connection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I see them. TRUSTEE KING: If there is going to be any changes made to the existing septic, it should be moved landward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. If you find during construction you have to move the septic -- TRUSTEE KING: If you have to put a new system in, rebuild it, whatever, we want to see it moved landward of the bulkhead. MR. UELLENDAHL: Then it has to go all the way toward Bayshore Road, I would think. I had it inspected. It was pumps, its sufficient. It's in good condition. And due to the fact that we are eliminating one bedroom, it's now a three-bedroom house, the Building Department will not require us to go to the Health Department. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Our concern is just the proximity that it is to Shelter Island Sound, and if we have an opportunity to move it, if it has to be replaced, we always like to see if we could get it outside of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is nothing in the notes. Anything else? Any other comments from members of the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know, I did the notes on it, but I do remember talking about a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. I must not have put it down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant have any objection to a ten-foot, non-turf buffer being included behind the bulkhead? MR. UELLENDAHL: I would have to run this by them but I'm sure if you demand this, then they are happily going to do this. TRUSTEE KING: We would strongly suggest it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel? TRUSTEE KING: Usually when they replace the bulkhead -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: When they are doing bulkheads, docks, groins, that's when we have been addressing non-turf buffers. TRUSTEE KING: It's just this is so close. MR. UELLENDAHL: It's less than 40 feet. TRUSTEE KING: It would be nice to have a little buffer in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with conditioning this with a ten-foot, non-turf buffer..We noted that the bulkhead is in good condition so it will be quite a few years before they come in. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the place will get well torn up with the construction, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so they can do whatever they want, they don't have to plant it, they can, as long as they don't have grass up to that. They can put wood chips, stone, plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, any other comments? (No response.) Board of Trustees 20 March 17, 2010 If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Frank Uellendahl on behalf of Anderson and Ellis as described, at 2875 Bayshore Road, with the condition, first, a ten-foot non-turf buffer be constructed along the total property length of the bulkhead. Second, that if, in the demolition of the old garage, where the new addition is going, the applicant finds that the foundation has to be reinforced, that that would be part of the approval process. We would allow you to do that. And that if someplace during construction it is discovered that the sanitary system does have to be moved for whatever reason, that it be moved outside of the Trustee jurisdiction. Again, we are fine with it where it is for now, but if during the construction you find it does have to be amended, to move it outside our jurisdiction. MR. UELLENDAHL: Understood. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you feel we need hay bales during construction on this site? It's pretty flat. TRUSTEE KING: There won't be a lot of excavation on the front of the building. Most of the work is in the back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since the work will be done behind, with a very small amount of work being done out in front, I would say no. I don't think it's need for hay bales during construction. And obviously the plans show, but we want to make sure that the project conforms to drainage code Chapter 236. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that means during construction on the road side, if they need hay bales, they have to do that, but the Building Department will let you know that. MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second floor addition above the existing residence. Located: 960 Willis Drive, Mattituck. Is anyone here to comment on behalf of this application? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. LeStrange. . TRUSTEE KING: It was found to be exempt from the LWRP because it's an addition with no net increase in ground coverage. CAC resolved to support the wetland application to construct a second floor addition above the existing residence. We all went out and looked at it. It's simply an whole new second story, correct? MR. SAMUELS: Not entirely new. It's new right there over the Board of Trustees 21 March 17, 2010 area off the garage. Otherwise there is a second floor. We really are just expanding the second floor there. More importantly what we are doing is sort of restyling the house with shingle and windows and trying to make it a little more appealing. We are in the application -- I don't see it here -- we are in application with the Health Department to add another leeching pool in compliance with their refs, which is 100 feet back from wetlands, and of course we are with the DEC, same thing. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments? (No response). Any other comments from the audience? (No response). 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 approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you note this was consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt. Yes, I did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Charles Thomas, R.A. on behalf of BUD HOLMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition onto the existing dwelling, a 265 square-foot deck, and install a drywell to contain storm water roof runoff. Located: 350 Park Avenue, Mattituck. CAC supports the application, and it is consistent with LWRP. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. THOMAS: Chuck Thomas, architect, for the applicant. The Holman's are looking to put a second floor over this gabled end area of the existing house. We are holding the second floor back about seven feet from that face to conform to the 75-foot setback from the line of the bulkhead. And that's about it. TRUSTEE KING: Is that Zoning making you hold that back? MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had any other comments, except if during this you can put gutters, leaders, drywells around the entire house. MR. THOMAS: Yes, that is the intent. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Is there any other comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Charles Thomas on behalf of Bud Holman as submitted TRUSTEE KING: Second. Board of Trustees 22 March 17, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have something to say? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm sorry, I should have made my comment under the public hearings. So, it's already been closed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want us to reopen it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing of Bud Holman. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does anyone have any comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. And I apologize. I thought when we took a measurement we were going to measure that the -- let me see the plans, please. (Perusing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have any other notes on the field notes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). I apologize. My notes, I named the wrong application here, so I apologize. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note for the record Mr. Bergen made a mistake. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I made a mistake. Tough crowd tonight. Tough crowd. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to close the public hearing of Bud Holman. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve the application of Bud Holman as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL & CAROLEE LEVISON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition and deck addition with steps onto an existing 'one-story, one-family dwelling; install a drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywell; and establish a 10' wide non-turf buffer. Located: 1025 Albacore Drive, Southold. LWRP has found this to be consistent. CAC resolved to support the application with no stipulations or suggestions. The Board was out there. We all took a look and we didn't really, as I recall, we didn't see anything, any problems. I'll present-- no, we don't need to. It's already got a non-turf buffer. Any comments or questions on this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Unless the Board has any questions, based on Bob's comments, I would just let the application stand as it is on the record. It's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application Board of Trustees 23 March 17, 2010 for Michael and Carolee Levison as described. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, En-Consultants on behalf of TRUST U/W OF R.C. KOPF F/B/O KRISTEN POWERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 25' vinyl groin extension to the landward side of an existing timber groin and remove 14 linear feet of adjacent deteriorating steel groin. Located: 220 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is a project that, as we devised it, would leave the existing groin in place; would remove, with the written consent from the neighbor, the portion of deteriorating .steel groin just on the other side of the property line to the east-- or do I have my directions backwards. And then would extend the groin landward. This is a site where the beach has been gradually eroded over time, notwithstanding what happened this weekend, but, it receives occasional nourishment from, I think, the county, during dredge spoil placement, which is usually a short-lived event. The house here has been relocated landward pursuant to a prior Trustee permit, and so what we are really doing here is backing up the development along with the landward translation of the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, did you get a chance to take a look at it? I did not. MR. HERMAN: Yes. Jill had given me a call and asked me to take a look down there. Maybe because my expectations were expecting something really cataclysmic, I was underwhelmed. I mean the beach definitely dropped. I think the conditions at Helies, the next application, are really much more drastically different in terms of drop of beach elevation. There was a high tide line from today that was maybe 15 or 20 feet closer to the house than what it was previously. There is definitely been a drop in elevation of the beach, but nothing terribly catastrophic. I mean there is not a lot of onshore movement of sand up on the road or into the driveway or anything I noticed really that significantly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to fill in the Board, Mark Terry had come to me yesterday and he inspected these properties after the storm and felt that there was a drastic change and said a lot of the beach was on the other side of the house. So I suggested to Rob to go inspect it and if he felt he needed to retrieve the sand from the other side and put it back, that we would consider that request if he felt a need to make that request. That's why I asked him to look at that. MR. HERMAN: Obviously we would love that opportunity. I think for me to be able to quantify the amount of material that needed to be replaced, we would have to do some additional survey work on it. The other thing, Jill had mentioned to me, was the idea Board of Trustees 24 March 17, 2010 that if this were a groin replacement project, that the Board would seek to have the most seaward portion of the groin, that is now in the intertidal zone at all times, removed, as the non-functional portion of the groin. We would not have any objection to that. If anything, it would be even more symbolic of the idea that we have already stepped the house landward and now it would in effect be stepping the groin landward by lopping off the portion that extends into the intertidal zone and is really no longer functional. It's a section of the groin that your Board would never allow to be replaced at this point. But would extend the groin landward. And it would be very similar to the vinyl groin that I think is two properties down, that you must have approved within at least the past several years. TRUSTEE KING: Three or four months ago. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have to apologize. I'm a little remiss, I'm getting back up to speed here. I didn't present the fact pattern when we opened the hearing, but we had the CAC and Trustees all sort of thinking along the same terms that it was, you know, considered consistent. The CAC didn't support it based on the fact that they wanted the profile lowered and specifically re-examine it for a shorter groin. MR. HERMAN: Well, the profile of the new--this is a little misleading, because this section of the groin up here, this is actually the adjacent groin that is really a deteriorating steel groin, and I did forward to Lauren, we had received a letter from the neighbor consenting to remove as of much of that as we wanted to. If you look at the profile that I prepared, the cross-section, this is all based on actual topography that we had done by the surveyor and, you know, really, the top of the groin extension is roughly about six inches above the elevation of high water. So this is going to be really, really low. If it were constructed today, it would appear higher than it would have over the summer because now, as I mentioned, you know, Jill is right, the beach elevation has dropped. But we would, what I'm trying to do with these applications now is actually get survey work down so we can get known, referenceable, verifiable elevations for the tops of these things, rather than just saying well, so many feet above the beach grade. Because as you can see, the beach grade can drop suddenly and all the references are somewhat meaningless. But we did propose a specific groin elevation here of 2.6 that is shown on the plan, which is about six inches above the measured elevation of high water. So it's about as low as we can get it without bearing on what is the normal beach elevation. And again, Jill mentioned this, it's either one of two ways we can do this. We can either lop off the end, lop off the seaward end and add on to the landward end or we can just take out everything that is there and just build a new low profile groin in a set location. TRUSTEE KING: That would be my preference, get rid of all that garbage. That's really-- MR. HERMAN: So it's six of one, half dozen of the other, as long Board of Trustees 25 March 17, 2010 as the end result is acceptable to you. TRUSTEE KING: I think we had in our mind something that is similar to what is to the east. MR. HERMAN: And if you don't object to that, I would like to bring it up even closer to the house. We are not trapping anymore sand in the intertidal area. We are just really trying to maintain the beach elevation by the house. TRUSTEE KING: This looks like a piecemeal approach to me; leaving some of that old, rotten steel. I think now is the time get rid of it and put a new groin in. MR. HERMAN: I don't think we have any objection to that. I mean the only difference is the cost, but end product would be a lot nicer. We could certainly revise the plans to show that. I guess my only question is, I guess particularly in light of what happened over the weekend, would you be willing to consider bringing, extending it up even closer to the house. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have an issue either. MR. HERMAN: I mean that side, I guess, is not really -- so why don't -- I mean, do you want to hold this open and I can go back and try to, instead of closing it and guessing, you know, we could come back with actual numbers. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a good idea, Rob. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You still have to get a DEC permit, final approval? MR. HERMAN: We do. And I think what I would do is try to contract marine habitat protection and let them know your thoughts, and if they are happy to go along with that, then we would just try create one plan that both agencies would approve. TRUSTEE KING: That would be the right way to go. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One recommendation and consideration. We had Jay Tanzi who is with the Department of State out there looking at this whole area several months ago. The question was specifically asked how long these groins should be when you have groins and properties adjacent to it. And he had stated that the groin should not-- he recommended, the groin not be any longer than twice the distance to the nearest groin. So just keep in mind as you talk about lengthening this groin, that his recommendation was that you should have double that distance to the next groin. I'm just relaying to you what Jay had recommended to us at the time. MR. HERMAN: I know Jay's point. I think with that formula, though, the ideas that you have a fixed landward starting point. In other words you could extend this groin really indefinitely landward and it won't interfere with the point of action, which is within the littoral zone. So I think what Jay is talking about is if you had a whole bulkheaded shoreline and all the groins start in the same spot. Whereas here -- you could apply the same formula, but you still would have to have a fixed starting spot, which we don't really quite have here. So I'm not sure how he would apply that. I mean, we can certainly take Board of Trustees 26 March 17, 2010 a look it at it, but I usually go with the formula of eliminating everything that is not functioning. And here it may be like 20 to 30 feet of groin that we would eliminate off the seaward end, so we'd probably end up almost, without a doubt, falling in line with that rule of thumb TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? (No response). Do we leave the public hearing open or close the public hearing? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just table it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which would leave the hearing open TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to leave the hearing open and table the application. MR. HERMAN: I don't see any reason -- I mean, is there anyone else here to speak on this? TRUSTEE KING: I don't see anybody. MR. HERMAN: Okay, I don't think there is any objection to this, so there is no real risk to us to close it up. I would rather come back with a plan that you can look at. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of BRENDA HELIES & PATRICIA COLAGIURI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 77' low-profile vinyl groin in place of 95' timber groin by replacing (inplace) 77' functional portion of existing groin and removing most seaward 18' of existing groin located seaward of ALW. Located: 2500 Park Avenue, Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this application. It was reviewed by the CAC and they resolved to support the application. And it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent under LWRP. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. This is the site had mentioned in a prior hearing as to me being changed significantly by the storm event. What is interesting, if you look at the pictures you have, with our application, the beach was a little bit higher then than it is when you were all there, and it's dropped at least a foot, if not more since then. Again, going with the typical standards that-- policies, I should say--that this Board has applied to groin replacements, we are proposing to permanently remove the outer most 18 feet of the groin that is in the intertidal area now and no longer functional. We have very specific topographical data for this site, which I'm very happy about, based on my looking down here tonight. The top of the bulkhead is at about 10.3 and the existing top elevation or, I should say -- the top elevation, Board of Trustees 27 March 17, 2010 existing groin, is 7.9. We are proposing to drop that down to 6.7, which would put it about 3'8" below the top of that bulkhead. That was about a foot-and-a-half above beach grade at the time I was there. TRUSTEE KING: Just about even with the top of that bottom ledge. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, what he's describing is closer to what is there. We had recommended that it be no higher than four foot from the top of the bulkhead. In other words, we are recommending it be lower. He's saying 3'8". MR. HERMAN: It's a difference of four inches. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, I just want to make sure -- MR. HERMAN: No, you're right. It's a difference of four inches. The reason that I proposed it, and it's much harder to see now, but in the pictures with the application, the DEC,typically requires that the top of the most seaward point of the groin, which is going to be at typical low water, be no higher than 18 inches, so I'm actually proposing a uniform slope from 18 inches above grade at the wall to 18 inches above grade at low water. Based on the formerly existing beach profile, that puts most of the middle of the groin only about one wafer above beach grade and about six inches above beach grade. So if we drop this further, assuming the beach recovers, you are really almost putting in a buried groin in the middle of the beach. So that was where I came up with the elevation that I came up with, which again is missing your mark by four inches. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's, you said exactly where I was going, that this was a very unusual storm, and I would not want to adjust this structure because of this one unusual storm. We all hope that the beach comes back in that area, and I think what we have to do is look at it in a more normalized condition which we hope is what we saw when we were out there. So I would not want to change the structure -- exactly what you are saying -- change the structure so when the beach normalizes, you now have a buried groin that is not doing the property owner any good at all. MR. HERMAN: Right. So unless you feel overwhelmingly strong about it, I would ask that we maintain the elevations that we proposed only because, as I said, I designed it out to match really what the topography and with what the DEC typically requires as an elevation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the Board, I put it out for Board comments. What he is asking for is 3'8" below the top of the bulkhead. We recommended four feet. A difference of four inches TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could you explain, again, the DEC, general guidelines they are using? MR. HERMAN: Well, what the DEC ordinarily requires is that the top of the groin at its seaward end is no more than 18 inches above the elevation of low water at beach grade. So they use that as a controlling point because typically, I mean what the height is, at the bulkhead, is not really that important, unless the contractor built it-- and now I'm brain freezing on the Board of Trustees 28 March 17, 2010 proper word -- level. Which nobody does. I shouldn't say nobody does. You are not supposed to. You are supposed to slope the groin down to a