The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-01/16/2019 Michael J.Domino,President ��®f s®��® Town Hall Annex John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President �® �® 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams Fax(631) 765-6641 ff BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES I V EL") TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FEB 2 5 2019 Minutes Southold Town Clerk Wednesday, January 16, 2019 5:30 PM Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Greg Williams, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main Meeting Hall WORK SESSIONS: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 12, 2018. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday, January 16th, 2019 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you stand for the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance) First I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left I have Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski and Trustee Greg Williams. To my right we have Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. Also with us tonight we have court stenographer Wayne Galante, and the Conservation Advisory Council member tonight is Peter Meeker. Agendas are located at the podiums and also out in the hall, if you would like to see them. I would like at this time to announce postponements. If you have an agenda, you can Board of Trustees 2 January 16, 2019 look at page seven, we have number one and number two under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion permits are postponed. They read as follows: Number one, Bulkhead Permits by Gary, Inc. on behalf of HARRY BASHIAN & HAYKUHI BASHIAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace all existing 41' long, 41.5' long and 61.5' long navy bulkheading in-place with new navy bulkheading using vinyl sheathing; along the 61.5' long bulkhead section, install (1) one 61.5' row of toe armor stone using a minimum of>18"x18"x18" and (1) one ton stones with geotextile filter fabric placed underneath; replace existing 12'x26.4', 12'x26.4' and 15.5'x61.5' sections of"U" shaped decking with new decking in-place using untreated lumber and supported by 30 new 10"x20' pressure treated timber piles; under the ±20'x61.5''deck area add approximately 125 cubic yards of clean beach sand backfill from an authorized upland source; and for the existing 26.4'x36.3' two-story dwelling. Located: 58425 North Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-15. And number two, Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by 4-foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four (4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and,install three tie-off piles. Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2 On page eleven, we have numbers 16 and 17. They read as follows: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SIGURDSSON BALDUR, LLC, c/o WADE GUYTON, MANAGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 41.96'x57.28' (1,712 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling; a 40.5'x14' (680 sq. ft.) in-ground swimming pool with a surrounding 680 sq. ft. terrace; and to resurface an approximately 1,668 sq. ft. asphalt driveway. Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4. And number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBYN ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST &JOSEPH P. ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove the two existing retaining walls and associated steps and platforms; construct a 125 lineal foot lower vinyl retaining wall; construct a 125 lineal foot upper vinyl retaining wall; construct a 40 lineal foot long westerly vinyl retaining wall return; construct a 42 lineal foot long easterly vinyl retaining wall return; construct two (2) sets of 4' wide by 11' long steps with cantilevered platform, one on the lower and one on the upper retaining walls; and to construct an 8'x10' un-treated timber platform constructed on-grade between the lower and upper levels. Located: 1415 North Parish'Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14 On page 12, numbers 18, 19, 20 and 21 are all postponed. They are listed as follows: Number 18, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 42'x60.3' two-story dwelling with as-built 16.5'x21.5' deck attached to the seaward side of the dwelling; for the relocation of drywells to contain roof runoff, to be in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Runoff; for the as-built 7,342.91 sq. ft. gravel driveway; as-built addition of 10 cubic yards of clean fill to grade driveway and parking area; and for a 4' wide mulch path through the Non-Disturbance area to the water. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-2-20.1. Number 19, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THOMAS V. PERILLO, JR. & CHRISTOPHER PERILLO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing block wall Board of Trustees 3 January 16, 2019 and install 100 linear feet of rock revetment consisting of 4-5 ton lower course stone and 2-3 ton upper course stone placed in an interlocking manner, landward of the Mean High Water line; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the rock revetment. Located: 1400 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-17.4. Number 20, Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of SALLY COONAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' high by 15' long timber retaining wall with a 10' easterly return and a 12' westerly return; the top or filled area of the retaining wall to be vegetated with native beach grass and other salt tolerant coastal plant species; create a 6" earthen berm along the landward edge of the property scarp; add two (2) 4' wide by 6' deep dry wells to collect surface and roof runoff from dwelling and patio interconnected to a 4'x24' French Drain;,add two (2) 8'x12' deep storm drains in the middle of the property to contain runoff emanating from adjacent properties; install 6" to 8" earthen berm within property lines and install three (3) 8'x12' interconnected storm drains with drains to be installed slightly below grade; and install a 2'x16' trench drain at the entry point of storm water coming from the road and surrounding properties. Located: 2662 Paradise Shores Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-1-4. Number 21, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ALISON BYERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct 400' of low profile rock revetment on west beach area to match previously installed 230' section; fill void areas landward with excavated materials; regrade areas and revegetate with Cape American beach grass; remove 155' of existing rock revetment on south beach area and reconstruct in new configuration west of present location; construct 22' of new vinyl bulkhead as a continuation of existing sheet steel bulkhead's south return; fill void area landward and regrade as needed; construct beach access stairs consisting of landward ±3' wide by 4' long sections of terracing steps leading down to a set of±3'x10' steps with handrails to bottom of bluff; construct±3'x3'4" steps with handrails off bulkhead to beach; and to mulch balance of walkway to top of bluff. ' Located: 1033 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2. Going back to page two, under Roman numeral V, environmental declaration significance, we have number one Alexandra Jones, this has been tabled. That reads as follows: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole Environmental,Services, Inc. on behalf of ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brick walk at grade; construct a proposed 4'x18' fixed wood dock with thru-flow decking and a deck elevation of 6.0; a proposed 3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp; and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock. Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-9 S.E.Q.R.A. POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees found that the application of ALEXANDRA JONES is to be classified as an Unlisted Action Positive Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees and it is hereby determined that it will have a significant effect on the environment. WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site most recently on January 8, 2019 and having considered plans for this proposed dock at their January 14, 2019 work session, and; WHEREAS, having considered Cole Environmental Services plans dated November 27, 2018 and stamped by Licensed Land Surveyor Nathan Taft Corwin III with water depths Board of Trustees 4 January 16, 2019 and a Nathan Taft Corwin III survey dated December 3, 2015 with water depths, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that potentially significant environmental concerns have not been addressed and noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock does not meet the standards as set forth in Chapter 275-11. Construction and operation standards have not been met. Habitat degradation: The Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program states construction of docks impacts vegetation through direct construction impacts, chronic shading, habitat degradation, loss and destruction, and leaching of harmful contaminants. Additionally Trustee field inspection of January 8, 2019 and Nathan T. Corwin III survey dated December 3, 2015 show insufficient water depths of 2.2' AHW, and 1.0' at ALW. Dock construction standards: The plan of a 4'x18' fixed dock with a 3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp, and a proposed 8'x10'wood floating dock does not meet Chapter 275 11-C construction standards so that docks shall be designed, constructed and located so as to minimize a dock's potential adverse environmental impacts. THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees approve and authorize the preparation of a Notice of Positive Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project And on page ten, number eleven will be tabled under advice of the Town Attorney seeking additional information. That reads as follows: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x24' bluestone patio on sand; stepping stone paths; 4'x6' steps; a 4'x158'fixed dock utilizing "Thru-Flow" decking; a 3'x12' ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) piles. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6 So if you are here for any of those, there is no need to stay. Okay, at this time I'll announce that under Town Code Chapter 275 Section 8-(c), the files were officially closed seven days ago, so submission of paperwork after that time may result in a delay of processing of the application. At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection Monday, February 4th, 2019, 8:00 AM at the town annex. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, February 13th, 2019, at 5:30 PM at the main meeting hall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work session at the town annex board room, second floor, on February 11th, 2019, at 430, and at 5:00 PM on Wednesday, February 13th, 2019, here at main meeting hall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time entertain motion to approve the Minutes of December 12, 2018. Board of Trustees 5 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 2018. A check for$15,291.68 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 IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 16, 2019, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Lazarus Alexandrou SCTM# 1000-33-1-11 Murray & Maxine Gaylord SCTM# 1000-116-4-20.1 Sandra & Ronald Erickson SCTM# 1000-56-5-13.1 Byrnes Family Trust, Byrnes, Virginia C. SCTM# 1000-145-2-9 Jonathan Babkow& Maria Rubin SCTM# 1000-23-1-18.1 Eileen B. Oakley SCTM# 1000-103-9-13.1 Cedars Golf Club, LLC, c/o Paul Pawlowski 1000-109-5-16.3 Evan Akselrad & Yasmine Anavi SCTM# 1000-118-6-10 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 16, 2019, are classified as unlisted actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. That will be: Alexandra Jones SCTM# 1000-118-2-9 Cedars Golf Club, LLC, c/o Paul Pawlowski SCTM# 1000-109-5-16.3 The Wamsley Family Trust, c/o Brian W. & Dianne M. Wamsley, Trustees SCTM# 1000-78-5-10 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 6 January 16, 2019 IV. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, Resolutions other, number one: Resolved, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, after coordination with other appropriate agencies, hereby declares itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6. That's the resolution. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (All ayes). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brick walk at grade; construct a proposed 4'x18' fixed wood dock with thru-flow decking and a deck elevation of 6.0; a proposed 3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp; and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock. Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-9 S.E.Q.R.A. POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees found that the application of ALEXANDRA JONES is to be classified as an Unlisted Action Positive Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees and it is hereby determined that it will have a significant effect on the environment. WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site most recently on January 8, 2019 and having considered plans for this proposed dock at their January 14, 2019 work session, and; WHEREAS, having considered Cole Environmental Services plans dated November 27, 2018 and stamped by Licensed Land Surveyor Nathan Taft Corwin III with water depths and a Nathan Taft Corwin III survey dated December 3, 2015 with water depths, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that potentially significant environmental concerns have not been addressed and noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock does not meet the standards as set forth in Chapter 275-11. Construction and operation standards have not been met. Habitat degradation: The Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program states construction of docks impacts vegetation through direct construction impacts, chronic shading, habitat degradation, loss and destruction, and leaching of harmful contaminants. Additionally Trustee field inspection of January 8, 2019 and Nathan T. Corwin III survey dated December 3, 2015 show insufficient water depths of 2.2'AHW, and 1.0' at ALW. Dock construction standards: The plan of a 4'x18'fixed dock with a 3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp, and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock does not meet Chapter 275 11-C construction standards so that docks shall be designed, constructed and located so as to minimize a dock's potential adverse environmental impacts. THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees approve and authorize the preparation of a Notice of Positive Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. Board of Trustees 7 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of THE WAMSLEY FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to install a 5'x14' floating jet-ski dock to be connected directly to existing bulkhead using 2" galvanized pipe. Located: 490 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-10 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE_DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on January 8, 2019 and having considered En-Consultants plans for this project dated November 27, 2018 showing the proposed dock and water depths and a Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC survey dated December 2, 2013, revised October 11, 2018; and; WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of THE WAMSLEY FAMILY TRUST to be classified as an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated November 27, 2018, and water depths it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps. Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure. Scope: The proposed dock is in an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes; Toxicity: The proposed dock decking shall be constructed entirely of non-toxic materials. Scope in relation to the riparian rights of others: The plan allows a standard float design that will not impede access for small vessels at low tide. Scope in relation to the rights of small human powered water craft to navigate the waters adjacent to the proposed structures: At low tide a kayak might be able to paddle around this proposed structure as it projects only 7 feet into the water body. Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock lies landward of all existing docks and as such the perspective will not be discernibly different from the existing view. Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a lifespan of 30 years, and with limited pile replacement minimizes bottom disturbance. THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. So basically seaward end of the float, seaward of the existing structure, the perspective will not be discernibly different from the existing view, and the proposed upkeep has an expected lifespan of 30 years and will not, therefore it will not have an undo problem with replacement and maintenance of the bottom: That is my motion. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 8 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to make the existing ponds larger in order to create a better ecosystem by digging the ponds 1-2 feet deeper while removing the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) that is in and around the ponds; the three ponds that currently exist will be excavated in order to create one large pond which will allow the ponds to circulate better with the creek to the south and improve drainage; no large trees will be removed; all fill is to remain on site; and any disturbed areas around ponds will be revegetated with native plant material. Located: 350 Cases Lane Ext., Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-5-16.3 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on January 8, 2019 and having considered plans for this project dated November 26, 2018 and a John T. Metzger survey dated December 28, 2005, revised June 26, 2006 showing the proposed ponds; and; WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC SCTM#: 1000-109-5-16.3 to be classified as an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated November 26, 2018, it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: • Excavation will remove silt, detritus and rhizomes in order to restore ponds to 2-3 foot historical depths, or approximately 1-2 feet deeper than presently exists. Excavation of existing ponds will not expand into uplands. Phragmites removal in and around ponds will benefit the wetland habitat, wildlife and other wetland functions and values All dredge spoil is to remain on site. Disturbed littoral zone will be re-vegetated with native plants. THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Therefore I make a motion to approve the negative declaration as written. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Resolutions and Administrative Permits: Number one, NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests an Board of Trustees 9 January 1.6, 2019 Administrative Permit to repair drainage issues within the parking lot that has a current gravel French drain measuring 5.5' wide, 13" deep for 487 linear feet by adding up to four (4) drywells at critical points in the French drain, with 20 feet of piping in each direction in the French drain to disperse the water into the existing drain; each proposed drywell will be 30" in diameter and 2' deep; and to trench ±1' wide areas in order to lay the piping in each direction for the proposed drainage system. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18.1 The Trustees did an inhouse review of this most recently on January 8th, and found this to be straightforward. The LWRP found this to be consistent, as well. So I make a motion to approve this as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, Applications for Extensions. In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together applications that are deemed to be minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group items one through four and six and seven. They are listed as follows: Number one, DEKKA, LLC, c/o CHRISTIAN BAIZ requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8962, as issued on February 15, 2017. Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3' Number two, CAROLE ACKERMAN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4285 from Raymond Goodwin to Carole Ackerman, as issued on February 25, 1994, and Amended on August 1, 1996. Located: 2445 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-3 Number three, MICHAEL J. GIACONE & NICHOLAS A. GIACONE request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#4210 for the as-built 6'x20' floating dock in lieu of the permitted 5'x20' floating dock. Located: 270 Park.Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-27 Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of BUDD'S POND MARINA, INC. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9109 to further reconfigure the existing travel lift by reconstructing the easterly runway, shifting it westward by 2.0', and reconstructing the westerly runway, shifting it westward by ±4.0'; each runway is to be supported/secured by twelve (12) pilings (14" diameter minimum); and the existing work dock attached to the west side of the westerly runway is to be removed, and a new 2.0'x40.0' runway is to be constructed to the east side of the easterly runway. Located: 61500 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-6-2.2 Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of BAY AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC, c/o EDWARD VIOLA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Board of Trustees 10 January 16, 2019 Permit#9267 for the removal of the most southerly 3'x10' section of floating dock and the relocation of the most southerly 3'x23' finger float 10 feet to the north. Located: 8000 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-8-2.5 And Number seven, WILLIAM &JEANETTE AYERS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8865 for the as-built 12'x12' patio area with fire pit. Located: 122 Hickory Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-51 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY LEE HILL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9297 to reconstruct the 12.3'x26.2' seaward side deck in-place and in-kind. Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-2 I'll make a motion to table this application for further review by the Trustees regarding this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VIII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS/DUCK BLINDS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VIII, Moorings, stake & pulley systems, number one, ERNEST SCALAMANDRE requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind on private property to be installed landward of wetlands area in Little Creek using private access. Located: 4170 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The Trustees reviewed this application and found it to be, again, straightforward. I'll make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral IX, public hearings. At this time I'll take a motion to go offer our regular meeting agenda and enter the public hearings section. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. I ask that if you would like to comment, that you keep your comments organized and relevant to the application and possibly Board of Trustees 11 January 16, 2019 under five minutes. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, under Wetland Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT & MARY KATE DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x87' fixed catwalk with a 3'x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; install four 8" diameter float anchor pilings; proposed floating dock to be chocked 1' off bottom at mean low water; install a T wide crossover catwalk stairway; and construct a 4'x8' platform and 3'x8' steps landward of masonry wall. Located: 1000 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-1-36 The Trustees did a field inspection on January 5th and also on --sorry, December 5th and on January 8th. Trustee Nick Krupski did the field notes. The notes read: A need to submit a visual of the pier line depicting docks on both sides. That means east and west. Permits for both docks east and west should be checked, and perhaps should consider, because of the depth and distance out past the pier line, they might consider a catwalk instead. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the following: That the dock will unduly interfere with public use of the waterways; that the dock will cause degradation of water quality and natural resources as the proposed action is located within a DEC critical environmental area. And lastly, the structure will extend further into public waters resulting in a net decrease of public access to and on public underwater lands. And lastly, the Conservation Advisory Council on December 5th resolved to support, unanimously, to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions that you guys would have directly for me in regard to the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone want to take the lead? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, you heard the results of the field inspection. Subsequent review in the Trustee office indicates that the dock to the south is non-conforming and had additions made to it that creates a false impression of a pier line that is further seaward than what is actually permitted by the Board, so that in developing an overview of the docks to the north and south it would be important to get the actual permitted length of that southerly dock so that the Board can visualize the proposed structure would be in keeping with the pier line or, you know, certainly honoring the pier line to the fullest extent possible. That's why the field notes also indicated that we are advancing the notion that you investigate possibly a fixed dock only with, say mooring whips, because you may not have the depth and may not be suitable even for chocking of floats. MR. COSTELLO: Do we know how long over the length that southern dock is? TRUSTEE DOMINO: 54 feet. MR. COSTELLO: Over what is permitted? TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, total permitted length is 54. It appears to be, I can't give you the number, Jack, but it appears to be significantly-- MR. COSTELLO: The dock is laid out, I don't know if you looked at the Google map to see where the channel is. This dock was laid out to get to the channel. So it would not interfere with any navigation. ] mean, I can do a hydrographic of the whole creek, if necessary. But you can see the dock terminates at the channel and it's very Board of Trustees 12 January 16, 2019 evident, even with the Google map, because you can see the dark water. That's why the dock is laid out the way it is in an L-config u ration, so the boat lays just on the edge of the channel and is not interfering with anything. There is not a lot of room in that creek and I don't believe it will interfere with any navigation there. There is only so big of a boat can go back there. And it also of course was based on the pier line, which we are not intruding upon. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we have to honor the pier line, and the pier line as presently shown, or that we work from, includes the southern dock that is not, that does not have valid permits. It was permitted in a different configuration, one float. Correct me if I'm wrong, Damon. And again, a length 54 feet. So we have to honor that. Secondly, we have to honor the LWRP coordinator's points of inconsistency. So I guess I'll reiterate, at this point, Trustee Bredemeyer's point about it might be better in this location to consider a fixed dock with thru-flow rather than a dock with a ramp to the float. Because the shallowness, the dock is going to wind up on the bottom -- I correct myself--the float is going to wind up on the bottom. And that, by code, we can't approve MR. COSTELLO: Right. But the float is going to be chocked. It has to maintain one foot, 12 inches above the sea floor. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the issue is, based off our estimate, when the dock is redesigned to conform to the legal pier line, it is going to be fairly shallow. We would rather avoid having a float over the bottom that close, and therefore would rather see a thru-flow fixed dock. If you still want to come back with something with an L-configuration so it's something useable and the boat can have some water under it. MR. COSTELLO: I'll have to investigate the problems with the south neighbor. Are they going for as-built or anything? Is there any movement there on that southern property? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so. MR. COSTELLO: Okay, if we can just table it, I'll have to investigate how far it is past what is approved and come back with something else. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So we'll table it. I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number two, LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x32' gunite swimming pool in the side yard with a cartridge system and a pool drywell, all landward of existing non-turf buffer; construct an 18" high by 65' long retaining wall; and construct a 700 sq. ft. on-grade permeable patio seaward of pool. Located: 2700 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-11 This project has been deemed consistent by the LWRP coordinator who notes that the swimming pool had been moved back from the Sound bluff to the greatest extent practicable pursuant to approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town's Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this project. The Trustees have been to this site a number of times on field inspection. I believe I have four field inspection dates, Board of Trustees 13 January 16, 2019 culminating in our field inspection on the 8th of January. The field inspection reflects that the swimming pool in its location farthest from the bluff appears to be dealing with protection to the maximum extent practicable. The Board did, though, during the course of inspection, raise concerns surrounding the fence which is proposed to be down the face of the bluff and further discussed at the public work session meeting that they believe that a pool fence should not be in a natural resource area of the bluff, and I believe that going forward, based on what I heard at the work session, the Board will generally not be approving these. I know in certain circumstances in the past, in highly developed shoreline areas that had slopes but not necessarily bluffs, there had been some allowances for these, but we don't want to set, specifically the Long Island Sound, did not want to set a precedent. I want to put that out there, that the Board has discussed this in general terms and we think we are trying to eliminate advancing more structure on the bluffs, particularly since they are under such distress with climate change and recurrent winter storms that it's difficult to maintain vegetation. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design, representing the owner. One thing, just for the record, as you had listed, we don't have on the recent plan submitted by Nate Corwin, There is no retaining wall. We took that out. So that needs to be corrected. There is no need for it, with the shortening of the patio as we did to bring it back, and we can handle the grading properly without need for any retaining walls. So that's one issue. Secondly, on the fencing, where would the location of the fencing be approved; at the top,of the bluff, back from the bluff? Is there a footage marker? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll let the other members chime in. But my understanding from work session discussion is the Board had no objection to it being anywhere landward of the top of the bluff. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay, so then the permit would reflect that, giving us more definite locations here and/or closer to the land side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would need an amended plan showing the location. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay. Do you have any other questions on that? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to clarify, we are not opposed to the fence being at the top of the bluff also. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Understood. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you have the new square footage of the patio? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Is should be on the survey that was submitted. It's 185 square feet of permeable patio. It is listed on the survey. And as I said, when we met at the site, we did say that we are adjacent to the pool, we are going to do concrete. But Board of Trustees 14 January 16, 2019 as we went to the bluff, three feet off the pool going toward the bluff we were going to convert to permeable paving to allow for proper drainage. You have to use a magnifying glass, but it's on there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, again, what was that; how many square feet? MR. CHICANOWICZ: 185. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we'll have to amend the description to reflect no 65-foot long retaining wall and a 185-foot patio. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Now, the 185 does not include the non-permeable patio, so whether you want to add that into it. But it's splitting up, there is a line defining what is permeable and what is not that is on the site plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see on the site plan proposed 185 permeable. MR. CHICANOWICZ: And there is unlisted inside the house,is 505 square feet of patio on concrete slab. Do you see that, Jay? It's inside the house, the listing of it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see. Okay, proposed 505 square foot patio on concrete slab. So we'll need a new description prepared for the next meeting to amend, to reflect the 505 square foot of patio, that is not permeable, and the 185 permeable. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just a note, too, with regard to the fence, if they plan on using cement to put the fence post in we would like to see that back away from the bluff because they are going to be digging holes. If they're hand pounding them in. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Understood. There is a ten-foot non-turf buffer there and probably, I don't know if the fence will actually go there. There is something else, I'll confer with the client to see where it's going to go. So no sense discussing it further at this point. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to discuss this application? (Negative response). Seeing no one, I'll make a motion to table this application for submission of plans for a fence and revised project description. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Brett Kehl on behalf of SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story residence; existing foundation to remain and be raised approximately 2' in order to meet FEMA elevation requirements; extend foundation approximately 10' landward; construct a proposed 34'1"x34' two-story dwelling with 34'1"x2'10.5" front Board of Trustees 15 January 16, 2019 porch; raise existing 30'8"x22' waterside patio approximately-2' and modify/lengthen existing 7' wide steps to ground off patio to accommodate new height; remove existing outdoor shower and construct a 4'x10'6" outdoor shower with two (2) new steps to grade; abandon existing septic system and install new septic system on the landward side of the dwelling; add 900 cubic yards of clean fill landward of dwelling for the proposed sanitary system; move existing 8'4"x12'3" shed closest to the dwelling approximately 7' landward; replace existing wood tie planter with new 3' wide by 28" high wood planter around waterside patio and re-vegetate; install a raised 4'x8' platform for two (2)A/C units on westerly side of dwelling supported by a 12" sona tube on an 18"x18"x12" concrete footing; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and install a line of silt fencing prior to and during construction, as per Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Management. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-16.1 The LWRP found this project to be consistent, with the following recommendations: Maintain,a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer landward of wetland boundary as established; and also the installation of an IA system is recommended; and further states that grant money and funding may be available for that project. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December 5th, noting that the project needs an IA system, non-disturbance seaward of the flag line and ten-foot non-turf landward of the flag line. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. KEHL: Yes. Brett Kehl on behalf of the applicant. We are going definitely to the IA system, and we also, you should have gotten a new IA survey with the system laid out on it. It shows the ten-foot non-turf buffer and -- did you get that? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: December 21st? MR. KEHL: It was from -- I think that's a different survey. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We received a copy of it on the 21st. MR. KEHL: Do you want a copy of the one from the IA system? It shows all the ten foot-- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, please. This one shows it. MR. KEHL: This is the one showing the IA system. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because this has the same -- MR. KEHL: Yes. And this shows right here is noted. That's the IA system we are going with, the Fuji. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you mention the non-disturbance seaward of the ten foot? Board of Trustees 16 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the survey that you sent, it does have that flagged wetland line? MR. KEHL: Correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we want to, we need a non-disturbance seaward of that flag line, and we are looking for the ten-foot non-turf landward of the flag line. MR. KEHL: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the conditions that seaward of the flagged wetland line as depicted in the survey remains as non-disturbance area, and ten feet landward of the flag line is a non-turf buffer, as marked on the survey. That is my motion. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, Isaac Clay Coffey on behalf of CHRISTOPHER TAENDLER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing set of bluff stairs consisting of a 3.3'x6' top landing to a 3.3'x16' set of stairs to a 6.9'x6.3' middle landing to a 3.3'x15.4' set of stairs to a 3.6'x3.4' cantilevered landing off retaining wall to a 3.3'x7.3' set of stairs to a 7.3'x13.8' (100 sq. ft.) brick patio between retaining wall and bulkhead; and for a 3.6'x4' cantilevered platform off bulkhead with 3.3'x7.3' steps to beach. Located: 6725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-8.1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and noted that the structures described were not constructed pursuant to Southold Board of Trustees regulations in Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline permits. Submitted photo shows a larger brick patio with a fire pit to the north of the 100 square foot brick patio that is not shown on the survey. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees last visited the site on the 5th of December and noted that the steps in the application were straightforward but to check the status of the patio. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this . application? MR. COFFEY: Yes. Isaac Clay Coffey. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any comments to the patio on the base of the steps? MR. COFFEY: We removed, the client removed the other brick patio that had the fire pit. The patio there now I think should be Board of Trustees 17 January 16, 2019 reflective of the 100 square foot patio. When we met with the DEC there was a violation of the project. The DEC recommended that they would allow the 100 square foot patio between the two. So we tried to bring it back into compliance with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so the current patio that exists now is what is shown on your site plan? MR. COFFEY: That's right. It was re-surveyed after the client made the updates to remove the fire pit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any further comments from the Board? (Negative response)., Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Noting that the brick patio now matches the site plan will thereby bring this into consistency, I make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MURRAY & MAXINE GAYLORD requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing timber sheathed bulkhead with a new vinyl sheathed bulkhead in-place measuring ±156.5' in overall length including a ±30.5' seaward return at westerly terminus, and is to consist of vinyl sheathing secured by 6"x6" @ 2 tiers timber walers, 4"x6"timber clamps, ±8" diameter timber pilings, and a backing system comprised of±8" diameter timber dead-men and 8" diameter lay-logs. Located: 765 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-20.1 The Board of Trustees visited this location on January 8th. The field notes show the project being straightforward. The bulkhead is in very poor condition along the channel, and needs to discuss the non-disturbance setting on the west side. The LWRP found this action to be exempt. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports this application. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants, the Gaylord's. This is, first of all, the bulkhead is intended and designed exactly to match up with the neighbor's property which is owned by Henry Raynor. Which you saw that. It's designed to tie into that same elevation. It's obviously deteriorated. I believe it complies with all of your standard construction and Board of Trustees 18 January 16, 2019 environmental regulations. If you also note when we originally worked on this, I guess back in 2005 or'06 or'07, when we redid the house, there was a buffer that was created on the west side, which I think is what you are talking about. So the idea is just to continue it. But honestly, in front of the house, between the house facing south, you can't really grow anything there anyway because on storm tide the waves are pounding the bulkhead, they come over the bulkhead. So when you say a non-turf buffer, that's not going to bother us a bit because I don't believe we can grow turf there. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have. And Murray Gaylord is here tonight in case you have any questions of him. Other than that, I think it's straightforward as well. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Our concern is, upon field visit, the high tide from the recent high tide, there was quite a bit of sea grass on the westerly lawn that slopes'right into the creek and, you know, it's evident that the lawn is quite well fertilized, and we are just trying to, you know, for the better health of the creek to not have nitrogen runoff,go directly from that lawn into the creek. MR. ANDERSON: I think what you would have seen there, the sea grass, I think it was beach grass that was planted in there. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We are talking about the debris. It was a rack line. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm sure. The storm - I wouldn't doubt that at all. I don't know what you have in mind but certainly, the client is here, and -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: When we were there, it appeared that, to us, what appears to be a structure, maybe a fence, is no longer there. But the rack line came well into here. So -- correct, gentlemen? (Board members respond in the affirmative). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. So the concern is if the landscaper comes and puts down any sort of lawn treatment or chemicals at the next high tide cycle that is, within 12 hours, is getting washed directly into the creek. If you live on the creek, you want the creek to be healthy and not loaded up. - MR. ANDERSON: I agree with you. What do you suggest then? TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you can use what may have been a fence as a reference, the dark line on the photograph as a reference, perhaps the area to the west would be designated as non-disturbance and a ten-foot non-turf on the eastern side of that. Does that make sense, gentlemen? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes, it does. MR. ANDERSON: On the plans before you, aren't they consistent with what you are asking for? Because they show a ten-foot contour, I mean ten-foot buffer adjacent to wetland boundary. I don't quite understand what you are asking for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fence is`labeled on there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, the fence wasn't there, okay. Board of Trustees 19 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there is some confusion about the plans versus what we saw. MR. ANDERSON: (Approaching the dais). Are you talking about over here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The fence is here, so -- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The fence is just here. This is not a fence boundary. MR. ANDERSON: That's the wetland boundary. There is the fence. I'm trying to understand what it is we are asking for. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The area we are asking about is here. It's quite a bit of debris from the last high tide on the lawn here and our concern is when-you fertilize this lawn and you get the next tide cycle, that nitrogen is going immediately into the creek. MR. ANDERSON: So the ten-foot buffer should be non-turf buffer. Is that what you are saying? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We need to really clear up this wetland line to make sure the wetland line is accurate and make sure it didn't creep. Sometimes what happens is the lawn gets moved a little further and a little further and a little further. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think the wetland line would have changed but I can imagine that, when the storm is high, it's pretty low here. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Anderson, what is of concern to us, if you see in this photograph, there is some vegetation, some sort of structure was there that has been removed and was cut to grade. And we are concerned that what was a hard and fast delineation is not there anymore. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: This line and the fence is in this here. So again, the area in question is really this low-lying area. There is quite a bit of debris there from the tide cycle. That's our area of concern. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Were you planning --the hedge row there is gone. Were you planning on replanting that? MR. ANDERSON: You are saying this here? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's no longer existing. It's mowed down. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There is nothing left. That is our concern. We wanted the non-turf-- MR. ANDERSON: So you want ten-foot planted from that. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the area west of it, non-disturbance. MR. ANDERSON: That's the wetland, right? I agree with that. Absolutely. Do you want to see a planting plan of some sort of designation on a survey or site plan? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a designated non-disturbance non-turf, but it will probably be about ten-feet from where it is on here. I would expect. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think you may have to revisit this and come a little closer. MR. ANDERSON: It might be a little different there. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You might want to look at where the rack line Board of Trustees 20 January 16, 2019 is and flag it. And we.don't really flag rack lines. MR. TAYLOR: Robert Taylor. I have lived there my whole life. There never was any structure along there. There was never any hedge row along there. The debris that you saw up on the lawn was due to two extremely high-tides we had in December. The highest we have had since Sandy. And that is a very unusual event. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Whether it's unusual or not, it did occur. MR. TAYLOR: It did occur, yes. And so did Sandy. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There was vegetation there that was cut down to maybe six inches above grade, which I think all the Trustees will attest to. MR. ANDERSON: So we would take the ten foot buffer and make it a non-turf buffer. Is that what you are asking? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: And below that is a non-disturbance buffer. So I would adjust my plan accordingly. That's fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might wish to discuss the possibility of putting a replacement fence at the edge, in other words where, at the edge of the non-turf so the landscapers are not inclined to go into further into the wetland area, only because the slopes are gradual there and it's easy to mistake what is going on. It's just a possibility. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. And I will go out and look at-it, by the way, to make sure. We'll do the right thing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). At this point I would like to table the application. Make a motion to table the application awaiting new plans. MR. ANDERSON: You can if you'd like but I can assure you I'll get you the plans immediately. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, we can't, under the new protocol, we'can't approve without all documents being submitted., MR. ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SANDRA & RONALD ERICKSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing ±175' long timber bulkheads and replace with new±175' long bulkhead in place and comprised of vinyl sheathing, 6"x6" @ 2 tiers timber waters, 6"x6" @ 2 tiers timber clamps, 8" diameter timber pilings, 2"x18" timber top cap, all via a backing system comprised of 6" diameter dead-men and lay-logs; all backfill will be from the resultant excavation of the existing bulkhead and area of restorative dredging; no additional fill is planned to be deposited onto the property; within an area measuring 15'x100' along bulkhead, dredge via back hoe from the uplands to an underwater depth not to exceed ± Board of Trustees 21 January 16, 2019 -2.5' as measured from Average Low Water; the dredged lands will be utilized as backfill along the landward side of the bulkhead reconstruction; remove existing cantilevered platform, hinged ramp and floating dock; install new 4'x5' cantilevered platform; two (2) 3'x15' hinged ramps on either side of platform; and two (2) floating docks each to be 5'x15' at end of each hinged ramp secured by two (2) sets of 8" diameter pilings per floating dock (4 total); and install vertical stays (metal cables) to maintain the floating dock's elevation at a minimum of 2.5' above underwater grade. Located: 1045 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-13.1 The Trustees did a field,inspection on January 8th and asked that we check the permit history for the two 5'x15' floats, which I did. I'll return to that in a second. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council on January 9th unanimously voted to support this application. Is there anybody here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the Ericksons, to answer any questions you may have. But when we, I think we looked at probably the same document, my goal here is to replace the bulkhead, which is in bad need of replacement. It was actually silting in the channel there. You should be advised. And I believe this is a privately-owned channel, and I think we've have met all the navigational-type issues. And I'm trying to stud these floats up against the bulkhead because I can't, I don't know of any other way to arrange the floats on the property that would work for these people. And I can only dock a boat on one side of the float, obviously, because of the bulkhead. But that was the thought in this. TRUSTEE DOMINO: As I said before, I did check the permit history and actually Googled back to 2012, and the floats you are asking for appear to be about five square foot less than what was there. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's true. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So I just did that to satisfy the request from the fellow Trustees. Does anyone else have any questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. I appreciate it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Anderson, while you are still here, I would like to make a motion to revisit and go_back to the Board of Trustees 22 January 16, 2019 administrative, number seven administrative amendments, page six, number,five. This,is an application that was tabled. So I would like to'address it now. That's my motion: MR. HAGAN: Just for clarification of the record. So your motion is going to be to reopen and revisit a matter that was previously tabled earlier this evening, which would be Roman numeral VII, item five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Timothy and Nancy Lee Hill? That's your motion? TRUSTEE DOMINO:-That's my motion, to reopen Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of TIMOTHY & NANCY LEE HILL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9297 to reconstruct the 12.3'x26.2' seaward side deck in-place and in-kind. Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-2 TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay-, Mr. Anderson, we found this to be straightforward. However I believe the properties to the east and west have a ten-foot non-turf buffer and definitely the one, at least the one to the west is a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And since this area is under construction it would be very easy when putting the lawn back in to put in a ten-foot non-turf buffer, to make this consistent. And consistent with the goals of the Trustees to reduce fertilizers and so forth, and we are wondering if that could be something that you could do. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the wetland boundary is seaward of the seawall, so if a ten-foot, I don't think there is any reason to do anything seaward of that, seaward of the sea wall. That there may be a spot, if you have a survey, I'll take a quick look at it, but -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Both properties have ten feet. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. This is the wetland line. It would be all of this. All of this should be non-disturbance. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Not non-disturbance. Non-turf from the bulkhead. It's ten feet this way. MR. ANDERSON: Non-turf. So grass -- or gravel. I guess so. I don't think that's terrible. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. MR. ANDERSON: I think, the difference, I want you to understand this, is particularly over here, the boundary migrates right up against this line. This is actually higher over here. And the same thing happens over here. So I'm not fighting, I just want you to understand that's why that condition is. And the other thing, too, is that this is,�here, this is an old abandoned road, believe it or not. ; TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. So you understand? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, I would like to make a motion to approve this -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We may need to table. Board of Trustees 23 January 16, 2019 MR. ANDERSON: They really want to get started with this. I would like you to do it as a condition'because he's trying to finish this up. MR. HAGAN: Unfortunately as per the Town Attorney we are not authorized to do that. We need the new plan. MR. ANDERSON: All right. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So I make a motion to table this subject to new plans reflecting a ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of BYRNES FAMILY TRUST, BYRNES, VIRGINIA C.requests a Wetland Permit to renovate existing two-story 2,181 sq. ft. dwelling consisting of constructing a new 124 sq. ft. wood deck and stairs on seaward side, at existing 32 sq. ft. masonry steps'and add approximately 10 cubic yards of top soil at base of stairs; new 118 sq. ft. covered entry porch on land side, at existing 29 sq. ft. masonry stairs and 202 sq. ft. wood frame ramp; new 102 sq. ft. covered entry porch on east side of dwelling; remove and replace roof shingles; remove and replace existing windows; remove and replace existing vinyl siding with new cedar shingles; remove 926 sq. ft. of existing masonry walkways and replace with top soil and lawn; install public water to dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells from new porch roofs to contain roof runoff and install silt fencing prior to and during construction, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Management. Located: 912 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-9 The Board of Trustees performed an inspection on January 8th, noting that it was very a straightforward application for renovation. The Board was concerned that the proposal at some point may wish to entertain additional repairs for the bulkhead, and there were questions about the cabana, that we don't want to see any habitation or septic associate6with it. We can discuss that further during the hearing. The LWRP coordinator advised this is consistent with the Town's coastal policies. And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application unanimously. Is there,anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SAMUELS: Good evening. Tom Samuels on behalf of the clients, who are also here. If there are any questions we can answer, we would be happy to. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only questions are concerning the pre-existing boathouse cabana. There were concerns that it not be a dwelling. MR. SAMUELS: No, 'it's not. I don't think it's big enough to, and it's -- no. Board of Trustees 24 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the past we have seen them permitted in through the permitting process. MR. SAMUELS: We are not asking for that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand: I'm just putting it out there MR. SAMUELS: Okay. - TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 'MR: SAMUELS: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eight, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN BABKOW& MARIA RUBIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 2,543 sq. ft. dwelling with 1,567 sq. ft. of decking; remove existing 2,236 sq. ft. of vinyl pool, terrace and retaining walls; remove existing 2,830 sq. ft. concrete driveway and walkway; construct new 2,861 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with attached 2-car garage; construct a 352 sq. ft. landward terrace and a 675 sq. ft. seaward side terrace attached to dwelling; construct a 620 sq. ft. trellis; construct a combined 2,972 sq. ft. gunite swimming pool (20'x40') and pool terrace seaward of dwelling; install pool enclosure fencing around perimeter of property; install a new well and sanitary system, 2,255 sq. ft. of new gravel driveway and parking area and new 322 sq. ft. entry walkway, all to be located landward of Trustee jurisdiction; and to install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Management. Located: 360 Private Road #8, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-18.1 'The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The ecological value of Dam Pond is high. The proposed action is G located within NYSDOS significant fish and wildlife habitat area of Orient Harbor. The environmental map indicates the parcel is located within a rare plants and rare animal area. This layer shows generalized location of animals and plants that are rare in New York State including but not limit to the those listed as endangered and threatened. The occurrence of rare plants or animals onsite is very low. While it is recognized that the project does include many elements that meet or further LWRP policies, to meet Policy Six the following is Board of Trustees 25 January16, 2019 recommended: The property slopes toward Dam Pond establish a vegetated-non-turf buffer landward of the tidal wetlands, remove existing turf, require that the buffer be planted with native vegetation. 15 trees are proposed to be removed including four on banked slope. It is recommended that the cherry trees on the bank and the one significant greater than 18-inch cherry tree in the rear yard be retained. The trees provide important nutrients and stabilize soils. Three, require the installation'of an IA system. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application-because the location of the proposed pool and patio do not conform to the required setbacks. The Trustees visited the site on the 8th of January and noted they would like to see a buffer installed. And I also have two letters to read into the record from neighbors. To whom it may concern, we will be unable to attend this evening's meeting regarding the referenced matter above and would like at this time to inform the Trustees that the drawings SP-1 and SP-2 prepared by Samuels & Steelman Architects indicate that a utility pole and overhead wires be removed. They carry electric power and cable service for our residents located on the adjacent property, 460 Private Road #8. We would like to know in writing what is planned, if anything, to replace these services. If no plans are made to replace said services without interruption of same, we object to the removal of the existing services. Sincerely, Michael and Barbara Mendillo. This response is from Mr. and Mrs. Fried. We are next door neighbors to the east of the property or address of 15155 Main Road, East Marion, and have been in contact with architect Stillman &Associates. They indicate the comments that I'm describing below. Number one, the notice of hearing produced by the Town indicates they will construct a new 2,861 square foot two-story dwelling on the overall site plan SP-2. The total gross floor area of the new building is indicated at 5,504 square foot. These two numbers don't seem to agree. Number two, SP-2 indicated they'll remove 14 trees on the property, representing almost all the trees on the property facing Dam Pond. I see no reason for removing any of the trees. They also express concern about the trees that divide the property. Number tree, they also expressed concern about the chain-link fence adjoining the two properties. Number four, pointed out to Mr. Stillman that on the drawing SP-1, the indicated location of existing neighbor's well, which is the writer's well, is located further north and somewhat east. It is not located in the middle of my driveway. Also, the existing sanitary system is located further west, not as indicated. Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Thank you, Paul Fried. Board of Trustees 26 January 16, 2019 Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects. It sounds like there are several questions and issues. Maybe I can start to answer some of them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, the first letter in the file was about the utility pole, I guess in bringing the power. Do you plan on -- MS. STEELMAN: Yes. The neighbors to the west, my client has spoken with thein twice. We thought they understood what our proposal is. His power comes from that pole, which comes from another pole that is further east. So the plan is to remove that existing pole. We have already spoken to PSEG. They have no problem removing that pole. That the adjacent neighbor to the west of my client, we would then do,underground service to his house. My client would pay for that service. So we think we have resolved that with the client. My understanding is my client spoke with him this weekend and everything was okay, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The letter was from the 16th. So this was received on the 16th. Also, my first point which was the non-turf buffer, because it is a very environmentally fragile area. Is that something you would add to the plans? MS. STEELMAN: Yes, no problem with that. Absolutely fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if the Board has any feelings with a 15 -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At least 15. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A 15-foot minimum. MS. STEELMAN: Absolutely. No problem TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is definitely some concerns from the neighbor and the Board about removal of all the trees on the property. MS. STEELMAN: That was at the request of my client. And, you know, a lot of the trees are marginal. But, you know, we will work with the Board on what trees you feel would be appropriate to remove. The DEC has approved removal of those trees. But we can understand if there is concern there for either the owner or the Trustees. TRUSTEE DOMINO: How do we accomplish that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: LWRP coordinator made specific reference to a large cherry tree. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It might make sense for us to meet on the property with either yourself or your client to discuss what trees they want to take down. That might make the most sense. MS. STEELMAN: I agree. We have no problem doing that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then possibly you could have a, just draw up a letter stating your instant with the services in the meantime. Just to clean that up. There seems to be some confusion between you guys and the neighbor. MS. STEELMAN: I do. And I have documentation from PSEG because Board of Trustees 27 January 16, 2019 we have been in contact with them. Absolutely no problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another recommendation from the LWRP coordinator was an IA system. Have you guys looked into that at all or considered that? MS. STEELMAN: We haven't. We are in right now with the Health Department. They have not required that or suggested that to us. If that would be a condition of our application then we would proceed with that. But. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would certainly strongly suggest because it is such a fragile area and it seems like an appropriate location for one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was one of the points for the inconsistency from the LWRP coordinator for this application. MS. STEELMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that addresses most of the issues. I think it would make sense at this time to table the application so we could meet with someone in the field, maybe the area Trustee, to meet and discuss the trees, and then we would need new plans to include the buffer and then you can look into the IA, maybe, and we can move forward with something like that. MS. STEELMAN: Okay. Would you like me to address any of the other questions or concerns with the neighbor to the east? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was on the different sizes, yes. MS. STEELMAN: Let me explain that. Basically, our drawings going to the Health.Department, they require the gross square footage. So on the one drawing it shows the gross, which would be the first and second floor of the entire structure. The dimensions, the actual square foot area we have shown on our application and list is the footprint area. So that is the difference between those. And 1'explained that to him on the phone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board at this time? (Negative response). Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding,this application? (Negative response). All right, hearing nothing, I make a motion to table this application for an onsite meeting in the field. MS. STEELMAN: And you'll contact me directly as to when to schedule that? . TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It would probably be best for you to contact our office. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the next field inspection. MS. STEELMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. STEELMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number nine, West Creek Builders on behalf of EILEEN B. OAKLEY requests a Wetland Permit for construction Board of Trustees 28 January 16, 2019 activity within 100' from the landward edge of wetlands to construct a 71'x80.8' two-story, single-family dwelling with covered and screened porches and basement; a landward 24'x36' detached garage; new septic system, driveway, and drainage systems all landward of Trustee jurisdiction; install a line of staked hay bales and/or silt fencing prior to and during construction; all necessary vegetation to be removed landward of erosion control line for the purposes of construction; with a future modification to existing vegetation within Trustee jurisdiction. Located: 3400 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-9-13.1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The proposed action is located within the New York State US Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat area. New York State DEC environmental mapper indicates that the parcel is located within a rare plants and rare animal area. This layer shows the generalized location of animals and plants that are rare in New York State, including but not limited to those listed as endangered and threatened. It is unknown if rare plants or animals occur on site. While it is recognized the project design includes many elements that meet or further LWRP policies, to further Policy Six it is recommended a non-disturbance buffer be required landward of the tidal wetland to retain the existing beneficial vegetation. The Board clarified future modification to existing vegetation as depicted on the plans and that an IA system be considered due to close proximity to surface waters and shallow ground water from the surface. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 8th, noting that the house construction itself seemed straightforward. The wetland line that was depicted was off. The Trustees flagged the new wetland line. We would also request a large non-disturbance area landward of that new flagged wetland line and possibly a non-turf buffer landward of that. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. STEINFELD: Gary Steinfeld, West Creek Builders, agent for the owners. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: When we met with you in the field, we flagged that. So we would need new surveys with the new flag line MR. STEINFELD: I have that right here. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, bring them up. MR. STEINFELD: What do you want on the survey? Do you want to talk about the buffer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That will come up during additional discussion. If you have a copy of the survey, that would be fine. MR. STEINFELD: This is the revised site,plans for the flagged wetlands. A copy of the certified survey. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, in regard to the LWRP about clarifying on the plans, on the original plans said future modification to Board of Trustees 29 January 16, 2019 existing vegetation. MR. STEINFELD: We put that note on just to, that we knew that between that and any buffer that is where there may be some landscaping placed. That's what that note is referring to. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And about the IA sanitary system? MR. STEINFELD: We took it into consideration, although if you look at the survey we are almost nine feet to ground water. And we are significantly landward of the -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What is that, say 100 feet from the wetland to the house, 170. MR. STEINFELD: Yes, so we are close to 200 feet from the sanitary system, 175, and nine feet to ground water. We didn't feel it was a burden in this area. Where we normally do when we are closer. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. NAULT: Good evening, I'm Bonnie Nault. I'm, with my husband, own the property at 3550 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue, which is next to the subject property on the south. I'm happy to have new neighbors, I met the husband, he's a great guy. I have not met Eileen, who is the applicant. I'm an architect but not in New York, and I'm not familiar with all the zoning and setbacks for the Town of Cutchogue. So I came to the hearing to clarify some issues. My concerns are the notes on the plan I received state that all existing dwellings within the 150 feet of the subject property are connected to the public water. We are not. We are on a well. And the well is on the very corner of our two properties by the road. And a cottage that is not my main home on this property is right next to the property line and at some point I would like to connect water in the future. And the septic for this proposed property is within five feet of the property line, and I just want to know if that is in compliance with the environmental regulations. Because I don't know what they are. It seems awfully close. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That would be a Suffolk health requirement. That has nothing to do with us. MS. NAULT: Okay. So I'll address the concerns with them. I'm also concerned about the future expansion on that. It's already a six bedroom, 5,265 square foot home, so I was wondering why it's going to need an expansion. Also, what are the setbacks? Is it the 25 foot from the property. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Unfortunately, again, that's not us. MS. NAULT: Okay. MR. HAGAN: The setbacks would be the Building Department. The Board of Trustees can only address matters of 275 and Coastal Erosion. MS. NAULT: All right. I'll take that up with them. And so are you concerned with the drywells?With the water runoff? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Drainage is one of the things that we Board of Trustees 30 January 16, 2019 are concerned with is gutters to leaders to drywells. MS. NAULT: So the three drywells are very close to my property. I'm happy to have them build a home here, I just want to make sure it's in compliance. And I'll talk to the Health Department. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the purposes of the Trustees, we just ascertain that the drywells are not within a wetland zone. The final determination under the drywells comes under Chapter 236 of the Town and is reviewed by the engineering department. MS. NAULT: And it's hard to tell from this property, I know my parents, when they built the home I own, had to do so much setback, and it seems like this house is maybe a little bit closer to the waterfront than my parents were allowed to do. But it's hard to tell because the creek runs different there. But during Sandy, the water came within about ten feet of my house, which is about where that crooked property line comes. Which is fairly high up. So I just wanted to address that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MS. NAULT: You're welcome. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). To further her point, and I apologize because I didn't really notice in the field where the adjacent houses are located. This current or proposed house is not further seaward than the neighbors on either side. MR. STEINFELD: Okay, what are we looking to meet, the 100 foot setback? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it would have to be in line, the pier line with the structures. Which I didn't notice in the field either. But the question is, is this structure proposed ahead of the neighboring two houses or in line with? MS. NAULT: Where the stakes are is definitely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to request that it be included on here? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So with everything that is going on with the non-disturbance buffer, potential non-turf buffer, we are going to need new plans. MR. STEINFELD: I can give you a site plan right now with a non-disturbance buffer on it. If I have that with me. If you want to discuss that. MS. NAULT: Can I come up to the map and show you what I think the setbacks are? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure. MS. NAULT: This is my house. There is a little cottage here. But this is the main house. And from what I can see from the stakes, the property to the house is like here. So it is quite ahead of my property MR. STEINFELD: There is an existing boat house on the adjacent lot and existing bulkhead. So if you draw a line, from looking at the adjacent structures, so we are behind that. (Indicating) Board of Trustees 31 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you clarify to me what that adjacent structure was? MR. STEINFELD: That's a boat house on the adjacent property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There a boat house there. And the other one? MR. STEINFELD: The house, boat house, swimming pool. We are sitting back here. And there is a cottage also. So we are back even from that house, we are back here. If you look at the plan I submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It doesn't show it on this plan. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you say you had another site plan that showed that?' MR. STEINFELD: No, but if you look at the jog and the proximity of the property, but if you draw diagonal from the property jog. It's pretty evident. If we draw a line, if you look at my setback line now, I'm actually heading that way. If we go to the adjacent structure, it's at a much higher degree. So the house is definitely sitting behind that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You said you had a new site plan with non-disturbance on it? MR. STEINFELD: If we have a discussion about non-disturbance, based off our field inspection, I placed a 20-foot non-disturbance buffer. Would you like to see that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Non-turf you mean? Because we wanted non-disturbance seaward of the wetland line and 20 foot non-turf landward of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we take a look at that. MR. STEINFELD: So you are suggesting 40 feet from the revised. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, not suggesting at all. It's just time for the Board to review these. MR. STEINFELD: Yes. This shows a 20-foot had non-disturbance in front of the reflagged wetland. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Landward of the-- MR. STEINFELD: Of the Trustees flagged. TRUSTEE DOMINO: What's the length of that, did you say 20 feet. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Right here. This is the flagged line. And you see the 20-foot wetland buffer, non-disturbance. TRUSTEE,DOMINO: I see that. MR. STEINFELD: That non-disturbance line puts us close to 50, maybe 60 feet from the oaks. It's an oak line. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to this application? MS. NAULT: Can I just ask a question? So even though it's not a home, that boat house would count as a forward home? TRUSTEE DOMINO: It specifies structure. It doesn't say it has to be a residence. MS. NAULT:-Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any further discussion with the Board as far as the non-disturbance or-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's,a generous non-disturbance area, actually, protecting that wetland. That would help address Board of Trustees 32 January 16, 2019 similar concerns of the LWRP coordinator with respect to rare plant communities. So that seems to maybe address some of the inconsistencies. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the new wetland line as depicted on the survey received January 16th, 2019, with a 20-foot non-disturbance buffer landward of the flagged line as depicted on the survey, which would bring it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator's concerns. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion for a five-minute recess. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). (After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record. Number ten on page ten, Cole Environmental on behalf of ALEXANDRA JONES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brick walk at grade; construct a proposed 4'x18' fixed wood dock with thru-flow decking and a deck elevation of 6.0; a proposed 3.5'x14' metal hinged ramp; and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock. Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-9 I'm going to make a motion that we table this subject to further SEQRA review. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x24' bluestone patio on sand; stepping stone paths; 4'x6' steps; a 4'x158' fixed dock utilizing "Thru-Flow" decking; a 3'x12' ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) piles. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6 Under advisement of the Town Attorney, I'll table this pending further SEQRA review. Board of Trustees 33 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC, c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to make the existing ponds larger in order to create a better ecosystem by digging the ponds 1-2 feet deeper while removing the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) that is in and around the ponds; the three ponds that currently exist will be excavated in order to create one large pond which will allow the ponds to circulate better with the creek to the south and improve drainage; no large trees will be removed; all fill is to remain on site; and any disturbed areas around ponds will be revegetated with native plant material. Located: 305 Cases Lane Extension, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-5-16.3 The Trustees did a field inspection on January 8th and the . field notes read as follows. Need a better description-of the planting plan for the pond expansion, and also would like a across section diagram that will show the slopes and depths. And lastly, the Trustees would like to see, actually to wait for a DEC determination on this. The LWRP coordinator found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is because the action needs to be further clarified. And the following elements need be to be clarified: Number one, will the action dredge existing ponds or only expand the ponds through excavation of the upland. ' • Number two, cubic yards of material excavated and the disposal location has not been provided. Number three, the slope of the littoral zone post excavation has not been provided. Four, spacing density and survivability of planted vegetation has not been provided. The Conservation Advisory Council on January 9th resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?' MS. RUBIN: I'm Phyllis Rubin, and I live at 745 Cases Lane Extension, we are the second house from the golf course on the west side of the arm of West Creek. And this winter we have had two episodes of water coming from the creek onto our property about ten feet from the house, which is the only time it's happened in the past 18 years had been during Sandy. So the fifth line here said that it would circulate better with the creek. And my concern is how will this affect the amount of water in the creek-at high tide?Will we constantly be worried about being flooded or not?And there are four houses that are on the west side of the creek, and they have had water on their property. So it's three out of four houses. So I want to know if you have considered how it will affect the water level in the creek. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's a legitimate question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well there is before us one of the Board of Trustees 34 January16, 2019 applications of two for permitting is for rebuilding and maintaining the dyke and the project plans are proposing to bring its elevation closer to the dyke system that protects the Wickham farm. And the unusual circumstance of the nor'easter we had this season already put the waters on par of flooding very similar to Sandy. I know throughout the town as a whole. So the protection against flooding is built into the project, which I believe is the next application the Board will be hearing, and that is because they are proposing to rebuild and fortify the existing earthen dyke. MS. RUBIN: Yes, but the problem is when Sandy came we felt we were very fortunate that the dyke broke and we didn't get flooded. So it's the other side, which is more important, the four houses on the creek or Mr. Wickham's property. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The dyke is actually the next application. Not this one. This one concerns the ponds on the golf course which I believe I don't think will have any effect on the water in the creek. MS. RUBIN: Okay, do I come up again and speak about the dyke? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. MS. RUBIN: Okay, then I'll come back up. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Paul Pawlowski, owner of Cedars golf course. So in relation to the ponds, you are looking for a cross-section? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was a detailed list by the LWRP coordinator as well as our comments, will probably just provide all your different things we are looking for. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I wish I had it, I would have gotten you all this stuff. MR. HAGAN: It came out Friday. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Okay. No problem. I'll look at those and I can pick up a draft, or whatever, and I'll re-submit, I guess, at that time? TRUSTEE DOMINO: You can get a copy of this from the office. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You'll need a permit, there is'dual permitting here with the DEC as well, so, and they may have additional wildlife concerns with the ponds. MR. PAWLOWSKI' So you would like me, I thought this was out of DEC's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless you have a letter from them stating so, that it's beyond their jurisdiction. MR. PAWLOWSKI: So I'll file with the DEC first and then come back to you. I don't think that will be happening, but fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Board regularly on a project of this size which include fish and wildlife values, it might be advisable for the DEC to come out to field inspections and if the area Trustee is available, to join in discussion so you don't have a two-headed monster you are dealing with. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. I'll avoid that at all cost. I'll let nature take its course here because we can't go down that road. Nick sawwhat we are dealing with. I think the next application I think will help a lot of the neighbors in Cedars, but that's a Board of Trustees 35 January 16, 2019 problem and we'll see how that pans out. I think nature will make that one pond pretty soon, so. We'll see how that goes. So I'll take that, we'll look at that and go from there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It might make sense to reach out to DEC and have a conversation with them before you make a final decision on that. I mean, my feeling is that it's a good project and great creation so it might make sense to reach out to them and then either way if it's going to be too much of an issue to make one large pond, maybe consider talking to them about dredging the ponds. Because you know they're silting in. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, basically--we've owned it now for four years and we bought it right after Sandy and since Sandy they are at 30% capacity for the last, since I was born. So the reason,,the issues with the pond really are not from the breach, the issues --they are becoming one pond every rainfall now. Pretty much every one-inch rainfall they become one pond. Which is a mosquito disaster. There are a lot of issues now because there is no proper circulation. There has been a connection to the creek since the ponds' existence, almost, which help in that matter with tidal movement. But the issues with the ponds are not tidal. They are more, there is no capacity even-in the rainfall because there is a gate valve there and when that is shut, you know, they are just filling up like a pool. Which is becoming a big problem. Remember, it's basically affecting almost double the square footage of the ponds, outside of the ponds. So it's naturally becoming a pond. I was just hoping with the major permit of the dyke rehabilitation we could handle at same time.for cost effective reasons. But that dyke issue has to be dealt with, hopefully before the next storm. But to remobilize will be completely not cost effective. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To Nick's point, with everything you just described, the DEC, the problem, I can't speak for them, might look favorably on this project. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. We'll do it. It's a timing thing. It's a major project to get the machines there, all the trucks there and stuff. We are not taking any of the material away. But I'll submit to them and hopefully it can be timely. I just don't want'to remobilize twice. It's just too expensive. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to say, I think this project has potential to be very good, but I'll refer you to, again, to the LWRP coordinator's concerns and the negative declaration that we wrote which pointed out that certain things that were difficult and impossible to see from these plans, which really need to get a more professional plan and especially the planting plan and the slopes and so forth. So that's on this one, not on the other. MR. PAWLOWSKI: We are just trying to do it cost effectively. In real life, I discussed it in depth with Nick on site and, honestly, when you are adding wetland, I didn't normally think it would be such a hurdle. But I understand and totally respect the recommendations. But at same time it comes down to dollars Board of Trustees 36 January 16, 2019 and cents in what we can afford. The dyke rehabilitation will be a fortune, and so we'll see how much we can make this work and revisit it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to reiterate if it doesn't work out timeline wise for you now, it might be worth talking to them about dredge some of it and not changing the scope or impacting vegetation, which might alleviate some of your problems and also still provide some habitat without, you know what I mean, it would be a smaller project. So just a thought for the short-term. MR. PAWLOWSKI: The dredging would be more expensive than excavating and using it at the sides of the pond..So for the next application we have all the machines there. So I'm not arguing with that. I completely agree with you. It's just we need to make it somewhat economical. We are talking about $100,000 project here, in essence. So at$13 tee for golf, it's pretty hard to justify it. But-we will 'do the other one because the dyke rehabilitation won't only affect our property, it will affect other properties if that is not handled, and we, when we bought--we'll get to that application next. TRUSTEE DOMINO: One last question from me. Do you happen to know the depth to the water table in that vicinity? MR. PAWLOWSKI: What do you mean, for ground water? TRUSTEE DOMINO: You mentioned they are filling up quickly for every one-inch rainfall: I get that. I wonder if the water table has something to do with that. MR. PAWLOWSKI: The depth to water at the pond location, at the lowest point is three feet, three-and-a-half feet. Believe it or not. But as far as you can actually see during the rainfall it's all just coming to those ponds. That's the lowest point on that portion of the golf course. You can actually watch it, it happens that quick, within two hours of a one-inch rainfall that they are overflowing to double the square footage of the pond. Why I say that is normally ground water is a much slower process. This is instant drainage issues. That's all. What,we did, just as a quick fix, over the last year is where you see the white, the sand, that used to be grass. We just top dressed it with sand because it became too muddy and unmaintainable. You couldn't even mow it, barely with a weed wacker, so. Between the two ponds we have added the sand so it's walkable and we don't have to try and mow it or fertilize or anything like that. And it's dryer. But now with these rainstorms it becomes one pond every one-inch rainstorm. But I'll apply to the DEC and hopefully it all works out with the timing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, thank you. All right, any other comments from the Board? - (Negative response). I'll make a motion to table this subject to new plans and permit from the DEC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 37 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? ,(ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number'13, CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC, c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to rehabilitate and make improvements to an existing dike system which is approximately 175' long and currently between 4-5 feet high by re-engineering the slopes using approximately 210 cubic yards of structural fill and various plantings, replace existing pipe with a new 12" diameter PVC pipe and replace a one-way valve; remains of existing boardwalk to be removed and to remove large woody vegetation that contributed to previous,dike failures. Located: 305 Cases Lane Extension, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-5-16.3. The Trustees visited the site on January 8th, 2019. Field notes: Should have had emergency permit for repairs; could have a good restoration opportunity; our lives may benefit from flow through under dike; Trustees would like to wait for DEC approval. The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent with notes that no RCA is used,in the project, and structural fill is identified. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. And I don't see any letters of correspondence in the file. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Paul Pawlowski, Cedars golf course. One, there is DEC approval. It has been --when we bought Cedars, the neighbors came to us and said would you like to continue on with the rehabilitation and apply for the permit. We did at the time. Up until this recent storm. And we were planning on doing the work. We didn't realize the permit had expired, because it was on like page three of the application, so that's why I resubmitted to renew this permit. So there is, the DEC permit is still valid. You should have that in the file. If not, I'll get you that immediately. With this, we basically plan to emulate the previously approved application and the entire rehabilitation that happened along that creek. During Sandy, the head of the creek where we are and what we are going to hopefully rehabilitate, never breached. The first time this breached was this past storm. The original breach during Sandy went through the,Wickham's farm and back around and almost got to the Cutchogue firehouse, at one point. So we didn't know-- so now we are, with the head of the creek where we are, basically, we are willing to continue on with that rehabilitation. We think it's actually the most important spot of that rehabilitation, and we are ready to do it. When we bought Cedars, we cleaned up the clubhouse now and we are ready to put the money into that important dike rehabilitation and follow the previously approved plans. That is going to be the Board of Trustees 38 January 16, 2019 biggest help to neighbors, is that portion. The pond is more for our'property to have a better ecosystem. The dike rehabilitation will also protect our property, among others. Because that storm technically for Cedars was worse than Sandy because everything that was down that creek, all the debris, I mean there was several hundred yards of debris that came through with that little storm. And it breached. It was pretty -- it was impressive. So we are looking to rehabilitate that dock based on the previously approved plans. And there is DEC approval.'And that's how that goes. To help answer your question, sorry, I forget your name, this will help neighboring properties from potential floods because it will, the previous rehabilitation done up until, has helped. This will be a big benefit to stopping the breaching and going all the way almost to Cases Lane. Even in the last storm. So this is needed, this will raise the elevation there, just for quick numbers, around four feet from where it is existing up with the proper compacted fill. The day of the storm, we had soil, you know, right near the clubhouse. So I understand, I tried coming in for an emergency permit but we, it was basically, I thought we would lose every green on that side, which is basically Cedars would shut down in that case, because they are very costly to re-do. All that stone material that you see that was there, the bricks, that has been there since 1906. We plan on rectifying that situation when we, if and when we get this permit renewed, with the proper fill and plantings and exactly as per plan. MS. RUBIN: Phyllis Rubin, 745 Cases Lane Extension. I'm still not clear on how making your dike higher will protect us because we, where will the water go? MR. PAWLOWSKI- Can you point out where your home is? MS. RUBIN: It's not showing up here. It's one down. This is my neighbor. It's this house here. That's it. And the neighbor's house is the lower piece of property. So what is happening, the water is coming from their property onto ours. MR. PAWLOWSKI: So as far as your property is concerned, our dike rehabilitation will protect the homes that are just north of where we are trying to propose the rehabilitation. They flooded out more than they did in Sandy in this past storm. As far as the homes southerly of that, I think the only way that is -- I would let the'Board speak on that behalf. I think you have to elevate. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The applicant is looking to protect his property. He's not looking to protect your property. The height of his dike is not going to affect the tide of the creek. So if the tide in the creek does come up'and your property is vulnerable, you could take actions to protect your property. His dike is not going to affect the tide in the creek. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: His proposed 12"-diameter pipe will actually be a-bit of an escape valve provided it doesn't have a float Board of Trustees 39 January 16, 2019 control structure over the current waterway valve, because it will let a small amount of water go under, relative to the whole creek system. But it's not moving upland at this point at all. MS. RUBIN: So it there a possibility that we could raise the property we have on the creek so we are protected?We would have to apply for that? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. You would have to come into the Trustees office and apply and work with a contractor to protect your property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You have a legitimate concern and legitimate questions. We have discussed things with the Town Board at work sessions and with the Conservation Advisory Council. But these are, as I said, legitimate concerns and questions that you really need to discuss it with the Town board as to how the Town is going to deal with what seems to be rising sea levels and greater frequency of powerful storms. You are not going to get any relief, whether or not we do anything on this application. MS. RUBIN: Okay, thank you. So I know where to go. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what happens, regardless what happens with his application, it is not going to affect your property positive or negative. What happens with the creeks and tides and everything rising, this won't affect or stop that from happening. Or enhance it. MS. RUBIN: Thank you. MR. PAWLOWSKI: It will help properties to the north, not just Cedars. There are three properties to the northeast that are in heavy favor of this, I believe. And I think they were here the last time this was approved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: More than likely when the Wickham dike blew out it acted as a fuse to protect your dike. But now that his has been repaired, yours is the weak point. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. So we are looking to fix that. So any questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Liz, did we find the DEC permit? MS. CANTRELL: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can move forward without that because this is, we are more concerned with the pond. I mean that's my view. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I'll drop that off tomorrow. Or e-mail it to you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Damon? MR. HAGAN: That's fine. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And the only, the remains of the existing boardwalk is that wooden structure to get to the gate valve that is coming out? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good. Anybody else here to speak to this application? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. Board of Trustees 40 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of THE WAMSLEY FAMILY TRUST, c/o BRIAN W. & DIANNE M..WAMSLEY, TRUSTEES requests a Wetland Permit to install a 5'x14' floating jet-ski dock to be connected directly to existing bulkhead using 2" galvanized pipe. Located: 490 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-10 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. We have a report from the LWRP coordinator that it is consistent. The Trustees note that provided a jet ski float is entered upon in typical fashion, where the jet skis are floated up-on it, it should not otherwise become a problem with the one-third navigation rule. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support the project. And,now there is someone here to speak on behalf of this application, I see? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant- Jay, just to confirm, what you were describing, yes, the proposal is for a jet ski/wave runner type float where the watercraft would actually sit on top of the float. So the float projects out about seven feet in a 40-foot wide canal, so we are well within the one-third rule. Other than that, that's all there is to it. It will be connected to the bulkhead with galvanized pipe, no separate pilings, etcetera. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, it's very straightforward. Any- questions or concerns? (Negative response). Anyone else here to speak on behalf of this application, for or against? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE-BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD &YASMINE ANAVI requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 37 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and replace existing 4'x10' wood steps off bulkhead to beach,with 4'x4' wood landing and 3'x7' aluminum Board of Trustees 41 January 16, 2019 stairs; remove and replace existing 459 sq. ft. wood deck with 394 sq. ft. (17.5'x225) on-grade, semi-pervious masonry patio (stone set in sand with gravel joints); install 2'x4' stone paver between proposed patio and wood landing; install 4' high wire mesh fence with gate; supplement existing vegetation on face of embankment with native grasses and shrubs; establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along top of bank; remove non-native/invasive vegetation and establish native plantings within approximately 1,650 sq. ft. area along northerly property line; establish approximately 855 sq. ft. of native plantings along southerly property line; and remove existing well, concrete cover, flag pole, split-rail fence, and four (4) trees landward of bank. Located: 9920 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-6-10 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 8th, with the notes, the need for a bulkhead on the property has not been established. Review to see if the deck is a permitted structure. Recommend the use of stones instead. And we also questioned removal of the four trees. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. And John Paetzel from Paetzel Landscape Architecture is also here. I'll leave the trees to the end because I'm not sure what you are talking about; trees that have been removed or would need to be removed. Just a little bit of background on this property. The Trustees have seen it before in 2013. You issued a permit for the terracing and re-nourishing of the un-bulkheaded section of shoreline. The bulkhead here has been in existence since prior to 1971, which we know because the 1971 Rodrick Van Tuyl survey that was submitted by the adjacent neighbor to the northwest in association with what the application that ultimately led to permit#3943 being issued I think in 1991, for the reconstruction of the neighboring bulkhead. And actually, as I'm speaking, it would be helpful if you can zoom in on the shoreline there, if it's possible, to see the neighboring bulkhead relative to this one. Because it is going to be critical to what I want to try to explain to the Board. The bulkhead -- and you asked about the permitting history for the deck. The bulkhead also shows on a survey that was submitted with an application of the Trustees in 1987 which was at the time a request for a waiver to replace what was then a bath house sitting on top of the bulkhead with a 22x22 deck. So that deck is, I'm sure it's been re-decked since that time, although I can tell you it's in the exact same shape today as it was when the Board looked at it in 2013, based on the photos Board of Trustees 42 January 16, 2019 we have in the file. So at that time, the bulkhead was there when the bathhouse was removed and the deck was put in. So in terms of the possibility of replacing a bulkhead with stone and just to speak to what you asked about the need for the bulkhead, the'need for the bulkhead in that particular part of the shoreline comes from the fact that the permitted bulkhead that was re-constructed in the 90s next door actually protrudes so much farther out, and you have this long exposed return. And the one thing we do know about where bulkheads can cause active erosion or lead to active erosion during storms is when you have this really far seaward protrusion relative to the shoreline adjacent to it'. And just in the way of the sketch, and I know the Board probably already knows this, but if you have the bay here and this is your bulkhead, so this is the neighboring bulkhead here, and this is the applicant's bulkhead here. During a storm you get wave refraction around the return, which is why when you see these sort of natural shorelines adjacent to the bulkhead that sticks out this far, you start to get that classic shape of an erosive scour around the end of the return. So what you have here is not two bulkheads that are in line, which would preventthatscour, but you have one bulkhead set much farther back. So if you were to replace, if you were to remove that wall completely, obviously you are going to get severe erosion in that corner, not just to the applicant's property but also to the neighbor. The problem with replacing it with stone is that you are not working as you normally would be with a one embankment. Normally you would see stone armor proposed as a slope structure at the toe of slope embankment or bluff. Here, for 50 years, you had a vertical face bulkhead maintaining the toe of the embankment here as a vertical face. So you have two options of creating a slope stone structure with the sloped embankment face. You can either decide that the bulkhead is going to be the top of your slope, meaning you now have to build the embankment out toward the bay and then set the stone on the seaward end of that, which I know for certain the DEC is got not going to permit and your Board would typically not-allow that because you would be filling in and replacing open beach. Your other choice is to say, okay, we'll keep the stone in line with where the bulkhead is now, so the bulkhead in effect becomes the toe. But then you have to excavate out the embankment that is behind it. So that whole area that is raised behind the bulkhead now where the deck is has to disappear. And you sort of create a slope going landward. What happens then, because you can't attain the same height as the neighboring _ return with the toe stone, you are going to have this whole area of exposed earth behind the neighbor's return. So, and that's just, there is no other way to design it. Um, so what happens is then get that whole area that is exposed and during a storm when you get wave refraction around the end of the return, that whole area will get eaten out, you'll have the neighbors then will Board of Trustees 43 January 16, 2019 have to come in to extend their return and then you are almost exacerbating the situation in terms of how much farther out that bulkhead now is relative to the shoreline. So what I would argue is it has to be stabilized. You can't just completely remove that stabilization after 50 years at the end of a seaward protruding neighboring bulkhead like that, because you will get increased erosion, which is not what we want. And because of the way it has been historically maintained, really the wisest approach is to basically maintain that same method of stabilization. It's the same sort of thinking that why the DEC and Trustees allow the replacement of existing groins even though you don't allow new groins. Because what,you are trying to do is say if you have a certain dynamic, you have a stabilized shoreline and you have a stabilization that is working, without causing any adverse impacts, then the best approach is you stick with that method of stabilization. You don't start changing it around. And here, I would just for the reasons I just explained, the stone is just not going to work. It's going to leave that corner very vulnerable. So that would be my justification for the need for the bulkhead and the desire and justification to maintain it. And with respect to the deck, by the way, I'm sure you saw in the proposal that deck we are proposing to remove and replace it with basically a pervious patio with pavers set in sand. I'm hoping all of that made sense. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would it be possible to scroll down to the south all the way to the Byers' property? Right there. If I could point this structure out, this is a rock revetment and the patio is pretty much incorporated into the rock revetment. It's a very nice structure, and it seems to be protecting the area quite well. I myself don't see an awful lot of scouring, if you go back to the other one, to the south of the neighbor's bulkhead. I see a little. I see a little south of that return. Buff not an awful lot. And what I'm suggesting is that-- MR. HERRMANN: You would not see scouring adjacent to the neighbor's return because that's where the bulkhead is that we are seeking to replace. In other words, this is not an application for new bulkhead in front of a natural shoreline, this is an in-place replacement of an existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe, referring to the notes we had there, that we didn't see that the bulkhead that exists now is functioning. Correct me if I'm wrong, Trustees. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was not looking like -- it seemed not terribly functional. It was pretty well, I think, beaten up and out or above the typical rack line. MR. HERRMANN: The bulkhead is old and it's gotten beaten up no doubt. What I'm saying is that that section of shoreline is still physically protected by that wall. And I would agree with Board of Trustees 44 January 16, 2019 Mike's assessment that as you move just a little bit farther down, there has not been severe erosion there. Chronically over time. Where it got severely eroded was during Sandy. And if you recall when we came in, we did not propose a revetment or a bulkhead there. What we proposed was a natural re-nourishment with some terracing and re-vegetation. And it's held up quite nicely. Where the concern is in that hotspot corner at the back of this, at end of the neighbor's return. If you take the bulkhead away from that corner, it will invariably lead to new erosion both on the neighbor's property landward of the return and in the corner of this property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question I have is the soil is disturbance with putting in a new bulkhead underneath the deck area is going to disturb the existing vegetation and we'll be likely to see more beach just through high tide storm action. Is there a question that possibly some toe armor re-vegetation, in other words coir logs, something to reestablish the vegetation in front. MR. HERRMANN: You are talking on the seaward side? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. HERRMANN: I mean, I don't think there would be any objection to that. I'm trying to remember. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just looking at the aerial. It does show a lot of white sand going up along that return, and it seems there was vegetation in front, during the course a certain degree of vegetation in front just for equipment to move. MR. HERRMANN: In the photos that I have, there is not currently, there is a rack line in front of the wall, and this is the bigger one in the application I submitted. But there is vegetation growing just on the other side of the stairs, in front of natural terracing. In other words, when you get far enough away from that bulkhead return, that's where the vegetation starts to come back in. Even if front of that terracing. So it would certainly be no objection to try and plant that more highly elevated area out in front of the replacement of the wall. I don't know how long it's going to last, but we would have no objection of trying it. Certainly. In other words this is the photo that I'm looking at here. So this is the bulkhead coming across and then this is all the bank re-nourishment and terraces permitted to 2013, and this is the return here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is the current photograph. MR. HERRMANN: This is the photograph I submitted with the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So since the aerial there has a lot of vegetation in front, it would appear that's seasonal or-- MR. HERRMANN: I don't know when this was taken. I would have to go back and look. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I have January 8th; is that right? MR. HERRMANN: Do you have a shot from -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's our shot. Board of Trustees 45 January 16, 2019 MR. HERRMANN: Let me see. Maybe some stuff has come in. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or is that just a rack line. MR. HERRMANN: Honestly looks like a mix. Looks like rack that is formed up in that spot. I can't tell whether that's beach grass or what that is. But again, we would have no issue replacing, re-establishing, enhancing whatever is there. We really just are trying to maintain the sort of historical condition here. Because since we did the re-nourishment next to this wall, the site really has settled in reasonably well. So the short answer, yes, we would agree to that. And just again, for the area that is, because I don't want this to get lost in conversation, the existing 459 square foot deck, again, that was originally approved pursuant to that waiver many, many years ago would be removed and replaced with a 394 square foot, a smaller 17x22 patio that would basically be stone set with sand with gravel joints. To improve the runoff situation. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And from the plans I believe I can pick out what trees are removed. It's not those cedar trees, correct? MR. HERRMANN: Right, that, I may have to ask-- oh, the four trees, yes. Sorry. I actually had forgotten about the trees. So there is --John did you want to speak to this? Because I don't MR. PAETZEL: John Paetzel. One of the trees is dead and blown over on the south side. One is completely adjacent to the proposed pervious patio and existing deck, infested with vines. Two of them are existing cedars within the lawn area that we feel impedes access to the beach. So those are the four trees. The existing trees within the lawn area can remain. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you approach the dais and show me, clarify for me what you just said? MR. PAETZEL: I'm losing my voice. I apologize. (Indicating). These two are cedars there, and there is an existing tree here adjacent to the proposed pervious -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just back up a second. You are proposing to remove both of these trees? MR. PAETZEL: It would be --this symbolizes the existing tree to be removed. These are the two cedars which impede the view shed and access, but since they are in the existing lawn we would be willing to keep them. There is a tree over here that is blown down, an apple tree, that has fallen over and should be removed. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for clarification purposes, if you look at this picture, are those the two cedars? MR. PAETZEL: That's correct, yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The one blocking the deck. MR. PAETZEL: Yes. MR. HERRMANN: John, is it access or view shed? When you say it doesn't physically impede access -- MR. PAETZEL: You can certainly walk around them, so if the Trustees feel the trees should remain, we can keep them. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? Board of Trustees 46 January 16, 2019 (Negative response). Any further questions or discussions from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I really hesitate, and I understand what you are saying with the bulkhead and the erosion point with the neighbor's return. I don't like to see a bare bulkhead on the bay because eventually it will wipe out the terracing and planting next to it. So I personally, and I can't speak for everyone else, but I would like to see some sort of armoring at the very least in front of what I would call a retaining wall. Retaining structure. MR. HERRMANN: Would you be receptive to, and Jay can correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what he is saying, but some sort of soft armoring in front of the bulkhead in terms of coir logs and plantings, something like that, at least try that, as opposed to adding more toe stone or something like that to it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have a concern with toe stone? MR. HERRMANN: I think we are just trying to avoid encroaching any more on the beach that is in front. Particularly if the photo that-you are showing seems to be more current than my photo. And I have to be honest, I can't remember, we started this as a two-phase project, and probably a year-and-a-half ago. So that picture could be older. So if there is actually been vegetation that has grown in there in that rack line, I would just think to maybe try to, as Jay was saying, try to be consistent with that idea and see if we can sort of nurture along additional vegetation in that spot. I mean I don't have any ideological objection to the stone, it just adds more hard structure seaward of where the existing wall is. I mean if it's tried and failed we can always come back and seek to modify the permit to add some kind of small rip rap in front. I understand what you are saying in terms of the scouring. It's just to me in connection with the terraced area and the vegetation, the more we start to creep out in front of that, the more you start to create that little end-around action in that area. So I don't want to do anything that is actually going to draw that energy down. And I understand, I mean it's like my best guess is as good as yours on this at the moment, but it has been in place for six years and it has not been an issue, and it likes some material is actually coming back a little bit in front of that wall. So it's your pleasure, but I would say maybe try to go with something that would be something to create a toe, but maybe try to go with a softer tow. But I can't say that it will work or it won't. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We often meet with you in the field for pre-submissions, and I think that might be a good place. MR: HERRMANN: I could overlook this one, Mike, I think because it was an in-place replacement, I probably didn't think of it along those lines. I'm sorry, but-- TRUSTEE DOMINO: The point I was trying to make before sort of Board of Trustees 47 January 16, 2019 dovetails with Trustee Krupski's comments. It's now suggesting that a revetment, I would prefer to see a rock revetment of some sort there, the exact location to be determined. Rather than a hardened vinyl bulkhead. We just seem to see that they,work better. MR. HERRMANN: As you know, we -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Let me just finish. They work better for everybody concerned. And when you put a bulkhead in it just reflects the energy, as you said, and creates a problem for the next person. MR. HERRMANN: And 99% of the time I agree with you. As you know, when I come in for bluff erosion I don't come in with vertical faced walls, I come in with a revetment. But it's because you are dealing with a naturally existing condition. That is not a naturally existing condition. You have a bulkhead that stabilized that in a certain position for 50 years, and you have the adjacent bulkhead and return which is permitted and is not going to go anywhere and was reconstructed not all that long ago. So again this, and I gave this a lot of thought with John as we were waiting to come in, it's a design problem for the stone. Because you have to either design the whole thing out, which replaces the beach, or re-engineer the whole embankment back. And now you are creating a point of direct exposure in the most vulnerable spot where those two shorelines meet. So you are dealing with an already historically artificially altered shoreline. So the revetment, you are not going to be able to locate or design a stone structure there in the same way you could farther down the beach where it's sitting by itself on a natural embankment that is eroding and you can kind of work with the shape of the existing embankment. You just don't have that here. And the condition that has been here for a long time, again, you have some evidence of how it's interacting with the rest of this shoreline, based on the prior re-nourishment. So I do -- it is my -- and you know that I would not be saying this if I didn't believe it. I really do believe the wisest approach for that spot is just to maintain the method that has been there historically. You are not creating new. You are not taking any chances. You already kind of see, you have already seen what you are going to get, because it's been there since probably the 60s. And you want, if you want us to add stone, we can do that, or go strictly with vegetation. We would do that, too. Because I do hear what you are saying. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you think it would be advisable to table it this so we can meet in the field again so we can all see with some new eyes what we are looking at? We can see, flag what trees you are talking about removing. So we can work off the same agenda? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Around the same page as the trees, we are -- MR. HERRMANN: I think so. We are talking about the two trees that are front and center near the top of the bank, we would just modify our application now to say those are to remain. Board of Trustees 48 January 16, 2019 That's the simplest way to resolve that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think I would like to discuss the trees on site, too. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I thought there was a large cedar to the left. MR. HERRMANN: You are not proposing any others. MR. PAETZEL: Not cedars. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The trees that are blown down, I don't have a problem with. MR. HERRMANN: The only tree being proposed to be removed under how we are saying we would modify the proposal that is not blown down is the tree that is literally, I don't know if you have a side picture of it, but there is a tree that is literally almost grown into the corner of that deck, and I don't think you can maintain that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you want to come up here. Indicated by this picture that is dated January 8th, those two cedars. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Those are shown to be removed and we would stipulate that these would remain. But there is another tree in that spot. MR. PAETZEL: I don't object to showing them the trees on site. MR. HERRMANN: That's fine. We don't have any objection to meeting basically saying this is staying, this is going. I was just trying to see if we can avoid that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments? (Negative response). Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to table this hearing to meet with you out in the field on our next field inspection. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you for hearing us. X. PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item X, this is the public hearing resolution. WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 12th day of December, 2018, a desire to close certain waters within Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Greenport now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid resolution at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 16th day of January, 2019 at 5:31 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold as follows: Board of Trustees 49 January 16, 2019 I. Purpose The purpose of this proposed closure is to preserve our natural resources and shell fisheries to allow for replenishment and growth. II. Amendment i RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees in an effort to preserve our natural resources and shell fisheries hereby designates the following waters a restricted area pursuant to Chapter 219-16 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold where shell fishing shall not be permitted for the years 2019 and 2020: The waters of Hashamomuck Pond, also known as Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Southold located within the following boundary: West of an imaginary line commencing from a point at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake located at 41° 5'67.245" North 720 24' 46.92"West running northward to a point at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at the foot of Beverly Road at the corner of a concrete retaining wall located at 410 5' 18.52" North 72° 24' 45.46" West; and North of an imaginary line commencing at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at the foot of Meadow Lane at a point located at 410 4' 58.62" North 72° 24' 55.37" West running westward to a painted yellow 4"x4" stake in front of a large rock at a point located at 41° 4' 58.9" North 72° 24' 46.00"West. III. SEVERABILITY If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this resolution shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Town Clerk as provided by law. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of or with respect to the public hearing for this proposed enactment by the Trustees for a shellfish sanctuary area? MS. MOORE: Do you have a map of this? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we have promulgated a map. I don't have it personally. I can show you the meets and bounds. MS. MOORE: Because it would have been helpful all throughout to have this map available. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We had enough trouble getting the meets and bounds correct. The Trustees, I have gotten this request last year and it took a while to get the bay constable out. Point to point, here is the end of Beverly Road. Here is Bat Point. Approximately. And then I believe the other point goes here to there. This area is already closed to shellfishing. So this corner sanctuary would be right in this region. The throat, if you will, of Long Creek from here to here. Not in front of Board of Trustees 50 January 16, 2019 your place. MS. MOORE: Well, I have done clamming and I do it the old fashion way, I tickle them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll get a map drawn up and available in the Trustee office simultaneously with the filing with the Town clerk, unless there is any other objections or concerns. MS. MOORE: Can you explain why? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is an area that the Town Baymen's Association is planning to put some clams from the Town clam program and to also allow for mature clams to naturally spawn as a spawn sanctuary. So without overharvesting and hammering the resource to allow for a spawner class of shellfish, so the clams, the seeds that are already in there growing will reach maturity and start kicking off spawn, probably in the second year. The mature clams are already there spawning now. The notion is to try, and of course then it becomes a put and take fishery, the clams that have survived that have been put in there during the two-year period are available for harvest for all takers, and there will be a sizeable number, provided they survive the mud crabs and all the critters have not eaten a lot of them up. MR. MURTHA: I'm Jerry Murtha, I live on Long Creek Drive. I was just wondering, if you don't mind,just in my head here you are only talking about this area here? Because I was under the impression it would be down here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. MR. MURTHA: And is it just going to be clams? I heard oysters, possibly? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As far as placement, I can't say. I don't know whether the Baymen's Association is planning that or whether the Trustees will revisit that because we do help with the Town reseeding program. I just can't say at this time. I don't know and I'm not sure if the facilities or the creek in that location would be a viable or a good place for the oysters. It might well be. MR. MURTHA: Right. MS. MOORE: So you are really creating just a nursery for two years. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. And this was in conjunction with the Baymen's Association where they admittedly overharvested that area, and historically it was a spawning area, and after overharvesting it's not anymore. So they want to give it a chance to repopulate it. MR. MAUTINO: Alan Mautino. Is it the point of this peninsula or is it the center? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, the easterly most point goes from here to a concrete wall on Beverly Road, the end of Beverly Road. And then the other one is approximately at this point here, approximately here to here. Maybe here to here. MR. MAUTINO: This is my piece of property and there is a yellow pole. y Board of Trustees 51 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The yellow pole is where we have the meets and bounds. MR. IViAUTINO: Okay. That's over here, actually. It's not at -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's actually over here. Okay. MR. MAUTINO: So I don't know if it's -- _ MR. HAGAN: Are you sure it's the right yellow pole. There might be some other ones. MR. MAUTINO: No, this is brand new.-It come down in one of the storms and was just put back up. It's a yellow pole with an orange thing coming off the top of it. Brand new paint. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll double check this particular boundary line, if there is a discrepancy in that, we'll provide a correction. MR. MAUTINO: It's a yellow 4x4 post. MR. HAGAN: The degree, the latitude and longitude points are correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My understanding is they are correct as plotted. MS. MOORE: We just don't know if the pole was put in the right place, is that -- MR. HAGAN: They measured it up with latitude and longitude. TRUSTEE DOMINO: After the pole. So. MS. MOORE: Run that by me again? I don't think I understood you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words the bearings were made with the poles,installed. MS. MOORE: Okay, so maybe, so in fact it would be further out than you originally thought? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MS. MOORE: Okay. But it's essentially the mouth of that creek. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's the mouth of Long Creek up to the permitted shellfish closure in the headwaters of Long Creek. MS. MOORE: Okay. Got it. Sounds like a worthy goal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Should be. We can only hope. MR. MAUTINO: Let them grow. Let them grow. MS. MOORE: There are great clams over there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this matter? (Negative response). Motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the proposed shellfish, to close our proposed'closure here to preserve the natural resources and the shellfish spawning area as described. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. Board of Trustees 52 January 16, 2019 TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, 0 Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees J