Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/22/2012 4 1 James F.King,President SU!/r Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President ,`O� Ol0 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Jxf Southold,New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer N Michael J. Domino ;RA �OQ Telephone (631) 765-1892 O Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AN 2 2 2 1 Minutes Sou hold Town Clerk . Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:00 PM Present Were:. Jim King, President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Mike Domino, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed., September 12, 2012 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., September 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 18, 2012 and May 16, 2012. TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our August meeting. We have Wayne Galante is here, he takes the Minutes for these meetings. So when it comes time for the public hearings, if you have testimony, please come to the microphone and identify yourself for the record so he.can get it on. If your name is difficult to spell, it's probably helpful to him if you spell your name.. We have Audrey Horton with us here from the Conservation Advisory Council. They come out and review many of the same projects we look at and give us their recommendations. Lori Hulse is our legal advisor. She is not here yet. She'll be here later on. And we have Elizabeth Cantrell, she's keeping track of everything. She is replacing Lauren Standish. Lauren moved on to the Supervisor's office. Elizabeth, you have a tough act to Board of Trustees 2 August 22, 2012 follow. I'm sure we'll get through it with no problem. The first item, we'll set the next field inspection for September 12th, at 8:00,in the morning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting will be September 19, at six o'clock with our work session at 5:30. Motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I have a motion to approve the Minutes of April 18 and May 16. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY.REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2012. A check for $10,099.08 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 22, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: They are listed as follows: Andreas & Yula Serpanos - SCTM# 51-1-17 Robert P: Auteri - SCTM# 123-5-31 Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp. - SCTM# 52-2-20.1 Katharina Scheideler- SCTM# 123-5-32 Brian.DeBroff- SCTM# 10-9-14 Peri Hinden - SCTM# 107-6-18 David Bergen - SCTM# 119-1-2 Peter Doran - SCTM# 119-1-3 Suzanne K. Smith & Estate of Edgar Smith - SCTM# 24-2-9 Mike & Ellen Feinberg - SCTM#40-1-6 Board of Trustees 3 August 22, 2012 William & Nancy Killen - SCTM# 83-2-6.2 Joseph Zalner- SCTM# 104-10-2.1 2 David Shultz - SCTM# 139-2-3 Thomas Cahill - SCTM# 107-3-3.1 Ali Reza Homayuni -SCTM# 135-1-20 Barbara Strokoff- SCTM# 66-3-8 19-64 Realty Corp. C/o Steve Mourkakos - SCTM# 114-7-2.2 Bernard M. Turchiano - SCTM# 123-3-6 Walter Blum - SCTM# 34-5-12 Adrienne Landau - SCTM# 94-1-7 Lazarus Alexandrou - SCTM# 33-1-11 Edwards Avenue Corporation - SCTM# 81-3-26.1 Anthony &Ann Marie Moschitta - SCTM# 104-9-10 Hernan Otano - SCTM# 53-5-12.6 Marilyn Pasierb - SCTM# 31-12-2 West Lake Association, Inc. - SCTM# 90-1-11 David Schab &Ariel Kaminer- SCTM#90-1-9 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have motion on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEF_ DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, abstain). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Please note I have to abstain from that since I'm one of the reviews. So you have three votes. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, these are rather simple. If there is no controversy over them, we look at them all, we try and group them together, and if we can group them together in one shot, it saves a lot of time. I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through six, and number eight, ten, 11 and 12. They are listed as follows: Number one, Eileen Santora on behalf of JAMES WILLSE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 22.3'x17.5' addition onto the landward side of the existing 26.3'x20.3' garage. Located: 1665 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. Number two, JUDITH C. HOCKEMEYER requests an Administrative Permit to renovate .the existing structure, siding, windows, re-build the existing deck; and to install a drywell. Located: 245 Bayview Avenue, Southold. Number three, VIVIAN V. EYRE requests an Administrative Permit to remove invasive species and cut back bushes and plant low salt tolerant plants or grasses. Located: 759 Orchard Road, Southold. Number four, PATRICIA FITZPATRICK requests an Administrative Permit to install a 6' high stockade fence along the eastern side yard property line. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Road, Southold. Number five, DIANE KELLY requests an Administrative Permit fora 10 Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12' in height by hand, as needed. Located: 75 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold SCTM# 71-2-7 Number six, Environmental East, Inc. on behalf of JANET CARRUS requests an Board of Trustees 4 August 22, 2012 Administrative Permit to extend the existing wood frame deck by 36". Located: 7055 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number eight, Donald Feiler on behalf of DAVID & ANN CORIERI request an Administrative Permit to construct a one-story addition to the existing dwelling, remove the existing deck, and construct a second-story addition. Located: 412 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Number ten, Arlington Electrical Contracting, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL GERACI requests an Administrative Permit to install a 4'x5' Kohler power system generator along the northerly side of the garage. Located: 525 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. Number eleven, Fairweather Design Associates on behalf of STEVEN & SUSAN BLOOM requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 250 square foot second-floor addition over an existing screened porch; first and second-story addition on the landward side of the dwelling; and install a drywell. Located: 7800 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. And number 12, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of MARGARET GANNON requests an Administrative Permit to demolish existing detached wood frame garage; construct two-story addition to existing single-family dwelling with attached garage on first floor and bedrooms on second floor; for the existing as-built accessory shed; and abandon a single specific cesspool. Located: 350 MacDonald's Crossing, Laurel. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve those all at the same time. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, CLAIRE MANNING requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing septic system and construct new septic system further landward. Located: 1470 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. This was found inconsistent. That's the only reason I put that off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the matter of number seven, Claire Manning, I did go out and looked at this. This is located at 1410 Jackson Street. This was found inconsistent because the Town Code says that the leaching pools need to be at least 100 feet from the top of the bluff line, and they are, looks like approximately 65 feet to the top of the bluff line. Now, this is not a public - hearing, but I didWt know if there was somebody here with the Manning application. (No response). Okay, and based on my review, when I looked at the project, I had the same concern. I noticed there was room along the side of the house to the east, and there is room in back of the house to the north to relocate the septic system. That would take it out of our'jurisdiction completely and then address the inconsistency under the LWRP. So that is what I would like to recommend to the property owners. So I guess the best thing to do is to postpone this until we have the opportunity to -- TRUSTEE KING: Are they moving it landward? TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are moving it landward very minimally. You can see some of the leaching pools here. That's the existing. These leaching pools are basically the same distance from the bluff line. They are at a different location, obviously. But Board of Trustees 5 August 22, 2012 this is the bluff line. I believe they are being required to do this because of the proposed project that is outside our jurisdiction by the Health Department. The Health Department has told them we'll approve your new project as long as you abandon and put in a new septic system for your main house. That's why it came into us. So still moving that, it's still 65 feet from the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we table this and talk to the owner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. So I will make a motion to table number seven, Claire Manning. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). The other inconsistency is number nine, Edward Danowski & Son, Inc., D/B/A Cutting Edge Landscaping on behalf of FJ GERARD HOLDINGS, INC., requests an Administrative Permit to grade, level and maintain original site which is to be used as organic material storage. Located: 495 Airway Drive, Mattituck. He's basically recommending what we did out in the field: This is at the Mattituck airport. It's at the north end of the runway. It's an area where there is some fresh water wetlands down below. and this is landscapers, they want to use the top flat area for some storage. It's mostly top soil and some odds and ends. We were out in the field and we felt that 50 feet from the end of the runway to the top of the top of the bluff is sufficient room for storage. And would also protect those wetlands down further, so I think making that 50-foot piece basically attached to the runway, would be consistent with the LWRP. There is some other issues on the runway as far as runoff goes that are far more sensitive than this that are not being addressed. But this is not their problem. So I would make a motion to approve number nine as submitted, with the 50-foot strip that could be used. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, and I think -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we just pull five out and I'll make sure on the record I'll abstain from that issue. .TRUSTEE KING: We have one other issue, from Resolutions . Administrative Permits. Sorry.We had an application last month for a fence on the beach. We had a resolution approving a fence that was 75 feet. We'll have to rescind that resolution. So number 13, Rescind Resolution dated July 18, 2012 and Amend Resolution to read as follows: RESOLVED, that the Southold Board of Trustees 6 August 22, 2012 Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the Administrative application of VITO & DINA MOLES to install a post and rail fence along the west side of the property from the concrete walkway seaward, to be no more than 52' in length beginning at the northwest corner of the existing patio seaward. Located: 4200 Kenny's Road, Southold. We had an application last month for a fence on the beach, and after we reviewed it, we had a resolution approving a fence that was 75 feet, that we are going to have to rescind that resolution. I'll make a motion to rescind that resolution from July 18 on the fence on the beach where the people's name is Moles. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: After a careful review of their deed and the survey of the property, we can give them a fence 52-feet long from the northwest corner of their deck, because that's only as far as they own. They don't own out to the high water line, because it's been beach accretion there, and they don't automatically own it. So I'll make a motion to approve the post and rail fence 52-feet in length from the northwest corner of the deck seaward. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: So that clears that up. Does anybody have any issues with any of these? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have to abstain from number five. TRUSTEE KING: The other, ones I don't think we have any issues. Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, I would like to approve one, two, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. They are listed as follows: Number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of JOHN & EMILY BREESE requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7200, as issued on October 21, 2009. Located: 3689 Pine Neck Road, Southold. Number two, Latham Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7176, as issued on September 23, 2009. Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold. Number three, CHERYL HANSEN requests a One Year Extension to Permit#7389, as issued on September 22, 2010. Located: 405 Williamsburg Drive, Southold. Number four, WILLIAM & DOLORES KREITSEK requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7420, as issued on October 20, 2010. Located: 2455 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck., Number-six, Fairweather& Brown Associates, Inc., on behalf of PETER & MARY KORNMAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7742 to replace the existing second-story balcony in-place; and replace existing wood deck with a brick in sand patio in-place. Located: 1077 Bay Home Road, Southold. Number seven, Fairweather & Brown Associates, Inc. on behalf of Board of Trustees 7 August 22, 2012 PETER & MARY KORNMAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7773 to reposition the proposed brick patio in sand by moving it slightly to the west and no closer seaward than originally permitted. Located: 1077 Bay Home Road, Southold. Number eight, Mark Schwartz on behalf of RUSSELL & JULIANNE KARSTEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7678 to include the as-built 4' high wood picket fencing to match the existing 4' high wood picket fencing. Located: 57908 Main Road, Southold. Number nine, Jason T. Poremba, R.A. on behalf of DAVID PAGE & BARBARA SHINN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7247 to decrease the size of the sanitary system and relocate the shed to a more conforming location. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of KATIE NICKOLAUS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7693 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7693C to include a crossview of the proposed westerly return with any disturbed vegetation to be replanted; and any discharge pipes protruding from the bluff face to be removed. Located: 17555 Soundview Avenue, Southold. And number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL McALLISTER & BARARA JONES requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7692 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7692C to include the tapering down of the top elevation of the proposed revetment from 11.3' to the westerly side of the property to 9.3' on the easterly side with a corresponding reduction in mass of stone; a crossview of the proposed easterly return and that any disturbed vegetation be replanted; any discharge pipes protruding from the bluff face to be removed. Located: 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold. And that's it TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We'll go back to number five, BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#285 from John M. Bredemeyer, Jr., to John M. Bredemeyer, Jr., and Jeanne R. Bredemeyer Family Trust, as issued on May 29, 1986. Located: 2660 Village Lane, Orient. I'll make a motion to approve that one also. We'll do a roll call vote. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Domino, aye). .TRUSTEE KING: We'll do a roll call vote. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Abstain. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. Trustee Bredemeyer abstains from this, it's a family issue. We'll move on to our public hearings. I'll make a motion to go Board of Trustees 8 August 22, 2012 off the regular hearings and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, BERNARD M. TURCHIANO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#1264 to extend the fixed dock an additional 30' into deeper water to allow approach and docking of boat to existing floating dock at low tide. Located: 445 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. There is a question of whether or not the present configuration conforms to what was permitted in 1977. We looked over this pretty good. There is some modifications to the original permit, and amendments. I think the present configuration does comply with the permit, with the amendments that were made to it. This describes that the structure will extend into the public water and result in a net decrease to public access. He would recommend an alternative mooring option in a more appropriate location should be considered. So that's the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application. Does not support the application because the dock would extend beyond the adjacent docks. And there appears to be adequate water depths of the existing length. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application or against it? MR. TURCHIANO: Good evening, my name is Bernard M. Turchiano. I live at 445 Bungalow Lane. I have a house there and an existing dock. When it first was installed in '76, it worked fine. It was wrecked by Hurricane Bob. It was rebuilt in 1992. Lately, there has been a great deal of nitrification of Deep Hole Creek. The runoff from the farm on New Suffolk Avenue is sending nitrates into the creek and growing sea lettuce in the Spring that goes to the bottom and raises the bottom up. At this point with my current configuration of my docking system, I can't leave my dock at low tide and I can't come in at low tide. Therefore I'm requesting to extend my fixed dock 30 feet into the creek. It - won't interfere with anybody's movement within the creek. It's well away from the channel, but from the measurements I have taken over a.period of time I should be able to get out at low tide and come back at low tide. I would like you to consider this request for an amendment to my current docking system. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. We have a lot of information here. Any comments from the Board? . TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Should we read this into the record or enter it into the record? - TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could stipulate it would be entered into the record. Board of Trustees 9 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: We'll have this letter put into the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Basically, just so the public understands, this is a letter from a Maloney, looks like James and could be Janet Maloney. With an introduction. This is not an objection to the dock extension but as neighbors we have concerns for safety code violations and visual esthetics. They then go into those details, and in summary state we are not objecting to the dock extension but we have concerns for the safety, esthetics and code violations. We especially would like the Town Code to be followed so the added structure is setback 30 feet from the seaward extension of the property line. I believe when we went out there the concern was the code also states that docks cannot extend farther than the neighboring docks. This would take it farther out into the creek, farther than the neighboring docks. TRUSTEE KING: I think some of the issues the Board had also is this far exceeds today's code, already, what is there. It exceeds the code quite a bit. There are two 40-foot floats and two 20-foot floats instead of one. I think it's the Board's feeling that what is there is good enough. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we took a depth reading also. Is that in the notes? TRUSTEE KING: The notes was the dock already extends beyond the neighbors. He has two-and-a-half feet of depth at low tide when we were out there. I don't think it's doable. I think that's the feeling of the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just introduce yourself. MS. TURCHIANO: Jane Turchiano. I would invite you to come to Deep Hole Creek to see some of the walkways and docks that have been approved and inplace, some of which impede navigation at the mouth of the creek. The distance between our dock and the other side of the creek is extensive and in no way impedes anything. MR. TURCHIANO: 200 yards. MS. TURCHIANO: Our dock is not in our neighbors' line of sight, so I can't understand their objections to the esthetics of it. And the inconsistency, frankly, with that determination of other docks and fixed docks that are in place, leaves me somewhat troubled by the action of the Trustees. I don't mean to be objectionable, but it's very hard to navigate out of the creek with a certain docks that has been approved and replaced. Thank you. MR. TURCHIANO: I would like to say there is a dock three houses down that is toward the mouth of the creek owned by a man named Jordan. And that dock extends further out than my dock will. And that is actually in line of sight of the Maloney deck. From where they can sit on their deck at that house, that would be in line. My dock is to the left of their house and if they sat on their deck for dinner or cocktails they would not see my dock. And I have looked at the length of docks up and down the creek and with my addition I'll have 70 feet of dockage, and there are people on my creek with 120 feet of dockage. TRUSTEE KING: Have you seen any aerials of the area? Board of Trustees 10 August 22, 2012 MR. TURCHIANO: No, sir, not recently. TRUSTEE KING: If you would like to take a look at this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have one here if you would like to take a look at it. TRUSTEE KING: That's an aerial view. That's your dock with the arrow. You see how far you are beyond the pier line? MR. TURCHIANO: Yes, sir, I see that. Jordan's dock comes out this far. TRUSTEE KING: That's the concern. If you come out another 30 feet, then they'll want to come out another 30 feet, and that's something we don't want to see. MR. TURCHIANO: I just want to say that these folks have their deck right here. They look out that way. They don't see my dock. The Jordan dock, that would be, this is further. I don't know this gentleman's name. There is a dock out like that, right out into the creek. TRUSTEE KING: But you can see what we are looking at. MR. TURCHIANO: I see that. But the matter is I can't get in and out at dead low tide. There is four feet of muck. TRUSTEE KING: I know there is an issue. I know that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our challenge here, sir, is that we have the -" code, the Town Code says that the dock cannot extend beyond the neighboring dock. That's code. So it already does that, and you are asking to extend further. And that would not comply with code. The code also states that docks must be 15-feet off the property line and I understand you already have a dock there, so your dock that is there is not 15-feet off the property line, by the looks of it, on the survey. And so, again, if we were to extend something, we would again not be following the Town Code. By allowing even an extension, that would be in violation of that section of the code of the 15-foot setback. There is an option to consider, because we do allow property owners in cases where vessels they have can't get to their dock, the opportunity to look at a mooring. And that is on option that is in the code. MR. TURCHIANO: Mr. Bergen, I'm 76-years old. I have a great deal of trouble getting from a tender on to my boat and off the boat on to my tender.. To me, it's a safety issue. I just can't do it. I'm not as agile as I used to be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I'm just issuing an option, that's all, that is allowed in the code. MR. TURCHIANO: The complaint by my neighbor, is that a complaint on esthetics or is it a complaint on the length of the dock? I couldn't quite hear. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's mostly esthetics. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It references the 15-foot-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Safety code violation and visual esthetics.. MR. TURCHIANO: Where does safety come in, Mr. Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is your neighbor's opinion. Not ours. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of order I think this is supposed to be a hearing where we hear from the public and then render a Board of Trustees 11 August 22, 2012 decision. I think we got a little far afield. I think I would like to bring it back in line. MR. TURCHIANO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else to comment on this application? MS. HORTON: I'm Audrey Horton, I'm a volunteer on the Conservation Advisory Council. I would like to say something. I don't want to lose sight of the fact we are talking about boating and I just want to remind everyone we are talking about boating. If it's too stormy out, you can't take your boat in and out. I was born and raised, we always considered the tide as to what time we were going out boating. How much wind there is. all those things are normal things that we don't have to compensate for. And I just wanted to remind everybody of that. Not going out at low tide is something every boater here has had to consider. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Comments from the Board? (No response). Anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Would anyone like to make a motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to dis-approve this application due to the fact that the Board cannot readily address inconsistencies that current structure exceeds the current requirements of the code in that it has two floats and it is within the 15-foot side yard setback, and the water depth appear by all appearances when the Board inspected it at low tide, appeared to be minimal usable water depth. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: And it was found inconsistent with the LWRP. I don't see how we could bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Given the facts that I stated, I don't believe we could bring it into consistency. We can try but it doesn't appear it's, we offered a try, I don't believe it's doable. TRUSTEE KING: That's the motion, it's seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID SCHULTZ requests an Amendment to Permit#7616 to raise the existing dwelling 16" to comply with FEMA required base flood elevation. Located: 2745 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. I looked at this. This was a second-story addition we approved previously to this house in August of 2011. And they are coming back for an amendment because they have to raise the house 16 inches to comply with FEMA. It was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? Board of Trustees 12 August 22, 2012 MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I don't really have a presentation to make. The application is pretty straightforward. This is a case where I just want to make sure that we have the Trustees' approval for everything that does have to be done to the house as part of the renovation. And this was figured out by the architect and the Building Department after the issuance of your original permit, so we are just coming back for your approval. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it. I didn't have a problem with it. It's pretty straightforward. Any other comments? