Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/19/2011 Jill M.Doherty,President ��OF SOUIy� Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 James F.King Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Ol aQ Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-6641 yC4UNT`l,� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED Minutes . A Wednesday, October 19, 2011 JAW 2 0-- 2012 e 102.L10P "z• 6:00 PM ai"4 Sf'uthald Torn Gferk Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee. Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney Absent was: Dave Bergen, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed., November 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., November 16, 2011 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 24, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our October meeting. If you do speak, please come up to the microphone, state your name for the record, and please keep your comments as brief as possible so we can get through the agenda tonight. Wayne Galante is here taking down everybody's words, so if we can speak one at a time and not speak over everybody, he would appreciate that. It makes it easier. Jack McGreevey is here, speaking for the CAC. Lori Hulse is our attorney, she will be here shortly. And before we get started, we do have a couple, two postponements: Page four, number four, SUSAN MAGG Si JAMES ORIOLI request an. Amendment to Wetland Permit#4559 to include the as-built 3'X 6' ramp and 6'X 30' floating dock with two (2) 6" pilings to secure dock. Located: 495 Halls Creek Dr., Mattituck, is postponed. Then we have on page six, number 16, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JAMES NEUMANN requests a Wetland Permit to install a 13'X F floating dock attached to the existing floating dock. Located: 750 East Mill Rd., Mattituck, is withdrawn. So those two won't be heard. The next field inspections will be Wednesday, November 9, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE GHOSIO So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. Board of Trustees 2 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the next Trustee meeting is Wednesday, November 16, with a worksession at 5:30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would anybody like to approve the Minutes of August 24, 2011? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2011. A check for $11,875.87 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. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., October 19, 2011, are classified as Type 11 Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: And the list is as follows. Philip G. Milot— SCTM#123-5-26 Eugene & Georgene Bozzo —SCTM#123-5-27 Anthony Lomangino — SCTM#104-3-15 Hans & Celeste Flick— SCTM#90-2-21 Russell & Julianne Karsten —SCTM#66-2-2.2 Beixedon Estates Assoc., Inc. — SCTM#66-2-47 Michael Mutsakis & Evelyn Capassakis—SCTM#51-4-16.1 John P. Krupski, Jr. — SCTM#111-13-7 Arthur & Audrey Ueland — SCTM#51-4-14,15.2 Gabriel Scibelli — SCTM#90-2-15 John Prizeman —SCTM#78-7-5.6 Bee Hive Development Corp. —SCTM#52-2-14 Leonard Ridini — SCTM#110-7-4 Anthony & Daniele Cacioppo — SCTM#92-1-4 Salt Lake Assoc., Inc. —SCTM#114-5-19 Henry & Susan Ruggiero — SCTM#63-7-29.1 Kevin & Jane McGilloway SCTM#144-5-30.1 Board of Trustees 3 October 19, 2011 Frank Gilbert—SCTM#71-1-11 Cove Condominiums Owners Assoc. —SCTM#87-5-20 Kevin LaTulip —SCTM#128-2-13 James Neumann— SCTM#107-1-1 Hernan Otano—SCTM#53-5-12.6 James Riley/Four-S-Properties, LLC—SCTM#111-5-11 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In order to get the meeting moving, we try and lump some of the administrative applications together. The Board has reviewed all of these and finds them straightforward, administerial applications. Therefore I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through seven as applied for. They are listed as follows: Number one, DIMITRIOS ANTONIADIS requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 30'X 13' addition to the south side of the dwelling and redesign existing roof system. Located: 3300 North Sea Dr., Orient. Number two, JOHN & MARIE SHACK request an Administrative Permit for the existing vinyl fence. Located: 1265 Shore Dr., Greenport. Number three, JOHN WILLIAMS requests an Administrative Permit to install roof solar panels onto the existing dwelling. Located: 1110 Cedar Point Dr. East, Southold. Number four, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of ROBERT J. GUARRIELLO requests an Administrative Permit to install roof solar panels onto the existing dwelling. Located: 250 Budds Pond Rd., Southold. Number five, Briarcliff Landscape on behalf of ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests an Administrative Permit to landscape, install Belgian block curb; paved driveway with drywells; gazebo; tennis court; bocce ball court; horseshoe pits, and gardens. Located: 9105 Bay Ave., Cutchogue. Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of SOUNDVIEW ISLES, LLC, requests an Administrative Permit to erect a pool-enclosing fence amidst proposed 10' wide non-turf buffer adjacent to crest of bluff and remove existing wood deck. Located: 505 Soundview Ave., Mattituck. Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILLIP STANTON requests an Administrative Permit to remove an oak tree in danger of falling into Town Creek. Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Panzman Demolition and Contracting Corp., on behalf of RANDY FAMILY TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to demolish.an unsafe dwelling as ordered by the Southold Town Board Building Department. Located: 1455 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. This application came in, as stated, requesting to demolish. It is on The Sound. The only thing that I would request is that hay bales and silt fence on the top of the bluff, not only to keep the silt and everything from going down the bluff, but to keep.the machinery far from the bluff because the house is within 50 feet from the top of the bluff. So I'll make a motion to approve subject to hay bales and silt fence on Board of Trustees 4 October 19, 2011 the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for extensions, transfers, administrative amendments. Again, these four applications were pretty much administerial and the Board reviewed them and I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through four. They are listed as follows: ,Number one, ROBERT O'BRIEN requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7206, as issued on November 18, 2009 and Amended on July 21, 2010. Located: 3655 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. Number two, ROBERTA JAKLEVIC requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#6999, as issued on November 19, 2008 and Amended on April 22, 2009. Located: 900 Old Harbor Rd., New Suffolk. Number three, DENISE VOEGEL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7555 to include a 4' wide path from the proposed dwelling to the water's edge. Located: 1805 Laurel Way, Mattituck. Number four, Lou Mastro on behalf of ELIZABETH MASTRO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7512 to remove three (3) diseased trees. Located: 1595 Bayview Ave., Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the second Monday in November? TRUSTEE KING: November 7th, I think. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, and the last Monday, I believe, is March 31 st? Give us a minute. We have to check on some dates before we do the next resolution. VI. RESOLUTIONS: - OTHER Number one, Set 2011/12 Scallop Season, under resolutions, resolved that the -- I'II make a motion that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to scallop harvesting pursuant to Chapter 219, Shellfish Code of the Town of Southold, from Monday, November 7, from sunrise to sunset, through Saturday, March 31, 2012, inclusive, in all Town waters as per Town Code with exception of the shellfish and eelgrass sanctuaries in Hallocks Bay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I thought we were going to have that thing on the eelgrass sanctuaries removed? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's has to be a code change. It's still in the code so we have to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I thought that-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we have to submit it to the Town Board for Board of Trustees 5 October 19, 2011 amendment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Coincidentally, I spoke with Chris Pickerel on Sunday and he said nothing was taking out there as far as any of the eelgrass projects that they planted there, it just wasn't working. As a matter of fact, they are leaving it, they are not going back. They are having much more success out in The Sound. So that's where they'll concentrate. TRUSTEE KING: But we are stuck with these until we change the code. The only authority the Trustees have is to set the season. We can't tell people how to harvest down there or anything else. We can just set the season on it. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Is that normal, through March? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. It's inclusive of the DEC -- TRUSTEE KING: It coincides with the Conservation Department season also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion. We had our discussion through that. I'll make a motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion was made and seconded. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was, but we had a discussion, so that ruins the record. So we have to do it over again, to keep the record clear. Resolved that the Southold Town Board of Trustees opens the following dates for scallop harvesting, pursuant to Chapter 219, from Monday, November 7th, from sunrise to sunset, through Saturday, March 31, 2012, inclusive, in all Town waters, as per town code, with the exception of shellfish and eelgrass sanctuaries in Hallocks Bay. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under resolutions, number two, is a resolution that we need to put together for Gull Pond Beach Re-Nourishment and Dredging Project. This is a project that I have been working on for a while now. Gull Pond, which is actually named Normandy Cliff Park Beach, is out in Greenport. The beach over the years has kind of been moved out into the water, and at low tide it's very, very shallow. And you can go all the way to the end of the buoys of the swim area and still only have water up to your knees. So this is a project that has been, that we are trying to get done, and we need to approach Suffolk County to do the dredging and do the project and make application to the DEC. So this is one of the first steps on the government side of things to get this project up and running. So I'm going to read the resolution into the record and then we can vote on it. Whereas Normandy Cliff Park Beach, a/k/a Gull Pond Beach, located at the southern end of Manhasset Avenue in Greenport, is a cherished recreational beach providing for swimming, fishing, shellfishing and boating and; whereas the Town of Southold has been fortunate in its coastal location which has been able to provide recreational opportunities for its residence, seasonal residents and visitors like and; whereas this beach lies on the Board of Trustees 6 October 19, 2011 shores of the Peconic Bay, a part of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Peconic Estuary Program, and as such is a vital asset on the Peconic Estuary and; whereas the Southold Town.Local Waterfront Revitalization Program calls for the preservation of and revitalization of our shoreline and beaches and; whereas the last time Gull Pond beach was dredged to renourish the beach was in the 1970s and/or 1980s and; whereas the beach is migrated into the bay such that at low tide the water is not deep enough for swimming within the confines of the lifeguard protected swim area buoys, a distance of roughly 102 feet from the shoreline and; whereas at high tide there is only 41 feet of beach front from the parking lot to the water's edge and; whereas this has negatively affected the ability to use this beach such that the numbers of bathers has diminished over the years and; whereas the Southold Town Trustees are charged with the protection of both the Trustee-owned wetlands and bottom lands, as well as all town assets within 100 feet of the wetlands, and; whereas there is considerable support from the residents of Southold Town, particularly in the area of Greenport and East Marion, to have this beach renourished by dredging to allow for a deeper swim area and more beach front and; whereas dredging will restore historic slopes in`the bathing area which would discourage bathing outside the regulated bathing area where vessel and other hazards might be encountered. Now therefore be it resolved that the Town of Southold Trustees do support and request that the Suffolk County Department of Public Works engineer, plan and perform a beach nourishment project to reclaim the beach at Normandy'Cliff Park in Greenport. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the regular hearings and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under amendments, number one, HERNAN OTANO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7400 to replace the existing exterior walls and framing with no expansion to footprint construction of front and rear entry steps. Located: Unit 5 Sage Blvd., Southold. This is an application that came before us a year ago and they were given a permit to renovate the house. And they went beyond the renovation -- we went out and inspected it, and as far as we feel, they went beyond the renovation, demolished it, got a violation, and if Mr. Otano is here we can discuss this with you, Board of Trustees 7 October 19, 2011 but we cannot move on this because the violation is still pending. And also I believe you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first, which I think the Board is inclined to have you do that before we move on this. Is there anyone here? MS. MOORE: Mr. Otano is here. And he came in and showed me what he had, so I said, well, let's show pictures, because that really makes the most sense. I think there is some confusion because the original plan -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I interrupt you one minute. Mr. Otano, can you please come up and introduce yourself and state that you have an attorney representing you. We don't have anything in the file. MR. OTANO: My name is her Hernan Michael Otano and Pat Moore is representing me on this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just needed that for the record. Thank you. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. What the original request was changing the roof pitch and, as you can see, the same roof is there. I have pictures. What he asked for is to take the old cottage and raise it, and that's what he did. Here is another picture of the raised cottage. Then this is the, you can see the angle, this is the waterfront porch that is there. This is the neighbor. So you can see everybody is pretty much consistent with a back porch. And that's the Sage cottage. The original application to you was to replace the windows, replace the shingles, replace the roof shingles, replace the windows here. And a new foundation. So that's what they did. They lifted it up, they put the new foundation underneath, and originally the plans that you had in that permit a year ago asked for a small addition in the front, which never, the Sage um, the co-op board, has been preventing alteration or addition. They did not want to see an alteration, an addition in the front. So that actually never got built. And what you see there is this structure, and what they found is the board, this is batten board, and what happens is they asked for hardy plank material on the outside. Some of you are familiar with hardy plank, it's a very heavy, manmade material, and in order to hold up the hardy plank you have to put sheathing. There is no sheathing under this board, this batten board. So he did a completely inkind/inplace work that was going on and I think there has been some confusion on exactly what was built, because the plans that you had that reflected a porch in the front that doesn't exist. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the confusion is, and hopefully the Town Board will resolve this, is the Building Department,'the Trustees, other boards, have a definition of demolition, and contractors have their own definition. We as a board went out and looked at it and we realized this was a demolition. There is not one old board left. This is a total rebuild and therefore that's why they got the violation. -Regardless of what they found, what they had to do, at some point the contractor should have stopped, come in and asked for an amendment to the Board of Trustees 8 October 19, 2011 application. And then maybe, if he got approval, continue. So that's where this Board feels we are at right now. That's why the violation was given. The violation has to be taken care of. And if the Building Department sees now he has to go to ZBA, then we would we want to see that happen first before he comes back to us. MS. MOORE: I actually met with Mike, and the drawing I had had the old drawing, and we looked at it and said, well, that's a different roof line. And we were both confused. But in fact that never got built. That is in fact completely inkind/inplace. I'll be talking to Mike showing him what I have and we can talk about it, because even though this is a co-op, so everything is not conforming, it has not moved at all. It has not changed at all. It is the exact same structure, but with, you know, wood that is not rotted. So that's why it was inkind/inplace. And our code talks about-- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But that's not what our permit said. That's the problem. MS. MOORE: No, your permit was beyond that. It said it was replacing windows, it was replacing all the elements of the building. And then what happens is that it should have said, well, replace as needed and add supports as needed, because that is ultimately what happened. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But the applicant didn't apply -- MS. MOORE: But remember, inkind%inplace. I know the Town Board is talking about changing the code, but the code has not changed and that's where the difficulty arises, that we have in the code that allows no permit required for windows, doors and roof material and siding. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we didn't have a problem with that. MS. MOORE: Well, that's what he did. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He went beyond that.. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He replaced everything. MS. MOORE: Well, what happens is -- MR. OTANO Can I say something? MS. MOORE: Yes, go ahead. MR. OTANO: Admittedly, yes, a lot, when I got the call from the contractor, when he said we pulled off the siding, and he said there is no framing here, what do-I do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's when he should have stopped, came back and got an amendment. So any of this discussion -- MR. OTANO: I gotcha. I'm kind of caught between there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's where it is. So really any further discussion tonight is kind of redundant. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What was the reason for replacing all the floor beams? MR. OTANO: It was part of the engineer's drawings and there are sisters there, and I guess the lifter, and the engineer required it. They are all on the original foundation drawings. MS. MOORE: To lift the house you need extra beams? Board of Trustees 9 October 19, 2011 MR. OTANO: Well, I mean, I guess it was part of the code, too, because the beams that they had under there were sisters, like 2x6's. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I looked under, all I saw were microlams and microlams were not invented when this was originally built. MR. OTANO: I understand. They were replaced. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So essentially the building was gone. MR. OTANO: No walls came down. All the original framing is still there that is not rotted. And, for example, on the 24-foot wall, the builder said there were four studs in that 24-foot wall. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So essentially there is four studs from the original building? MS. MOORE: That was the original building. MR. OTANO: And he put on 16-inch centers more studs all around and took out what was not really-- a lot of it was rotted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In ours, that's a total reconstruction and that's not what the permit that you got from us said you could do. MS. MOORE: But it seems a little bit, we should be able to just. move ahead rather than yes, he's, you know, but now he's here for an amendment to fix it, but it's exactly the same structure. That's the issue. It got lifted and it got put on, as you see, just as is, and then what happens is, you know, typical construction, you find a rot here and there and, yes, it would have been best if it had stopped there and come to you, but nobody thinks that way, the contractors don't think that way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'd better start thinking that way. This is not the first time it's happened and -- MS. MOORE: But keep in mind, Sage cottages are all like this. Every single one of them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if I have the Minutes in front of me, but we all recall when we were out in the field, we talked about, we asked whoever, I forget who we saw in the filed, are you going to demolish it? No. We talked in the Minutes, are you going to demolish it? No. And it was basically demolished. So this was talked about. MS. MOORE: I understand, but there is demo and there is demo. They spent the money to lift it and put it on a new foundation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That doesn't mean they get an automatic pass to go because they spent the money. They didn't come back for the permits properly and now they have to. And that's the simple -- MS. MOORE: That's what we're here for. MS. HULSE: It's also the Building Department opinion that it was a reconstruction. I met with Pat on this, I understand what her point was, and she's made the same point here tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, at this point I would make a motion to table this until you get the paperwork straightened out with the Zoning Board and the violation taken care of, then we'll look at it. MS. MOORE: Right. I have to talk to Mike, because even in a nonconforming setting, inkind/place is permissible. . MS. HULSE: No, it's not, Board of Trustees 10 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is nothing I can do. If we get something from the Building Department saying it doesn't have to go to Zoning Board then we'll move ahead with it. But that's up to Mike to decide. So I'll make a motion to table -- MS. MOORE: Do you have the drawings of the current, this building, because -- did you give them this? MR. OTANO: I did. MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure you have the right drawing because the old version, that was a larger structure than this one. This is the existing, you know, inkind/inplace. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we want you to go to Zoning Board first because if there is any changes, you can make those changes and come back to us with anything you may have. MS. MOORE: Do you have my pictures, by chance? Do you mind if I take them back? Or you can have them and I can reprint more, if you like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't matter, if you want them. I believe we have pictures when we inspected it last year, we have pictures. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GABRIEL SCIBELLI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#6534 to install a'stone splash mat consisting of 75 ton of Long Island boulders 8'-10' landward of the 200 linear foot bulkhead and replace sand and American Beach grass. Located: 450 Cedar Point Dr. East, Southold. This was found consistent with LWRP and the CAC moved to support the application as submitted. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: I'm here, Pat Moore, on behalf Mr. Scibelli. He actually met at the site with you and gave me the description to put into the permit. So I'm relying on his understanding of what you told him. TRUSTEE KING: We met down there, it was another instance where it really got beat up. Storm damaged. The bulkhead got overwashed and got damaged quite a bit behind it. It was our suggestion to put in a stone splash pad. MS. MOORE: He liked that idea, so, yes. TRUSTEE KING: So any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, it's pretty obvious. TRUSTEE KING: You can see what's happened there. Anybody else on this application from the audience? (No response). If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 11 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing is in the matter of Frederick Weber on behalf of ANTHONY & DANIELE CACIOPPO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7001 to resurface the existing deck in the existing footprint (rather than proposed expanded footprint); relocate sanitary system to a more conforming location; eliminate proposed garage and revise existing cabana and planting area as cabana/shed; refurbish existing pool; and construct a 36 sf. Kitchen addition in area of existing deck; and the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit 7001, as issued on November 19, 2008. Located: 1455 Inlet Way, Southold. The project is consistent with the town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council performed an inspection on the site, came up with a recommendation of 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees were on site. There is a left-open question about drainage. At this point I'll open the hearing to discussion in this matter. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application. MR. WEBER: Yes. My.name is Fred Weber, I'm the architect. I guess the house is sort of falling a little into disrepair, particularly the deck, it got hit by a tree in Hurricane Irene. So they are trying to refurbish and fix things up. They already had a permit to expand the space around the pool and actually to do it in a patio or bluestone surface. And just as far, I guess as far as simplicity, they don't really want to expand the deck, and they want to, in a sense, resurface the deck there with new wood. I guess do whatever repairs they need to do with the underside structure. Hopefully not too much. And the other thing that came to light was the sanitary system exists underneath that deck. Um, you know, they didn't put that there or deck over it, but it is there. They did discover that. So we are attempting to relocate the sanitary system to, as far as possible, from the wetlands and still stay on their property. There is an application, I made an application to the Health Department in that regard. I have not gotten any action back from them yet, but it is conforming as far as they are concerned. So I do anticipate getting approval for that. And in doing this, because there is, they are going to redo some of the trim on the house that is rotting and just generally sort of try to fix the place up a little bit, so other things that they were trying to accomplish, um, we were including in this amendment. I guess the first is the cabana area. They are just trying to reconfigure that. It still has an open, I think they have a picture of it. The cabana would still be an open pergola structure. They also don't really have much storage space and they want to put a small shed that would Board of Trustees 12 October 19, 2011 back up to the pergola. I think it's like 8x13, something along those lines. And I -- let's see here, a small 36-square foot addition to the house, to the kitchen, to make the kitchen more workable, but it is occurring over spaces that are already decked. And the area where the cabana and storage shed is also, it's not as formally decked as that area but there is like a planting area and there is some woodwork there already. And then I guess whatever work there, they have to get somebody in to probably just put a new liner in the pool. But we have to kind of see how that works out. And we are showing drainage on the plans for the shed. We are also showing backwash for the pool. And as far as the drainage of the actual deck, I mean I did speak to the town engineer and he said just to, what he would recommend is to have the surface below the deck, um, kind of just, any organic materials that would prevent water from leaching directly down, to have that cleaned out so there is sand and things can leach directly down. That was his recommendation to me, so I included that on the plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. It seems pretty straightforward. With respect to the Conservation Advisory Council, had requested a 1.5-foot non-turf buffer. Is that something we might be able to work into the plan? MR. WEBER: My client is not here tonight but I will -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was buffered all the way -- I don't remember which direction. It's all natural. It's a little bit of lawn, then you can see where all the buffer is, so I don't know-- - TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It has an existing standing native buffer that cannot be disturbed because it's all protected wetland. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And with the addition of putting the sand and making that more permeable, I don't think it's necessary. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I just wanted to raise the question because the CAC had mentioned it. Okay, any further comment from anybody? (No response). That being the case, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, sc moved. Noting it has been found consistent with the town's LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we need to vote the permit extension as a separate vote? I didn't include that in my resolution. As a point of order. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can do a resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve the requested permit for Board of Trustees 13 October 19, 2011 . one final year for permit#7001. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). COASTAL EROSION PERMITS TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Coastal Erosion Permits, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of ARTHUR & AUDREY UELAND requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remaining existing face pilings; construct 90' of new sheet sheathed bulkhead in front of existing T&G bulkhead; install 2.5 to 3 ton rock armoring at base of new bulkhead; fill void area east of stairway with 95 cubic yards of clean trucked in sand; re-vegetate disturbed areas with Cape American beach grass; extend lower platform as required and install new 3' aluminum stairway to beach. Located: 20845 Soundview Ave., Southold. This application has been found by LWRP to be consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because, in their opinion, the project illegally blocks public access, and stone armor cannot be dumped on to state tidal property. We were all out there in the field and looked at this and the notes that l have, we are suggesting a five-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff, and suggest just restoring the access area. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant, just here to answer any questions that could be on it. It seems pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To us it was, pretty straightforward. You have a bluff there that has been blown out, to a certain extent. I see there has been some stone put in there to hold it together. MR. COSTELLO: And that's -- I had a permit to do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one question I had, if I'm not mistaken, this is the one that you do have large metal tracks up at the top. MR. COSTELLO: That was to bring the machinery in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. And no problem with the five-foot buffer? MR. COSTELLO: No problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I imagine the aluminum stairs will be removable? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Jack, how far have you gotten with the DEC on it? MR. COSTELLO: I don't know where the application is right now, to be honest with you. I got back to the office late tonight. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just curious how they'll feel with the armor and stone. We seem to go back and forth sometimes. MR. COSTELLO: We go back and forth with them, too. I didn't have a problem next door with the Kostas property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think they are amenable, in this particular area, they seem to be. Board of Tnistees 14 October 19, 2011 MR. COSTELLO: I think they are sick of this area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they are willing to try anything new. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree. I think with everything that is going on in this area and Arshamomaque, the armoring seems to be helping, and the splash pad. MR. COSTELLO: It's out of necessity. Not because anyone wants to do it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Any other questions or concerns from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: That's right up against the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: It's not much room there. It's not quite up against the bulkhead. Down at the westerly edge of the property it is up against the bulkhead. But the tide doesn't come right up to the bulkhead in that area. TRUSTEE KING: But the other bulkheads in that area are all armored. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of MICHAEL MUTSAKIS & EVELYN CAPASSAKIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remaining existing face pilings; construct 112' of new sheet steel sheathed bulkhead in front of existing T&G bulkhead; install 2.5 to 3 ton rock armoring at base of new bulkhead; fill void area 1 west of stairway with 95 cy. Of clean trucked in sand; construct 10'X 10' wood deck with retaining walls; reconstruct existing stairway, in-like/in-place; and revegetate any disturbed areas with Cape American Beach grass. Located: 20985 Soundview Ave., Southold. This is right next door to the one we just did. This came in consistent and also inconsistent with the LWRP. It's inconsistent because of the 10x10 wood deck, which we'll talk about in a minute. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the project illegally blocks public access and stone armor cannot be done on state property. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. This is the next door neighbor, it's a continuation, it's the same as everybody else has down that beach with rock armor and a Board of Trustees 15 October 19, 2011 straightforward application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only concern -- and it's pretty much, like you said,just like the neighbor. The only concern we have is the 10x10 wood deck. We would like to see that reduced to conform with code to be no larger than 327square feet. MR. COSTELLO: The deck is on top of the bulkhead, it's not a landing for a stairway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows that it's attached --well, next to the stairway, but it's on the bluff there. Still, the code says 32-square feet. MR. COSTELLO: In the code it doesn't allow for larger decks behind the bulkhead for access to the water? I mean, I thought the 32-square foot mandate was just as stairway landings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Associated with stairs. MR. COSTELLO: I thought you were allowed to have 100-square foot access area. This is physically right on top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think the code actually says a size. MR. COSTELLO: Because when that 32-square foot was, you know, originally conceived, it was referring to stairways, and that is not related to that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not on the bluff. MR. COSTELLO: It's not on the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're right. It's on top of the bulkhead on the bottom. But that's also in the coastal erosion area, isn't it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's landward of the bulkhead, right. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So really coastal erosion is less than 200-square feet and it's open construction, then it's exempt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY; Okay. Then it's exempt from that. MR. COSTELLO: This is only 100-square feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The bulkhead you'll be connecting to, looks to me it used the Flow-Thru decking on top of that bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: It's not Flow-Thru, it's a corrugated fiberglass product. But it's similar. It's to allow the water to come up through it rather than trying to stop the wave action. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So that's what you'll be using. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it will be exactly like that. Just a continuation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can we add that to this? Does it say that? I don't know where it says that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't. We should probably add it to the description. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I mean. What is it called? MR. COSTELLO: Corrugated fiberglass cap. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Jack, I'm just looking at this drawing on the deck, on the bulkhead, you'll have retaining walls around the sides of that? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, to retain the fill off of the deck, yes. Because it's not really a lot of room there for the deck without Board of Trustees 16 October 19, 2011 the fill coming on top of it so, I mean, it's pretty minor. The retaining walls are probably three feet high, just to keep the fill off the deck. Because all that fill there is just mush. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's just, the retaining wall is just ten feet long? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. They just circle the deck behind the bulkhead to keep the fill off of it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't either. These are fairly small. And Coastal Erosion, which lets you go up to 200-square feet with the idea they don't want them floating around out there when we get that bad storm. We can't really have a problem with something that is only 100-square feet. MR. COSTELLO: It's half the size of what is considered usually allowable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What, on the stairs, I see the drawing, you have a platform. What is the size of that? MR. COSTELLO: Under 32-square feet, as per the code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see, okay. Are there any other questions from the Board? (No response). We have the same request for a five-foot buffer and restore the area, which you already said you'll be doing. Is there any other comment from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for and find it consistent with the LWRP and to add the corrugated fiberglass cap to the description. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And a five-foot buffer along the top of the bluff. Do I have a second on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, on the buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under wetland permits, JOHN PRIZEMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities, driveway, deck and 250 cubic yards of fill. Located: 5805 Bayview Rd., Southold. This was found inconsistent under the LWRP. The Board of Trustees 17 October 19, 2011 Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. And some of the findings of the LWRP coordinator was: Proposed action is located in AE elevation six flood zone. There is quite a bit here that I'm not going to read. Just some requirements. This was a very difficult application. This has been going on for a long time, I don't know how many years. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: At least eight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe the LWRP report is very similar from the first report. It's the same. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. There is a letter in here that I won't read. It will be in the record. It's an unhappy neighbor, we'll put it that way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The letter does not state any new information from the previous public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so, no. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is an application we worked on for quite a while. It was approved and it expired, so they are back again for the same exact thing that we approved. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf or against this application? MS. OHLMANN: I just have some questions. Paula Ohlmann, I'm speaking on behalf of my aunt, whose property is directly back to this disaster. I guess my question was why are we going for a permit when there is already a foundation and what appears to be a septic system there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, they didn't keep track of the timetables of the permit, and a permit has to be substantially started before it can continue, and although it, I mean putting a foundation is started, but the permit had expired. So they no longer have a Trustee permit, so we asked them to stop the work and in and re-apply. So they are applying for the same exact thing that, exact project that we gave the permit before. MS. OHLMANN: If you can just refresh my memory. I was under the impression that this house was going to be on stilts, so the water flowed. Instead there is now a ten-foot wall of cement for the house itself and then a six-foot wall of cement for the septic area. Where is all this water going to be dispersed to? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had the same thought when we looked back on the permit and there was discussion on that. But that was not made part of the permit, for whatever reason, from the previous. So what he has, it complies with the permit that we gave him. MS. OHLMANN: To put that. So the water will be dispersed in the surrounding properties. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to conform to Chapter 236, which is the Town Code for drainage. So any water that goes on his property he has to contain and it cannot overflow on to other properties. MS. OHLMANN: That's impossible. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It's already being displaced. MS. HULSE: Sorry, sir, you can't speak unless you stand up and be recognized. Only the person at the microphone can speak. MS. OHLMANN: I guess the point being said, that I could produce Board of Trustees 18 October 19, 2011 photo upon photo, even with no structure there, when there is a storm and the tide comes up, there are multiple properties that are affected. Now something is built there that is now going to disperse more water on to the properties and cause further damage to the properties that may not have experienced quite as much of a flood area. This is creating more of a flood area for the surrounding properties. And, you know, I don't see how anybody cannot see that. I mean, it's simple science. You have water that is coming in, you put an object in the middle, the water will disperse out to the other areas. So you can't claim it won't affect the surrounding properties. That's my argument, the whole time. Thanks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have anything to add? TRUSTEE KING: No, just that this has been going on for a long time, and there were some changes made. The first permit that was issued to Mr. Baxter, the house was going to be on piles. MS. OHLMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Then when they came in for an amendment and changed the footprint of the house, that was taken out, and now it's on a foundation. I feel, I almost feel like I should have seen that. I simply didn't see this. And, I missed it. MS. OHLMANN: And letters are not sent out to people surrounding that that spent a year-and-a-half fighting this, for very good reason, and then these changes are made and we are not sent information unless we file for every single information. TRUSTEE KING: Did we, do we notify neighbors for an amendment? MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So you should have. MS. OHLMANN: We just received notice for this hearing today. TRUSTEE KING: You should have gotten notice that the plan was being amended. MS. OHLMANN: Nope. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we can't go back on that. That was 2010, on the amendment. TRUSTEE KING: I understand the frustration, that's the point I'm trying to make. I understand the frustration here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was frustration for all parties, just to recap a little bit, this was a project that when it came up, originally, I wasn't even on the Board, so it goes back that far, um, when we, when it came up and I was on the Board, in an effort to make it not happen, I felt the property should have been preserved. I fought this project, in fact-- . TRUSTEE KING: We all did. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Exactly. We all did. MS. OHLMANN: I agree. I was here every single meeting, and I appreciate the efforts that you made. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Please let me finish. It's kind of important to the discussion. Myself and the rest of the Board were very into not wanting to see this happen. The homeowner came, the property owner came to see me. I asked him if he would be Board of Trustees 19 October 19, 2011 interested in preserving it. He said, well, certainly, as long as it's addressed, you know, in an appropriate manner. Meaning that he wanted to get fair market value for it. We did, as a Board, discuss whether we wanted to see that happen. We brought it up to the Land Preservation Committee in town, who deliberated over it. And the decision was made that the town could not purchase it at that time. At this point, we really feel it was not a whole lot more we could do with it. And we mitigated it and worked on it for a long time, and mitigated it to the best of our ability. But it was zoned for residential, it was subdivided to build a house, and the preservation committee said the town could not purchase it. We can't do anything else. I mean, the property owner has a reasonable expectation to be able to do what he has been told he could do by the town. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember years ago when this came up, Al Krupski was president of the Board, that Board wrote a letter to the Planning Board saying this should not be a buildable lot, but it made it through site plan approval and it became a legal, buildable lot. So our job now is to mitigate it as much as possible. And we felt that we had done that and made the house as small as possible. As the code allows. MS. OHLMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sir? You wanted to speak? MR. PRIZEMAN: John Prizeman. I purchased the lot from Baxter. I spent a lot of time designing this house, to make it right, to make it fit within the environment, that everybody wanted, and we had two engineering companies working on this. And to answer her question, we had, to make sure there was no flooding there, we put in special flood vents in the foundation. We put in three drywells to contain the water so there will be no runoff whatsoever. It all goes into a drywell. I think three all together. Maybe four, I'm not sure. But also we worked out a special plan which was a little thing asked for by the town, the driveway, so the actual runoff from the driveway would go to a drywell as well. So there will be absolutely no runoff from the driveway, whatsoever. If anything, where the septic system is, will actually block the water from going up to anybody else's property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. MR. PRIZEMAN: Just trying to make it a little more -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response). From the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'm afraid it is what it is. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 20 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Somebody help me out here on this inconsistent finding. I think we have done all we can. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with the extra drainage he put on the property. MS. HULSE: The reference to the flood zone is actually state code compliant. I just want to make a note of that. That's noted in the LWRP report but that's actually state code compliant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I would find it consistent. TRUSTEE KING: And I believe there has been a DEC permit also, I believe, in place. MS. HULSE: Yes, there is. TRUSTEE KING: It seems to meet all the requirements. So I'll make a motion to approve the application and find it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next two hearings involve inkind/inplace bulkhead replacements and are sufficiently similar that I'll open the hearing in both matters, unless anyone here raises an objection. That being: Number two, PHILIP G. MILOT requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 50 linear foot bulkhead inplace with vinyl sheathing, and backfill with 140 cubic yards clean fill. Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. And number three, EUGENE & GEORGENE BOZZO request a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 52 linear foot bulkhead in-place with vinyl sheathing, and backfill with 140 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 4135 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck. Anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the applications? (No response). Both have been found to be consistent under the LWRP and both have been recommended for approval by the Conservation Advisory Council. And the Trustees have done a field inspection and the recommendation for both is that some discretion and consideration about stone armoring to protect them during strong southerly winds. MR. MCGREEVEY: Just a point on the Conservation Advisory Council supporting it. The word should be inplace, not inkind. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Inplace, okay. Sorry, inplace. MR. BOZZO: I'm Gene Bozzo. Would you please clarify what just said about that? I know Jack came down and Jim came down. The discussion was regarding, you know, to possibly talk to the committee about putting this armoring in the front. But we are not sure we want to do that. But at some point if we want to do that, is some something we have to amend our application for? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just let Mr. Bredemeyer finish the description. Board of Trustees 21 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually I think I sort of had. But that's a good point of clarification. You realize the Conservation Advisory Council provides an advisory opinion, and the fact that the project has already been deemed consistent with the town's coastal policies means it could go.forward without any additional changes to the project as submitted. So it would, it's basically a recommendation on the part of Trustee King, who is most familiar with that area;to put the stone armoring in, because based on his experience.he thought it might be in your own best personal interest given the cost involved in doing such replacements. But, if the Board were to approve this tonight without such, because you would Want to engineer that or have a additional discussions with your contractor, that's the kind of a thing that would be subject to an amendment to the permit at a future date, yes. MR. BOZZO: So we can go ahead with the way it's set up now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can continue in your presentation of the public hearing and then the Board will, after we close the public hearing, the Board will consider the application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can request to add that to the description right now, if you would like, and we can approve it tonight because, but you don't have to do it if you decide later not to do it. That's another way to do it. Or you can look into it more and come back later for an amendment. MR. BOZZO: What would you recommend? What's the easier way to do it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's easier for all of us if you request to put that into your description tonight and then we can discuss it tonight and consider it. MR. BOZZO: That's fine with us. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You want to, obviously amend your application before the DEC to include similar-- MR. BOZZO: Right. Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion in this matter? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing in the matter of Philip Milot and Eugene and Georgene Bozzo. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve -- I'll do it separately. I'll make a motion to approve the application of Philip G. Milot to replace the existing bulkhead with vinyl sheathing and backfill with 140 cubic yards of clean fill, and provide stone armoring at Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. I'll move that, subject to new plans showing same. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: What about a buffer behind the bulkhead. I don't think there is any turf there now. Just a small, non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. Sand or stone. Board of Trustees 22 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Five foot buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I'll amend my motion to approve with a five-foot non-turf buffer, stone armoring plans that would reflect both the non-turf buffer and the stone armoring. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the application of Eugene and Georgene Bozzo I would move for the application as submitted with the addition of stone armoring and a five-foot non-turf buffer and new plans reflecting those changes. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Briarcliff Landscape on behalf of ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit to landscape; install Belgian block curb; reset existing walk and patio; create mulch walking path; Belgian block apron; clean out and enlarge existing pond; plant evergreens around existing shed; install putting green; horseshoe pits; bocce ball court; install paved driveway and drywells. Located: 8925 Bay Ave., Cutchogue. This application is found to be consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC resolved to support the application, however questions whether the cleaning out of a pond is a permitted activity. The Board was also out there. We noted that the pond is not an actual wetland in the sense that it is on a DEC map, though this is a nice, small little wetland on the property. - - And we did have some questions about that as well. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: My name is Neil Chicanowicz, the owner of Briarcliff Landscape, I'm here just to answer any questions you might have. With regard to that pond, you've walked it. I've walked it. I think initially it was an excavator-dug pond. You could see piping going into there. It was a manmade pond, but now it's kind of reoccurring over the course of years. I have no idea how long it's been there. But it's definitely wet on its own at this point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the consensus of the Board is they are treating it almost as an irrigation pond on a farm, that it was manmade and just evolved into a wetland, so we are really not taking jurisdiction over it. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Our intention is really to just clean it up. There are some bases in there, we are going to clean it up and reuse it. I think it's far enough away from the natural wetlands. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's 140 feet away from the natural wetlands. Most of the description is out of our jurisdiction from the salt water wetlands. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can see from this picture here, it's a bit of a distance from where I was standing, and I'm standing Board of Trustees 23 October 19, 2011 seaward of the pond, at this point. You can see it's still a pretty good distance. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe the tree in the middle is the hundred foot setback. That's right in the middle of the putting green. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right. That's what we used for a marker. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question concerning the landscaping plan. In the undisturbed native buffer there is a reference made to a permeable bluestone patio set in sand. I didn't know if you had more information on that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't show -- MR. CHICANOWICZ: I think that's an old note from a prior plan. I think there is an boat dock existing over there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's by the boat dock, and there is no existing -- MR. CHICANOWICZ: The boat dock I think was prepared and I think that was just a note just left on the plan. We don't intend to put any paving out in that area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we can get a set of plans that removes that or strike from the approval. MR. CHICANOWICZ: We can revise that an eliminate it. That's not even something he's looking for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because that's in the no disturbance, in the natural buffer. It would be one thing if it had a set size and they wanted to use it in association with the dock, it would be open for Board discussion. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Sure. That's possible, too. You can have a revision, because we did a late revision before your work session. - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, do you want to say something? MR. MCGREEVEY: In regard to that reference of a pond, the Conservation Advisory Council's concern is that if it would come under the definition of a vernal pond and if it does come under the definition of a vernal pond, our big concern would be the wording of the application which says to enlarge it and clean it out. So I don't know if that's very subjective wording. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pond has a liner. It's manmade and has a liner, so -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Based upon what I saw, it's not a vernal pond. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have the definition of a vernal pond, I don't know the exact definition. But I would say it's not. MR. MCGREEVEY: The other thing is the enlargement of it. I think you to be more definitive in enlarging a pond or whatever you might call it. Should there be dimensions on that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are on the, they have a plan showing where, to the extent of where they are enlarging it. We are saying, we are basically saying it's out of our jurisdiction, of the Trustees. MR. MCGREEVEY: As part of the record then I would like to have the Conservation Advisory Council have a notation that for beyond the jurisdiction of the Trustees has something be in the wording that we are concerned about the town's natural Board of Trustees 24 October 19, 2011 resources. That's where we come into the picture. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's an unregulated wetland, so it's not a natural resource. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't really come under the reference of a.town-owned or town-regulated resource because it appears to be artificially dug and has a liner. And actually privately, artificially created wetlands, if they ascribe to standards of proper design and will functionally, eventually be an addition, even though it may not be regulated by the town, but functionally can be an addition to the town natural resources. mean I think the vernal pond question, to me, I think is a very good question, but it just doesn't have the attributes of a vernal or femoral pond where it might be coming and going, or might have a specific bio that the Trustees, based on plants and its location and what is going on there, the Trustees would regulate under the code. But this appears to have been dug, it .has a liner, there is no other, you know, the vernal potholes and wetlands tend to not be in isolation, so there is nothing really here, there is nothing on DEC maps that would lead us to believe that is actually what that is. MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC realizes it is outside the boundary of the Trustees. Isn't there some point where the town comes into this picture in regarding enlarging an area without giving dimensions to it, just saying enlarges -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, he has dimensions. It's 50x75 foot. That's what is on the plan for the future. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it would come under regular landscaping of your property. MR. MCGREEVEY: That's the first time I've seen it, so. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's an improvement to the existing ponds. I mean there are phragmites in there now that will be removed. There will be some native plants. There is cattails there now, that I'm sure they'll keep. In my mind it's an improvement. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was one of the things we discussed out there. We previously clarified that. Are you planning on keeping the cattails? Because we would really like to see those stay. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Sure. There is a lot of that bamboo in there also. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right,-taking the invasive down. It's pretty straightforward otherwise. TRUSTEE KING: Most of it is out of our jurisdiction. f TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I wish I had a bocci ball court, though. If there is no other questions or comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted, knowing we'll be crossing off a notation on the landscaping plan that has to do with the Board of Trustees 25 October 19, 2011 bluestone permeable patio that is not going to be built. And it is found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOHN P. KRUPSKI, JR. Requests a Wetland Permit to remove all existing accumulated debris on slope (i..e. leaves, grass, brush, etc.) And mulch same and mix with clean trucked-in soil; install single 1"X 12" terracing board staked in-place; re-grade area to top of slope line; and re-vegetate area with native plantings to match existing. Located: 6025 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. This was found consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the installation of the erosion control device consistent with best management practices. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of applicant, just here to answer any questions.. This is very minimal, at best. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you can just clarify with us, you remove existing and accumulated debris. How much of that slope are you going to clear? Are you going to clear any of the -- MR. COSTELLO: What we are hoping to do is mulch most of it in place. But it will be a minimal clean up. It's more adding top soil, because the leaves have such a high nitrogen value, it won't grow until it's broken down with some top soil, so minimum amount of clean up, but more adding topsoil to have the indigenous species flourish. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you going to supplement with plantings? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's more of a planting thing and removing a minimal amount of leaves. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to make sure you are not going to clear cut the whole bluff and start from scratch. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe ten, 12 feet along the top of the bluff there, and the rest of it, leave it alone. MR. COSTELLO: There is really only one area of concern there. The leaves are stomping out the vegetation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, from that tree up. MR. COSTELLO: Right. Basically the leaves are not composting fast enough to support growth. TRUSTEE KING: We don't want to see the whole bluff disturbed, that's the point we are trying to make. Just the upper section where everything has been done, clean that up. Did we talk about a buffer along the top? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I haven't gotten there yet. Ten-foot buffer beyond that. MR. COSTELLO: Well, I mean a buffer-- that bank is huge. To require a buffer any further back than that, the bank itself, I Board of Trustees 26 October 19, 2011 mean, if you are worried about protecting -- I know what you are saying. But in this case, the project is so minimal, to put a buffer in there and, you know, put something in front of the view, then you have that entire bank out to the bulkhead as your buffer. I mean, that is certainly a massive buffer area, just the bank. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand what you are saying. But usually what we require is from the top of the bank landward. As you know, we require some sort of non-turf buffer area. If you could just extend what you are doing on the bluff up and over that top. I would be willing to go down to five, just, you know, as you could see they are mowing right over and it just weakens it. MR. COSTELLO: A five-foot buffer would be acceptable. TRUSTEE KING: The picture in the front, you can see where it is actually sloped down and they are mowing it. They are hurting themselves. If they could go back beyond that. MR. COSTELLO: It will just be tough delineating where that five feet starts and where it ends. But five feet is acceptable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? (No response). Any questions from the audience? Comments? (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 Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of John P. Krupski, Jr., with the addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer on top of the bluff. And it was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, have a good night. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Group for the East End on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to modify the existing boat ramp to mitigate stormwater run-off by installing proper drainage and replacing impervious surface with pervious surface; restore habitat of a reclaimed portion of boat ramp to include naturally vegetated swales; and permanent placement of educational signage. Located: Dogwood Lane road end accessing Spring Pond, East Marion. This is found consistent with LWRP, which is good. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Which is also good. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. HARTNAGEL: Hi, my name is Jen Hartnagel and I'm here on behalf of the Group for the East End. The group is a non-profit Board of Tnistees 27 October 19, 2011 environmental organization and we have been working with the Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Association to address the, water quality in Spring Pond. And they are really taking a proactive role to trying to improve the water quality and address different drainage issues throughout their neighborhood. And the first section we chose to address was the boat ramp, and we applied for grant funding, we received a substantial amount of grant funding, and this is really a positive project, as we see it. We have a few members of the homeowners,association that would like to say a few words and also the engineer is here if you have any questions. . TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there. The first time we went . out, we felt it was a little excessive, the ramp going down there, but I see it's been downsized. I guess the DEC came in and did some downsizing on this? MS. HARTNAGEL: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: This is more in line with what we envisioned of it. Yes, sir? MR. FISCHER: My name is Doug Fischer, I'm a board member of the Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Association. Basically, this sort of took on a life of its own. We were just addressing repaving the roads or resurfacing the roads, which is something we have to d. And I attended a few meeting and came to realize that we really needed to address the runoff before we went off and spent all this money redoing the roads. And we here we are today. So our goal is to do this project and hopefully maybe part of the resurfacing will be.a part of that. But we really want to control the runoff, because it is a big problem. It's closed off our area to shellfishing and -- TRUSTEE KING: It's a town-wide problem. And the more we can address it, I hope we can move forward with this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's wonderful, you were able get grant money for this. MR. FISCHER: We'll keep trying, so the Group for the East End .has been very helpful. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from the audience? (No response). Board members? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application. It has been found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of FRANK GILBERT requests a Wetland Permit to Board of Trustees 28 October 19, 2011 replace existing deck with 9'X 35' deck and stairs from deck to garage; replace and repair stairs on bank; and increase the existing non-turf buffer by 3'. Located: 1095 North Parish Dr., Southold. The project has been deemed consistent under the town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to approve, the project on the condition of the existing buffer being increased by three feet. The Trustees have some field comments in their inspection report about adding the gazebo to the description, although I think it may exist in a prior permit. MS. MOORE: Yes, it was in permit number, it was an amendment to, on July 23, 1998. It was an amendment on July 23, 1998. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I.just mention, I wasn't participating in the original group survey and I wanted to bring that up as a clarification. I did see it in the old permit. Thank you. The n.on-turf buffer, the Trustees, on field inspection, wanted to see that the non-turf buffer be even with the existing areas that are in ivy or non-turf. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MS. MOORE: Yes. This is a pretty straightforward application. We went to the Zoning Board, got approval for the deck and, um, they, as part of their condition, had us extend the non-turf buffer by another three feet. There..is not a lot of room back there, so we still need to have some access and circulation, so three feet was fine, you know, we could accomplish that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of clarification; I got a little garbled there and my communication skills are not too good tonight. I sound pretty difficult to listen to. There is the gazebo already on an existing chain of permits with the Trustees. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? It looked pretty straightforward. (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that it is consistent with LWRP, and that an additional three feet of non-turf buffer be included in the approval. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Frederick Weber on behalf of JAMES RILEY/FOUR-S-PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to. demolish existing single-family dwelling, construct new Board of Trustees 29 October 19, 2011 single-family dwelling with porches, patios, new sanitary system, drainage and driveway. Located: 3490 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. The LWRP has found this to be consistent with LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that the expanded driveway materials are defined. Noting that it is kind of refreshing that somebody actually admits they are going to be demolishing the house, I would like to see if there is anybody here to address the application. MR. WEBER: I'm Fred Weber, the architect. Just to address that, originally, um, we were going to renovate the house. I did measure the house, I did some plans and then we started discovering things about the construction; there is actually no sheathing on the house. The stucco is put directly on slabs, it's on the studs, so, that kind of made it a little shaky in terms of rebuilding. So if we took that much down, we would have a stick structure, and the living space was actually on the landward side, not the water side, so as we sort of considered things, it seemed like the thing,to do was to take it down, even though we originally were not intending to do that. The new house, um, would be constructed basically in the same footprint. I just did sort of a color, the one you have is black and white. But I did a color sketch which shows the dark brown being the house, the lighter brown is the porch and then the yellow is the footprint of the existing house. So on the waterside there is a sliver of space, you know, on the two porches and then on the two ends there is actually space that the other house was actually bigger than this house. TRUSTEE KING: The footprint is actually smaller. MR. WEBER: The house is thicker, but it's shorter to the water face. Now, again, the house, the location of the house is more or less in the existing location, but it is 153 feet from the high water. It's one --well, actually the existing house is 113.6. This will be 114 feet from the flagged wetlands, and I guess in addition it's 38 feet from the top of the bank. So the existing house is setback quite a distance from the wetlands line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This photograph you see here is with me standing with my back against the house. I believe it's right where the existing chimney was. I think. Or fireplace. MR. WEBER: I also have a picture which I think is in your file is, you know, sort of, I know you have your back to the house. have a picture where I'm standing on the side and then looking kind of, you know down the length of the house, so you can see where there is a fairly substantial -- I went there today just to make sure the posted sign was still there and I put a tape to the top of the bank, and, um, it looks, the line that was generated was generated by Nathan Corwin, the surveyor, and it seems it was more like 40 feet rather than 38 feet, from my own tape measure. Board of Trustees 30 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll call it plus or minus two feet. MR. WEBER' And we did get a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC based on the elevation. I know you were addressing the driveway. We had not really discussed the construction of the driveway that much. I mean, I will with the owner, but we would provide drainage to any water that gathers on that. I think the drainage ring is shown on there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe the driveway would probably be out of our jurisdiction but it would fall under Chapter 236 of the Town Code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One of the things we noted when we were out there, it's an opportunity for us to move the house back about ten feet. Because we noted the same thing you did, it's 40 feet off the top of the bluff. The room is there and it's a great opportunity. I mean, ten feet may not sound like a lot but it gets you 50 feet off the top of the bluff, and there is certainly room to do it with and it fits within the scope of the plan. Is that something you would consider? MR. WEBER: Again, the client is not here. You know, there is a couple of issues that sort of come to mind. I guess the first is the fact they do own the house next door to the house, the house to the south, and they are trying to keep, I think as much separation between the two, so it doesn't-- and as it comes back, it does come, that structure does come closer to that house. Which I know would be something they would be concerned about. The other issue that I might have is the fact that, you know, right now you have, I would consider a usable yard on the landward side. As you move the house back, the house tends-to sort of occupy the kind of middle ground on the site and you sort of end up with two yards; neither one is really that usable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we did think about that and we did measure to make sure we would not be putting you into having to go to ZBA, and we felt there was more than enough room on both ends. It's something to think about because this is an opportunity for us to have that, and any erosion that occurs in the future, you'll be just that much further away from it. So we would like to see it setback 50 feet from the top of the bluff. MR. WEBER: What is your, is your concern the visual or the runoff from the house or the lawn or, what is the reason that you are interested in setting it back more than the existing house? TRUSTEE KING: I think the more we can conform to the code, the further ahead we are. You know, the setback by code is 100 feet. MR. WEBER: From top of bluff or top of bank? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Top of bluff. MR. WEBER: And you consider this a bluff? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MR. WEBER: You do consider it a bluff. Okay. I guess I always thought the bluffs were on the Sound and this was a quote "a bank," not "a bluff." TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It fits under the description of a bluff. The Board of Trustees 31 October 19, 2011 . description does not say on The Sound. And you know, the typical bluff is on The Sound. But, on the bay there are many areas that have bluffs. TRUSTEE KING: Nassau Point is loaded'with them. MR. WEBER: The distance though, from the =- I know obviously in storms, but there'is a pretty good distance of beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree you are in a pretty protected area there. MR. WEBER: And it's not an exposure like The Sound or other-- TRUSTEE GHOSIO:Well, we have a choice -- MR. WEBER: Would it be possible to compromise on five feet further than what we have now? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think ten feet is asking that much. I think you have the room on the property.. I think it's to your benefit if you move the house back to the 50-foot from the top of the bluff. That's just mine, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. TRUSTEE KING: This is a good opportunity to do it, because it will be completely demolished. Now is the time, if you are going to move it back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the room is there. MR. WEBER: I think the room is there'as far as zoning, but visually, I'm not sure we are quote helping the situation. The concept that you are now creating two like equal yards, I don't know, it seems the house is right in the middle. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know, I-think you'll still have the view. The viewshed is still there. We are not taking the viewshed away from you, we are not moving it back and now all of a sudden-you have a house in front of you. We looked at that and considered that as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's moving it about to the edge of where the pachysandra is. MR. WEBER: Well, yes and no. Because the house, 1 think I said, is wider than that house. So it would be moving it, if you see the wing that sticks out on the left-hand side there, it would be probably ten feet would probably be -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: About to the edge of where the rock is. MR. WEBER: Well, it would be beyond, you know. You are talking about the pachysandra, that is already ten, 12 feet, you know, that abuts or is the same distance as that wing there. And we'll actually be behind that wing kind of pushing back further up the slope as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What is the Board's'feeling? Do you want to make a motion to include the moving it in ten feet, or do you want.to give him the opportunity to table it and look at it again next month? MR. WEBER: Again, you would not consider five feet as a motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so. TRUSTEE'BREDEMEYER: If we table, give him an opportunity talk to the owner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think in this case that is really going Board of Trustees 32 October 19, 2011 to, 1 think it's up to us at this point. You know, I'm looking at, I think it should be moved back ten feet. It's too close to the bluff. I think we have the opportunity to do that. And going back to the owner is not really going to change my mind. So to table it is just kind of pushing it off a month. TRUSTEE KING: He had a little drawing there, showing the new house. (Perusing). (INAUDIBLE). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want this on the record? I don't know if Wayne is getting what you are saying. MR. WEBER: The red line clearly indicates where the, so when the house is placed into the existing location, the back edge of the house is more or less in line with that wing that protrudes on the left. TRUSTEE KING: Is this the front of the existing house now? MR. WEBER: This is the side of the house. And this is the front of the house. The front of the house is this red line. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the wrong side. MR. WEBER: The water is over here. So this red line is the profile of the existing house. TRUSTEE KING: That's existing now and we are asking you to go back ten feet. MR. WEBER: Right. So what I'm saying, the back of that wing now is in line more or less with that wing there. So if you go back another ten feet you are actually ten feet further back from that wing, with the body of the house. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think ten feet is a huge issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so either. We moved houses further than that back, in Nassau Point. Is there any other discussion? (No response). Any other comments from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the exception of adding that the house is to be moved ten foot further back from the top of bluff to equal 50 feet, so that the house, so the distance from the top of the bluff to the house is 50 feet. Noting that it is consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a new set of plans consistent with that TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That is correct. We would need a new set of plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. WEBER: Thank you. Board of Trustees 33 October 19, 2011 'TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Bulkhead Permits by Gary, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD RIDINI requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 135'+/- navy style bulkhead in-kind/in-place; replace existing 5' &14' sections of bulkhead; construct new 6' inland vinyl sheathing return; backfill bulkhead with approx. 200 cy. Clean fill; replace existing 14'X 36' boardwalk and 30"X 8' timber stairs in-kind/in-place; replace existing 30"X 7' timber stairs in-kind/inplace; and remove/replace existing bathhouse and roof to allow for bulkhead replacement, and repair as needed. Located: 805 West Rd., Cutchogue. This is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however suggests aligning the bulkhead with neighboring bulkheads. Just to note, all these structures have prior approval from this Board, from years ago, then Hurricane Irene came along and demolished everything, so they have to rebuild everything. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. RIDINI: Christopher Ridini, attorney for the applicant, is here. I just wanted to make note, basically, as you did, that it is just a replacement mainly for the storm damage that was done. It's an inkind/inplace job. The comment that you made, though -- MS. HULSE: Sir, may I interrupt. Do you have an authorization to speak on behalf of this application? MR. RIDINI: Yes, I have one in my office. I don't have it here. I.could send it to the Board tomorrow, if that's okay. MS. HULSE: But you are maintaining you are authorized to speak? MR. RIDINI: Yes, I'm an attorney and also the brother of the applicant, okay? If I heard you right, you made -- did you make a comment about the alignment of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The CAC's comment, yes. That was their comment, to align the bulkhead with the neighboring bulkheads. MR. RIDINI: Okay, I would just have to object to that because what we are doing is just replacing what we have in the place it should be and to align it would actually be taking beach front away from the public and the existing beach that is there. It's very limited now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would be going further out. (Perusing). Unless we are talking about it this. (Perusing). To us, that's not an issue. MR. RIDINI: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anybody else who wants to comment? MR. RIDINI: My name is Dave Ridini, my brother and I own a house on that road. I wanted to speak on behalf of the people who use the common walkway. They have a beach there, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. MR. RIDINI: The only other point I did want to raise is the bulkhead material, obviously will be the new type of vinyl-type Board of Trustees 34 October 19, 2011 sheathing marine grade. As consistent with the neighbors who have replaced it on the east side already, and it's not being replaced on the west side. So it won't be, everything else will be the same. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we should change the description where it says replace navy-style bulkhead inkind, which is take out the word "inkind." MR. RIDINI: It's just inplace, I think would be better. It would be more consistent. Because there is going to be that line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to ask that. Because most bulkheads are so old people do use the newer material, so. Any other comment from the Board? (No response). Pretty straightforward application. Are there any other comments from the audience? (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 Bulkhead Permits by Gary, Inc., on behalf of Leonard Ridini, with the exception it's inplace and the newer material is used. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the resolution? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP. MR. RIDINI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of HANS & CELESTE FLICK requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place 101' of existing navy style timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing, backfill the structure with approx. 35 cy. Clean sand which to be trucked in from an upland source; reconstruct in-place two sets of 4'X 15' steps; reconstruct in-place 4'X 5' landing and construct a 4'X 93' timber walk immediately landward-of the reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 1200 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting on behalf of the Flick's. If there are if questions from the board or the public. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at this. It was found inconsistent with LWRP and I don't know why. Oh, I see. No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. I thought this was a walkway behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a platform behind the bulkhead that is connected to the neighbor's, as you can see in the picture here. They already replaced theirs up to this point. This is just to finish it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's existing. Board of Trustees 35 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: All right, Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. They made the comment they support the application but there is evidence of tree removal and installation of a fence on the bluff. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we had a question. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That fence is really rotted and old. MR. JUST: That's an old chainlink fence from years ago. It's shown on the surveys and the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What are your plans for that? MR. JUST: It was never mentioned in discussion with the homeowners, quite frankly. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any problem with removing it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if I would remove it. It's rotting away. It will be gone in about five years. MR. JUST: It's probably cement footings in it, if it's chainlink. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty well grown over. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just asking. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was straightforward. I don't have any huge issues with anything here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What was the inconsistency for? TRUSTEE KING: I guess it's for the little platform. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says it doesn't allow any new. And this is not new. So I would find this consistent. Because it's not a new structure. And the code doesn't allow new. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with it. Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response). Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, finding it consistent. Everything that is there has been there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & MAIRI YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 18' extension to the existing 4' wide fixed catwalk with a 4'X 12' fixed "T" section at the terminal end thereof; construct a 16'X 32' in-ground, raised swimming pool, raised masonry patio, and an outdoor shower; construct masonry retaining walls around the west and south sides of the pool to contain the pool and approx. 55 cubic yard earthen material to be obtained from pool excavation; install a drywell to contain pool backwash and a pool enclosure fence; and Board of Trustees 36 October 19, 2011 establish an 8' wide non-turf buffer and a variable width (+/-32' - +/-71'), approx. 11,699 sf. Non-disturbance buffer. Located: 470 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. The project has been deemed both consistent and inconsistent with the town's LWRP. The inconsistency is for the dock construction only. The remainder of the project as described, which entails the swimming pool that is the consistent portion. The CAC has voted to approve the application. And the Trustees have been to the site to perform two inspections and did have questions also concerning the dock at the site. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Chris and Maid Young. It is a project that has two different components to it; one which is the upland component of the proposed swimming pool and patio, which is proposed beyond th.e 50-foot required wetland setback under the Wetlands Code, and as mitigation for the project, we are proposing as John described, a 32 to 71 foot non-disturbance buffer, and on the landward side of that an additional eight-foot non-turf buffer. So this project which was originally constructed entirely out of the DEC's jurisdiction, is probably why much of this property has remained in an undisturbed state. So this would now, as part of the proposal to install the swimming pool, sort of make permanent and memorialize a lot of that non-disturbance area that had not been previously been required when the property was originally developed. As far as the fixed catwalk is concerned, I just handed up to Lauren a revised plan, which hopefully you are passing around, which reflects some changes that I proposed when I met at the property with Jill and Jim and Dave for field inspections. Basically, just also to fill you in, John and Bob, on a little bit of the backdrop to this, is this is a, the existing catwalk was approved by this Board years ago, but had originally been approved in a longer form. At that time, the owners were James and Marina Mitchell and the New York State DEC cut us way back so that the catwalk didn't even really make it out beyond low water. So it was not a particularly useful structure, but the Mitchell's took the permit.and when the current owners bought it they hoped that someday they might have an opportunity to try to lengthen it. We had originally proposed something longer than what I just handed up. It would have extended the structure by a total of 18 feet structurally, and then there would have been room for about a seven-foot beam boat on the outside of that. I anticipated that that probably would have been considered a little too long for this area by the Board, but I had designed it that way with the expectation that the DEC would require us to get at least over two feet of water. With the fixed "L" or Board of Trustees 37 October 19, 2011 fixed "T" at the end. But as I explained to the Trustees when we met at the.site, I met previously at the site with DEC staff, both from Environmental Permits and Marine Habitat Protection, and we discussed the length of the structure and they had indicated that if we had to bring it back a bit to make sure that we would comply with your one-third rule, that they would allow us to do that in this case. And so that is what we did. We cut the overall proposed extension of the catwalk back by six feet. So now you would have only an eight-foot extension to the fixed catwalk with a four-foot"T" on the outside of that, allowing them for another seven feet. Your total seaward intrusion from low water would be about 18 feet, where 19 would theoretically be allowed, measuring from the lowest or narrowest point of the creek. So I'm not sure if you are indicated why the project was considered to be inconsistent, but I'm going to guess that it had something to do with the length. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I didn't detail it. It concerned essentially, was three parts. The first two dealt with the width, ease of navigation and not impairing beyond the one-third. Others related to boat usage in general concerning high density of residential docks in the town and whether there are facilities for handling garbage and other such things. But that has not been a point of this Board in consistency reviews for private properties because people can take their own waste off their boats. MR. HERMAN: Right. That would seem to be a concern that you could relate to virtually any dock project, but the first of the three would seem to be the most site specific and a legitimate concern. But I'm hoping that we have resolved that concern by cutting it back by six feet. But Jim and Jill were part of that inspection, so I could let them respond. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, the original catwalk permitted was longer than what was actually built, right? MR. HERMAN: Well, there are two parts to this. The original, when the Board originally issued a permit, it had issued a catwalk with stairs that went out into the creek. We had to then come back in and modify that for something that, I think was like eight or nine feet shorter because of what the DEC would allow. Then what was built ended up being about the same length, I think it's 46 feet I think is what the modification was ultimately for. The angle is slightly off so it's maybe half a foot or a foot shy of even where it should have been. So I had given you a sketch, I don't know if you have it there in the file, but when we met at the property, I had given you a sketch that basically showed you what the original -- TRUSTEE KING: You are not really going out much further than the original permit. That's the point I'm trying to get at. MR. HERMAN: Correct. Board of Trustees 38 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this the dock? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the address, according to -- MR. HERMAN: I think you are getting closer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's the next one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think the dock is in that picture. MR. HERMAN: Or it is and you can't see it. It really doesn't extend out in the water. It's possible that is it, Bob. It could be it, Bob. What you have centered there now, but where is the house? MR. HERMAN: Bob, I'm not sure. Something doesn't look right. But I have, I can't recall if we submitted an aerial shot, but we have a bunch of shots looking basically up and down the creek. Do you know when that photo is from? Does it show on the bottom? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says 2011 Google. MR. HERMAN: I don't know if they have the metadate on it. I don't see an actual year or photo. Something looks off. I'm thinking they missed the house, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it was within the last year. MR. HERMAN: Most of the typical Google shots now are from like September of 2010. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's from June, because I live right over there and I kind of Googled my house the other day because I wanted to look at something, and I noticed that we didn't have a big soccer goal and we didn't have this and that, and certain things we had, so I estimate June it was, so. MR. HERMAN: There is a mess of a dock that is in that direction. So it may be that. So that might be the right location, more or less. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think it will impede navigation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Particularly with this one here. MR. HERMAN: That was why we sort of dared to put in the initial proposal, but I think lopping off that six feet makes a big difference. Because when we were there, you can actually see, this was the outside, this stake was the outside of the "L" section that we originally proposed, and this was the inside. And this is only four feet. So the seaward side of the revised proposal would actually be in here, two feet closer to land than the inside stakes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially the flags would represent the width of the boat. And those issues would address specifically the one-third navigation issue, and the new plans do comport a potential seven-foot beam of a vessel. MR. HERMAN: Right. And we could go another foot to make 19, which would still be a third, but I would rather err on the side of caution so that if he puts a beam and somebody says, well it's seven-and-a-half feet wide, he would still actually be within his rights, but, I think it, the DEC's willingness to allow us to come in closer I think resolves the issue with Board of Trustees 39 October 19, 2011 navigation, frankly. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? Discussion? TRUSTEE KING: I'm happy with the modification. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just the description, just note the description is an old description. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. MR. HERMAN: So, John, the modification or description for the modification is 4x8 extension to the catwalk and then 412 "T" on the seaward side of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. A motion was made and seconded. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor to close the hearing? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application subject to the new project plans stamped received in the Trustee office October 19th, that comporting with a new verbal description for the project which would be for the dock portion of the project, which would be a 48 foot extension to the existing catwalk and a 412 foot "T." The project modifications bringing the project into consistency with the LWRP where specific inconsistencies were noted in the project for the water side, the dock, that being that the project now is within the one-third limit across the creek for navigation and does allow for an approximately seven-foot wide of a beam of a vessel. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on.the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of HENRY & SUSAN RUGGIERO requests'a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 166 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, +/-11' westerly vinyl return, and +/- 28' vinyl return in place of(and 12" higher than) existing timber bulkhead and returns; and backfill with approx. 50 cubic yards of clean sand/topsoil to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 425 Calves Neck Rd., Southold. LWRP on this application find it to be consistent with LWRP, however it does suggest that a silt boom be used to retain all suspended sediments in the project area. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because the return will cause excessive erosion; there is no provision for public access and; no justification for raising the bulkhead by 12 inches; boat lifts are prohibited and; the property should have at least a 20-foot non-turf buffer. When we saw this property out in the field, we did note the 20-foot non-turf buffer, including the long, the returns, and in discussing the raising it 12 inches, we actually are proponents of that on steep grades such as this, to help prevent runoff Board of Trustees 40 October 19, 2011 from getting into the wetlands. With that being said, I'll ask if there is anybody here who would like to address this.application. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Bob just addressed one of these issues, the very reason we are proposing this is because of the steep slope that leads down to the water. So we tried to demonstrate in the cross view raising that wall 12 inches will actually allow that slope to flatten out, which will also allow probably for a little better implementation and maintenance of the buffer. And we do show on the plan there was a 20-foot non-turf buffer that was previously required by the Board. We would of course ask for the Board to allow us to do the logical thing, which would be to replace the bulkhead and then implement the buffer to be consistent with the prior requirement and of course this time around I would expect that you would have a requirement for a covenant for the 20-foot non-turf buffer. So we do show that on the plan and the applicants understand that buffer will have to be established upon completion of the project. The rest of it really is all inplace replacement. With respect to public access, I mean this bulkhead is wet at all .tidal cycles. There really is no walking access along the seaward face of this bulkhead, so I'm not sure how else to address that concern. And I think that was it. Unless I'm forgetting something. I'm not sure why the project is even being reviewed under 268, though. It's an inplace replacement of a bulkhead on a creek. So it should be exempt. Unless he felt that raising it 12 inches changes the condition. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any time you change -- MR. HERMAN: But I think the way it actually reads, it would be a substantial change. To me that's not really a substantial change. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who is that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He found it consistent. MR. HERMAN: I was wondering why it was even being reviewed. It would seem it should be exempt, as a minor action. Whatever. And the silt boom, that's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I figured. Any comments from the board? Jack, do you want speak? MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't inspect the site and I don't know if it's an optical illusion, but the width of that pier, I see the angling going out to it, but the width of that structure seems like it's at least six foot wide, and it looks like it's at least 40 feet out into the waterway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is larger than the code allows. It's something that has been there for a long time. I believe it's permitted, and it was not part of this review, so that's why we didn't comment on it. MR. HERMAN: I think these owners had been into the Board when Board of Trustees 41 October 19, 2011 they purchased the property. I think this goes back, this is -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: About five years ago, because I remember making comments about leaves that were being dumped at the time. MR. HERMAN: Yes, and what I'm looking for, though, was the original -- yes, I think there was, they had come in a couple of occasions, it was originally back in 2000, um, where the Board issued a permit for the floating dock. And then they had come in, again, in '08, for some retaining walls and a patio and that's when the Board had required the implementation of the 20-foot non-turf buffer. So we did look into, I mean we are not proposing to do anything with the dock other than temporarily remove the ramp. But we did look to see if it had been addressed and permitted by the Board and apparently it had been in 2000. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the plans do show a 20-foot non-turf buffer on them. MR. HERMAN: And I think I even noted on the plan it was as . previously required. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer in the description, even though it is shown on the plan, knowing that it is consistent with LWRP, and also with the addition of a requirement of the silt boom during the process. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN & JANE MCGILLOWAY request a Wetland Permit to remove approx. 2,318 square feet of existing wood deck and steps and construct partially in heir place approx. 