point. So within a couple of inches at the wall, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. It depends -- it's more important where the groin ends because that is where most of the actual littoral drift action is occurring. It's between high and low water. It's not really occurring above that. But I agree, we have always used the height of the wall as a reference, because if it starts too high, unless the contractor really gets this stuff surveyed out and the point set, it's going to end up too high. That's why in the profile show 18 inches at low water and I showed 18 inches at the wall. But that is, that was just really a snapshot reference. I have the actual proposed elevation shown. And that would be 6.7 feet for the proposed top of groin versus 7.9, which is what is existing. So we are proposing to lower it more than a foot from where you see it there, and actually the beach grade at the wall there is a little lower than it was in the pictures that you have with the application. So, again, and I mean, you can see it just in the first photo. It's a little bit unusual site. The groin is really the lowest in the center. So if we drop this relative to. normal beach grade, you are reaching a point where you are really burying the whole middle part of the groin, which is just, makes it, at that point the contractor almost has to excavate more just to get the top elevation right. As I said, I mean, I try to do this with great precision, and you guys are giving it the eye test, and we are within four inches of each other. So we are both kind of doing the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: I think there is too many variables with these things, you know what I mean. You lost beach here from this last storm, right? MR. HERMAN: Right. TRUSTEE KING: So you have an easterly wind and yet -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the question I have, so you are going based on the actual survey dimensions, which you'll return to in the construction, so conceivably if there has been a loss of sand at the seaward most point, that might actually have a structure that would, at the time of construction, be more than that 18 inches you spoke of. MR. HERMAN: Correct. Which is why I should almost, not on the seaward end but on the landward end, I should almost take that point of reference out of these drawings. But that's just the way we have always done it. Because we go there, the Board goes there a few weeks later and usually the conditions are about the same. So we are all talking about distances from the top of the bulkhead or the top of the groin, and the top of the groin on the beach. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is the DEC or Sea Grant or anybody suggesting a certain methodology here so this could be used for future tracking of shoreline? MR. HERMAN: Not really. What I'm providing in terms of the elevations is actually more than what anybody would require. Board of Trustees 29 March 17, 2010 Before his departure from the program, I got a sense that Chuck Hamilton was going in this direction, because we had had a couple of projects, in'fact one, which was along this stretch somewhere, I think it was Mueller, Charles and Nancy Mueller, where the DEC on that project actually required us to go out and get the topography and get the top. And so that's, you know, I don't know if anybody else is doing this. But I'm doing it because to me it's the only way -- it's the right way to do it. TRUSTEE KING: The right way to do it is to establish -- MR. HERMAN: Right. Especially in the past five years where we are getting a lot of storms a lot of changes, and all these sort of snapshot reference are meaningless, and that's how you end up getting screwy projects. So here, in theory, you could even condition into the permit that these elevations have to be maintained and that there has to be a previous construction site visit by the Board to verify the surveyor set the top elevation to make sure it's right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Personally, I don't see the need for that. And also, when you talk about the Board going out and seeing the topography, as we all know, that can change from week-to-week. So I don't see the need. I think when we go out on our field inspection we'll take that as normal topography. Again, I would go back to the Board and say what's the Board's preference. You listened to Rob. Would you like to consider it with the plans that have been submitted or would you like this groin dropped to four feet below rather than 3'8". 1 ask the Board's opinion on that. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not going to argue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have no problem. It sounds like a very compelling approach to this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I plan on fighting that four inches. To some of us, four inches means a lot. MR. HERMAN: On that note. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other individuals who want to comment on this application, beside Trustee Ghosio? (No response). With that I'll make a motion to close this public hearing, quickly. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: My only suggestion is.perhaps you do reference the, that number, the 3'8" from the top of the bulkhead in the permit as opposed to 18 inches above grade. Both references are on here. One is fixed, the other is variable. TRUSTEE KING: How about just the elevation. MR. HERMAN: Fine. I'm just trying to keep it simple for a contractor who is more likely to pull his tape out than he is to call a surveyor. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to approve the application, number eight on our agenda, En-Consultants on Board of Trustees 30 March 17, 2010 behalf of Helies and Colagiuri at 2500 Park Avenue, as per the plans stamped received February,12, 2010. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2010 Q