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of HERNAN OTANO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7400 to demolish and reconstruct the existing seasonal cottage, and a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7400, as issued on September 22, 2010. Located: Cottage #5, Sage Boulevard, Greenport. This was found exempt under the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. This is a permit that had been before us in 2011. There had been issues that required ZBA approval, and the ZBA had given their approval of this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of Hernan Otano. You are very familiar with this project, so as you stated, we are bringing the Trustees permit into conformity with the ZBA decision and hopefully he can get started shortly. I'll answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else that had any comments to make in the audience? (No response). Any questions from any Board members? (No response). I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING:All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Hernan Otano as described at Cottage #5, Sage Boulevard in Greenport. And noting it was found exempt under the LWRP. Do I have a second? Board of Trustees 13 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, we have some postponements. I don't want anybody sitting here, sorry, waiting for something to come up that has been postponed. On page six number six, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM TURNBULL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7551 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7551 C to extend the west bulkhead return from S to 14' and modify the platform with stairs from SX 7' to 10'X 11'. Located: 54005 North Rd., Southold, has been postponed. On page seven, number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ANDREAS &YULA SERPANOS request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 100' of 1 to 3 ton rock revetment; re-contour top edge of bank; provide 1' high by 3' wide berm and a S wide non-turf buffer; re-vegetate area with Rosa Rugosa, Bayberry, etc.; backfill existing heavily eroded area of slope landward of revetment with clean trucked-in fill, approximately 300 cubic yards, and re-grade; terrace slope and re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass. Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. Under Wetland Permits, page seven, number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' wide pile and timber pier and install an 8'x20' floating dock with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladders. The overall length of the pier from the shore waterward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation is 120'. Located: 33 Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island, has been postponed. Page ten, number 24, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of THOMAS &MAE MAURI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling; construct new dwelling with new sanitary system in front yard; install in-ground swimming pool and patio; and install drywells as required. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Rd., Southold, has been postponed. We won't be addressing those tonight. Sorry if someone is sitting here waiting for them. And that's it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PERI HINDEN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#6732 to remove the existing seasonal floating dock and associated pilings; remove existing 30"x22' seasonal ramp and shorten by 2' to 30"x20' long; remove three (3) existing mooring pilings; re-install existing seasonal floating dock and ramp in perpendicular position to dock; provide three (3) new two 8" diameter pile mooring dolphins and one new 8" diameter anchor piling; install 5001b: Mooring anchor. Located: 1255 Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak with respect to this application? (No response). r` Board of Trustees 14 August 22, 2012 It was reviewed by the Trustees in the field. I don't think we had a problem other than I think concerns to reduce the number of pilings. We felt there was not the need for the number of piles there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm uncomfortable with a five-hundred pound mooring and how is that going to impact the area, you know, for a storm event, that he might not have another storm like that in 20 years. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The project originally was considered consistent in its original terms. The Conservation Advisory Council approved the application. They were asking, they wanted a 30-foot non-turf buffer near the electrical box, near the property line. They were asking for a non-turf buffer in connection with this application. Is there anyone here to speak with respect to the application? For or against it? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Seeing those three piles, Jay, that are on the side of the dock, when they originally came in, they wanted to put tie-off piles further off to hold the boat off the dock. What we did, these are called sliders, that dock square piece, to fasten the boat tied to those, they slide the boat up and down the piles. After we had them installed, but unfortunately when we had the hurricane, the wind came out of the south, he has the boat on the south side, so the boat got beat up. That's the reason he wanted to change the configuration of the float so the float sets north and south. Which to me makes sense. That's the way he should have done it from the get go. But I don't believe he needs all those tie off miles. Maybe one tie-off pile Would be sufficient. That's my personal feeling I been around boats all my life. I think when you have a storm coming you put the boat in a safe area, you don't leave it on the windward side. But the wind, we had a howling wind right out of the south. He took a shellacking. But I think it's a better configuration. But all those tie-off piles are,unnecessary, in my mind. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council comments concerning the non-turf buffer, we always try to incorporate them but we usually do it as a means during the course of ordinary construction if there is a bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: See, this is way is too much. He just needs a tie-off pile here, that's enough. There is really no room to put it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are looking at is the plans and noting that there is room for a tie-off pile to the south, and there is one noted on the plan here, so, I agree what we are looking at is an opportunity for a single tie-off pile to the south, and that should be sufficient. We also, we couldn't put tie-off piles up here to the north because it would be too close and infringe on the neighbor's property line. Extended property line. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is, as neighbors, in a storm event he Board of Trustees 15 August 22, 2012 could run a line from the neighbor's dock to his boat if there is winds out of the north rather than come out into public domain with all his piles. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely. Any additional comment or concerns of the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application subject to conditioning that they limit themselves to one tie-off pile to the south of the reconfigured float. TRUSTEE KING: That would be two piles. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be two piles holding the float in place, plus a tie-off pile. Two plus one. And to move to deny the five-hundred pound mooring anchor at this time. So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Stuart Narofsky, AIA on behalf of ADRIENNE LANDAU requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7123 to build planter no more than 3' off the existing bluff side deck and no more than +/46" below the top of deck in order to eliminate the need for deck rails; the grade on the bluff side will not be altered; plant non-turf indigenous ground coverage along the bluff side; on the side yards raise grade to within +/-1'6" of the deck top; new pool fencing perimeter; relocate deck stairs. Located: 855 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And provided that the vegetated buffer be extended to the landward limit of the coastal erosion hazard line. The Conservation Advisory Council supported this application with a condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees in the field inspection on August 15 noted that the planter does not meet the criteria for elimination of deck railings. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. NAROFSKY: Stuart Narofsky, architect for the project, here to speak for Adrienne Landau. I spoke to Mike Verity about the elimination of the rails on the bluff side and he made me aware that in case of the area where the grade drops significantly, which would be in the northeast side of the bluff or deck, that any grade further than 40 inches from that deck he would require a rail upon inspection. So it's our intention to comply with that. That on the side yards as we had our walk through, as you noticed, and had in the rear where we built the planter, where the grade is within 30 inches where Mike has stated the code would requires us, we won't have a retail. But it's within, - approximately, will work out approximately eleven or 12 feet of one area, we will of course put a code rail to properly protect Board of Trustees 16 August 22, 2012 the safety of the occupants of that part of the deck. So we are willing to, per your recommendation, we are willing to add the section of rail where the grade requires it and keep everything else in this application intact. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: My understanding that that planter on the bluff side of the deck will not meet the standards for rails. If that's the case I don't see any need for the planter. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I tend to agree with you, since it's an additional construction toward the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: It's really, as non-conforming as it is with it being so close to the bluff. That doesn't mean you don't need rails. I mean, what's the sense. MR. NAROFSKY: Can I respond to that? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. NAROFSKY: Again, I agree with where the grade drops off, but there is a significant part of the deck where the planter will allow for them not to have a rail and give them more elbow room and a little bit more visual openness on those portions of the deck. No argument on the areas where the grade drops off, as I stated. So we would, and I assume the side yard conditions, Mike didn't have any issues with that, technically. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think this Board has any issue with the sides. It's the bluff side, seaward side of that deck. If you . want to table this and we can get something formal from Building, I don't care. My discussions with Mike was this was not going to fly. Maybe we need something in writing from him, from the Building Department. Because I think that is a severe grade, the whole front of it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: My thoughts exactly. TRUSTEE KING: Because there seems to be some miscommunication here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. NAROFSKY: Mike was pretty specific on the 30-inch on the grade drop. TRUSTEE KING: He seemed to be pretty specific to me this was not going to fly to put a planter on that. MR. NAROFSKY: The only reason we went for the application after our walk through was because of my conversation with Mike. Had he said otherwise, I would have kept the side yard intact and eliminate the bluff side. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion.to table this application pending further information. TRUSTEE KING: We need better clarification from the Building Department. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 17 August 22, 2012 MR. NAROFSKY: Okay, thank you. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Docko, Inc., on behalf of BRIAN DeBROFF requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to lower the deck of an existing 6' wide by 42' long pile supported pier; install an 8'x20' float with associated 3.5'x28' hinged ramp; new 10" diameter restraint piles; five (5) new 10" diameter tie-off piles; repair±57' of mortared stone seawall, all at and waterward of apparent high water. Located: 271 Gloaming Extension, Fishers Island. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. The extension of the dock structure will result in a net decrease of public access. That's basically his findings. Preserve the public interest and the use of lands and waters held in public trust by the State in the Town of Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as submittedJower the deck, 8x20 floating dock, restraint piles and five tie-off piles and repair 57 feet of mortared stone wall. And 1 think there are some letters in here, too. There was a letter from Mr. Wahl. I guess he's with the Fishers Island Utility Company. They are concerned about proposed extension would cause a hardship on users. If the proposed extension were a reduced expansion of the dock, on the utility property, potential reduction of navigable waters will not exist. That's if the dock is not lengthened. And I think that's the comments. And there is a second letter here, just came in today. Fishers Island Utility -- evidently the,plan has been modified. We'll get into that. Evidently the plans have been modified now and they no longer have a concern. The previous concerns they had are no longer valid. In our field notes we just have shorten the project and reduce the number of piles. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. NIELSON- On behalf of the application, my name is Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., from Mystic, and I've prepared the application documents and survey for this project. I would just like to pant out that at the time of your site visit on August 6th, Reynolds DuPont, Jr., from the utility company, was also present and observed the concerns that you had noted. He called me that afternoon and we prepared, we called Mr. DeBroff and explained the issues of the conflicts and obtained a consensus to bring the floating dock ten feet-closer to shore, as you.had noted, and to remove the tie-off piles on the west side of the floating dock to eliminate the conflict with boat access to the utility dock. So the drawings that you have before you that were transmitted about ten days ago, do show the revised project description with the tie-off pile Board of Trustees 18 August 22, 2012 removed, tie-off piles on the west side removed, and the shorter floating, I should say the shorter overall encroachment. I believe that this resolves not only the concerns that you had expressed and that the utility company had expressed, but also the LWRP inconsistency finding. And I would like, would respectively request approval of the project as shown in these modified plans. If you would like to get into them in greater detail, I would be happy to go through the drawing. This 2436 illustration shows the same thing as the drawings you have in front of you. I would have be happy to answer any questions if you have them. TRUSTEE KING: So you are just going to have one tie-off pile, Keith? MR. NIELSON: There are two on the east side. There is one even with the end, the outermost limit of the floating dock, and there is one about five or-- sorry, about 15-feet off the east- northeasterly corner of the fixed pier. So instead of having Mr. DeBroff's boat tied up at and beyond the float, it will be from the float in toward the pier. That keeps the bow of the boat in about two feet of water and the stern in about three feet of water, and the float properly situated both for your regulations and the DEC 661 section. And by the way, the DEC has issued their permit. I have a copy of it here. But since we just got it today, I didn't have a chance to make a copy for you. TRUSTEE KING: I think in the original application you were asked for a 6x20 float? Now you are asking for 8x20? MR. NIELSON: I have been showing it as an 8x20 because the waves that come into West Harbor and the boat wakes in the channel, I'm a little concerned about a standalone 6x20. TRUSTEE KING: We had the feeling in the field this is really pretty protected. The further dock to the west, yes, but this dock is really kind of far more protected than the other dock to the west. I know things, everything is bigger on Fishers Island, but if we can go with 6x20; I think we should go with a standard 6x20. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You also have four pilings there on that proposed 8x20, you have four piles? MR. NIELSON: I have four float restraint piles. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Here is 6x20, one pile here, two plus two, plus the ramp. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are talking about, Keith, is the 6x20 float with one restraint pile on the outside and two restraint piles on the landward side of the 6x20. Because that's, we have had a lot of them in town built to those specifications. TRUSTEE KING: I think that would help with the consistency. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it will help with the consistency. Actually, some of the discussion on our field survey also went to the-heart of the issue that it is very protected. We didn't hear any discussion from some of the island residents that were Board of Trustees 19 August 22, 2012 there at the time, I think Ken Edwards was one, I don't think we heard there was a fetch problem there. TRUSTEE KING: Further to the west of this, but not here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not this particular location. I think the 6x20 float is -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That combined with the two tie-off piles, I think would provide adequate protection for the vessels in bad weather, given its location. MR. NIELSON: May I request we keep the four restraint piles on the float? A six-foot float is quite a bit more tippy than an eight-foot float and I would just assume, I would really prefer to have restraints at each corner, if you can find that acceptable. TRUSTEE KING: It's better than an eight-foot float. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess so and it addresses if there is a boat wake issue. Because it is fairly narrow there. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we make it eight-inch piles instead of ten. Two eight-inch would be sufficient. MR. NIELSON: We would go along with that. TRUSTEE KING: Make it eight-inch piles. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. NIELSON: Thank you. Were there any other questions for me? TRUSTEE KING: No. Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, for coming back with plans based on our feedback. That makes our job a lot easier. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this? (No response). Anybody from the audience? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Keith, will you send us new plans indicating what we talked about tonight? MR. NIELSON: Sure. You'll have them this week. TRUSTEE KING: Board? (No response) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the following modifications: It will be a 6x20' float, in the new configuration; and the four piles holding the float in place will be eight inch piles. And I think that's all we talked about. And it's, the whole project has been shortened from when it was originally presented, so that will bring it into consistency. It's shorter now, it's more out of the public domain; the float has been reduced in size and the pilings have been reduced in size;.and therefore that brings it into . consistency. That's my motion. . TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you. Board of Trustees 20 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of SUZANNE K. SMITH & ESTATE OF EDGAR SMITH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to re-stack fallen stone and re-cap concrete within property line. Located: 680 Bay Lane, Orient. We went out and inspected the job. It's exempt under the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council voted to approve the application. It's a very straightforward application to re-stack stone that had escaped from underneath a concrete cap as part of the coastal revetment and, likely during storm Irene, I guess and preceding storms. It's pretty straightforward. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Susan Smith and the Estate of Edgar Smith. Susan is here, but as you described, it is a pretty straightforward project so unless you have specific questions, it's a long night. So I'll be quiet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have one specific question. That recapping was going to actually, you'll remove the existing concrete cap, I take it, and then dispose of it in an upland site or incorporate it in the re-stacking? That was the question I had. MS. MOORE: Good question. I'm not sure. Susan? MS. SMITH: Susan Smith. Sorry, I couldn't quite hear all of your-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I had, the existing cap is failing and it is cracked, and to re-stack, presumably you'll have to remove the existing cap and either break it up and incorporate it in the existing rebuilding and re-stacking of the wall, or take it to an upland site. I was just concerned and as a point of information how you are going to handle it. Ideally, the more stone that can be put back in the revetment, the better, because it would allow for the public to pass and repass along in front of it at low tide, because this is an area where people do like to shellfish and like to walk back and forth. MS. SMITH: We have not gotten to that point yet but would you rather not have the -- if the concrete has to be broken up to accomplish that, and I agree it would make it stronger and tighter, would you rather not have the concrete, full concrete become part of the -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think, speaking from what I saw there, I don't think it's a problem with incorporating the concrete. My hope would be you would remove the existing cap in its entirety. The term re-cap was a little confusing and I didn't know whether you were going to simply try and re-stack the fallen stone on the face and then pour an additional cap over the existing cap where it's failing. I would think it would be.preferential to remove the.existing cap and to re-stack the stone that is fallen, and if the concrete material were reincorporated into that, I don't see that as a problem. It was really more of a question of how you are going to go about it. The more material that comes off the floor of the harbor where Board of Trustees 21 August 22, 2012 it's all fallen down in front, the better. But I can't see how you would do it without removing the cap in its entirety. MS. SMITH: I think you are right, it would be a better, long-lived product if we followed your advice. We had not gotten to that point but I would be happy to agree to that. MS. MOORE: I think you might want to consider what the budget is. I think when Edgar was alive, I think he was anticipating patch work more than anything else. That was my understanding. But certainly, nobody got that far, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember as a young fellow, which was only a couple years ago, that actually most of the rocks on these revetments, because of their size, they've settled substantially. Even the cap has settled. In a lot of cases the rock is almost up at the level of the top wall, and the material that is now settled is also a very substantial base. You've addressed the questions. I don't think it's critical either way. MS. MOORE: Should they remove it, they'll just be sure to be careful to take it to an upland site. I think that is what you are suggesting? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess if you are going to incorporate it into the wall we should probably see an amended plan, since you are really only asking to put the rock. But if it's a budget issue, I understand budget issues, so. Thank you. MS. SMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else here wishing to speak to this application? Any questions? (No response). I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. It's straightforward. And noting that it is exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of MIKE & ELLEN FEINBERG requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to convert the existing dwelling into a pool house; cosmetic repairs to existing structure which includes new patio door and replacement of damaged deck boards; connect existing sanitary to new expansion pool and new septic tank; and existing water line and vault relocated and connect to new house. Located: 62445 North Road, Greenport. The Board has been out to this property. It was determined to be consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application and recommends the pool house and deck are relocated ten to 15 feet further landward of the coastal erosion line. No septic line and no CCA-treated lumber on the deck. Is there anybody here to speak Board of Trustees 22 August 22, 2012 for this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Feinberg. Mr. and Mrs. Feinberg are both here. We started this project a very long time ago, before they bought this property. This particular structure was really the reason, and last time he was here, you heard on the record, the reason he bought this property was for this 1800's structure, which is so unique, there is no other structure like this in the Town of Southold, I'm sure. It was built from driftwood. And what the overall plan was, was that it was obvious this structure could not be it has a CO for a single-family dwelling. However, it is not a very comfortable single-family dwelling. The Feinberg's always intended to just leave it there, use it as, I'll call it a man cave in a sense. It's where he sits with his chairs, drinks a beer and enjoys and ponders. And I think he put on the record last time, when he questions his sanity for buying this property he only has to sit there for a few minutes and then realizes it's all worth it by sitting there in this structure. MR. FEINBERG: It's been a lot longer, lately. MS. MOORE: That was Mr. Feinberg on the record. What we did, we have to call it a pool house, obviously, because you can't have two single-family dwellings on one property. So the pool house, it's been relabeled, that's it. It's merely been re-labeled as a pool house. The sanitary is existing. It has been there since the prior owners got their pre-CO many, many years ago. There is an existing sanitary, excuse me, septic tank. There is an existing cesspool that went through, again, prior to his acquisition of the property. We were very careful to make sure that the cesspool, everything had legal permits and Health Department permits, because the properties along the Sound are very difficult to construct sanitary systems. There is a lot of clay. And thereafter we wanted to be sure this property had a legal sanitary system. So this, the existing, what it shows as existing CP is the existing septic -- excuse me. ST is the septic tank and CP is the septic pool. I do want to give you an updated plan, actually, because the plan you have there is one where the existing sanitary for the new house was the expansion pool and the new septic tank was within your jurisdiction. However, in that time, we actually sent the plan back to the Health Department to have the plan re-stamped with the proposed present existing condition of the septic tank, septic pool and the proposed septic tank and expansion pool. Sorry there is a lot of CP's and VP's, so. I have this. This is the most recent. I just received it today, as a matter.of fact, so. It will.give you a more current location so can you see things are moved away from the bluff. . The house is actually, we originally had a letter of non-jurisdiction from the Town for the proposed house. We actually moved the house further back 17 feet from the pool. Everything has had to shift a little further back once the pool Board of Trustees 23 August 22, 2012 was put into place because there are regulations regarding distances to the swimming pool and so on. So the plans that I have given you that has been stamped by the Health Department and last dated by the revised plan Health Department stamp is August 14, 2012. That, with an August 1st, 2012, house septic tank on the notes from the surveyor. So you can see everything is remaining exactly as it is with respect to the structures within the area of the bluff. The pool has a permit. It was, it's further back 82 feet from the top of the bluff. The.house is at 124 feet from the top of the bluff outside your jurisdiction. And the new septic tank and to new expansion pool shown as ST and E, appear about 108 feet from the top of the bluff. The only thing that I see here that I was asking Mr. Feinberg, we had originally come to you and asked, as an amendment to the permit, not to have to put in a drywell, because his pool system is a dry system. It is a self-contained system. It doesn't require a drywell. I noticed that sometimes the surveyor changes things without anyone asking. The drywell is showing here on this plan, it's actually not in place there. It's not going to be there. We actually need to put it over to the east side of the pool where the, if you are going to require a drywell for the pool, we are putting it over to the east where it says 19.5 feet to the property line. That's the area where it most likely will be located. Again, it is not necessary because the pool system does not require it. However I think the message I got was no, we still want one even though we don't need one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless you change the site inspection, the pool location manifold is a standard manifold that it has to backwash. Also with excessive rain, I'm just curious, how would you take care of excess rainwater filling the pool that would have to be lowered to possibly make skimmers or other filtration equipment work properly? What we saw there was very conventional and all those things I just said would typically require a drywell. So unless they have additional information of a type of pool construction or system that -- MS. MOORE: Okay, he'll put the drywell in, that's not a problem. But I'm just letting you know it's not in the location. This is my Health Department survey. The Health Department doesn't care where the drywell is, as long as it's an appropriate distance from sanitary. So we'll move it over outside of the area that is proposed because the previous pool permit said put the drywell, you know, on the landward side of the pool. Again, sometimes engineers and surveyors change things and I'm the last to know. So that won't be there. As far as the pool house, it is remaining exactly as it has been since the 1800's as a structure. We were here before and we explained when we got the permit for the stairs, we actually needed to reconstruct the end of the stairs. I requested in my Board of Trustees 24 August 22, 2012 permit to make repairs to the wood deck. Um, and we, under the covered wood deck, it's all, I described it as a wood deck and I didn't realize you guys distinguish between one deck over another. So we are clarifying today anything that needs repairs, we have to repair. But if you see the outside perimeter of this structure, the decking is in perfect condition, it's only rotted under that little roofed-over area. There is plywood there that was put up by the prior owner and it needs to be repaired. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to note for the record we stamped these plans that you just gave us tonight, received August 22, 2012. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against this application? MS. MOORE: I think.we just need to understand what you want from us, because -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: First, I do appreciate with these new plans the fact that a lot of the structure, proposed structure, has been moved back. Thank you, for that, and trying to get it out of our jurisdiction as much as possible. Including the septic. We appreciate that. I wish counsel was here tonight because the feedback that we have received is that the challenge here is .this, the proposed pool house, is a habitable space. You are proposing building a new habitable space, a new house, and that would be then two habitable structures on one piece of property, which is not allowed, our understanding, is not allowed in Southold. And that's why I wish counsel was here tonight to advise us on this. MS. MOORE: No, I think you are using the wrong terminology. I can advise you because the reason we are doing all of this -- TRUSTEE KING: You are not our attorney. MS. MOORE: (Continuing) a habitable space is, we talk about dwelling, not habitable space. We can't build a second dwelling without converting what is our dwelling now, which has .essentially, I mean if you wanted to sleep in it, you could, but it's not going to be a sleeping quarters. Originally, without the main house being there, the prior owner would set up a cot, he could sleep there, it was considered a single-family dwelling. My client never intended to have that be a single-family dwelling. It was always going to be downgraded to a non -- not a dwelling. It's not weather it's habitable or not habitable. It's a dwelling versus -- you know, is it a dwelling or is it not a dwelling. Without a bedroom, we have no kitchen, it is not a dwelling. We are making it a pool house. And that's, you see a lot of pool houses, you know, all the time now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MS. MOORE: We are actually taking the exact same structure, . which is essentially an elaborate shed, and making it a pool house. Pure and simple. Because there is already --we can't call it a shed because there is a toilet in there and there is a sink in there. But aside from that, it's staying exactly as it Board of Trustees 25 August 22, 2012 always has. So I want to correct your misunderstanding. It's not habitable is not the permitted use, it's dwelling. You can't have two dwellings on a piece of property. So, and that's what we are trying to address here. And that's why it was so confusing why this was an issue, because we are actually downgrading the use of the building. And that is typically not a problem under our zoning code, so. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, are you telling us you can't build this house here with that building there in its present condition? MS. MOORE: Pardon me? TRUSTEE KING: Are you telling us you can't build a new house with that being there as it is now? MS. MOORE: We can't build a dwelling if this continues to be labeled a dwelling. We don't have to do anything. It's like a shed. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind you are putting the cart before the horse. In my mind I would build a new house and then address this as a pool house or whatever you want make it. MS. MOORE: I would have done that but building department says, no, we can't do that. You have to get approval to convert this to a pool house, then they can give you the building permit for the house. I'm doing what the Building Department is directing me to do. Technically, we don't have to, we come back and get a -- let me go back a little bit. The Building Department thought it would make is easier and better recordkeeping if we make a building permit application for this to make it a conversion from a dwelling to a pool house. Because then 20 years from now, somebody can't look at this structure, let's say the Feinberg's sell to Donald Trump, and Donald Trump wants to convert this into a dwelling, and all of a sudden has two dwellings on the property. Well, no, the Building Department records will show this structure has been downgraded. It is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. it's being downgraded to a pool house. And you can't go backwards. Unless you were to demolish the big house, you can't go back and make that a dwelling. And arguably you probably need the Trustees' approval to convert it back to a dwelling, but who knows what the laws would be when Donald Trump owns this property, so. I'm trying to be as clear and simple on this as I can, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to bring this discussion here to the Board. Given the testimony that has been received tonight where the applicant is, the applicant's agent, is stating that this is a requirement of the Building Department and it's a requirement that this would not be a dwelling, is there an opportunity then to condition an approval of this with the condition that this would not be considered a habitable dwelling, and those are my words, it would be in essence a pool house. MS. MOORE: That's why I applied for it as a pool house, because you can't give me something I'm not asking for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, this is a discussion for the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The short answer is yes, I would agree to that. Or condition it on confirmation of those facts with the Board of Trustees 26 August 22, 2012 Building Department I'm comfortable with. .TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Audrey, do you have a. comment? MS. HORTON: Yes. I think it can all be cleared up if the toilet were removed from the house. From the dwelling. As soon as we have pool houses with toilets in them, everybody else, I mean that's a real attractive thing for most people. And some of them will be hooked up properly and some may not be hooked up properly, and there will be no way of you going in and checking and seeing all that. And I have huge concerns with everyone having a toilet in their pool house. So to me if the toilet is removed, cement is poured into that septic system, let them keep the sink and drain with water, I don't care, but -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. My question for the applicant is would the applicant consider the removal of the toilet from the structure? I'm just asking if you would consider-- MS. MOORE: Before you say that, I mean see this Health Department approval, it's done legally, engineered wise"-and the issue she is addressing would be if I, we had not gone through all the trouble to get Health Department approval, I would say of course, people should go and get Health Department approval to put a toilet in a pool house, just like you have to get Health Department approval to put a toilet in a garage. A toilet doesn't make a dwelling. A bedroom makes a dwelling. And a kitchen makes a dwelling. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So your answer is no. MS. MOORE: My answer is -- it's not my answer. Because I would recommend no. You'have a toilet here and it's connected, I mean it's all an integrated system. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, all I was doing is asking a question for a yes or no answer. That's all I was asking for. MS. MOORE: I have a serious legal objection to something like that when it's-completely not relevant to a pool house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A pool house construction typically provides a shower and basic -- MS. MOORE: The shower has to be outside. This is how the Building Department addressed pool houses. A shower must be on the outside. And toilet and sink can be on the inside. That's how the town has practically dealt with issues of pool houses that can be illegally converted to a dwelling. So. .TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, on the plans here you just gave us tonight, I'm sure I must be, here it is, I was just looking for the septic, it's the existing septic from this proposed pool house, the existing septic that will tie into the new septic system. Thank you. MS. MOORE: Yes, that cost a lot of money to put in, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Are there any other comments.from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seeing Trustee King does have some reservations, I'm wondering if, would it be a possibility to consider conditioning this potential approval on, before issuing the permit, that we just confirm the facts surrounding the Board of Trustees 27 August 22, 2012 conversion with the Building Department, where they were the ones who seemingly provided guidance to Ms. Moore. MS. MOORE: Yes, go ahead and ask Pat Conklin. She and I went round and round on whether I needed to come in and get your approval to convert something to a pool house when it was not structurally a change. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I know there is real concern on the Board, because the project description itself sort of reads almost like we are making a building..or zoning determination, which is beyond the scope of the Board. So I think there is some reservation here for us to be doing something like that. MS. MOORE: I respect that. Because that was my objection with Pat. I said why are you asking the Trustees to give me a permit for a pool house. Because usually you approve a permit for alterations. And we were not altering anything. But they preferred to have everything out, clear, you know, so that, don't know why, sometimes, like in the midst, we don't want to be in the middle of building our house and have the Trustees, because they don't know we are downgrading to a pool house, stop the project because somebody thinks we should have come to you. So we are trying to be proactive and avoid problems. That's why we are here. And while I would agree, legally it seems kind of not things you would typically address, the Building Department asked me to do it, and much to my client's dismay, because you know, what are we doing here, but as it was, I included the septic, the connections that were just within your jurisdiction, I said well, you know what, everything will be covered, so we'll, we won't have any problems, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would the Board feel about tabling this so that we can obtain legal counsel's opinion on this, because again, I wish legal counsel were here tonight. MS. MOORE: Here is my problem -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm very uncomfortable with this whole thing. MS. MOORE: I know. But I have been waiting for a building permit for the house. And it's out of your jurisdiction. And my client has been waiting two, three months to get a building permit, and the Building Department is saying, no., we want you to bless the conversion of this dwelling to a pool house. You know, if counsel says you don't need it, then fine, you know, we can rescind and amend the permit later, but I don't want to delay things because the Building Department is telling me to do one thing and you guys are saying, do wereal need to do this. One way or other, now I have a plan that you have that identifies absolutely everything that is going on in this property. And whether it's, I guess, you know, there is a legal term for it, but, you know, just gratuitous in the sense that you are saying yes, fine, we understand you are converting this, this is going to be a pool house. It doesn't hurt. Because it incorporates everything else. So. I just don't want to see another delay. It's driving my clients crazy. Come on up, you can tell them yourself. Board of Trustees 28 August 22, 2012 MR. FEINBERG- Michael Feinberg, I'm the owner. Funny, I was here August 21, 2011, and I thought this was all taken care of. understand that there are delays and I understand what is going on here. And I didn't really want to have to do this. Time is of the essence. And time is of the essence because if all things are equal, when you hit a certain age, time does become an essence. I happen to be fighting a disease and I have been fighting it for ten years now. I failed eight rounds of treatment and I'm on a round now that is kind of devastating. And I'm not, I want to be able to build this house. I want to be able to live in this house. I have done everything I could possibly do. Back in June, I was told that the building permit was held up because it's the July 4th holiday. and I understand that people take off. And now I called a week later and I was told, well, no, now there is this water damage assessment thing and I have to get a study done. And I went out and did it. You know, I'm not a hedge fund guy from the city. I worked my butt off all my life. This is my shot. And I did not factor in all these legal bills and other things that keep coming up. But I did that. I did the survey and I did the water damage thing and I thought everything was fine and we were ready to start. And these things keep coming up. And I'm getting nervous now. I'm really getting nervous. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. Trustee King last year was the one who said it would probably do more damage to tear apart that deck area. I mean to tear apart that house. The house is a shack but it's that pavilion over it that is irreplaceable. It was built in 1880. Those guys that built it were probably in the Civil War. It's a big thing. It is. It would certainly be nicer if the whole thing was gone. But I would not want to do it. There is history there. No one can remanufacture something like that and really, really would appreciate it if you take this into consideration.since we are doing everything that we are being told by the town to do. And thank you, for your consideration. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, sir. MS. MOORE: Just to clarify, the storm water form now that the town is mandating costs clients $2,000 to prepare. So that's our government and maybe you can pass the word on there should be a simpler way. But, okay, anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments? (No response). If not I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN:. I'll make a motion to approve this application tonight with the condition of the stipulation that this.pool house will not be used as a habitable dwelling. And that is my condition. And it was found consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 29 August 22, 2012 (Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye, Trustee Domino, aye). (Trustee King, nay). TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote no on this. I can't support it. Like I said before, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. And that building right there, down the road will look nothing like it looks now, when this is finished. It will look like a brand new garden structure. So I vote no. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record Trustee King is a no. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the renovation of the existing house consisting of new windows, shingles and roof; reconstruct rear second-floor deck, cut back "as-built" deck from 16' to 10' and retain 8' section with proposed circular stairs from second-floor deck to rear of house; drainage to conform to Chapter 236 of the Town Code; gutters to leaders to drywells on dwelling; new retaining walls, driveways and walkways in front yard; new basement windows and emergency access to basement under deck; and a 10' wide non-turf buffer to be installed and maintained along the landward edge of the top of bluff. Located: 2700 Sound Drive, Greenport. This application was tabled at our last hearing. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent because of policy standards. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. Sorry, one after the other. This is on Alexandrou. Actually I have Dave Chicanowicz with me today so that we can incorporate the landscape plans that he has provided. This is a house that was renovated. Some of the items that are listed are within your jurisdiction and therefore should have gotten a permit before it was started, and unfortunately we didn't. They didn't know any better. Well, they learned the hard way. At this point we are trying to retroactively get approval for everything, including things that really don't need permits, because the Trustees regulations allow, but nonetheless everything that has been down with the house, shingling, roofing, windows, have all been included, and in addition the landscaping that will take place. So, I'm here to try to answer questions. I know you have a lot of paperwork there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design. I have been hired by the Alexandrou's to do the landscaping for them. We have to date already landscaped the front yard, which I think we have a picture of. I don't think you took a visit since we landscaped it. But.this was.the proposed, but it actually looks a little better than this. This is the front yard. So we have everything contained, as far as all the overflow. The front yard as well, we did on the easterly side build a small rock wall to help contain the runoff toward Board of Trustees 30. August 22, 2012 the easterly side of the property, up to the front of the house. The plan that I think you received the other day, was a revised one, showing a masonry wall that runs the distance from the non-turf buffer landward toward the roadside of the house, with a French drain installed on the interior part to allow control of any runoff water that is protruding easterly, which seems to be a problem from the original. So this wall, retaining wall/French drain combination, will completely contain any of it. The wall will be two feet high. Um, so that height will be properly high enough to contain any drastic runoff. It will soften the grade slopes in that direction, and any trap water will run through the French drain landward. Is that pretty clear on the drawing? I think I made it -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it is, thank you. MR. CHICANOWICZ: The balance of the landscaping, we have ten-foot, non-turf buffer. I have talked to the owner, it is not a problem, if need be, to go up to a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along the bluff, giving extra consideration due to the„problems we have caused so far. How is that? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else? TRUSTEE KING: That took care of my concerns. That addresses the northeast corner. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I like the idea of a 15-foot, non-turf buffer, since we were all at the site before and that probably is in keeping with what was there when we were first out there. Or close to it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition that it includes the asked-for 15-foot, non-turf buffer on the easterly margin of the bluff. And in doing so will bring it into consistency under LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, number two, Philip G. Milot on behalf of KATHARINA SCHEIDELER requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing 50' of bulkhead in-place using vinyl sheathing and backfill with 140 cubic yards clean sand. Located: 3825 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot, non-turf vegetated buffer. Board of Trustees 31 August 22, 2012 MR. MILOT: 15-foot? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, 15-foot. Our field notes were, there is a 44 platform to be included with this for access to the beach from the bulkhead, and we recommended a six-foot, non-turf buffer. Also a six-foot return on the east end of that bulkhead. MR. MILOT: I think the application is for--first of all, my name is Philip Milot on behalf of Katharina Scheideler. The schematic, I believe, and the builder was indicating a ten-foot return. You are saying 15-foot return? TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to find it here. Bear with me. I'm confused, but I don't see a return on these drawings. I just see the bulkhead replacement. Oh, eight-foot return here. And that would be on the -- _._ TRUSTEE BERGEN: That eight-foot return was on the east side, correct, of the property? MR. MILOT: Yes. That neighbor does not want to replace his bulkhead so. TRUSTEE KING: I missed that on the drawing. I had it turned around. MR. MILOT: How big a buffer do you want? TRUSTEE KING: We recommend a six foot because there is very little lot area there. MR. MILOT: I put in a five-foot, which was standard in the area. TRUSTEE KING: We wanted it pretty much consistent with the next door neighbor to the west. They had a six foot and we just kind of walked it along. You have the little brick section there by the landing, that's fine. Just come across on the landward side of that. For the buffer. MR. MILOT: You want six feet? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. MILOT: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that we didn't have any problems with it. MR. MILOT: And the platform is okay, the 44 platform? I didn't put that in the notes. But obviously that platform will disappear one day when they replace the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think 4x4 was requested. We have no issue with that at all. Anybody else to comment on this? Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: With a five-foot return and-on the six-foot, non-turf buffer, on the landward side of the bulkhead MR. MILOT: Eight-foot return, right? Six-foot buffer, eight-foot return? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. All in favor? Board of Trustees 32 August 22, 2012 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing number three, ROBERT P. AUTERI requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 60' bulkhead and replace with new 60' vinyl bulkhead and construct new cantilevered 4'x4' platform with handrails. Located: 3885 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. This is the neighboring property. We were there. We actually could have opened both hearings simultaneously, to move things faster. The Conservation Advisory Council supported this application with the same request for a 15-foot buffer. The Trustees similarly viewed this and wanted to keep the buffer in line with the neighbor's six-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. And the project has been considered consistent under LWRP. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application? (No response). don't think the Board had a problem with it. Presumably the gentleman who stepped to the microphone then receded is Mr. Auteri. I don't think the Board had a problem with this application. It mirrors the one we just discussed. Are there any additional comments or concerns? (No response). Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the requirement that it have a six-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number four, THOMAS CAHILL requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x36' in-ground pool; pool fence; pavers around pool (4' walk-around with 10'x12' patio on narrow end of pool); slate walk from deck stairs to pool. Located: 570 Maple Lane, Mattituck. This was consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and they recommend the remainder of the largest tree closest to the wetland boundary be cut down to a stump. With the stump to remain. It's just a question, Audrey. That request for the stump, cut the stump down to ground level, is what I'm trying to say. MS. HORTON: Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. TRUSTEE KING: On Cahill, you recommended the largest tree closest to the wetland cut down to the stump. I take it that's down to ground level? MS. HORTON: On the stumps was, what I wanted them not pulled out by the roots, but to the ground. And I didn't care what level they need to. But stump grounding. When I looked at it with the homeowner, that they could still build a deck over it and it's Board of Trustees 33 August 22, 2012 just one big one that is really close in the woods that would start to take the slope out and all the root systems that were there. So I felt it would be in the homeowner's best interest and everybody's best interest if the root system were left in place and that he did something over it. He loved the idea, so. MR. THOMAS: I'm Thomas Cahill. I would just like to address that. I did have that discussion with Audrey and we will try to do that wherever we can, but where the pool has to be excavated there are certain stumps that will be have to be pulled out. TRUSTEE KING: I understand that. Any other comments from anybody? (No response). I went out and looked at this. I had no problem with it. Any Board comments? (No response). It was straightforward. Anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Melrose Marine Service, Inc., on behalf of WALTER BLUM requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new bulkhead in front of the 136' existing deteriorated bulkhead with an additional 67' along tfie northwest property line and landward returns on both ends. Located: 260 Robinson Road, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent on the 136-foot existing, deteriorated bulkhead, but inconsistent on the additional 67 foot, since the Town Code requires that bulkheads in tidal wetlands be restricted to low sill bulkheads, which this is not. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application with the conditions no disturbance of the marsh; no turf between the pool and the bulkhead; removal of sprinkler heads on the landward side of the bulkhead; that the bulkhead should be re-sheathed on the landward side; the area to, the north should be stabilized with rocks rather than the bulkhead. That would be the 67-foot bulkhead; drywells installed to contain runoff from the dwelling and the garage. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. MELROSE: Hi, I'm David Melrose, from Melrose Marine Service. .Thank you for listening to our request here. I have been authorized by Mr. Blum -- Mr. and Mrs. Blum are here this evening -- to obtain permits to secure and stabilize their shoreline property. That's my client's greatest concern, to stop the erosion that is occurring and to secure his home before any further damage or loss occurs. Board of Trustees 34 August 22, 2012 First, as you mentioned, we would like to ask for permission to replace this bulkhead on the southwest end of the property. Due to the proximity of the pool, we have been asking for a seaward expansion to not to disturb the area surrounding that pool. We are within 16 feet or so of that pool and the concern is any destruction of that area this side of the pool would possibly, could possibly cause damage or loss to the pool itself. That whole area in there, you know, we didn't see any way of going landward of that without disturbing the pool itself. Then secondly, as-you mentioned, we would like to ask for permission to continue a similar structure along the area at least into the end of the foundation, along that to the property line along the northern section. This structure was built in approximately 1972. The foundation is solely a 3x2 footing that skirts the exterior of the building, the house, and with a five-foot concrete wall above that creating the crawl space, and there is no additional foundation piles or supports holding that house up. The house foundation is now within 14, at the lowest point, to about 20 feet from average mean high water. We have a survey from 1992 showing these numbers to be about 25 to 30 feet. Most of this loss, maybe in the last ten years. It's just showing the increased erosion in that area. And the area of all of Sterling Harbor. Most notably this has occurred where I believe the Board has noticed, scowling has occurred at the return by the southwest corner of the property, and I believe that is noted at one of the last meetings we were here for a pile replacement. And the town noted that. Along the existing shoreline it could be noted the toe of the bank has been migrating seaward along the most of that exposed section, allowing the upper layers of the organic ridge substrate to erode away, causing in turn a drop to that side of the property. Upon architectural review, it was noted the appearance of stress cracks. These were very telltale signs along the perpendicular walls that run to the shoreline. On the interior side we have multiple stress cracks occurring, and most likely due to the loss of land along that bulkhead. I'm sure that the Board knows about the extensive use of Sterling Harbor, probably eight-hundred to a thousand boats are in and out of there on a regular, good summer day. The area also includes commercial use, and that harbor is primarily marina. Most of the harbor itself also is already bulkheaded, leaving the few exposed areas to absorb all the reverberated wakes that happen in the harbor, and this location in particular is very sensitive because it has no buffer whatsoever and it is a situation where the bluff drops right down to the water, where across the harbor it is even noted there are sections that are eel grass and different vegetation that grow up into like a beach-type set-up. But this has none of that; and has no docks actually using, no docks that brought in to act as a buffer whatsoever. And this being said, that my client expects no special privilege or doesn't want to gain land here, and only wants to stabilize what Board of Trustees 35 August 22, 2012 he has and keep it. And due to the proximity to the house, being right there, he wants to be able to ensure that that house stays as is, with the foundation, for the foreseeable future. The DEC has granted us permission for this, I believe you have copies of that. And you can see this is not the way we build today, with good reason, and due to the situation at hand we ask for your permission for this property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, I would like to note in our field inspection on August 15th, we noted we would like to check the ownership of the underwater land. TRUSTEE KING: It's town land. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the rip rap located on the southeasterly corner of the existing bulkhead has resulted in a healthy marshland developing there. Not scouring. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. BLUM: Hi, I'm Walter Blum, I live at that address, 260 Robinson Road. I've lived there for 25 years. I have been coming to Greenport for 40 years. To be honest with you, what has happened here is that the boat traffic has multiplied so many times that it has just created such a problem. Especially in the last ten years, I noticed a serious difference in my land, what has happened to it. And as you probably have seen when you were there, there are even holes behind the existing bulkhead from the wave action that comes in and out of there, because there is no authority that is stopping people from going in there as fast as they want to. And it's created a monstrous problem for me. I have one crack in the foundation that is about a half-inch in width, and if you look at the whole property, over the last ten years, I had to have painters come in and spackle right in the middle of the house. Because there has been cracks in the ceiling. And the property is sinking. And, um, my niece is married to an architect and he's in Ohio, but he came to town and they were visiting us last week. I showed him a crack and he says you are going to get many more if something doesn't occur here, because you are losing your property. So I'm begging you to please let me do something to prevent this from happening. Because I don't want to lose my house. I think it could possibly be a problem. And I did speak to someone with the pool and they said that with that much, the pool is a gunite pool, the problem with that is if you take that bulkhead and move it or remove part of it to put in a new bulkhead, you'll run a problem there as well, because you may push the whole thing right out into the harbor. So I don't know what you want me to do. But I'm certainly welcome to listen to whatever you have to say. Hopefully we.can work something out that makes sense. I certainly don't want to have this expense, but I don't have a choice. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question that may be more properly directed to Mr. Melrose. That is the southern end of the property, as opposed to the view we have here, on the west side, Board of Trustees 36 August 22, 2012 which is so close to the pool, does have a very healthy marsh trench and seems to be a number of feet away from the pool. Is there any reason that section of bulkhead can't be replaced inkind/inplace, meaning the last two legs bulkhead and the return so that the wetlands is already productive there would not be damaged. MR. MELROSE: Yes, because of the proximity to the pool there, it is, and I don't have the numbers, but you are further out to 20 to 30 feet away from the pool and, yes, that area there is a very healthy area of wetlands, and has been for many years compared to so many of the other portions of the harbor. So that could be. MR. BLUM: That is sinking, too. Maybe you've noticed, I do notice that the water, the sprinkler heads that I have on the premises have sunk about eight or nine inches down. So I'm losing ground there as well. Because of the extensive boats that we have coming in and out of the harbor. I don't know whether it makes any difference with the bulkheading, I don't know how, if we can put it behind the bulkhead, fine, I have no problem. But I'm just worried about any kind of action that could create more of a problem for me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question. For the section of the bulkhead that is in front of the pool. Is it proposed that it will go immediately in front of the old? Because I'm looking at the plans. It's very confusing. Will it go immediately in front of the old bulkhead? MR. BLUM: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Great, thank you TRUSTEE KING: I have one question for the contractor. All the construction will be with helicals, even in the un- bulkheaded part? MR. MELROSE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just concerned about that. There is a lot of vegetation there. So it's not necessary to knock all that down. In just leaves it like a little natural area. MR. BLUM: We'll leave anything we can. TRUSTEE KING: That was my only concern. MR. BLUM: It serves the purpose of giving us a little privacy too. So we are not looking to take anything away. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another question, I guess for the contractor. Have you had experience with low sill bulkheads? Because the current code provisions in the town are fairly clear about extending new bulkheads inside creeks and on the bay. And so are you familiar with low sill bulkhead construction? MR. MELROSE: We are. And we are actually looking at that as a possible alternative for a few other sites, actually on Sterling Harbor as well. And we believe that's a viable option. We don't know if there has actually been enough longterm . use of them to show how they actually work. If you have any of that information that would be great just to look into because, as I said, there are several properties there and we would Board of Trustees 37 August 22, 2012 consider that as an option as long as it was not right where, you know, within 20 feet of the foundation of the house. It is such a close proximity to that, that we think that choosing an option like this without knowing, having proof that that will actually work from an engineering standpoint within such a proximity to a structure, without having that knowledge, we are hesitant in actually choosing that. We believe there is maybe a 20-foot section beyond where the foundation stops on that, the northern shot there, and we believe we could mix in something like that, at that point, it would be, we would be willing to take into consideration to do that or use rock revetment and things like that, along that end, to stop any further scouring on to further properties but, um, we just are concerned right now with the engineering behind the low sill bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, if you could clarify, I didn't quite hear, for the record, how many feet are you are prepared to put in a low sill bulkhead or rock revetment. MR. MELROSE: We measured off from the foundation north to the property line is approximately 20 feet, from the foundation -- because actually the garage section has a slab foundation as well, um, and we just continue that along figuring that it would be the best solution for all involved. TRUSTEE KING: We've got some experience with low sills. In this area here, I don't know if it would work or not because of the vegetation there is so much shading there. I don't really think you would get a lot of growth. Most of the low sills we have done are fairly exposed out in the sunlight, and you get good growth of Spartinas. I love low sill bulkheads, don't get me wrong, I think they are great. I really don't think it would work in this area because you have such a shading effect there. MR. MELROSE: And that area, in all the years I know, has never had any kind of ground-level vegetation there. TRUSTEE KING: That's been my experience. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's west facing. I guess it's a question of whether you want trees or wetland. The large trees are providing obviously the shade that would keep the fringe from growing. I guess it's a trade off. I have in-laws who live across the way and I have been there many times and have never seen any wetlands on that side at all. TRUSTEE KING: And really, in order to get an effective low sill you have to go seaward with the low sill. You have to move it from the bluff in order to make it effective. MR. MELROSE: We figured that or with the rock revetment thing we would be moving into the harbor, and the problems that come with that. . TRUSTEE.BREDEMEYER: The.possibility of concluding with a rock revetment instead of hard return, is that a possibility? Because you don't go all the way to the end of the creek, right? There is another un-bulkheaded property. MR. MELROSE: Yes, there is, right next to that. And that was our Board of Trustees 38 August 22, 2012 concern there. I don't know where, I haven't noticed anywhere where there has not been any combination of hard/soft, you know, bulkhead set up that way. I don't know if you had any experience with it yourselves. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We just approved one on Southold Bay that went from bulkhead to a stone revetment. MR. MELROSE: Without a return whatsoever, or minimal return? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially no return. But the land form was one that was conducive to it, it didn't have the altitude you have here, unchanged. It gently sloped down. MR. MELROSE: That's why I felt low sill bulkhead works great there, and all the other, the means work so well in situations like that. And this is just very unique, especially due to the proximity of the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess to address the inconsistency if we request the southern seaward portion of the bulkhead where there is healthy Spartina to be replaced inplace, and request a - non-turf buffer between the swimming pool and bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: They have one proposed here. It looks like it's about a six-foot buffer between the pool and bulkhead. MR. MELROSE: As determined by the DEC. I think they said six feet there and ten feet possibly further back. Six just because that's the distance to the pool there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If your feelings with having to put a low sill further into the creek would not be desirable and no guarantees it would ever grow vegetation seems to diminish that. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling, we are using these helicals and there is so little disturbance to the vegetation there. I think it's the better way to go. That's my personal way to go. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What do you think about a stone revetment or stone material to act as a wave breaking to diminish some of the wave energy coming along the northern -- TRUSTEE KING: If the bulkhead is there that will protect it from the waves. I would hope they would go a little slower and go to the north. I mean it gets more much more constricted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had the problem, we had the Brewer Yacht Yard that is not bulkheaded, I'm thinking -- MR. BLUM: See, we butt up to Brewers at the very northern end. Usually they slow down because they are going in there. If you start putting some kind of stone in there, I'm wondering how much of a hazard it is to them coming in, especially at night. Maybe you'll end up with somebody hanging up on the stone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the stone we are all envisioning is stone that is mostly stone return. It's continuing with the bulkhead. MR. BLUM: Sorry, I didn't understand. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 39 August 22, 2012 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE.BERGEN: With the inclusion of the non-turf buffer, that would bring it into consistency., TRUSTEE DOMINO: With the inclusion of the non-turf buffer to bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to discuss the motion. I would like to see the portion of the bulkhead replaced inplace/inkind on the southern-most portion there to allow for keeping the marsh fringe intact. I think that would further help with the consistency review for protecting wetlands, and maybe note also that the Board had an extensive discussion concerning the impracticality of the low sill bulkhead, as we certainly considered it in light of the inconsistency review, we beat it ` up pretty good, we discussed it and came to the determination the low sill bulkhead would not be appropriate. So I would just offer that. And to request that maybe the proposal as proposed might be amended to incorporate that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could you shorten that down? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two things. Replace inkind/inplace the two southerly-most.lengths of the bulkhead where the marsh fringe is healthy. Leave it at that. You might consider amending your resolution. TRUSTEE DOMINO: 1 move to amend the motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Ocean Consulting on behalf of ALI REZA HOMAYUNI requests a Wetland Permit to replace damaged stairway with a 4'x6' platform, 4'x26' stairway, 12'x12'-landing platform, and 4'x6' seasonal hinged stairs at bottom; construct a 4' wide locked gate at entrance; and install a 4' high pole with 12"x12" sign indicating private ownership. Located: 22195 Sound Avenue, Southold. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent, with the inconsistency due to the proposed 52-square foot landing does not meet code. The code says that platforms associated with stairs to the beach can't be larger than 32-square feet. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because of the lack of property due to severe erosion and encroachment on to town property. Just one clarification before we start this. If you don't know the answer that's okay. I want to know what they mean by encroachment on to town property. Is that the revetment or the road? I mean, to the top of it, to the road of.the town property. MS: HORTON: I don't know the answer to that, sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's fair. Is there anybody here on behalf of this application? MR. SPERLING: Yes, my name is Jeff Sperling. I'm the Board of Trustees 40 August 22, 2012 contractor. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I stated, the Board did go out and looked at this. We understand there was a structure there. It got lost when there was a severe erosion due to, I think it was a December storm. MR. SPERLING: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Town had installed a revetment at the bottom in order to protect Soundview Avenue, now you are asking for a construction of stairs for access to the beach. The only challenge we had with it when we went out and looked at it, again, the code says that the platforms associated with stairs can't be more than 32-square feet and you proposed 12x12' platform. So would you be willing to downsize that to 32-square feet? MR. SPERLING: Yes, sir. Can I ask a question? When you say 32-squar feet, is that -- so I have a four-foot walkway that will go over that stone wall that you will folks put in. So I'll have that plus additional an additional 32 feet, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The platform itself, just the platform can't be more than 32-square feet. So, you know, however you want to design that will work for us. And we never want to make assumptions, but I'm assuming since this is on top of a revetment installed by the Town that, when I say the Town of Southold, the agency that approved the revetment, they don't have any problem with this structure on the revetment, correct? MR. SPERLING: We'll actually are going to span over it. I'll put piles on the water side and piles on the landward side of the wall. Then the stairs coming down won't actually be attached so that when the water hits that. You know how it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. And the treads for these stairs will be untreated lumber. Because I see here all timber material CCA. MR. SPERLING: That's fine. So composite material would be acceptable? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. SPERLING: Stringers and all undercarriage can be ACQ or CCA? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience regarding this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Ocean Consulting with the conditions that non-treated lumber will be used for the stair treads and that the deck will be downsized to 32-square feet. So there will be a new set of plans submitted that will depict that 32-square foot deck. And with that amendment, it will bring it into consistency under the LWRP MR. SPERLING: Correct. Board of Trustees 41 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SPERLING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number seven, MARILYN PASIERB requests a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace the existing pool and surrounding deck. Located: 680 Truman's Path, East Marion. The Trustees went out on an inspection of this property and .I believe we also had wanted to check the building history on it. There was a CO for the pool that has been put into the file. The project is exempt under the LWRP, and it is, I'm looking for the Conservation Advisory Council report. Audrey, do you by chance have a report of the Conservation Advisory Council on Pasierb? Per chance, do you have, not the comments, but a notion whether it was approved or not? MS. HORTON: (Perusing) TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have it. It was, it was resolved not to support the application. Without any additional comments. This is not to support. Okay, that's it. There is no comment. It's just not to support by the Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants. I just handed up to Liz an agent authorization form signed by Marilyn Pasierb. Marilyn had filed this application herself but soon after she had gotten the stop work order and was asked to file with the Trustees and she figured out there was some other agencies including the DEC she'll have to visit, so she had asked for our assistance. I understand the Board was out there and had discussed the project to a certain extent with her. The first thing that I.had recalled as I had been to this site many years ago to flag the wetlands. And that may have been for a project, I'm not actually sure if that went ahead or not. But we did have the fortune of having a 2004 survey, which I believe Mrs. Pasierb gave to the Board showing that the prior structures, which also included a similar but larger assemblage of, I want to say octagonal, but I think it has more sides than that. It's sort of a semi-inground pool with a deck around it, and railing as a fence enclosure and then the deck on the lakeside of the pool. The original structures were constructed in 1981-1982. There is a certificate of occupancy from the Building Department which I.believe the Board is aware of. There seems to be some ambiguity about whether the original deck that encircled the original pool was covered by CO or not. What I had asked the surveyor to do after Mrs. Pasierb had engaged him to an existing-condition survey was to also show the previously existing structures as they existed originally. And that is the survey that I just handed up to you. I handed one to Liz and then two more over to the other board members here. What you can see is actually the entire footprint of the Board of Trustees 42 August 22, 2012 pool that is now there and was reconstructed, and the deck, actually fit inside the original footprint of the pool itself. And because of the reduction in the size of the pool, the pool itself now actually meets the wetlands setback at 50-feet. The prior pool had been set at about 46-feet and change. So the pool itself actually conforms to wetlands code as it now sits. The deck around it is also farther from the wetlands, as is the deck that extends out toward the lake. That original deck also had about, I would say roughly about a 40-square foot section farther out. That was replaced. So generally, had Mrs. Pasierb come in to the Board before the work had started, that would have been our pitch, that basically the pool and the deck had been moved landward of what was legally existing with the Town certificate of occupancy. Again, there is some ambiguity with the C of O because it was for an aboveground pool and fence enclosure. But if we have the benefit of some of the material still standing there, I think it would defy common sense to think they would have put in the pool and then had this sort of timber railing around the other side of it with nothing in between. So unfortunately in 1986, 1 don't think most of these documents were kept in quite the excruciating detail that they are now: But again, I would say that regardless, the newly constructed pool and deck now sit inside the footprint of the old pool. Mrs. Pasierb had given me a photograph, which I think you have, and if you can confirm, I won't give it to you again -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have it in the file. MR. HERMAN: (Continuing) of the pool when it was under construction in 1981 and I think you have a copy of the C of O. And I think you probably also have this photo that had shown -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we have all that. MR. HERMAN: So basically what we are asking is for the Board, given the fact that what was there, was there legally and basically replaced inside the footprint, which I think it's probably why it was exempt from the LWRP review, that the Board approve it. I think there are a couple of items of mitigation I had mentioned, Mrs. Pasierb, that would be required, again, the pool is now conforming with respect to its setback but there is no pool drywell. So we would expect that the Board would condition any approval on the addition of a pool drywell. The site is nice buffer-wise to the extent that basically the entire property seaward of the pool is a buffer. There is no real practical opportunity to establish any kind of maintained lawn seaward of the pool, but Mrs. Pasierb would be agreeable to legally formalizing that non-disturbance buffer seaward of the pool, and also obviously replanting any areas that have been disturbed or would be continued to be disturbed by the completion of the structure. Mrs. Pasierb is also here, standing at the other podium, if the Board has any other questions pertaining to the history of the site. But those would be the facts as I see them in Board of Trustees 43 August 22, 2012 relation to your code and Building Department code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think during field inspection we were also concerned that the deck overhang over the existing embankment was maybe more than we would ordinarily like to see, because it's already over significant slopes, and we are concerned that water directed off and over it would tend to erode the, possibly erode that embankment further. I think we saw the possibility, and I don't know if this is acceptable to the applicant, but the next logical, approximately six or seven feet back from the forward or waterward most edge of that deck, is in fact where some of the joists, and we were thinking this might be a logical point to terminate the deck and would still provide some space for sitting and enjoyment that had always been there but that would not be directing water over the steep portion of the embankment. MR. HERMAN: My only reaction to that, Jay, is that the deck, a larger deck has been there for a better part of 30 years, and I don't see that it's caused a problem. As I said, I think if we were here beforehand, we would anticipate this, so the only thing I would say is the deck has already been cut back about four feet from what was there, and I think if we went back another two or three feet, I think Mrs. Pasierb would be accepting of that. The only issue is that would then require sort of cutting away of some of the bracing and all that has already been installed. And again, I just wanted to keep view of the fact that it is already smaller and pushed landward of what. the original structure was. But, to a certain extent, you know, this is -- I understand that you can't rely upon the fact that it's there because, you know, it was not constructed legally, so. But again, I think if the original setback to the deck, I think was 32-feet, or 32-feet and change. Now it's 35 or 35-feet and change. So maybe come back another few feet would create a five-or six foot reduction to the point you are now getting to a 50 or 60-square foot reduction in the deck that was originally there legally since 1986. So I think that if the Board could find that acceptable, we would end up accomplishing a notable reduction in what was there during its replacement. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments from the Board? Members' concerns? Any questions? TRUSTEE KING: That deck around the pool, the framing that is shown now, is that the width of the decking or will it be wider? MR. HERMAN: No, that is the deck that would go around the pool. It provides a walk-around access. I mean, that's our understanding. MS. PASIERB: We intentionally shrunk it smaller so the pool and the deck would be smaller. MR. HERMAN: Again, the original pool footprint goes out, and you can see it on the survey. The footprint of the original pool was out to here. Then there was deck out to here, too. So in addition to what John and I were just discussing, you also have the reduction of that entire area that is around the pool, just in terms of coverage. Board of Trustees 44 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The fence that the Building Department requires for pool safety, where would that fit in? TRUSTEE KING: That was my question. You are reading my mind. MS. PASIERB: Where would it be on this picture? MR. HERMAN: Marilyn, they are asking, would they just put it around the edge, the same way as they had it before? MS. PASIERB: Yes, well, you see the pool and where the lighter wood where the framing is, right where the end of that lighter wood is, where the framing is, is where the fence would come up. It would be right up to where the framing is. TRUSTEE KING: Does the deck also have fencing around it? MR. HERMAN: Sorry? TRUSTEE KING: Does the deck also have fencing around it. MR. HERMAN: On the outside, yes. MS. PASIERB: It would be just like the old one is. It would go around the pool and come out and go across. It would be the very same. Only smaller, and different material. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a few comments regarding this application. First off, Rob, with all due with respect, I disagree with your setback determination.There is a top of bank here. There is a bank here. It's not, I don't determine the wetland from the, excuse me, the setback from the wetland. I determine it from the top of bank here. If there had been no pool here, if there had been no deck here, I don't think this Board would approve a pool within just a couple feet of the top of a very steep slope/bank. MR. HERMAN: You said you disagree with my setback. I'm talking about a setback to the wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no. You were saying you felt it met code because it's 50 feet from the wetlands. What I'm saying is it's 50-foot from the top of the bank is the setback that I believe the pool, according to code, should be. So my feeling here is obviously there was a pre-existing structure here. There was a pool here, there was a deck here. But when people replace something today, it that is to conform with current code. And I know there has been a lot of discussion on that and some sides agree, some sides disagree, but the feeling of this Board when there is a structure that is removed, and a new structure is going to be built, it has to conform with current Town Code. And I don't believe either this pool or this deck can conform with current Town Code. But given the history here, I'm willing to say okay to the pool, and the surrounding deck be expanded to the limits of the former fence, the gray fence that is there, give a little more decking around the pool and elimination of the deck going out over the bank. Because I just, this Board has over and over again not approved decks over banks adjacent to wetlands. MR. HERMAN: My only response, Dave, and we just have to just respectively disagree on this one. There is no setback in your code from the top of a bank. You have a top of bluff setback. This is not a bluff. But never minding that argument, 275 is Board of Trustees 45 August 22, 2012 clear with respect to what the setback from the wetlands boundary is. And here there is a New York State DEC freshwater wetlands boundary, and this pool is setback 50-feet from that wetlands boundary. So it meets the wetlands boundary requirement under code. I hear what you are saying, but that relates in my mind more to what this Board's policy has been with respect to banks, more so than it does with what is in the code with respect to wetlands. Having said that, I hear you that if this was a completely new project and'somebody had proposed to extend that over the bank, um, that I would anticipate your objections. But again and this is probably where we have to get off the train on either side, is we once again get back to this area, and maybe fortunately for me Lori is not here tonight, where we debate this over and over again, that going through the permit process, getting a building permit, getting a certificate of occupancy, has to count for something in this town. Whether it was in 1986, 1996 or 2006, a homeowner has to have some expectation that if they go through the process the right way, that two weeks from now, they are not going to be told, well, the code was changed in --some way so now you are out of luck because you no longer have a right to what you thought you have a right to. When we are talking about a pre-existing structure or a completely unpermitted structure, historically, I don't I think have much of a leg to argue on with you. But when you are talking about a structure that is a CO'd structure, again we'll get back to the ambiguity of what was really on the CO, and we are dealing with an '86 record, so it's hard to say, we can only go by the pictures and circumstantial evidence. So the only thing I'm suggesting is to try to find, because of the history of the site, is to try to find some common ground in here where we can cut this back but still leave them with some semblance of the use they have enjoyed since the'80s. Since there-really was no willful intent to do anything wrong here other than to replace what was there. And smaller, without the Board's involvement. How often does that happen. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate your comments, too. I tend to like them But I shouldn't be saying that. This is your opportunity to speak and Lori is not here, and my ears are ringing already. I shouldn't be saying that. But as a point of clarification, I really agree with what Trustee Bergen said. A bluff is defined in the wetlands code as being any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped surface face. And then the setback from a bluff line, for a swimming pool and related structures under the current code is 100 feet. And there has been some discussion that with mitigation that that is a very severe, you know, setback. And of course, I think although the code does not distinguish between inground.and aboveground, we realize this is a different kind of a pool that's not resulting in soil problems that might be associated with bluff destabilized by putting in an inground pool. But I have to Board of Trustees 46 August 22, 2012 agree with Trustee Bergen. The Board, I don't think would -- is very uncomfortable with the structure that goes out over those slopes and I think his suggestion to allow for the wider decking to, you know, go to the extent that was previously there, and then have the deck out over the slopes, you know, withdrawn from the application, I think is very fair and I think it honors both typically how we approach these applications and obviously the intent of the code. MR. HERMAN: John, I think, to your comment about the hundred foot setback being severe, I think that actually calls, it evokes my exact point I'm trying to make. For a true bluff, geologic bluff, a glacial bluff, that the zoning code specifically regulates, by referring, I think, to Shelter Island Sound, Long Island Sound or Fishers Island Sound, it's not really a severe setback. Because the idea is we want to keep those structures as far away as possible, because you have the force of Long Island Sound working away at that glacial till. I think if you apply those concepts that are embedded in your code to this site it becomes laughable. This is a site, it's basically a lake with freshwater wetlands. I hear what you are saying, that in the most liberal interpretation of your code, you can say well, shoot, if I step off this chair, it's a bluff. But that's not really what the code was designed for. It was not designed to treat this lake as an active geologic bluff. And the problem we have is that this is yet another one of these code issues that we are going to go back to, where, I mean, you can interpret a bluff as anything. And the problem is, in the Zoning code, where there is a 100-foot setback from bluffs, there they are very specific about what bluffs they are talking about. So again, just for the record, I think bluff or no bluff, David is not going to change his position or the Board's general position that you don't like to see decks overhanging slopes where you might cause erosion of the slope and the erosion of wetland. But say that. But let's stop pretending this is bluff. Because it is not. That's the only thing I'm asking. In other words your environmental point stands anyway. And I get it. But that is something that really has to be discussed in the code because this is clearly not what the code intended when it was talking about a true bluff. So I'm going to have to defer to Marilyn, to ask her, I mean, can we put a number on this, John, in terms of what, I mean the deck that is there right now, if I take out my handy scale. From where the rounded part stops and extends out, you have another 12 feet that used to be 16 feet. Now it's 12. Is there a number that you are thinking of for the total seaward extent of that, that the Board could find acceptable? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, my initial, when Trustee Domino and myself went down on the base of the embankment, I think on the plan it is denoted it would be the second double girder in, which I think is around, give or take, seven or eight feet, that looks like place where minimal disturbance -- Board of Trustees 47 August 22, 2012 MR. HERMAN: Seven or eight feet out -- I don't mean to interrupt. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It effectively cuts the deck almost in half based on the line drawing that was provided to us in the plans. It's a point where the structure could be removed without damaging the underpinnings. There was, I guess 46 uprights and several stays there were under there, it looked like a point that it got it behind the top of the bank, right at the top of the bank, that seemed to be a point. But know, I also like Trustee Bergen's notion of no deck. That's an option for Mrs. Pasierb, if she wanted to go to wider decking to the fence on the previous pool construction. So if that puts a number or face on it. MS. PASIERB: Can I say a couple things? I mean, a bigger deck has stood there for years with no erosion whatsoever. And once this is done, the plants and shrubs and some of that will grow, which will prevent erosion. And the other thing is I would like to keep some of the outer deck because we enjoy, and for years enjoy sitting out there watching the osprey and the birds. And the other thing, maybe I shouldn't say this, because a lot of people don't like deer, but the deer do winter under that deck. Not last winter, but the winter before that when we had all that Snow, there was a family of deer hanging out under there to keep out of the elements and stuff like that. That's a point I want to make. And if I had a choice, I would rather keep the smaller deck around just because that suits us than to have some of the outer deck out there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: So, Jay, if we went out eight feet from here, you would end up with about half of what had been standing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's right on the plan, is the double header would remain, and that would be the edge. And that be getting -- you have an outer double header where there is a slight overhang and it would be the second double header that would remain as the new edge of the deck. MR. HERMAN: I don't know what that exact measurement would be. That's an architectural drawing. (Discussing with Ms. Pasierb). John, I think we have to ask to adjourn it. Because I can't tell from that hand-drawn sketch what distance that is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the field it was approximately seven feet. It was not to have to require removal of any other structural weight bearing element. MR. HERMAN: Are you measuring the seven feet from the outside of that interior deck frame? Or from that first -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: From the waterward most edge. MR. HERMAN: Of the round deck? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, from the water-most edge. Seven feet in. MR. HERMAN: Which would leave about five feet of deck on the outside of that. Board of Trustees 48 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, it was more than that it. It would leave ten feet. You are asking for 17 feet. You are asking for 17 feet. We are suggesting_ in the interest of preserving the steep slope and reducing the erosion that has been exacerbated by the installation of the 46, that you cut this deck back from the 17 feet that you are requesting to ten feet. MR. HERMAN: Mike, what's the 17 feet? TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's right on the plan. Received August 1. Right here. MR. HERMAN: I'll respectively ask to put that aside for a second. That doesn't have much meaning to me. I'm looking at the licensed survey and I'm physically scaling what is actually on the ground. And from the outside edge of that circular decking, the deck goes out 12 feet from there. I mean that's what is there. I can't help what is on that sketch. But what is physically there is 12 feet of deck outside of that. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at this scale. This is quarter inch scale. What they are talking about, if they cut it back to the second girder, that's eight feet. MR. HERMAN: So from the outside of the circular decking, eight feet. TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm going to from the seaward end in. Rob, Took at this drawing. MR. HERMAN: I understand what you are saying. But if you go eight feet in you are leaving basically a four-foot strip. TRUSTEE KING: No, it leaves an eight-foot deck. From the outer most part of the new walkway going around it -- MR. HERMAN: Can I suggest we adjourn it and we can maybe go out there and find the line and that way Mrs. Pasierb and her husband can make a decision whether they want to acquiesce or fight it. I mean that's really what it comes down to. But I'm afraid to do anything tonight because I really don't, I'm not comfortable that I really know -- TRUSTEE KING: But this is to scale, if you want to see it. MR. HERMAN: Okay, what is there is actually ten-feet wide. TRUSTEE KING: Well, they are saying eleven-and-a-half. MR. HERMAN: This is a drawing. This is a survey of what is there. TRUSTEE KING: Who drew that? MR. HERMAN: The guy who put the deck in. But I'll put my money on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: We should table it and go out and physically measure it. MR. HERMAN: Right. Because at the end of the day you have to see what they are physically willing to approve. With no disrespect to the plans that were submitted, we have the benefit of knowing . what is physically out there. So I think if you stood there and said you have to cut it off here, Mrs. Pasierb and her husband can visualize that and we can, instead of wasting everybody's time here. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. Board of Trustees 49 August 22, 2012 MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there any further,comments? TRUSTEE KING: We have to go out and measure everything. MS. FORTE: Can I say something? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, please. MS. FORTE: My name is Catherine Forte and my husband and I own the property at 710 Truman's Path, which has a common property line to Marilyn's property. We are basically the only neighbors that see this pool. The other side is a ravine and across the way is a cemetery, and I was basically here just to say I'm fine with whatever she is doing. I have lived at my house basically 25 years and that pool has stood there then and prior to when we were there, and she is basically -- I'm a homeowner-- and she is basically just trying to update or repair her pool and property. But guys were talking about this runoff and the bluff being, you know, deteriorating or whatever. Over the years that I have been there, I have not seen any deterioration from that existing old deck that stood out there. She is shortening it up. I would certainly think that if there was any kind of deterioration of the bluff, her deck would have moved. She would have had, you know, some maybe the timbers would be coming down and sinking into the lake. And, I don't know, I just feel you should take into consideration and try to pass the permit so she can finish her project. That's it. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application to go out on another field inspection. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: And I'll meet you out there. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, KPC Planning Services, Inc., on behalf of FHV LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x39' dock with 3'x12' ramp, 6'x20' floating dock secured by three (3) two-pile 12" diameter float securing dolphins & two-pile 12" diameter boat securing dolphins; establish a non-disturbance buffer and re-vegetate; maintain a 4' wide natural path to access dock. Located: 1500 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, stating that the plan did not show the length of the vessel, and the., that the water depth at the end of the dock was approximately two-and-a-half feet. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. In the field inspection on August 15, the Trustees noted that eight-inch diameter piles would be adequate. And that the plans showed the vessel not to exceed 40 feet and the water feet is 2.9 feet. Is anyone here anybody here to speak to this application? MR. TREZZA: Anthony Trezza on behalf of KPC Planning on behalf Board of Trustees 50 August 22, 2012 of FHV LLC. We have a lot of applicants here, I don't want to waste anyone's time. We have been before the Board now, this is my third time for this application, and I'm here for a number of reasons. One, the violations that sort of held us up for a while have been addressed. The plea-agreement was executed, the fines were paid. So that issue was addressed. I also came in with revised plans. You did say eight-inch previously and I apologize for not putting them on the plans. So we'll change the piling information to reflect eight-inch piles. That is not an issue. I also addressed Mark Terry's concern regarding LWRP. Most of it was relating to missing information. So I tried to provide that additional information. And you could see on the plans that were resubmitted, we are providing along the bulkhead a ten-foot buffer, non-turf buffer, that will be revegetated with beach grass and we are also proposing a non-disturbance buffer, which would basically be allowed to let that area regrow naturally, and that will extend largely to the flood zone line. We have eliminated as per your request one of the boat-securing dolphins so we now only have one instead of two as previously proposed. And again, we'll reduce them though eight inches and hopefully everything has been addressed to your satisfaction. If, you have any questions, I'm here to answer your questions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Would it be single piles; eight-inch single piles? MR. TREZZA: Our plan is calling for two-pile dolphins. TRUSTEE KING:We have been trying to get away from them lately. MR. TREZZA: Like I said, we did eliminate them, the ones you did ask for. And again, we'll reduce them in size. We are trying to have a structure here that maintains integrity, and really the two-pile system does just that. I don't think it will create any additional issues, certainly not environmental issues, as pertains to the wetlands, the shoreline, certainly doesn't affect anything relating to navigation through the channel there. So I would ask that in consideration of the changes that is we made and the buffer-- and I understand, incidentally, that the non-disturbance buffer is sort of addressing and dealing with the violations that occurred, but as you could see, it's a buffer that is larger than what this Board has asked from any other applicant tonight. So I would just ask that you take that into consideration. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I personally just don't see the need for two-pile securing dolphins here. I mean, this is protected creek in here. And I appreciate the fact you.are willing to downsize from 12 inch to eight inch, but I just think three piles are sufficient to hold this in place rather than six. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. MR. TREZZA: The design, if you recall, when I was here the first time around, incidentally when I came here the first time around Board of Trustees 51 August 22, 2012 we had received a DEC permit in this, and I kid you not, in two weeks. So don't ask me how, sometimes the process unfolds. But with respect to what you are asking for here, this design, and even with the second boat-securing dolphin that we proposed originally, and I submitted this on the record and gave you a copy of your plan previously, precisely the same exact plan you approved on a previous property. We didn't change any aspect of this initially. So it was not like we are proposing something here that has not been approved by this Board before. So, again, we feel the two-pile system here will work, and, again, I would ask for consideration that we get approval for that. TRUSTEE KING: If this was six feet of water and you are tying up an 80-foot boat, I could understand it. But you only have two-and-a-half feet of water here. You won't have a big boat there. It only takes two piles to hold a boat in place, particularly when you have a tie-off pile. That's my opinion. MR. TREZZA: This is, I guess as a condition, you want the two-pile system to be replaced with eight-inch one pile, basically what it amounts to. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition of the eight-inch single-pile dolphin. And in doing so would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. TREZZA: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Folks, we'll take a five-minute break. (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE KING: All right folks, we'll get going again. Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NORA FLOTTERON requests a Wetland Permit to remove 100' of existing bulkhead and 360-square feet of existing wood decking; construct 100' of new bulkhead and 360 sf. Of decking in-place; remove approx. 20-cubic yards of sediment from immediately in front of bulkhead and place as backfill landward of bulkhead; and repair frame shed (boathouse) foundation as needed. Located: 1480 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue. This is found consistent with the LWRP. He's recommending any intertidal construction and excavation requires the installation of a.silt boom. The Conservation Advisory.Council voted to support the application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer and plant bed with native vegetation. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? Board of Trustees 52 August 22, 2012 MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, with Costello Marine Contracting, and we are the agents for Nora 'Flotteron on a bulkhead replacement. Since this is a continuation of last- month's meeting and there was an apparent objection of dredging in front of the bulkhead. We removed that portion of the job and it will be a direct replacement inplace of the existing structure. Any excavation, we'll retain all the materials. onsite, and if the Board so wishes, the silt boom, we own them, we'll certainly put a silt boom in there. I have a slight objection to the 20-foot buffer only because the decking area takes up a majority of that buffer anyway already. TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this back in May. I think in my notes was possibly raise the bulkhead looks like one foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a concern about the return and some the length of the return as proposed where there is erosion around the current return that if it was extended another two or three feet it might handle the erosion that is occurring. In other words, you are asking for I believe a return that is similar to what is there right now, and we noticed erosion behind it. So if it was extended another two or three feet it would eliminate that erosion, possibly. MR. COSTELLO: Just a couple feet of sheathing, it doesn't have to be backed up. Just to eliminate that wash, that would be fine. TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any comments? Any comments from anybody else on this project? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess a small buffer on the portion of the deck. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to look at this, to incorporate this in here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Costello, approximately how much disturbance would there be of soils behind the bulkhead with this construction, in other words as far as putting in the --. deadmen or tie backs, how much soil would be disturbed as far as trying to plant a reasonable buffer of this section that is not walkway or deck? MR. COSTELLO: I mean if you disturb it for 12 feet, ten or 12 feet, you'll still stack up the material and save it on site. So you minimize the bringing in of the fill. Because you'll need approximately 20-some odd yards of fill to get it up to level. TRUSTEE KING: Ten-foot buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what.l was thinking. MR. COSTELLO: That would be reasonable, since the ten foot is one, area is taken up by the deck, so is there certainly won't be any use of fertilizer to any degree. Then you have the four-foot walkway, so you extend that another six feet. I'm sure they'll landscape it to some degree anyway. And just have the .right plants. That's logical. TRUSTEE KING: Unless you just have a six-foot non-turf-behind the walkway, that would work. MR. COSTELLO: Makes sense. Board of Trustees 53 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). The dredging portion has been removed from this. So I think that simplifies it. If there are no other questions, no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application with a six-foot non-turf buffer landward of the wood decking and the four-foot walkway. And dredging has been removed from the application. And a little extension of the return. MR. COSTELLO: Do you want me to send you a set of plans? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And we'll see revised plans showing those changes. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of MICHELLE & TIM McMANUS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing one-story dwelling and detached garage, and abandon sanitary system; construct new two-story dwelling with attached garage and stone terrace; new sanitary system, connect wastewater from bath house via pump station to new sanitary system; and for the existing bath house. Located: 7725 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. This came before us in a previous month. Just to review, it was found consistent under the LWRP. The CAC resolved that they did not support the application because the current use of the beach house is in close proximity to the wetlands. What we had discussed at the meeting previously was the bathhouse and our concerns about the toilet was in it and the sanitation system to address that toilet. And as I understand it, that they have amended the application to state that they will install a pump system to pump all the waste, any waste that comes out of that bathhouse up the hill and into the homeowner's septic system. Is there anybody here on behalf of this application? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Samuels and Steelman Architects. I'm here to answer any questions anyone may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't have any questions. I don't know if anybody on the Board had any questions pertaining to this. I know there was a suggestion, as I recall, there is a bulkhead and there is a secondary retaining wall on this piece of property, correct? MR. SAMUELS: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the area between those would serve as a non-turf buffer to be maintained that way. MR. SAMUELS: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And there was a suggestion of a set of staked hay bales along the top of the bank. Board of Trustees 54 August-22, 2012 MR. SAMUELS- Yes, we have that on the drawing. And also a ten-foot cover above the top of bank. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't see that on here. Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application as amended to include a pump station to pump the waste water from the bath house up to a new sanitary system for the main house. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 11, Sheri Winter Clarry on behalf of VANSON PARTNERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing platform and stairs with new timber in same location as existing; replace existing 3'X 20' fixed timber dock with new timbers in same location as existing; proposed TX 10' long timber ramp; replace 10" pile with new in same location as existing-, proposed UX 20' floating dock to replace storm damaged dock; and proposed 10" pile to replace storm damaged pile. Located: 5015 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. The application does not appear to have been reviewed by the LWRP. I don't know if the clerk to the Trustees could confirm that. There is no entry, he never got back. MS. CANTRELL: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the CAC voted to support the application with the concerns there should be no disturbance of eel grass, and noting that it was not staked on July 11 at the time they conducted their inspection. The Trustees went out in the field on first inspection on, I guess it was July 11, there were concerns we needed soundings, and the proposed dock and vessel staked. In revisiting the site on the 15th of August, additional concerns came to, became apparent, in that since our first meeting apparently a licensed, it appeared that a licensed land surveyor may have been to the site, and there were surveying buttons placed on the walkway leading down to.the dock construction that gave the appearance the stairs may have been slightly juxtaposed off the property line. And seeing the staking, the Board is concerned about the width of the vessel and the water depth in the immediate area of the vessel so that we don't impede navigation. And then there is the question concerning the 15-foot side setback. That may be only the steps and stairs. I believe we discussed that in light of some other applications,'it's really the dock that has to have a 15-foot set off. That's a whole sizeable number of items to consider. Is Board of Trustees 55 August 22, 2012 there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: I'm here to speak on behalf of the application. I'm Jeff Patanjo. And I believe you received a letter of authorization. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we have a letter authorizing you to speak on behalf of the applicant. MR. PATANJO: Regarding the water depth, we did a sounding study. I have plans with updated surveys which was sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Would you like copies of those? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, absolutely. MR. PATANJO: (Handing). And as shown on the attached plans, we do have sufficient water depth at the proposed 6x20 floating dock. Your other comments with regard to the offset and survey, we didn't do any additional survey out there. The water depths were done by my surveyor Michael K. Wicks. I do have a stamped, signed, sealed survey. They were sent to the DEC. They requested, one of their comments was requesting that, and requesting the dimensions of this decking system which was added to this latest plan, which was latest dated 7/8/12, based on their comments from 6/27. The original survey for the site shows the stairs. I don't know what in particular you are talking about offsets for surveys. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The set of steps, if you will, that are in the woodland section where, I guess they are discontinuous and then it starts again at the remediated steps going to the dock, when we were going down them it appeared to be typical surveyors' button. MR. PATANJO: You are correct. I only have one copy of this. But the original survey does show at 1.2 feet north of the property line. So those stairs are on the adjacent property owner's property. My proposed plan shows them to bring it on to the property line when they are being rebuilt. And the other questions, I could probably try answer for you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The size of the platform that is part of the stairs, is currently, 32-square feet is the code requirement for platforms associated with stairs, that typically we would be asking for that particular, that would be downsized to come into conformity with the current standard. MR. PATANJO: I think we are 42-43 square feet. We can bring that down to 32-square feet. No problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And do you have a size, I guess the question, the theme of the vessel to be kept here, because it's a very narrow channel entry and concerns about how far it would project seaward. MR. PATANJO: I assume the beam on the boat, just as has been discussed previous times, you won't get a huge boat down here due do the water depth. And you do have a hundred feet.to the adjacent shoreline, and there are no docks-there. So if the beam of this is say a maximum of ten feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question is will that have it in the channel. Board of Trustees 56 August 22, 2012 MR. PATANJO- I believe we are still under our one-third waterway width. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went in there by boat. I was concerned -- I'm very familiar with this area, and I was concerned about the dock and vessel being in the channel. Because it is very narrow in there. But what I found was that is actually a little cut-out, almost cove where that dock is, so that dock actually does not protrude or come close to protruding in the channel. There are large boats back there. There is, Mr. Carr (sic) has a 42-foot Viking in there. And so approximately 14 foot beam. So I would not want to say don't worry you can't get a boat in there, it's only a ten foot beam, because his is 14 and he gets in there. So would say if the boat is limited to a ten-foot beam that would not protrude into the channel, so as a condition no boat with a beam greater than ten feet, I think that would work all right and not be in the channel. MR. PATANJO: I don't want to limit the client to having a ten foot beam. Is the extra four feet -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, again, we have to think about the navigability there. And if a boat the size of what I just described,_it's already back further in the creek, was put there at this dock, it would block the channel, so, we have to be concerned about that. MR. PATANJO: What are you talking, a ten-foot beam, you are talking maybe a 30-foot boat? Depends what kind of boat it is? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could be slightly smaller. TRUSTEE KING: 25, 28 foot. You start getting 30 foot you are pushing it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I understand your concern for your client but we have to think about the navigability in-that channel. I would not want to approve something here that would block that channel. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: An alternative would be instead of a six-foot wide float, to go to a smaller float configuration. MR. PATANJO: We'll be okay with the ten-foot beam condition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Anyone else to speak to the application? Any other questions or concerns? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application subject to submission of a new plan that shows a maximum of 32-square foot platform on the, associated with the steps, and that.the permit be conditioned.on a vessel not to exceed ten foot in beam being docked. MR. PATANJO: Do I need to indicate that on the plan? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, that's a condition of the permit. I merged the two together. For clarity, for new plans, and it Board of Trustees 57 August 22, 2012 would be a condition of the permit that no vessel greater than ten-foot beam be put at the dock. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of EDWARDS AVENUE CORPORATION requests a Wetland.Permit to construct wood frame stairs 4' wide down the bluff; a 4'x8' landing at the top of bluff; steps rise +/-13' and run +/-22'511 , with grade level wood walkway 4'x15' at bottom, adjacent to existing bathhouse. Located: 750 Paradise Point Road, Southold property permit services. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. They question the need to be so close to the property line. On the field inspection on August 15, the Trustees noted the condition that the question whether it was possible to locate the stairs further off the property line to reduce the environmental damage. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. FITZGERALD: My name is James Fitzgerald, and I didn't hear a word you said. Sorry, I have a hearing problem. Was it anything should -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Conservation Advisory Council questioned the need to put the stairs so close to the property line, and the Trustees in their field inspection were questioning whether it would be possible to move the stairs further off the property line, to minimize environmental damage. MR. FITZGERALD: The short answer is no. The reason for it is because of the vegetation on the entire rest of the property dine, on the bluff. Now, if you are talking about moving it two .feet. But, I don't think it would be worthwhile to move it a couple of feet. One of the reasons,it is where it is is that it lines up with the eastern side of the bath house. And the wood walkway we are proposing goes along the side of the bath house, which area is unvegetated now, and it makes it more logical, I think. But it really is, the entire extent of the bluff is heavily vegetated. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is anything in the code as far as stairways. We just approved one right on the property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's an issue. TRUSTEE"DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions from the Board? MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry, I have something to add. It doesn't say it in the narrative description here.but in the application an important feature is there are handrails on both sides of the stairs and the platform at the top. So if that is important from the Trustees' standpoint, it would be appropriate to include it Board of Trustees 58 August 22, 2012 in the narrative that was on the permit. TRUSTEE KING: What's the material of the treads? Untreated wood on the treads? Untreated lumber on the treads? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, except where it's in contact with the soil. The treads and the runners would be untreated. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There being no further comment, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition that there be handrails on the stairs and on the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOSEPH ZALNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x115' fixed dock, 3'x15' hinged ramp and 6'x20'.floating dock. Located: 700 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. This has been found inconsistent with the LWRP. Before issuing a permit for the dock structure, the Trustees shall consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful effects: Interfere with public use; swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, waterskiing or other water-dependent activities. 115-foot dock will impede and hinder use of public waters for recreational activities. There is no mention of the dimensions of the vessel. The dock may project seaward to the existing " dock. That's most of the comments on that. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this application? MR. PATANJO: For the application, Jeff Patanjo. Regarding the size of the boat, Joseph Zalner has just indicated it would be approximately ten-foot beam, 24-foot long boat. And if you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there. I don't think anybody really had any serious issues with this. Somehow we have to address the inconsistency. Is there anyone else here to speak on this application? 'MR. PATANJO: I believe if you look at an aerial, the adjacent docks do protrude about the same distance out. There is one just to the north, sorry, to the east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's approximately 1,070 to the nearest shoreline. MR. PATANJO: I think-that's enough room. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hope nobody will be waterskiing in there. MR. PATANJO: Exactly. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there are any close-by docks, are there? Board of Trustees 59 August 22, 2012 MR. PATANJO: There's three or four properties to the east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). There are a few properties -- to the east is one. But it's at least three or four properties down. MR. ZALNER: I'm Joe Zalner, the homeowner. Almost every house east of me has a dock or is building a dock. The one right next to me has a dock. Between the next one is building a dock now, and from then on there are docks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember siting this. This dock as proposed does not exceed the distance out with the other docks. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had an issue with it. We have the open-grate decking over the wetland area. Is there anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. And-to address the inconsistency we have open-grate decking over the wetland vegetation. The distance across is a thousand feet, something like that, so it does not, in this Board's determination, does not impede navigation in any way. .So, I would say this conforms to the LWRP. And that's my motion. I move to make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Charles Thomas, Architect on behalf of ANTHONY & ANN MARIE MOSCHITTA requests a Wetland Permit to remove roof and first floor walls down to first floor deck; frame new first floor walls and first floor addition; add new second floor; remove and replace existing brick patios; new two car garage. Located: 1800 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent because the plan lacks storm water controls, with a suggestion of a non-turf buffer be incorporated at the ten-foot topographical line. And then the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. THOMAS: Chuck Thomas, Architect, for the homeowners. We are planning to do storm water drainage. All that drainage will be located about 180 feet away from the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Ehlers is going to upgrade the survey to indicate that. This project simply is to remove the existing residence down to the first floor deck, maintaining the existing foundation, rebuilding the-first floor and adding a second floor. The first-floor footprint impact is about 104-square feet. The area of that construction actually would be outside of your jurisdiction. It would be beyond the hundred-foot line. The existing house currently is 93.2 feet to the edge of the Board of Trustees 60 August 22, 2012 wetlands. And we are also proposing a two-car garage that is 180 feet away from the edge of the wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did notice the vast majority of this project is outside our jurisdiction. We were also concerned as to whether or not the property owner was going to, after completion of the project, put in a lawn all the way down to the edge of the wetland. So that I think is what is being asked for to be addressed in the LWRP inconsistency, with an inclusion of a non-turf buffer. And the coordinator suggested the ten-foot contour line, that that be the extent of the non-turf buffer as stated. That would give you a non-turf buffer that would be approximately 20 feet from the wetland boundary. So if we were to say a non-turf buffer of 20 feet from the wetland boundary, would that be acceptable for your client? MR. THOMAS: I believe it would be, as long as we still had access to our floating dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. A non-turf buffer doesn't prevent access. It's just, we are just saying not sod. MR. THOMAS: He plans on keeping it the way it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: She expressed that to us when we were out there, because we asked that very question. But we still like to put it in because you never know when a-property is bought, sold, whatever. That's why we want to include it in there. MR. THOMAS: That sounds good. They have been there a few years and are happy with the way it is not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing is, given the slope, I would propose a set of staked hay bales and silt fence at the 12-foot contour line. MR. THOMAS: That's fine. 'TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing we were looking for on here, I don't see it on this plan, I know you alluded to it verbally, .was a set of drywells. We want to make sure the house has gutters and leaders going to drywells, so it complies with Chapter 236 Storm Water Runoff. MR. THOMAS: Absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, is there anybody else here to speak for or against this application? (No response).. Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Charles Thomas on behalf of the Moschitta's at 1800 Broadwaters Road, with the addition of a 20-foot, non-turf buffer; that there will be staked hay bales and silt fence on the 12-foot contour line during construction, and that there will be gutters, leaders and drywells on the house to conform to Chapter Board of Trustees 61 August 22, 2012 236 of the Town Code. In doing so that will bring it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 15, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling; bring in 148.3 cubic yards of fill along southwest corner of property; construct a retaining wall, driveway, balcony, terrace, and a 4' wide cleared path. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. This application was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. They supported the application. They had a concern with the cesspool being proposed below groundwater level of 22". The Conservation Advisory Council recommended installation of hay bales and silt fence during construction activities and to provide a pervious driveway. The application was considered inconsistent in its original form when applied for in, I believe it was 2007 or 2006, and was originally granted a permit in, I have it here, 2008, 1 believe. And it went through two permit extensions, and the original permit was granted August 20, 2008. The Trustees visited the site. The survey of the proposed activity appears to be identical with the survey of the previous, in the file, the previous approved permit. And at this point I open it up for anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application. MR. ZAMBRANO: Willy Zambrano, Architect, on behalf of the owners. I would like to answer any comments that you may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The revised survey seems to be dating all the prior dates and all the ledger and everything on that appears to be the same. So in fact the application is one and the same of what was the prior approval; is that what you are asking for? MR. ZAMBRANO: Yes. And we are actually respectively requesting just an extension of that approval. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe because the second extension was already granted, that is why we are here at a public hearing and a formal application, because we had already granted the last extension we are permitted to under the code. That's why we are here. TRUSTEE KING: The original permit is now expired. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The original permit is now did de novo. Are there any questions or concerns from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: It's basically the same application. I would just write the permit the same as the old permit; there has been no change --with the same conditions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless we have additional.questions or concerns. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this application? MS. ARMAGAN: I have some concerns. I'm Stefan Armagan. I have the house next to the property. And several times, several Board of Trustees 62 August 22, 2012 people have purchased this house but they were not able to build a house because it is a wetland. And it's a beautiful land. It has honeysuckles, it has wild birds, it has vegetation, deer comes there. It is absolutely gorgeous. About three years ago right after the Drouzas take a look to purchase the land, they came in with big trucks and pools ano1 they pulled all the trees out of the socket, out of the roots. And all the vegetation, everything was gone. It was like a war zone. And at that time, all those beautiful birds and beautiful deers and all those animals and flowers, all of them was gone. Flatland for three years. In May, me and my husband came in with my son. We saw the vegetation has grown back. We have beautiful flowers again. My honeysuckles are there, the wild birds are there. I'm afraid if given approval for him to build, even with the wall that he's saying he'll put, that just going to be a spit in the ocean. Still a wetland is a wetland. You cannot change that. And we are here, most of us are here to preserve this beautiful land, Suffolk County, and that's why we are here. And, you know, I just feel awful. My father is 88-years old right now and we purchased the house 18 years ago and we just fell in love with the beauty, and it is beautiful because we are sustaining it. We are not allowing builders come in and put up buildings to make money. That's the reason it's so beautiful. Otherwise it would be called Manhattan. It will not be called Southold. And three years ago my father stopped coming, after he saw what happened to the land next to us, even though we put a fence, just to cover the ugliness, my father is not coming any longer. He's 88-years old. I don't think there is hope for him to come back. And I hope we don't allow for this to be built. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ms. Armagan, can I ask a quick question as point of clarity? Do you own property on Old Farm Road in Orient? MS. ARMAGAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I need to clarify, for the record, I need to abstain from this vote, since I have, through a homeowners association that I previously chaired, had a previous relationship with Ms. Armagan. It would not be fair for me to enter into a vote. I want to disclose that to the chair at this time. TRUSTEE KING: Ma'am, is your house east or west of this property? ' MS. ARMAGAN: West, right? West. TRUSTEE KING: On the west side. Thank you. MS. ARMAGAN: It's the a little cottage next to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments? Any comments from the Board? Jim? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: No. If it's the same as the last time. A lot of this is out of our jurisdiction.. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are not any other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 63 August 22, 2012 (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, abstain). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Drouzas Real Estate Development Corporation to construct a single-family dwelling, bringing in 148.3 cubic yards of fill along the southwest corner, construct retaining wall, driveway, balcony, terrace, as per plans dated July 2, 2012, and also with the condition of drywells and gutters are installed according to Chapter 236; a line of staked hay bales and silt fence is installed along the six-foot contour line prior to construction activity and to maintain until completion of the construction project; and the entire area seaward of six-foot contour line to remain as non-disturbance buffer. That is my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Discussion. Did we have a four-foot path allowed through the non-disturbance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's in the description. So I have a motion and second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, abstain). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I abstain. I would like the record to reflect I abstain. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DAVID BERGEN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 100'± of existing timber sheathed bulkheading along the eastern shoreline with vinyl sheathed bulkheading in-place; reconstruct beach access stairs with new 3'x4' seaward platform and 3'x15' hinged stairway to be lowered during use, and stored in the "up" position during non-use. Located: 9525 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. THE LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interrupt for a second. I have to recuse myself, obviously, from number 16. And I'll recuse myself from number 17. This is the next door neighbor. Thank you. MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans. This is a straightforward bulkhead reconstruction with stairway reconstruction. I want to pass up to the Board, we just received DEC approval for this. This is a copy for you guys. And I'm here to answer any and all questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We didn't have any problems with it. TRUSTEE KING: It's a straightforward bulkhead replacement. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. IVANS: In terms of the buffer, we are proposing an 18-foot wide buffer, landward of the bulkhead, obviously with a four-foot wide access to the shoreline. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want us to keep these? Board of Trustees 64 August 22, 2012 MR. IVANS: Sure. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused). TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PETER DORAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct a ±16' portion of the existing timber sheathed bulkheading along the eastern shoreline with new vinyl sheathed bulkheading in-place. Located: 9575 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This is consistent with the LWRP. MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental. TRUSTEE KING: And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application. Matt, I take it you are in favor of this? MR. IVANS: I would like to bring up to the board a copy of the DEC permit, for the record. This again is a straightforward 16-foot section of bulkhead reconstruction, and we are eliminating a seaward bulkhead that is about 20-foot in length in front of it. And again I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KING: I'm a little confused on this plan. What is going to be removed here? I don't understand that. MR. IVANS: There is a separate bulkhead on the existing site plan. You probably can't see it from that angle. It drops down. The bulkhead is ten foot. This is eight foot. You may not be able to see it. It's the seaward portion. I believe it's not on that one. It's on the page before that. There is one there existing. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). MR. IVANS: Reconstruct that 16 foot. It's a continuation, basically, of Dave's bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I understand. Thank you. Any Board comments on this? This was a pretty small project. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was just almost like a return. TRUSTEE KING: That little section. Any other comments on this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:.Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application. Board of Trustees 65 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA STROKOFF requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 140 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace (in-place) existing +/-4'x31' timber walkway/catwalk; existing 10' return to be removed and replaced inside property line; incidentally dredge inside boat basin to a depth of 4 MLW and use approximately 25 cubic yards sand/silt as backfill; a 10' wide non-turf buffer to be installed and maintained along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1345 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. The Board went out and reviewed this property. It was found to be consistent under the LWRP but recommended a proposed _ ten-foot wide, non-turf buffer be vegetated with native species. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot, non-turf vegetated buffer and chicken wire fence is removed. As I stated, the Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here too speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Barbara Strokoff is also here with us tonight. This is an application that more or less has been designed in accordance with a some recommendations that were made by the Board during an October, 2010, field inspection with the prior owner, who was making, from what I could tell from the field inspection report, some sort of application to extend a dock farther out in into Petty's Pond, and according to the Board's field inspection report, the Board had suggested that they instead to replace the bulkhead and dredge that boat basin, get it all fixed up and get everything permit as it exists, as opposed to going out with a dock and extending out into Petty's Pond. And that is basically what has been applied for here. I think Mrs. Strokoff is aware of the issue of the ten-foot, non-turf buffer, but would like to be able to just have it be sand or gravel or something, because this is obviously, it's a narrow lot and it's heavily used down there, or she would like to continue to heavily use it for boating and all. So it's not really the kind of place that we would plant out as a native species-type buffer. But there is no objection to a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. I think that was probably anticipated. So if it's a condition of the permit, it's fine. It's actually in our plan. It's under the notes number seven that we establish a ten-foot, non-turf buffer adjacent to the bulkhead. Other than that, again, it should be consistent with the Board's prior recommendations, um, and-that's it. If you have any questions. There was a comment about a chicken wire fence. I'm not sure what the chicken wire fence is. Barbara is saying there is no chicken wire fence. Do we know what that Board of Trustees 66. August 22, 2012 would be? I don't remember any of fencing either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could step to the left or right for just a second. Audrey, do you remember the chicken wire fence? We don't have it in our field notes either. MS. HORTON: I didn't go to that either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. MR. HERMAN: I have photographs that I submitted with the application of the entire area and I didn't see any kind of fence. TRUSTEE KING: I don't recall seeing it. I don't know where it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did have a couple of suggestions. One, the southern return right now, you are requesting a ten-foot southern return and we noticed that there is an erosion issue, apparently, there, at the end of that return. And what we were doing to suggest is if you make that a 15-foot return. MR. HERMAN: To extend it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To extend it five feet, and that would address that erosion issue that is happening there. It would be beneficial. ,MR. HERMAN: What they are saying is along your property line with Dave Chicanowiw, there is a ten-foot return and they are suggesting it come back up to 15 feet back, just to give you a little more protection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we noticed right now is there is erosion taking place around the end. You are losing property. So if you extend it another five feet, hopefully that would address that and prevent it in the future for you, so it would be beneficial for you. MR. HERMAN: Okay. And the other? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another suggestion is because of the slope going down to that area, as you might recall, there have been times when we have suggested raising the grade of the bulkhead up slightly up to one foot. And that way it would help with decreasing that slope that is coming down. It's just a suggestion, it's not a requirement. MR. HERMAN: Um, I think we had looked at that with the contractor. I actually think that once they replace it, I mean to go up, it would be a lot of fill, I think, to try to flatten that out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, it was just a suggestion. MR. HERMAN: I mean, Barbara, unless -- I think you talked to Ian about that. I mean basically if we take the ten foot of lawn out of there and replace it with sand or whatever, I think it would be a good enough fix in this case. I think it would be a lot of fill to bring it up and I think they were looking to avoid that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Those are the only comments we had. Were there any other comments from the audience?. (No response). TRUSTEE KING: The audience is getting smaller. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean we do recall this inspection, it was done previously and so it seems like everything that is on here is Board of Trustees 67 August 22, 2012 what we talked about previously. Were there any comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Barbara Strokoff at 1345 Arshamomaque Avenue, as described, and with the inclusion of the non-turf buffer that was recommended under the, by the LWRP coordinator. And to include an extension of the return that is on the southern part of the property from ten foot to 15 foot. MR. HERMAN: Can you stipulate it as up to 15 feet, Dave, just in case the contractor is out there and they find they can -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll be glad to stipulate late the return can be up to 15 foot. MR. HERMAN: It sort of covers the compliance end. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of 19-64 REALTY.CORP. C/o STEVE MOURKAKOS requests a Wetland Permit to replace formerly existing 4'x30' section of fixed catwalk, hinged ramp, and 8'x24' float secured by (2) remaining pilings with a 4'x35' section of fixed timber catwalk (partially in place of remaining 4'-5' portion of catwalk to be removed); a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by the two relocated pilings. Located: 305 Lesters Road, Mattituck. This application has been deemed consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council recommended approval, .suggesting that the abandoned pilings be removed and a storm water runoff plan for the right of way. The Trustees viewed it on field inspection. The concerns that we had on the inspection, that the catwalk be shortened and that, because of the tidal range there, it was suggested that we might go from a 14-foot ramp to a 20, you know 20-plus foot ramp section to facilitate more easily accessing the floating dock. And also we noted the same concern to remove debris and unused pilings that were stuck in the mud. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. This is a project that seeks more or less to replace, or I should say to reconstruct, what was previously permitted by the Board under permit number 2270 that was issued on April 23, 1987, to Dana P. Fox, which at that time allowed for a section of fixed dock here. But it was an 8x24 float. I think I had an occasion to talk to Jim at some point before we filed, and thus anticipated what we would do was to replace, propose replacing the former 8x24 float, which was still there as recently as last year, with a 6x20, since that is the maximum that the Board Board of Trustees 68 August 22, 2012 would typically approve now, and then to compensate for the reduction with the float to go out a few more feet on the fixed catwalk, to make sure that we ended up roughly at the same place and with the 30 inches of water at lower low tide, the DEC would require. John, if I understood you correctly, you were suggesting, perhaps, I think leaving the outboard end alone to swap out some of the fixed catwalk for a longer ramp on the landward end. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. You are imprecise on my language, but that is precisely what the intent is. MR. HERMAN: I don't really see that as a problem to go to something like a 3x16 or 3x18 ramp. Jim, you probably know-- TRUSTEE KING: I think we were talking about the end of the fixed dock. By lengthening the ramp, you are shortening the dock. MR. HERMAN: Right, bring the ramp longer and then the catwalk didn't have to go out so far. - TRUSTEE KING: Yes. In Mattituck Creek you need a 20-foot ramp, otherwise it's really steep. MR. HERMAN: Okay, so that would actually -- TRUSTEE KING: It puts everything in the same place, but it's a shorter catwalk. MR. HERMAN: Right. I mean if we set 4x30, it actually would be exactly what the old permit was, and then cover the distance back with the ramp to the float, okay? TRUSTEE KING: That's a better way of doing it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There were several looked to be short ramps at low tide and they are just at a really extreme angle and particularly if they are mooring ramps, they are very slippery. MR. HERMAN: I don't have any problem with that. I appreciate the suggestion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was another item, I neglected, I apologize. We also wanted to see the small deck section of the walkway be removed so the catwalk was a strictly four-foot wide catwalk. The small area that shows in the picture there. To be removed so that we had a standard catwalk. MR. HERMAN: We were not proposing to do anything with that part. We are not proposing to replace it. It's funny because, Jim, I think that's when we first talked about it. We were trying to date that section of the dock. And again, the plans from the '80s obviously are not quite what they are now. But the plan that was from the '87 permit, it showed an existing walk to the house, and then they were just proposing, so, I mean, who knows when that got there or didn't get there. So I would just ask if we could just leave that section alone until it needs to be replaced. Understanding that at that point it would have to go. TRUSTEE KING: We could do that. TRUSTEE.BREDEMEYER; I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: Whoever was there, it was just like a little fish cleaning area. That's exactly what it was used for. If it's ever rebuilt, it's to be removed, that's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments from the Board? Board of Trustees 69 August 22, 2012 (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE-KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make.a motion to approve this application subject to submitting a revised plan for a shortened catwalk and a lengthened ramp section. MR. HERMAN: 4x30 walk and 20-foot ramp? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You want to --430, okay, 4x30 walk and a 3x20 ramp. MR. HERMAN: And it would be an aluminum ramp at that point, I guess. TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't matter. .MR. HERMAN: All right, just 3x20 ramp. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM & NANCY KILLEN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3'x75' timber stairway with landings for the purpose of its ordinary and usual maintenance or repair. Located: 2710 Dignans Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP found this to'be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The field inspection raised no concerns. Everything is it straightforward and good. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, and with Mike's comments I'll pass on making any presentation unless the Board has any questions. Otherwise it's pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Are there any other comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. I went out and looked at this. It's a pretty straightforward application.. TRUSTEE DOMINO: No comments or concerns, I make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. . TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 21, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of SIMEON & ELLEN WOOTEN requests a Wetland Perm.it to construct a covered walkway (wood or stone) and provide handicap access to the new front door. Located: Old Mallory Road, Fishers Island. There is no LWRP on this. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make inspection, therefore no recommendation from them. Board of Trustees 70 August 22, 2012 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Wooten's. You went out to Fishers Island and took a look at this. He is just really trying to add a handicap area for his father, which means that the front door-- or his father-in-law. Pardon me. So they are relocating the location of the front door, so it requires a ramp on the west side. That ramp that goes up. Then a small patio on the east side. You guys have seen this? TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at this. We didn't have any issues with it. MS. MOORE: It was pretty straightforward. You don't need to hear from me. TRUSTEE KING: Nope. MS. MOORE: Isn't that nice? I'll save my words for later. TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any comments on this project? (No response). Board? Nobody? It was pretty simple. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the project as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 22, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DAVID SCHAB & ARIEL KAMINER requests a Wetland Permit to utilize the property as a de-watering site for the dredge spoil from West Lake. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt as - it was determined to be minor action which would have no permanent impact or negligible or permanent impact on coastal resources or the environment. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because there is no mention of the environmental impact that the dredge spoil will have on wetland area. You understand why I'm chuckling a little here. MS. HORTON: I get it now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I stated, the Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant. You have seen it. We are proposing an upland de-watering site and this was very kindly offered by the Kaminer/Schab family. The goal here is really just as a temporary de-watering and then ultimately restoring the property to its pre-activity condition, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, as we understand this, they are going to remove I'll call it a layer of top soil, store it up toward the Board of Trustees 71 August 22, 2012 house, pump the material in here, let the material de-water, and then remove the material and then bring the top soil that was up top down and put it back in its original place? TRUSTEE KING: No, they said they were going to dig a hole. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. There is a proposed berm there, so they are going to dig a hole, create this berm and then put the material in this area. MS. MOORE: Yes, remove the soil, the top soil for ultimate recapping at the end, and then excavate for purposes of the sand containment, and then take the sand out and recap. Did I correctly describe it? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): No. MS. MOORE: All right, will somebody come here and tell me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there is somebody who is familiar with this project who could explain it. MS. MOORE: In a concise way. Correctly. MR. GUNN: My name is Peter Gunn, I live at 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane. The idea here is to, (a), build a berm, and (b), excavate, strip the top soil, as you had said, toward the rear of the side yard, away from the road; pile that up, hay bale it, do we what have to do with it; and then excavate within the berm, excavate and take away dirt; and fill in the excavated dirt with the dredge spoils, de-watering it, then covering it back over to the original grade with the piled topsoil. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And then the material that you are excavating, in other words, below the top soil, that material, where is that going to be taken to, to an approved -- MR. GUNN; To an approved upland site, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, you said you'll start with the construction of a berm. What material will you use to construct that berm? _ MR. GUNN: The same material that comes out of the hole. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's fine. Because you said you start with building a berm. Well, I didn't understand where the material was coming from to build the berm. Now I understand that part of it. Okay. TRUSTEE KING: The site will be returned to its original elevation? That's my understanding? MR. GUNN: Yes. And it's noted, I believe, on the plan. Including the grass, planting the maybe even, we. don't know yet. Maybe even sod. Depends on what time of year. TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with the DEC on this? MS. MOORE: I have gotten response back that technical staff is still looking at it. That was three weeks ago. So it's very close. In concept they have not had a problem with it. They thought the amount of material was reasonable, it was not a lot, and we'll see if one,hand agrees with the other, so. MS. HORTON: I have a question, Dave. My.question is mainly for Lori, I'think..And we discussed this on the CAC. Who actually owns the spoils? MS. HULSE: That, 1 don't know. MS. MOORE: Actually the spoils are coming from the channel that Board of Trustees 72 August 22, 2012 is owned by West Lake. MS. HULSE: So it's privately owned. MS. MOORE: Yes. MS. HORTON: Okay, that answers the question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? MR. SOLOMON: I wish to say something. My name is Michael Solomon, 135 Bay Ave. Greenport. I'm the attorney for Dai Moy, who lives on property right on the beach, on the canal, and the issue I'm raising, it almost appears where number 22 should have been handled after number 23, instead of in the order we are now going. Because the way I understand it, the spoil is coming from the dredging of the channel. And now we are talking about where we are putting the waste before-we even addressed are we permitting 23 project to move forward. And that's all -- we can consolidate these two for the purpose of a presentation. It's not that my client is opposing what is happening with the soil on this project, but my client is overly concerned, and now we are really hopping down to 23, he's concerned with securing the bulkhead on his property on 23. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we can address that in 23. There was a reason why we placed them in this order on the agenda. MR. SOLOMON: I will defer. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. George Costello, Sr. It's not that I oppose the project, I just have a couple of questions. The amount of fill that is going to be placed in this spoil site. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to look at the dredging project to see what they estimate. TRUSTEE DOMINO: 640 cubic yards TRUSTEE BERGEN: 640 cubic yards. MR. COSTELLO: And the other question is, I should be referring to you, but the other question is are they putting a weir? Where is the weir going to go? Meaning the water that is coming out of-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's on the plans. There is a weir there. MR. COSTELLO: And where is the dredging? MS. MOORE: Dredging is, if you are on the site, you can see it. The road is over here. MS. HULSE: Could you, actually, either you'll have to describe what you are pointing to or have a conversation off the record. MS. MOORE: The conversation, the Trustees were out in the field and were able to see across the canal, cross the lake, and this property faces the lake, so -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, your question, Mr. Costello, is where is this property? Where is this property in relation to the dredging? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's to the northeast. If you go in the inlet and you went into the east, there is a finger of the inlet that goes into the east. And toward the end of that inlet or that fingers, it is right there on the northern part at the end of Board of Trustees 73 August 22, 2012 that finger. MR. COSTELLO- Got it. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? MS. MOORE: Everybody from West Lake, please raise your hand. (Audience members raise their hands). (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are on West Lake but not in the association. MS. MOORE: They are all here, I don't know about you --they are all here in support of this application, with the hopes that we can keep moving it through and hopefully dredge the channel, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Comments from the Board. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a question. Exactly who designed this de-watering site? MS. MOORE: That was a combination of Nate Corwin and Bob Fox, marine surveyors. Bob Fox is a marine surveyor that provided the information on the amount of fill. You have a cross-section that was provided on the other application that gives the exact dimensions. And then Nate Corwin designed this. This actually is consistent with another application that was made years ago, it was attempted, before the geotube alternative was used, this -. design was approved, initially, by, I believe, was it the Trustees or just the DEC at the time, initially? It was the DEC. So this is a design that has been used in the past and it was then adopted to this property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions from any Board members? (No response). If there are no other questions, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of David Schab and Ariel Kaminer at 250 Midway Road; Southold. And it was found exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 23, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit for a 10 year maintenance permit to dredge the channel to -3 ALW and truck spoil to an upland site. Located: West Lake Channel, Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. There is not a determination from the LWRP. The Trustees went to the site. There was a.prior permit history for maintenance dredging of this inlet that goes back to December 20, 2004. . Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the West Lake Board of Trustees 74 August 22, 2012 Association. You have been to this site. You have seen for yourself the condition of the channel which is for the most part filled in, significantly. The only ability to get through the channel, I'm told, is during high tide, that you might be able to walk a boat across. A small boat. There is a need to dredge this channel. And this need is certainly ongoing. There has been, there was some confusion, I'll put it on the record. I know how Lori and I talked about it. But, for the record, the Trustees issued a permit in December, as you said, December 20, 2004, and it was for dredging this channel. We read the code that allows for an up to ten-year maintenance dredging permit, and arguably this permit can be considered still in effect under the maintenance dredging permit requirements. It did allow for the dredging of this channel up, well, four times. The initial time and then up to three additional times. For a permit to be only two years doesn't make sense to have that provision if in fact there was a possibility of dredging four times during the life of the permit. So we would reserve our rights to this permit as far as maintaining that this permit is still in effect .and that we are here or should have been here just to amend the permit to change from the geotube to the upland de-watering site. That being said, I know that the Town attorney has stated to me otherwise. I'll let you put your own opinions on the record. But we do want to preserve that because arguably we have a permit to dredge and we don't want to open up a whole can of worms tonight on the issue of whether we can or can't. There is historically the dredging that has been permitted here, and arguably the permit is still in effect and could be considered to be in effect until the year 2017. The permit was issued in '04. It went for two years, then extended it another year to give them time initially to do the dredging project. But after that, I think most of them, in fact, I kept being told we have an existing dredging permit, we have an existing dredging permit. And when I came in, I was told to come in with a full _permit. I understand why you said that, but I think that the community has relied on this and relied on the code, believing that they do have a ten-year permit in place. Nonetheless, we are here this evening and we are asking, either way, to amend this permit and certainly to have a ten-year maintenance dredging permit so there is no question that there is going to be a need to dredge presently and in the future, to keep this channel open. I have everyone here that you have seen, everyone, many of the homeowners on, from West Lake. There are about ten homes that have used this channel to get access to the bay and it has significantly impacted, adversely impacted these homes in that they have limited. navigation, if any. I know that some other . homeowners want to put some of their statements on the record, and if you have any particular questions, we'll be happy to answer them. So I'll stand aside to give others an opportunity to speak to the Board. Board of Trustees 75 August 22, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Pat, to address whether it's a maintenance permit . or not, I would have to review the Minutes of the meetings we had, but it's my recollection that if that was a maintenance permit it would have been issued as a ten-year maintenance permit. The idea of being able to dredge it multiple times during the course of that two-year permit was in the event of a storm event, and that was filled in overnight, which probably happened in the last hurricane. Then they have the capability of dredging it. It was not for ten years. That's my recollection. I was on the Board at the time. MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. Here we are, and we hope that it doesn't become an issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would also like to clarify, since I was asked while I was out in the hallway because I had to recuse myself from another hearing, when I came in and reviewed the permit, the permit to me is fairly clear. It's an initial dredging event, dredge up to three more times over the life of the permit. The permit goes for two years and it's an opportunity for two one-year extensions. And the code, maintenance dredging permit shall be valid for a period no greater than ten years. In other words, the code doesn't state, which is 275-11(3)(a)(2), the code does not state that they are ten-year permits. It could be up to a period of ten years. So I just want to clarify that also. So I think it is, if you know, correct for the association it be in now for a new permit for this. MS. MOORE: Okay, I thank you. All right, this is an opportunity for anyone to come up. MR. SCHAB: Hello, I'm David Schab, I'm one of the homeowners, I'm the homeowner whose property the spoils would be de-watered. 