1,585 square feet of masonry patio and steps; establish planting beds in place of deck areas to be removed and not replaced with new patio; resurface existing swimming pool; and install drywell to contain backwash from existing pool. Located: 430 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck. This is consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application with the condition roof drains are installed on the pool house; the floating dock is included on the plans; the patio is permeable; and a drainage plan for the cottage located on island. The floating dock, Jack, do you know what floating dock they are talking about? MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't inspect this property but it was mentioned that, at our meeting, that there is somewhere around that diagram, the one we received, it was an indication of a Board of Trustees 42 October 19, 2011 floating dock. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I don't believe there is a floating dock on there. And I don't know how the rest of the Board feels but I think the cottage is.totally separate from this project. It could, you know, be a request for them to do drainage over there but the work is not going to be anywhere near that area. Drainage for the pool house, definitely would fit into this. MR. MCGREEVEY: What the CAC does, in doing these inspections, we try to do it as a comprehensive look, even though we are talking about maybe an isolated construction, we do take the whole property into consideration. Because I think as time goes on, I think that will be more and more stressed by the Trustees and by others. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, it's worth mentioning. MR. HERMAN: I think I know what dock CAC is talking about. I'm looking at an old, I'm actually looking at the plan that was approved by the Trustees for a prior project, remember we replaced the concrete seawall, and there had previously been shown a little ramp and floating dock coming off the north side of the bridge that connects the little island. So the only thing I can think of is when this survey was updated at some point, that that float was out-seasonally. But it is reflected in prior approvals from the Trustees, so I'm not sure it's necessary to have the surveyor go out and locate that now for this project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I don't think it's necessary. I think we have been out, you've gotten your approvals for this and I think what you are doing now is downscaling what you have, and it just improves the whole area. MR. HERMAN: There will be an over 700-square foot reduction in the actual surface area in the back. A drywell will be added for the existing pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you add the pool house drainage to that drywell? MR. HERMAN: Pop another drywell in there, sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY:.What about the drainage on the house, is there any plan to put that into drywells or, I think maybe we talked about maybe a French drain around the house? Because if they don't want to put gutters and leaders. MR. FABB: Jonathan Fabb, Greenport Landscape Contracting. We talked about that once before. So we can do that, we can do a gravel French drain. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just really on the one side. The rest of the area is flat and kind of closer to the parking lot. But on the east side, you know, that would be important to have a French drain mostly on that side. MR. HERMAN: Yes. I didn't even take notice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment from the Board? (No response). Any comment from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Board of Tnistees 43 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Kevin and Jane McGilloway with finding it consistent with LWRP and the condition that the pool house be included into the drywell, the drainage there, and to do the French drain around the rest of the house. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of BEE HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 44'X 41' two-story frame dwelling, septic system and associated site improvements; install a 4'X 27' walkway @ 3' above grade on six 8" X 15' piles @ 9' on center, 30" X 15' seasonal ramp and seasonal 5'X 18' floating dock secured to two 8" X 15' anchor piles..Located: 400 Old Cove Blvd., Southold. This was found inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. Proposed action is located in AO flood zone, an area subject to flood depth from one to three feet; applicant has not shown adequate controls to prevent storm water from entering Arshamomaque Pond; proposed action to install a 4x27 walkway upgrade is not a permissible action pursuant to, and it goes on. It's in the Wetland Code no new docks will be permitted over vegetated wetlands such that it causes habitat fragmentation in Arshamomaque Creek and Pond. The CAC resolved not to support the wetland application. The property requires numerous variances. Is there anyone hereto speak on behalf or against this application? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. Before we get started, I would like to request that we withdraw any reference to the dock from this application, without prejudice. TRUSTEE KING: So we are just addressing the house. MS. MESIANO: Yes. I would like your comments first because you described the project, so. TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. MS. MESIANO: Well, what we are proposing to build is a two-story frame dwelling, as you described. We are maintaining a setback from the existing seawall of 48-feet to the nearest corner-- excuse me, 45-feet to the nearest corner of the house. I just want to make sure that on the survey where distances from the bulkhead are noted, the 37-foot distance is from a two-story deck. It's not a first-floor setback. In your discussion of LWRP and CAC, you mentioned the flood zone, and the house is designed in conformance with the FEMA requirements maintaining the adequate first-floor elevations. As far as flood controls, we are proposing hay bales and Board of Trustees 44 October 19, 2011 silt fencing to be maintained for the duration of the construction so as not to allow any runoff into the creek, and upon completion of construction there will be drywells adequate to contain roof runoff that is calculated in accordance with the code. The septic system is designed in conformity with Suffolk County Health Department regulations. Clearing, this is not clearing per se because this is a clear property, so disturbance is limited to the areas immediate to the construction site. And if the Board has any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. Have you received Suffolk County Department of Health Services approval yet? MS. MESIANO: I can't get their approval without the town and DEC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They want the town and DEC first, okay. On the cross-section for sanitary system it shows you are proposing six eight-foot diameter by two-feet deep leaching pools. I thought the standard system for the county Health Department was a five pool system for shallow to ground water areas. MS. MESIANO: This is a septic system that will, the minimum that is required, side wall surface for, I believe a four-bedroom house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, it relates to bedrooms at this time. So you are adding a leaching pool to accommodate greater flows, I guess, to meet sanitary code? MS. MESIANO: Yes, this is the minimum septic system that is required for this size house, and the Health Department - requirements are based on the number of bedrooms in a house, not the square footage or cubic area of the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Point of clarification, I guess, because I was concerned that sanitary system that can't meet the separation from the bottom of the leaching pools to ground water might have to be higher up, and might pose difficulties to site drainage. MS. MESIANO: The engineer was able to mathematically work everything out so that a large retaining wall is not necessary to build this up for the proper separation distance between ground water. So at this point we basically shoehorned the septic system in and saw what was left afterwards. That's typically how I go about recommending development of a site is, okay, let's design the septics system and see what you are left with rather than propose a great huge house and have a compromised septic system that they are trying to battle for. It doesn't make sense. So this is how this all came to be. But the septic system does maintain the adequate setbacks from the wetland and it does maintain the adequate separation from the ground water. TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, just reading this, evidently you went to the ZBA with this? MS. MESIANO: Yes, the Zoning Board didn't have a problem with anything but they said, well, go to everybody else first and then come back. I proposed the same plan to the Zoning Board as Board of Trustees 45 October 19, 2011 I brought here, and they didn't deny the application, they denied it without prejudice and said back after I get Trustees. and DEC. The DEC application is complete. I have submitted any additional information they required and I'm just waiting for their permit to come in. And the DEC is, um, actually, will be a letter of non-jurisdiction, because I was able to demonstrate the existence of this bulkhead prior to '77. So the construction of the dwelling will be non-jurisdiction. They will approve the proposed dock but, as I said, we are withdrawing that. And the Army Corps and Department of State had okayed it as well, but again withdrawn.- So'a moot issue. should also give to the Board a copy of a map that actually I would like to give it to you, fax it or send it in, because I think this is my last copy. But I had the surveyor do a map for me, that showed the setbacks from the bulkhead in the area immediate to this, and our proposed setback is greater than every waterfront house within the immediate area. TRUSTEE KING: That was in the findings of the ZBA. I see that in here. MS. MESIANO: So you have that map? TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't have the map, just the description. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Cathy, I have a question. It's really not in our purview, but I always like to know. What's the first floor elevation? MS. MESIANO: The first floor elevation should be noted on the survey, and if you look at the cross-section of the septic system, the finished floor elevation,is ten. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sometimes we, you know, first floor elevation, because the flood plain is up so high and it ends up being this huge -- MS. MESIANO: Yes. No, we kept the overall height of the house TRUSTEE KING: So Zoning denied the variances as applied for. MS. MESIANO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the way you applied for Zoning is just what you are applying to us. MS. MESIANO: Exactly what I'm applying to you, and they said come back to them after I apply to you. Does your application package have the a copy of the proposed house plan? Just so you can see that it's not an imposing structure. I didn't know what the Zoning Board would have -- (handing). That measurement is, the height is to keep at 31, so the midline would be well within, you know, reasonable -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, I have a question. I don't understand why Zoning --why couldn't they table it and ask them to go to other, boards, like we do?' I mean unless there is another reason why they denied it. Do they have a different procedure? MS. HULSE: The ZBA? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. HULSE: I didn't see the decision in this case. MS. MESIANO: Jerry was having one of those days. I hate to say that. Board of Trustees 46 October 19, 2011 MS. HULSE: We can't comment on the reason why they made the decision. MS. MESIANO: We got all the way to the end and they discussed everything as to how they would like and approved conceptually of certain things, and I got the decision and I was surprised. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just concerned with if, you know, you are applying to us the same thing that they denied and then go back to them are they going to deny it again, if, say, we approve this. MS. MESIANO: I don't know on what basis that could deny the plan itself, because I went to them a year ago for the structure immediately adjoining, for setback•issues, and it was approved. And the site, the house immediately adjoining, had earlier variances from the early '70s. So there is plenty of precedent for approval of what I've requested because I'm requesting less relief than everything around it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the relief you are requesting from the ZBA, is it just from behind the bulkhead? MS. MESIANO: It was the distance from the bulkhead and it was the front setback because Beverley Road is a paper road, private road, and the lot line is actually on the far side of Beverley. So that poses a sticky situation because you can't obstruct any egress there. So that's why we proposed the driveway on the north side of the property. If you look at the site plan, you'll seal the driveway is coming off of that dirt road, Old Cove Boulevard, so as not to obstruct Beverley Road, and beyond this house there are really only two properties to be accessed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just concerned with,-from my understanding is if something is denied without prejudice, you can't come back with the same exact plan. You would have to change the plan in some way. And if you are planning on going back to them with the same exact plan, I don't understand if you would get anywhere with that. I don't understand. MS. MESIANO: I'm just doing what they told me to do. They denied without prejudice on the basis of my not having the other permits. And I couldn't get, I mean, from a practical perspective, I would not design something if the Zoning Board said I won't give you the front setback. This Board is not concerned with the front setback. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. MS. MESIANO: If the Zoning Board took away anything from us, granted us less relief, it would be less, the only thing that would affect this Board would be the distance to the bulkhead. And they would not give me more, they would give me less. So any modification I might come back to you with, would be for a greater setback to the bulkhead. I would not be asking you for greater relief. Because they would have already determined that. So anything that this Board approves would not be, how shall I say it, I wouldn't have an approval of a greater magnitude from the Zoning Board. MS. HULSE: This Board can't approve something that is applied Board of Trustees 47 October 19, 2011 for in the same way as it was applied for in the ZBA and denied. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's my question. MS. HULSE: Sorry, it took me a while. I just read the decision. The Trustees can't do that. We are not a board of variance. If that variance is denied, they cannot then grant you a permit for the same request. MS. MESIANO: I'm at a loss. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see that you have the footprint of the house 48-feet from the bulkhead. Is there any Way we can get that 50-feet, even if we kind of shorten the house there? MS. MESIANO: Well, the house is designed, I mean it's a minimal footprint. I'll go back to the Zoning Board and I'll move the house closer to the -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a 3,000-square foot house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not minimal. MS. MESIANO: The footprint is -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1,600-square feet. MS. MESIANO: But look at the dimension. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 41x40. It's 1,600-square feet. TRUSTEE KING: It's almost twice the minimum -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's room to work here. MS. MESIANO: So the dimension is 45.45, that's the northerly wall, with the 20.7, if I bring that in two feet and I make that depth of the house at that point 42.5. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would get it 50-feet away from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering if the whole thing can be completely reconfigured, and if the house was turned, so that one wall was parallel with the seawall, it would kind of get everything away from everything and you'd have a smaller house. MS. MESIANO: Well, what dictates is the setback to the septic system. You have to maintain ten feet between the septic -- TRUSTEE KING: You could maintain that. You could maintain that same setback, very easily. MS. MESIANO: I understand what you are saying, however realizing that putting a dock in diminishes the value of the property substantially, and now to whittle away the size of the house is more of a taking, if you will. TRUSTEE KING: I disagree it's a taking. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Frankly I'm surprised there is nobody here to speak against it. I mean I understand it's a beach community and the houses are fairly close together, but I actually expected a couple of folks to come in and not support it. MS. MESIANO: The other houses are much higher or very unsightly. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess that depends upon your point of view, but this will substantially cut down on the view from a couple of those homes. I'm surprised nobody is here to fight against it. MS. MESIANO: The house across the street, as I recall, is quite a bit higher. It's a much taller house. I can't help that nobody is here to protest. Board of Trustees 48 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just making a statement. I'm surprised. I could see what comes down the road with this, after it's approved and goes up, people come in screaming. MS. MESIANO: It's not exceptionally high. The code allows greater height. We didn't go for that. We kept it as low as we could. You know, 50-foot setback, I think is a concession. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it seems we are sort of in the box that we can't go ahead with the plan as submitted because of the ZBA having denied it, so most of the discussion we have here is a bit hypothetical until we get a new plan in. I sort of look at it similar to Jim, there is still a little bit more wiggle room on the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we ought to just deny it, or table it, I don't know. It will have to be resubmitted anyway, so MS. MESIANO: If this Board approves an application for a 50-foot setback from the seawall, I'm really shoehorned in because this septic system takes up about, almost a quarter of the property. Not quite a quarter. I would say 20% of the property. And putting, we can't put the house on the northwest corner because we've got the same situation with the distance to the wetland. You know, without speaking with my client, I'm willing to say, yes, we'll give up the two feet across the back of the house, give the Board a 50-foot setback, which is significantly more than anything in this area. You know, I can't help that nobody came and complained. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's irrelevent, I was just making a statement. MS. MESIANO: It does not appear to be an issue for anyone there. I'm offering more to the Board than any other property in the area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Cathy, Jim is drawing something over here that is more in the center of the property, if you want to come up and take a look. TRUSTEE KING: It's just a rough -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think they would even have a better view of the water. TRUSTEE KING: It's a rough sketch. That's roughly 4500, the little sketch I just drew in. MS. MESIANO: We had discussed that, and for esthetic purposes they didn't want to canter the house in such a way because it would not look good having a house caddy corner across the property. It would just not be esthetically pleasing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I disagree but, that's, it's up to the owner. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we can do anything the way it's submitted. I really don't. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Kathy, at this time we have two choices here. We can deny as submitted or we can table for you to go back and redesign something we are legally able to consider. MS. MESIANO: I would prefer that you table it because to what end would denying and re-applying. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would deny without prejudice and you Board of Trustees 49 October 19, 2011 would have come re-apply. So we are offering to table and you can re-design and come back.. MS. MESIAN& And I'll have to accept that. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RUSSELL & JULIANNE KARSTEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a partially covered deck off rear of existing dwelling; hot tub; as-built pool, patio and fencing. Located: 57908 Main Rd., Southold. This project is deemed inconsistent because it does not have a current Trustee permit and should contemplate vegetated buffers. The CAC voted to approve. I don't think the Trustees really had a problem with it. It's a matter of I guess bringing this into compliance with some historic structures on the site. Anyone here wish to speak on behalf of the application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. The pool and patio does have a permit. It does have a C of O. I think what happened during the application from the previous, I think from the.pool contractor, was that they had a-dimension on their survey from the wetlands boundary, from high water. Which was 120 feet. So I think when the Building Department looked at it, they saw this as out of the jurisdiction back in 2001. So I.think that's why this got approved from the Building Department and got a C of O but didn't go to the Trustees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a reasonable explanation, I guess. Interesting. MR. SCHWARTZ: Because even on their application they checked off not within 100 feet. But it was within 300 feet. But it's non-jurisdictional from the DEC because it's above elevation ten. I'm pretty sure that's the way it went down. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the Board had a problem with it. What about addressing the inconsistency, is there a potential for non-turf buffer? I didn't visit the site, so -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is plenty of buffer. TRUSTEE KING: It's all non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not new construction, and with the existing, I would find it consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Any further discussion? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that this has an existing and natural vegetated buffer, that the discrepancy that might Board of Trustees 50 October 19, 2011 account for the structure having been built without a Trustee permit was deemed reasonable by the Board. That the CAC and Trustees visited the site and don't have a problem with the plans as submitted, so I would move to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 16, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JAMES NEUMANN requests a Wetland Permit to install a 13'X 5' floating dock attached to the existing floating dock. Located: 750 East Mill Rd., Mattituck. The application is withdrawn and I would make a motion to refund half of the fees. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 17, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge to 3' below mean low water approx. 82 cubic yards from channel at entrance to Association docking area as needed, within the docking area itself; dredge as necessary in the same areas to maintain width, depth and full accessibility of entrance channel and docking area on a maximum of four additional occasions during the next ten (10) years. Spoil will be removed to an approved upland location for deposition. Located: Main Bayview Rd., Southold. We did go take a look at this. LWRP has found this application to be consistent with LWRP. Also recommending an installation of a silt boom to retain all suspended sediments. The CAC resolved to support the application as submitted. That being said, as I recall from our field inspection, we didn't have any problems with it. The only question we had is who owns the bottom. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I can help clarify. MR. FITZGERALD: The property line runs down the middle, essentially of that waterway. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The tax map shows apparently, there maybe there was an abandoned tax parcel that shows a piece of property that Suffolk County owns, if I read the tax map correctly. Are you aware of that? MR. FITZGERALD: Not getting that, John, sorry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: After the Trustees field inspection I was doing office follow-up because being incapacitated with this bug I got, I went to address that question specifically who owned it. It appears, it's true, they own half, but the other half may actually be property of Suffolk County. MR. FITZGERALD: It is. And this is a repeat of previous ten-year maintenance dredging. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is. I don't know if we have to require a sign off by Suffolk County or we ever did. That was the question. Board of Trustees 51 October 19, 2011 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know either. But they -- TRUSTEE KING: I would feel better if we had something from the county saying it's okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because they had a regular-- and it may be perfunctory -- because we have a regular relationship with them with dredging. And I do recall this is a maintenance item that goes back to after the cove had originally been built. So it goes way back. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I agree with that. MR. FITZGERALD: You know, we had the approval of the county last time. And presumably they-would see it the same way this time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Have you applied to the county yet? MR. FITZGERALD: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that being said, I'll suggest we table it until we can get permission from the county, or at least verify, because it does have that property line shown right through the middle of where this work is being done. We can't issue a permit on work being done on somebody else' property without having at least a letter or some kind of permit from the county. MR. FITZGERALD: That's what we got last time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We don't have a problem with the project as long as we have everything in order. So I'll recommend we table it until we get that. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 18, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of SALT LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge portions of boat basin to 5' below mean low water; place dredge spoil at approved location. Maintenance dredge to same conditions as necessary at maximum of four(4) additional events during the next ten (10) years. Located: Old Salt Rd., Mattituck. This is consistent with LWRP and the CAC supports the application with the condition of the 20-foot non-turf buffer around the entire boat basin. One comment I have on the description, instead of saying additional, for additional occasions during the next ten years, what we normally do is just do a ten-year maintenance. So it's whenever you need to do the maintenance, you do it. If it has to be six times, it's six. If it's two times, it's two. So instead of specifying how many times, just do a ten-year maintenance. MR. FITZGERALD: Fine. TRUSTEE KING: That's good. Makes sense. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: If I may, this, again, is a re-do of a former, Board of Trustees 52 October 19, 2011 and the other two permits are still in effect, the Corps of Engineers and the DEC, because the last time around it got mixed up with a bulkhead thing and the three permits were spread out over almost a two-year period before they were all approved. So as I said, the other two are still valid. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How are you, how is the work planned on being done, coming from the water or coming from the land? MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Hocker will be glad to describe that to you. MR. HOCKER: John Hocker, Latham Sand & Gravel. The plan is to do it by barge and load it on to the barge, unload it at the association property. They own a narrow strip at the end of the basin. We can get close enough, directly into trucks, directory to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The reason I asked is just the condition of the CAC wanted a 20-foot non-turf buffer. If you are not going to be disturbing any of that grass. MR. HOCKER: I would be destroying a lot of property to do it all by land. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't see, I could have you send a message to the landowners that we would like to see a non-turf buffer behind the bulkheads there, I know they have lawns all the way. If you could request people put non-turf buffers there. We can only request it in this application. I don't think we can make it a condition. _ MR. HOCKER: Ultimately they'll replace bulkheads. Trustee king: Sooner or later we'll get them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: So you are saying that the non-turf buffers will be just optional, yes? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, in this instance. TRUSTEE KING: I think the time to address non-turf buffers is when bulkheads are built. MR. FITZGERALD: All right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean just make them aware this is what we want. If they want to do it now, fine. If not, when they come in for the bulkhead, it will be conditioned on that permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's an excuse not to cut their lawn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions from the Board? (No response). All right, anybody else in the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Motion to approve the permit of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Salt Lake Association, finding it consistent with LWRP as applied for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this a place where we might want a silt boom? I wasn't here when you were looking at it. I'm just asking. Board of Trustees 53 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to open the public hearing again. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a recommendation from, yes, we are talking maybe putting a silt boom up during dredging. Is that something you would agree to? Would that be a problem? TRUSTEE KING: Is it physically possible? MR. HOCKER: It is for a good portion of it, I think. As you get part of it kind of extends out into the creek a little bit, that might be a little difficult. Obviously I have to maneuver the barge, I don't want to keep running it off over. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's to the extent possible. It just popped into my head. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Salt Lake Association, finding it consistent with LWRP and using a silt boom to the extent possible. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 19, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of KEVIN LATULIP requests a Wetland Permit to spot repair as necessary the existing timber sheathing of 100 linear feet of bulkhead; add vinyl sheathing and filter cloth on landward side of existing bulkhead and repair, replace, or add deadmen as needed landward of existing bulkhead; place estimated 110 cubic yards of clean sand fill in washout area behind existing bulkhead. Located: 5386 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. We all went out and looked at it. It was pretty well destroyed. And it's found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a non-turf buffer of ten feet. We have all been out there. Most of these places, really, the whole front yard is basically a buffer. I see no turf, no fancy stuff, so I think it remains as it's traditionally been. And they don't have to necessarily have a ten-foot buffer. The whole yard is a buffer, basically. The only thing we suggested in that one corner maybe armor that with some stone. That would really help, because that corner took a real beating. If that had stone in that corner it would really help MR. FITZGERALD: The reason of the wash out was a significant failure of the bulkhead that did not have the vinyl sheathing behind it. So, but we'll see how the owners feel about it, and Board of Trustees 54 October 19, 2011 if it's going to make it better, I think probably they would want to do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was just a thought I had out in the field. Because if we get the storm at the right angle; it will just wash out that corner, and I just thought it would protect it that much more. MR. FITZGERALD: And it would slow down the wave beating. TRUSTEE KING: And there is a letter of support from neighbors. Robert and Salvatore Detrano (sic) are supporting this application. Anybody else want to speak to this application? MR. BURKARD: My name is William Burkard. My wife is the owner of the property you see there, the home you see there. And I strongly support your approval of this bulkhead, because it's, the actual wash out damage is now approximately five to six feet from my front porch, and ever growing as we speak, with today's nor'easter. My bulkhead that you can see there, was built by the same individual that is going to be doing the LaTulip bulkhead, and I lost my bulkhead completely, um, the nor'easter of April 15, 2007, and we had to have a full replacement, and it was because of that corner that it's constantly been a problem there, going back many, many years. And I just, um, want this to get done as soon as possible, because it's actually, it's more detrimental as it stands to my house now than it•is to the LaTulip property. TRUSTEE KING: Actually, when they bring fill in, some of that fill will be on your property. You have no objection to.that? MR. BURKARD: No, not at all. I have a $50,000 investment, uninsured, with that bulkhead there, and I don't want it going because — TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just needed to get that on for the record. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. BURKARD: Yes. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). 111 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, and also if they need to put stone armoring in that corner, that would be part of this permit also. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion. And it's consistent with LWRP and everybody likes it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 55 October 19, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY'. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, Jill e. Doherty, PresidenBo Trustees RECEIVED JAN 2 Q� So hold Torn Clerk