'We use the inlet for boating but also for just to enjoy the water, and since the inlet has gotten occluded like this, there has been some notable changes in the inlet. Shellfishing is off. The eel grass is not doing as well as it was. And there are now snapping turtles in the water, which seems to indicate, I understand, that the inlet is less inter-tidal than it had been and the water is getting fresher. And we are extremely concerned, extremely concerned we'll lose navigability. And we have, except for maybe a two-hour window around high tide of the inlet. And we are extremely, extremely concerned. And it's one of the great reasons we really enjoy Southold and all that it has to offer. MR. BRENNAN: Hello. I'm Ed Brennan, I'm also on West Lake. I have been there about 40 years now and I have seen the inlet in all sorts of storms, hurricanes and the like. And this is definitely the worst I have ever seen it. And it does require some action fairly quickly, so that we don't run the risk of closing it up. I'm not going to prey a lot on the environmental thing that seems to be a.big ticket item. It's true, that it will impact us environmentally because if you shut that inlet off, and you can see other inlets where this has happened, that you basically have a swamp. Board of Trustees 76 August 22, 2012 You don't, I know the snappers, my grandson, actually when I was young, I used to fish for snappers. You are not going to have that. So there is a significant environmental impact. But quite honestly, we are on the lake and we enjoy it. And we boat on it, and we like to get out into the bay. And now, as was previously mentioned, plus or minus one hour on a good high tide is about the best you'll get. And I believe that at low tide there is no water passing whatsoever. You can just walk right - out there. So we need to do something, and we would like to do it quickly. And that's the purpose of this request. And again, guess going into the future, even though we thought we had a permit that would allow us up to three times over some reasonable period, we obviously would like, if we have to go for a new permit, request it be for the maximum amount of time we could so obviously we don't have to go through this every time. It's a very costly affair. We are willing to pay it. As very few homeowners that have, that are around that, so it really costs a lot, but I guess it's worth it. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question. Have you applied to the DEC for this and have you received a DEC permit for this? MS. MOORE: Yes, that's the permit, we did it all together. The upland -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So you have not received it back yet. MS. MOORE: We don't have it in hand. Any day, we hope. MR. SOLOMON- Michael Solomon, attorney for Dai Moy. The issue that was raised, even before we came into this hearing tonight, was an issue with regard to Mr. Moy's bulkhead, which in the picture would be to your left. Mr. Moy has been a resident of this area since about 1965. The applicants raised, they raised the issue that they had concern about the stability of Mr. Moy's bulkhead as it relates to this project going forward. That being said, I had requested of Ms. Moore that this hearing for this evening be postponed for the purpose of permitting myself and Mr. Costello, who is here today, to meet at the property to do an evaluation of the Moy bulkhead to determine whether their position is either correct, that there is an issue regarding the stability of his wall; (b), if there is an issue, what the cost of that issue is going to be; (c) I understand, I appreciate the need for fully navigable water, which I think is what is being sought. But it is navigable. From Mr. Moy's perspective, if someone wants to make is fully navigable, effectively they are asking me to rebuild, potentially, an entire bulkhead, at my cost, to give other owners the ability to have a fully navigable waterway. His basic position is it is navigable now and it has been mentioned there is access out at certain high tide, when that occurs. . .That being said, our concern, Mr. Moy's concern, is if this dredging project is permitted, and a crisis with that wall does occur, whose responsibility is that now going to fall on? I believe the bottom of that waterway is some way related to town ownership. I believe the town would have potential exposure and Board of Trustees 77 August 22, 2012 liability on that issue. Obviously the dredger coming in to do the work would have liability. Obviously the permittees, the people asking for the permit, would have liability. But all the liability is not what Mr. Moy's concerns is. Mr. Moy's concern is how is he protected from having some issue arise with that wall. So at a minimum, one thing I'll ask at the end of this is that we leave this hearing open to continue it so Mr. Costello, Mr. Moy, myself and ultimately with Ms. Moore and her clients could attempt to see if we could find a way to resolve this issue amongst ourselves. But even with that in mind, I believe on under Section 275-12(h) of the Town Code, that one of your standards for issuance of the permit would be whatever work is going to be done, will it weaken or undermine the lateral support of land in the vicinity. And I believe that is a very serious concern. And Mr. Moy's greater concern, and I have not broached this with Mr. Costello this evening, in theory we could effectively do a dredge, and within 30 days maybe everything is fine. Then we find out in six months from now, guess what. Because we moved the soil out, because they are going to dig right in the center, basically, of the channel. So it's going to end up, Mr. Costello can explain this better than I'll ever be able to explain this, there will definitely be some shifting of soil coming off, potentially, the walls on both sides. Depending on how much is ultimately removed. With that in mind, if this permit is ultimately granted, one thing we would be seeking, which is also under Town Code 275-9 as a condition, that there be performance guarantees put in place, that there be bonding put in place, and there be liability insurance put in place. So that's the real nature of our objection. Our concern, if we let this project take place without the right amount of investigation and due diligence being done, and I understand there is a window of opportunity to do the dredge. But we can't rush to that window of opportunity if the ultimate result is, God forbid, the collapse of that wall. If the wall collapses we don't have a channel. That's what will end up happening, we'll lose the entire wall. And I believe Mr. Costello can explain a little bit more on a technical issue, I believe, if he's willing to, to at least explain what he perceives is the potential problem with the project. Thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I believe the last dredging episode there, there was a bond, request for a bond and insurance. Because this has been discussed before, damage to the bulkhead. So I think there was some bonding done at that time. MR. SOLOMON: That's a concern. If an.adequate bond, I mean, the major determination is, I represent a gentlemen who has a. functional bulkhead now. It's not destroyed, it's performing what it is supposed to be performing. Because a neighbor now wants to make something better for the neighborhood, does that mean that Mr. Moy should be put in a place that if this does Board of Trustees 78 August 22, 2012 turn into a potential collapse where he has to come in and replace it at his cost, I'm told the cost can run anywhere from five-hundred to a thousand dollars a linear foot. You are talking somewhere between 50 to a hundred-thousand dollars that is being thrown on to an adjacent property owner's lap because of a grant basically given by an arm of our government. And that's what his concern is. And I want the Board to understand the nature of his concern because I think it is a serious, viable and real concern. Thank you. MS. MOORE: If I could just address, just simply, we have been speaking. It is in our interest as much as it is in Mr. Moy's . interest to make sure his bulkhead is stable and adequate. We have been begging Mr. Moy to please keep his bulkhead, to upkeep his bulkhead. He actually made an application, as you know, because it was a long process, to build on that property. And he got his own experts to say that this bulkhead was able to withstand all kinds of construction equipment, weight, and so on, and that this bulkhead could withstand the construction, the development of that property. Now he turns it around and says, well, but it may not withstand what is a normal, properly dredged channel. And he wants the cost to be thrown on to the association, what is a probably 40-year neglect of an existing -- bulkhead. MS. HULSE: Pat, when did the experts testify to that? MS. MOORE: To the Zoning Board. I could provide you with reports. October, 2010. MS. HULSE: The Board can't accept your rendition of what the testimony was of their experts. If in fact that was the case. If you want to provide to this Board records, transcripts, testimony, that's within your purview. But they can't accept that as fact. MS. MOORE: That's fine. And I was not about to provide that testimony. I'm saying he provided it and all you have to do is look at the Zoning Board records, the Town's records. And I can provide that for you. MS. HULSE: They are not going to consider it unless it's presented by the applicant to do that. MS. MOORE: I'll provide you the full report that he explained he didn't have to do anything to his bulkhead, that it was functional and adequate to withstand construction equipment. So, and emergency, that's right, because -- MS. HULSE: Pat, like I said, they can't accept this testimony that you are now giving to them about what the testimony was in the ZBA. Just, respectively, if you want to present that to them to consider that, it has to be in the proper format. MS. MOORE: I'll present it. In fairness, I'm allowed to make a presentation that-- MS. HULSE: You are testifying about some testimony before another Board. It's not pertinent or relevant or even acceptable to this Board, because it's not -- because it's basically hearsay testimony you are saying another board took. Board of Trustees 79 August 22, 2012 MS. MOORE: And I would hope that -- MS. HULSE: I hope you are recollecting it accurately, that's all. MS. MOORE: I read the reports myself, but I'll present them to the Board and that way you can come to your own conclusion as to his experts. _. With respect to the performance guarantee bonding liability, we, the association has insurance. Our dredging company will have insurance. To ask us to post bonds is really a very significant and financial burden on a homeowners association when the question is what does an upland property owner, waterfront property owner, what is his obligation to maintain his bulkhead and to assure that any activities, normal customary activities of living next to a canal that is to be dredged, and there is history of dredging, this is a dredged canal, there is a certain assumption of the risk that you are going to live next to a dredged canal and therefore expect what often happens when you dredge a canal. It's going to become dredged and that your bulkhead better be able to withstand that dredging. And what we are asking for, nothing out of the ordinary, very customary, usual maintenance dredging with the amounts that are not in excess, and they are, it's being done in accordance with standards that are recognized in the trade. So I feel strongly and I hope you'll feel equally that, and you see this all the time, any time you have an upland owner and a dredge canal, upland owners have to take certain responsibility. Yes, it's our obligation to do the dredging properly, to have properly licensed and insured and qualified dredgers, and certainly that is something that we are going to be very careful to obtain. We can provide you the name of the dredging company when we have that individual selected, prior to the actual, I guess whatever permitting process you have. We have to get the bid. And we have to get the contract with the dredger. But we can provide you that name so that you equally can feel comfortable that it's a reputable, it's not Pat Moore's dredging company, opened up last year, you know, I'm trying to do the work myself. So I respectfully disagree with counsel that it should not be our burden to upkeep his property. It is his burden as a waterfront property owner to maintain his own property. MR. KAMINER: I am Henry Kaminer, I own the adjacent property, 130 Midway Road, and David Schab is my son-in-law. And this argument, call it a dispute, disagreement, has been going on for years. For years. Unfortunately. And the attorney, Mr. Moy's attorney, is relatively new to the case. When he says it's still navigable, it's absolutely not navigable. It is silted in, even at high tide. I have a very small boat,and at high tide, to go out, someone had to jump off.the front of the boat and had to lift the motor out and pull it with a rope over his shoulder, at high tide, to get it out and to come back in. And we are only a few people in the boat. It's a 17-foot boat with an outboard motor. So it is not navigable. It's a little bit of Board of Trustees 80 August 22, 2012 water rushes in and out at high tide. So it's not that we are asking Mr. Moy to assume tremendous expense to make our lives a little bit better. Our whole reason for owning this property is being choked off. And now, I will not give you hearsay evidence, although I was at all these previous hearings, but the bulkhead, which Moy's engineers said was in quite good shape and therefore no one should put any encumbrance on his ability to develop that extra piece of land. Our engineer, I was in the boat with his engineer, we went along looking at it, a couple of years ago. There were large cracks in the bulkhead and big sink holes where sand, where earth would come down through the bulkhead into the channel. Before the hurricane. And a lot of that stuff is from the hurricane, but also a lot of it has come through the cracks in the panels and we are urging him to ask his engineers to remediate it in some way with new panels, with plastic sheets, with anything, and we don't get a response. I have never been able to speak to Mr. Moy. And he has a few lawyers come and go. This is the latest lawyer. So that bulkhead is in very bad shape, and what is holding it up from collapse, it's not that if we dredge, we'll damage it. On the maps, originally, that was a six-foot deep channel, many years ago. And the bulkheads withstood that. Then it was changed to be a three-foot channel, what was it, 20 years ago, I think. Yes, 20 years ago. It was changed to accommodate complaints by the owners on each side of the channel. Let it be three feet. So the pilings should sustain that. But what is holding those pilings up now is the sand that is leaking through. He brings a truck and fills the sink holes and more sand comes through. So if we would dredge today, if we got permission to dredge tomorrow and we had the dredges, I would vote against it, I would say don't do it. It will be a waste. Because the minute we dredge, more sand would come through from Moy's house. From Moy's land. That thing has to be fixed. And if during the dredging it falls apart, it's not the fault of the dredger, it's the fault that it is already crumbling. So that is a very serious problem. have no easy answers. This is something for a matter of judgment that I cannot make, I don't know how to solve this. MR. DEFEIS: Hi. Doug Defeis, 1165 Cedar Point Drive West. I think the question here is about who derives benefit. I mean, if you take the protractor and go 360 degrees, everybody within a stone's throw of this inlet derives a benefit. Mr. Moy derives a benefit. It's basically a peninsula. 180 degrees of it would be a mosquito bog. If he's going to argue it's not in his best interest to have us do it, and shoulder the burden, which we have been doing for years, he's lying. MS. HULSE: Sir, that's not the concern of the Trustees, to be quite honest with you, in whose interest it's in. As Mr. Solomon pointed out, the Trustees have to consider certain . standards before issuing a permit, and one of those standards happens to be weaken or undermine the lateral support of other land in the vicinity. They need to consider that. They are not considering who is benefitting. You are the applicant, you are Board of Trustees 81 August 22, 2012 applying, you are requesting something, and he's just pointing out there is a standard the Trustees need to review. MR. DEFEIS: There is no objection. Standards are something we should all look for. But it is a community. That's all. MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr., representing the adjacent neighbor. To simplify this whole thing, Mr. Moy is not against the dredging project. It's as simple as that. It's been dredged before. The material was put on in front of his property, between his jetties, everybody was happy. The issue is if it's not dredged properly then we may have a problem, and if we have a problem, who do we go to. Who has the bond. Who has the insurance. Who does Mr. Moy go to if there is a problem. It's as simple at that. If I understand, I took a gander at what I thought was part of the drawing. They are going to dredge to three feet mean low water. Not an issue. I think that's been done before. By the same outfit, actually, Village Dock. If it's not done to three feet, let's say it's done to six feet, will that cause a problem? Probably, could cause a problem. If the dredging is not done in the center of the channel and there is not, let's call it a buffer area from this piece of bulkhead and the neighboring bulkhead, there will be a problem. Either Mr. Moy's side or the other side. So the question is, a little protection for Mr. Moy, who takes the responsibility if there is a problem of undermining the bulkhead. It's as simple as that. As far as doing the dredging and if there is a leak in Mr. Moy's bulkhead, that's my responsibility: He gave me that authority to patch it, whatever I have to do. That's understood. As far as the amount of fill that is going through that bulkhead, prior to Irene, and I think that was in August of last year, I brought in maybe three or four wheelbarrows of fill to patch those two or three holes. I don't see them in that picture there. The holes are probably clogged up because of the sand build up. There is a leak underneath the bottom stringer..That whole length of that bulkhead has been re-sheathed on the inside. But apparently we used CCA sheathing and the wood borers have eaten through in a couple of spots. Simple. We patch them. You guys dredge it, we patch them. That's the issue. The responsibility. If there is a problem. Who do we go to: Homeowners association, the town or the contractor. That's it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question for you, Mr. Costello. Just a point of clarity for myself. Are you saying that if a project were to, everybody comes together, it's bonded, it's insured, whatever form a board might, might possibly take, that you would be doing this as an ordinary repair, these small areas where the borers are in, are you seeking protection for even doing that repair where the bore is made and coming through? MR. COSTELLO: No, we are not seeking protection for the wood borer damage to the bulkhead. Obviously, when you stand outside the bulkhead in the channel you could see the old creosote bulkhead. That is the reason it was re-sheathed on the inside. That's not the issue. Board of Trustees 82 August 22, 2012 MS. KELLY: Hi, my name is Patricia Kelly, I'm at 1345 West Lane, but we have a piece of property on the creek. I look at.this from an environmental point of view. My background is agriculture, biology and environmental studies. And this is a tidal wetland. You know, whether you have a bulkhead or not, it still is a tidal wetland. And the tidal wetland has to be maintained by the tides. My problem is that ever since the hurricane, it's closed up the inlet. I mean, that inlet looks really good at that point. But at low tide you can't even get up to here on the Greenfield side. It's just a little strip of water. And at low tide is there no water even coming into the wetland. And when they dredged it at first, what happened was the Spartina grass started coming back. The phragmites died back. We got fiddler crabs actually living in the creek again. We got those ribbed muscles coming in. We got those killifish, the little, fat killifish. And now, over the years, since Irene, this thing is dying off. The Spartina grass is dying off again. The fiddler crabs are going away again. I couldn't care less about a boat. I care about the estuary, I care about the community. And to me, if the community dies, the creek is gone. You know, you have people that will say it's spring fed. But it is spring fed. It's also tidal fed. It's a tidal wetland. And I think, I'm not good on laws, but I think in that 275, it says something about maintaining the tidal wetlands. And that's what I want to do. I want to maintain that as a tidal wetland. If that channel closes off, we don't have a tidal wetland. What do we have? Like Doug said; a mosquito pond. And I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, I'm just saying it's not tidal if there is no tide coming in there. Thank you. MS. GREENFIELD: I'm the other side. My name is Greenfield. I own the other property. And that's my bulkheading. And I know the community is well aware that I maintain my bulkheading. As a matter of fact, the second part of my contract for work done after the hurricane was just completed yesterday. Because I lost at least a foot or two from the property. We lost stringers, we had to have repair on the front, and there was so much work for the company that was doing my work that we finally finished the second part just yesterday. So what I'm saying is I'm happy to maintain my bulkhead. I work at it all the time. The community is aware of it. I have just one request. Bond. I want to be bonded, to make sure that I remain whole if anything should happen. I want to be able to maintain my bulkheading. And for the cost that all this is going to amount to, I can't imagine the association being unable to do that for those of us who participate and keep it going. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MS. SOWINSKI: My.name is Anne Sowinski. My address is 825 West Lake Drive. I live right next door to Mr. Moy, on the-lake. And, um, this house that I live in, I'm the second generation to reside on the lake. And I have seen changes over the years. One thing I have noticed over the last couple of years is the Board of Trustees 83 August 22, 2012 disrepair of the bulkhead going out on Mr. Moy's side. And it has been more than three wheelbarrows of dirt put in to maintain or to try to maintain his bulkhead. And I feel that a lot of sand that has gone into the inlet is from not maintaining the bulkhead that should be his responsibility. A lot of sand has been put in there, which I believe is filling in and adding to the problem that does all right exist, but it's not helping the situation. And my opinion is this should be maintenance on the part of the property owner. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, I have some comments to make. A suggestion. I'm familiar with a lot of the dredging that goes on in the town here, including in these smaller creeks, some bulkheaded, some not bulkheaded, and I know in most situations it's identical to what you people are fating right now, where there is a property owners association that maintains it, and the bulkheads on either side are privately owned by the property owners. And in most cases, that I'm familiar with, the property owners work with the owner to share in the cost, if not pay the cost to maintain those bulkheads. Because a statement was made everybody benefits. Including in this case the property owners that have bulkheads on both sides. Everybody benefits from the dredging. So what most of the inlets do is property owners work with the adjoining property owners that have those bulkhead and share in the cost of maintaining these bulkheads. Now, I'm familiar with another case this year, another location this year, this identical situation came up. Where the property owner went to the association and said I have no problem with you dredging, but my bulkhead is in trouble here, are you willing to contribute to the cost of it. The association said no. The property owner then said, then I'm sorry, I can't let you dredge next to my bulkhead, because my bulkhead will fall down. I'm afraid my bulkhead will.fall down. In his opinion. He was afraid it would fall down. And you know, he had a point there. If his bulkhead fell down as a result of the dredging by the property owners association, I could understand completely where he would say, I warned them this would happen, it now happened, and now you are saying this expense is totally on my back? So what I'm suggesting here is, I have already heard there has been requested meetings; maybe they have been held, maybe they haven't, but that the people get together, the Moy's or the Moy's representative gets together with the West Lake people or the West Lake people's agent and they work this out together to make it work. Because the last thing we want to see happen is the dredging take place after all this discussion tonight and all this record of warning that the bulkhead is in serious trouble,'and I could tell you from looking at that picture, it's twisted. That bulkhead is twisted. When a bulkhead is twisted, structurally, it's in trouble. And if the bulkhead goes down because of the dredging, I'm just saying the fur is Board of Trustees 84 August 22, 2012 going to fly. So why not prevent it ahead of time. Talk together ahead of time and try to work it out ahead of time. Thank you. MR. BRENNAN: Ed.Brennan. I understand what you are saying. It would be nice if we could all get together and discuss that. Unfortunately, West Lake Association by law doesn't have the right to enforce its dues. It's strictly voluntary. So that there are limited number of people who have owned up to taking care of maintaining the roads and the like. The people who are adjacent to, the ones we are talking about right here, have chosen not to contribute at all, ever. And they use our roads. Now, they want, you'know you are suggesting that we pony up extra money to maintain their bulkheads. While I understand the spirit of it, I think it would be nice if they also contributed so that everybody gets a fair share here. And I think that is one of the cruxes of it. If we all shared in it, then maybe people would be more reasonable in doing that. But if they are not going to share, then it gives you a certain amount of animosity, gee, you are racing up and down our roads and creating ruts and everything and I'm paying for it and you are not. Now you want me to pay for that, too. No. So it's just a little bit of background. And obviously you have heard, you have two points of view; people saying the bulkhead is terrible. Other people, Mr. Costello, I believe, said, it's okay. And I know this is, we have to prove it on the record. But I also know Mr. Moy'got an engineer to say it was fine. So which is it? I don't know. And it's not going to be decided by Mr. Moy and his lawyer and me and my lawyer going and looking at in and saying it's good. I'm an engineer and I am not going to put my two cents into it. So just to give you a little background. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments, concerns? (No response). I think I would make a motion to table this to allow the parties the opportunity to have further discussion. MS. HULSE: (Inaudible). TRUSTEE BERGEN: It might already have had it for 30 days. It would be in the application. But I would support a motion to table it also so that we could go out and take,another look at it also and take a look at that bulkhead ourselves. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to get out there at low tide. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So moved. I move we table the application. MS. MOORE: I was actually going to suggest tabling it to next month. MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, is there a motion on the table? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a motion on the table. MS. HULSE: Then just hold your comments please. Is there an action on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second? - TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 85 August 22, 2012 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: So it's tabled. MS. MOORE: We are coming back though next month; is that the plan? TRUSTEE KING: I would assume. MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, )James F. King, esident Board of Trustees RECEIVED ¢� q ;3oAwt JAN 2 2 2012 Zuthold Town Clerk